Military Spending Cuts

eyeball · September 30, 2013

If you rely on the US to enforce your soverignty then the US has sovereignty, not you.

Surely you're not proposing our military spending should be enough to deter a hypothetical attack by the US. That would be the only point at which we could truly claim to be sovereign in the raw brute terms or context you just placed our need to militarize.

I often get the impression our need to spend militarily has way more to do with appearances than actual defence. I mean if we all we want is to deter anyone from attacking us all we'd need is a few bad assed nukes. I'm betting it would cost us a lot less to simply do that than trying to make some flashy impression on the global cat walk.

Canada needs to have a lengthy in depth discussion about the purpose of our military before we spend anything.

Signals.Cpl · September 30, 2013

My understanding is that the Australians originally planned on buying 24 Hornets as a stop-gap before getting their F35s. They are very impressed with the Hornets so are considering buying 24 more. I presume that they would reduce the number of F35s that they purchase.

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/12/13/john-ivison-there-are-no-cheap-alternatives-to-the-f-35s-for-canada/

The RAAF is replacing aircraft at the end of their lifespan with the Hornets, but that does not mean they intent to fly two kinds of fighter aircraft. Maintaining two different fighter aircraft will add to the overall cost of the airforce and increase the personnel requirements so likely they are purchasing more Super Hornets for the simple reason that their Hornet fleet is nearing its operational life and and more aircraft need to be replaced at an earlier date.

Ultimately, if we make a decision we will likely live with for the next 30 to 40 years lets base it on a little more than the opinion of nations that are planning on using those aircraft for a fraction of the time.

carepov · September 30, 2013

The RAAF is replacing aircraft at the end of their lifespan with the Hornets, but that does not mean they intent to fly two kinds of fighter aircraft. Maintaining two different fighter aircraft will add to the overall cost of the airforce and increase the personnel requirements so likely they are purchasing more Super Hornets for the simple reason that their Hornet fleet is nearing its operational life and and more aircraft need to be replaced at an earlier date.

Ultimately, if we make a decision we will likely live with for the next 30 to 40 years lets base it on a little more than the opinion of nations that are planning on using those aircraft for a fraction of the time.

The article that segnosaur brought up seems to contract almost everything you say above.

"... the Australian government revealed it is thinking about buying 24 more Boeing Super Hornets fighters, to add to the 24 it bought recently. The first two dozen were seen as a bridge between the Royal Australian Air Force’s existing fighters and the delayed arrival of the F-35s. But the RAAF is so happy with the Super Hornet, defence minister Stephen Smith says the plane is no longer a transitional aircraft. Australia intended to buy 100 F-35s and sell back the Super Hornets to the U.S. government. Now Mr. Smith says the plane, with its Growler electronics system that jams land-based radar, will play a central role in Australia’s air defences for the forseeable future.

“We are now not just looking at Super Hornets as transition, but looking at the longer-term potential of Super Hornets and Growler and Joint Strike Fighters [F-35s] as a mixed fleet,” said Mr. Smith."

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/12/13/john-ivison-there-are-no-cheap-alternatives-to-the-f-35s-for-canada/

Signals.Cpl · September 30, 2013

The article that segnosaur brought up seems to contract almost everything you say above.

"... the Australian government revealed it is thinking about buying 24 more Boeing Super Hornets fighters, to add to the 24 it bought recently. The first two dozen were seen as a bridge between the Royal Australian Air Force’s existing fighters and the delayed arrival of the F-35s. But the RAAF is so happy with the Super Hornet, defence minister Stephen Smith says the plane is no longer a transitional aircraft. Australia intended to buy 100 F-35s and sell back the Super Hornets to the U.S. government. Now Mr. Smith says the plane, with its Growler electronics system that jams land-based radar, will play a central role in Australia’s air defences for the forseeable future.

“We are now not just looking at Super Hornets as transition, but looking at the longer-term potential of Super Hornets and Growler and Joint Strike Fighters [F-35s] as a mixed fleet,” said Mr. Smith."

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/12/13/john-ivison-there-are-no-cheap-alternatives-to-the-f-35s-for-canada/

And when they sober up, get their F35s they will quickly realize that having two or more fleets of aircraft aimed at meeting the same need get pretty expensive. Maintaining two parallel training systems, with supply and maintenance as well as infrastructure is financially and logistically prohibitive for such a small force as the RAAF and even more so with a smaller force like the RCAF. The sooner people realize we are not the US and cannot realistically expect to maintain two or more fleets simultaneously.

