This is quite possibly the only time you’ll ever hear me say this: I’m with NDP Defence Critic Dawn Black, as quoted here:
“It’s appalling that defence is the biggest expenditure of government and yet there’s no strategic documents to go with this supposed plan,” Ms. Black said. “We waited two years for this, if you can believe it.”
A bright, shiny nickel to the first person who can actually point to the “strategy” in the poorly-named “Canada First Defence Strategy” announced with great hoopla in Halifax yesterday.
Military funding in this country is always welcome, since our Canadian Forces is chronically underfunded. But promises by a minority government for cost-of-living funding increases that won’t even keep up with inflation, projected out years beyond the next election, is nothing more than fluff. And without policy to anchor those promises, to lay out the need for such funding, to tie the money to the capabilities our country requires of the CF, they’re nothing more real than whispers in the wind.
When politicians speak in vague terms about defence, and when they refuse to put any of their ideas into a written document, my spidey-sense starts tingling.
I wrote something two years ago before the Conservatives gained power, and unfortunately it still holds true:
Interestingly, my concerns with the Conservative platform (page 23 of the pdf, but 45 of the policy book) are exactly the opposite to those I harbour about the Liberal plan. While the Liberals have communicated a vision with mediocre details and follow-through, the Conservatives have laid out significant detail without an overarching policy. Perhaps the Tories assume the policy status quo holds unless contradicted, but I would have liked to have seen that affirmed in their platform. Because, as I’ve said before, without a cohesive policy thread to hold it all together, their platform is just a series of spending announcements. Welcome and needed spending announcements, mind you, but hardly a defence policy.
Ask yourself if you’d invest in a private enterprise that handled its single largest budgetary line item like this:
In a highly unusual move, the Conservative government will base its entire future rebuilding of the Canadian military on Mr. Harper’s 10-minute speech and Mr. MacKay’s 700-word address. No actual strategy document has been produced, or will be produced, according to government and defence officials. Neither speech went into any specific details about equipment purchases, costs or timelines or how the future strategy will unfold. Both speeches presented more broad-brush approaches to defence.
Asked about when the actual Canada First Defence Strategy was going to be released, Jay Paxton, Mr. MacKay’s press secretary, replied: “It is a strategy that you heard enunciated by the prime minister and Minister MacKay.”
“It is not a ‘document’ like a white paper — it is the vision delivered today for long-term planning for the CF,” he added. “As such, the speeches are the strategy.”
The Department of National Defence is the largest branch of our federal government. With a budget of tens of billions of dollars, a written strategy that shows some tangible commitment to a definite plan isn’t too much to ask.
While more detail is better than less detail from a policy standpoint, bringing too much attention to military spending is risky.
Canadians have been indoctinated to believe military spending is “American-style” and thus to be discouraged. We’ve spun the liberal fairytale that states that Canada is not a military country (despite the obvious disconnect with the historical record.)
The more they can fund the military without waking up the unwashed masses in Toronto the better. You can re-educate the public later.
Over and over Harper and the cons spout lots of word but have no substance. In fact cons is a good word for this lot of losers. Hell I wouldn’t buy a used car from this lot of con artists.
Remind me again what those plans did for us? Did they work for Somalia, did they work for the Balkans, did they work for Afghanistan?
The world is going to be evolving a lot in this century, no one is really sure where the chips will land. If I told you in June 2001 that Canada would be fighting a hot war with tanks in Afghanistan you would have laughed and thrown me into the rubber room. Planning can be good, but why bother at this point, the Libs will throw it out the moment they come in. Also if the CPC focuses to much on the military they will be painted as “war-mongers” by the NDP and Libs. There is an old saying, no plan survives contact with the enemy. Right now Canada does not need a plan, we already have a good idea of what we need just to be ready for the identified threats. We have pissed away the time for grand plans and now need to get started on rebuilding the forces. We already know they are to small to sustain operations, we already know that our ships need replacing. We already know we need more presence in the Arctic. It’s pretty clear that we will require a flexible expeditionary army that can fight conventional and insurgent warfare. There are questions of what equipment mix is needed for that. There are legit questions on what type of support ships we need, but we know that the sales of subs around the world is high, so ASW is required, command and control functions are required for the ships, the Falklands showed that Air defense is important.
