# Military Budget predictions



## a_majoor (15 Apr 2006)

In interesting and realistic assessment of what to expect:

http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/006249.html



> *When will the Conservatives start putting money behind their defence promises?*
> 
> In the forthcoming budget, I hope. But Gen. Hillier will not get those heavy-lift helicopters anything like as soon as he wishes.
> ...
> ...



I don't suppose anyone should have realistically expected anything different, and of course, even if a duffel bag with several billion dollars was delivered to my office, there is a lack of infrastructure to train new troops, not to mention flowing new equipment through the system to everyone. In a way, O'Conner's remarks are no surprise either, the only reason buying big ticket equipment takes a long time is the convoluted procurement process, something which the Minister and CDS should be working on as "job one".


----------



## GAP (15 Apr 2006)

If there is a serious will to change the procurement system, if only on a temporary basis, it can be done. As an example the Chinook is already a proven, approved product. The procurement of equipment for this mission was done rapidly (not sure what the process is called) and the majority of the "immediate" needs could be done also, it just takes the will of MND, PM and CDS. 

But is there the will?  The budget numbers and the relevent timeframe will give a good view of how rapididly the whole thing is going to be accomplished. So far the PM has shown his support, but is that going to be able to translate in numbers, especially in a minority government and  the "five priorities", all of which consume great gobs of $$


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Apr 2006)

It seems to me that the first question, for Finance Minister Flaherty, is: _”can I implement a 1% GST cut and give out $1,200.00 per child and let the provinces receive/keep some of the child care money the *Government of Canada* (not just the Liberal Party of Canada) promised without rolling back the income tax cuts made in the last budget?”_

If the answer is “Yes,” (and it *might* be possible) then whatever money is ‘left over’ might go to defence.

If the answer is “No,” then I think we get very, very little *new* money until the ’07 budget, if then.

We have been very lucky – good to great press, recently, makes Canadians concerned that _they_ are risking _your_ lives without giving you adequate resources.  I think most MPs are hearing this in their ridings and I think it is being reflected back into the caucuses.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (15 Apr 2006)

I don't have much faith with O'Connor at the helm.....he is already going the doom and gloom route.


----------



## MarkOttawa (15 Apr 2006)

Interesting (and maybe depressing) article in Ottawa Citizen today, "Tories freeze all spending on new gear for military":
http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=141129bd-ec2a-47a4-bb73-74945b5197f4

Excerpts:

'...
The big-ticket equipment projects, many put into motion last year by the Liberal government's defence policy paper, appear to now be in limbo, defence industry and military officials privately say.

In some cases, military planners are looking at rearranging the order of the purchases. Just before the election, the Liberal government announced it would spend $5 billion on buying replacements for the air force's aging Hercules transport planes. Now officers are re-examining that and looking at the likelihood of moving ahead first with the purchase of larger long-range transport planes, a program favoured by the Harper government...

Defence industry officials say there have been discussions on whether to scale down the project to spend $2.1 billion on a Joint Support Ship, a combination troop and supply vessel. The Liberals had wanted to buy a fleet of those ships as well as an amphibious assault ship, a project estimated to cost around $1 billion.

But one scenario that has been discussed in the Defence Department is the purchase of less expensive commercial tankers to refuel navy ships at sea. Under that scheme, the amphibious assault ship would take on some of the roles that would have been filled by the Joint Support Ship...
http://www.forces.gc.ca/admmat/dgmepm/pmojss/index_e.asp
http://www.navy.forces.gc.ca/mspa_news/news_e.asp?id=164

[New vessels in French service that might fit the amphibious assault ship bill, and we should have two:]
http://www.deagel.com/pandora/mistral_pm00192001.aspx

The Conservatives have promised to buy some of the same gear as the Liberals. But the Harper government is also committed to building a fleet of armed icebreakers as well as a deep water port in the Arctic, projects that analysts say will cost billions.

The lack of direction on procurement programs was highlighted at the recent CANSEC defence equipment show in Ottawa. There, some industry officials expressed frustration that much-needed projects were being delayed.

In particular, they pointed to the Defence Department's decision to "fast-track" the purchase of fixed-wing search-and-rescue planes. That program, to replace aging Buffalo aircraft mainly based on the West Coast, was announced with great fanfare in 2003 and was considered a priority program. But industry officials say they have seen little movement on the project...'

See "Somehow aircraft just don't get purchased":
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2006/03/somehow-aircraft-just-dont-get.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (15 Apr 2006)

I've said it before and I'll say it again:  I'm not surprised.  The Tories appear to be following a politically driven, O'Connor-developed defence strategy that bears little or no relationship to actual operational reality.  O'Connor bleated against the fast-track procurement plan when in opposition, so there was no way it would survive contact once the Conservatives were elected.  Instead, they'll follow a concept dreamed up in the backroom by a washed up Cold Warrior, rather than listen to people who are actually doing the job.  Icebreakers?  For what purpose?  3 x C-17s versus 15 new Herc replacements?  Why?  :-\

Politicians should provide guidance and direction ("we want you to do this") - the military provides capabilty ("here's what we'll do it with").  Whenever political types feel they know better than the operators which equipment - from grenades to cargo aircraft - is suitable for operational use, we're in big trouble.

My 2 cents...


----------



## MarkOttawa (15 Apr 2006)

Teddy Ruxpin: Not to mention those battalions for Goose Bay, Bagotville, Trenton and Comox!

