CTV: Billions more for defence ...

[DavidAkin]

[OK -- fire away and tell me what I got wrong ...  ]

Feds earmark billions for military equipment
David Akin, CTV News

The federal cabinet is poisitioned to sign off on a new master plan for the Canadian Forces that will include billions more for new military equipment.

CTV News has learned that the Department of National Defence has submitted its "Canada First Defence Strategy", a so-called defence capabilities plan that sketches out the sorts of missions the military should be prepared to carry out and what kind of role it ought to play over the next several decades in support of Canadian foreign policy and Canadian domestic policy.

At the same time, cabinet is considering four different procurement projects that are being pushed by Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor.

O'Connor is asking for cabinet approval to buy more planes, unmanned aerial vehicles, and a new Arctic patrol vessel ...
[Read the rest at: http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20061124/forces_plan_061124/20061124?hub=TopStories ]

 

[HItorMiss]

About bloody time we get the money to do the job right!

 

[Edward Campbell]

I hope you’ve got it about right, David; I’m assuming you, like most journalists, good and not so good, have useful contacts inside the Greenbelt in Ottawa.  (I wish you – all journalists – did not have such contacts.  I wish the bureaucracy could do its work, go home, play with the kids, etc, without feeling the need to discuss the day’s work in public.  Oh, well, I also wish I would win the lottery.)

I wish someone would explain that the “billions” (and I hope there will be many, many billions) will be spent over many years on a fairly vast array of projects – a few highly visible, many not so.

I’m sure almost all Canadians, including most military people, will find something to support, something to oppose and much to consider and debate when the plan is made public.

Stay tuned to Army.ca for some informed comment – and some idle speculation, too.

 

[Magravan]

You typoed Positioned

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Now says "poised" in the website........we just got hired as CTV's proof readers.

 

[284_226]

[OK -- fire away and tell me what I got wrong ...  ]

Not so much wrong, but there's something amusing I noticed, at least from a former sailor's perspective. 

The photo at upper left is captioned "An Arctic Patrol Vessel is one of the priorities for purchase", while the photo is of a pre-TRUMP Tribal class destroyer (note the "bunny funnels" and M22 radars), probably HMCS Iroquois or Athabaskan - making the photo 15+ years old.  A photo of a icebreaker might have been more appropriate, considering the Tribals don't have any ice-breaking capability other than maybe light brash ice.

 

[Mike Baker]

Well, I hope we do get these UAV's, it will do wonders for us in A-Stan.

 

[Armymedic]

The only mistake I see is your use of anything MP Dawn Black says.

I don't see the loyal opposition's defence critic from the Liberal party speaking up.

BTW, which UAVs are they talking about...Predators, Spewer[sp], or Skylarks. 3 totally different platforms, capable of three totally different missions.

 

[DavidAkin]

You typoed Positioned

Well, I did ask,  didn't I?

Thanks! 

For the record -- I made the typo when cutting and pasting to this site ....

 

[Cloud Cover]

First I heard of the frigate. Can you tell us more about that David? 

 

[DavidAkin]

First I heard of the frigate. Can you tell us more about that David? 

Not just yet, I'm afraid.

Don't mean to be cagey but, as CTV pays my bills, I ought to make sure that  some  of the other stuff I've learned about these proposals ought to show up there first.

An armed icebreaker, though, is out, I've been told, for reasons of cost, and what they're calling an Arctic Patrol Vessel --- something that would be armed but slightly smaller than a frigate and that could operate in 'fresh ice'  -- is in.

 

[Kirkhill]

Again, not so much a criticism as a comment in line with what 284_226 said in terms of choices by your photo editor.

Below are three ice-capable Patrol Vessels with price tags closer to the 100 Million Dollar mark.

Top to bottom
- The Norwegian "KVS Svalbard"
http://www.marinelog.com/DOCS/NEWSMMII/MMIIMar12.html

- The New Zealand Multi-Role Vessel "HMNZS Canterbury"
http://www.navy.mil.nz/visit-the-fleet/project-protector/mrv-launch.htm

- The Danish "Arctic Patrol Vessel" currently under construction and presumably what they will be using to get to Hans Island.
http://www.navalhistory.dk/English/NavyNews/2006/1120_NewOffShorePat.htm

What better sign of "Co-operation" in the arctic than to match the Danish "enemy" by buying the same vessel that they will use?  Then they can more easily accomplish the annual swap of Akvavit for Canadian Club. 

