# 8 Billion dollars pledged to the forces... Martin



## PTE Gruending (13 Apr 2004)

Military in line for billions

<snip>
OTTAWA -- Prime Minister Paul Martin‘s government will announce Wednesday a major investment of between $6 billion and $8 billion in Canada‘s ailing military, including the purchase of new supply ships for the navy, and reaffirm the government‘s previous commitment to award the long-awaited contract to replace the Sea King helicopters.
<snip>

 http://www.canada.com/saskatoon/story.asp?id=5F2D7015-E262-44E9-B3D4-2D214D12C039


----------



## Slim (13 Apr 2004)

Good if it happens.


----------



## kaspacanada (13 Apr 2004)

I have yet to see the actual announcement and not just newsmedia speculations about it.


----------



## Spr.Earl (13 Apr 2004)

If done properly those supply ships will take up a lot of the $8 Bil.
Modern ships are not cheap!!

Lets see what the Army gets.


----------



## Slim (13 Apr 2004)

> Originally posted by Spr.Earl:
> [qb] Lets see what the Army gets.         [/qb]


A crappy gun system more than twice as expensive as the same amount of tanks and support vehicles, frought with problems and NOT AT ALL popular with the troops.

Slim


----------



## tabernac (13 Apr 2004)

> A crappy gun system more than twice as expensive as the same amount of tanks and support vehicles, frought with problems and NOT AT ALL popular with the troops.


Any one know if the MGS has been field tested by any one? And is it really as bad is you say?


----------



## scm77 (13 Apr 2004)

If were getting ships capable of sealift, why still get the strykers.  I thought the problem with our Leopard tanks and other MBTs was that they are too heavy.  Now we have means to transport tanks.  IMO they should consider purchasing either Challenger 2s or M1A2(3)s, and scrap that Tankmobile Stryker.


----------



## AlphaCharlie (13 Apr 2004)

The Stryker is just a bad idea... nothing can replace a tried and true MBT such as the Challenger2 or the M1A2.... 

Even so the Leos are still fine. Instead of spending $2b on new Strykers toss $500mil of upgrades/new tanks and spend the rest on what‘s needed... equipment to fill the demand of stuff they‘ll need for the soldiers they want to recuit...


----------



## Korus (13 Apr 2004)

But tanks are too warlike

Heaven forbid that the military ever portray the image of being ready for war.


----------



## AlphaCharlie (13 Apr 2004)

I say ditch all government funded services and pump 90% of the annual budget into the military. We can have a super-army! We‘ll invade the USA and use their economy to make Canada socialist again, and put money back into healthcare and parks and whatever. It would take 10 years, maybe.


----------



## scm77 (13 Apr 2004)

How much money does the government have to spend on everything?  I bet if you took all our money we spend on everything the US would still have a bigger budget for military. US$400,000,000,000!!!


----------



## Slim (14 Apr 2004)

> Originally posted by AlphaCharlie:
> [qb] I say ditch all government funded services and pump 90% of the annual budget into the military. We can have a super-army! We‘ll invade the USA and use their economy to make Canada socialist again, and put money back into healthcare and parks and whatever. It would take 10 years, maybe.     [/qb]


     :blotto:  

Not to mention that the U.S. Marines by themselves are double the size of our standing military ( the whole thing!)

Not bad in the abstract though...


----------



## Da_man (14 Apr 2004)

> Originally posted by Slim:
> [qb]
> 
> 
> ...


but they are all in Irak.  we just need to sabotage their transportations first so they cant come back


----------



## Brad Sallows (14 Apr 2004)

Does anyone have anything which indicates any of this is new money?  All I see so far amounts to an announcement of stuff that was already planned.


----------



## Da_man (14 Apr 2004)

I think the Stryker is a very good choice...  You dont do peacekeeping missions with M1A2 tanks.


----------



## jonsey (15 Apr 2004)

Da_Man:

But, when the time comes, what would be better to fight a war with, the Stryker, or a tank?

Anyways, money is good, if it arrives.


----------



## Infanteer (15 Apr 2004)

> You dont do peacekeeping missions with M1A2 tanks.


So what do you do them in; oversized, underarmoured support guns?

Check out the success of the Leo troop in Kosovo and re-evaluate that statement.


----------



## dwild40 (15 Apr 2004)

I heard no mention of re-establishing our air lift capability.  I mean outside of aging Hercs and contracting out to civil air what do we have right now?
However I am not complaining it‘s 7 billion we didn‘t have yesterday.  One can only hope the money is spent wisely.


----------



## Infanteer (15 Apr 2004)

Bah...I‘m feeling generous today, so I‘ll let you skip some of the legwork.

Leo‘s in Kosovo


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (15 Apr 2004)

Its not necessarily the money but how its spent.


----------



## Tyrnagog (15 Apr 2004)

I had no idea of the success of the Leo‘s use in Kosovo, Infanteer..  Excellent read.

Thanks for the generosity..


----------



## Marauder (15 Apr 2004)

Like Mr. Sallows said, this is just a repackaging of a lot of old spending promises (we all know the Sea King fiasco), presented in such a way as to make the sheeple of this country (with their ever so short memories) think the *new* Liberals (Hmmm, who was Chretien‘s finance shlub?) are showing some concern for the welfare of the troops. Typical Liberal mushmouthed spin.