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## FormerHorseGuard (15 Apr 2006)

i wish they could take the politics out of government shopping lists, get the best deal and be done with it.

i was watching a program on one of the US Airforce aircraft being made and how the company that designed and got it into production got around the budget and the politics of selling it to the US Government, the Airforce wanted it badly.

so no one in the senate or congress would even consider voting againist this huge project, the company had a piece ( hundreds of thousands or parts) made in every State in the Union, so if it was on the chopping block no would be quick to jump on the wagon and demand the project be canned. That was very wise move on the company but it made for a more costly aircraft i am sure.

I think the Canadian Government should do it in a more business fashion

How many federal government departments need for example new 4 door cars for staff visits or what ever, including police cars etc?

they should just arrange to buy all department cars at once  buy an equal number from each of the major car makers in CANADA, that way each gets a  share of the pie and we as the tax payer get a better break. all the DND staff cars are basically the same, and the police cars yes they need to be a bit different but you get the idea.

army needs new 2.5 tonne trucks, forget the riding make work projects, go buy the truck that makes the most sense for the army not who ever has a truck plant in his or her riding who needs to make their office look important, look what I did for my riding, i got them a  truck deal.

Helicopters is another mess, Canadian Content is a nice thing but if it raises the cost to where price is so much higher we cannot afford enough to do the job and have a few spares what is the point.

storage of equipment, rotate the darn stocks and do not ware house them till they rot on the tires and become useless unless they get a complete rebuild ( iltis jeeps at CFB Toronto in the 90s at the supply depot, they sat there for years, i use to have to play guard on base defence exercises and I use to walk around the Supply Depot and would see them sit there unused and never moved.)

take the shopping list and shop off ebay if the deal is there. 

my shopping list would be in this order

1) helicopters heavy lift
2) new cargo trucks
3) more of Lav family 
4) transport aircraft
5) light 4x4 trucks or g wagons 
6) pay raises for the members I know it should be higher on the list but they need the equipment more to protect the troops overseas
7) upgrades of equipment
8) new supply ships
ice breakers and jss ships are not in my thoughts 
just my thoughts
what  would your shopping list look like?
opie one


----------



## FSTO (15 Apr 2006)

My shopping list:

New AOR's for the Navy
Medium Lift Helios's
Attack Helios's (doesn't have to be Longbow or Apache, a Cyclone or Blackhawk with wpns pod would suffice)
Strat and Tac Airlift
SAR AC
Replace AAW Destroyers
Army equip (Trucks, LAV's, whatever else the grunts need  ;D)


PEOPLE 
As for training the new folks; all those guys getting out at 20 years (and there is a lot of us) hire them back on a 3 year contract to conduct Basic and QL training. These guys are not deployable, do not need career coursing, and we don't even have to write PER's on them. All they are doing is getting rid of the recruit/training bubble and allowing the front line pers the time to go on deployments, rest, refresh and get back out there again.

A final note, I support 100% the CDS's Standing Contingency Task Force. We should have had this capability and I think it is vital to our national interests.


----------



## orange.paint (15 Apr 2006)

My shopping List:

1.reg force combat unit in NFLD. (that alone would take care of recruitment)
2.tank replacement (with a tank)
3.med lift helo's


----------



## aesop081 (15 Apr 2006)

i would love to see a replacement for my 25 year old Aurora, which i will be flying until it is 40 under current plans


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (15 Apr 2006)

My List:
1 )  Heavy Lift Helicopters
2 )  BHS (need to start the process now)
3 )  C-130 Replacement Program (to include C-17's or A400M)
4 )  Buffalo Mine Clearance Vehicles (IED's scare the hell out of me....)
5 )  LAV-III DFS Upgrade (reallocation of MGS/MMEV budget)
6 )  MTVR's with armour packs
7 )  MALE UAV (foreign deployment & coastal surveillance)
8 )  Icebreakers (need them for political reasons or we risk loss of sovereignty)


Matthew.   

P.S.  Longer term I would sign onto P-8 (MMA) and create a strategic contruction plan to keep a domestic shipyard busy producing AOR's, FELEX refits, following the domestic production of the Icebreakers (we need to guarantee 20 years of construction to justify the infrastructure investment necessary to upgrade a shipyard to world-class standards).


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (15 Apr 2006)

Bored this evening, so I'll bite; here's my list (not in priority - and I didn't go surfing for shiny kit):

1)  MLVW replacement
2)  CC-130 replacement (not to include C-17s until the requirement is validated after the Hercs are replaced)
3)  Sufficient personal kit (including flak vests, desert uniforms, etc.) for each soldier in the Army, regardless of trade
4)  Sufficient next generation NVGs for each soldier in the Regular Army, with a pool for Reserve unit use
5)  SCTF interim capability, to include the ship(s), JSS, and sufficient landing capability
6)  Medium lift helicopters
7)  Proper recce vehicle to replace LUVW C&R
(8  Additional HL PLS trucks
9)  Rough terrain forklifts and Rough terrain sea container handlers
10)  Attack/recce aviation (would probably cut the number of Griffon airframes to make this happen)
11)  Tribal replacement
12)  Halifax mid-life refit
13)  JSF procurement
14)  New direct fire system (cancelling MGS and MMEV)
15)  Fund sufficient personnel to fully establish all existing units, plus CSOR - before starting up new battalions

Long enough?    ;D


----------



## George Wallace (15 Apr 2006)

One thing I notice that is conspicuous in its' absence is RADIOES with which we can all talk to each other.


----------



## Bomber (15 Apr 2006)

Don't need Radio's, I have a mug telling me that we are the "worlds first digitized Army"  Really good point though, perhaps ones that when plugged in, worked, and i mean in the field, not in an office, but in the frozen terrain of the artic, and in the heat and dusty of "over there", kind of like a 77 set, but maybe with a bit more range, and less than a Bazillion dollars.  