More important, what would RAAF's use of the Super Hornets mean for Canada? So what if Australia has 48 Super Hornets? Unless we make a deal with the Australian government for joint upgrades to the Super Hornet fleet as well as maintain the ability to produce spare parts amongst the dozens of other aspects that will be necessary for our fleets survivability and that does not even consider the midlife upgrades.

Smallc · September 30, 2013

The RAAF has had two fleets all along. The F/A - 18 E/F was used to replace the F - 111.

Signals.Cpl · September 30, 2013

The RAAF has had two fleets all along. The F/A - 18 E/F was used to replace the F - 111.

Two fleets to serve the same purpose?

Smallc · October 1, 2013

No, one was for strike missions, and the other is for air defence and the like.

On Guard for Thee · October 1, 2013

And who is it we are really worried about anyway? The folks that really hate would show up with a bunch of clapped out Migs. We could probably buy something from Cessna these days that would take them down.

Seriously, the F35 has so many costly snags trying to achieve "pie in the sky" goals we don't need. So why break the bank over them? In Canada we have been flying and fixing a bunch of F18's for many years so you can imagine the savings in upgrade training costs, both for pilots and engineers. And the damn thing works. Good platform just throw in some new engines, new electronics, good to go.

carepov · October 1, 2013

And when they sober up, get their F35s they will quickly realize that having two or more fleets of aircraft aimed at meeting the same need get pretty expensive. Maintaining two parallel training systems, with supply and maintenance as well as infrastructure is financially and logistically prohibitive for such a small force as the RAAF and even more so with a smaller force like the RCAF. The sooner people realize we are not the US and cannot realistically expect to maintain two or more fleets simultaneously.

More important, what would RAAF's use of the Super Hornets mean for Canada? So what if Australia has 48 Super Hornets? Unless we make a deal with the Australian government for joint upgrades to the Super Hornet fleet as well as maintain the ability to produce spare parts amongst the dozens of other aspects that will be necessary for our fleets survivability and that does not even consider the midlife upgrades.

Don't you think that there's a chance that the Aussies will sober up and cancel their plans for the F35 and stick with the Hornets that they are so fond of?

Signals.Cpl · October 1, 2013

And who is it we are really worried about anyway?

We have to arm ourselves for the unpredictable, buying kit for the threat we see now means that when the threat environment changes we will have to buy new kit to face a new threat.

The folks that really hate would show up with a bunch of clapped out Migs.

And what if that changes 10 years from now? Do we purchase new fighters when the threat environment changes?

Seriously, the F35 has so many costly snags trying to achieve "pie in the sky" goals we don't need.

We may not need all the capabilities now, but can you guarantee this will stay the same over the next 20,30 or 40 years?

So why break the bank over them?

Because when the threat environment changes we need to buy aircraft to meet the new threat which would cost more in the future.

In Canada we have been flying and fixing a bunch of F18's for many years so you can imagine the savings in upgrade training costs, both for pilots and engineers. And the damn thing works. Good platform just throw in some new engines, new electronics, good to go.

And in 15 years when we are one of the only if not the only major western power with those aircraft?

Signals.Cpl · October 1, 2013

Don't you think that there's a chance that the Aussies will sober up and cancel their plans for the F35 and stick with the Hornets that they are so fond of?

No, I don't. The Super Hornets and the F35's provide different capabilities and the Super Hornets are replacing the F-111's. Ultimately they would look at what is more affordable in the long run and the F35 is the more affordable aircraft when all is said and done even if the initial purchasing price is double that of the Super Hornets.

AlienB · October 1, 2013

Russia has announced its 6th generation aircraft

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/europe/russia/130828/MAKS-russia-building-sixth-generation-fighter-jet

I'm not sure if the realization that any jets canada gets may just have a couple years of service before they are obsolete. It would make sense not to get a complete airforce like all the aircraft for the next 20 years in one big buy, huh?

There are other options like the grippen and Boeing F/A-XX, as well as other new aircraft that are coming out.

The F35 has not completely flopped but it definitely wasn't what it was sold as. There was a really good plan but that plan failed to manifest so you can't treat it like what it was unless they deliver. You get less value at a higher price, and you are left questioning can I put my full weight behind this bearing all the circumstances.

