- Reaction score
- 11,265
- Points
- 1,160
How about "new capabilities"?
Canada moves to 2% GDP end of FY25/26 - PMMC
- Thread starter Maxman1
- Start date
How about "new capabilities"?
Good point.
Also, don't know where you live, but one of the big complaints on the space side has been the insistence that everything is a project. But space doesn't work that away. We need a continuous pipeline, ergo a program. And there seems to be more openness on that idea now.
- Reaction score
- 7,763
- Points
- 1,160
On the flipside if he had talked to the locals they probably could have given him a heads up, even without modern technology.Per Noah
Canadian Army Capstone Operating Concept - Canada.ca
www.canada.ca
First quick read and first line that grabbed me: another reference to the arctic because of climate change.
I will suggest that technology is of greater importance. With modern technology Franklin could have flown in to any point at any time and spent a couple of hours on the ice with the locals. He wouldn't have got lost in the first place. He wouldn't have needed to sail.
A satellite could have told him what he needed to know about the route.
It isn't the changing environment that is the threat.
It is the technology that makes everything accessible. Even when the environment changes, or possibly even reverts.
Similarly the expedition could have been 'discovered' a long time ago if they had just... talked to the locals.
As an engineer, try to remember to actually just talk to the people working on the actual thing is to figure out if there even is a problem, rather than come up with a solution and look for a problem to Rude Golberg it onto.
- Reaction score
- 11,265
- Points
- 1,160
1st year on the job close to 50 years ago. Talk to the operator.
- Reaction score
- 10,676
- Points
- 1,160
Is Canada 100% getting the first 16 F35s according to when it was initially agreed to?
- Reaction score
- 5,037
- Points
- 1,260
We are legally on the hook for the 16 I believe and they are coming in the next few months.
I guess anything is possible and we eat the cost for those 16 but I don’t see that happening
Agreed. But this PM is moving to that goal. So I'm not going to complain.
At this point I question whether some of you are so partisan that you care more about politics than actual policy. Honestly, you don't sound happy that money is flowing.
What's likely to happen is that the government will delay the payments for the next lot until the last minute. We probably don't even have to pay for the next set of orders till 2027. Just to make the Americans sweat. But really, we aren't leaving the program, given the massive benefit to our own aerospace sector.
- Reaction score
- 10,676
- Points
- 1,160
Yes we're legally on the hook for 16. That doesn't mean much though. When the Liberal party canceled the EH-101 we ended up still paying for it.
-Contract cancellation fee$478 million
-Sunk costs before cancellation$100 to 200 million
-Extra Sea King maintenance (1993 to 2018) $2 to 3 billion
-Estimated total cost to taxpayers $2.5–3.5 billion CAD
According to this arricle we're just as likely to give the F35s the EH-101 treatment as we are buy them.
- Reaction score
- 5,037
- Points
- 1,260
Please read the article that I post re this.
- Reaction score
- 10,676
- Points
- 1,160
Oh boy.
So this comment is a classic example of rhetorical manipulation meant to discredit someone instead of engaging their argument.
It's shifting from facts to motives. Instead of debating Canada’s 2% NATO commitment you're pivoting to someones supposed political bias. That’s called an ad hominem circumstantial fallacy. Where you're attacking perceived motives instead of evidence.
“Some of you…" is poisoning the well.
That phrase subtly groups people into an undefined, “partisan” crowd. You're priming readers to view someones position as ideologically tainted.
It's also emotional bait disguised as reason; a rhetorical claymore. If you defend yourself, it looks like you’re proving their point (“see, you are partisan”), and if you don’t, the accusation stands unchallenged. You may be more familiar with "when did you stop beating your wife".
I don't think you're doing it on purpose.
Lets stay on the thread topic and away from partisan loyalty tests.
Canada pledged to reach 2% in 2014 and still hasn’t done so. Looking at policy outcomes this 2% has been promised repeatedly, over differenr defence policies. Now were taken to believe that Carney is going to do in 9 months what consecutive governments failed to do in 129 months? Just by writing checks?Pretty spectacular if it happens. There's ample reason not to believe this promise of a Christmas miracle.
Last edited:
Happy to do that when we can get back to talking about defence and not partisan whining about what should have happened a decade ago (which I don't think anybody disagrees with).
I don't know if you're still in or not. But there's been more than just me here saying that the changes are real and money is flowing. Let's be happy about that. And encourage the government to do more.
I’ve mentioned this before. People are right to be skeptical.
But your arguments all hinge on the LPC, only the last ten years, Carney and the perception he has or is doing nothing. So yes, it looks very partisan. We can agree that Canada has ignored its own military for decades. I disagree with your take that it’s all the LPC and by extension Carney’s fault.
You started with “The Liberal party doesn't take the defense of Canada seriously.”.
And completely ignore or brush off the role the CPC had in this as well.
This is a cultural ingrained issue that crosses all party lines.
Maybe, just maybe there is a bit of light in that dark tunnel with a more pragmatic approach borne or necessity and events. What I see is Carney taking a pragmatic approach.
Enough is enough. Why are you making your replies conditional. Jarnhamer made sense so just do it and stop your own petulant comments.
Everyone here, without exception, is quite happy that the money is flowing. End of story on that one. But we do want to see it spent wisely on things we actually need. The last 30 years have been more like Charlie Brown playing football with Lucy holding. Lots of promises with the ball ripped away at the last moment so pardon us if we are a tad skeptical.
I’ll contend that none of the parties have taken CAF seriously in decades, and have historically funded it only reluctantly and to the extent strictly politically needed. Military spending is not ‘productive’ expenditure; it doesn’t generate much economic growth, it’s not productive, it doesn’t really satiate any particularly important constituency, it comes with expensive personnel costs in pay and benefits, and it’s very difficult to see much direct or tangible value from having any using CAF because our country simply doesn’t really need to reckon with direct physical danger.
We had a brief weird period during Afghanistan when government was shamed into buying necessary kit because we had young Canadians killed in action and broadcast on the news. Some ‘fast enough, good enough’ purchases were made. But it didn’t fundamentally change the government’s attitude.
I don’t think the attitude has changed now, I just think the new government has been forced into a rapid reassessment of what is ‘good enough’, and may also see an opportunistic drive to use military funding to prop up some domestic manufacturing. But let’s not pretend that CAF or its current or former members are suddenly actually cared about. Practically none of them ever do.
We had a brief weird period during Afghanistan when government was shamed into buying necessary kit because we had young Canadians killed in action and broadcast on the news. Some ‘fast enough, good enough’ purchases were made. But it didn’t fundamentally change the government’s attitude.
I don’t think the attitude has changed now, I just think the new government has been forced into a rapid reassessment of what is ‘good enough’, and may also see an opportunistic drive to use military funding to prop up some domestic manufacturing. But let’s not pretend that CAF or its current or former members are suddenly actually cared about. Practically none of them ever do.
- Reaction score
- 5,037
- Points
- 1,260
At this moment in time, has there been any money spent on something that we actually don’t need?
Is there any indication that money is about to be spent on something that we actually don’t need?
Maxman1
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,556
- Points
- 1,160
That predates the current fiscal environment.
