Canadian Defence News

[ExFlyer]

8 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

Poor IT support hurts Canadian military operations, internal review finds

 

Just another problem of what is wrong with our military, it seems the problems are coming up faster than solutions. Maybe it is time for a stand alone service made by the military for the military...

The Military tried to develop it's own procurement department about 15 years ago but it did and could not find or develop or man the resources needed to do the job.

It just settled for local procurement allowance with a certain dollar figure (cannot remember what it is now).

 

Edited August 12, 2023 by ExFlyer

[Army Guy]

5 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

The unfortunate thing with Generals is that they appoint themselves to the rank and positions. Generals make a list of Colonels and then decide which one they want in their club and then tell the Minister of Defence who get the rank.

They are now 100% political.

As for procurement. The military (Army Navy or Air Force) put together a requirement and spec it out. It goes to the various ministries and they decide how much they can get for themselves. Things change. A Request for Proposal; goes out and all companies that want to bid say so. We then have meetings with all those companies. They then tell us what is realistic and not. They submit bids with costs.

Now back to the ministries and whomever the procurement is for. Decisions on cost and what can we add or what do they have to compromise. Someone is selected.

Then the fun begins.

There has not been on procurement where there has been no requirement/scope creep. The Military seems to think that once the contract has been let, it opens a door to get what it really wants. Little things pile up and get bigger and bigger and more expensive and take longer and longer. The truly sad thing is we do it to ourselves.It happens all the time.

I have linked the supply manual several times. It does not matter if pencils or fighters are procured, the process is the same.

One would think with the amount of time we keep equipment, that we would include a regular upgrade cycle, meaning lets get the equipment into service with all the basics, then through a regular series of upgrades add on the few trinkits we wanted..

[ExFlyer]

11 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

I served the regiment, colours & Commander-in-Chief

unlike you, who has openly admitted that you took a solemn oath to HM falsely

never believing in the oath allegiance to which you swore

come off the internet and find out

the combat arms veterans are not against me

dougie, just stop. You are a loser and proving it every time you post. No one cares about your repeated self promotion.

You are wasting my and everyones time.

[ExFlyer]

14 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

One would think with the amount of time we keep equipment, that we would include a regular upgrade cycle, meaning lets get the equipment into service with all the basics, then through a regular series of upgrades add on the few trinkits we wanted..

I think what happens is the military gets $xx funds and then prioritizes them.

The Army, Navy and Air Force then takes its share and prioritizes what to do with that.

The the government tells the military is must do something, be it Aid to Civil Power or NATO or UN support and the military has to take that money from within....then the military has to get the money from somewhere and you can imagine what falls by the wayside. Well, you don't need to imagine, you felt the lack of maintenance, upgrades or procurement of routine supplies and requirements.

Major crown projects and procurement comes out of different pots (called votes) and cannot be touched for operations..

 

Edited August 12, 2023 by ExFlyer

[Dougie93]

3 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

dougie, just stop. You are a loser and proving it every time you post. No one cares about your repeated self promotion.

You are wasting my and everyones time.

any Loyalist of Upper Canada should follow me

because my oath to HM was unto death as necessary in the face of God Himself

unlike you, who has openly admitted that you took the oath of allegiance falsely

[ExFlyer]

3 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

any Loyalist of Upper Canada should follow me

because my oath to HM was unto death as necessary in the face of God Himself

unlike you, who has openly admitted that you took the oath of allegiance falsely

[Dougie93]

2 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

you think you have influence, because you were a REMF CWO at NDHQ ?

I am daring you to try that amongst the ranks on the streets

see what happens

[ExFlyer]

34 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

you think you have influence, because you were a REMF CWO at NDHQ ?

I am daring you to try that amongst the ranks on the streets

see what happens

[Dougie93]

2 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

[ExFlyer]

10 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

??????

 

[Dougie93]

3 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

??????

 

Clayton Matchee & Matt McKay

your regular force soldiers

[ExFlyer]

18 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

Clayton Matchee & Matt McKay

your regular force soldiers

You post photos of 2 discredited soldiers? One that attempted suicide for torture and murder and the other that was courts marshalled for shooting a fellow soldier and for wearing an Adolf Hitler shirt and making a nazi salute and???

These are you heros?

You embarrass yourself more and more.

