# Strict security, growing costs impede major military purchase



## GAP (5 Aug 2008)

Strict security, growing costs impede major military purchase
U.S. limiting exports to Canada over espionage fears, files show 
DANIEL LEBLANC From Tuesday's Globe and Mail August 5, 2008 at 3:48 AM EDT
Article Link

OTTAWA — Ottawa is facing an uphill battle to carry out a promised purchase of $17-billion in new military equipment because of stringent U.S. security rules and ballooning costs caused by a series of delays, newly released documents show.

According to Foreign Affairs briefing notes, the government is blaming U.S. security measures that limit the export of military technology to Canada, as American authorities fear some Canadian workers will engage in espionage.

In addition, documents from National Defence show the government will either have to pay an extra $300-million in "overrun cost" to purchase a fleet of 16 Chinook helicopters, or settle for less equipment.

The Harper government announced in 2006 that it was purchasing three new fleets of aircraft, three new ships and hundreds of new trucks for the Canadian Forces. However, only one new fleet of planes - the giant Boeing C-17s - is operational, while another fleet of Hercules C130J cargo planes is on order.
More on link


----------



## Greymatters (5 Aug 2008)

GAP said:
			
		

> According to Foreign Affairs briefing notes, the government is blaming U.S. security measures that limit the export of military technology to Canada, as American authorities fear some Canadian workers will engage in espionage.



Are they referring to Canadians conducting espionage against the US, or Canadians acting on behalf of third parties conducting espionage?


----------



## CBH99 (5 Aug 2008)

I think they are concerned that individual Canadians may participate in espionage against the US by sharing/exploiting the technology with 3rd parties.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't a similar article published in the papers about 6 months ago - one of the things hindering certain contracts from being signed??  One thing that points to this is that Canadians who are also citizens of certain other countries are not allowed to participate in any part of the contract, such as Vietnamese, Iraqi, etc, etc.

Personally, I don't really understand what the issue is.  Chinook helicopters are nothing new -- why are they worried that the "technology" may be exploited?  Its an aircraft that has been in service for decades, and many of the systems onboard would be fairly standardized and most likely Canadian in origin anyhow...would they not??  (Out of my lane here, correct me if I'm wrong.)

Same thing goes for the C130J.  I don't understand where their concerns come from in regards to the technology being exploited by individuals.  Its a cargo plane, in which the history goes back several decades also.  We're not talking F-22 or F-35 technology here, nor are we talking about aircraft currently in development.  We're talking aircraft that are in service all over the world, that have been around for decades....what is all the fuss about??


----------



## aesop081 (5 Aug 2008)

CBH99 said:
			
		

> Personally, I don't really understand what the issue is.



Thats because you are not thinking beyond the airframe itself. If our aircraft (Chinnok or Herc) come equiped with things like DEWS, MAWS, CMDS, LAIRCM, etc....  then it becomes a technology security issue.

Another concern is that parts for those aircraft are in demand in certain nations that operate older versions of both and those countries are no longer on the US side of the GWOT. The US is increasingly concerned about user nations selling ( illegitimetaly of course) parts to beligerent nations.

I'm not saying that they have a valid concern when it comes to Canada but concerns none the less.


----------



## geo (5 Aug 2008)

Aviator...
The Chinooks of England, Holland, Australia, Germany and a wide range of other countries are equiped with such technology.  Somehow I think these other countries are just as porous to industrial foreign national spies as we are....


----------



## aesop081 (5 Aug 2008)

geo said:
			
		

> Aviator...
> The Chinooks of England, Holland, Australia, Germany and a wide range of other countries are equiped with such technology.  Somehow I think these other countries are just as porous to industrial foreign national spies as we are....



Listen, i'm not saying that there is a problem with us specificaly. Those countries aquired their Chinooks a long time ago ( in the RAF's case for example) but what i am saying is that the US definately thinks twice and looks everything over a few times before exporting anything.


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Aug 2008)

This is a _*post 9/11*_ issue - just one of many.

All countries are having similar problems. Our dual citizenship laws exacerbate the problem for some Canadians and for some Canadian employers.

