Government hints at boosting Canada’s military spending

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....

 

[KevinB]

I love the man - a throw back to the era of the Great Victorians

Why Elon Musk’s exploding Starship rocket will be counted as a success

The billionaire's mantra is ‘fail fast’ – and this flight is a crucial step towards his drive to reach Mars

www.telegraph.co.uk

Edit - more detail

25 miles high before it went into a spin and self-destructed.

How Elon Musk’s Starship launch – and explosion – will reignite the quest for the stars

SpaceX test reminds us of the drama in mankind's determination to leave earth behind

www.telegraph.co.uk

I think he sucks a little too much Putin micro penis.
25 miles isn’t really far, how far is Mars after all.

 

[daftandbarmy]

I think he sucks a little too much Putin micro penis.
25 miles isn’t really far, how far is Mars after all.

 

[KevinB]

I am thinking Marvin is safe for a while.
153.89 million miles
So SpaceX made it aprox 0.00000016 of the way there

 

[Brad Sallows]

That's fine as long as the US is willing (and able) to continue to enforce PAX AMERICANA on their own.

I know; I was (as is sometimes the case) being sarcastic.

The shamelessness with which other countries freeload on the US taxpayers' willingness to carry a big stick is exceeded only by the shamelessness with which non-Americans whine when it looks like Americans (or, particularly, some conservatives) start to talk about being a little more isolationist.

 

[Brad Sallows]

25 miles isn’t really far, how far is Mars after all

The first and last 25 miles count a lot more than all the miles in between.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I think he sucks a little too much Putin micro penis.
25 miles isn’t really far, how far is Mars after all.

Your letting your dislike of him to blind you. He knows little of geopolitics, but a lot of rocket science. They work on the model of "successful failures". They expect risk and things going wrong, but they also learn from them. Just getting a rocket that big together and lifting off is a huge challenge. This thing is bigger than a Saturn 5 and twice as powerful. Already the next rocket in line is significantly different than the last one. Plus they likley modify it more based on what they learned. Not to mention for a rocket that size to do a spin like it did and hold together as long as it did is a testimony to how strong it is..

A YT video breaking down the event

 

[Brad Sallows]

Presumably they are following an "X-program" model (SpaceX ?) - incremental improvement, one vehicle at a time.

 

[FJAG]

Your letting your dislike of him to blind you. He knows little of geopolitics, but a lot of rocket science. They work on the model of "successful failures". They expect risk and things going wrong, but they also learn from them. Just getting a rocket that big together and lifting off is a huge challenge. This thing is bigger than a Saturn 5 and twice as powerful. Already the next rocket in line is significantly different than the last one. Plus they likley modify it more based on what they learned. Not to mention for a rocket that size to do a spin like it did and hold together as long as it did is a testimony to how strong it is.

I don't want to make it sound like I think this thing is simple, because it is not. But this isn't the 1960s. There are over sixty years of rocket technology that's there to be built on and while the Apollo vehicles were relatively small, the shuttle program involved a fairly heavy vehicle in its own right. On top of that there have been sixty years in improved computer systems and metallurgy and composite materials to exploit.

From what seems to be reported today, the failure came from several of the 33 booster engines malfunctioning during ascent and a failure of the Starship to separate. Those are fundamental technology issues that have been used and perfected for decades.

Don't get me wrong, I know that failures in something this complex can and do happen but I think celebrating this as a great accomplishment simply because it got off the launch pad is a bit of hubris. I'm sure they will learn from this but I think what they will learn is that they screwed up something which could have been avoided.

And yeah, I do give Musk a lot of credit for doing this. I just hope his personality isn't getting in the way of the science and technology.

Edited to add.

Looks like the stock market wasn't kind to Tesla:

He Musk be furious! Elon's wealth nosedives by $13 BILLION in a day

Following a disastrous day that included a high-profile rocket launch ending in a fireball and Tesla reporting poor first quarter returns, Elon Musk saw his titanic net worth drop by almost $13 billion.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[WLSC]

Your letting your dislike of him to blind you. He knows little of geopolitics, but a lot of rocket science. They work on the model of "successful failures". They expect risk and things going wrong, but they also learn from them. Just getting a rocket that big together and lifting off is a huge challenge. This thing is bigger than a Saturn 5 and twice as powerful. Already the next rocket in line is significantly different than the last one. Plus they likley modify it more based on what they learned. Not to mention for a rocket that size to do a spin like it did and hold together as long as it did is a testimony to how strong it is..