Both automation and air technology are advancing every day that passes. I think that yes there has got to be some sort of transition but no, you can buy a few of each plane like the Saudi's or other countries that fly a variety of jets. And no the price of running them needn't be higher, you just don't fly as many. But the bottom line is Canada should have some jets that are safe to fly. But no it doesn't need to go all in and buy its entire air force. We really need to question, how our Canadian pilots going to be useful in a drone environment. The purchase proposed may be too large and too sudden, but the timeframe is dire. I still favour a split purchase and one with a much lower purchase price, I think the plan should involve replacing existing aircraft with identical aircraft, and using the old jets to service the new one where required. Also seeing if lockheed wants to lease some f35s. They are actually making money and not in debt unlike Canada. Perhaps a 5 or 10 year lease.

Edited October 1, 2013 by AlienB

eyeball · October 1, 2013

And in 15 years when we are one of the only if not the only major western power with those aircraft?

Oh oh oh I know...

We'd be the biggest threat in the West?

Argus · October 1, 2013

The US does not need to enforce or sovereignty. Our sovereignty has been and will continue to be protected thanks to our special relationship with the US - this has been and will continue to be the case whether or not we spend 1% or 5% of our GDP on defence.

Unless they decide not to. People running oil through our north seas, like, ah, Americans? In poorly maintained tankers? People fishing off our coasts, or for that matter, drilling? Maybe the US will do something, maybe not. Maybe it's their people doing it.

Argus · October 1, 2013

Surely you're not proposing our military spending should be enough to deter a hypothetical attack by the US. That would be the only point at which we could truly claim to be sovereign in the raw brute terms or context you just placed our need to militarize.

What I'm suggesting is you need to have enough of a military force to deter agression. If there is no cost to transgressing a nation's boundaries then no one will care about doing so. If a third nation, be it the US, Russia, China or for that matter, France, decides it wants to drill for oil a ten miles off our coast, who is to stop them? The RCMP? The north is opening up with global warming and there could be untold resources up there. If we don't have people there, and we mostly don't, and no means of protecting it, why shouldn't companies from other nations go in and stake their claim? What's to stop them?

There's also internal security. Suppose we have a larger version of Oka? Maybe with natives, maybe with one of our numerous ethnic groups from foreign realms. Remember the Tamils blocking highways in Toronto? No big deal because there was no violence involved, but suppose there had been? Remember the FLQ? Do you know what the next twenty or thiry or forty years will bring?

Edited October 1, 2013 by Argus

carepov · October 1, 2013

Unless they decide not to. People running oil through our north seas, like, ah, Americans? In poorly maintained tankers? People fishing off our coasts, or for that matter, drilling? Maybe the US will do something, maybe not. Maybe it's their people doing it.

OK, even if you were right (and I do not think you are) do you think 65 F35s can "protect our sovereignty" and not 65 Hornets or other cheaper options? Do you think over-paying $100's of millions for 2-3 ships is acceptable?

In your opinion how much should Canada spend on defense (in $$, % of budget or % of GDP)? Shopuld we "invest" in nuclear weapons - that would deter the "bad guys"? How about aircraft carriers, do we "need" some of those?

Signals.Cpl · October 1, 2013

OK, even if you were right (and I do not think you are) do you think 65 F35s can "protect our sovereignty" and not 65 Hornets or other cheaper options? Do you think over-paying $100's of millions for 2-3 ships is acceptable?

The cheaper options might be able to do the same job in protecting sovereignty, might, but that would not be the only reason we will use it for. We need an aircraft that meets multiple requirements and provide us with options for whatever we might face in the future which might include us cooperating with our allies, but if our aircraft are obsolete and cannot work in conjunction with the USAF or our other allies what then?

In your opinion how much should Canada spend on defense (in $$, % of budget or % of GDP)? Shopuld we "invest" in nuclear weapons - that would deter the "bad guys"? How about aircraft carriers, do we "need" some of those?

How much should Canada spend on Defence in YOUR opinion? Do we depend on the US for defence? What it seems to me is that some people or in this case many people don't want to spend money on defence, expect the US to defend us while we provide insignificant resources in our own defence yet expect us to maintain our independence? We may not be able to hold against say Russia or China all on our own, but we have to be willing and able to fight in our own defence with more than just slingshots.

carepov · October 1, 2013

The cheaper options might be able to do the same job in protecting sovereignty, might, but that would not be the only reason we will use it for. We need an aircraft that meets multiple requirements and provide us with options for whatever we might face in the future which might include us cooperating with our allies, but if our aircraft are obsolete and cannot work in conjunction with the USAF or our other allies what then?

BS. Why would the US or Australia buying new Hornets if they are going to be obsolete?