The US restricts the flow of information - end to end - in terms of who may have access to it. Canadians, _qua_ Canadians, may have access to all but the most extremely sensitive information but a Canadian who is also a citizen of, for example, Syria may not because Syrians - all Syrians, even those with Canadian citizenship - are precluded from having access to that information. Being a dual national disqualifies that particular Canadian from having access to information the US is willing to share with most other Canadians.

Employers in Canada are precluded, by Canadian law, from discriminating based on _inter alia_ dual nationality. Therefore a Canadian company that wants needs access to US classified information - to do part of he work on US equipment being sold to and maintained in Canada, for example - must find a way to *segregate* some employees with dual nationalities without, in any way, impeding their careers and prospects in the company. It's a worry. It's just one of the reasons why so many immigrants have so much trouble being hired. It's not going to get easier soon.

The US has an absolute right to control 100% of its information any way it chooses. If we don't like it we can buy other stuff.


----------



## CBH99 (5 Aug 2008)

Ah, Aviator....like you usual - you always make good points.

I understand the concerns about sharing technology illegitamately with countries that are no longer friendly to the US....but aren't those concerns mitigated by our own demands??  We are undoubtedly going to require replacement parts, and lots of them - because we tend to keep aircraft for a very, very long time.  However, I understand the US concerns to be valid in regards to industrial espionage.

I am curious, and I don't believe I'm violating any OPSEC rules by asking....but don't Canadian companies provide many of the systems that are installed in the aircraft??  Either C130J or Chinook -- and therefore, since most aircraft are "Canadianized" before entering service, most forms of industrial espionage could happen in regards to those systems anyhow??

I'm completely out of my lane here, so if Aviator or anybody else could answer them I'd appreciate it.  I was always under the impression that many systems that were installed in Canadian aircraft were Canadian in origin, and therefore wouldn't pose a risk to US technology being exported here.


----------



## aesop081 (5 Aug 2008)

Geo, i will give you an example of the US maintaining a straglehold on technology transfer.

*JSF*

While the F-35 will be sold to a good number of countries ( those that dont back out of the deal for the JAS 39...haha) , the US will not relinguish total control over the computer software that makes the thing fly. Those nations who purchase the F-35 will not be able to tinker with / modify / whatever to the software of the aircraft unless the US has a hand in it.

CBH99.....

"Canadianization" does not always mean "equiped with Canadian designed and built systems". It can always simply be a matter of inputing systems built elsewhere that differ from the standard manafacturing model. Besides that, alot of modern EW related systems are not built in this country.


----------



## CBH99 (5 Aug 2008)

Ah, thanks for the clarification Aviator.

I was always under the impression that when things were "Canadianized" - it meant that the government was trying to promote Canadian industrial spinoffs by installing Canadian technology aboard the projects being purchased.  Thanks for the clarification.


----------



## armyca08 (11 Aug 2008)

A number of Canadian Companies - based in Quebec supply components for the JSF, 50+ companies although only 125million of close to 1/4 trillion $'s or between 0.0006%  and 0.001% profit share.

Although I'm wondering about this can not modify software thing. It is situations like that that would have you hope the many many bright local scentists and programmers could be put to work developing local technologies - but it is all essentally a NATO shopping list anyway.

There is no lack of technological talent in Canada. The DND appears to rather spend a few Billion on buying standard equipment than developing a weapons project - we all know what happened with the AVRO - a damn fine aircraft that ended up being peicemeal for future US Fighter Platforms. It seems now Canada just pays the US directly rather than doing the research for them too - well not exactly true with the 50+ insitutions involved in the JSF in Canada.

I do find it sad that Canada ended up on the USA's restricted export list - although I find it odd that Canada can't produce equivlent technology on its own - I think it could. But it is all about standards. I wouldn't hesitate to home brew the technology.


----------



## lennoj (11 Aug 2008)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> This is a _*post 9/11*_ issue - just one of many.
> 
> All countries are having similar problems. Our dual citizenship laws exacerbate the problem for some Canadians and for some Canadian employers.
> 
> ...