A competent general or Admiral with decent equipment and a sizable force can adapt to any situation. But if they don’t have the basic equipment and people to do the job the “grand plan” is just really bad toilet paper.
Its hard to argue with a lot of the points in this posting, but I will try anyway.
I don’t think that defence is the governments biggest expenditure. I think that debt servicing and health either directly or through transfers to the provinces account for more than defence.
Defence spending has to be planned twenty years in advance because that is how long it takes to get equipment on the ground from the time that a “statement of capability deficiency” is written (I used to work in this business). This is more thee fault of treasury board than it is the fault of DND.
Given that we don’t know what the world is going to look like ten years from now, or even five, The only logical policy is that the armed forces will have A combat capable force on the land sea, and in the air. A combat capable force is able to take part in all operations up to and including all out war against any enemy alone or as part of a coalition. Given that Canada is in the enviable position that we are never going to go to war against anyone by ourselves, we can take that as a limitation that we can live with.
Given that (almost) all the wars in our history have been somewhere else, and that Canada is a huge country, it is a safe bet that we should have “expeditionary capabilities”.
To have anything other than this type of armed force limits the governments options to act in defence of our own sovereignty and to take parts in events on the world stage.
You could write pretty much any “white paper” you want and defence planners could build whatever force they want and justify it in terms of the white paper.
You absolutely must keep politicians out of it once DND has been issued their orders or we will continue to waste huge amounts of money and have nothing to show for it. Examples of this are DND buying used airbusses to bail out air Canada. DND buying F-5s to keep Canadair at work even though DND neither asked for them or wanted them, DND buying crappy useless trucks because they were built in the defence ministers riding. I could go on and on but my wife is telling me that my lunch is getting cold.
Agreed, it’s not worth the paper it’s not written on.
A overall strategy paper would be welcomed, I suppose, but with all things military, a certain amount of secrecy is required. It is our money though and we deserve to know in general terms what we are spending billions on.
I really can’t see it being anything but preparing our forces to fight at land, sea, and air. I think we have a good start on the personel but most of the money will go to new and improved equipment. Protecting our claim to the artic will be a focus, along with forces to fight insrugency tactics. With the transport deathes in Afghanistan, air transport will also be a focus.
If we did get a paper, it would be in very general terms anyway. I have not listened to the speach, but having a military ready by air, land, and sea is good enough for me. I’m not too worried about equipment purchases with this government, because I feel like the decisions are firmly in the militaries hands for what seems like the first time in a million years.
What does concern me a little bit, is the mention of living increases that don’t meet the rate of inflation. This kind of funding needs to be looked into.
I guess it comes down to the fact that I would rather see more detail and less of an overall view, because at least I know the implementation has been thought of. Most of large vision planning is generalities and fluff anyways. I firmly believe that the military knows what they need and why, the public will have to judge on a purchase by purcahse basis if those are good expenditures. If not, punish them at the next election with your vote.
I’m seeing quite an interesting line of argument developing here. I think it can be summed up as follows: who knows what the world will look like, and what sort of policy and force we’ll need ten or twenty years down the road. So why bother planning, when the plans are likely going to change.
Try working as a staff officer and making that argument to your CO. I dare you.
No plan survives first contact with the enemy, etc. Yes, I know. But try going into the battle without an idea of what your objectives are, or how you’re going to achieve them. Better a flawed plan than no plan at all, etc.
But hey, maybe the whole “uncertainty” thing is a solid justification for no overarching defence plan. If so, why put a number on the spending? I mean, if the uncertainty is so staggering as to defy a plan, then how can you possibly know what to spend?
Manning levels require planning – you can’t recruit Warrant Officers or Majors, you have to grow them. Training regimens and organizational structures require planning – look at the restructuring “transformation” process going on with CEFCOM, CANCOM, CANSOFCOM, CANOSCOM, etc. not to mention the training and rehearsal shift from manoeuvre warfare to COIN at Wainwright right now.
Sure, you can buy equipment on the fly, as you get into missions. That’s probably the one problem that’s easiest to fix with money. But look at how long it’s taking us to get Chinooks. The Afghan mission will be nearly done by the time they’re operational with the CF.
Throwing money around without a plan to guide it is just plain foolhardy, folks.
pissedoff
…But you probably would buy a used Iltis from the Libs, right? And with your left over cash you would probably buy that over-used/worn out Herc that attempted to take off four (4) times unsuccessfully on its way to Timour a few years back, right. And you would be glad to take your family on vacation anywhere in a Sea-Kings world, right?
