[maritimematt]

In the thread on possible replacements to the CF-18, EyeBrock made a really interesting point - namely, for Canada to take at look at what Australia has been doing with defence.
Since 2000, Australia has achieved an annual 3% real terms increase
in its defence budget; by 2010, this will have delivered an additional $C20bn in defence funding. In 2005, Australia spent $C14bn, compared to $C11bn for Canada.
It would appear that with the Tory plan to deliver an extra $C5bn odd for defence over a five year period, Canada is really turning things around.
But, as noted by lots of people on this forum, there are a lot of calls on that extra money. Calls on the defence budget to replace venerable combat platforms and transport capability will eat into that extra cash. Back in 2000, New Zealand was facing similar problems to Canada today - lots to do, lots of interest from politicians in playing a part in world politics but without sufficient military werewithall to carry it off. As one Canadian strategist describes it - 'politicians writing cheques that the military can't
afford.' New Zealand's approach was a modest increase in funding to allow limited efforts in peace-keeping while simultaneously cutting the capacity of NZ defence forces to do a range of different tasks. Perhaps the most notable cut was the cancellation of a plan to replace RNZAF A-4 Skyhawk and Aermacchi MB-339 squadrons with 28 F-16's. The result was that
New Zealand became the first country in world history to voluntarily disband the combat wing of its air force. What New Zealand found was that even with extra money, their equipment had been allowed to atrophy for so long that they simply couldn't spend enough and quickly enough to
maintain capacities. Obviously Canada isn't near that stage with the CF-18, but the scandal surrounding the Sea Kings and the problems with the C-130 do pose a parallel. And of course both nations enjoy close relations with more powerful, more militarily developed countries.
My questions for those interested are: is there a risk that Canada might find itself in a New Zealand situation re defence? And in fact, is the NZ approach the right one for Canada to follow?


(link to an interesting artcle on Canada-NZ comparison)
http://www.journal.forces.gc.ca/engraph ... 7-69_e.pdf

[bootlegga]

Simply put no way!

The Kiwis also gave up all but two of their frigates. Personally, I think what the Kiwis did is crazy. They now lack the ability to properly patrol the sea approaches to their nation. The lack of aircraft also means that even if they do find an agressor, they can't do very much about it.

Canada does not need to maintain a 100,000 man army and 500 fighters, but we do need a decent sized armed forces to protect our sovereignty and for UN/NATO missions. As far as I'm concerned, it's too small right now.

Back in the days of the Cold War, I dreamed of Canada fielding wings of F-20 Tigersharks, several destroyers/frigate ASW groups, a couple of nuclear subs, and a full division of soldiers.

Nowadays, we don't need that much, but we do need more than we have now.

Some things we need in a hurry are;

1. Replace the DDH 280s

2. Joint Support Ships (to replace the current AORs)

3. Medium lift helicopters

4. Tactical airlift (C-130Js likely)

5. Strategic Airlift (I'd like c-17s, but the A400Ms would do)

Plus more sailors, airmen, and soldiers to keep units at proper manning levels. An enlarged Reserve would help some but not totally fill the need for manpower.

And comparing Canada to Australia isn't very accurate. Australia has several large neighbours who could potentially become threats, like Indonesia and Malaysia. If China works on its power projection capabilities like it has said it plans on, they could also become a threat in a decade or two. Canada on the other hand has only the USA. We are a long way from the nearest possible aggressors unlike the Aussies. Of course this does not mean we can take it easy when it comes to defence, but it means we will have different priorities.

[xerxes]

Its an interesting idea, but I'd still say no. The main reasons being is that we have obligations under NATO to keep all aspects of our armed forces at a certain level of readiness, just in case.

[Motorcycleboy]

bootlegga bootlegga:

And comparing Canada to Australia isn't very accurate. Australia has several large neighbours who could potentially become threats, like Indonesia and Malaysia...
...Canada on the other hand has only the USA. We are a long way from the nearest possible aggressors unlike the Aussies. Of course this does not mean we can take it easy when it comes to defence, but it means we will have different priorities.

I think that sums up the problem with the Canadian national psyche regarding defence.

Like you said, Canada, unlike Australia, is geographically isolated from any potential aggressor nations. And we live under the blanket of security provided the the Americans.

As a result, it's hard to convince Canadians to take a serious interest in their own defence. Much easier for a government to spend all their money on vote-getting social programs and regional pork than to go out and buy attack helicopters or a modern frigate.

[DrCaleb]

Motorcycleboy Motorcycleboy:

Much easier for a government to spend all their money on vote-getting social programs and regional pork than to go out and buy attack helicopters or a modern frigate.

*cough* *cough*. Perhaps you meant 'Destroyer' ?

I believe the City Class Frigates are quite modern.

