• 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....
 

Canada has announced an $11.2-billion contract to improve training platforms for the military, including the purchase of 70 training aircraft for the Future Aircrew Training (FAcT) program. The training aircraft will be split into fleets including two-seat turboprop training and aerobatic low-wing aircraft, helicopters and Dash-8 regional jets.

PC-21s as previously selected?

Now for the Hawk....
 



PC-21s as previously selected?

Now for the Hawk....
I really want to know how media sites select their pictures. The Aurora isn’t any of those things they announced so why is it on the page?
 
hmm



Not being a pilot - is there any reason for two of those? or the two twin engine ones?





Then this just seems like a waste - as Bell Mirable makes helicopters in Canada...

 
hmm



Not being a pilot - is there any reason for two of those? or the two twin engine ones?

G120TP to replace the current G120A in Portage la Prairie, and the PC-21 to replace the Harvard II in Moose Jaw, would be my guess.

The Grob is a simpler aircraft for initial training before progressing to the Harvard II / PC21.

King Air 260 for Multi-Engine pilot training, and Dash-8 400 for ACSO / AESOP training, replacing the current King Air C90B and Dash-8 100 in those roles.
 
FaCT does not include jet training. That's under FFLiT.
Hunt's apparently still on for that ....
Info-machine update ....
 
G120TP to replace the current G120A in Portage la Prairie, and the PC-21 to replace the Harvard II in Moose Jaw, would be my guess.

The Grob is a simpler aircraft for initial training before progressing to the Harvard II / PC21.

King Air 260 for Multi-Engine pilot training, and Dash-8 400 for ACSO / AESOP training, replacing the current King Air C90B and Dash-8 100 in those roles.
I’d say “cue the lines of pilots wanting Q400 time for the regionals” but let’s be honest - the RCAF pays more :sneaky:
 
Proposal: realign pilot pay scales away from time in rank to flight hours. So the Capt with 4000 hours gets more than the LCol with 2500.
CAF: Hey RCAF, why are you led by ACSOs and AOOs? Where did the Pilots go?

RCAF:

Stop It And You GIF
 
I really want to know how media sites select their pictures. The Aurora isn’t any of those things they announced so why is it on the page?
It's big; it's grey; it's got the wordmark, plus a guy in camo. If those big things were spinning, even better.
 
As I understand, it's a gradual process to transparently transition from the current training to that delivered by FaCT.

Almost as if such a change needs to deliberately planned and executed.

If the institution can manage to deliberately plan and execute a transition from current training to FAcT in a proactive manner, what happened with the fighter lead in training then?

From what I’ve gleaned from some the FLIT bridge is not what I would call desirable. That makes me wonder how much of what is billed as deliberate and planned is actually either just accidental or by the hard work of individuals despite the ambivalence of the institution.
 
If the institution can manage to deliberately plan and execute a transition from current training to FAcT in a proactive manner, what happened with the fighter lead in training then?

From what I’ve gleaned from some the FLIT bridge is not what I would call desirable. That makes me wonder how much of what is billed as deliberate and planned is actually either just accidental or by the hard work of individuals despite the ambivalence of the institution.

FFLIT is tied to the FFCP implementation. Doing a long term solution before the latter was confirmed would have been excessive risk. An interim solution makes sense.
 
Fair enough on the interim solution but only because the FFCP was a debacle in strategic planning for the last decade ( a debacle not solely of the CAFs doing, the GoC owns a large portion).
Not entirely convinced of the excessive risk piece either but I am most certainly not in a lane on that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top