Harper Outlines Canada's First Defence Strategy

[Teddy Ruxpin]

So, what am I missing?  What anything new or really specific announced? 

All this has been bandied about before and/or included in previous budgets, although the infrastructure piece is at least new noise.

 

[rifleman]

This is another + for the conservatives. Its great to finally see a government in power taking care of our Military.

I have more faith in this govt, but I'm still waiting for the stuff promised by the last conservative government 

 

[blacktriangle]

Well as long as funding doesn't drop in the next 3-6 years I'm happy..  ;D

 

[CrazyCanuck]

Anything can happen in these 20 years that will have an effect on military spending, we could hit a recession/depression, or the opposite, or even a full blown war. The reason it is 20 and not less is politics and economics, to a certain extent the government has handicapped itself with recent tax cuts (not complaining) which means 30 billion over 5 years would put us near or in deficit. Plus this government has a track record of doing things long term because they realize that they will not be in power forever and that any future changes will be unpopular which will help them regain government. Really because this is such a gradual increase the government is really not committing to anything and is leaving any major spending problems to the next government be it a con. or liberal government. Still any money is good money.

 

[MarkOttawa]

Two posts at The Torch:

Babbling Brooks:

Much ado about...? *flipping pages madly, looking for the "strategy"*
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2008/05/much-ado-about-flipping-pages-madly.html

Myself:

"Canada First Defence Policy": Drowned squib
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2008/05/canada-first-defence-policy-drowned.html

Mark
Ottawa

 

[The Bread Guy]

Well, this is interesting...

Conservatives won't commit defence strategy to paper
20-year plan for military to be based on 'vision' outlined in Harper, MacKay speeches
CanWest/National Post, 13 May 08
Article link

Canada's defence strategy for the next 20 years will be based on speeches by Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Defence Minister Peter Mac-Kay given yesterday in Halifax.

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." ....

Here's the link to the PM's speeches page, and here's the link to the DefMin's speeches page - nothing on either as of this posting.

 

[MarkOttawa]

Only 65 new fighters:

Canada to buy fewer F-35 fighters than thought
http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssIndustryMaterialsUtilitiesNews/idUSN1231405420080512

OTTAWA, May 12 (Reuters) - 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.

He was speaking in Nova Scotia as he unveiled what he called the Canada First Defence Strategy, involving C$30 billion ($30 billion) in projected new military spending for the next 20 years.

The F-35s will replace Canada's CF-18s, which are scheduled to reach the end of their working lives in 2017-20. Canada bought 138 of them in the 1980s and now has 98, 80 of which are being refurbished.

Lockheed Martin Corp (LMT.N: Quote, Profile, Research) will make the F-35s. The Joint Strike Fighter program is being funded by the United States, Canada and seven other countries.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[karl28]

      Any one know when we are supposed to take delivery of these 65 new F-35 ?  I am wondering if the lower number also has to do with technology changing  as in more capable  UCAV that are being developed  .

 

[Spencer100]

It is most likely minimum number of airframes we need to do the job with the money we can afford.  And probably a few less 

 

[Babbling Brooks]

Possibly the only time you'll ever hear this from me, but I'm with Dawn Black, as quoted in the ******** article Tony links to earlier:

NDP defence critic Dawn Black said even the previous Liberal government produced a strategy document when it last announced its defence policy for the future. "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." (my emphasis)

Absolutely astonishing.

And I'll save my applause for when the promised money actually appears.  Remember, the Liberals promised money too.  I wasn't impressed then, either (see the graph):

http://babblingbrooks.blogspot.com/2005/02/how-much-is-liberal-promise-worth.html

We're talking about a budget of tens of billions of dollars.  A written policy statement isn't too much to ask for.

 

[jzaidi1]

65 new fighters?!  Damnit - chances of becoming a CF fighter pilot are dwindling by the day, it seems.  How can 65 aircraft (assuming 75% are fully operational at one time) defend the national interests of Canada?  Even with greater capacity it spreads thin the amount we can achieve - I mean, what are we going to do, fire long range missles at every Russian Bear that comes close to our borders?!?!

God - not a good day to be a fighter pilot - sheesh!

J

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Not to mention the historical loss rate of fighters. While the F-35 may be the greatest thing since sliced bread, I would still like to see a 2 fighter fleet, using a smaller number of the extremely expensive top line fighters bolstered by a sizable fleet of a decent fighter/bomber that is more reasonable to buy and fly. Is there anything the F-35 can do in Afghanistan that a Superhornet could not? There is a good chance that next few wars will be like Afghanistan, not requiring the top of the line fighters, but still requiring air support.

 

[hauger]

Neat how this "hurray, yay Military" stuff comes out right after the all the stories about the Buffalo (and FWSAR in general) will have to keep flying, fueled pretty much on wishes and prayers, until eventually we get around to restarting the bidding process to once again enter into contract talks to start the process of waiting just 5 more years to begin replacing, one at a time, the existing FWSAR assets.

Want to impress me....can the speeches and get the equipment on the ramp (or in the ocean on on the ground), now.  Plan ahead, don't get caught with a busted fleet of anything, only to realise that you can't just swing by the frigate dealership and pick up the 2010 model, that it actually takes forsight and planning to realise that the equipment you have will very predictably wear out.

 

[The Bread Guy]

We're talking about a budget of tens of billions of dollars.  A written policy statement isn't too much to ask for.

I don't think policy/strategy via reading the tea leaves in news releases and backgrounders is the way to go.  As much as one might not like "bureaucrats", their putting to paper what needs to happen has got to be better than, "what exactly did the Minister mean when he said x?"

BTW, nothing here or here yet as of this posting.

 

[Babbling Brooks]

Oh, and while I agree with much of what E.R. Campbell said above, I'm afraid that if the budgetary increases announced with great hoopla by the Conservatives don't even keep up with inflation in the defence world, as he indicates, then it will indeed be "disarmament by stealth."

 

[jzaidi1]

My take,

Remove the "civvie" defense minister and allot the post to the highest ranking member of the CF.  Who else can lobby with conviction other than someone who has spent their lives defending our nation?  Of course, if I were the highest ranking member in the CF I wouldn't want to deal with the back-stabbing Civvies in Parliament.  Hillier for defense minister would be fantastic, once he hands over the torch to someone else. 

Peter Mackay - graduated with an Arts degree in '87, Law degree in '91, no military background
http://canadaonline.about.com/od/conservativeparty/p/petermackay.htm

General Rick Hillier - graduated with BSc in '75, been serving as an officer since
http://www.cds.forces.gc.ca/pubs/bio_e.asp

J

 

[Colin Parkinson]

This is my rant from elsewhere:

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. 

 

[The Bread Guy]

Remove the "civvie" defense minister and allot the post to the highest ranking member of the CF. 

Uh, I think they tried something like this in several south and central American countries some time ago, to less-than-ideal effect - see "Civilian Control of the Military"....

 

[PO2FinClk]

Remove the "civvie" defense minister and allot the post to the highest ranking member of the CF. 

I prefer democracy, no thanks.

CIVIL CONTROL OF THE CANADIAN ARMED FORCES http://www.dnd.ca/somalia/vol1/v1c6e.htm

 

[OldSolduer]

PO2 FinClk has it right. According to the laws of this great nation, the military is controlled by Parliament, not the CDS or the PM.