How much should Canada spend on Defence in YOUR opinion? Do we depend on the US for defence? What it seems to me is that some people or in this case many people don't want to spend money on defence, expect the US to defend us while we provide insignificant resources in our own defence yet expect us to maintain our independence? We may not be able to hold against say Russia or China all on our own, but we have to be willing and able to fight in our own defence with more than just slingshots.

IMO we should spend roughly what we spend now ($20 Billion, 1.15 % of GDP, 9% of budget). This should be gradually reduced to about 0.9-1.0 % of GDP - savings can be achieved through better procurement and less waste, fewer overlapping capabilities with NATO allies. These savings will also allow for investments in more useful things to our national defence and for expanding our capabilities that would be most useful to our NATO allies.

Edited October 1, 2013 by carepov

Signals.Cpl · October 1, 2013

BS. Why would the US or Australia buying new Hornets if they are going to be obsolete?

I am getting tired of explaining this to you but because it is a stop gap measure. For the RAAF the Hornets are replacing an aircraft that is over 40 years old and they have judged that it meets their immediate needs without adding extra burden to their system by buying a different aircraft for a short term solution.

It is a simple concept, the RAAF loses a capability it had until 2009, and thus they decide that they need an interim aircraft until the F35s start entering service.

IMO we should spend roughly what we spend now ($20 Billion, 1.15 % of GDP, 9% of budget). This should be gradually reduced to about 0.9-1.0 % of GDP - savings can be achieved through better procurement and less waste, fewer overlapping capabilities with NATO allies.

Better procurement? How so? How exactly would you solve that problem?

Less waste? How do we accomplish that without destroying our capabilities? How do we accomplish that in terms of long term savings when our politicians cannot agree on what our military needs? Troops injured in Afghanistan come back missing limbs and get a few dollars and a thanks for coming out all in the name of less waste, people opposing an aircraft not because they don't approve of it but simply for political reasons because lets face it, in the long run the cost of the F35 is going to be equal to or less than the competition I can go on, but ultimately spending more on the military annually means that we can plan ahead with procurement and spend less overall rather than running equipment in to the ground decades past its lifespan and one government passing the puck to another.

These savings will also allow for investments in more useful things to our national defence and for expanding our capabilities that would be most useful to our NATO allies.

Such as?

AlienB · October 2, 2013

http://www.reuters.com/video/2099/01/01?videoId=273912592

venson · October 2, 2013

How long will the F-35's stealth technology remain effective? I don't think Canada needs the F-35 - looking at the country, a tough twin-engined fighter with a long range would prove far more effective. Something like the Super Hornet, Rafale or Eurofighter. The French are more than satisfied with the Rafale and aren't rushing into developing stealth aircraft.

And look at Russia and how effective its MIG-31s and SU-27s are proving at patrolling the massive expanses of airspace there. The F-35 is too expensive and is not an aircraft that suits Canada's needs. The added safety of two engines, more fuel and weapons would be far more effective in my opinion.

carepov · October 2, 2013

Better procurement? How so? How exactly would you solve that problem?

Well first we would need the following policies:

-do not buy stuff that we do not need

-do not buy overpriced stuff

-when shopping for expensive stuff, get some competitive quotes

-do not buy broken stuff

-do not buy "made in Canada" when we can get the same thing for less than half the cost from elsewhere

Less waste? How do we accomplish that without destroying our capabilities? How do we accomplish that in terms of long term savings when our politicians cannot agree on what our military needs? Troops injured in Afghanistan come back missing limbs and get a few dollars and a thanks for coming out all in the name of less waste, people opposing an aircraft not because they don't approve of it but simply for political reasons because lets face it, in the long run the cost of the F35 is going to be equal to or less than the competition I can go on, but ultimately spending more on the military annually means that we can plan ahead with procurement and spend less overall rather than running equipment in to the ground decades past its lifespan and one government passing the puck to another.

You are right - it all starts with figuring out what our defence needs are, for Canada and as part of NATO.

From what I've read and posted the F35 would cost double the Super Hornet both in purchase AND long-term operating costs.

Such as?

Perhaps the money saved can be better spent on taking care of injured troops. Also, additional spending would depend on what Canada'a and NATOs needs are.

Signals.Cpl · October 2, 2013

Well first we would need the following policies:

-do not buy stuff that we do not need

Such as? What do we not require that we bought which would save us substantial funds?