 

[MarkOttawa]

whiskey601: lots of discussion of ships for Arctic at these threads:

Naval Icebreakers
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/38894.0.html

Forces may ice ships
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/42397.0.html

news story on the coastal patrol boats
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/44412.0.html

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Kirkhill]

Hi Mark  ;D

 

[NavComm]

I don't see what the big 'secret' is. The ITEE that just took place and is reported by Virginia Beaton at www.tridentnews.ca is just one example of the not-so-secret excercises that the military is conducting.

The big question, IMO, is whether or not Canadians want to invest in their military.

I say the more (positive) press the better, if it convinces Canadians that tax dollars are well-spent and badly needed to bring our military up to the standards of our allies.

 

[GAP]

I think that we are still reverting back to the "them" and "us" mentality whenever articles like this come out. Each time upgrades in equipment are mentioned, missions assessed, structure changes occur, it is always written in the "they" context.

This is not some conspiracy, or elite club/society group; these are Canadians wanting equipment to do their job quickly and efficiently. Their job is first and formost protecting Canadians and Canada. Successive previous governments have treated the CF as a "them" block, and have periodically cut back their funds and stretched out the life of their equipment to the point a lot of it is pure legacy stuff.

How would you like to do all your reporting and typing on a 386MHz computer. That's the real life comparison. It will get the job done, just at twice the labor and lack of efficiency.

Readers should be introduced to these purchases and changes as though it is theirs. Because it is.

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

David, I just wanted to say "kudos" for coming here to ask the questions in the first place. 

By doing that alone, you've differentiated yourself from the vast majority who have neither the interest nor inclination to even care if their report is in any way accurate.

My one request is to please put provide more context in your reporting as although most on this board understand how the new acquisitions fit into the current mix both in terms of kit and tactical necessity, most civilians will only see the $$$.

In short, provide the "Why do we need it?" clarification:

UAV's - "Could prove very useful in surveillance of Aghanistan's roads to spot Taliban trying to place IED's and mines which have resulted in the vast majority of casualties amongst deployed NATO forces.", etc.

Armed Ice Breaker/Ice-Hardended Frigate - "Projections show a future dramatic increase in traffic through this region as the polar ice caps melt.  It is therefore essential that we begin to assert control over that waterway as it opens as at present only Canada recognizes this passage as Canadian Territorial Waters.  The Chinese, Russians and Americans all consider it to be an international waterway.  In short, if we do not assert sovereignty and allow this traffic to continue without oversight, then we run the risk of losing any claim we once had."

Bottom Line:  As a journalist, I would ask that you also take on the role of educator putting aside the "gotcha journalism" in place of providing real educational experiences for your readers.  That is present not only facts & figures but also the model of how the pieces all fit together and why they should be important to Canadians.

Best wishes David....


Matthew. 

 

[Kirkhill]

David, I just wanted to say "kudos" for coming here to ask the questions in the first place. 

By doing that alone, you've differentiated yourself from the vast majority who have neither the interest nor inclination to even care if their report is in any way accurate.

+1 to Matthew and David

 

[Mike Baker]

Armed Ice Breaker/Ice-Hardended Frigate - "Projections show a future dramatic increase in traffic through this region as the polar ice caps melt.  It is therefore essential that we begin to assert control over that waterway as it opens as at present only Canada recognizes this passage as Canadian Territorial Waters.  The Chinese, Russians and Americans all consider it to be an international waterway.  In short, if we do not assert sovereignty and allow this traffic to continue without oversight, then we run the risk of losing any claim we once had."

This has not occured to me. Perhaps we should go in this direction insted, or find some way to do both.

 

[Teddy Ruxpin]

The SAR aircraft and UAVs have been on the books for some time and aren't new.

However, the thoughts on the Arctic vessel are new, and I can't for the life of me remember a push for a Light Utility Aircraft... ???

As one who routinely rails against journalistic laziness and lack of research, it is a relief to see good, detailed reporting on defence issues.