Just piss off, okay?
CRB
When you buy a new car, do you have a list of all the places you’re going to drive to, and all the passengers to be carried, and all the things you’re going to transport in it?
Seems to me the Conservatives have articulated their Defence plans pretty well as much as they can: defend sovereignty, have a combat-ready multi-purpose capability, and the tools to take it where it is needed. Much of what has been announced is refurbishing and updating, not a lot of new capacity.
Defence forces are a tool of foreign policy. What commentators need to do is look at that, then they’ll see what this announcement is about.
Canada FIRST Defence STRATEGY
Strategy Definition:
Main Entry:
strat·e·gy
Pronunciation:
\-jē\
Function:
noun
Inflected Form(s):
plural strat·e·gies
Etymology:
Greek stratēgia generalship, from stratēgos
1 a (1): the science and art of employing the political, economic, psychological, and military forces of a nation or group of nations to afford the maximum support to adopted policies in peace or war (2): the science and art of military command exercised to meet the enemy in combat under advantageous conditions b: a variety of or instance of the use of strategy2 a: a careful plan or method : a clever stratagem b: the art of devising or employing plans or stratagems toward a goal
Presumably one has a reasonable grasp of ‘threat assessment’ to Canada; accepting that one is posed for defence rather than offence.
Principal threat assessment would enumerate as: nuclear, chemical, biological, conventional, terrorist (state and non-state actors)
As minuteman pointed out, the threats require a land, sea, and air response. If you need 20 years to determine your capability response I would suggest you will probably be DEAD!!
Given that the LIEberals put the CF on a starvation diet for equipment replacement cycle, it is small wonder that the Conservatives are making stable funding an issue of priority.
Maybe then we will have less stories of “Shaking Hands with the Devil” and idiotic replacement cycles where we are still discussing the relative merits of 40-45 year old helicopters; which are older than the pilots flying them. The current news stories have floated the idea of a possible cancellation of the Sikorsky helicopter AGAIN!!
http://www.canadaspace.com/CBC.php?/canada/story/2008/04/30/helicopter-contract.html
“The Sea Kings were supposed to have been retired by 2000, but the air force prolonged their life by spending $80 million to keep them flying. The Sea Kings require 30 hours of maintenance for every hour of flight, and they are unavailable for operations 40 per cent of the time.”
If you make your defenders beg for money at every turn, small wonder they have low regard for the “Decade of Darkness”.
You know it is a good thing that Her Majesty the Queen is a fan of matters equestrian. Principally because the political class that have behaved like such horses asses. GO CAVALRY!!
Hans-Christian Georg Rupprecht BGS, PDP, CFP
Commander in Chief
Frankenstein Battalion
2nd Squadron: Ulanen-(Lancers) Regiment Großherzog Friedrich von Baden(Rheinisches) Nr.7(Saarbrucken)
Knecht Rupprecht Division
Hans Corps
1st Saint Nicolaas Army
Army Group “True North
Canada FIRST Defence STRATEGY
Strategy Definition:
Main Entry:
strat·e·gy
Pronunciation:
\-jē\
Function:
noun
Inflected Form(s):
plural strat·e·gies
Etymology:
Greek stratēgia generalship, from stratēgos
1 a (1): the science and art of employing the political, economic, psychological, and military forces of a nation or group of nations to afford the maximum support to adopted policies in peace or war (2): the science and art of military command exercised to meet the enemy in combat under advantageous conditions b: a variety of or instance of the use of strategy2 a: a careful plan or method : a clever stratagem b: the art of devising or employing plans or stratagems toward a goal
Presumably one has a reasonable grasp of ‘threat assessment’ to Canada; accepting that one is posed for defence rather than offence.
Principal threat assessment would enumerate as: nuclear, chemical, biological, conventional, terrorist (state and non-state actors)
As minuteman pointed out, the threats require a land, sea, and air response. If you need 20 years to determine your capability response I would suggest you will probably be DEAD!!
Given that the LIEberals put the CF on a starvation diet for equipment replacement cycle, it is small wonder that the Conservatives are making stable funding an issue of priority.