This is quite true, and to add to your well laid out post on the operational side of contract law processes...for those who are interested.

1) DND outsources or contracts out something to private industry
2) PWGSC is responsible to do the security clearance on that company, however, only the DSO or CSO has to be cleared in order to receive a clearance for the entire company for handling/production/information sharing/whatever of that controlled good.

The two points above - _sensu stricto_ - could very well be where the US's concern lays. Industrial Espionage is one of the primary threats to Canada and to our economy as it stands current. 

--ER Campbell, where did you receive your LLB?


----------



## geo (12 Aug 2008)

One of the problem with contractors in Canada has to do with their employees...

US defense contractor has an  employee born in China, Russia or Iran.... these peiople become US Citzens and are cleared to operate 
Cdn defense contractor has an employee born in China, Russia or Iran... these people become Cdn Citzens - contractor is not permitted to have them anywhere near the work being done for the defense project...


----------



## George Wallace (12 Aug 2008)

geo said:
			
		

> One of the problem with contractors in Canada has to do with their employees...
> 
> US defense contractor has an  employee born in China, Russia or Iran.... these peiople become US Citzens and are cleared to operate
> Cdn defense contractor has an employee born in China, Russia or Iran... these people become Cdn Citzens - contractor is not permitted to have them anywhere near the work being done for the defense project...



You didn't see the difference?



The Cdn Defence Contractor's employees didn't become US citizens.    ;D



On the more serious side, but following that statement, the "new" US citizens would then be liable to US laws and regulations and more easily monitored/controlled/policed by US authorities and open to prosecution under existing US Laws.  The Canadian "citizens" would not be so easily "regulated".


----------



## geo (12 Aug 2008)

Yup... am well aware - guess they just don't trust our securtity "vetting" of those new canadians


----------



## rtangri (12 Aug 2008)

My two cents:

Canada should show some backbone strength, clearly ask Washington one more time; "Are you going to sell us all the equipment with at least most technology, or should be buy from Russia, a country not only willing to sell more products with no delay, but a country which will also sell the products with all equipment." Not only is it disrespectful of the US to be treating us like a satellite country that harbours terrorist, but it undermines the dual effort playing in North American security. Also, better relations with Russia would also be made. Canada should always try and work alongside our southern brother, USA, and hopefully both countries work to being partners, rather than the father son relationship enjoyed by the USA. Russia has the same, if not some better arms, and for cheaper, loyalty to the USA has always been our concern on the security front, but enough treating us like idiots. Canada deserves NEW equipment, and if not even that, at least very functional, and semi-technological equipment that comes at no delay and at a very discounted price. 

Do I see Russia possibly supplying our new weapons , time will tell, and I guarantee you for anyone who is about to try and be a genius by saying well Georgia just got invaded, so its going to be hard now, ITS NOT. National defense comes before opinions of an invasion on another continent, especially in the case an arms dealing country like Russia.

Thanks


----------



## Snafu-Bar (12 Aug 2008)

Makes more sense to put forward a homeland effort to produce our own tools and instuments for own defence purposes. The US should have no say in producing our own defences within our own borders with our own people and technology.

 They may not "like it" but they certainly don't have the right to put the stop to it.

Cheers.


----------



## karl28 (12 Aug 2008)

As a  Canadian  I would love to see Canadian made and operated military equipment .   I am just not sure how the rest of the public would go for it .  It would probably take twice as much money to  develop and build here in Canada . The left leaning voters would have a field day with that crying out how unjustified it is to spend that much on National Defense ( I don't agree with that  thinking  but it would probably happen something like that )  .     Basically with the current majority of the voter mindset in Canada I just do not see the CF getting any major  Canadian made equipment any time soon .


----------



## Snafu-Bar (12 Aug 2008)

It would create much needed jobs and promote forward thinking by it's people. The alternative of throwing money at other nations does NOTHING good for us at home beyond procurement.

 National Defense needs to be treated like any other industry we have and as such promote it, nurture it and develope it.



