• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Government hints at boosting Canada’s military spending

Status
Not open for further replies.
I have long said that you could fund the CAF to 4 percent of GDP, but we would still lag behind in NATO and be much the same where we are.

It's never the money, it's politics. It's procedures. It's the pork-barreling in our defence spending that makes us a paper tiger in NATO.

My only hope in all of this for the CAF and the GoC, whatever the political stripe that may be, is that it will rouse them out of the "Peace Dividend" slumber. The world has been unstable since 1945. We have used geography, proximity, and association as a Defence Policy ever since. ICBMs don't care how close to the U.S. or how far from Russia/China we are.

Don't give us a dime more, but let us spend money on defence like it matters. The fact we follow the same rules for purchasing a fighter aircraft as we do for buying office furniture for a Service Canada office is disgraceful. Don't treat defense procurement as a stimulus package for Canadian Industry. There I said it.

We spend so much money, time, and effort trying to get that money to stay in Canada; be it by awarding contracts to companies with no capability to produce items without first "retooling" and"developing the production lines", or by hamstringing perfectly competent and competitive bidders by forcing the project to be made in St. Margaret de Poutain de Champignon, QC because the ruling government either lost the seat in the election, or won it with promises.

We spend so much money and staff hours jumping through TBS regulations that are great for other departments, but are terrible for defence procurement. Some items you have to sole source, because there are technologies and capabilities no one else makes. By doing the bid process, you get companies clamoring for a project they can't deliver on, but because they tick the bright boxes on the score sheet....

I truly and honestly belief we need to split from PSPC and legislate that its not beholden to TBS, only to the PBO/PCO. The guiding principles of this new Defence Procurement department should be "Off the shelf, from somewhere else" if there isn't an industry in Canada.

BOOTFORGEN has demonstrated how well we do when we are able to actually get what we need, instead of lining the pockets of a Canadian company that got lucky.

That, but with tanks, fighters, ships, weapons systems....
 
Costs are inevitably passed on to end consumers (buyers, renters).
True, but the intent would be similar to a foreign buyers tax and create lower priced principal residences, not higher priced rentals. Would it work / how would it need to be designed? Don't know. But we already have precedent for all of
-buyer pay time of sale taxes (Land Transfer)
-buyer segmentation taxes (foreign)
-differentiation between principal residence and non (capital gains exemption)

There's a lot of space for a tax to generate and income and influence the housing market before getting to a sellers tax on principal residence.

But going way OT here
 
Costs are inevitably passed on to end consumers (buyers, renters).
Not when demand is elastic, such as when said demand is propped up by speculation.

Now is that the case right now? I have no idea. Are there other factors that could make me wrong? Yes. My point is just that no, as a rule, costs are not inevitably passed on to consumers. Although, generally, at least in part, and in some sectors, it may be in very large part so.
 
C8 should

The C8 should have been the standard small arm for all positions, less hard Cbt Arms position, where the long barrel might be useful in the 250-400m range.

I had an aviation colleague tell me with a straight face that he thought the C7 was a necessity for all aircrew, since we would “need to reach out to 600m if we ever went down.” I told him we would part ways ASAP if we ever went down, and that I’d rather stick with the SE.. part of SERE, than drawing fire and having to do the ..RE part of SERE. He thought a lot of himself as a shooter, but I don’t recall a strong correlation between PWT3 score and his self-assessment.

The only time I found a 9mm useful was in dealing with Soviet-trained locals who mentally aligned them to ‘guy with the pistol is to be listened to, while guys with rifles should stand to the side and kill about while they talked with ‘pistol guy’ .’

Or should that just be everybody gets a C8.

MG/DMR tms get 7.62.
 
Or should that just be everybody gets a C8.

MG/DMR tms get 7.62.
Not sure I’d go that far…because I wouldn’t want to be ‘that guy’ the same way Mr. C7-to-fight-his-way-away-from-the-crashsite, and try to tell INF/ARTY that a C8 would suffice…some might want the extra reach the C7 gives, but I think most A/B-echelon folks (and tankers) would be better off with the C8.
 
A glimmer of hope? From Warren Kinsella







I caught about 2 minutes of JTs speech to the EU before my gag reflex kicked in. I figured I would read about it in the funny pages. But from the tone and content - middle class, democracy, climate change - I figure he is pitching himself for some international position.

I hope it happens soon.
I’ve said before. I am convinced he won’t be running again.
 
Not sure I’d go that far…because I wouldn’t want to be ‘that guy’ the same way Mr. C7-to-fight-his-way-away-from-the-crashsite, and try to tell INF/ARTY that a C8 would suffice…some might want the extra reach the C7 gives, but I think most A/B-echelon folks (and tankers) would be better off with the C8.
Theoretical range.
The C8SFW 16” barrel is more than enough for any practical 5.56mm range.
Heck I shot a guy @400m with a 10.3” Mk18 - yes I brought the wrong gun, but the C8CQB in 11.5” barrel length is fine for 300m and in.
Mostly it’s troops not hitting targets - not the weapon…
 
Theoretical range.
Exactly. The whole “C7 massively out ranges C8” thing is a bit of an urban legend dating back to iron sights being the standard, as with an iron sighted weapon a longer sight radius does indeed help with long range accuracy. With an optic, not so much.
 
Exactly. The whole “C7 massively out ranges C8” thing is a bit of an urban legend dating back to iron sights being the standard, as with an iron sighted weapon a longer sight radius does indeed help with long range accuracy. With an optic, not so much.
I shot a 16” gun at CFSAC with a 1-4 S&B Short Dot and had no issues outshooting C7’s at 500m.
Other than one R22eR MWO getting angry I shot a match in sandals, and didn’t find my ‘dress of the day’ comments humorous, I won a couple of matches, which I don’t think he appreciated.
 

Interesting results.
I'm actually surprised there's an even split towards more taxes for defence spending. This is more support than I expected.

As well as greater support for increased defence spending (45%) than social spending (39%).
 

Interesting results.
Because a tax increase would only be need for Defence increases, not the bazillions of dollars for universal pharmacies and dental care… 🙄

Another crap survey set up to bias the answer from the outset…Canadians deserve everything they’re not going to get…
 
Not sure I’d go that far…because I wouldn’t want to be ‘that guy’ the same way Mr. C7-to-fight-his-way-away-from-the-crashsite, and try to tell INF/ARTY that a C8 would suffice…some might want the extra reach the C7 gives, but I think most A/B-echelon folks (and tankers) would be better off with the C8.
I thought the tankers already used C8's?

Exactly. The whole “C7 massively out ranges C8” thing is a bit of an urban legend dating back to iron sights being the standard, as with an iron sighted weapon a longer sight radius does indeed help with long range accuracy. With an optic, not so much.
Individually, but what's the section range. The range where a section can hit a target (or is that not a thing anymore). I'm fairly confident that the C7 one is longer by a significant amount. Isn't that a useful metric considering you don't attack a position by yourself?

edit: of course I prefer a C8 myself, range really isn't an issue onboard ship!
 
I thought the tankers already used C8's?
They do, I just wouldn’t want to be part of any implied support to forcing C7 on all orgs who should have the C8 pulled and given the C7 back again (to wit Armour, which I agree should retain the C8).
 
They do, I just wouldn’t want to be part of any implied support to forcing C7 on all orgs who should have the C8 pulled and given the C7 back again (to wit Armour, which I agree should retain the C8).
In Afghanistan I saw a mix within the infantry platoons. The LAV Sgt had one, as did the platoon commander, and a few other positions that spent a lot of time in the turret.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top