Maybe then we will have less stories of “Shaking Hands with the Devil” and idiotic replacement cycles where we are still discussing the relative merits of 40-45 year old helicopters; which are older than the pilots flying them. The current news stories have floated the idea of a possible cancellation of the Sikorsky helicopter AGAIN!!
http://www.canadaspace.com/CBC.php?/canada/story/2008/04/30/helicopter-contract.html
“The Sea Kings were supposed to have been retired by 2000, but the air force prolonged their life by spending $80 million to keep them flying. The Sea Kings require 30 hours of maintenance for every hour of flight, and they are unavailable for operations 40 per cent of the time.”
If you make your defenders beg for money at every turn, small wonder they have low regard for the “Decade of Darkness”.
You know it is a good thing that Her Majesty the Queen is a fan of matters equestrian. Principally because the political class that have behaved like such horses asses. GO CAVALRY!!
Hans-Christian Georg Rupprecht BGS, PDP, CFP
Commander in Chief
Frankenstein Battalion
2nd Squadron: Ulanen-(Lancers) Regiment Großherzog Friedrich von Baden(Rheinisches) Nr.7(Saarbrucken)
Knecht Rupprecht Division
Hans Corps
1st Saint Nicolaas Army
Army Group “True North
“…
Hell I wouldn’t buy a used car from this lot of con artists.”
Being a Liberal, I presume, of course you wouldn’t. You’d more likely steal it. Call it your bit for sovereignty, or Kyoto. But then, if you were NDP, it would be all you could afford. And if you’d been an NDP as government, it’d be all ANYONE could afford.
since our Canadian Forces is chronically underfunded
Underfunding is the least of the Canadian Forces problems. The past 4 years under Martin and now Harper has revealed a more dire predicament; the inability to increase capacity in anything more than theoretical terms.
I believe it’s foolish for any nation to keep a large standing army when it doesn’t face any threat to its security. It’s akin to hiring a security guard now to watch over the Picasso you might buy one day.
The negligible real progress over last 4 years however, has demonstrated that should a threat to our nation’s security arise the Canadian Forces are not equipped to ramp up their capacity to meet it. For example, it’s easy enough when faced with a threat to draw in enough recruits to increase our troop size but the capacity to turn those raw recruits into soldiers has contracted and rusted out to the point where increasing the actual troop size has become a near impossible task for the Canadian Forces.
Fixing that problem is what Harper should be focusing on even if it isn’t the optics aren’t as politically rousing as buying shiny new toys.
Damian, you are correct, but planning at the level you are talking about happens all the time at the military command level, not the political level. It is up to the soldiers to decide how many NCOs and majors they train within the number f people they hire within the budget that they have to do it. In my ideal world the political planning would end with giving tasks and budgets.
The plan should be to have a combat capable force that has the most capability that we are prepared to buy. Thats all the government should be saying . After that its up to DND to figure it out.
The amount of money available. is never going to be as much as DND wants and will never be based on what DND thinks it needs. DND has to live with what the government is wiling to spend.
Again, if the political leaders are prepared to say that the armed forces shall be combat capable in three environments, and you have x dollars to do it with the rest of the planning should be up to the soldiers.
Hans Rupprecht, if by “stable” you mean “can be changed by the next government’s budget” then I guess you’re right. And you can be quite “stable” and still starving. I’d suggest that 2% funding increases per year won’t even keep up with the level of inflation on MILSPEC equipment.
Look, here’s an example of what I’m talking about: we’re supposedly going to be replacing 98 CF-18’s with 65 F-35’s as part of this “strategy.” Why 65? What are they going to be asked to do in terms of NORAD, NATO, and any other foreign deployments? Will 65 be enough for those requirements? Will it be too many (joking!)?
When CEFCOM does a TO&E for a mission, they look at what effect they want to achieve, then back into the equipment and personnel mix they need to achieve that effect.
We need that strategic vision at the governmental level in order to back into our personnel, equipment, and funding requirements. This announcement gets that completely ass-backwards.
“When CEFCOM does a TO&E for a mission, they look at what effect they want to achieve, then back into the equipment and personnel mix they need to achieve that effect.”
They are really lucky to be in that situation. Just about every other military force in history has been more like “this is what we have to achieve, this is what we have to do it with, how are we going to do it?” If everyone worked that way, the Germans never would have invaded France given what any rational military planner would have though from looking at the numbers. (which would probably have been a good thing!!)