----------



## ArmyBrat (15 Apr 2004)

So, the $7 Billion is going towards 3 new supply/transport ships (Which is an awesome C2 investment) - new fixed wing SAR planes (Another awesome thing we need) - the Strykers (Ummmm, why are we buying these again?) -- and the maritime helicopters.

Not a bad day for defence, huh?

What about airlift?  Tactical airlift...not that strategic airlift you all seem to have your hearts set on.  Replacing some of the older Herc with new, extended Hercs?  Keep in mind, next to the USA...the only allie that has strategic airlift is Britain, with 4 C-17s.  But, replacing the Hercs with extended new ones would be good.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (15 Apr 2004)

I wonder if Canada Steamship Lines, or one of it‘s subsidiarys, is going to end up operating the new transport ships. The navy doesn‘t have the manpower, but Paul Martin‘s (son‘s) company does. Pretty suspicious that a shipping mangnate would all of a sudden decide to give us ships. Kinda like the Cretin buying new planes from his son in law at Bombardier.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (15 Apr 2004)

Well by the time the JSS enters service tyhe navy will hopefully have the crews for them after all we will be using the crews from our two existing AORs plus whatever is taken in during recruiting.


----------



## Armymedic (15 Apr 2004)

Bits and pieces...

Jay Hill (Conserv Defence critic) slaughtered the Gagetown press conference for the sham it was. The only good thing coming out is now we all get tax relief for overseas deployments. 

For me, thats $2100 for the last three months I spent during roto 13 Bosnia. It may serve as an incentive for people to go over again and again, but not so much to get people into the military in the first place.

As for the MGS,
I loved my time on Leopards, but thier time with our army is about done. We need to replace them. The Armour forum has discussed at length the replacement choices so lets not get into it here.
But just how many are we getting...

I heard 66 earlier in the Throne speach, another 66 at the budget, and 66 again yesterday in Gagetown... that over 370 vehicles...boy what a fleet. 

Anybody else sick of hearing the same old crap over and over again.

Keep it coming, I am still voting Conservative.


----------



## CDNBlackhawk (15 Apr 2004)

Well said Army Medic

Conservative all the way


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (15 Apr 2004)

You know the way I see it, it doesn‘t matter who gets voted in.  They all say what we want to hear to get in then flip flop on what they say.  Same spots different leapord.  There is 0 accountablility in every level of gov‘t these days.


----------



## ^*^batman^*^ (15 Apr 2004)

i think i will believe we get the money when we get it, and how it is spent, most likeley wasted on crap we dont need, or very overpriced stuff we do?!?!?!


----------



## CDNBlackhawk (15 Apr 2004)

Well said CFL, But one thing to consider, its not like we have anything to loose going Conservative, it not like it could get any worse.and they are saying alot more then the liberals are, which isnt necesarily a bad thing or good thing either.

Plus everyone has to make a choice and ask them selfs, whos is the greater evil of the two parties. too me, the  Liberals are the bigger evil.


----------



## 30 for 30 (15 Apr 2004)

Replacing our Leos with more heavy MBTs isn‘t really a realistic option considering our perpetually cash-strapped status. MGS brings two advantages:

1. Half as heavy as a Leo, which means cheaper and easier to deploy. I recently read that armour twice as heavy costs four times as much to deploy and maintain, and that the US M1 fleet costs the equivilant of Canada‘s defence budget to maintain.

2. Common chassis with out existing LAV 111 fleet, meaning considerable logistical simplicity and efficiency

Unfortunately, MGS also brings a host of serious engineering problems, protection/survivability problems and mobility problems. My vote would be for the M8 Thunderbolt with RPG protection and band tracks, which is also about half the weight of a Leo. 

Essentially the army will no longer be suited to conventional warfighting (unless it‘s prepared to encounter serious problems); Missions like Haiti, Bosnia and Kabul are ideal for our new-look army. To some, then, the transformation makes complete sense. Anyone with warfighting in mind is going to think differently.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (15 Apr 2004)

Can I ask the question: What is the difference between our army and Australia's?

We have often being involved in the same missions, we similar issues in regard to size and population. We also have the same allies. Australia bought the M1's because they know that SE Asia is the next hotspot and they also realize that if they want to play ball in the world, they need the right equipment. I think they main difference between them and us, is they have a government that has some balls, we have eunuchs.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (15 Apr 2004)

Australia spends more does it not?  They are also closer to the danger so the public/gov‘t see the need for a beefier army.


----------



## CDNBlackhawk (16 Apr 2004)

they spend a **** of alot more then we do, I will have to find a sight a saw a little while ago with a break down of nations in size, population, and what they spends on their military GDP.


----------



## nULL (16 Apr 2004)

Unless the manufacturers of military equipment alter the price to fit accordingly with the size of a country‘s GDP (which I‘m pretty sure they don‘t!) a budget is a budget, a dollar is a dollar. I believe we spend more on a dollar-per-dollar basis than they do, just we spend it on...something else...


----------