Cheers.


----------



## geo (12 Aug 2008)

karl & snafu... buying Canadian is a great concept but, consider the time it takes to go from the design to prototype to production model.  Once the model is decided upon, then we have production costs - spread out over a small number of units... and finally, the kit we have probably won't be compatible with the kit used by our allies.

We've experienced this problem time and time again.  Considering the size of our Forces - buying canadian isn't always the best solution.


----------



## Snafu-Bar (12 Aug 2008)

The price of National Defence in the grand scheme of things FAR outweighs any costs as far as i'm concerned. If it takes a billion dollars to get together a defence network of manufactures so be it. That billion invested will pay off later when it's needed the most.

 pay now or pay twice later. 

 As for OUR kit not being compatible with our allies what relevance does that have on the defence of our own nation? 


Cheers


----------



## George Wallace (12 Aug 2008)

Snafu-Bar said:
			
		

> As for OUR kit not being compatible with our allies what relevance does that have on the defence of our own nation?



AH!

This statement tells us a lot.  It tells us that you really don't have any concept at all about these matters and their relevance to Canada's position in the World.  Sorry, but that was a very telling statement that exposed your lack of experience and knowledge.


----------



## Snafu-Bar (12 Aug 2008)

I am a civvy still, and experience of the inner workings are obviously not privvy to me. If it makes me look like a fool so be it, but from my perspective having the tools and utensils of defence being made at home for our own defence seems to have no relevance upon how it fits in with the likes of our allies.



Cheers


----------



## geo (12 Aug 2008)

Snafu....
If our troops are on the front line and things break, it would be good that our kit IS compatible with those of our allies.  Their maintainers and our maintainers can pool their resources and ensure that ALL the kit works as it should and we can keep ALL our fighting troops fighting... instead of having them fighting with one arm tied behind their back (handicaped) OR waiting back in the rear - waiting for repairs to be completed - prior to rejoining the fight.

You have to look at the big picture - else you'll be paying thru the nose.
By your statements I figure that you haven't started paying taxes yet OR if you are, you aren't paying too much at present.
Trust me - it hurts.


----------



## Snafu-Bar (12 Aug 2008)

Ok i got ya now, i mistook compatibility with crossfit  Having something that the others don't and supplying it ALA filling a hole. 

 Yes having something that can be of scavengable use is all part and parcel of cutting costs and easing wait times, but i still don't see how having our own gear made at home would be such huge hurdle. If it's something that is being culled due to political or other such treaties or regulations(avro arrow) then i say it's time we stood up for ourselves.

 And yes been paying taxes for 20+ years now thanks.


----------



## George Wallace (12 Aug 2008)

Snafu-Bar said:
			
		

> I am a civvy still, and experience of the inner workings are obviously not privvy to me. If it makes me look like a fool so be it, but from my perspective having the tools and utensils of defence being made at home for our own defence seems to have no relevance upon how it fits in with the likes of our allies.
> 
> 
> 
> Cheers



Being able to communicate on the numerous types of radios is of very high importance.

Being able to chamber and fire Ammunition is of very high importance.

Being able to get replacement parts for vehicles is of very high importance.

Being able to use the various types of fuel is of very high importance.

Do these make more sense?


----------



## armyca08 (12 Aug 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> You didn't see the difference?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Oddly I disagree with that assertation- although I may not understand the scope of the NSA and CIA operations outside the US verses the FBI and NSA (homeland security) within the US. I always thought they were far more liberated on the outside of the US even with the domestic tapping laws overiden by the president.


----------



## armyca08 (12 Aug 2008)

geo said:
			
		

> karl & snafu... buying Canadian is a great concept but, consider the time it takes to go from the design to prototype to production model.  Once the model is decided upon, then we have production costs - spread out over a small number of units... and finally, the kit we have probably won't be compatible with the kit used by our allies.
> 
> We've experienced this problem time and time again.  Considering the size of our Forces - buying canadian isn't always the best solution.



