164 replies to this topic

[lanforod]

Our navy has been an embarrassment in terms of projected power for a long time. This isn't going to make a lot of difference. We are still dependant on the US for defence should it come to that.

[AllseeingEye]

I know, but 4 dead ships, while we just repaired a couple subs, and who knows where the new shipbuilding is, it's fodder for the opposition.

 

I guess it's one thing to retire 4 ships early, but to retire 1/4 of your total big-ship fleet all at once does not sound great.

Ah but VHF...c'mon this is Canada: seriously - the "Opposition"? Since when (like never) has the Opposition in this country ever cared a whit about defence matters?

 

The federal NDP and Liberals combined know less than I do about crocheting. Mulcair right now has a FB page decrying Harper sending combatant Canadian forces into Iraq without requisite parliamentary debate. Now of course he is actually referring to military advisors and not soldiers - you know the guys with the actual guns. But really is it reasonable to expect the NDP know the difference? And in many ways IMO the Liberals are even worse so don't even get me started on them; they know all about kissing Quebec's derriere but in the immortal words of a friend of mine, who actually was on the PMO's staff providing daily intelligence briefings to two Liberal PM's, "Liberals.....in general.....would not know an aircraft carrier if they tripped over it"..... 

[jonny]

Our navy has been an embarrassment in terms of projected power for a long time. This isn't going to make a lot of difference. We are still dependant on the US for defence should it come to that.

 

IMO we should leverage this dependence and buy more kit directly from the Americans rather than insisting on designing and constructing our own stuff to meet our own specific needs (you know, the needs that are not dissimilar to the USA, UK, Germany, France, etc.).

[Mr Cook Street]

The federal NDP and Liberals combined know less than I do about crocheting. Mulcair right now has a FB page decrying Harper sending combatant Canadian forces into Iraq without requisite parliamentary debate. Now of course he is actually referring to military advisors and not soldiers - you know the guys with the actual guns. But really is it reasonable to expect the NDP know the difference? And in many ways IMO the Liberals are even worse so don't even get me started on them; they know all about kissing Quebec's derriere but in the immortal words of a friend of mine, who actually was on the PMO's staff providing daily intelligence briefings to two Liberal PM's, "Liberals.....in general.....would not know an aircraft carrier if they tripped over it"..... 

 

So what have the Conservatives done differently to earn a reputation as defence experts? I'm not saying that the opposition parties are better or worse, but when you make this one of your major policy planks, and then do nothing of note....

[lanforod]

So what have the Conservatives done differently to earn a reputation as defence experts? I'm not saying that the opposition parties are better or worse, but when you make this one of your major policy planks, and then do nothing of note....

I don't recall defence being one of their major policy planks. Not like law and order is (and they definitely are actioning that)

[jonny]

So what have the Conservatives done differently to earn a reputation as defence experts? I'm not saying that the opposition parties are better or worse, but when you make this one of your major policy planks, and then do nothing of note....

 

The Cons have accomplished nothing of note? I'm not so sure I agree with that.

 

Off the top of my head, under the Cons we have:

- New heavy lift fixed wing transport planes (Globemasters & new Hercules)

- New Chinook helis

- New tanks

- The whole slew of new ships they have ordered

[Mr Cook Street]

Here:

The Harper Conservatives followed a tried and true tactic, used by previous Liberal and Conservative governments, to find savings in an effort to reduce the country’s debt – they are delaying defence procurement projects...

It’s partly a reflection of the government’s failure so far to deliver long-promised new ships, search planes, helicopters and trucks, but it’s also a significant part of a concerted Conservative campaign to outflank the deficit in the run-up to the 2015 election...

Other big-ticket items likely to fall into the shuffle would include the navy’s new supply ships, the long-promised Arctic patrol boats, replacements for Canada’s aging Sea King maritime helicopters and new fixed-wing search planes, among others...

 

 

And here:

Canada’s Conservative government loves the idea of the military; it just doesn’t always like the military.

The idea of the military conforms to the Conservatives’ sense of the country and its history – “true north, strong and free” – and the idea of the military fits the party’s political agenda....

Meanwhile, while all this is being done for public consumption, the defence budget – which is, after all, what reflects any government’s real policies – is now smaller after accounting for inflation than in 2007, not long after the government was elected with a pledge to boost military spending.

Capital spending on military equipment has declined four years in a row and remains on a downward trend. As a share of the defence budget, capital spending has dropped to the lowest level since 1977-78.

These arresting facts, and others, were recently unveiled in a paper by David Perry, senior security and defence analyst for the Ottawa-based Conference of Defence Associations Institute. He notes that the defence budget became the sitting duck for the government’s deficit-reduction strategy. Defence cuts accounted for a quarter of the overall drop in government spending in the 2014 budget...

 

 

 

I'll concede they've done more than I gave them credit for, but they've also kicked the can down the road on a lot of big ticket items. I also, may have overstated the military as a 'major policy plank', but they sure do like talking up their military credentials with nice photo ops.

[VicHockeyFan]

I admit I'm not as pro-military (spending) as I used to be.  I'm happy with our military, just not super happy about spending on it...

[jonny]

I admit I'm not as pro-military (spending) as I used to be.  I'm happy with our military, just not super happy about spending on it...

 

Yes, I'm not prepared to cut social programs or hike taxes to expand the military. I do think that like a lot of other government programs we could get a better bang for our buck.

[AllseeingEye]

So what have the Conservatives done differently to earn a reputation as defence experts? I'm not saying that the opposition parties are better or worse, but when you make this one of your major policy planks, and then do nothing of note....