The 65 number comes from how many we can afford to by, and pay pilots to fly. The planning strategy is “we need some, how many can we afford” Even with the Americans money is the over riding consideration. The only difference between them and us is they have way more of it and they are prepared to spend way more of what they have.
Minuteman, I’d agree with you as far as letting the military professionals decide the “how” – but the Conservatives aren’t even putting the “what” to paper!
As someone I know wrote quite well awhile back:
What’s missing in the national discussion of defence is any serious discussion of why we have armed forces in the first place. The role of conventional armed forces in national defence is pretty limited these days, thanks to geography and friendly neighbours (who we couldn’t fight even if we wanted to — we’ll always be friendly perforce). So we expect our forces to perform other roles, such as peacekeeping — but without any serious discussion of what, precisely, those roles should be and what our forces should be prepared to do.
Will we act only with Security Council sanction, or with broad international agreement, or will we support a war launched by isolated allies? Is our army a war-fighting force, or a ceasefire monitoring organization, or something in between? Do we expect to be able to respond to another Rwanda with rifles and bayonets on the ground? If so, how quickly, and with how many troops? If the Security Council authorizes military intervention in Fantasia, what does Canada expect to contribute?
It’s only after we’ve had this discussion that we can seriously address whether we need submarines, and unmanned aerial vehicles, and tanks, and helicopters, and fighter jets. These are the questions that need to be addressed in an election campaign. Not how many dollars we’ll spend, but why we’re spending them.
Read that again: “Not how many dollars we’ll spend, but why we’re spending them.” Until you can answer that question, the spending promise is nothing but a political weathervane.
I’m not under any illusions – the effectiveness of a policy goes only so far as its implementation, which is why I largely panned the Liberal offering under Paul Martin. But at least he put out a policy statement to steer by.
As Zip so pithily put it earlier in this comment thread: It’s not worth the paper it’s not written on.
Minuteman, I’m not a fan of that approach: “here’s what you have to spend – go get whatever capabilities you can for that!”
“Ask yourself if you’d invest in a private enterprise that handled its single largest budgetary line item like this:”
No I wouldn’t but PMSH isn’t running a private enterprise. He’s working toward getting a majority government in a country where many don’t like to see Canadian soldiers in the streets with guns. Our streets on any body else’s.
The first battle for the defense of Canada will be fought at the next election. Thank goodness PMHS has the patience to plan and win that battle first.
I am in agreement with those who are cautious about too much by way of a detailed plan. In the context of government, the arena shifts all the time. I have seen more “plans” get chucked because of organizational or other changes — or that quickly become outdated because of things like changes in technology. What I think makes sense about the Harper approach is that if you have a broad umbrella covering general directions in which you will be moving, then the Department itself can come up with timely scenarios that fit under that umbrella. You don’t have to be hide-bound by time-lines, quantities, etc. — but clearly any specific purchases would entail a detailed rationale. Hmm — funny all the complaints about “detail policy” at the same time that there is the relentless complaint about Harper “micro-managing”.
Cal, you believe this is simply shrewd electioneering? Then why make the announcement at all? I mean, PMSH could have just continued on making spending announcements as he and his MND’s had over the past couple of years. Why hold a news conference in Halifax to make a non-announcement?
If he’s trying to keep defence under the public radar in Canada, inviting the media a press conference is an odd way to do it.
Here’s what I think might be going on:
* There was significant conflict between Hillier and O’Connor over this policy statement which prevented its release except in snippets over the past few years and usually made by the MND on his own.
* There are supporting documents, but they are for the most part still under negotiation or being developed and face the challenge of competing visions.
* The government is trying to shift the focus of the debate back to their election platform which is about protecting Canada’s north and building increased capability in various parts of the country (i.e. maritime commando unit in Comox, northern trg centre in Goose Bay, ice hardened frigates and an arctic port, heavy lift helos and Bagotville, territorial battalion for major population centres, etc.) and not about progressing the war in Afghanistan. They think it is an election winner and would rather fight an election on this than over the war.
* They are doing it at this time because the CDS, who had been the key roadblock on much of this is on the way out, and before a new CDS is brought on board who may oppose it, especially if it’s Natynczyk.
If there’s a more plausible idea out there as to why Harper would make this move, in this way, at this time, I haven’t heard it. And if this is indeed the case, and he’s looking to preemptively limit the scope of a new CDS, I would not be impressed.