Also, in that Citizen article, it mentioned that Al Duequettville (VP of Boeing Canada) was confused about why it was taking so long, wasn;t he in uniform at one time?  And pretty high up in it, should he have a bit of an idea of the mess he was involved with, or is this just a surprise, when you could walk into the surplus store and order a 6 pack of Strategic lift, and a couple supply ships, just cause you had some mad money?


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 Apr 2006)

Interesting lists; we _outsiders_ need to look at it somewhat differently.  We do not have the technical _’smarts’_ necessary to say this bit of kit vs. that one, over there.  Nor do we have the local knowledge necessary to set sensible priorities.  Instead we should deal with capabilities.

As has been said here in Army.ca, we want armed forces to give the Government of Canada _*options*_* – a range of options for adding weight (muscle) to our policy pronouncements.  There might be some emotional satisfaction, for some, in being a moral superpower but it does not earn us anything when we try to advance or protect our own interests in the world.  We trade influence the same way we trade wheat or oil: the market value of our influence is based. Mostly, on our answer to the ”what have you done for me, lately?” question.  If we do little, except carp from the sidelines, then our influence trades at a very low price – junk bond status; if, on the other hand, we are able and willing to ’pull our weight’ and ‘punch above our weight’ and whatever other clichés might be appropriate, then our influence will be valuable, indeed.

The question is: how much?

We need forces which are established, manned, equipped, trained, organized and ready to be able to meet the sorts of commitments shown in the attached table, on fairly short notice:

•	A few weeks, if not just days, after orders (which means this is more time, one hopes, after warning) for level 4 and 5 operations;

•	Weeks, maybe a few months, after orders for level 2 and 3 operations; and

•	A few months after orders (mobilization, perhaps) for level 1 operations.

The implications include:

•	Balanced naval, land and air forces;

•	Balanced combat, support and sustainment forces – and some of those ‘forces’ may be contracted civilians;

•	Balanced availability: different units/groups at different levels of readiness as situations (and there are almost always several of them in play at once) dictate;

•	A firm sustainment (and expansion) ‘base’ of schools, dockyards, supply depots, strategic transport elements, engineering/test establishments, etc; and

•	A continuous recruiting programme so that the ‘feast/famine’ cycles which are so expensive are reduced, if not eliminated.

The last two are very difficult for politicians because, like too many business executives, they are unable (under the pressure of their shareholders) to do much long term thinking.  Just as the teachers’ pension funds, for example, force companies on to a ‘do better, quarter-after-quarter’ model (and say ‘to hell with long term growth and value’), so voters force politicians on to a ‘gimme something tangible, right now, in time for the next election’ model (and say to hell with value for money spending, etc).

That’s my list.

Sorry, I was tring to get the table inserted, even as an image; couldn't manage it; senior's moment, I guess!  :-[ 

*


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 Apr 2006)

Inspir said:
			
		

> Just out of curiosity. Anyone know the annual budget for the US Military?



Google is you friend: http://www.dod.mil/comptroller/defbudget/fy2006/index.html


----------



## Praetorian (16 Apr 2006)

1) Heavy Lift Aircraft (So we dont have to rent Russian ones)
2) Medium Lift Helicopters
3) Assault/Supply Ship (yes they can do both jobs: RN)
4) Tank Replacement (not an LAV with a 105mm strapped to the top plz)
5) Every Single Soldier fully kitted out  (not wearing woodland pattern in Kabul, just an eg, i know we have Arid Region CADPAT for this dep)
6) Destroyers (we have 3, each with 29 SM2's, Arleigh Burkes of USN have 105 each, ouch)

-note; the list is not in order of precedence.

Just my opinion, everything on the list is possible to reach within the next five years, there is things id like to see, such as nuc subs to protect the north, but that is a dream that wont become a reality for at least 10-15 years

Cheers   :cheers:


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (17 Apr 2006)

> 6) Destroyers (we have 3, each with 29 SM2's, Arleigh Burkes of USN have 105 each, ouch)



Really? I am not sure where you are getting your info but its wrong. Flight I of the Arleigh Burke class has 90 cells for their MK41 VLS system which they use to embark both Standards and Tomahawks, plus 2 quad launchers for harpoons. The Flight IIA batch of the Arleigh Burke class has 96 cells of which 6 cells are dedicated for the ESSM with 4 missiles per cell. the other 90 cells have the Standards and Tomahawks. Flight IIA also removes the CIWS and Harpoon missiles (although they can be refitted as needed). Both Flights will embark the VLA antisubmarine missile.



> 3) Assault/Supply Ship (yes they can do both jobs: RN)



I am curious which class is an AOR and and Assault ship. Why would you want to make your troops all the more vulnerable with carrying munitions and fuel?


----------



## Praetorian (17 Apr 2006)

My apologies
I misread the numbers for the SM2 missiles(doesnt change the fact that ours hold 29, and theres hold 90+)- how many do their cruisers hold as a matter of interest? (ticonderoga class)
As to the AOR/Assault, i believe the Fearless class were used for both during the falklands, as were converted merchants, besides one detonation is the same as the next, would it really matter how much explosive material is on a ship? if fire gets to the magazines or storage areas, wether uv got a thousand pounds of explosive or ten thousand your still gonna go to the moon.
Just makes sense as to cost, already the Americans are realising that and are using their carriers to refuel other ships at sea, as the carriers only refuel every fifty years. 
Also; I think the Navy would take anything it could get, it and the Air Force doubtlessly took a far greater hit from previous governments then even the Army.

