• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Government makes specific military commitments

JasonH

Full Member
Inactive
Reaction score
0
Points
210
Government makes specific military commitments

Stephen Thorne
Canadian Press
Monday, February 02, 2004
ADVERTISEMENT

OTTAWA -- Paul Martin‘s blueprint for defence spending contained firm commitments to Canada‘s armed forces Monday and included something that was notably absent from recent throne speeches -- specifics.

The 23-page speech devoted three pages to Canada‘s role in the world, saying Canadians want their country to play "a distinctive and independent role in making the world more secure, more peaceful, more co-operative, more open.‘‘

"To this end, the government will make immediate investments in key capital equipment, such as new armoured vehicles and replacements for the Sea King helicopters,‘‘ said Gov.-Gen. Adrienne Clarkson, whose duties include commanding Canada‘s armed forces.

The government has already said the Sea Kings would be replaced by year‘s end. It is going ahead with the early purchase and delivery of replacements for its unarmoured Iltis jeeps patrolling the Afghan capital of Kabul.

But until Monday‘s speech, there was lingering doubt that it would go forward with the multi-million-dollar purchase of 66 mobile gun systems, known in the United States as Strykers.

The future of the program was up in the air after Finance Minister Ralph Goodale announced a spending freeze and review of most federal programs in December.

Military planners expect to approach Treasury Board as soon as this month with a $600-million purchase proposal as part of a co-ordinated plan to replace Canada‘s tanks.

The army hopes to tag onto a $4-billion American order for 2,100 of the vehicles, completing contract talks by year‘s end and taking first deliveries in 2006.

Martin has ordered a complete review of international policy, including defence, that will be submitted to a parliamentary committee by fall.

David Rudd of the Canadian Institute for Strategic Studies, who has questioned the wisdom of the Stryker option, said the first broad defence and foreign policy review in a decade is badly needed.

"So much international political water has passed under the bridge,‘‘ said Rudd. "Plus, we‘ve got our deficit under control. So there are certain international events as well as domestic events that necessitate a review.

Retired colonel Alain Pellerin, executive director of the Conference of Defence Associations, called Monday‘s document a pre-election speech focussing on health, education and cities -- "all responsibilities of the provinces to start with.‘‘

Defence spending was cut 25 per cent during the 1990s while the number of military personnel dropped by a third.

While defence spending increased $800 million this fiscal year and will be boosted by at least another $800 million next year, it is barely enough to cover existing operations, much less needed growth and capital spending, Pellerin said.

"The only way to address that is really to have a full defence policy review where the priorities of government for defence are identified,‘‘ said Pellerin.

The key is whether Ottawa will put its money where its mouth is, he added.

"If you ask 95 per cent of the people who are in the know about these so-called consultations, nobody knows where they ended up,‘‘ he said.

"Defence is an orphan in that the priorities of the government are priorities that they share with the provinces -- health, education, aboriginal affairs. Therefore, there‘s a lobby group there -- the premiers of the provinces.‘‘

Defence, on the other hand, is wholly dependent on the interest of the prime minister and the strength of the defence minister, he said.

Martin did send a signal of the emphasis he intends to put on defence shortly after becoming prime ministers.

One of his first acts after being sworn in was to visit National Defence Headquarters in Ottawa -- something Jean Chretien never did in 10 years as prime minister.

Then he appointed the long-time head of the Commons defence committee, David Pratt, as defence minister. Pratt is widely respected by soldiers for his role in advocating more defence spending and a stronger military.

© Copyright 2004 Canadian Press

All ‘n all I found it a good read and it has me with higher confidence since I‘ll be sworn in, in about 5-6 months (Completing school).
 
About time things were made definate. I just hope the cash flow doesnt stop here.


Originally posted by Jay Hunter:
[qb] Government makes specific military commitments


The 23-page speech devoted three pages to Canada‘s role in the world, saying Canadians want their country to play "a distinctive and independent role in making the world more secure, more peaceful, more co-operative, more open.‘‘


[/qb]
Amen
 
From the stand point of a new recruit, that is nice to read, especially after reading endless amounts of articles on budget cuts.
 
Originally posted by Jay Hunter:
[qb] Government makes specific military commitments

The government has already said the Sea Kings would be replaced by year‘s end. [/qb]
By YEAR‘S end ??? I‘m pretty sure they meant decade... ;)
There are certainly good news in there, now let‘s see where that review will take us. :cdn:
 
I take all promises from Libs like I do with any promise from Army; it doesn‘t happen until I‘ve seen it or held it with my hands. :D
 
I think they when they said the Seakings would be replace by years end, they meant that they would have a new helo selected and purchased. Not that we would have all of them.

Just a question about the MGS. Would that be something that they would use in missions like Afghanistan, or would that be something that would be reserved for full combat?
 
Originally posted by scm77:
[qb] I think they when they said the Seakings would be replace by years end, they meant that they would have a new helo selected and purchased. Not that we would have all of them.
[/qb]
That would make more sense, to me at least. I had heard that the Sea King replacement wasn‘t going to be delivered until 2008. Although hopefully if they have the new replacement selected and everything, that could speed up the delivery process.
 
