I would definitely be okay with a tax increase to raise our defense budget. It's a pretty sad state of affairs and it doesn't look to be getting better anytime soon.
On the F-35 situation. I believe Trudeau has it right and I sincerely hope that we take Dassault up on its offer to buy the Rafale, get full tech transfer and build them here in Canada. That would easily offset any manufacturing loss we might (Lockheed hasn't given us guaranteed work yet) lose by not picking the F35
Yeah Dassault has come in Guns a blazing trying to get Canada's business. They have corrected the NATO compatibility of the weapons too which is a big plus. And I think they've dropped their prices on their offer for Canada.
1% of GDP is about right, all things considered. Those that spend more are either under constant real threat, or, in the case of the USA, projecting their muscle across the globe.
The short answer when it comes to CAF procurement is: "We have met the enemy and he is us." In other words, the politicians do not know the difference between a replenishment ship and a frigate or the difference between a third generation fighter and a fifth generation fighter. It is up to the military to define its requirement. The "government of the day" only knows what we pitch them.
Where I can cast some blame towards the government is at their inability to provide much direction in what the mission of the CAF is in their many policy statements.
__________________
"If you do not know what you are doing, neither does your enemy."
- - Joe Tzu
1% of GDP is about right, all things considered. Those that spend more are either under constant real threat, or, in the case of the USA, projecting their muscle across the globe.
We are now just below that, and the NATO defence spending target is 2% of GDP.
1% of GDP is about right, all things considered. Those that spend more are either under constant real threat, or, in the case of the USA, projecting their muscle across the globe.
I think you're incorrect, especially in a branch of the government where you're either putting lives in jeopardy, or trying to save lives.
The fact is that we spend less then 1%, I believe that last year we were at about .88.
Countries that aren't under threat like Australia, Italy, Brazil and France are all up around the 1.5 to 1.8% point.
The necessity of not treating the Forces like the ####### beggar in the back alley is plainly illustrated in the fact that the spending strategy of 1% or below is an abject failure and eventually you face what we're facing in Canada which is a failure of almost all equipment simultaneously.
If Canada had the foresight to evergreen equipment the effect on our defense spending would be far less dramatic.
Its stupid to sit there and think that you can nickel and dime things and then cry when you send troops into harms way and not give them what they need to succeed until you have to do a crash spending program (Afghanistan and others).
You can argue that maybe we need a smaller armed forces, but the fact is that we have a relatively puny military that was strained to capacity when we did a single battlegroup deployment, and then the military becomes basically broken after that for 5 years, because of accelerated rust out and troop fatique.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
The Following User Says Thank You to CaptainCrunch For This Useful Post:
I think you're incorrect, especially in a branch of the government where you're either putting lives in jeopardy, or trying to save lives.
The fact is that we spend less then 1%, I believe that last year we were at about .88.
Countries that aren't under threat like Australia, Italy, Brazil and France are all up around the 1.5 to 1.8% point.
The necessity of not treating the Forces like the ####### beggar in the back alley is plainly illustrated in the fact that the spending strategy of 1% or below is an abject failure and eventually you face what we're facing in Canada which is a failure of almost all equipment simultaneously.
If Canada had the foresight to evergreen equipment the effect on our defense spending would be far less dramatic.
Its stupid to sit there and think that you can nickel and dime things and then cry when you send troops into harms way and not give them what they need to succeed until you have to do a crash spending program (Afghanistan and others).
You can argue that maybe we need a smaller armed forces, but the fact is that we have a relatively puny military that was strained to capacity when we did a single battlegroup deployment, and then the military becomes basically broken after that for 5 years, because of accelerated rust out and troop fatique.
Let's be honest, the CF has be continually abused and under funded for decades and decades, even dating back to Korea.
The 70's and 80's were by all accounts an dark dark time in the CF. It was treated like #### and told to make due while more & more was cut.
It really all came to a head in the 90's with Unprofor and SFOR. To be frank the military was still exhausted from the mission in The Balkans. They were flat out from '92-'04 (although I think Canada might have rolled back involvement sooner than '04). Then they jump into The Sandbox in 2001 for 2011. That is 20 years of non-stop deployments.
Multiple missions for multiple soldiers, it was train, deploy, re-train, deploy, and continue.
NATO should simply enforce the 2% of GDP rule or you're out. Yeah it'd likely lose half its members but there's no point of continuing as a neutered entity, lest they become another UN
The US, the most expensive military in the world, hovers around 3 to 3.5 percent GDP on the figures I could find. I don't think Canada should be engaging in the role as world police like the US attempts to... and they always (100% of the time) screw it up and create other problems. Look at ISIS, which was only made possible because of what happened in Iraq.
If its less than 1% that we spend now, I'd support bumping it to 1% and I think the focus should be to our north. We should be looking after our own borders and asserting our sovereignty in the north, and beyond that only take on international peacekeeping where it aligns with our interests. We have no business being in Syria or elsewhere actively fighting.
I'm glad noone has come into the thread yet and just claimed something ridiculous like Canada doesn't even need a military, we don't have an enemy, etc etc.