[Dougie93]

10 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

You post photos of 2 discredited soldiers? One that attempted suicide for torture and murder and the other that was courts marshalled for shooting a fellow soldier and for wearing an Adolf Hitler shirt and making a nazi salute and???

These are you heros?

You embarrass yourself more and more.

those are your regular force  troops

you call me a part time Corporal

thus I cannot be held responsible for your regular force troops

although I used to sit and eat meals with Matt McKay at the Normandy Mess in Petawawa

he never bothered me therein, he didn't hate on me for being Militia like you do

for us part time Corporals, The Airborne Regiment was the elite of the elite, so of course we idolized them

Ex Coelis

Airborne

 

 

[ExFlyer]

8 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

those are your regular force  troops

you call me a part time Corporal

thus I cannot be held responsible for your regular force troops

although I used to sit and eat meals with Matt McKay at the Normandy Mess in Petawawa

he never bothered me therein, he didn't hate on me for being Militia like you do

for us part time Corporals, The Airborne Regiment was the elite of the elite, so of course we idolized them

Ex Coelis

Airborne

 

 

dougie, dougie dougie, posting pictures of murders and a soldier that shot one of his own and you defending them, only drives you further down the loser hole.

Stop dougie, you are making a mockery of the Army and there are so many great soldiers.

[BeaverFever]

8 hours ago, Dougie93 said:

I still reject it as being some sort of "good news" story

considering that by this point, 

the RCN was supposed to have CSC with 16 x Kongsberg NSM

and Mk.41 VLS strike length cells for TLAM's

instead, they will sail the FFH-330's until they literally rust out, with ancient Harpoon missiles

the real story is ; Canada does not operate Destroyers

only lightly armed Patrol Frigates

and those are simply not survivable against near peer threats

and not actually capable of engaging in offensive action nor expeditionary operations

and that's all that Canada has, it's a not a multi spectral navy, more of a glorified coast guard

meanwhile, again, Canada's near peer ; Australia

has LHD, LPD, DDG, FFG, and coming next;  SSN-774

Australia is already operating two Expeditionary Strike Groups

which could even operate F-35B off the  LHD's right now if need be

supported by P-8 & E-7 & Super Hornet's from land

you are the one who said you hate how Canada is put beneath its station in your view

but who puts Canada there ?

it's not some conspiracy by the Americans, British & Australians to keep Canada down

Canada puts itself down, Canada does this to itself

I'm quite sure America, Britain & Australia would desire for Canada to rejoin the team someday

but Canada simply fails to meet the standard, by its own absurd ineptitude

you're posting stories about 3 RCR shooting obsolete TOW off of MRZR ?

that's pretty thin gruel, considering what the Aussies are up to

Absolute Canada puts itself down, botht the left and the right are guilty of this for different reasons. The left thinks acting like a proud and sovereign nation and that things like trying to win gold medals at the olympics is an act of ultranationalist aggression against the world, never mind having a capable military. Meanwhile the right believes Canada’s rightful station is to be America’s faithful and unquestioning servant, effectively become Puerto Rico North  From the days or Reform/Canadian Alliance party bleating that Canada should adopt the US dollar and formally merge the Canadian and US militaries into a single North American military (in other words effectively advocating for the US annexation of Canada) to the days of Stephen Harper rending his clothes that we didn’t join Bush’s seriously criminal invasion of Iraq, the right has made their views clear in recent decades  

Canadians will never want or need amphibious assault ships or aircraft carriers. The only question Canadians have to answer is what expeditionary capabilities if any do they want their country to have with the understanding that they can’t have it all. I think the most you can hope for is that the capabilities we claim have on paper are someday reflected in reality but we are likely not getting new assets like carriers 

 

The Halifax class is certainly long in the tooth and its weapons are no longer the latest cutting edge but my sense is that it’s not as useless as you make it seem. Harpoons have been around a long time but as I understand it they are not yet considered obsolete despite newer/better options now being available and they are still used in US and allied navies, as are frigates.

 

As you point out, naval ships typically work within a larger naval task group and there are different roles for different types of ships in the group. Yea we lost capability when we retired our destroyers and AORs without available replacements and the Halifax class is not meant to takeover either ships role   But as I understand it the problem is not that it’s a lousy Frigate its that Frigates alone aren’t enough for a self-sufficient navy with respect to near peer conflicts. 