Coulnd't you like engineer it to work with the unit attachments you would have bought?
Also isn't it all Canadian Money anyway? What does the unit cost matter if 50% of that goes back to the government as taxes and the rest stays in the Canadian Economy?


----------



## geo (12 Aug 2008)

armyca08 said:
			
		

> Oddly I disagree with that assertation- although I may not understand the scope of the NSA and CIA operations outside the US verses the FBI and NSA (homeland security) within the US. I always thought they were far more liberated on the outside of the US even with the domestic tapping laws overiden by the president.


Given that those new Canadian citzens are residing in Canada, it would be real hard for the US authorities to exercise control over them..... VS what they can do with those living within their borders.


----------



## George Wallace (12 Aug 2008)

armyca08 said:
			
		

> Oddly I disagree with that assertation- although I may not understand the scope of the NSA and CIA operations outside the US verses the FBI and NSA (homeland security) within the US. I always thought they were far more liberated on the outside of the US even with the domestic tapping laws overiden by the president.



 ???

Who said anything about outside of the US.  The point is, if they are US citizens, in the employ of a US Defence Contractor, they would be more susceptable to prosecution under US Laws than had they been Canadian or any other Foreign citizen working for a Canadian Defence Contractor.


----------



## rtangri (12 Aug 2008)

yeh guys it would be great if Canada could produce its own defense. Not only jobs, but the profit off selling the weapons to ally (and not so ally haha) countries.  Yet.... Unfortunately, my ethnic country (India) attempted the same. Realizing the enormous cost of buying all their arms from Russia, and waiting for the US to send their second hand airplanes and aircraft carriers, the result: India tried to develop its own tank.... Years and years afterwards, with the too many governments using the funding to the program politically (some governments over-funded the project resulting in corruption, and other underfunding, well resulting in the obvious). America is more of a two party politics that both realistically could be seen as mid to right (dem) and right (rep). They both know the military development is in the nations interest, Canadians are too lefty (AKA NDP party hahaha) too see that not only does it benefit them to develop their own weapons, the jobs, the profit of sales, and technological advancements. 

back to topic, buy from russia, the military shop for the power seeking nation! haha. By the way, the Indian tank was useless, India would still continue to buy off Russia and will for the next 50 years!


----------



## rtangri (12 Aug 2008)

BY THE WAY
another thing done in India:

Giving contracts to RUSSIAN companies to produce arms but must produce half or all of the item in INDIA. Basically Russian technology being put to use under the Indian labour force: Russia wins with its companies being profitable as labour is cheaper, India wins as it gets cheaper weapons.


----------



## geo (12 Aug 2008)

rtangri...

Would you mind knocking of with the "haha's"..... not funny for one thing.

When Canada chose it's new family of weapons, a company called Dimaco was incorporated and manufactured under licence, the C7 and C8 under licence from cold and the C6 and C9 under licence from FN.  Many years later.... Diemaco is now part of Colt.

When Canada chose it's new family of armoured vehicles, GM Diesel manufactured the Cougar & Grizzly under licence from MOWAG from Switzerland.  Later, GM Diesel produced the Bison... and then the LAV III.... Now, GM Diesel is part of General Dynamics Defence

Starting to see a pattern here ???

The Canadian market is VERY small and when dealing on the international market.... we'll get eaten alive over time - if we have an interesting product.


----------



## rtangri (13 Aug 2008)

THE point of the comments I am trying to make are that temporarily Russia would be a great alternative to the US
thanks


----------



## TacticalW (13 Aug 2008)

rtangri said:
			
		

> THE point of the comments I am trying to make are that temporarily Russia would be a great alternative to the US
> thanks



I would say now would "not" be a good time with the current world situation to rely on Russia for our military's hardware, maybe if they one day become faithful allies with the west sure, but not until then. For now they are a threat to our interests and there's always room for things to get worse.


----------



## KevinB (13 Aug 2008)

rtangri said:
			
		

> THE point of the comments I am trying to make are that temporarily Russia would be a great alternative to the US
> thanks



Please STFU.


----------



## cameron (13 Aug 2008)

The last time I checked most of America's security leaks came from their own people.