[Scape]

How Much Should Canada Spend on The Military

Canada: Defence expenditure in 2001–02 was $7.9 billion or 1.1% of GDP

Australia: Defence expenditure in 2001–02 was $9.3 billion or 2% of GDP

I suggest we increase incrementally the budget to 3% of GDP over a period of 5-10 years. Once we have the equipment needed to support the CAF for a full generation of 20 years roll back to 2.5% of GDP after that.

[Arctic_Menace]

bootlegga bootlegga:

Simply put no way!

The Kiwis also gave up all but two of their frigates. Personally, I think what the Kiwis did is crazy. They now lack the ability to properly patrol the sea approaches to their nation. The lack of aircraft also means that even if they do find an agressor, they can't do very much about it.

Canada does not need to maintain a 100,000 man army and 500 fighters, but we do need a decent sized armed forces to protect our sovereignty and for UN/NATO missions. As far as I'm concerned, it's too small right now.

Back in the days of the Cold War, I dreamed of Canada fielding wings of F-20 Tigersharks, several destroyers/frigate ASW groups, a couple of nuclear subs, and a full division of soldiers.

Nowadays, we don't need that much, but we do need more than we have now.

Some things we need in a hurry are;

1. Replace the DDH 280s

2. Joint Support Ships (to replace the current AORs)

3. Medium lift helicopters

4. Tactical airlift (C-130Js likely)

5. Strategic Airlift (I'd like c-17s, but the A400Ms would do)

Plus more sailors, airmen, and soldiers to keep units at proper manning levels. An enlarged Reserve would help some but not totally fill the need for manpower.

And comparing Canada to Australia isn't very accurate. Australia has several large neighbours who could potentially become threats, like Indonesia and Malaysia. If China works on its power projection capabilities like it has said it plans on, they could also become a threat in a decade or two. Canada on the other hand has only the USA. We are a long way from the nearest possible aggressors unlike the Aussies. Of course this does not mean we can take it easy when it comes to defence, but it means we will have different priorities.

I agree with you 100% on this one bootlegga.........Well done!!!

[EyeBrock]

You get my vote Scape.

If we scrap all the silly bastard programs brought in under the guise of multicult, as well as the gun registry, very silly forced bilingualism in every Province and Territory, plus paying out for special interest groups and giving foreign aid to CHINA! (That really is crazy). Well maybe we could get some of the kit our troops have needed for years.


Personally I think if you asked the average Canadian, who has been subjected to years of a media that is well slanted against our Forces, they would think it was a good idea to get rid of any offensive capability.

They would be happy with fat chicks in blue berets building schools etc. Nice $10 bill that, they just need to add 30 lbs to that chick to be more realistic.


The blame for the decay of the CF can be traced back to forced amalgamation in the 1960's by that total anti-military tosser, Mr Heller and his draft dodging chum, Trudeau.
Successive Tory governments really haven’t been much better. (Anybody read Heller's book "Damn the torpedoes"? Makes very interesting reading for anybody who's ex CF or is interested in the Military, Tricks, a recommended read for thee!)

Here’s hoping Harper can break the mould.

[maritimematt]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

You get my vote Scape.

If we scrap all the silly bastard programs brought in under the guise of multicult, as well as the gun registry, very silly forced bilingualism in every Province and Territory, plus paying out for special interest groups and giving foreign aid to CHINA! (That really is crazy). Well maybe we could get some of the kit our troops have needed for years.


Personally I think if you asked the average Canadian, who has been subjected to years of a media that is well slanted against our Forces, they would think it was a good idea to get rid of any offensive capability.

They would be happy with fat chicks in blue berets building schools etc. Nice $10 bill that, they just need to add 30 lbs to that chick to be more realistic.


The blame for the decay of the CF can be traced back to forced amalgamation in the 1960's by that total anti-military tosser, Mr Heller and his draft dodging chum, Trudeau.
Successive Tory governments really haven’t been much better. (Anybody read Heller's book "Damn the torpedoes"? Makes very interesting reading for anybody who's ex CF or is interested in the Military, Tricks, a recommended read for thee!)

Here’s hoping Harper can break the mould.

In addition to amalgamating the Services, Mr Heller (Hellyer?) also uttered this nugget in 2005 (context - he believes in alien UFO theories)

"The United States military are preparing weapons which could be used against the aliens, and they could get us into an intergalactic war without us ever having any warning" and "The Bush Administration has finally agreed to let the military build a forward base on the moon, which will put them in a better position to keep track of the goings and comings of the visitors from space, and to shoot at them, if they so decide."

Now I know that President Reagan hinted obliquely at such things, but even he never went this far......

Maybe a possible role for NATO?

[bootlegga]

Motorcycleboy Motorcycleboy:

Like you said, Canada, unlike Australia, is geographically isolated from any potential aggressor nations. And we live under the blanket of security provided the the Americans.

I'd argue our blanket of security is our isolation, not the USA. Nowadays, no one could get at us even if the USA didn't exist. No other nation in the world has the capability (sealift/airlift) to invade and occupy Canada. Sure, China or Russia could nuke us into oblivion, but they would not be able to walk in and take the oil sands from us.

Scape Scape:

How Much Should Canada Spend on The Military

Canada: Defence expenditure in 2001–02 was $7.9 billion or 1.1% of GDP

Australia: Defence expenditure in 2001–02 was $9.3 billion or 2% of GDP

I suggest we increase incrementally the budget to 3% of GDP over a period of 5-10 years. Once we have the equipment needed to support the CAF for a full generation of 20 years roll back to 2.5% of GDP after that.

Personally, I think the whole per capita argument is BS. That would mean almost tripling what we spend (increasing it to roughly $32.3 Billion), as our 2005 GDP was about 1.077 Trillion.

Per capita spending is a red herring, as I've argued in many different threads. Does Japan's 1.1% mean nothing? That equates to almost $45 Billion! That's not chump change by any stretch of the imagination. It puts them in the Top 5 in military spending, yet they are considered by a lot of defence analysts to be 'free-loaders'. Canada is already #6 in military spending in NATO, behind the bigger countries in the alliance. We even outspend more populous nations like Spain and Turkey.

I definitely want substantially increased defence spending (at least 20 Billion would be nice IMHO), but tying it to GDP is just silly. Hell, I'd even be willing to increase it to 30 Billion if that's what's needed, I'm just tired of that silly statistic getting thrown out there.

[Scape]

The reason I tie the military budget into the GDP is that it will also keeps the idea of debt retirement a possibility, nothing more. The fact is we need to at least double the budget anyway just to replace the equipment we have. Also there is no point in going beyond tripling the budget as Canada is already facing a dire skilled manpower shortage as it stands anyway. Even if we did up the number we would be hard pressed to fill the ranks at this point. Such a demand will only be fill over time if we were to expand the military numbers we would probably cause more damage to it than good.

Hellyer was the minister of Defence under Trudeau. He introduced the idea of the forces working together. Had he been the butcher as Eye sees him Trudeau would have kept him on instead of dismissed him. As I recall he was let go because of disagreement over housing.

[EyeBrock]

Oops, my mistake it's Hellyer of course (an over aggressive spell check. Apologies).

Read his book though, a total eye opener on how the intellectual elite of the 1960'ds thought about the CF and couldn't wait to severe all links with the Brits on every level.

[EyeBrock]

Amalgamation was the beginning of the end for the CF Scape. Hellyer ripped the soul out of all three Services. That was all Hellyer. The disgruntled AC1, RCAF, that he was.

[Scape]

Well I won't disagree that amalgamation was the start of the downturn I do disagree that it was Hellyer intent to castrate the armed forces. Yes, there was an intellectual elite that thought they knew better but you have to agree at the same time there where huge ego's in Ivory towers as well that would wrangle over anything just to get a one up on the other branches and that was the root cause of the 'intellectual elite' in the 1st place. Had the branches worked together and not got their snot in a knot we may have even saved the Bonnie (Ok, well snowballs chance in hell but one could always hope.) The fact is he had to cut somewhere and getting them to work together was struggle enough.

Beyond that we have to keep in mind the context of the era and what effect it had on Canadians outlook and how they approached the ballot box. Trudeau could have said anything but until people vote for him there is not a lot he can do. The baby boomer generation had their fill of war thanks in part to how Vietnam was playing out and did not want ANYTHING to do with the military. That had way more to do with the downturn than Pierre and his policies ever did.

Now that we are finally breaking away from the influence of the baby boomers it is time we return to a responsible and sustainable military policy with an emphasis on debt retirement. Before we go there we have major equipment that needs to be replaced and it will cost us a great deal now but that will be a good thing if we bite this bullet and just get it over with as we will end up with a much stronger armed forces as a result.

[EyeBrock]

I tend to agree with you about the individual fiefdoms each Service became. But to destroy the very identity of proud units, land, sea and air opened the door to lack of esprit-de-corps we now see with the Air Command guys especially. They have no identity and consequently act that way. Watching them fuck up the offload of the four PPCLI caskets was truly embarrassing.
I could never see the RAF Regiment drop the ball ceremonially like they did. It was sloppy and amateurish, with every bloody TV camera in the land recording every move.

I also see ship’s companies with all three colour of uniforms onboard. That’s bullshit at sea. They should be fish -heads to man,.
Air Force? On a ship? That’s just bloody silly.