[Dougie93]

8 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

Absolute Canada puts itself down, botht the left and the right are guilty of this for different reasons. The left thinks acting like a proud and sovereign nation and that things like trying to win gold medals at the olympics is an act of ultranationalist aggression against the world, never mind having a capable military. Meanwhile the right believes Canada’s rightful station is to be America’s faithful and unquestioning servant, effectively become Puerto Rico North  From the days or Reform/Canadian Alliance party bleating that Canada should adopt the US dollar and formally merge the Canadian and US militaries into a single North American military (in other words effectively advocating for the US annexation of Canada) to the days of Stephen Harper rending his clothes that we didn’t join Bush’s seriously criminal invasion of Iraq, the right has made their views clear in recent decades  

Canadians will never want or need amphibious assault ships or aircraft carriers. The only question Canadians have to answer is what expeditionary capabilities if any do they want their country to have with the understanding that they can’t have it all. I think the most you can hope for is that the capabilities we claim have on paper are someday reflected in reality but we are likely not getting new assets like carriers 

 

The Halifax class is certainly long in the tooth and its weapons are no longer the latest cutting edge but my sense is that it’s not as useless as you make it seem. Harpoons have been around a long time but as I understand it they are not yet considered obsolete despite newer/better options now being available and they are still used in US and allied navies, as are frigates.

 

As you point out, naval ships typically work within a larger naval task group and there are different roles for different types of ships in the group. Yea we lost capability when we retired our destroyers and AORs without available replacements and the Halifax class is not meant to takeover either ships role   But as I understand it the problem is not that it’s a lousy Frigate its that Frigates alone aren’t enough for a self-sufficient navy with respect to near peer conflicts. 

well first of all, once you start down the rabbit hole of "what does Canada need ?"

the answer is Canada doesn't need a warfighting military at all

Canada doesn't really need to bomb the Kosovo's of the world with F-35's

Canada only needs an armed constabulary with some civilian search & rescue services

the actual question is "what is Canada prepared to contribute to the American global military alliance ?"

and the answer is obviously at little as Canada can possibly get away with

as result Canada is a shameless free rider which is not taken seriously around the world

Canada is a country which does a lot of talking and pointing fingers

while not actually carrying its weight

and the Canadian military is an international laughing stock, the butt of jokes

so now nobody wants to join the Canadian military in Canada

the CDS has said the military is in a state of crisis

a VCDS has said that Canada's lack of seriousness is "endangering our very way of life"

and Canada cannot even procure the necessary hardware even when it is cajoled into trying

for example, there are no signs that Irving is actually capable of building Type 26

it's already decades behind schedule, because the cost of building in Canada is prohibitive

so I would expect that Canada will just keep sailing the FFH-330 for decades to come

then when those finally rust out, the navy will consist of nothing more than 6 AOPS

so we are actually witnessing the collapse of the Canadian military down into an armed constabulary by default

yet Ottawa is still wasting hundreds of billions of dollars not building a military

so the only rational thing to do would be stop the pretense and cut the budget down to size

because Canada is very deep in debt now, Canada doesn't actually have the money to pay for this pretense

as simply printing more dollars is inciting inflation which is immiserating the Canadian population

the real threat to Canadians is the government itself

an imbecilic leviathan of a nanny police state government

which simply expands exponentially to feed itself at the expense of the population

the government does not defend us, nor our rights, nor our property, quite the opposite

this is actually in direct contravention of what the purpose of a nation state is

at this juncture, we are literally seeing the breakdown of the rule of law

whether that is hostile foreign powers infiltrating and taking control of the government

or increasing violent civil disorder in the streets

furthermore, every intervention that Canada has participated in, turned into a disaster

Kuwait, Somalia, Rwanda, Haiti, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Libya, Iraq, Mali

there has not been a single actual victory, it's been one catastrophic fiasco after the next

even the Americans have woken up to the fact that these military adventures are folly

which are in fact inflicting misery upon the American population

yet these military adventures is the only thing Canada participates in

Canada is not prepared to fight wars, nor defend Canada

Canada only prepares to put token force boots on the ground in quagmires

and perhaps send the CF-18's to conduct totally counterproductive strategic bombing

sure, Canada might buy some F-35s to do said strategic bombing

but that accelerates the overall collapse of the military

Boutique Military effect, champagne tastes on a beer budget

thus the "Defence News" in Canada is completely detached from reality

so no wonder the general population doesn't pay any attention to it

if you consider what the public actually wants the military to do ?