----------



## George Wallace (13 Aug 2008)

cameron said:
			
		

> The last time I checked most of America's security leaks came from their own people.



That's quite profound, seeing as they don't allow outsiders into their mists.   I could compare that comment to "Women are 99% more likely to get cervical cancer than men".   >


----------



## geo (13 Aug 2008)

... women are 99.99% more likely to get pregnant 8)

... women are 99.99% more likely to get maternity leave ;D

... Married women are more likely to live longer than married men. 
Which leads to the question of why the men would die earlier.... ???
Answer:  Because they want to >


----------



## geo (13 Aug 2008)

rtangri said:
			
		

> THE point of the comments I am trying to make are that temporarily Russia would be a great alternative to the US
> thanks



Hmmm... at a time when Russia is acting it's old bearish self, you think that we should be buying equipment from them VS equipment from secure suppliers from allied countries ???  And if Russia suddenly decides to tinker with parts & programming OR choses to withhold essential parts OR declares war against one of our allies ???  What are we supposed to do with all that expensive kit ???


----------



## aesop081 (13 Aug 2008)

rtangri said:
			
		

> THE point of the comments I am trying to make are that temporarily Russia would be a great alternative to the US
> thanks



Algerian MIG-29s anyone ?

 :


----------



## Greymatters (13 Aug 2008)

rtangri said:
			
		

> yeh guys it would be great if Canada could produce its own defense. Not only jobs, but the profit off selling the weapons to ally (and not so ally haha) countries.  Yet.... Unfortunately, my ethnic country (India) attempted the same. Realizing the enormous cost of buying all their arms from Russia, and waiting for the US to send their second hand airplanes and aircraft carriers, the result: India tried to develop its own tank.... Years and years afterwards, with the too many governments using the funding to the program politically (some governments over-funded the project resulting in corruption, and other underfunding, well resulting in the obvious). America is more of a two party politics that both realistically could be seen as mid to right (dem) and right (rep). They both know the military development is in the nations interest, Canadians are too lefty (AKA NDP party hahaha) too see that not only does it benefit them to develop their own weapons, the jobs, the profit of sales, and technological advancements.
> 
> back to topic, buy from russia, the military shop for the power seeking nation! haha. By the way, the Indian tank was useless, India would still continue to buy off Russia and will for the next 50 years!



I dont want to stereotype you as some kid sitting in his mom's basement, but you write  like some kid sitting in his mom's basement.  Please stick to topics you are knowledgable on, which apparently isnt Canada, and stick to topics as outlined in the thread, as your reply weaves around to different subjects like a drunken sailor...


----------



## Edward Campbell (13 Aug 2008)

A few more (random) points:

•	A defence industrial base may be a very god thing – even a strategic requirement for countries that are certain that their survival depends upon a superior military; but

•	Despite the fact that much of what we take as the “modern world” resulted from or was radically improved by military R&D, military industries are, generally, bad investments. For all the acknowledged successes of civilianized defence production, we would likely have gotten all the benefits just as soon and at substantially lower cost had “we” (all of us) not had to pay for a huge, lumbering and generally technologically inept* US and Russian defence _development_ systems;

•	Countries like Canada can and do compete in the Western defence industrial base; but

•	As a general rule we succeed despite government plans and policies; and

•	Everything we buy for our armed forces ought to matter. If it matters then we should be able to guarantee that everything we buy can be maintained – through to factory level rebuild – on shore (i.e. in North America) or, at least, within the borders of a reliable ally. That means we must *never, ever buy Russian equipment* - not until Russia is an American colony, in any event. 


---------------
* How can anyone describe the US (or Russian) defence industries as technologically inept? Because, in my opinion every technological success was accompanied by too many failures – more than the equivalent success : failure ratio for similar civilian industries. Someone with some time on their hands and access to an average university library service can verify that fact - and yes, I'm certain it is a fact.


----------



## armyca08 (14 Aug 2008)

I still think it is easier to DIY.. I'd like to see the US MIC start buying off Canadian Crowns for outdated techs at 10x the startup value so they can force forward momentum in the technology.