A YT video breaking down the event

If Chris Hatfield says it ok, who am I to argue.

 

[KevinB]

The first and last 25 miles count a lot more than all the miles in between.

Unless you’re crew. Then every Mile counts

 

[KevinB]

Your letting your dislike of him to blind you. He knows little of geopolitics, but a lot of rocket science. They work on the model of "successful failures". They expect risk and things going wrong, but they also learn from them. Just getting a rocket that big together and lifting off is a huge challenge. This thing is bigger than a Saturn 5 and twice as powerful. Already the next rocket in line is significantly different than the last one. Plus they likley modify it more based on what they learned. Not to mention for a rocket that size to do a spin like it did and hold together as long as it did is a testimony to how strong it is..

A YT video breaking down the event

I don’t think he knows shit about rocket science. I think he’s got a smart team though that does. He’s also willing to risk a lot of money to reach goals.

I will admit I liked him a lot more before he bought Twitter and turned it to a cesspool.

As @FJAG pointed out, the failures that occurred are a little concerning as they aren’t new technologies or ideas.

But I believe the SpaceX team will correct them and get further on the next run.

 

[Kirkhill]

Don't get me wrong, I know that failures in something this complex can and do happen but I think celebrating this as a great accomplishment simply because it got off the launch pad is a bit of hubris. I'm sure they will learn from this but I think what they will learn is that they screwed up something which could have been avoided.

The Challenger O-ring failure is something which could have been avoided - at design, at spec, on previous flights, on preflight....

Sometimes you just have to turn the switch and see what happens (from decades of turning switches on new plants - and old ones for that matter)

The question is: How much surety do you want? Is it worth the extra time to advance from 98% to 99%? My experience suggests to me that that extra 1% can take a lot of time - and money - and at the end of the exercise you will still be recovering from a system failure. Except that after the system failure you will know what you are looking for.

Unless you’re crew. Then every Mile counts

But there was no crew.... unlike Apollo 1 - Or Challenger.

 

[KevinB]

The Challenger O-ring failure is something which could have been avoided - at design, at spec, on previous flights, on preflight....

Sometimes you just have to turn the switch and see what happens (from decades of turning switches on new plants - and old ones for that matter)

The question is: How much surety do you want? Is it worth the extra time to advance from 98% to 99%? My experience suggests to me that that extra 1% can take a lot of time - and money - and at the end of the exercise you will still be recovering from a system failure. Except that after the system failure you will know what you are looking for.

Based on my math they need an extra 99.99999% not an extra 1%

I get what your point is, most of us learn more by failure, but a learning model also incorporates lessons from previous mistakes - which is what I and I think @FJAG were pointing out.

But there was no crew.... unlike Apollo 1 - Or Challenger.

It’s for a crewed mission to Mars.
Which was my point about every mile counting.
From an Engineering perspective yes the first and the last are the more technical issues, but on a flight that long, everything is a technical issue.

 

[Kirkhill]

Based on my math they need an extra 99.99999% not an extra 1%

I get what your point is, most of us learn more by failure, but a learning model also incorporates lessons from previous mistakes - which is what I and I think @FJAG were pointing out.





It’s for a crewed mission to Mars.
Which was my point about every mile counting.
From an Engineering perspective yes the first and the last are the more technical issues, but on a flight that long, everything is a technical issue.

So any decent engineer will do what they can to reduce risks at every stage.

Talk through the paper programme
Walk through the software
Dry test the hardware
Water/Air test the system
Launch the system
Commission the system
Initiate operations
Improve operations.

And you will fall at every hurdle. And you will continually fall going into the future.

The best engineers can manage the failures.

- Less Talk. More Do.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Even fundamental engineering solutions get re-engineered with time and have to be re-tested. Compare an auto today to one from 40 or 60 years ago.

 

[Kirkhill]

Even fundamental engineering solutions get re-engineered with time and have to be re-tested. Compare an auto today to one from 40 or 60 years ago.

Compare an M16 to an M4....

 

[Kirkhill]

Back to the 2% of GDP issuse
Currently at 1.3% or 26 BUSD
Levelling up to 2% by adding another 0.7% requires an additional 13 BUSD per year.

