How Much Should Canada Spend on The Military
Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 10 Next
American @ Fri Sep 30, 2005 12:31 pm
Canadian_Mind Canadian_Mind:
American American:
Ironwolf Ironwolf:
Its time we stop relying on the americans for "protection". We need to spend more so special forces like D.A.R.T can move quickly, and not be standing out in the cold waiting for the "bus" 
I'm not so sure I agree, in that I would incorporate American military into my strategic planning. But you should tailor your military given the existence of the American military. I think the idea of more special forces is a good one. It would help us when we need your support, especially in the War on Terror. I think you should include the Chinese threat in your planning. Make no mistake, they one day will be.
funny thing is thats the exact same thing that the chiniese are telling us about the yanks. and considering the chiniese are more willing to go with our side of things regarding trade, I sometimes consider the states more of a threat to us than the chiniese.
Well you go ahead and trust the Commies if you want to. Their way of life is not for me.
BartSimpson @ Fri Sep 30, 2005 12:43 pm
Canadian_Mind Canadian_Mind:
funny thing is thats the exact same thing that the chiniese are telling us about the yanks. and considering the chiniese are more willing to go with our side of things regarding trade, I sometimes consider the states more of a threat to us than the chiniese.
Which would look better flying over the Parliament building, I wonder?
or 
Streaker @ Fri Sep 30, 2005 3:13 pm
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
Tman1 Tman1:
Where was your memo when the government decided to buy the subs?
You know, the Aussies are building some very capable subs. Might want to look in on that.
The Australian Collins class has been a disaster, actually.
bootlegga @ Fri Sep 30, 2005 3:45 pm
Subs are a waste of money, unless you go nuke, which the US won't sell us to us anyways (and they pressured the Brits not to as well in 1980s). So we are stuck with buying French nuke boats, which very good.
We're better off investing extra money on airlift, new ASW planes and some new destroyers. After that, we can look into the JSF to replace the CF-18s.
BartSimpson @ Fri Sep 30, 2005 4:09 pm
bootlegga bootlegga:
Subs are a waste of money, unless you go nuke, which the US won't sell us to us anyways.
No offence, but the separatists and their open hostility to the USA coupled with the liberal hostility to the USA coupled with Canada's recent coziness with China don't bode well for the Pentagon wanting to share the crown jewels with Canada.
Again, no offence, but were I in the Pentagon I'd be loathe to want to toss Canada the keys to a Virginia class, a Seawolf, or a Los Angeles knowing that the probability of the technology being shared with a hostile France or China was very high or at least risky enough to warrant grave concern in allowing the transaction. Or, even worse, one of these ships could potentially be used against us by a rogue Quebecois navy were an independent Quebec to inherit/seize such vessels from the RCN.
BartSimpson @ Fri Sep 30, 2005 4:17 pm
bootlegga bootlegga:
Subs are a waste of money
German subs alone brought the UK Royal Navy to her knees in 1941.
A surface navy allows you to protect your control of the seas while a submarine navy allows you to deny your enemy control of the seas.
A very aggressive submarine fleet can make up for the severe shortcomings of a surface fleet as the Fermans demonstrated in WW2.
The U-Boat fleet was a match, arguably even more than a match, for the British Fleet that was far and away superior to the German High Seas surface fleet.
This fact pissed off the admiralty of both the British and the German surface fleets, by the way.
I'll paraphrase an old adage:
It takes four years, six thousand men, and twenty million dollars to build a battleship and it takes six months to build the submarine and then ten thousand dollars for the torpedo that will sink the battleship.
A few good subs would give Canada a fighting edge against an enemy who fields a superior surface fleet.
Regina @ Fri Sep 30, 2005 10:29 pm
The U-Boat only ran wild in the Atlantic where there was no air cover. After the mid ocean gap was covered by the radar equipped LD Liberators and carriers they were done.
It's not even the same animal these days.
Scape @ Sat Oct 01, 2005 1:20 am
bootlegga bootlegga:
Subs are a waste of money, unless you go nuke
Nukes make more noise than diesel. You can shut the diesel off. You can't turn off the nuclear reaction. Conventional submarines are cheaper to build. When running on batteries they are often quieter than nuclear submarines, giving a tactical advantage.Sealance and Harpoon make a sub more than adequate to take down a ship.
SprCForr @ Sat Oct 01, 2005 4:54 pm
They also unfortunately have to surface or snorkel to re-charge batteries which make them much noisier and are slower when submerged, and next to nothing for under-ice capability. They are OK if you're using them along a coastline.
Like anything else, there is a trade off.
gloryboy gloryboy:
beware, dont buy any submarines from us brits. they are useless.
Wow! Now there is some timely int! Thanks buddeeee!!
Canadian_Mind @ Sat Oct 01, 2005 5:01 pm
how much do the danish spend (in $)? we should match it if were not already exceeding it.