Also, great writeups CC. Easy to read and follow for folks who aren't completely literate in military terminology.
Simply put, if Canada wishes to be a part of the NATO group, it needs to do it's part. Or leave. There are ways to make it work, but a PM and party need to have to cojones to do what needs to be done.
I still don't see why we need a 5th gen plane. I think we should look realistically at what would get the job done. The chances of Canada going alone against a country with 5th gen fighters in the future is gong to be pretty slim, looking back at our historical uses. Canada will always be better at fulfilling unique rolls in joint missions, rather than trying to keep up with the US.
Buying 65 fighters to replace our original fleet of well over 100 doesn't seam like a great plan, and given the size of our country I think we would be better of with a greater number of cheaper planes.
I'm also on board with more taxes for this if we need to. Harper has been cutting for years and still we don't have the budget for our needs. I think he has shown that we have a revenue problem here. We aren't going to be able to fund all these military needs by cutting back census forms and environmental monitoring and protecting. Cutting the GST when we have some much need for investment was a poor decision. But maybe this should go in the Federal election thread....
When it comes to spending, I think it should be proportional to what we are using the military for. If we are putting people into dangerous situations, then we need to fund them appropriately and give them the tools they need to mitigate the risks to their safety as much as possible.
Canada is a very good situation in that we have a 100% volunteer army. I don't think a lot of people truly appreciate how lucky we are in that respect. Being in the military isn't an easy lifestyle and it certainly isn't for everyone, but if you make it worse and make it more difficult to have volunteers enlist, it could eventually mean that conscription may be used in times of trouble.
Having said that, on a political level, I don't agree with all the decisions and the way the Canadian military has been used. I wish they would make decisions that would allow us to spend differently.
As mentioned in another thread, I think Canada should have a strong navy given how large we are and that we have 3 oceans to patrol. I don't think Russian or Danish ships should be able to sail through our straits without encountering a Canadian ship in their way.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
Last edited by FlamesAddiction; 09-22-2015 at 03:28 PM.
Interesting, a lieutenant general gets paid $21k a month. Not a bad gig.
He means that there is no conscription, there isn't one individual in the military that didn't join of their own volition.
And I will say that often the time to join is months/years. It isn't like Circle K, you don't get hired on the spot. There are a number of hoops to jump through.
lol, Lieutenant General might get $12K a month, but how many openings are there for that level. FYI, that is CEO type position within the organization.
Volunteer, as in people volunteer to enlist. Getting paid doesn't make them any less volunteers IMO. Just like paying a conscripted soldier doesn't mean they aren't there against their desires.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to FlamesAddiction For This Useful Post:
The US, the most expensive military in the world, hovers around 3 to 3.5 percent GDP on the figures I could find. I don't think Canada should be engaging in the role as world police like the US attempts to... and they always (100% of the time) screw it up and create other problems. Look at ISIS, which was only made possible because of what happened in Iraq.
If its less than 1% that we spend now, I'd support bumping it to 1% and I think the focus should be to our north. We should be looking after our own borders and asserting our sovereignty in the north, and beyond that only take on international peacekeeping where it aligns with our interests. We have no business being in Syria or elsewhere actively fighting.
Just my opinion, of course.
If you're going to focus on the North then you'd better be spending more then 2% at least over the next 10 years as we need the replacement ships for the navy including ice friendly ships. upgrades to our airforce for quick reqponse, and improvements to our sensor nets and intelligence gathering.
I want to add that the concept of peacekeeping is over and useless. Putting lightly armed blue beret'd troops into trouble spots is stupid,
Peacekeeping has to be peace enforcement especially in this day and age of rebel groups and insurgents.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
I still don't see why we need a 5th gen plane. I think we should look realistically at what would get the job done. The chances of Canada going alone against a country with 5th gen fighters in the future is gong to be pretty slim, looking back at our historical uses. Canada will always be better at fulfilling unique rolls in joint missions, rather than trying to keep up with the US.
Buying 65 fighters to replace our original fleet of well over 100 doesn't seam like a great plan, and given the size of our country I think we would be better of with a greater number of cheaper planes.
I'm also on board with more taxes for this if we need to. Harper has been cutting for years and still we don't have the budget for our needs. I think he has shown that we have a revenue problem here. We aren't going to be able to fund all these military needs by cutting back census forms and environmental monitoring and protecting. Cutting the GST when we have some much need for investment was a poor decision. But maybe this should go in the Federal election thread....
Our arctic circle neighbour and one of the biggest threats to arctic sovereignty is putting massive funds into developing not only 5th generation all purpose fighters, but also spending a ton of money on upgrading their frontal aviation units which consist of bombers and planes with anti-ship missiles.
The Russians are also spending a ton of money on next generation submarine technology and their newer boats have a slight quieting and sensor edge on the current American fleets.
I don't buy the argument of buying cheaper or buying near obsolete technology if you have an expectation of a 30 or 40 year life cycle. Remember when we bout the CF-18, they were bleeding edge fighters at the time and a smart purchase because they could keep up to the technology curve until now and could go through generational upgrades.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
The Following User Says Thank You to CaptainCrunch For This Useful Post:
