[Jabberwalker]

I have no respect for the irresponsible spending of the Conservatives.


OOOO! 1% of GDP! They're right out of control! How low can YOU go, Poindexter?

[Winnipegger]

I've said it before. If you are incapable of understanding, then don't try to condescend.

According to the May 2006 budget, the first budget by Jim Flaherty, the status quo surplus for 2005/2006 was $17.4 billion. Remember the federal government's year end is March 31st, so that is 01-April-2005 through 31-March-2006. The federal election was 23-January-2006 and ministers sworn in 06-February-2006, so the Conservatives were only in power for the last 2 months of that year. In that budget he stated his intent to reduce the surplus to $8.0 billion. This wasn't by cutting taxes, it was by increasing spending. That's $9.4 billion in new spending just the first two months alone. The Auditor General's report that summer stated Canadians earned more income and paid more taxes than anyone was expecting, resulting in more revenue. The surplus for 2005/2006 ended up being $13.2 billion; but that wasn't due to the Conservatives being responsible with money, it was because we paid more tax.

The last Liberal budget projected spending to the 2009/2010 fiscal year, so we can compare Conservative spending to Liberal spending for each year up to that date. And I take actual spending from budgets.
2006/2007: Liberal budget $161.3B, Conservative actual spending $175.2B
2007/2008: Lib $169.5B, Con $188.3B
2008/2009: Lib $185.8B, Con $207.9B
2009/2010: Lib $194.5B, Con $244.8B

Are we learning yet? Conservatives have drastically increased spending. Irresponsibly increased spending.

CF-18 Fighter jets originally cost US$35 million each. Current cost for F-35A fighters (the variant the Conservatives want to buy) is US$124.8 million each.

Canada had 4 destroyers and 12 frigates when the Conservatives took office in January 2006. The Conservatives stripped one of our destroyers for parts, towed it out to deep water in the pacific, and used it for target practice. It was shot and sunk. We now have 3 destroyers.

Current plans for navy ships is to replace our 2 AOR ships with 2 AOR ships. Our 3 remaining destroyers with 3 destroyers. And 12 frigates with 12 frigates. For each ship they replace a steel monohull with a steel monohull. That means throwing out what we have, and replacing with exactly the same thing. This is not adding to the fleet, this is not updating or modernizing, it's just wasting billions of dollars to get exactly what we have now. Previous plans were to refit them. Do you realize what a refit is? Do you know what's involved?

They also replaced our Hercules cargo planes with Hercules cargo planes. There is an argument, sometimes, that replacement parts for an older model aircraft are so expensive that it's less expensive to replace with a current model. But before doing so you have to ensure the new model will be supported for a long time, that parts for that will not increase to the price for parts of your current aircraft. But don't think buying a new aircraft will somehow get you out of doing maintenance; you still have to do maintenance. And aircraft designs can become obsolete. But they replaced Hercules cargo planes with Hercules cargo planes.

So now you want to argue percent of GDP? The Americans have been drastically overspending since World War 2. That could be argued until the collapse of the Soviet Union, and end of the Cold War. In year 2000 US military spending was US$288 billion. Then George W. Bush got elected. In 2008 their military spending was US$700 billion, in 2009 it was US$799B, and in 2010 (the first year for Obama) it was US$901 billion! And they wonder why their banking system collapsed. Congress deliberately eliminated government regulations on banks and demanded the banks find a "creative" way to raise funds so they could continue to fund US federal government deficits. They did: junk mortgages. That caused the US banking system to collapse. I blame Congress. The original source of this problem was military overspending. They spent themselves into bankruptcy. They still refuse to admit that the US is bankrupt. So you want to duplicate that mistake?

[saturn_656]

Winnipegger Winnipegger:

CF-18 Fighter jets originally cost US$35 million each. Current cost for F-35A fighters (the variant the Conservatives want to buy) is US$124.8 million each.

And the CF-104 we flew before the Hornet was only 2 million apiece. Not sure what point you're trying to make.

$1:

Canada had 4 destroyers and 12 frigates when the Conservatives took office in January 2006. The Conservatives stripped one of our destroyers for parts, towed it out to deep water in the pacific, and used it for target practice. It was shot and sunk. We now have 3 destroyers.

