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

CAN Gov't Suggests Robbing Peter to Pay Paul for Eqpt?

The Bread Guy

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
2,527
Points
1,260
Shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the Copyright Act.

Forces want to scrap gear, save for new
Aircraft, destroyer, refuelling ships to be eliminated under defence plan

CanWest News Service, 31 Jan 07
Article Link - Alternative Link

The Canadian Forces is recommending getting rid of ships, surveillance aircraft and up to 25 per cent of its Griffon helicopter fleet to help pay for new equipment in the future, according to the Conservative government's defence strategy obtained by the Citizen.

The cuts would include six Aurora maritime patrol aircraft, one destroyer and the navy's two aging refuelling and resupply ships. The elimination of the resupply vessels will mean the navy is going to face at least a two-year period in which it will not have its own means to refuel vessels at sea.

The government's "Canada First" defence strategy also highlights the previously announced plans to buy medium-lift helicopters, tactical and strategic airlift planes, aerial drones, search and rescue and northern utility aircraft.

The military will also look at the replacement of the CF-18 fighter, according to the strategy, which is not yet public.

But those new purchases come at a cost.

"To make these much needed investments possible, the Canadian Forces will reduce a number of platforms, including Aurora surveillance aircraft and Griffon utility aircraft," according to the strategy.

In the document, Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor says the erosion of military capabilities is "far worse" than originally anticipated.

"Reversing this decline will take time and involve a number of difficult decisions," writes Mr. O'Connor. "Moreover, we must consider the pressing needs of the military against other government priorities."

The first of the Griffon helicopters will be removed from the flight line starting this year. The 20- to 25-per-cent reduction of the 85 Griffons will free personnel and money to support the purchase of Boeing Chinook helicopters.

As it gets rid of the Auroras, the air force will purchase approximately 12 aerial drones to be located at Canadian Forces Base Comox in British Columbia and CFB Greenwood in Nova Scotia for domestic surveillance and overseas operations. The first of those will be in operation starting in 2008. The purchase of longer-range drones would be considered in the future.

Work will be stopped on the ongoing $900-million modernization program for the Aurora.

Another air force plan to spend hundreds of millions of dollars more on a structural life extension for the aging Auroras will also be cancelled. The remaining Auroras will be re-assigned to Arctic sovereignty patrols.

Over the next three to four years, the military will also get rid of one Iroquois-class destroyer and its two Protecteur-class refuelling and supply ships.

The defence strategy acknowledges that the replacement for the existing refuelling vessels, the Joint Support Ship, will not be in the water until at least 2012. The navy will have to somehow "manage the risk" of operating without refuelling and supply ships for a two-year period, according to the strategy paper.

According to the Canada First report, the navy will also begin work on the acquisition of the future surface combatant fleet, a new type of vessel that will come into service in 2018. Those 14 ships would replace the service's existing frigates and Iroquois-class destroyers.

In the meantime, the Halifax-class frigates will be modernized and command and control equipment now on the Iroquois-class destroyers will be transferred to the frigates.

The air force will get rid of CF-18 fighter aircraft that have not been modernized.

The army will get rid of most of its Air Defence Anti-tank Systems, a ground-based air defence missile system. A small number of the systems will be kept around long enough to provide protection for the Winter Olympics in B.C.

After that, the army will start looking for a new air defence system.

The Conservative strategy also gives the army approval to cancel the planned $750-million purchase of the Mobile Gun System, a wheeled armoured vehicle that was to be built by General Dynamics in London, Ont. Army commanders did not see the mobile gun as providing enough protection and firepower for troops.

The army will also be allowed to cancel the Multi-Mission Effects Vehicle, an upgrade program for the Air Defence Anti-tank Systems that was to be handled by Oerlikon Aerospace in Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu, Que.

A minimum number of Leopard tanks will be kept for training and operations, according to the strategy paper. But a replacement for a direct-fire capability won't be introduced until 2015 at the earliest.

The strategy also calls for the purchase of more M777 howitzers, the same type of gun now in use by Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan. It also outlines the previously announced purchase of new trucks for the army.

Liberal Senator Colin Kenny, chairman of the Senate's defence committee, said he is concerned about the level of funding available for the strategy.

A series of funding options, produced by the military and obtained by the senator, outline a plan where the defence budget gradually increases to between $35 billion and $36.5 billion by 2025. That equates to between 0.9 per cent and 1.3 per cent of the country's projected gross domestic product.

But that's not enough to fund Gen. Rick Hillier's plan to transform the Canadian Forces for the future, warned Mr. Kenny. "At the end of the day (Gen. Hillier) still doesn't have enough money," he said.

Mr. Kenny said the Conservative strategy paper still tries to do "defence on the cheap" and falls short of providing proper surveillance for Canada's coastline by cutting back on the Aurora patrol aircraft. In addition, there is no mention of the construction of a new type of ship for the navy so it can properly patrol the country's coastal waters.

Navy officers have questioned the utility of using the existing maritime coastal defence vessels, which are not capable of handling rough seas, particularly on the East Coast. At one point, the navy looked at purchasing a larger ship for the job, but that never went forward.

Mr. Kenny also questioned the logic of forcing the navy to make do without a supply and refuelling ship for two years.

According to an e-mail from Mr. O'Connor's communications director, Isabelle Bouchard, the government is still in the "process of reviewing the future needs and priorities of the Canadian Forces and plans have yet to be finalized."

"When we have an announcement to make, we will make it," Ms. Bouchard added.