 :cheers:


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (17 Apr 2006)

you are in error once again....

Any ship can be used to resupply another it does not make it an AOR...because we have a flight deck and carry and air craft does that make us an air craft carrier....nope.

Merchant ships are built to mercantile standards while most warships and auxillaries (yes there are exceptions) are built to withstand battle conditions...i.e water tight bulkheads (more of) and more hose stations. Most mercantile ships would not survive the conditions that a warship will so yes there is quite a big difference.


Tico's generally embark 60 SM2s


----------



## bbbb (18 Apr 2006)

The government will give the military all it needs. The Conservative government will do what it must to serve Canadians.


----------



## COBRA-6 (18 Apr 2006)

bbbb said:
			
		

> The government will give the military all it needs. The Conservative government will do what it must to serve Canadians.



Thanks for setting the record straight, now I can sleep at night again...  :


----------



## Edward Campbell (18 Apr 2006)

bbbb said:
			
		

> The government will give the military all it needs. The Conservative government will do what it must to serve Canadians.



I can hardly wait until you read 4th year history.

 _Sorry; too hard to resist._


----------



## Bobbyoreo (18 Apr 2006)

"The government will give the military all it needs. The Conservative government will do what it must to serve Canadians."


LMFAO....oh...that's priceless . I hope you can keep that extremely positive attitude thru your whole career.


----------



## MarkOttawa (18 Apr 2006)

Some useful thoughts from Douglas Bland,  Professor and Chair of the Defence Management Studies Program at the School of Policy Studies, Queen's University:
http://server09.densan.ca/archivenews/060418/npt/060418ch.htm?source=somnia

"Mobilizing defence capabilities in perilous times is a lost art in Canada. It is, however, an art the government must restore promptly if Prime Minister Stephen Harper is to achieve the national defence objective of a stronger military, as promised in the Throne Speech. Without significant reforms to defence management procedures, much money could be wasted, and Mr. Harper's goal of building a better, more capable military will likely fail.

Canada's last great defence mobilization effort began in 1950, at the beginning of the Cold War. In less than seven years, Canadian governments transformed the then tiny 30,000-man, poorly equipped armed forces into a 120,000-person, "high-tech" combat force with thousands of troops deployed in Europe, in the Atlantic, in North America and on peacekeeping missions in the Middle East and elsewhere. It was an impressive accomplishment made possible mainly because Ottawa was filled with scores of politicians and bureaucrats who had learned to manage wartime policies and to produce military capabilities quickly during the Second World War.

In 1993, Jean Chretien's government assumed that the "demand for armed forces" would decline, and he allowed the Canadian Forces to wither away. Significantly, as national defence and realistic attention to foreign policy dropped off the Cabinet table, public service skills and attention in these areas wasted away, as well. When Paul Martin became prime minister, he realized suddenly that the nation would soon become a country without armed forces or a say on the international stage. His plan to redress this crisis, nevertheless, was doomed by Ottawa's needlessly complex system of competing departmental policies, regulations, procedures and responsibilities for the production of defence capabilities.

General Rick Hillier, Canada's Chief of Defence, was in Toronto last Tuesday, where he laid out today's crisis starkly: "We need an acquisition process... that can deliver [major new equipment] in time. Not in 10 years or five years - [that's] not good enough." Unfortunately for the Canadian Forces and for Prime Minister Harper, there are very few experienced leaders in Ottawa today who could shape such a national mobilization strategy, and there is no credible system to manage such a strategy if one were discovered.

This largely explains the government-wide confusion in critical areas of defence procurement, personnel management, budgeting, defence industrial strategies and military base infrastructure. Overtop this muddle sits a parliament, suddenly eager to debate Canada's national defence, but ill-structured even to begin to do so in any meaningful way.

Three concerted, Cabinet-led initiatives must urgently be set in motion to change this.

- First, the Prime Minister should direct senior officials to present in the next months a comprehensive whole-government plan to rebuild and transform the Canadian Forces within the next five years. He should make plain that any policies, bureaucratic procedures or regulations that might impede this project are to be amended, modernized or discarded.

- Second, he should place the direction and implementation of this national plan in the hands of a single minister.

- Finally, the Prime Minister should engage Parliament in this (one would hope) non-partisan national effort to garner public support for a rapid rebuilding of the Canadian Forces. To this end, the Cabinet should convene a senior Cabinet committee on defence production chaired by the prime minster. The House of Commons should call together a well-funded committee, separate from the already over-tasked Standing Committee on National Defence, to oversee the rebuilding program. The Prime Minister might encourage the Senate Committee on National Security and Defence to join in this responsibility.

Prime Minister Harper expressed an essential truth when, surrounded by the boots on the ground in Afghanistan, he declared that Canada cannot play a meaningful role in our own interest or in aid of the international community "from the bleachers." The race now is between an armed force in steady decline and General Hillier's vision of an armed force "effective ... relevant ... and responsive" to a predictably violent world.

But let there be no doubt. The race will be lost if sensible military reforms remain burdened with the present government-wide, unresponsive system of defence management. Canada in the 1950s built from very feeble roots an effective, relevant and responsive military force in under seven years. Surely we can do the same or even better in these perilous times."

The proof  of the pudding will be in the budget's reading.  O'Connor as both defence critic and minister does not make me overly optimistic.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Daidalous (18 Apr 2006)

What gets me, if a large ticket item is needed for the military it takes years if not decades to get, but if a PM wants  Business Jets it gets fast tracked.    The government has ran the military the way my brother runs his car,   expect it to run on gas alone and drag his feet when he should be doing regular maintenance, forget about it for 60k then act surprised at the cost to fix the car.


