[Scape]

But AM the CF has been running on FUMES. We been putting off replacements since the Bonnie was scrapped for razor blades. The airforce is a paper tiger and the navy is only city class frigates, some mine sweepers and some retrofitted subs. The liberals got some equipment for the army with the new bisons and Lav-25's but that's it. What we have is worn out and well past their service life. Most of the 2 1/2 ton trucks are older then the NCO's for fuck sakes.

[Arctic_Menace]

Scape Scape:

But AM the CF has been running on FUMES. We been putting off replacements since the Bonnie was scrapped for razor blades. The airforce is a paper tiger and the navy is only city class frigates, some mine sweepers and some retrofitted subs. The liberals got some equipment for the army with the new bisons and Lav-25's but that's it. What we have is worn out and well past their service life. Most of the 2 1/2 ton trucks are older then the NCO's for fuck sakes.

I'm not saying nor have I ever said that we should cut back on the military, but this runaway spending and tax cuts has got to stop. In all reality, we essentially have two options; cut spending, or raise taxes. God help the government that tries to do both.

[Bacardi4206]

2Cdo 2Cdo:

bootlegga bootlegga:

The key words in that paragraph are "announcement". Just more of the same old, same old from the current government (a favourite trick of the former Liberal governemnt too); announce projects and then never get around to paying for them.

Money talks and BS walks Mr. Harper.

Which is it? More bullshit press conferences or paying for real capability? Sadly, history dictates it will be more BS and less cash.

And for this I place the blame fully on the Canadian public. We seem to want a strong proud military but we don't want to pony up the cash. Apparently a cradle to the grave welfare system is more important than a stron defence force.

Not me, I have always been in support of a full capable military. Even not in any hostile situation. I mean, it's not like Canada's military sits idle. Even when not in war, they are still doing things. Peace keeping, delevering aid, w/e. All of which having full capability is important. Like naval capabilty, transport choppers, etc. However the biggest reason why we need a capable and funded military in peace time is because when the government does the whole bullshit of not wanting to pony up the money because we are not in a conflict. They are going to cause unecessary deaths for the soldiers who do have the fight Canada's next conflict with nothing but shit gear.

I mean beginning of Afghanistan for example, rolling around in the desert with forst camo. Might as well just paint a target on there backs with text stating please shoot me. Kinda defeats the purpose of camo when you stick out so much. No transport choppers, when the biggest danger to a soldier is IED's and suicide vehicles. Yeah, some air transport woulda been nice. Borrowing tanks from Germany, while fighting a insurgency you may think tanks being overpowered for the job. They do provide some very good support. Many, many more examples of how a government can fuck up troops when they ill-fund them in peace time.

If Australia is capable of funding there military so well and even during peace time. Canada should be-able to. They actually have a pretty decent military with full capability of defending there continent or doing operations elsewhere. Quite sad really that we cannot.

[EyeBrock]

I say again:

No Canadian government, Tory or Liberal, has ever properly funded the CF in peacetime.

They wait for a war.

All the 'P's is an old UK military term.

“Prior Planning Prevents Piss Poor Performance.”

Our governments need to do a bit of prior planning and get us military assets that can robustly protect our sovereign territory, otherwise it will result in ‘piss poor performance’.

[-Wario-]

16 billion is the cost of new birds, infrasture, training and training equipement including a full flight simulator, or two, parts, for the next 20 years.

not a bad deal for 20 years.

[bootlegga]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

I say again:

No Canadian government, Tory or Liberal, has ever properly funded the CF in peacetime.

They wait for a war.

All the 'P's is and old UK military term.

“Prior Planning Prevents Piss Poor Performance.”

Our governments need to do a bit of prior planning and get us military assets that can robustly protect our sovereign territory, otherwise it will result in ‘piss poor performance’.

Very true, although I guess the definition of peacetime is debatable, because the CF was very well funded from 1950 - 1965, except for three years in Korea, most of that period was peacetime (albeit the Cold War was going on). Back then we had a full brigade in Germany, 100,000 personnel, a dozen squadrons of fighters and a 50 ship navy. But then Trudeau the peacenik came along...

But that was the only exception, as there is no other peacetime period since Confederation when the CF was adequately funded and equipped, although the CF receives far better funding than it ever did prior to WW1 or in the interwar period.

[HyperionTheEvil]

Arctic_Menace Arctic_Menace:

Where are we going to get the money for this stuff? Am I the only one who sees a repeat of the 90's happening? Runaway Conservative spending that will no doubt need to be reined in by the Liberals. It's not a sound policy that we're spending all this money that we don't really have, and we're lowering taxes to boot. This will NOT end well for us if we're not careful...

Yup pretty much, thinking long term is always wise. However that doesn't mean you overspend and the government has to think about what our role really will be? Are we going to be more focused on Arctic Sovereignty or as like the US does and overspend themselves into a finincial blackhole

For those saying "Spend spend spend" a reminder national defence isn't the only thing our country has to do (And spare me the argument "Well w/o defence you have nothing). We have Medicare, Education infrastructure and payinf off our current debt to do as well.

We taxpayers have to pay for all of those things

[HyperionTheEvil]

Scape Scape:

But AM the CF has been running on FUMES. We been putting off replacements since the Bonnie was scrapped for razor blades. The airforce is a paper tiger and the navy is only city class frigates, some mine sweepers and some retrofitted subs. The liberals got some equipment for the army with the new bisons and Lav-25's but that's it. What we have is worn out and well past their service life. Most of the 2 1/2 ton trucks are older then the NCO's for fuck sakes.