Huron was paid off in 2005, under Paul Martins Liberals.

Look it up.

$1:

Current plans for navy ships is to replace our 2 AOR ships with 2 AOR ships. Our 3 remaining destroyers with 3 destroyers. And 12 frigates with 12 frigates. For each ship they replace a steel monohull with a steel monohull. That means throwing out what we have, and replacing with exactly the same thing. This is not adding to the fleet, this is not updating or modernizing, it's just wasting billions of dollars to get exactly what we have now. Previous plans were to refit them. Do you realize what a refit is? Do you know what's involved?

Actually it is updating and modernizing. The new class will be larger than any of our current combatants, will have a 3D radar, increased missile capacity, so on and so forth.

$1:

They also replaced our Hercules cargo planes with Hercules cargo planes. There is an argument, sometimes, that replacement parts for an older model aircraft are so expensive that it's less expensive to replace with a current model. But before doing so you have to ensure the new model will be supported for a long time, that parts for that will not increase to the price for parts of your current aircraft. But don't think buying a new aircraft will somehow get you out of doing maintenance; you still have to do maintenance. And aircraft designs can become obsolete. But they replaced Hercules cargo planes with Hercules cargo planes.

Airframes are only good for so many hours. Our E models were among the highest houred Hercs anywhere in the world.

We got more than our moneys worth out of them.

$1:

So now you want to argue percent of GDP? The Americans have been drastically overspending since World War 2. That could be argued until the collapse of the Soviet Union, and end of the Cold War. In year 2000 US military spending was US$288 billion. Then George W. Bush got elected. In 2008 their military spending was US$700 billion, in 2009 it was US$799B, and in 2010 (the first year for Obama) it was US$901 billion! And they wonder why their banking system collapsed. Congress deliberately eliminated government regulations on banks and demanded the banks find a "creative" way to raise funds so they could continue to fund US federal government deficits. They did: junk mortgages. That caused the US banking system to collapse. I blame Congress. The original source of this problem was military overspending. They spent themselves into bankruptcy. They still refuse to admit that the US is bankrupt. So you want to duplicate that mistake?

You know there is a middle ground between what we spend and the Americans do.

[BartSimpson]

If Canada wants to cut costs you can always deploy something along the lines of the A-29 Super Tucano. You can probably get Bombadier to develop something and produce it inside of 18 months. Hang some advanced missiles on the rails and it becomes a decent stand-off platform. They're not fast so you'll need some more bases but where they're cheap and rugged you can use rough fields instead of neatly manicured runways like you need for finicky jets.

[BartSimpson]

saturn_656 saturn_656:

You know there is a middle ground between what we spend and the Americans do.

Indeed. And that 'middle ground' is Canada being able to FULLY defend itself in all of her own territory and to be able to fulfill treaty obligations. Nothing more, nothing less.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

Winnipegger Winnipegger:

CF-18 Fighter jets originally cost US$35 million each. Current cost for F-35A fighters (the variant the Conservatives want to buy) is US$124.8 million each.

Canada had 4 destroyers and 12 frigates when the Conservatives took office in January 2006. The Conservatives stripped one of our destroyers for parts, towed it out to deep water in the pacific, and used it for target practice. It was shot and sunk. We now have 3 destroyers.

Yep, that was almost the truth. Defence cutbacks during the late 1990s saw Huron placed in mothball status due to a personnel shortage in 2000. So in effect we've only had 3 destroyers since 2000 thanks to the Liberal's military cutbacks.

Your numbers showing the "irresponsible increase" in military spending by the Conservatives appears to be disingenuous considering the Liberal's military budget you compared it too was already underfunding the military.

[saturn_656]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

If Canada wants to cut costs you can always deploy something along the lines of the A-29 Super Tucano. You can probably get Bombadier to develop something and produce it inside of 18 months. Hang some advanced missiles on the rails and it becomes a decent stand-off platform. They're not fast so you'll need some more bases but where they're cheap and rugged you can use rough fields instead of neatly manicured runways like you need for finicky jets.

Methinks it'd be a piss poor interceptor. Good for dropping iron on ragtag bands of insurgents but not much else.

I'd rather we spring for these.

[saturn_656]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

saturn_656 saturn_656:

You know there is a middle ground between what we spend and the Americans do.