----------



## aesop081 (18 Apr 2006)

bbbb said:
			
		

> The government will give the military all it needs. The Conservative government will do what it must to serve Canadians.



feewww........I was geting eorried there for a while bu now, thanks to you, i can rest easy.  To think that for the last 13 years i beleived that the government had no clue what the CF needed.....


----------



## Jungle (18 Apr 2006)

bbbb said:
			
		

> The government will give the military all it needs. The Conservative government will do what it must to serve Canadians.


Thank you bbbb... after 23 years in the Service, I can finally expect to see this happen !!!  :


----------



## Journeyman (18 Apr 2006)

[deleted by author, who felt guilt at being unnecessarily cruel to a harmless 3rd-year critter]

yes, I too was mocking bbbb


----------



## Inspir (18 Apr 2006)

Would I be safe in assuming that if the current CF (aka you guys) had a wish list, that it would be to purchase mostly what the American Military is using? I asked my old man this same question who's been 811 for 28 years and he says it will never happen, but hes just getting old and grumpy with age.


----------



## COBRA-6 (18 Apr 2006)

Inspir said:
			
		

> Would I be safe in assuming that if the current CF (aka you guys) had a wish list



_I_ have a wish list, it remains to be seen if the new government will shell out for 24" chrome rims for the G-Wagon though...


----------



## Inspir (18 Apr 2006)

Maybe some hydraulics too


----------



## The Bread Guy (20 Apr 2006)

It appears the CF may be reviewing its OWN wish list....

 Shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the _Copyright Act_ (http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/info/act-e.html#rid-33409)

*LIBERAL PROMISES PUT ON ICE * 
Stephanie Rubec, Ottawa Sun, 20 Apr 06, p. 23

''The military is set to scrap major equipment purchases announced by the former Liberal government. 

The Canadian Forces, with the blessing of the governing Tories, is reviewing its shopping list to find extra funds to pay for expensive Tory priorities. 

A top officer involved in the review said Prime Minister Stephen Harper's military spending priorities, like icebreakers for Canada's North, are proving much more costly than the Tories expected. 

During the election campaign, Harper promised Canadian shipyards would build military icebreakers. 

But the senior officer said Canadian shipyards lack the experience to build them, while the ice's thickness requires mammoth ships with a hefty price tag. 

'POSITIVE ENERGY' 

The officer said brass see the change in government as a chance to sink questionable Liberal-championed projects. 

"There's a lot of positive energy from the Conservatives," the officer said, adding the PM's trip to Afghanistan last month showed he's behind the military. 

A Defence Department official said the military's wish-list mirrors most Tory priorities, beginning with the replacement of Canada's oldest Hercules aircraft. 

The senior official said the military is studying buying six Boeing C-17 planes, with an eye to using the youngest Canadian Hercs for another five years. 

That would scrap the Liberal promise to spend $5 billion on the newest generation of Hercules planes. ''


----------



## MarkOttawa (20 Apr 2006)

Thank goodness the Navy icebreakers may be sunk--now it only the Coast Guard can get new ones.

"...with an eye to using the youngest Canadian Hercs for another five years."  Sure opens the door for the A-400M.

Meanwhile what about the fixed-wing SAR aircraft replacement and heavy/medium (which is accurate?) helicopters?

Even if six (!) C-17s are acquired rapidly what will replace the CC-130Es used for SAR?

In a paranoid moment I see an eventual fleet of Bombardier Q Series for SAR and a limited tactical transport role (much less effective than either the C-27J or C-295), and the remaining transports being C-17s and A-400Ms.

An honest question: would that make sense?

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (20 Apr 2006)

> It appears the CF may be reviewing its OWN wish list....



MGen (now LGen) Leslie has been doing this for some time...  Make me wonder how much of a "CF's" wish list it really was....  ^-^


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (20 Apr 2006)

Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> MGen (now LGen) Leslie has been doing this for some time...  Make me wonder how much of a "CF's" wish list it really was....  ^-^



Any chance MGS/MMEV might die a quick and painless death?


Matthew.


----------



## MarkOttawa (21 Apr 2006)

From the Globe, April 21, "Hillier's aircraft plan in doubt".  Looks like C-17s a done deal (and O'Connor was complaining in opposition about writing specs to favour the C-130J!) and Herc replacement will be well down the road.  And I still worry about Bombardier and fixed-wing SAR--see final para.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20060421.PLANES21/TPStory/National

Excerpts:

'The Harper government is strongly considering buying up to six Boeing C-17 long-range military transport planes at a cost of more than $1.2-billion [note: this is ex-factory price, not life-cycle as is given below for a C-130J buy--talk about skewing the figures to low-ball], a move that would overturn the plans of both the previous Liberal government and the Chief of the Defence Staff, General Rick Hillier.

The purchase, which defence industry sources say could be announced in the coming federal budget...

It would also likely rule out, for the time being, Gen. Hillier's proposal -- announced in the dying days of the previous Liberal government -- to spend $4.6-billion on 16 short-haul tactical transport planes, most likely Lockheed Martin C-130Js.

"If they go with six [C-17s], that means they'll delay tactical lift," a source close to the Defence Department said. "Hillier will react to that."..

Sources say the government would announce it plans to buy a fixed number of strategic aircraft by a certain date, possibly as early as a year from now.

The requirements would state that the aircraft must also have tactical or short-haul capability, which the C-17 does, to ease pressure on the badly outdated Hercules fleet.

That requirement would rule out the Russian-built Antonov, which the Canadian military has rented to deploy its Disaster Assistance Response Team.