that would be a large Militia to do Aid to Civil Power and Disaster Response

the rest could be done by the Mounties, Coast Guard and other civilian agencies

you could still send the Militia to be a Tripwire for NATO in Latvia

you could still send the Militia to do UN Peacekeeping

hence why I suggest that as the rational alternative model

because Canada has started to operate like these failed states overseas

the lunatic government is tearing the Confederation apart

pitting Canadians against each other

wrecking the economy

destroying the civil society

like something out of a third world banana republic

so the Peacekeepers will be needed at home, as Canada spirals ever deeper into crisis

and that will have to be done on a tight budget

since the government will not be able to simply keep on printing money to pay the bills

Edited August 13, 2023 by Dougie93

[Dougie93]

13 hours ago, Army Guy said:

 it seems the problems are coming up faster than solutions.

because this is a systemic collapse in progress

decades of dysfunction and bad leadership by the chain of command is all coming home to roost now

the military can't recruit

the military can't retain

the military can't procure

the military can no longer sustain itself as a functioning institution

and this systemic dysfunction has now spread to every part of the government

everything the government involves itself with now, becomes a disaster area

[Dougie93]

23 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

 

Canadians will never want or need amphibious assault ships or aircraft carriers. The only question Canadians have to answer is what expeditionary capabilities if any do they want their country to have with the understanding that they can’t have it all.

I have another suggestion as to why Canada going out and spending on big ticket items is folly

it's quite clear from the Ukraine War

that the battlefield is decentralizing and swinging in favour of the defender once again

it's all gone back to trench warfare, even on the open plains of the Ukrainian steppe

and the arms of decision are not tanks nor fighter planes

but rather drones & loitering munitions

so for example, let's say the Russians did invade the Baltic States on route to Kaliningrad

it wouldn't actually be a blitzkrieg with T-90 overrunning LAV6

the Canadians could simply dig in a grind the Russians to a halt with trench warfare

so this favours the Canadian Army, particularly the infantry

you go for the maximum number of troops, with as many robots as they can carry

drones & loitering munitions is something Canada could produce in large quantities

which again, is where I would spend the money

as you concede, unlike Australia, Canada is never going to be an air-sea power

Canada will fly the troops to theatre by commercial airliner

then drive them to the front in buses, same as it ever was

 the infantry has always been Canada's arm of decision

static trench warfare, that's right up Canada's alley

Edited August 13, 2023 by Dougie93

[BeaverFever]

But, tell us about what YOU did in office, Peter:

 

Peter MacKay: The urgent need to fix Canada's military — and how to do it

Advice from a former defence minister to one just starting

The challenges facing the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces are as daunting and as complex as they are numerous, writes former defence minister Peter MacKay, who says the federal government has a duty to ensure that defence is prioritized. Photo by Lars Hagberg / The Canadian Press

With the recent federal cabinet shuffle, Canada has a new defence minister. As Bill Blair takes the reins, it is worth taking stock of where the Department of National Defence finds itself and the headwinds Blair faces in this new role. It is critically important to examine what opportunities exist to revitalize arguably the most important file of any government.

Story continues below 

The challenges facing DND and the Canadian Armed Forces are as daunting and as complex as they are numerous. Most recently, Canada has been maligned by international partners, perhaps especially the United States, for failing to reach the NATO spending target. Adding insult to injury were reports of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau telling NATO officials behind closed doors that we “never will” reach that goal, only to contradict himself a few weeks later at a NATO meeting in Vilnius by agreeing to see two per cent of GDP spending on defence as a floor, not a ceiling. Canada’s behaviour has spread confusion and mistrust among allies and gives glee to our adversaries.

It is important to look beyond that headline number and accept that even if Canada were to invest two per cent of its GDP in defence (we are currently pegged at 1.29 per cent according to most recent NATO figures), there is no guarantee that we have a system capable of managing, let alone investing, an additional $20 billion in defence funding annually.

In my experience, there has been a distinct lack of co-ordination and communication between the departments responsible for military procurement. Industry Canada, Public Works and Procurement, and National Defence — all overseen by the Treasury Board — often work at cross purposes and in silos. These woes have long plagued Canada’s approach to defence spending, from boots to battleships. It would not be a stretch to call Canada’s defence procurement system among the worst in the West, having bedevilled successive governments for years.