Two weeks ago, Mr. O'Connor was to have sat down with Prime Minister Stephen Harper to brief him on the Canada First plan, but that meeting was cancelled, according to government sources.



- edited to fix title box and add alternative story link -
 
I don't necessarily see this as a negative thing. Under the 'Canada first plan' the restructuring that needs to take place, will.

Yeah, it's going to suck in the short term, but not as much as it would in 2 or three years, when we don't have the funds to get new equipment, and the old stuff is of no more use, and can't be sold at any value. It's economics, bad as it sounds. You also have to remember that we don't have this huge budget to work with, we need to scrape up what we can, where we can, we don't get the funding we need, and that's obvious, but at least we have a good CDS and people in government who know what they are doing, that can make the tough decisions and that are doing the best they can with what they have.

You also have to realize that the plan doesn't just say 'take away all your stuff'. It also involves reposturing the CF into more of a National role, (less overseas posting, more domestic operations, national soverignty ie. lots and lots if arctic warfare training)
 
ToRN said:
...
You also have to realize that the plan doesn't just say 'take away all your stuff'. It also involves reposturing the CF into more of a National role, (less overseas posting, more domestic operations, national soverignty ie. lots and lots if arctic warfare training)

Not if it doesn’t provide any real, useful growth.  See:

• Here - http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/55999/post-513098.html#msg513098 and

• Here - http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/55999/post-513684.html#msg513684

First: scrapping old, high maintenance, under-performing equipment to save money is not a bad idea, even when money is not at crisis levels;

Second: reviewing requirements on a continuous basis and downgrading some (and elevating others on the priority list) is a good idea;

Third: reviewing long term defence requirements and making equally long term spending plans (always recognizing that each parliament is sovereign and might not honour (all of) its predecessors’ plans and ’commitments’) is, also, a good idea.

Thus, we should welcome the ”Canada First” defence strategy – whenever we long suffering taxpayers are allowed to catch a glimpse of it.  I note this in the article:

According to an e-mail from Mr. O'Connor's communications director, Isabelle Bouchard, the government is still in the "process of reviewing the future needs and priorities of the Canadian Forces and plans have yet to be finalized." …  Two weeks ago, Mr. O'Connor was to have sat down with Prime Minister Stephen Harper to brief him on the Canada First plan, but that meeting was cancelled, according to government sources.

We are in a war in Afghanistan; Canadian soldiers are dying there.  Our fleet is on active duty in the Persian Gulf; Canadian sailors are at risk there.  But: the Prime Minister of Canada doesn’t have time to discuss the rebuilding of our armed forces when, according to the MND (same article), ”the erosion of military capabilities is "far worse" than originally anticipated.”  What demands on the Prime Minister’s time are more important than the defence of the realm?

If the plans discussed in the two links above are based on reality then O’Connor, Elcock and Hillier will have strained mightily and brought forth a mouse.  Perhaps, one hopes, the Prime Minister of Canada read the riot act to his subordinates and said, “Come back when you have a plan worthy of my consideration – one which does not disarm Canada and turn it  into the greatest socio-political eunuch in history.”  I fear, however, that represents the triumph of hope over experience.  It is more likely, one fears, that the Prime Minister of Canada was too busy planning the release of some TV commercials to deal with his duties to his country.

Occasional Army.ca contributor Jack Granatstein rightly describes Canada’s foreign and defence policies as ”peachy squishiness”.  The ”Canada First” strategy, in so far as I can read between the lines, fits well within that envelope.

For shame General Hillier, Deputy Minister Elcock, Minister O’Connor and Prime Minister Harper!  Has not even one of you the balls to tell Québec and Toronto that the emperor has no clothes?
 
Edward regarding your comment on ”Canada First” defence strategy not being honored by successive governments.

It would be ideal to have "most" parties, but at least the two leading parties sit down and enshrine a living policy regarding the standardization and upgrading of the CF that will, by agreement, be honored by the future governing parties in large part.
 
Edward Campbell said:
.... We are in a war in Afghanistan; Canadian soldiers are dying there.  Our fleet is on active duty in the Persian Gulf; Canadian sailors are at risk there.  But: the Prime Minister of Canada doesn’t have time to discuss the rebuilding of our armed forces when, according to the MND (same article), ”the erosion of military capabilities is "far worse" than originally anticipated.”  What demands on the Prime Minister’s time are more important than the defence of the realm? ....  It is more likely, one fears, that the Prime Minister of Canada was too busy planning the release of some TV commercials to deal with his duties to his country .... 

Sad to say, it might be question asked, and answered - time will tell....
 
I don't like it...

There will be more demand put onto the remaining vehicles/ships.  My fear is once they realize we can the same job with less, they will continue to cut back.  I know the article states they will be saving to buy more equipment....  but...

The navy shouldn't have a problem going 2 years without a tanker, although both just came out of a refit.  While each was in refit the east and west coast were without a tanker for approx a year (at different times mind you, so we did have 1 operational tanker)

Where I work it is evident that the Auroras are busy I don't know how cutting 6 will affect those guys, as they are already busy enough. 
 
Hate to say it, but it makes sense to scrap all this stuff, and do it as soon as possible. The incredible shrinking military, an organ of the un-credible disaster we call are forced to call good government.  Let the evidence stand for itself- successive Liberal and Conservative governments caused this. Now it's time for them to feel the heat of the effects, if any heat arises at all. If Canadians and their elected politicians don't care, when the time comes and the military is needed, they will have no one to blame but themselves. 

 
Back
Top