Scape @ Sat Oct 01, 2005 5:22 pm
SprCForr SprCForr:
They also unfortunately have to surface or snorkel to re-charge batteries which make them much noisier and are slower when submerged, and next to nothing for under-ice capability.
Snorkels are not constant, coolant is. Thanks to this ice isn't a big issue as it once was. Speed is something that is not the strength of a sub, it's being quiet enough to CBDR to target. If you want speed in naval warfare a plane like a P-7 would be better suited. There are trade offs but nuclear is much more expensive in comparison to an asw suit combination of long range aircraft, diesel subs and surface ships armed with towed array and sub hunting helos.
Canadian_Mind @ Sat Oct 01, 2005 5:36 pm
can't diesle powered subs spend some time under ice? just enough to get from churchil to CFS Alert for instance?
Scape @ Sun Oct 02, 2005 1:13 am
Canadian_Mind Canadian_Mind:
can't diesle powered subs spend some time under ice? just enough to get from churchil to CFS Alert for instance?
Sub Purchase Called Boost for Arctic Operation$1:
REFORM PRAISES PURCHASE
Reform MP Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast) welcomed the purchase, but the Bloc Québécois and peace groups slammed it as a waste of money.
"It's about time," Hanger said. "This deal is a step toward renewing Canada's marine security net."
Bloc MP Pierrette Venne (St. Bruno-St. Hubert) said it is unjustifiable to purchase submarines at a time when the federal government has "slashed billions in provincial transfers for health, education and welfare."
"In the absence of a direct threat to Canada, the surveillance capacity provided by present surface vessels and aircraft is more than adequate," she said.
Ernie Regehr of the peace group Project Ploughshares at the University of Waterloo echoed Venne.
"Canada has major capability with surface ships and aircraft to maintain full surveillance," he said in a telephone interview from Waterloo.
But Lieutenant-Commander Dermot Mulholland, who captains one of the Oberons, said in a telephone interview from Halifax that submarines are a necessary third prong of Canada's shoreline surveillance along with aircraft and surface ships.
"They are misinformed," he said of the critics. "One of our main tasks is looking for surface ships. Without submarines we really lack the capability for effective surveillance."
Mulholland said the new subs will enhance the navy's ability to patrol the Arctic, much of which until now has been off limits because the Oberons do not have the capacity to stay under ice.
The new fleet can be retrofitted with a new technology that is being developed by Ballard Technologies of Vancouver that could enable the new boats to spend up to four weeks under the ice without surfacing.
"Air independent propulsion will give us the capability at some point in the future to operate for several weeks at a time without operating the air breathing engine, and that would enable us to go under the ice," Mulholland said.
Nuclear submarines from the United States, Britain and Russia routinely venture under the ice unmonitored.
In recent years, Canadian scientists have had to rely on U.S. nuclear submarines to collect water samples from the Arctic Ocean in critical pollution-related studies.
New Democratic Party Leader Alexa McDonough called the purchase "dubious" because of the need to rely on undeveloped technology that has yet to have a price tag.
"Patrolling the Arctic (with the new subs) is not even possible without expensive modifications," she said.
Reform MP Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast) welcomed the purchase, but the Bloc Québécois and peace groups slammed it as a waste of money.
"It's about time," Hanger said. "This deal is a step toward renewing Canada's marine security net."
Bloc MP Pierrette Venne (St. Bruno-St. Hubert) said it is unjustifiable to purchase submarines at a time when the federal government has "slashed billions in provincial transfers for health, education and welfare."
"In the absence of a direct threat to Canada, the surveillance capacity provided by present surface vessels and aircraft is more than adequate," she said.
Ernie Regehr of the peace group Project Ploughshares at the University of Waterloo echoed Venne.
"Canada has major capability with surface ships and aircraft to maintain full surveillance," he said in a telephone interview from Waterloo.
But Lieutenant-Commander Dermot Mulholland, who captains one of the Oberons, said in a telephone interview from Halifax that submarines are a necessary third prong of Canada's shoreline surveillance along with aircraft and surface ships.
"They are misinformed," he said of the critics. "One of our main tasks is looking for surface ships. Without submarines we really lack the capability for effective surveillance."
Mulholland said the new subs will enhance the navy's ability to patrol the Arctic, much of which until now has been off limits because the Oberons do not have the capacity to stay under ice.
The new fleet can be retrofitted with a new technology that is being developed by Ballard Technologies of Vancouver that could enable the new boats to spend up to four weeks under the ice without surfacing.
"Air independent propulsion will give us the capability at some point in the future to operate for several weeks at a time without operating the air breathing engine, and that would enable us to go under the ice," Mulholland said.
Nuclear submarines from the United States, Britain and Russia routinely venture under the ice unmonitored.
