The Defence Budget [superthread]

[Bird_Gunner45]

The JTF(I) motto.....

My experience with JTF-I would be, "Supporters supporting supporters as long as you dont actually want support..."

 

[Eye In The Sky]

My experience with JTF-I would be, "Supporters supporting supporters as long as you dont actually want support..."

Thankfully, there is a coin for achieving that level of support. 

 

[Eye In The Sky]

I'm not particularly happy about the Royal Canadian Legion Dominion Command claiming that it advocates for all veterans

  The Legion, despite how it is failing now, has been around for decades.  ABC sprung up because a few people decided they wanted to see how 15 minutes of fame felt.

Sorry for the thread tangent.

No worries. 

 

[sailoraye123]

With this 7.5+ billion put on hold for sar birds 15+ years down the road where are they going to cut from? Posting freezes and/or force reductions.. the 90's are back and this will be the second time we see the dark years

 

[NavyShooter]

The grass will definitely look greener on the other side to a lot of folks.

As for the RCL....there's threads about that.  They called me 2 years ago to ask me if I was coming to the annual awards dinner to pick up my 10 year thing.  (Their medal I guess?)  I think it's probably still waiting for me to drop by and pick it up.  I join at a cost of $35 a year so that I can get in early to the gun-shows. 

Regarding delayed purchases....well....what are we going to put off?  Fighters, ships, LAV's, pistols?  Have a look at the CID and see what's planned, and what's delay-able. 

I suspect we will see very little progress on infrastructure in the near (and long) term.

NS

 

[jollyjacktar]

Thankfully, there is a coin for achieving that level of support. 

Does that Chimp have a gold nut sack?  That is most impressive.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Does that Chimp have a gold nut sack?  That is most impressive.

It's actually a football and he is...*interacting* with it.

 

[Quirky]

Good post ERC, you may even have me considering Erin O'toole. I don't see how the CF's can survive 7 more years of this

Maybe that's exactly what we need, a full blown, public and national defence failure until the CF gets a compete retool from the top down.

...or you know, keep the status quo of doing more with less and accepting it as the unwritten policy.

 

[jollyjacktar]

It's actually a football and he is...*interacting* with it.

That's cool too.  Where do they sell the coins?

 

[Eye In The Sky]

That's cool too.  Where do they sell the coins?

The PX in Kuwait where Camp Canada is;  that's the only place I've ever seen them.

 

[jollyjacktar]

The PX in Kuwait where Camp Canada is;  that's the only place I've ever seen them.

Shame, I'll never see the spot.  Should have bought the Achmed the Dead Terrorist morale patch at the Dutch PX ay KAF when I first saw it too.  Sold out and never came back while I was there.

 

[MilEME09]

Maybe that's exactly what we need, a full blown, public and national defence failure until the CF gets a compete retool from the top down.

...or you know, keep the status quo of doing more with less and accepting it as the unwritten policy.

How big of a failure are we talking here? embarrassment on the world stage such as borrowing equipment from allies and such? Honestly I think our NATO allies need to step up and slap Canada, hard, and say get your shit together, at the end of the day we (as in Canada) agreed to the 2% NATO target at multiple NATO meetings over multiple governments. You can whine all you want about it and say there are other ways to calculate contributions but at the end of the day we said yes, yes to 2% of GDP on defense spending. The fact that we turned our back yet again on that promise should raise a flag with NATO, and find ways to get Canada to play ball.

 

[Kirkhill]

How big of a failure are we talking here? embarrassment on the world stage such as borrowing equipment from allies and such? Honestly I think our NATO allies need to step up and slap Canada, hard, and say get your shit together, at the end of the day we (as in Canada) agreed to the 2% NATO target at multiple NATO meetings over multiple governments. You can whine all you want about it and say there are other ways to calculate contributions but at the end of the day we said yes, yes to 2% of GDP on defense spending. The fact that we turned our back yet again on that promise should raise a flag with NATO, and find ways to get Canada to play ball.

Your problem there is that there are no NATO partners sufficiently well placed, from a moral standpoint, to be able to criticize Canada.  The majority are well under the 2% number, despite including stuff like RCMP with tanks, the Coast Guard and Paris firefighters in the budget to inflate their numbers.  Just take a look at the crapstorm POTUS Trump has stirred up by daring to suggest that things cost.

Hey, even the RN includes Fisheries Patrols that come out of the Coast Guard (non-defence) budget in Canada.

 

[jmt18325]

I think we agreed to the target as an aspirational goal only.

 

[Kirkhill]

I think we agreed to the target as an aspirational goal only.

I've got you.  It was only for the purposes of the cameras and the next election then? 

Unfortunately, regardless of the actual number, real defences cost real dollars (or Euros).  Assuming that Vlad, or Erdogan, or Assad, or Khamenei, or Saud, or Xi or Kim are real threats,  at very least some of them are really frightening some people enough to concern them enough to believe that real defences are called for, then somebody is going to have to pay for them.  The command economy version didn't work out very well for the Russians.

The concerned parties agreed that their economies could support a donation of 2% of GDP to the cause, in addition to 0.7% of GDP to the cause of supporting the international order through foreign aid.

Aspirations don't pay the bills.

And, glad you're still here.

 

[Kirkhill]

Further to the Fighter Debacle:

Is it just me or does this leave the government a whole lot of wiggle room?

The Government has announced a plan to replace Canada's legacy fleet of CF-18 fighter aircraft. It will launch an open and transparent competition to replace the fleet within its current mandate, and explore the acquisition of 18 new Super Hornet aircraft to supplement the CF-18s until the permanent replacement arrives.

Does that actually commit the government to buying, leasing, borrowing, begging, operating anything?

 

[jmt18325]

Further to the Fighter Debacle:

Is it just me or does this leave the government a whole lot of wiggle room?

Does that actually commit the government to buying, leasing, borrowing, begging, operating anything?

I think you have a keen eye.  I would submit that they probably intend to buy them.  There are things that could kill the deal, I would assume.

 

[Kirkhill]

I think you have a keen eye.  I would submit that they probably intend to buy them.  There are things that could kill the deal, I would assume.

Like they intend to spend 2% of GDP? 

 

[jmt18325]

Like they intend to spend 2% of GDP? 

I would submit that governments of both stripes have made it clear that they don't intend to meet that target.

 

[Kirkhill]

I would submit that governments of both stripes have made it clear that they don't intend to meet that target.

Agreed.