Indeed. And that 'middle ground' is Canada being able to FULLY defend itself in all of her own territory and to be able to fulfill treaty obligations. Nothing more, nothing less.

Sounds good to me.

[bootlegga]

Winnipegger Winnipegger:

I've said it before. If you are incapable of understanding, then don't try to condescend.

According to the May 2006 budget, the first budget by Jim Flaherty, the status quo surplus for 2005/2006 was $17.4 billion. Remember the federal government's year end is March 31st, so that is 01-April-2005 through 31-March-2006. The federal election was 23-January-2006 and ministers sworn in 06-February-2006, so the Conservatives were only in power for the last 2 months of that year. In that budget he stated his intent to reduce the surplus to $8.0 billion. This wasn't by cutting taxes, it was by increasing spending. That's $9.4 billion in new spending just the first two months alone. The Auditor General's report that summer stated Canadians earned more income and paid more taxes than anyone was expecting, resulting in more revenue. The surplus for 2005/2006 ended up being $13.2 billion; but that wasn't due to the Conservatives being responsible with money, it was because we paid more tax.

The last Liberal budget projected spending to the 2009/2010 fiscal year, so we can compare Conservative spending to Liberal spending for each year up to that date. And I take actual spending from budgets.
2006/2007: Liberal budget $161.3B, Conservative actual spending $175.2B
2007/2008: Lib $169.5B, Con $188.3B
2008/2009: Lib $185.8B, Con $207.9B
2009/2010: Lib $194.5B, Con $244.8B

Are we learning yet? Conservatives have drastically increased spending. Irresponsibly increased spending.

And at the same time drastically reduced taxes, almost building a structural deficit into our financial system.

Had he not bought so many votes, he'd likely have more money to spend on all sorts of needs, including healthcare, infrastructure and defence.

If Harper had been smart, he would have used part of the stimulus in 2008-2010 to fund defence purchases - ships could have been laid down, new LAVs could have been built in London & Edmonton, Buffalo SAR planes in Victoria & Calgary and a variety of other goodies could have been bought for maybe 10% of the total stimulus spending package.

Winnipegger Winnipegger:

CF-18 Fighter jets originally cost US$35 million each. Current cost for F-35A fighters (the variant the Conservatives want to buy) is US$124.8 million each.

Not sure what point you're making here...but adjusted for inflation, to buy that same CF-18 today we would have to shell out $72,360,197.37.

http://www.bankofcanada.ca/rates/relate ... alculator/

So spending 60% more to get a far more capable plane isn't all that unrealistic.

While I'm not a big fan of the F-35 because it's a single engine plane, you can't expect the cost of equipment not to go up in the long run, especially when you add in things like advances in metallurgy (stealth), electronics/software, etc.

Winnipegger Winnipegger:

Canada had 4 destroyers and 12 frigates when the Conservatives took office in January 2006. The Conservatives stripped one of our destroyers for parts, towed it out to deep water in the pacific, and used it for target practice. It was shot and sunk. We now have 3 destroyers.

As already noted, Huron was decommissioned under a Liberal government, not a Conservative one.

Winnipegger Winnipegger:

Current plans for navy ships is to replace our 2 AOR ships with 2 AOR ships.

Actually, we had three when Chretien took over in 1993, many people have already forgotten about HMCS Provider. It was decommissioned in 1998;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMCS_Provider_(AOR_508)

Winnipegger Winnipegger:

Our 3 remaining destroyers with 3 destroyers. And 12 frigates with 12 frigates. For each ship they replace a steel monohull with a steel monohull. That means throwing out what we have, and replacing with exactly the same thing. This is not adding to the fleet, this is not updating or modernizing, it's just wasting billions of dollars to get exactly what we have now. Previous plans were to refit them. Do you realize what a refit is? Do you know what's involved?

The hulls may be similar, but that's about it. Capabilities will be vastly different, as newer ships will have better weapons & electronics, longer range and fewer sailors (meaning lower operational costs in both fuel and personnel).