Unlike the C-17, which can land on rough runways as short as 900 metres, the Antonov requires 3,000 metres of paved strip...

Senior officials in the Defence Department met last week to discuss procurement priorities, known internally as the defence capabilities plan, sources familiar with the meeting say.

During the meeting, department officials were told the new government intends to buy strategic lift, new fixed-wing search-and-rescue craft, support ships and helicopters -- in that order...'

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (21 Apr 2006)

I wish they would begin using both figures for procurement press releases and public discussions at all times:

The Ex-Factory Cost
The Life-Cycle Cost

I think the Life-Cycle Cost is good for planning purposes but the sticker shock it causing the general public is horribly negative.

Imagine a car salesman offering someone a Honda Civic with a Life-Cycle cost of $65,000 for 20 years.

It's just bad optics management....


Matthew.    ???


----------



## Edward Campbell (23 May 2006)

Here is an interesting article from today’s _National Post_, reproduced here under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act:

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=0114c58b-99b7-4e2c-972b-04fc7dab37cb


> Armed icebreakers too costly, military says
> *Arctic plans: Officers view Tory election promises as unworkable
> 
> David *********
> ...



It appears that the defence staff has recovered from the election and the Afghanistan vote and is preparing for a Tory majority.

Rob Huebert (University of Calgary) has it about right, I think.  It’s not that we could not make excellent use of ice-breakers (even with global warming).  The question is: out of which budget?  In my personal opinion sovereignty protection is best done by a _constabulary_ force backed up by a visible and visibly capable military.  In addition, also my personal opinion , only two agencies of government should have ‘heavy’ weapons (anything above small arms/light machine guns): the Canadian Forces and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.  Thus, for me (as Jean Chrétien might have said), armed ice-breakers would belong to the Marine Division of the RCMP (maybe along with very fast armed _corvettes_ for counter-smuggling and sovereignty patrols in ice-free waters).


As someone else commented in a weekend Op-Ed piece in one of the dailies, Stpehen Harper is an economist, the first non-lawyer to lead our government since Mike Pearson in the ‘60s.  He thinks like an economist; he is concerned about choices, trades and outcomes.  He may see troops, of some sort, in Comox and Goose Bay and suitable ‘trades’ for a kept promise and a majority government.  That being the case he (through O'Connor) might tell Hillier and company to suck it up and soldier on, after they put something in Comox and Goose Bay.


----------



## Journeyman (23 May 2006)

Interesting article.....absolutely nothing new, but interesting nonetheless. I can't help but feel Harper _et al_ are starting to get a bit miffed (I believe that's the correct Political Studies term   ) that National Defence continues to garner headlines, when it has been repeatedly stated that the military is _not_ one of their policy pillars.

I would, however, like to nit-pick with U Calgary's Rob Huebert's statement that "the military sees its role as mainly conducting overseas operations such as in Afghanistan." I suspect it would be more accurate to say that the military is focused upon its current priority deployment, which is Afghanistan. It sees its role as being capable of responding to whatever National Security, or military-related Foreign Policy, demands the elected government makes upon it. While those demands often require expeditionary capabilities, that is not the CF's _raison d'être_. A Liberal government chose Afghanistan; the minority Conservative government reaffirmed the mission's continuance; the CF merely implement's the government's decision.

Oh, and I did like the almost throw-away line about "A defence think-tank last week released figures that Canada's commitment to Afghanistan...." That ******** went into no more detail, or even bothering to name the Institute, indicates an acceptance that their figures are dubious at best. Of course, referring to any group whose byline is "...retooling citizen movements for democratic social change in an age of corporate-driven globalization," as a _defence think-tank_, seems a bit of a stretch as well.


----------



## MarkOttawa (23 May 2006)

Edward Campbell: There are still those pesky regular battalions promised for Bagotville and Trenton.  The Coast Guard badly needs new icebreakers; these would be fine for sovereignty patrols in the Arctic.
CCG vessels already act as platforms for armed RCMP or Fisheries officers when required.   Do the same in the Arctic if/when necessary.

Meanwhile the reporter, a journalist, manages to include a couple of gratuitous jabs at the Afstan mission.



> The army also has concerns about the Conservatives' plan to station troops in Goose Bay. The army is focused entirely on its ongoing mission in Afghanistan and there are questions about where troops for new army units at Goose Bay and other locations would come from...



I wonder what the mission in Goose Bay might be.

And a silly Afstan vs. Arctic reference:



> ...University of Calgary defence analyst Rob Huebert said...Mr. O'Connor is going to "have a huge battle on his hands" in moving forward significant parts of the government's Arctic agenda, particularly with the Afghanistan mission scheduled to continue until 2009...



Journeyman: a journalist is utterly deceptive when he describes the Polaris Institute as a 





> defence think-tank


  It is no such thing.  Here is its motto:



> ..retooling citizen movements for democratic social change in an age of corporate-driven globalization.


http://www.polarisinstitute.org/

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Journeyman (23 May 2006)

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Journeyman: a journalist is utterly deceptive when he describes the Polaris Institute.....


I know. It was my intent to deny them any additional, undeserved advertising....


----------



## a_majoor (23 May 2006)

Journalists, parlimentarians and our own defence establishment should probably be focusing much more on the organizational and institutional bottlenecks and roadblocks within DND which make getting anything from new boots to new icebreakers such a tedious and expensive proposition than the quantitative counting of dollars and cents.