Which brings me to this

We spend 305 BUSD on goods from the US
We spend 56 BUSD on services from the US
We invest 600 BUSD directly in the US

We take in about 400 BUSD in goods and services from the US
We receive about 330 BUSD in direct investment from the US.

How much effort would it take for the US to skim 13 BUSD annually from that trade to cover their perception of our shortfalls?
How much of a commission would they charge for supplying that service?
What impact would that effort have on which sectors of the Canadian economy.

Canada buys and sells 2,000 BUSD internally annually.

Market Overview

Discusses key economic indicators and trade statistics, countries dominant in the market, and other issues affecting trade. Also visit trade.gov/usmca.
Last published date: 2022-08-03
The United States and Canada enjoy the world’s largest and most comprehensive trading relationship that supports millions of jobs in each country and constitutes a US$1.7 trillion bilateral trade and investment relationship. Canada is traditionally the top U.S. export market, accounting for 17.5% of all U.S. goods exports in 2021. In 2021, Canada became the top trading partner of the United States. Canada and the United States trade over US$2 billion in goods and services daily. Two-way trade in goods and services totaled US$762.8 billion in 2021, and 2021 bilateral investment stock totaled US$934.3 billion.
U.S. exports to Canada were nearly US$365 billion in 2021. 31 U.S. states rank Canada as their number one export market. In 2021, U.S. exports to Canada exceeded total U.S. exports to China, Japan, and India combined. Whether your company is a first-time or seasoned exporter, Canada should be a key component of your company’s export growth strategy.
In 2021, U.S. exports of goods to Canada totaled US$308.4 billion. The top export categories (2-digit HS) in 2021 to Canada were: machinery (US$44 billion), vehicles (US$44 billion), electrical machinery (US$24 billion), mineral fuels (US$23 billion), and plastics (US$16 billion).
U.S. exports of services to Canada were valued at US$56.1 billion in 2021. Leading services exports from the U.S. to Canada were in the professional and management services and intellectual property sectors.
In 2021, Canada remained a top export market for U.S. agricultural exports, totaling US$25 billion. Leading domestic export categories include prepared foods; baked goods; cereals and pasta; fresh and processed vegetables; fresh and processed fruit; meat and meat products; snack foods; non-alcoholic beverages; chocolate and cocoa products; condiments and sauces; coffee; wine; beer; and pet food.
In most industry sectors, Canada is a highly receptive, open, and transparent market for U.S. products and services, with Canadians spending more than 60% of their disposable income on U.S. goods and services. The nations share a similar lifestyle, engendering a certain level of cultural familiarity. Canada’s two official languages are English and French.
Investment also plays a significant role in the bilateral relationship. Canadian foreign direct investment (FDI) in the United States was US$607.3 billion in 2021, making Canada the United States’ third-largest source of FDI. The United States is Canada’s top source of FDI, with investment stock from the United States totaling US$406.4 billion in 2021. As of 2019, U.S. affiliates of Canadian-owned firms employed 871,300 Americans, invested $1.1 billion to innovative research and development, and contributed US$16 billion in U.S. exports.
The United States, Mexico, and Canada are parties to the United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement (USMCA), which entered into force on July 1, 2020, replacing the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). The USMCA is a 21st century, high-standard trade agreement, supporting mutually beneficial trade resulting in freer markets, fairer trade, and robust economic growth in North America.

Canada - Market Overview

Discusses key economic indicators and trade statistics, countries dominant in the market, and other issues affecting trade. Also visit trade.gov/usmca.

www.trade.gov

Young Trudeau is not acting out of practical economics. He is working from his father's morals circa 1942.

 

[Brad Sallows]

The US government is no better at spending money prudently than ours. If we're going to waste $13B more, waste it in Canada.

 

[KevinB]

The US government is no better at spending money prudently than ours. If we're going to waste $13B more, waste it in Canada.

The difference is we have actual Defense output.
Not really the same for Canada even when looking at them in scale.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

One of the speculations is that the amount of thrust caused more damage to the pad than anticipated , which threw up debris back into the engines, causing a chain of events to happen that led to the rocket failing.

FJAG Yes the concepts are known, but as you get into larger and larger craft with twice as much thrust, then things can go pear shape much easier. Plus factoring in that Starship is supposed to take off and land twice on each mission, you are getting into wizardry level rocket science. I also suspect Musk has a pretty strong grasp of rocket science and what it takes to make it happen.