The 23-page speech devoted three pages to Canada‘s role in the world, saying Canadians want their country to play "a distinctive and independent role in making the world more secure, more peaceful, more co-operative, more open.‘‘
The Aussies got us into Timor, the Americans into Afghanistan, while Kosovo was leased out to independants who hijacked our stuff on the high-seas. How does the government plan to individually and distinctivly project security on the world when we can‘t even deploy our equipment anywhere on the globe due to lack of transport capabilites.
As well, we have no abilities to independantly deploy and field a full brigade on operations for any amount of time; I‘ve heard this from the CDS himself.

It seems to me that the government is attempting to distract military impotence by holding out a few pieces of candy.
 
I agree with infanteer, as well on the discussion of the stryker all that is..just going cheap granted stryker can be used in the support role, and it is far better than an iltis, but IT SURE AS **** AIN<T NO TANK!!!! :tank:
 
I‘ll believe it when I see it.

I concur w/ Royal HF‘s comments.
 
We still need heavy lift desperately!

Slim
 
Originally posted by Slim:
[qb] We still need heavy lift desperately!

Slim [/qb]
Yup we sure do! :mad:

Let‘s get the latest Chinook‘s as they will pay off in the long run.
 
Originally posted by Spr.Earl:
[qb]
Originally posted by Slim:
[qb] We still need heavy lift desperately!

Slim [/qb]
Yup we sure do! :mad:

Let‘s get the latest Chinook‘s as they will pay off in the long run. [/qb]
Getting Chinooks again would be great, although I think that an army version of the CH-149 Cormorant would be a better fit, especially since we‘re likely going to buy them to replace the Sea King. Yes, they‘re smaller than a Chinook, but they‘ll still hold a platoon or two G-wagons or -- God forbid -- sling an artillery piece. And commonality reduces costs.

For tactical airlift we should start replacing our oldest Hercs with newer -J models and the Buffalos with C-27Js, as they share many common components such as engines, flight deck layouts and instrumentation packages. Since we‘re going to regain an aerial refuelling capability with the Airbuses over the next four years, the Herc fleet should also be retrofitted with refueling probes similar to what the RAF uses. That way we can get our stuff overseas quickly without waiting for the USAF to find space for us. Let‘s face it, our government is never going to move quickly enough to justify buying strategic airlift, because we‘d never need to go somewhere THAT fast.

But instead of buying C-17s or A400Ms for strategic airlift, I like the idea of buying up the recently mothballed BC Ferries Pacificats. They could carry 250 vehicles or 1000 passengers at speeds of up to 35 knots, which means they could get most of a battlegroup around the world in short order. How long would it take a militarized Pacificat to go from Halifax to say, Turkey? Maybe 10-12 days -- certainly more quickly than the fleet could escort it. The Aussies have used similar vessels for years now and like them a lot, and the USN is leaning that way now, too. And if we had them, we could dump the plan to buy the MGS and get a real armoured fighting vehicle.
 
But instead of buying C-17s or A400Ms for strategic airlift, I like the idea of buying up the recently mothballed BC Ferries Pacificats. They could carry 250 vehicles or 1000 passengers at speeds of up to 35 knots, which means they could get most of a battlegroup around the world in short order. How long would it take a militarized Pacificat to go from Halifax to say, Turkey? Maybe 10-12 days -- certainly more quickly than the fleet could escort it. The Aussies have used similar vessels for years now and like them a lot, and the USN is leaning that way now, too. And if we had them, we could dump the plan to buy the MGS and get a real armoured fighting vehicle.
How would a BC Ferry reject get us to Afghanistan?
 
How would a BC Ferry reject get us to Afghanistan? [/QB]
You sail it to Diego, Pakistan or India and then fly stuff in. That would save a ton of money and might help show the Americans that we‘re willing to pay our own way (or at least most of it). And then when the ships are in-theatre they could be used to help the Americans move things around.

When the ships aren‘t being used they could be placed in mothballs like the Huron is right now. We could even make them Reserve vessels (seems to work for the MCDVs).
 
Ummm so you would use these "cats" to transport army equipment through some of the roughest weather in the world with no escort and no resupply for themselves? I am betting they eat up a lot of fuel. You also have to ask would the Egyptians allow something like this type to pass through the Suez because you won‘t be doing no 35 kts through the canal.
 
Originally posted by Jason:
[qb]I like the idea of buying up the recently mothballed BC Ferries Pacificats. They could carry 250 vehicles or 1000 passengers at speeds of up to 35 knots, which means they could get most of a battlegroup around the world in short order. How long would it take a militarized Pacificat to go from Halifax to say, Turkey? Maybe 10-12 days -- certainly more quickly than the fleet could escort it. The Aussies have used similar vessels for years now and like them a lot, and the USN is leaning that way now, too. [/qb]
The RAN had one catamaran (HMAS Jervis Bay) on trial for a period. They do not have any in service at this moment, at the end of it‘s lease the Jervis Bay was sent to the US for trials. The Aussies used it extensively during the deployment of INTERFET forces.
 
Back
Top