• 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 it's a done deal: Global Eye (or some other Global 6000/6500 based platform). This following article on the Liberal spending platform specifically references a “Canadian-made airborne early warning and control aircraft”.

Meanwhile, we've ordered the P-8 Poseidon based on the 737. The logical choice would be the E-7 for commonality of parts, maintenance, pilot qualifications, especially if they're stationed at the same bases as the P-8s, plus commonality with allies and the ability to get parts in just about any airport that operates 737s.
 
The idea of partnering with Community colleges to run serials of their standard tech courses is so obvious and useful it boggles the mind that we haven't jumped into it with both feet.
CAF schools do partner with colleges. There are many examples. This is not a new idea. If one’s mind is boggled, perhaps it is because they don’t know current the system they are criticizing.

There are advantages and disadvantages to outsourcing training, and some things just can’t be outsourced. This fact was already noted by one earlier reply.

I’ve seen some posts that suggest such relationships should exist wherever a college is near a base. Proximity to a base is irrelevant. Bases are not resources to provide oversight of random trades training. CAF schools establish and manage partnerships with colleges. But here again, proximity does not matter, as was noted in another earlier reply that described a Gagetown school partnered with a Nova Scotia college … the CAF can & does partner over great distances as it makes sense.
 
It is a commonly held belief that fire arms design has peaked, where advances are still being made is ammunition, and optics
Exactly.

shot trebuchet GIF
 
I don't know if the ongoing need for a forward bolt assist is 'peak firearm' - just yet - though ;)
If you want an exercise in futility of people trying to reinvent the wheel, look at the NGSW program, specifically what Textron offered. The fact someone thought it was a good idea mechanically blows my mind
 
If you want an exercise in futility of people trying to reinvent the wheel, look at the NGSW program, specifically what Textron offered. The fact someone thought it was a good idea mechanically blows my mind

I note the British added one to their (substandard) SA80 during one of their upgrades, instead of scrapping the whole program and getting a reliable rifle, so I guess that kind of validation only encourages them ;)
 
I note the British added one to their (substandard) SA80 during one of their upgrades, instead of scrapping the whole program and getting a reliable rifle, so I guess that kind of validation only encourages them ;)
And that weapon still isn't fixed fully, the last upgrade had a fixed budget so the company basically made a priority list and started from the top and worked its way down with what was within budget
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top