I personally think Canada should be able to service its equipment without relying on other countries - as part of the Security Establishment - no ifs ans or buts.

Although Canada has leased Russian Equipment - leasing is not much differet than purchasing. Only the needs are more temporary..

actully know what came out of these delays --- leasing of russian and american equipment .... $$$$$.



D.I.Y. and don't offer a IPO until you can afford a takeover.

With a crown corp you build infrastructure and pick who you would like to build up.. like other crown corps.. but hold on is that getting close to socialism? What you are upset you are paying 2x the cost for 50% taxed, and 30% profit share, and 10% infrastructure development, and 10% support for local employment and jobs provisions and food and stuff for people and a bunch of patents and capacity for on demand production

The US DOD is the largest company in the world...


The other option.. buy those companies and rake in sure profits


http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=gd


Stuff like that may help with Quebecs laging export sector due to the high dollar , and ontarios manfacturing slump.. why buy used leopards when you can buy a closed auto factory and DIY


----------



## KevinB (14 Aug 2008)

A 65 ton tank with laminate armor and a sophisticated electronic fire control system and other systems is a hell of a lot different from a Ford F150...

Canada ruined its Arms industry by closing Canadian Arsenals, and ammo with Dominion Arsenals.  Canada got out of the Crown Corporations for defence in the Trudeau years.

Losing Diemaco to Colt Defense was another sin.


----------



## cameron (14 Aug 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> That's quite profound, seeing as they don't allow outsiders into their mists.   I could compare that comment to "Women are 99% more likely to get cervical cancer than men".   >



Good one George you got me there  but i'm just saying that Canada wouldn't be any less competent at keeping state secrets than our neighbours south of the border.


----------



## George Wallace (14 Aug 2008)

cameron said:
			
		

> .................but i'm just saying that Canada wouldn't be any less competent at keeping state secrets than our neighbours south of the border.



Actually; Canadians are very lax when it comes to Security Matters.  Why did the Government bow under pressure from "people" who claimed that they expected to see what their "Tax Dollars" did for them and "Why couldn't they access military Bases?" and come up with this "OPEN BASE POLICY"?  I have lived on all types of CF Bases over the years and I can tell you our Security is a joke.  Now, I ask you, as a Foreign Government, would you trust your State Military Secrets to a country like that?


----------



## cameron (14 Aug 2008)

Well I must admit I didn't know about that open base policy (What will Canadian politicians think of next?), you win on that point.


----------



## KevinB (14 Aug 2008)

ah the wisdom of the Open Base policy  :

second Canada was implicated in selling Bell 212 Helicopter to Iran several years ago...


----------



## Greymatters (14 Aug 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Actually; Canadians are very lax when it comes to Security Matters.  Why did the Government bow under pressure from "people" who claimed that they expected to see what their "Tax Dollars" did for them and "Why couldn't they access military Bases?" and come up with this "OPEN BASE POLICY"?  I have lived on all types of CF Bases over the years and I can tell you our Security is a joke.  Now, I ask you, as a Foreign Government, would you trust your State Military Secrets to a country like that?



An unarmed overaged overweight and physically limited security professional guards your local CF base. 

Not true in 100% of cases, but it is the most common stereotype...


----------



## rtangri (15 Aug 2008)

As for calling me a drunken sailor: Canada is leasing some Russian helecopters temporarily arent they?


----------



## aesop081 (15 Aug 2008)

rtangri said:
			
		

> Canada is leasing some Russian helecopters temporarily arent they?



I leased a GM once.....that didnt meant it was what i wanted or needed. What i did need was a car in a hurry to hold me over until i could get what i wanted.

Those helos we are leasing, we dont have to maintain them for 20 years and hope we gets adequate parts and sevice for that period of time.


----------



## geo (17 Aug 2008)

rtangri said:
			
		

> As for calling me a drunken sailor: Canada is leasing some Russian helecopters temporarily arent they?


Canada is leasing russian built helicopters operated by a canadian based company.... not the same thing


----------

