[ridenrain]

No one in Canada was demanding we strengthen our army and politicos were so hungry to seel the peace divient that our troops became the last thing on peoples minds. Look at the history of our peasekeeping missions and you'd see they were all done on a shoe string budget. Why are we now supprised that one of these turned into a shooting war and now we need real army gear?

I want ship, tank and fighter building too but I know full well that any party that does it will be clubbed into opposition because of it.

[bootlegga]

Well, for the record, the Iltis was good for its designed mission, just like the old US Army jeeps. The problem was that we kept them long after that mission no longer existed. That was why the US moved to Humvees in the 1980s, because it foresaw the need for a heavier transport.

It's hard to compare military procurement in the 90s with that of the 2000s, because it was a different mindset, just like it's hard to compare bombing campaigns in WW2 with that of either Gulf War.

As RR notes, most Canadians in the 90s were worried about jobs, national unity and the debt, so the government followed a budget to deal with that. Had more than 1% or 2% of Canadians been concerned with defence spending, they probably would have spent more. After 9/11, when public opinion shifted to worrying about national defence and security, the same government doubled spending in 5 years and spent another $10 billion on other security measures. It wasn't maybe as much as some allies would have liked, but it was a much bigger jump in spending that most of NATO nations made.

The biggest problem with the CF in the past 40 years is that everything is ordered in one big gulp, instead of over time, so when we do get around to replacing kit, it costs a fortune because we need to replace so many airframes/hulls/vehicles all at once. Look at the navy. The AORs are forty years old, the DDHs are almost 40 years old and the FFHs are nearing 20 years old. The cost to replace the DDHs and AORs will probably cost $7-8 billion (assuming we maintain the same number of hulls). As it stands, that's almost half our annual budget. If former and future governments had a coherent procurement plan that they al could agree on, we wouldn't have to worry about that.

In a perfect world, our procurement would happen slowly over a decade, allowing ships/planes/vehicles to be purchased slowly and rationally, spreading costs over several years, instead of having to pay $10 billion for five/six years in a row, and not paying anything for the next 20 years.

[Canadian_Mind]

ridenrain ridenrain:

I want ship, tank and fighter building too but I know full well that any party that does it will be clubbed into opposition because of it.

Only by the other parties trying to get into power.

Previous polls on CKA showed that over 50% of the website pop wanted a military strength between 125 000 and 250 000 reg force members, with a further 15-20% supporting a number over 250 000. Less than 30% want us to have a military at or smaller than our current size.

After all the reports of how worn out and tired we are from only having 2200 to now 2900 members overseas, and the increased support for the military, I think that the current mental climate of the Canadian public would be very open to the idea of increased military presence, if proven it is for the general defense of the country, and noth theatre-specific shit... IE. Icebreakers for the north (not slushbreakers), new SAR aircraft, new sub hunters, new destroyers, new frigates, new subs, new fighter jets, etc.



Basically we need a government, Liberal or Conservative, to be given a firm majority in the house (or a co-op between the two for the sake of our nation) to milk the current public desire for military gain, and push for expansion.

A 200 000 - 250 000 man military would be approximately 3 to 4 times the size of our current reg force, and as such the budget for it would be anywhere between 50 and 80 billion per year... Though I think that because of the increased amount of bulk-buys, shit would come cheaper and budget would drop some.


edit - Boots, the cost of military kit is spread out over time. So regardless of whether the Replenishment vessels, destroyers, and Frigates are replaced all at the same time, or 10 years apart per purchase, at one point we'd be paying off the same per year for all three purchases as if we just bought them all in bulk.

[bootlegga]

Canadian_Mind Canadian_Mind:

edit - Boots, the cost of military kit is spread out over time. So regardless of whether the Replenishment vessels, destroyers, and Frigates are replaced all at the same time, or 10 years apart per purchase, at one point we'd be paying off the same per year for all three purchases as if we just bought them all in bulk.

Not always. Several recent purhases were paid in one/two fiscal years, the C-17 being the most expensive such purchase (others include the lease of CH-47Ds, the Leo 2, etc).

Irregardless, my point is that if you have to buy tactical and strategic transport planes, helicopters, and new fighters (as is happening currently), then there is next to nothing for the other two departments. The Army got most of its 'new' equipment during the Liberals reign (LAV IIIs, M-577 howitzers, G-Wagens, Griffon helos, etc). Really, the only thing bought for them recently was 80 Leo 2s, which was necessary if we weren't going to buy the MGS.

Likewise, if you have to replace the whole naval fleet in a decade, it eats up most of the budget, leaving next to nothing for the air force and army. And that's exactly what is going to happen soon. Once we are out of southern Afghanistan and army and air force expenditures are down, the navy will get its share. But the problem is that during that time, we can't buy anything else for any other service, excepting smallish items (under $200 million or so).

[Canadian_Mind]

Stop and look at the size of the military. No matter what you will always be buying lots of shit at once, doesn't matter if it is all for one branch or if it is only a few items for each.

Procurements should be made as neccisary.

[bootlegga]

I don't disagree with the idea that we buy lots of shit all at once. What I'm suggesting is that procurement be staggered. Buy fighters and destroyers now. In a few years, you buy tanks and AORs. Then you buy frigates and helos. Then you buy transport planes and APCs. That way everything doesn't crap out all at once.

By building your weapons systems spread out over a long period, you don't wind up with block obsolesence. What happens in our current system is that ALL our planes (not just fighters, but ALL planes) need replacing at the same time. ALL of our ships need to be replaced at the same time. That's the problem I pointing to.