Winnipegger Winnipegger:

They also replaced our Hercules cargo planes with Hercules cargo planes. There is an argument, sometimes, that replacement parts for an older model aircraft are so expensive that it's less expensive to replace with a current model. But before doing so you have to ensure the new model will be supported for a long time, that parts for that will not increase to the price for parts of your current aircraft. But don't think buying a new aircraft will somehow get you out of doing maintenance; you still have to do maintenance. And aircraft designs can become obsolete. But they replaced Hercules cargo planes with Hercules cargo planes.

This is one place where Harper deserves some credit - he also bought Chinook helicopters and CF-177s (C-17s to the rest of the world).

Those two purchases have increased the strategic and tactical capabilities of our air force, but as I said years ago on this site when the purchase was made, it has come at a cost of our strategic sealift capabilities (we still don't have any, even with the new AORs Harper plans to buy).

Winnipegger Winnipegger:

So now you want to argue percent of GDP? The Americans have been drastically overspending since World War 2. That could be argued until the collapse of the Soviet Union, and end of the Cold War. In year 2000 US military spending was US$288 billion. Then George W. Bush got elected. In 2008 their military spending was US$700 billion, in 2009 it was US$799B, and in 2010 (the first year for Obama) it was US$901 billion! And they wonder why their banking system collapsed. Congress deliberately eliminated government regulations on banks and demanded the banks find a "creative" way to raise funds so they could continue to fund US federal government deficits. They did: junk mortgages. That caused the US banking system to collapse. I blame Congress. The original source of this problem was military overspending. They spent themselves into bankruptcy. They still refuse to admit that the US is bankrupt. So you want to duplicate that mistake?

I too, vehemently disagree with the idea of per capita defence spending as it's a bogus, made-up stat.

There are Gulf States that spend upwards of 20% GDP on defence, yet have a far less capable military than we do. Likewise, several Nordic nations spend more than we do on defence, yet have smaller navys, air forces and/or armies, so comparing our contributions is an apples and oranges argument if you ask me.

Japan, which also spends about 1% on defence, is routinely in the top 5 or 6 nations in total military spending and is considered anything but a slouch in the region - it's navy and air force are the most capable in the Pacific with the exception of the USN & USAF.

I've lobbied here long and hard against made-up spending limits like per capita, and simply said that we should spend what is necessary - and what is necessary is much more than any government, Liberal or Conservative - has been willing to spend in 40 years.

Based on how far we've fallen behind in procurement, our defence budget needs to be at least a minimum of $30 billion or so (adjusted for inflation in following years of course) for about a decade, then we can sit back and re-assess our needs and expenditures.

FYI, this criticism isn't coming from a Conservative voter, but someone who has voted Liberal federally more often than not (voted in 1988 for the PCs, 1993 - 2006 for the Libs and independent in 2008 & 2011).

[Nuggie77]

CDN_PATRIOT CDN_PATRIOT:

The Toronto has SAMs. Time to use them. I hear Sukhois make good target practice.

-J.

You know this isn't a video game right? There are actual people onboard that ship?

[saturn_656]

Nuggie77 Nuggie77:

CDN_PATRIOT CDN_PATRIOT:

The Toronto has SAMs. Time to use them. I hear Sukhois make good target practice.

-J.

You know this isn't a video game right? There are actual people onboard that ship?

I'd be more worried for the Russian pilots, if you catch my meaning.

[Winnipegger]

What I would like to see.
(And no, I don't have a lot of influence with the Liberal Party. I can hope, but not right now.)