The Bonaventure will never be replaced because we simply don't have the money for a new fleet carrier and we dont need it. The Airforce should go with the Eurofighter as opposed the F-35 (i suspect a future government will). The Halifax class ships are going to have to go for a long long time

Frankly Canada doesn't need to be going into debt for this

[bootlegga]

HyperionTheEvil HyperionTheEvil:

Yup pretty much, thinking long term is always wise. However that doesn't mean you overspend and the government has to think about what our role really will be? Are we going to be more focused on Arctic Sovereignty or as like the US does and overspend themselves into a finincial blackhole

For those saying "Spend spend spend" a reminder national defence isn't the only thing our country has to do (And spare me the argument "Well w/o defence you have nothing). We have Medicare, Education infrastructure and payinf off our current debt to do as well.

We taxpayers have to pay for all of those things

Yes, and instead of giving billions of dollars to Canadian banks (even though they didn't need or request it) in 2008, we could have done something for Arctic defence. Part of the 'stimulus package' could have gone to expanding a shipyard in Canada so that it could build ships for the navy, or we could have bought new Buffalo SAR planes from Viking Air in BC, or started construction on some icebreakers, or whatever. Prior to that, we had years of double digit billion dollar surpluses. The cash was there, just not the willingness on the part of our politicians.

You're right, Canada does not need to spend $500 billion a year on defence and run up massive deficits, but surely during the boom years, we could have spent more than we did. If you aren't embarrassed that little old Denmark has more Arctic capability than Canada (despite being far smaller in terms of economy, population and land mass - even including Greenland), then it's time to give your head a shake.

[EyeBrock]

What the CF has being doing recently is projecting military power in relatively small scale combat operations. I don’t think Canada could be described as in a state of ‘War’.

We had a full brigade in Korea which consisted of THREE infantry battalions and two armoured regiments.

They were supported by Royal Canadian Air Force Sabres as well as transport aircraft.

The Royal Canadian Navy (see how nice that sounds!) also had several warships that played major roles in the various battles.

All told Canada lost over 1500 killed in that conflict. The casualties reflect the true size of the Canadian contingent in Korea.

I digress.

We shouldn’t be hanging around on procurement for the Arctic, we are not at war but do we really want to be watching Russian, Chinese and even American ships ploughing in our waters at will because we can’t stop them?

Maslow's hierarchy of needs and all that. Lets sort out basic national security before we look at billions more spending on social programs etc.

I'm not advocating a silly amount of cash here, lets just get the basics that will fly OUR flag in OUR waters.

Big picture view is required here. What do you think will happen if we DON'T invest in defending our Arctic and North?

[Scape]

HyperionTheEvil HyperionTheEvil:

Scape Scape:

But AM the CF has been running on FUMES. We been putting off replacements since the Bonnie was scrapped for razor blades. The airforce is a paper tiger and the navy is only city class frigates, some mine sweepers and some retrofitted subs. The liberals got some equipment for the army with the new bisons and Lav-25's but that's it. What we have is worn out and well past their service life. Most of the 2 1/2 ton trucks are older then the NCO's for fuck sakes.

The Bonaventure will never be replaced because we simply don't have the money for a new fleet carrier and we dont need it. The Airforce should go with the Eurofighter as opposed the F-35 (i suspect a future government will). The Halifax class ships are going to have to go for a long long time

Frankly Canada doesn't need to be going into debt for this

Who cares about a new AC? I'm saying there was a huge downturn in our investment when it comes to the CF since then. Like EB stated we were able to go to Korea with a force that wasn't a joke. Right now, we are not even at war and are overstretched. Canada is punching well below its weight now as compared to other countries with the same level of GDP and it is showing.

[EyeBrock]

I agree Scape, although the F35 is a good bit of kit and all our major and meaningful allies are buying it. If we are buying combat aircraft to last 30 years, this is the one to get.

The Navy/Maritime Command should be key here. We don't need a 50 ship navy but we do need enough to protect our three oceans.

[-Wario-]

I think that we should buy the super hornet... F-18E

[EyeBrock]

-Wario- -Wario-:

I think that we should buy the super hornet... F-18E

I've looked at that and it would plug a gap but we would be buying a last generation airframe with new systems. "Fur coat and no knickers.." we say in Manchester.

The RAAF have taken a different step. they ordered F18E's as an iterim aircraft until they get the F35's.

Now they have a very similar size defence budget but seem to get way more bang for their buck. Where is the CF going wrong?

The Aussies have also sussed that the F18E/F's are 'good enough' for present ops but won't have a 30 year shelf life like the F35.

The RAAF will most likely shelve or sell its F18E/F's once the three squadrons of F35's are operational, according to the official RAAF website.

[BartSimpson]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

We don't need a 50 ship navy but we do need enough to protect our three oceans.

50 ships to defend the world's largest coastline of 202,080 kilometers is barely adequate.

Indonesia, with a fraction of Canada's economy and only 25% of Canada's coastline to defend has the following navy:

$1:

INDONESIAN NAVY
Total Navy Ships: 111
Merchant Marine Strength: 971
Naval Ports and Harbors: 10
Aircraft Carriers: 0
Destroyers: 6 [2009]
Submarines: 2
Frigates: 15 [2009]
Patrol & Coastal Craft: 24
Mine Warfare Craft: 12
Amphibious Craft: 26

While Canada has this:

$1:

CANADIAN NAVY
Total Navy Ships: 34
Merchant Marine Strength: 175 [2008]
Major Ports and Harbors: 9
Aircraft Carriers: 0
Destroyers: 3 [2008]
Submarines: 4 [2008]
Frigates: 12 [2008]
Patrol & Coastal Craft: 6 [2008]
Mine Warfare Craft: 6 [2008]
Amphibious Craft: 0 [2008]

What's wrong with this picture?