Story continues below 

With the failure to get new and necessary equipment to our troops in a timely and efficient fashion, Ottawa has fostered a crisis of faith in Canada as a defence partner. Our allies and adversaries alike have called us out as a laggard and free rider. Perhaps more troubling, our men and women in uniform are acutely aware that Canada has under invested in their success, which has led to serious morale and personnel deficits. Most troubling, we have put them in harm’s way at times of elevated risk due to improper equipment, uniforms and personal protection.

Ottawa has fostered a crisis of faith

What young pilot dreams of flying fighter aircraft that are almost older or are older than their parents? How can we tolerate asking them to deploy to a desert combat mission in forest green uniforms, or more recently, require them to buy their own helmets or feed themselves? It is truly falling well below what any G7 country’s citizens should ever tolerate when it comes to the treatment of those who put their lives on the line to protect us.

Undeniably there are also other issues that we are facing as a nation, some of an urgent nature, but we are now at an inflection point. Ottawa must not allow our nation’s defence readiness to continue to decline, putting all that we have accomplished and all that we hold dear at risk. A new approach is needed. If the new minister of defence is listening, I have a few suggestions he might consider as he settles into his role.

Story continues below 

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

The first thing that must be done is to call for a détente. The government and opposition must come together to work on de-politicizing defence generally and procurement specifically. This doesn’t mean that the government should be absolved of responsibility for legitimate shortcomings, nor that the opposition stop asking questions, but rather that all parties should agree that the fundamentals of defence and procurement must have continuity between governments and must be defined by interparty co-operation rather than political competition.

If defence can be de-politicized, even in part, much more progress can be made toward cutting bureaucratic processes designed to insulate politicians, allowing us to reduce costly delays and finally get our men and women in uniform the tools and resources they most need, much more quickly than is currently possible. The spectacular failures of the Sea King helicopter, Victoria class submarine and ongoing and escalating CF-18 Fighter replacement programs, costing billions and causing long delays for short-term political gain, highlight this pressing need. Partisan political games and broken promises have devastating implications for those who risk their lives in the CAF.

Story continues below 

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Broken promises have devastating implications

If defence and procurement can be de-politicized, we can then consider what the government ought to do with a freer hand. First things first, Canada needs certain interoperable capabilities in order to contribute to our international obligations. We must be able to perform the tasks required of us in the air, on land, at sea, and in space, and we must be able to do so in co-operation with our most important partners and allies.

As a middle power with limited resources, this means that we must pursue joint builds for many of our major capabilities, such as the F-35, and must also be assertive in participating in international training exercises and supply chains for future capabilities. Refuelling capabilities across all elements as well as spare parts, ammunition and training are part of that interoperability puzzle.

An aspect of defence that has been allowed to atrophy has been our manufacturing capabilities. While Canada will never be able to develop all its necessary capabilities domestically, and while we should not attempt to embrace complete autonomy, we are not helping our allies if we lack the ability to meaningfully contribute to manufacturing, to produce crucial capabilities and material necessary for collective defence. Consider the shortage of artillery munitions that Ukraine is contending with; Canada could help fill that gap, but doing so requires significant investments in domestic production.

Story continues below 

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

And to that end, Canada must strive to seize upon its comparative advantages. What we as a nation might lack in domestic air combat platform manufacturing, we can make up for in our burgeoning tech sector. Satellite imagery and LiDAR technology, ground- and ocean-based sensors, search and rescue, artificial intelligence, drones, and more are all capabilities where Canada can not only develop value for our military, but indeed may be able to manufacture goods and services that benefit our partners and allies more generally. Surely some buys will have to come off the shelf from allied countries, but by focusing on areas where we have advantages, while not neglecting areas which we must have some self-sufficiency, the government can make smart investments that yield benefits with respect to defence and the economy.

Canada must seize upon its advantages

Similarly, with major purchases and economic opportunities that come from such things as navy vessels and subsea autonomous vessels, Canada has a choice to make: do we continue to pursue domestic builds — which have significant economic benefits and the ability to be tailor-made to the needs of the Royal Canadian Navy — or do we pursue off-the-shelf options, such as purchasing older U.S. vessels? My own view is that Canada is nurturing shipbuilding and marine technology expertise that we would be fools to not continue to invest in. But we should consider the broader implications and pressing needs of this for niche capabilities such as future submarines. Or explore lease-to-own options as we did with joint support supply ships. There is a place for sole source when an urgent need arises, as was the case when the RCN faced an inability to refuel at sea.