• Build one destroyer to replace Huron.
• Refit our existing destroyers and frigates.
• Refit our existing AOR ships.
• Build one more AOR, but this one would have a "dual acting hull". That means heavy ice breaker, and able to cross deep ocean in heavy seas.
• Build one Roll-On/Roll-Off auto-transport ship. To transport army vehicles. Designate it "merchant marine" so it can carry commercial cargo when not needed by the military. That would defray cost. But military has priority; if they need it, travel to the nearest port to off-load commercial cargo and head directly to where ever the military needs.
• Keep our CF-18 fighter jets, and schedule yet another upgrade for the electronics. It's amazing how quick electronics gets obsolete.
• Fix as many as possible of the 17 aircraft written off. Raise the one that crashed into the ocean off the BC coast. Apply the last round of upgrades to those. Could we get 14 to work, scavenge parts, and shred the rest for scrap metal? Buy some surplus F/A-18C aircraft from the Americans. Becoming surplus as they get F-35C. And convert them to upgraded CF-18. If we repair 14 and buy 12, that should be enough for one operational combat squadron plus 2 more for maintenance cycle. We have enough in inventory now for another squadron. We currently have 1 training squadron plus 2 combat; this would give us 1 training plus 4 combat.
• Re-commission the air force station at Resolute. Ensure it has a heated hanger for one full squadron of CF-18 fighters. And tarmac (aircraft parking lot) for a second squadron. And barracks for pilots and support technicians for two combat squadrons. Not intended to permanently base a squadron there, but can house two squadrons for an "action". Plus support for Hercules cargo planes, and Aurora patrol aircraft.
• Permanently base at Resolute reconnaissance UAVs. Could we get a few MQ-9 Reapers fitted with all the sensors of an E-2D Advanced Hawkeye?
• Complete the Conservative's new heavy icebreaker: Diefenbaker. However, keep the CCGS Louis S. St. Laurent as well, and refit it. The refit would add hard points for the same weaponry as a Halifax class frigate, and the same radar. Keep the weapons at Resolute. And have a Skycrane model helicopter available to transport the weapons to the icebreaker while at sea. Do the same with the intermediate icebreaker CCGS Amundsen.
• Fix the God damn submarines.
• Send a crew of prisoners to Nanisivik for hard labour. Dismantle the sea port; clean the mooring posts for re-use. Remove steel re-bar and sell to a steel smelter for recycling. And recycle the concrete to cement powder on-site at Nanisivik. That would require some fresh limestone; find a quarry near Nanisivik. The key to recycling concrete is cheap labour; that's why we would use prisoners. Use that cement and mooring posts to build a new port at Resolute. The new port would be specifically built to service the largest oil tanker ever built, and the largest container ship ever built. After all, that's what would go there. And ensure all our Coast Guard and Navy ships could port there. Dismantle the steel buildings for the port at Nanisivik, clean, and re-assemble at Resolute. So the whole port is moved.
• Start a program to develop a new unmanned combat drone: high performance. Able to carry 2 HARM missiles internally, or intercept a Tu-22M Backfire, or Tu-160 Blackjack (Russian nickname White Swan).
• Have CF-18 pilots practice a manoeuvre to drop a bomb on arctic ice, fly around, then drop a Mark 48 heavyweight torpedo through the hole. Intended to target a Russian sub. Ensure the torpedo can handle that.

And I want to be the Finance Minister. Mwa ha ha ha ha. (evil laugh)

[Jabberwalker]

You don't have a hope in Hades of being elected as a school trustee.

[BartSimpson]

My recommendation:

1. Cut a deal with the US to buy highly subsidized destroyers that will be built in US shipyards when there are no active orders going for the US Navy. The US Congress will go for this because the work will keep those shipyards and their union employees busy. Canada ends up getting bleeding edge hulls at a significant discount.

2. Cut another similar deal to buy a few highly subsidized Virginia-class boats that can then be maintained at Bremerton and New London until (or maybe not) Halifax and Esquimalt come up to speed on nuc boats.

3. Buy our surplus fighters with the requisite highly subsidized upgrades. I'd also look at buying cheaper and easier to maintain aircraft from Bombadier for simple patrol purposes to save money.

4. Buy our excess armor and kit that our Department of Defense is currently giving away for free to police departments. Outfit your whole bloomin' army for pennies on the American taxpayer's dollar.

4a. Buy enough of that spare stuff that you have spare parts in abundance.

5. Have the US paste a Canadian flag on some of our ICBM force and maybe have some Canadians serve with the USAF as a joint missile force so Canada can at least nominally have its own nuclear deterrent without having to deal with the mess.

5a. Added benefit is the newly minted Canadian missiles would be exempt from US-Russia arms control treaties. Something the Republicans and a growing number of Democrats will be quite pleased to fully subsidize.

[Winnipegger]

Jabberwalker Jabberwalker:

You don't have a hope in Hades of being elected as a school trustee.

A couple years ago the parents association for my old elementary school campaigned to keep the school open. The superintendent said he didn't care how much they campaigned, he wouldn't listen to anything but demographics and statistics. Ok, so I overwhelmed them with demographics and statistics. Parents gave impassioned pleas, but I gave hard numbers. We kept the school open.