And given that Canadians won't spend 10% of our federal budget on the CF, we wind up postponing purchases, which means troops operate 40 year old equipment (like the Sea Kings, DDHs, AORs, Hercs, Leo 1s, etc).

Because of the purchases the Conservatives made in the past few years, in 20-30 years, our entire air force will need replacing/modernizing, because we bought C-17s, C-130s, CH-47s, Cormorants, and Cyclones all in a relatively short time frame (less than a decade). That will eat up most of the procurement budget for a long time and cost us in other areas of defence. And's it not just the money, but the stress on our training and maintenance departments too, as they learn to deal with new platforms.

I'm not suggesting that procurement should be cut in any way shape or form, just that purchases should be made rationally. Ideally, I'd like to see more procurement, not less.

[Canadian_Mind]

There is nothing irrational about the current procurement plan. When 20-30 years downt he road, and all the planes need replacing, we'll replace all the damned planes over a decade. There wont be anything else to replace within that timeframe because everything else will have been replaced between now and then and as such wont be obsolete and in need of replacing during above said timeframe.

Only irrational thing about our procurement plan is the type, quality, and numbers of kit, but those are my personal opinions only.

[bootlegga]

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree...

[BartSimpson]

bootlegga bootlegga:

While I didn't like the decision to make them in Texas, for the size of the contract, I understand it. I just would have preferred Canadian workers (even CAsW members) getting work during the recession instead of Texans, especailly with their stupid 'Buy American' policy.

Forgive me for observing, but isn't what you propose a stupid 'Buy Canadian' policy?

[bootlegga]

The Buy American policy affects EVERY sector. I would never suggest going that far. No, I'm proposing the same policy the US has used in defence purchases for decades.

A Buy Canadian ship/plane/APC whenever possible policy.

Generally it is very difficult for foreign weapons manufacturers to sell their big ticket toys to the US in large quantities. The argument is why buy this from the Brits or that from the French, when you can make it domestically and employ Americans? There are exceptions of course, but that is how US procurement works.

Canada should do exactly the same. It's a sad state of affairs when we can't even manufacture medium trucks for the CF (for domestic use no less). It's not like they had to build specialized armoured/mine-resistant vehicles, just trucks for transporting troops and supplies around Canada.

While Harper has bought some stuff since 2006, nothing has been built here in Canada. Even most refits (like the Leo 2s) were done in other countries. Our refusal to build naval vessels within a rational framework has already forced several major shipyards to either close or drastically reduce their ability to build ships. At the rate we're going, soon, we won't have a shipbuilding industry capable of building frigates or destroyers.

[EyeBrock]

The problem with propping up domestic industry is that the military end up funding what in practicality is a social program first instead of a procurement program.

There is value in a 'buy Canadian' stance but the product should be shiny enough to sell to other markets.

A prime example of this is the German submarine program. They built a good bit of kit like the the 212 Class U-Boats, and they are selling them worldwide.

How can we ensure that we have a product that will make us cash back?

I may be wrong but I doubt we have actually sold any Canadian built frigates to any other countries.

We have a finite amount of cash for procurement, lets get the best kit for the cash. Wherever it’s made.

Procurement isn’t a social program.

Otherwise we just get more of this:

“The Canadian Forces, equipped by the lowest bidder for fifty years.”

[bootlegga]

How many of the UK's carriers were made by France? Or how many of the USNs? And how many have they exported (new, not after they've been used for 30 years)? Same goes for ships like the Type 45...

The answer is the exact same as the CPF. Being independent is more than just saying you are. If you can't build the weapons or create the troops to maintain it, then you wind up like the Roman Empire...history.

[BeaverFever]

Meh..but on the other hand, in addition to paying MORE for the product to produce our own unique variant, we also have to bear the financial burden associated with fielding untried equipment and sorting out all the post-production gremlins that inevitably occur.

I say buy Canadian wherever it makes sense, without going out on a limb and spending billions to be the sole producer and user of a product and bear all its development costs. If there are Canadian firms in the market capable of and willing to bid on a procurement contract, they should get bonus points in the evaluation for that and if its a new and unproven design, they should loose points for that. But gov't should not get into the business of creating industries that do not already exist and can not stand on their own and rely on gov't contracts to stay in business, because once these businesses start employing people, it comes too politically risky to NOT award them public contracts even when they make an inferior product. The latter has been a common complaint of the domestic shipbuilding industry.

[EyeBrock]

bootlegga bootlegga:

How many of the UK's carriers were made by France? Or how many of the USNs? And how many have they exported (new, not after they've been used for 30 years)? Same goes for ships like the Type 45...

The answer is the exact same as the CPF. Being independent is more than just saying you are. If you can't build the weapons or create the troops to maintain it, then you wind up like the Roman Empire...history.

I don't think they are equitable comparisons boots. The UK and France have huge and profitable arms industries that make everything from bullets to aircraft carriers.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8208345.stm

Canada is not in the same position. We should look at a niche industry that we can compete in but we are far from a global player in the arms industry.
We just end up spending our limited budget on domestic products that can either be bought cheaper off-the-shelf or are less than cutting edge, or both.

I think we have to realistic on what we can produce and at what cost.

I don't we have the ability or deep enough pockets to be as militarily independent as you want, but it is a noble aspiration.

[stepped-on]

Although it's on the subject of Energy (rather than Personel Carriers)...it's all about developing the skills and industrial capacity to prosper in the future. Here's a good example of a BUY CANADIAN initiative that needs your support, and hinges on a need that effects all Canadians, not just those in Ontario

SEE: http://www.pickcandu.ca/

Thankyou CF's...for Everything!