Story continues below 

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Urgency requires innovative thinking, thinking sometimes out of the box and outside the beltway of Ottawa. There are tremendous minds with invaluable experience available to the new minister from among retired military personnel, public servants and organizations like the Conference of Defence Associations Institute and Canadian Global Affairs Institute, which regularly convene and ponder these pressing issues. Looking farther afield to countries like Australia and New Zealand as comparators for how to untie the Gordian Knot of procurement would help. Dusting off the 2013 Jenkins report, a call to action authored by Tom Jenkins and a panel of experts on federal R&D innovation, would also provide evergreen advice.

This is effectively a question of what model of military we want to develop: one like that of Australia — which is sharp, powerful, domestically fit for purpose, but smaller in size — or one more similar to that which Poland is building — a robust military with significant mass of personnel and equipment prepared for a major conventional conflict. There are benefits to both approaches, and neither is inherently superior; the best approach is based on what we want our military to be able to achieve. The CAF’s current mandate of home game, North American defence and one or more missions abroad demands the latter model.

Story continues below 

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

The new minister might contemplate standing up more reserve units to build the larger regular force Army that we need. They need to consider a type of emergency management agency specifically mandated for domestic emergency response — still deployable, but more of a robust Disaster Assistance Response Team (DART) with emphasis on Canada and our changing climate and extreme weather systems. An expanded Rangers and Junior Rangers program for south of 60 in some urban centres would provide enormous benefits for Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Canadians.

Recommended from Editorial 

Therefore, if Ottawa wants to get the critically important future of our Canadian Armed Forces right and make the correct decisions, the government must start by addressing the strategic atrophy that has been allowed to fester around defence. Move forward on the recommendations already made on culture and improvement, without continually slamming the current members. The government must articulate a clear vision for Canada’s defence, must seek buy-in across party lines, and must pursue that vision honestly and forcefully with commensurate priority investment.

Story continues below 

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

If we can fix these issues, then we can also restore the hope and pride of Canada’s military service members. This, above all else, should be our lodestar: we must inspire the next generation to defend our country and way of life. Restoring morale, recruitment and retention, and increasing the overall numbers and capabilities fundamentally depends upon the government’s ability to fix the chronic issues facing our military.

The competent management of Canada’s defence is vital not only to the battlefield success of our men and women in uniform, but is indispensable to our national and international interests. Defence is our national insurance policy; in an increasingly dangerous world, our government has a sacred duty to ensure that defence is prioritized, and that democracy and freedom are preserved for our citizens and for those internationally whom we have committed to defend.

From a former defence minister to one just starting, I wish Minister Blair all the best in this enormous task. I sincerely hope he can bring success to a portfolio in desperate need of reinvigorated and inspiring leadership.

Special to National Post

Peter MacKay served as minister of national defence, foreign affairs and justice in the cabinet of Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

 

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/the-urgent-need-to-fix-canadas-military-and-how-to-do-it/wcm/73d158cc-ef0f-4efc-87cc-9c67d815ed4a/amp/

[Army Guy]

A lot of good advice, and i hope the next Minister takes most of it and moves forward...i and like many other Canadians don't have any hopes or aspirations for Bill Blair, to one step further, it is telling just how much the liberals do place on the defense file, appointing bill Blair was a clear indication of that....

However makes up the next government has a huge mess to clean up, one i starting to think we may not have the resources to fix...and in some cases we have run out of time to fix quickly...

[Dougie93]

19 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

But, tell us about what YOU did in office, Peter:

indeed

but what the Harpercons quickly realized

is that DND is so broken & dysfunctional

that throwing money at it,  is just throwing good money after bad

[Dougie93]

26 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

 one i starting to think we may not have the resources to fix..

the Federal & Provincial governments are now deep into totally unsustainable debt

the BoC is just printing money to pay the bills, which is now inciting an inflationary debt crisis

and the productive population is shrinking, which means there is no actual economic growth

it's an entirely debt based economy which is actually broke several times over

this is a massive exponential bubble which is bound to burst

and what do you think is going to get  cut to the bone first when it does ?

the Decade of Darkness will look like a golden age compared to what is coming next

Edited August 15, 2023 by Dougie93

[BeaverFever]

2 hours ago, Dougie93 said:

the Decade of Darkness will look like a golden age compared to what is coming next

And right on cue…

Cabinet ministers given Oct. 2 deadline to cut $15-billion from spending plans

 

Federal cabinet ministers have been given an Oct. 2 deadline to come up with specific cuts as part of an effort to shave about $15-billion from existing spending plans, according to a letter obtained by The Globe and Mail.