As I posted elswhere (Yes I coming out of the closet, i am a cross-poster!!!)
A plan is a good thing, but it’s not like we don’t know what type of potential tasks in the future will be already. Regardless of our inability to defend from invasion by our neighbour, we still have to make an effort to defend our airspace and coast. We already know that Canada is not going to adopt a isolationist strategy in the near future, so we know that we require an expeditionary land force, that may have to do: peacekeeping, conventional warfare and counter-insurgent warfare, plus maintain operability with our allies
. The only real unknown is the political will to carry out any of these actions or which one will be the flavour of the day. Unless the long term defense planning includes buy in from all parties with a potential to hold power, then it is a worthless document as it has no staying power. In the current political climate, I doubt very much that there is interest to work together (or at least be seen to work together, I do however feel that there are a few figures in the opposition who we could work with) To build a long term plan we need buy in from the majority of the political field, but this is going to take more time than we have and that is the crux of the matter, we don’t have time left in our current core equipment, it has been squandered. I think the current government is doing a fine job (within the current political reality) of dealing with the absolute necessity to meet the needs of the soldier going out on patrol tomorrow morning. They are struggling to decide which of the crisis to tackle next and likely they have had to say: “NOT NOW” to a lot of projects which we really need. I don’t think this is this the perfect solution , but I think Maslow’s hierarchy of needs applies here. Currently the military is at the bottom level, until you fix that, everything else is luxury.
Has ANY Canadian Government ever had a detailed military / defense strategy?
The answer is NO.
Asking that any Canadian Governing party would depart from that habit is asking quite a lot I think.
I for one am happy that the government of the day is at least planning to make some financial resources available. How those resources are used is another matter.
Has ANY Canadian Government ever had a detailed military / defense strategy?
The answer is NO.
OMMAG, you’re off the mark here. The last White Paper was done by the Martin Liberals. While the Defence Policy Statement had its flaws (which I laid out at that link) – mostly the fact that they couldn’t be trusted to follow through with any promises they made – it was at least a policy. It provided something for DND planners to steer by.
“I believe it’s foolish for any nation to keep a large standing army when it doesn’t face any threat to its security. It’s akin to hiring a security guard now to watch over the Picasso you might buy one day.”
Well,you have your wish Robert..Canada’s standing army (all branches) is in the 55-65,000 man range.
Or, if you like, the amount of about 3 major metropolitan police forces in Canada combined.
That , sir, is a pathetic number.
“Minuteman, I’m not a fan of that approach: “here’s what you have to spend – go get whatever capabilities you can for that!”
In an ideal world, I’m not a fan of this approach either, but given that we are a second or third rate power at best, that really has very little threat to our national sovereignty its the best we are going to get.
The Americans have the resources to ask the question “how will we defeat a soviet armour heavy and possibly nuclear assault on western Europe”, and then design the A-10, Bradley , MLRS and Abrams tank from the ground up to meet the challenge. We are never going to do anything other than buy off the shelf. In my opinion we would be better off buying used American stuff.
I was my corps representative on the team that designed Army 2000. Are task was to decide what the units of the field army would look like. Our starting position was “this is how many people of each rank and trade you are going to get, this is the equipment you have, go to it. It really doesn’t leave a lot of room for manoeuvre, but that is the reality of the planning process.
FWIW, I knew General Natynchuk early in his career when I was a lieutenant and he was a major. All the junior officers in my unit were impressed with him even then, and I think he would make a great CDS. The other candidates probably are all equally capable, but I don’t know any of them.
Damian – your 2.09 is insightful, but too brief. Can you post something more extensive, with greater context, at the torch? Aim it at the militarily (and governmentally) clueless. Explain the interaction between the CDS and the government.
PMSH is inconsistent on this issue.
Thanks for the comment about Natynczyk, Minuteman – I’ve heard nothing but good things about him from everyone I’ve talked to who’s ever worked with him.
I understand your point about being able to work with finite resources, and those driving your real capabilities. But flip the driver around, and you can see my point: if the reality is limited resources, doesn’t that argue even more for a plan to get the most out of them?
Again, it’s not my preferred way to do business, but if the gov’t were to say to DND “here’s what you have to work with in terms of budget resources – what capabilities can you bring us with that money?” I’d be less upset. Because then they could say “here’s the policy – we will support these domestic goals and these foreign policy goals with these resources and capabilities because that’s the best we can do with what we’re willing to spend.”
