• 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....
 

I think the Premiers have realized that not spending 2% of GDP on defence is now a net liability that is threatening our economy due to the US and to a lesser degree Europe looking at everything through a security lens.
Most also realize that it's a great opportunity for pork barrelling for favoured providers. aka ISI, IMP, GDLS...
 
I wonder if the Feds are taking notice of the Royal Navy’s recently announced plans to retire and/or sell off several of its ships, including HSS Bulwark and Albion. I understand those ships are pretty long in the tooth. Could they be refurbished without too much fuss or would it end up being another Victoria-class fiasco?
 
I wonder if the Feds are taking notice of the Royal Navy’s recently announced plans to retire and/or sell off several of its ships, including HSS Bulwark and Albion. I understand those ships are pretty long in the tooth. Could they be refurbished without too much fuss or would it end up being another Victoria-class fiasco?
The RCN already has too many warships with excessive costs to refurbish. No need to import more.
 
I wonder if the Feds are taking notice of the Royal Navy’s recently announced plans to retire and/or sell off several of its ships, including HSS Bulwark and Albion. I understand those ships are pretty long in the tooth. Could they be refurbished without too much fuss or would it end up being another Victoria-class fiasco?
You be better off leasing the Wave Class tankers, laying up a couple of the CFP's and provide the USN with tanker support till the RN needs them back or the enough River Class are commissioned.
 
Does every discussion board have a cadre who religiously believe in buying falling-down money pits as the path to achieving adequacy at low cost?
 
  • Like
Reactions: ytz
Does every discussion board have a cadre who religiously believe in buying falling-down money pits as the path to achieving adequacy at low cost?

Isn't that the CAF's longer term Plan A? ;)

e.g.,

 
Most also realize that it's a great opportunity for pork barrelling for favoured providers. aka ISI, IMP, GDLS...
Yep. Cue the Canadian Business Council (or whatever they’re called) also calling on further defence spending “to support national sovereignty”
 
Most also realize that it's a great opportunity for pork barrelling for favoured providers. aka ISI, IMP, GDLS...
It's not pork barrelling when you develop and fund the necessary industry to create and maintain a viable security force.

It's long overdue progress.

My concern is more in the nature of DND turning vital defence dollars into yet more PYs and civil servants in cubicles in Ottawa rather than hard steel. Now that's pork barrelling.

🍻
 
I wonder if the Feds are taking notice of the Royal Navy’s recently announced plans to retire and/or sell off several of its ships, including HSS Bulwark and Albion. I understand those ships are pretty long in the tooth. Could they be refurbished without too much fuss or would it end up being another Victoria-class fiasco?
the latter
 
Does every discussion board have a cadre who religiously believe in buying falling-down money pits as the path to achieving adequacy at low cost?
To be fair, there is a very good chance that a significant number of the CFP's will fail and be out of service for years, by the time the their River Class replacement are commissioned and is serviceable.
 
Does every discussion board have a cadre who religiously believe in buying falling-down money pits as the path to achieving adequacy at low cost?
I wonder if running a tanker would be more beneficial (to them as a direct benefit and us politically) to our main ally than a clapped out CFP?

 
To be fair, there is a very good chance that a significant number of the CFP's will fail and be out of service for years, by the time the their River Class replacement are commissioned and is serviceable.
We have two JSS that should be coming online by then.
 
We have two JSS that should be coming online by then.
True, that will just fill our needs. Another option is also buy Astreix, put it through a refit and improvements and by then with the CPF not sailing, you might be able to crew it fully with RCN types. While building a proper RCFA to run them in the future.
 
Seaspan is going to be busy replacing CCG Icebreaker/buoytenders. As much as I would like us to have 4 of the same type of JSS, I doubt it will happen.
why not? Seaspan could easily contract the buoy tenders to a smaller yard, take a small profit from each and build two more JSS. The smaller coast guard vessels don't require any fancy cranes and large construction spaces
 
why not? Seaspan could easily contract the buoy tenders to a smaller yard, take a small profit from each and build two more JSS. The smaller coast guard vessels don't require any fancy cranes and large construction spaces
I suspect we're time past for a non zero number of long lead items for hypothetical JSS 3 and 4 and 5... so even a decision today would mean they would not have the desired commonality.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top