New Treasury Board President Anita Anand delivered the deadline in writing to her cabinet colleagues, meaning many ministers in new roles only have a few weeks to find cuts that were first promised in the 2023 budget.
 

…Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s decision to shift Ms. Anand from the defence portfolio to the Treasury Board was one of the main surprises of last month’s substantial cabinet shuffle. While some observers viewed the move as a demotion, Ms. Anand has said in recent media interviews that she is taking on an important role in the government’s core economic team.…

 

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-federal-cabinet-internal-savings/

 

[BeaverFever]

6 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

And right on cue…

Cabinet ministers given Oct. 2 deadline to cut $15-billion from spending plans

 

Federal cabinet ministers have been given an Oct. 2 deadline to come up with specific cuts as part of an effort to shave about $15-billion from existing spending plans, according to a letter obtained by The Globe and Mail.

New Treasury Board President Anita Anand delivered the deadline in writing to her cabinet colleagues, meaning many ministers in new roles only have a few weeks to find cuts that were first promised in the 2023 budget.
 

…Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s decision to shift Ms. Anand from the defence portfolio to the Treasury Board was one of the main surprises of last month’s substantial cabinet shuffle. While some observers viewed the move as a demotion, Ms. Anand has said in recent media interviews that she is taking on an important role in the government’s core economic team.…

 

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-federal-cabinet-internal-savings/

 

So while Anand reportedly fiercely fought Cabinet for CAF budget increases when she was MND and has a notable reputation as a thorough and efficient manager and problem solver, now she’s been placed on the other side of the fence and has been ordered to swing the axe at the other departments.  I wonder what’s in store for the CAF.

Edited August 16, 2023 by BeaverFever

[BeaverFever]

Canadian warships depart for Indo-Pacific region | CTV News

The Canadian military is delivering on its promise to increase the number of warships deployed annually to the Indo-Pacific region from two ships to three, starting this summer.

Royal Canadian Navy frigates HMCS Ottawa and HMCS Vancouver left Canadian Forces Base Esquimalt, west of Victoria, on Monday.

The ships will be accompanied by naval supply vessel Asterix and a pair of Royal Canadian Air Force Cyclone helicopters on their nearly five-month deployment.

Former defence minister Anita Anand announced in June that Canada would enhance its presence in the Indo-Pacific region with the deployment of one additional warship annually to the region under Operation Horizon, which replaces the longstanding Operation Projection.

The deployment follows the March deployment of HMCS Montreal to the Indo-Pacific region from Halifax, marking the first time a Canadian warship was deployed to the Indo-Pacific region from the East Coast.

HMCS Montreal is due to return to Halifax in September.

Last fall, the federal government announced it was investing nearly $2.3 billion over five years to forge closer ties with countries in the region as part of its Indo-Pacific strategy.

The funding included $493 million to bolster Canada's naval presence by deploying a third frigate and increasing participation in regional military exercises.

"The Indo-Pacific region is vital to global security, and its importance will only increase in the coming years," National Defence Minister Bill Blair said in a statement Monday.

"Through our Indo-Pacific strategy, Canada is significantly increasing its military presence in the region to support a free, open, and inclusive Indo-Pacific where international rules prevail."

Each naval frigate carries a crew of approximately 240 personnel, while the Asterix carries a crew of about 150 civilian and military personnel.

The ships are expected to participate in a series of bilateral and multinational exercises, with HMCS Ottawa operating in Southeast Asia while HMCS Vancouver focuses on Northeast Asia.

HMCS Vancouver will also contribute to the longstanding Operation Neon, Canada's contribution to United Nations sanctions enforcement and monitoring activities against North Korea.

https://vancouverisland.ctvnews.ca/canadian-warships-depart-for-indo-pacific-operation-fulfilling-promise-to-increase-naval-presence-in-region-1.6518853