But as it stands, there’s no connection between what the government’s willing to spend, and what they want out of it. That’s why policy is important.
Here’s a thought for the commentariat: if the Liberals had made back-ended promises of more funding to start after the next election date, funding that probably still wouldn’t have been enough, if they had changed their manning numbers and target dates three times in a year, and done it all without any sort of policy vision, would anybody here be defending them from my criticism?
Didn’t think so.
I’ll expand on my earlier point. We have a saying, with which I’m sure Damien and Minuteman are both familiar… Fail to plan, plan to fail. If you connect the dots on this you will see that there is no plan. That is not to say a nebulous idea but none at all. Zero, Zip (pardon the pun) Nadda.
A 20 year time frame in the world of politics is not forever, it’s never. It’s a licence for procrastination and equivication and not a stick else.
“A 20 year time frame in the world of politics is not forever, it’s never. It’s a licence for procrastination and equivication and not a stick else.”
This is absolutely correct, and it perfectly explains the state of political level defence planning in Canada for the last 50 years. Party A can plan whatever they want. Party B will be in power in the next 4 to 8 years and its all out the window. This is one of the problems of living in a democracy that we will just have to live with.
I think everyone is avoiding the real issue here.
That is that the LPC, CPC, etc. do not conduct themselves in the best interest of Canadians but in the best interests of their party and keeping/gaining power….PERIOD.
Leftards aren’t the problem….and to you liberal footsoldiers who like to hang out here, neither are the righties.
It’s the politicians, stupids!!
http://www.jsf.mil/downloads/documents/AFA%20Conf%20-%20JSF%20Program%20Brief%20-%2026%20Sept%2006.pdf
Damian:
If you check out the above link you will find that Canada is slated for an order in the neighbourhood of 88-90 F35 aircraft that come in A, B, and C variants comprising Conventional, Short Take off and landing, and Carrier Variants.
The weapons load out is roughly twice that of the F-18 and depending on variant has twice the effective range for refueling purposes.
Those would be important considerations in view of the vastness of Canadian airspace covering 3 coastlines. 65 aircraft to replace a complement of what was once 121 F-18 airframes would be low balling by a hefty margin, notwithstanding airframe improvements. Possible overseas deployments in the future would indicate a higher rather than lower number. But then we have until 2012-17 to hammer the government and opposition parties to do the right thing.
Protecting your Globemaster assets might be a consideration some time down the tarmac.
Cheers
Hans-Christian Georg Rupprecht BGS, PDP, CFP
Commander in Chief
Frankenstein Battalion
2nd Squadron: Ulanen-(Lancers) Regiment Großherzog Friedrich von Baden(Rheinisches) Nr.7(Saarbrucken)
Knecht Rupprecht Division
Hans Corps
1st Saint Nicolaas Army
Army Group “True North
In case anyone is wondering why we are down to 98 airframes, 80 operational F18s the following is instructive:
* April 12, 1984: Aircraft crashes while performing an exercise at CFB Cold Lake. Pilot killed.
* June 4, 1985: Aircraft flown by the CO of 409 Squadron crashes on formation takeoff from CFB Cold Lake. Planes were on the way to CFB Baden-Soellingen. Pilot survives.
* May 24, 1986: Aircraft crashes in shallow water of Malpeque Bay after takeoff from CFB Summerside. Pilot (Captain Tristan deKoninck) killed
* May 4, 1987: Aircraft crashes after going into a tailspin during test flight near Renchen, Germany. Both crew members eject safely and survive.
* September 21, 1987: Aircraft crashes after left engine catches fire on take-off from CFB Bagotville. Pilot ejects safely.
* October 20, 1987: Aircraft skids into field and disintegrates after pilot tries to abort formation takeoff from RAF Alconbury. Pilot survives.
* April 5, 1988: Aircraft crashes into hillside on Vancouver Island on a search and rescue mission. Pilot killed.
* January 11, 1989: Aircraft crashes near CFB Cold Lake on airlift support mission. Pilot killed.
* January 30, 1990: Plane crashes after takeoff from Inuvik, Northwest Territories, on a cruise-missile intercept exercise. Pilot (Captain Rich Corver) killed.
* April 4, 1990: Aircraft crashes in Cold Lake Air Weapons Range near CFB Cold Lake. Pilot killed.