After fixing the black hole of administrivia, ordering prioraties and maybe splitting off several projects (i.e. large icebreakers could be a Coast Guard item, we would co pay for a large helicopter deck and perhaps some below deck accomodations space for embarked troops when required) should come next. A defence white paper is almost certainly in order, and a well reserched and written white paper would almost certainly put paid to some of the more bone headed ideas like battalions stationed in the middle of nowhere.

Without clearing the institutional and organizational bottlenecks, I would say that no amount of money added to the budget would never solve our problems, no matter how much or little is added.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (23 May 2006)

Although I understand the temptation to limit investment in Arctic assets due to needs in other areas, I think IF we're really going to push for real control of an area we deem as sovereign, and no one else accepts, we need to have more than an ad-hoc plan and constabulary force.  As I've said before we need to announce "the rules" of operating in our sovereign ocean and then have the assets to escort conveys through that ocean.  

And with that in mind, the clock is ticking - the planet is getting warmer very quickly and unless we get more proactive we're going to have a large number of unsafe foreign-flagged ships operating in ways we don't agree with and they will have set precedents that will be incredibly hard to undo.

That being said, although others have argued the point due to unionized nature of the Coast Guard, I think strategically my first step remains bringing the Coast Guard under a military chain of command.  My bottom line is that we need to have one team working on domestic ocean surveillance, feeding information to one command centre, with one master procurement plan.  


Matthew.


----------



## Journeyman (23 May 2006)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> ...focusing much more on the organizational and institutional bottlenecks and roadblocks within DND which make getting anything from new boots to new icebreakers such a tedious and expensive proposition


You mean like the untendered, $101+ million acquisition of two executive model CL-604 _Challengers_ for the use of Chrétien's cabinet? Apparently the bottlenecks _can_ be removed.



			
				Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> ....we need to have more than an ad-hoc plan and constabulary force.


 I agree. It became ludicrous that we ended up swapping flags on Hans Island with the Danes - - a country that in 1940, surrendered to a telegram.



			
				Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> I think strategically my first step remains bringing the Coast Guard under a military chain of command.  My bottom line is that we need to have one team working on domestic ocean surveillance, feeding information to one command centre, with one master procurement plan.


Here, however, I disagree. The roles of the Navy and Coast Guard are, and ought to remain, distinct. While maintaining integrated maritime situational awareness is absolutely necessary, I don't think creating an even larger bureaucracy would benefit anyone (except bureaucrats, naturally)


----------



## MarkOttawa (23 May 2006)

Journeyman: Regarding integrated maritime surveillance, see: "Keeping an eye on all the ships at sea" (May 6)
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&call_pageid=971358637177&c=Article&cid=1146865814587

Excerpt:
'...
And a nondescript office building at Canadian Forces Base Esquimalt promises to be the new front line for the decades-old defence alliance that once protected the continent from the threat of Soviet bombers. This building houses a marine security operations centre, one of two in Canada...

Each weekday morning, representatives from National Defence, Transport Canada, the RCMP, the CBSA, the Coast Guard and the fisheries department gather at the operations centre to discuss the possible threats...

Another team does the same job in Halifax for the Atlantic Ocean and eastern Arctic. At any given time, the two centres are monitoring some 1,000 ships of all sizes.

(A third centre, overseen by the RCMP and likely to be built somewhere in the Niagara Region, will keep vigil over the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Seaway, which were actually flagged by the Senate defence committee as having the "greatest potential for terrorist activities.")..'

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Jungle (23 May 2006)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> ... I don't think creating an even larger bureaucracy would benefit anyone (except bureaucrats, naturally)


Good point; and like I read before somewhere:


> Bureaucracy grows to satisfy the needs of the growing bureaucracy


I believe the CF are very much a victim of this...


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (23 May 2006)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> I agree. It became ludicrous that we ended up swapping flags on Hans Island with the Danes - - a country that in 1940, surrendered to a telegram.
> Here, however, I disagree. The roles of the Navy and Coast Guard are, and ought to remain, distinct. While maintaining integrated maritime situational awareness is absolutely necessary, I don't think creating an even larger bureaucracy would benefit anyone (except bureaucrats, naturally)



Have you looked at the Australian "Coastwatch" model?

http://orbat.com/site/air_orbats/orbats/other/australia_coastwatch.pdf#search='coastwatch%20australia'


M.


----------



## Kirkhill (23 May 2006)

I'm afraid I am with Matt on this.

A presence in the north is needed.

I grant that Edward is correct that only a constabulary force is needed in peace time a constabulary force is the PRIMARY need in peace time.  The Mounties are a constabulary force.  It seems reasonable that having them do search and seizure is a wise move.

The Coast Guard is not a constabulary force although some members have constabulary powers to enforce the Fisheries Act.  The Coast Guard themselves however apparently do not see themselves as chasing down perpetrators.  At 15 knots they would be hard pressed in any event.

Perhaps having Mounties operating in Mountie crewed boats/hovercraft/helicopters launched from Coast Guard vessels might serve.

However Edward and others also state that the constabulary needs to be backed by heavy weapons,  that the heavy weapons should be in the hands of the CF (in particular the Navy in this case unless we are contemplating arming the Mounties with 76mm Oto's).  I agree with all of that.

My question is when will you permit the building of Navy ships that can navigate the ice and carry a heavy enough weapon to back up the Mounties?


----------



## warrickdll (23 May 2006)

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> Although I understand the temptation to limit investment in Arctic assets due to needs in other areas, I think IF we're really going to push for real control of an area we deem as sovereign, and no one else accepts, we need to have more than an ad-hoc plan and constabulary force.
> ...



I am also in agreement that arctic sovereignty is an item that must be addressed now rather than later.