My point was not that they were "experts" necessarily, merely that based on where they sit on the political spectrum "in all likelihood" they are the party you would expect to pony up the $ for the military. That and - by comparison - neither the NDP or Liberals really have a grasp about things military in terms of concepts such as basic terminology. No Mr. Mulcair an "advisor" is not the same thing as a "boots on the ground, front line soldier". I think in a complex world any world leader should know something as basic as this. Either they are truly obtuse or he, or one of his spin doctor's, was being deliberately disingenuous.....

 

Re: the Tories I think that one quote you dug up fits nicely i.e. they like the idea of the military, they just don't always like the military itself...

 

There are a few immutable facts with respect to any military and especially the military in this country.

 

Fact one - any general or admiral worth their rank will always come knocking at the government's door looking for (more) funding. Fact two - equipment is expensive to design, procure, purchase and maintain. Wash, rinse, repeat cycle. Fact three - especially relevant in this country - procurement particularly is a very political exercise which only serves to increase the $'s required to meet the end goal/results. Fact four - and especially in this country -  our military equipment is (typically) ancient which means when Fact One occurs those dollars being requested are inevitably huge (by Canadian military spending standards) making the request for funding for upgrades or replacement hardware even harder to swallow no matter who is in power.

[Mr Cook Street]

Pretty much agree with all of that.

[spanky123]

Our navy has been an embarrassment in terms of projected power for a long time. This isn't going to make a lot of difference. We are still dependant on the US for defence should it come to that.

 

Canada's Navy has been nothing more than a flag bearer for decades. Half the time our ships sit in port because we either don't have the crews to sail them or the budgets to buy fuel. In an age of nuclear powered subs, carriers and cruisers the longest any of our ships would last in a shooting war is about 10 minutes.

[VicHockeyFan]

Canada's Navy has been nothing more than a flag bearer for decades. Half the time our ships sit in port because we either don't have the crews to sail them or the budgets to buy fuel. In an age of nuclear powered subs, carriers and cruisers the longest any of our ships would last in a shooting war is about 10 minutes.

 

That's why I think I might be agreeing with Jonny here (if I understand him right), we might need to re-purpose our navy a bit, get more value out of it.

[jonny]

That's why I think I might be agreeing with Jonny here (if I understand him right), we might need to re-purpose our navy a bit, get more value out of it.

 

Yeah. Like spending billions on useless submarines for the sake of saying we have a submarine fleet...maybe we'd be better off buying Coast Guard ships or coastal defense ships to help or a big ass aircraft carrier.

[spanky123]

Yeah. Like spending billions on useless submarines for the sake of saying we have a submarine fleet...maybe we'd be better off buying Coast Guard ships or coastal defense ships to help or a big ass aircraft carrier.

 

You have to have aircraft to put on an aircraft carrier!

[AllseeingEye]

You have to have aircraft to put on an aircraft carrier!

But lest we forget we actually did possess aircraft carriers as recently as 1970-ish. HMCS Puncher, Nabob and Bonaventure as I recall although not all in service at the same time. The latter (I think) we sold to Argentina. Canadians sometimes forget after WWII we actually had the third or fourth largest navy in the world for a short period there.

[VicHockeyFan]

But lest we forget we actually did possess aircraft carriers as recently as 1970-ish. HMCS Puncher, Nabob and Bonaventure as I recall although not all in service at the same time. The latter (I think) we sold to Argentina. Canadians sometimes forget after WWII we actually had the third or fourth largest navy in the world for a short period there.

 

And ASE I'm with you in being proud of our navy, for as long as I've been around.  But is it right for what we need, right now?

[AllseeingEye]

And ASE I'm with you in being proud of our navy, for as long as I've been around.  But is it right for what we need, right now?

Nope I hear you VHF and I was/am not suggesting we get back into the aircraft carrier business, merely reminding people we in fact did have them in the past.

 

IMO given our national and certainly political mentality, which is to spend as little as possible on the military and get away with it, clearly Canada needs to spend its limited resources wisely. For that reason carriers and even submarines (diesel boats as well as nukes - of course the latter above all) are problematic. Its not just the physical ships themselves but also the specialized infrastructure required to support those particular classes of ships in addition to the unique training required for both, making both prohibitively expensive.

For those reasons, again purely IMO, we should focus on a fleet of destroyer-escort type ships like the current Halifax-class. Back them up with a first-class, modern and armed coast guard capable of supporting the navy if required, providing coastal security and able to operate in the Arctic (icebreaker anyone??) as needed - I wonder how many Canadians even realize our Coast Guard ships are unarmed? - and that in my opinion would give us the naval presence that would satisfy both our treaty obligations and provide the level of security-surveillance a nation bordering on 3 oceans needs and deserves.

 

[AllseeingEye]

I hasten to add with regard to the text you highlighted I fully realize that our naval standing at the time was artificially induced by the fact that "traditional" naval powers normally magnitudes bigger than the RCN, such as Germany, Italy, France and Japan were, immediately after 1945, mostly sitting on the bottom of the seven seas....

[LJ]

^^Agree with that. A strong coastal defense navy in smaller quicker vessels, a couple of bigger armed coast guard cutters, and a couple of ice breakers would be all we would need in todays world. The threats we face today are not those of the cold war. We need more rapid deployment forces to go to hot spots or disasters, and the air force is well equipped with the globe masters to get them there. Newer fighters are a priority but we don't need air to air superiority fighters such as the F35 as we will likely never engage another air force.