* April 17, 1990: Two CF-18’s from CFB Baden-Soellingen collide while on a training mission in Germany. One crew member killed, other ejects safely.
* April 22, 1990: Aircraft plunges into Pacific Ocean during exercise off Vancouver Island. Pilot (Captain Hollis Tucker) killed.
* June 15, 1995: Aircraft crashes near Klamath Falls (US ANG Base), Oregon, while on a training exercise. Pilot ejects safely.
* July 5, 1995: Aircraft from CFB Cold Lake crashes in Saskatchewan during training. Pilot Capt. Richard Bailey of Vernon, BC killed.
* August 14, 1996: Aircraft crashes on takeoff from Iqaluit, Nunavut. Pilot safely ejects.[1]
* May 26, 2003: Jet crashes on the Cold Lake Air Weapons Range during the annual international training exercise MAPLE FLAG. Pilot (Captain Kevin Naismith) killed.[2][3]
* June 19, 2004: Aircraft from CFB Cold Lake lost when it was unable to stop while at Yellowknife, Northwest Territories. Aircraft was salvaged and is back in service. Pilot ejects but is injured.[4]
* August 16, 2005: Aircraft crashes during a training exercise near CFB Bagotville. Pilot safely ejects.[5]
Stuff happens, so the 65 unit number of F35s would make me uncomfortable. Note the government is already into the F35 to the tune of 150 million.
Cheers
Hans-Christian Georg Rupprecht BGS, PDP, CFP
Commander in Chief
Frankenstein Battalion
2nd Squadron: Ulanen-(Lancers) Regiment Großherzog Friedrich von Baden(Rheinisches) Nr.7(Saarbrucken)
Knecht Rupprecht Division
Hans Corps
1st Saint Nicolaas Army
Army Group “True North
* April 22, 1990: Aircraft plunges into Pacific Ocean during exercise off Vancouver Island. Pilot (Captain Hollis Tucker) killed.
I was on the search for him, in the CCG Cutter Ready.
There does not need to be a ‘strategic plan white paper’ on DND. It would be out of date before the ink dried.
Putting a defense plan on the record in public is not good policy. It gives the pacifist opposition a target and gives our enemies opportunities (and yes Canada has enemies – bleeding heart Liberals may not agree but soft power is a con job)
Hans Rupprecht, the link you provide is to a program brief from a year and a half ago. Here’s what PMSH said this past Monday:
The Canadian government said on Monday it would buy 65 new F-35 Joint Strike Fighters, a figure lower than the 80 planes that had widely circulated in the media.
“One of the reasons there will be fewer of the new fighters is we anticipate the new fighters will have significantly greater capacity than existing fighters,” Prime Minister Stephen Harper told a news conference.
I’m curious to see whether “greater capacity” means the ability to put up significantly more flight hours, since we’re getting to the point where it’s not just about how much payload we can carry, it’s about whether we have enough airframes to do every job we’re asking of them. I don’t care how capable a plane is, it can’t be in two places at once – like, say, over the Arctic intercepting Russian bombers (which are really picking up right now), and in the next deployed hotspot doing ISTAR or CAS.
Damian:
Yes, the F35 may have greater capacity but pilot fatigue remains the same. I agree you can’t be in two places at once.
The 65 unit figure leaves nothing in the equation for losses per accidents over the life of the plane. Even assuming 50% less losses you would have to have 10 more airframes to cover your attrition losses safely.
Going from a total airframe count of 121 F18s to 65 F35s is nonsense. Regardless of capacity, the human factor is constant, and Canada did not suddenly shrink, or was there an invasion that I missed reading about?
Cheers
Hans-Christian Georg Rupprecht BGS, PDP, CFP
Commander in Chief
Frankenstein Battalion
2nd Squadron: Ulanen-(Lancers) Regiment Großherzog Friedrich von Baden(Rheinisches) Nr.7(Saarbrucken)
Knecht Rupprecht Division
Hans Corps
1st Saint Nicolaas Army
Army Group “True North
Just want to add a comment about Natynczyk — first class guy. We graduated together from CMR and I did two phases of combat arms training with him. He shone even at that stage — leadership, integrity, intellect — all there. I last saw him on Reforger in Germany in 1981 taking a recce troop of the RCDs forward. I hope to God he’s made CDS. The Forces will be well represented and in the best hands.