Canadian Navy cuts

C-17’s

Well, at least things are looking up for the Air Force:

OTTAWA — The government of Canada has finally inked a deal with Boeing Co. to buy four C-17 Globemasters, giant jets the Canadian Air Force will use to transport tanks and other large pieces of military equipment all over the world.
CTV News has learned that government officials will announce details of the contract on Friday at Canadian Forces Base Trenton in southern Ontario. National Defence Minister Gordon O’Connor and General Rick Hillier, the Chief of Defence Staff, will be in Trenton for the announcement.

Source: ctv.ca

Regards,

Danmac

National will

Unicorn,

Thanks for your comments. When I argue with pals over a few cold ones, I usually mention the Australian example of ‘bang for the buck’.
Where the difference lies is in government. The Howard government if I’m correct has a majority in parliament. Here in Canada the Harper government needs the support of at least one opposition party (all centre-left/left) to pass legislation. So, the kind of spending spree as we see in Australia is simply not possible here in the near term.
The other is the demand to ‘build in Canada’. Australia has at least been able of keep a nucleus of engineers and industry thanks to your last two Perrys, Anzacs, Collins, Armidales etc. Our shipbuilding industry has been left to deteriorate to the point that it will take billions just to get a shipyard up-to-snuff. Then, it needs a steady stream of orders to make that huge investment viable in the long term.
Then.. there’s the issue of national will. As a country, we made a decision a long time ago to go for expansive — and expensive — social programs. Some would argue we made the right decision. That said.. we made our bed.. and are now realizing just how expensive it is to lay in it.

Regards,

Danmac

Greetings,

For those of us who are naturally inclined against governments who say one thing and do another, this much must be said in a Canadian context.
We have a defence minister who actually wore a ‘Canada’ shoulder badge and a government that was elected on a platform that included increased defence spending in a very public plank.
That said, the present cuts reflect national reality: a country in which defence spending has been viewed dimly; a population (and tax base) that’s 1/10th of our neighbour’s and a war in Afghanistan.

Regards,

Danmac

Australia has even worse issues (smaller population, greater distances from markets, troops on the ground in both Afghanistan and Iraq, peace-keeping ops in Timor, the Soloman’s and potentially PNG & Fiji) but seems to have decided on the way forward.

JSF, LPD’s, P-8, C-17, AWD, two new infantry battalions, M1 Abrams, new artillery, new patrol boats, a new tanker recently commissioned, Global Hawk, upgrades for the Anzac frigates…

I don’t think it’s the tax base, I think its the national and political will that’s lacking in Canada. Not an attack, just an observation.

Unicorn

i thought the brits had it bad in regared to their navy. i see that canda has it even worse. :dev2:

Dr.Gonzo: [quote] ‘Stupid, its always better to have refuelling capability. Keeping them serviceable for another 2 years is no big deal. Also retiring the Halifax by 2014seems premature as they can still fill many roles provided they are upgraded.’

according to army.ca the halifaxes weren’t as well built as they could have been and have suffered in the rougher canadian warters.

Re: Canadian cuts

Greetings,

For those of us who are naturally inclined against governments who say one thing and do another, this much must be said in a Canadian context.
We have a defence minister who actually wore a ‘Canada’ shoulder badge and a government that was elected on a platform that included increased defence spending in a very public plank.
That said, the present cuts reflect national reality: a country in which defence spending has been viewed dimly; a population (and tax base) that’s 1/10th of our neighbour’s and a war in Afghanistan.

Regards,

Danmac

Poor old Canada

It all seems a bit Monty Pythonish to me ,how are the Canadian Navy ships going to refuel & replenish if there no ships of their own to do it. Will they only be able to deploy overseas for any length of time if another friendly Navy helps them out. This is the sort thing you would expect from a third world navy .However Naval cuts seem to be the latest rage, the UK has started it off , now Canada & [I think] France, I just hope OZ does not follow at this point.

Two words: minority government.
The Tories are seen by many commentators as actually the most pro-military government since the late 50’s. The problem is trying to get in major programs (C-17, CH-47, Nyala and joint support ships) while trying to keep a relatively pacifistic opposition happy enough to keep the Tories in power. That.. and Afghanistan is eating up a good chunk of the budget.. something anyone in the UK (and knows the RN) can appreciate.
That said, there’s no definitive design chosen yet for the JSS. It’s hoped that will happen next year with steel cutting soon after. As for the future surface combatant, 2014 is optimistic in my view.. and the oldest frigate HMCS Halifax, will be 24 years old. If anything, the tankers should be put in standby reserve to keep their steam plants in decent shape until replacements arrive.

Regards,

Danmac

My dear chap,

You forget the mantra of democratic government.

Long-term is anything beyond the next election, with the collary that ‘there is no problem so great that it cannot be put off until after the next election’.

Unicorn

Re re: cuts

By the way.. forgot the mention this proposal would cut the CP-140 fleet from 18 to 12, providing spares until a new MMA (P-8 Poseidon pretty please) comes on stream. Same goes for the CF-18 fleet.. reducing numbers as the government looks at the F-35 program. We’ve signed on and are helping fund development with our NATO/Pacific allies.

Regards,

Danmac

Re: cuts

Two words: minority government.
The Tories are seen by many commentators as actually the most pro-military government since the late 50’s. The problem is trying to get in major programs (C-17, CH-47, Nyala and joint support ships) while trying to keep a relatively pacifistic opposition happy enough to keep the Tories in power. That.. and Afghanistan is eating up a good chunk of the budget.. something anyone in the UK (and knows the RN) can appreciate.
That said, there’s no definitive design chosen yet for the JSS. It’s hoped that will happen next year with steel cutting soon after. As for the future surface combatant, 2014 is optimistic in my view.. and the oldest frigate HMCS Halifax, will be 24 years old. If anything, the tankers should be put in standby reserve to keep their steam plants in decent shape until replacements arrive.

Regards,

Danmac

This really doesn’t make any sence what so ever except in the form of the Canadian government turning into a bunch of pacifists.

What’s happening with the Sub fleet? Those are the real thorn in the side for the RCN.

For the JSS, has a design been selected yet? For that matter have they selected a design for the new surface combatant?

I agree that the Halifax class could last longer, especially since they have started going through their upgrade cycle (IIRC the first two have come out and the third is in now).

No sence in the Giffon fleet being drawn down and why pay off the CP-140’s. The Cannucks have gone mad 😡 :confused: 😡

Stupid, its always better to have refuelling capability. Keeping them serviceable for another 2 years is no big deal. Also retiring the Halifax by 2014seems premature as they can still fill many roles provided they are upgraded.

Of course expanding the Canadian navy seems like wishful thinking.

hah great call

Now we’ll have a definate excuse to not participate anymore in naval operations in the gulf.

But why are the CP-140 Auroras being replaced drones?
I thought the Auroras with acutal crew were crucial to our boarder claims?