• 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....
 
Go Air Force. At least you can be disappointed in your own hotel room…
Patrick Dangerfield Thinking GIF by geelongcats
 
I feel like there about to be a reckoning in the pilot world with the latest PR disaster
Is that the CMP actual court martial, the CFLTC command team both relieved of their positions, the Snowbirds pilot being charged...
 
Interesting new reporting about the much anticipated Defence Review which was announced 18 months ago


With regards to the defence review, Mr. Blair said:
  • it is a priority and is being staffed along with the Dept of Finance
  • important decisions must be made beforehand
  • will work towards increasing defence spending towards 2% of GDP
  • not just about spending money but investing in the right things and investing in pers
  • working in a challenging economic environment
  • needs significant investment in platforms such as: planes, helicopters and submarines

As mentioned before, I believe that there will be no cuts in the defence budget, but no significant increases in baseline funding. There will be incremental increases in defence spending. The gov't will continue to procure the wpns platforms that they deem necessary but:
  • not in the numbers required
  • will be stretched over a considerable number of years
  • decision regarding submarine replacement will be delayed until the next election

Cheers
We're actively seeing cuts now, along with funding increase to keep up with the basics denied, and have been told to expect more cuts to the material side next FY.

Also all of our travel is now on hold for the rest of the FY and under scrutiny. Which is especially funny given how they want us to come into the office because in person meetings are so important, just not with the actual line units we work to support as the customers, coordinate with NATO allies, etc.

They can't even lie consistently, some really shameful shit.
 
I can’t imagine why the CAF keeps having its funding cut when it’s such a wonderful source of great PR and displays high levels of professionalism to the world. …
 
Original report identifies it as 188735; OSINT reports that aircraft as belonging to 409 Sqn in Cold Lake as of 2016.

I would not put too much stock in a 7 year old OSINT report on which airframe belongs to what Sqn. Tail numbers get moved, all of the time, for various factors.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top