-do not buy overpriced stuff

Some people do not understand that expensive does not equal to over priced. We need kit that will meet our requirements in the present, and cover as many future requirements as possible.

do not buy broken stuff

This goes hand in hand with not buying overpriced kit when we can get it "better" for "cheaper".

From what I've read and posted the F35 would cost double the Super Hornet both in purchase AND long-term operating costs.

I call BS on this one, the initial cost might be more for the F35 but over the long run the F35 will be cheaper than the Super hornet. For example the F/A-18F the RAAF has is an aircraft that needs 2 crew members which means that right there it costs more, twice the engines require twice as many techs working on it or slower turnover rate for repairs and maintenance because same number of techs fixing 2X as many engines. Mid life refit will be the responsibility of Canada since the US will be dropping the aircraft in a decade or so thus they will not be upgrading it vs them upgrading the F35 and passing along that to other users. Most of the rest is equal whatever aircraft we choose, the only variation would be increase the number of fighters or decrease the number of fighters.

Perhaps the money saved can be better spent on taking care of injured troops. Also, additional spending would depend on what Canada'a and NATOs needs are.

Yeah, sure... who actually cares about wounded troops? They become important when trying to score points against the government, but when push comes to shove the government regardless of party will do the same.

As for NATO... well we need to worry about ourselves first as the organized cold war era NATO is quickly becoming a thing of the past. Soon NATO will be an alliance without the coordination of capabilities...

carepov · October 2, 2013

I call BS on this one, the initial cost might be more for the F35 but over the long run the F35 will be cheaper than the Super hornet. For example the F/A-18F the RAAF has is an aircraft that needs 2 crew members which means that right there it costs more, twice the engines require twice as many techs working on it or slower turnover rate for repairs and maintenance because same number of techs fixing 2X as many engines. Mid life refit will be the responsibility of Canada since the US will be dropping the aircraft in a decade or so thus they will not be upgrading it vs them upgrading the F35 and passing along that to other users. Most of the rest is equal whatever aircraft we choose, the only variation would be increase the number of fighters or decrease the number of fighters.

I call BS on you. Even Lockheed Martin says that the F35 operating costs will be about the same as "Legacy" fighters:

According to the GAO, the Super Hornet actually costs the U.S. Navy $15,346 an hour to fly. It sounds like a lot — until you see that the U.S. Air Force's official "target" for operating the F-35 is $31,900 an hour. The GAO says it's a little more — closer to $32,500.

CBC also asked Lockheed Martin to say if it had any quarrel with these numbers — and it did not.

In a written response, a Lockheed spokesman declined to offer any different figures, but insisted the F-35's operating costs would be "comparable to or lower than" the "legacy platforms" — meaning, older jets — that it will replace. Those do not include the Super Hornets, which Boeing says are 25 per cent cheaper to run than Canada's "legacy" CF-18s.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/boeing-touts-fighter-jet-to-rival-f-35-at-half-the-price-1.1320636

Signals.Cpl · October 2, 2013

I call BS on you. Even Lockheed Martin says that the F35 operating costs will be about the same as "Legacy" fighters:

According to the GAO, the Super Hornet actually costs the U.S. Navy $15,346 an hour to fly. It sounds like a lot — until you see that the U.S. Air Force's official "target" for operating the F-35 is $31,900 an hour. The GAO says it's a little more — closer to $32,500.

CBC also asked Lockheed Martin to say if it had any quarrel with these numbers — and it did not.

In a written response, a Lockheed spokesman declined to offer any different figures, but insisted the F-35's operating costs would be "comparable to or lower than" the "legacy platforms" — meaning, older jets — that it will replace. Those do not include the Super Hornets, which Boeing says are 25 per cent cheaper to run than Canada's "legacy" CF-18s.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/boeing-touts-fighter-jet-to-rival-f-35-at-half-the-price-1.1320636

Really? So they will require less runways? Fewer Technicians? Less infrastructure to support them? and less of the 101 other things that a modern fighter aircraft needs?

What goes in those figures? Are they comparable? Or are they comparing apples and bricks? IF the USAF counts airfields, maintenance teams, ground support etc in to the equation but the Navy does not count the carrier, its crew, support staff etc... is it really a proper comparison?

The bulk of the cost is the operating cost which means that we will require the same RCAF bases, with the same or similar number of pilots, engineers and technicians regardless of which aircraft is chosen. We will need the same airfields, with the same support infrastructure, equipment and personnel to operate those aircraft. So your numbers are BS because likely the figures are not comparable, in fact more than likely they do not account the same things in the total figure.