While the interested parties (CF, CCG, RCMP, CBSA, DFO, etc) all require the necessary resources to pursue and coordinate their slices of the sovereignty pie, I would also state that only the CF should have the means and mandate to confront a militarily armed opponent. 

The CF should also be capable of at least confronting any opponent regardless of seasonal/geographic considerations. So I would inverse the following proposition:


			
				a_majoor said:
			
		

> ...After fixing the black hole of administrivia, ordering prioraties and maybe splitting off several projects (i.e. large icebreakers could be a Coast Guard item, we would co pay for a large helicopter deck and perhaps some below deck accomodations space for embarked troops when required) should come next....


And instead advocate for Navy icebreakers which other agencies could either co-pay in advance, or purchase passage upon - as I see less benefit in having CCG vessels capable of going where the Navy cannot.



How committed is the government in having new units stationed in Bagotville, Trenton, Goose Bay, and Comox? What would be their exact nature? Will current units be expanded or at least brought up to strength? Where will the reserves receive their increase? How quickly?

The early fifties presented similar problems for Canada: Korea, military reinvestment, and an immediate troop requirement (NATO). Though the situation was more severe then, the same effort and solutions could be reapplied. If it could be accomplished over 50 years, maybe it can be accomplished today.


----------



## Michael OLeary (23 May 2006)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> My question is when will you permit the building of Navy ships that can navigate the ice and carry a heavy enough weapon to back up the Mounties?





			
				Iterator said:
			
		

> While the interested parties (CF, CCG, RCMP, CBSA, DFO, etc) all require the necessary resources to pursue and coordinate their slices of the sovereignty pie, I would also state that only the CF should have the means and mandate to confront a militarily armed opponent.



Against what threat?  Because that will determine what "means" will be necessary?


----------



## warrickdll (23 May 2006)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> ...
> Against what threat?  Because that will determine what "means" will be necessary?



Granted, now, limited. On all coasts you are looking at the ability to stop or seize a belligerently crewed merchant vessel, which would probably only require a small/medium sized deck gun. Also, if you are going to say you do not want foreign submarines in your waters, you need to have at least some sort of ASW capability (regardless of your real intent to use it). 

But what is really missing is the simple naval capability of bringing any weapons systems (or troops) into arctic waters during the same seasonal conditions that other nations can.


----------



## Michael OLeary (23 May 2006)

Perhaps one of our ASW experts could explain what an arctic ASW capability would entail, I assume the theortical threat is a nuke boat under polar ice?


----------



## Kirkhill (23 May 2006)

Would it be appropriate to be able to meet the Danish Thetis or a USCG Cutter with a similarly armed vessel so that we can companionably swap bottles of Jack, CC and Gamel Dansk (Don't drink the Gamel Dansk!!)

When not swapping bottles they could be practicing taking pot shots at offending foreign fishing vessels and the occasional smuggler.   I don't know as how we need naval ice-breakers so much as we need armed patrol vessels capable in operating in the ice and that are capable of out-running your average trawler, container ship or tanker.  And the ability to land a Medium helicopter would be nice.

These hovercraft that are being discussed elsewhere I don't see them as being anything more than a launch or a landing craft that would operate from a fixed base or a vessel in waters where conventional displacement craft can't operate.


----------



## Cloud Cover (23 May 2006)

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Journeyman: a journalist is utterly deceptive when he describes the Polaris Institute as a





> a defence think tank.





> It is no such thing.  Here is its motto:
> http://www.polarisinstitute.org/



So thats it then ... its an "_anti_-defence think tank." But even in that case, the word "tank" is not appropriate....


----------



## MarkOttawa (25 May 2006)

Airbus still lobbying hard for A400M" "Plane maker steps up pressure on Forces:
European firm rallies support for 'fair, open' competition for new transport aircraft", Ottawa Citizen, May 25 (full text not online).
http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=f9b60783-9fab-4a90-ac95-1b03b984d921

Excerpts:

'Concerned that the Harper government is set to hand a multibillion-dollar contract for long-range military aircraft to a U.S. firm, a European aerospace consortium is trying to rally Canadian companies to lobby for a fair and open competition.

EADS Canada has sent letters to more than 100 small- and medium-sized companies asking them to join the push to allow a competition in the program to buy strategic lift aircraft for the Canadian Forces...

The company that eventually wins the contract to provide strategic airlift planes will be required to provide regional industrial benefits, essentially spinoff work for Canadian industry.

If the federal government proceeds with awarding the contract to one firm, Mr. Johnston said, it severely limits the leverage it needs to negotiate such industrial benefits.

The A400M is currently being built and is expected to fly starting in 2008. Critics of the plane say it won't be ready in time for Canadian needs. But EADS says it could start deliveries to Canada shortly after 2010.

EADS officials also question whether there is a need to buy strategic airlift planes immediately, noting that Canada has access to such aircraft under a NATO program.

Boeing officials are optimistic the Harper government will place an order for their giant C-17. A program to purchase four to six C-17s is estimated to cost around $2 billion...'

Comments:

1) As an airplane that still has not flown, and as one that will have all new engines, how realistic is to expect the A400M to go from first flight in 2008 (if that schedule holds) to deliveries to Canada "shortly after 2010" (does that mean 2011)?

2) I think I have read that a major problem with the Antonovs that NATO has leased is that they have no short/rough field capability (unlike the C-17) and thus could not land at more forward airbases where the C-17 can.  True?

3) The A400M may serve as a strategic lifter for most Europeans, but they do not often have to fly the trans-oceanic ranges we do--which makes the A400M much less suitable for Canada.  True?

Mark
Ottawa


----------