In recent years, Canadian scientists have had to rely on U.S. nuclear submarines to collect water samples from the Arctic Ocean in critical pollution-related studies.
New Democratic Party Leader Alexa McDonough called the purchase "dubious" because of the need to rely on undeveloped technology that has yet to have a price tag.
"Patrolling the Arctic (with the new subs) is not even possible without expensive modifications," she said.
Taking the Plunge: Should Canada Use Fuel Cell Technology to make the Victoria-class Submarines more Stealthy?
$1:
Between 1994 and 1998, Maritime Command invested $4.8 million Cdn in Ballard Power Systems of Vancouver for the production of a 50kW 
M (Exploratory Development Model) fuel cell powerplant.
Pleased with the performance of the model, in 1999, the Department of National Defence (DND) planned to invest a further $75 million in Ballard for the production of a 250 kW ADM (Advanced Development Model).
A submarine powered by this propulsion system would be able to patrol completely submerged for thirty days at 4kts.
If DND is satisfied with the capabilities of the ADM, it may decide to purchase several of the fuel cell systems from Ballard to install in all of the Victorias.
Although it is not possible to accurately guess how much Ballard would eventually charge for these systems, it is reasonable to assume they would cost hundreds of millions of dollars.
M (Exploratory Development Model) fuel cell powerplant.Pleased with the performance of the model, in 1999, the Department of National Defence (DND) planned to invest a further $75 million in Ballard for the production of a 250 kW ADM (Advanced Development Model).
A submarine powered by this propulsion system would be able to patrol completely submerged for thirty days at 4kts.
If DND is satisfied with the capabilities of the ADM, it may decide to purchase several of the fuel cell systems from Ballard to install in all of the Victorias.
Although it is not possible to accurately guess how much Ballard would eventually charge for these systems, it is reasonable to assume they would cost hundreds of millions of dollars.
Scape @ Sun Oct 02, 2005 4:58 am
Graham dumps on idea of doubling Forces' budget
$1:
OTTAWA — Defence Minister Bill Graham shot down a gloomy Senate report yesterday that called for more than doubling the Canadian Forces' annual budget of $14-billion and for increasing the number of troops to 90,000 from 60,000.
Mr. Graham disputed the report by Liberal Senator Colin Kenny and his defence committee that the Canadian military is at the "break point" and needs $30-billion a year to function properly. He said the Canadian Forces were already benefiting from an increased budget and were well equipped for overseas missions.
"There is a sense that while there are always problems, the Forces are moving in the right direction. That's where we're going, and I'm sorry if Senator Kenny chooses in his report to pour cold water on what is a very positive story," Mr. Graham told reporters after a speech in which he defended the deployment of thousands of troops to Afghanistan.
At a news conference earlier in the day, Mr. Kenny released the first of three reports on the state of the Canadian Forces. The first assessed the overall status of the military; the others will recommend solutions.
"We talk about the elastic band that you can't stretch any farther," Mr. Kenny said. "They have muddled through up to now. What we're saying is that at some point the elastic snaps, and we think we are at that point now."
Mr. Kenny has long been a champion of the Canadian Forces and has often said that they suffer from acute underfunding.
The report said the air force was struggling to keep its cargo planes in the air and the army had to borrow night-vision goggles from reservists for a mission to Haiti.
"An incredible amount of brain power and energy is used in order to keep the military functioning the way they're going," Mr. Kenny said. "It's a disproportionate amount that can only be resolved by having more money for more modern equipment."
Mr. Graham said doubling military spending in the short term is impossible. The last federal budget called for bringing the Forces' annual budget to $19-billion in five years, he said.
"I understand from the generals, the admirals, and all the experts, that you can only absorb so much money at one time," he said.
"We've got the amount of money we need to do the job we have to do. I think it's an exaggeration to say at this time that the Forces are stretched thin."
Mr. Graham said troops are happy with recent deployments, such as the mission to the southern United States after hurricane Katrina.
"I'm travelling around the [Canadian Forces] bases and enthusiastic young people are saying, 'Wow, for the first time in a long time, we're moving ahead and we feel terrific,' " Mr. Graham said.
In his speech to the Canadian Club in Ottawa, Mr. Graham presented the federal government's rationale for the mission in Afghanistan, where the troops are providing security as well as hunting insurgents.
"Some have described this as a peacekeeping mission, while others have characterized it as a radical departure from Canada's traditional role as peacekeepers," he said. "This mission is not about terminology. It blends many elements, including peacekeeping and combat."
Mr. Graham disputed the report by Liberal Senator Colin Kenny and his defence committee that the Canadian military is at the "break point" and needs $30-billion a year to function properly. He said the Canadian Forces were already benefiting from an increased budget and were well equipped for overseas missions.
"There is a sense that while there are always problems, the Forces are moving in the right direction. That's where we're going, and I'm sorry if Senator Kenny chooses in his report to pour cold water on what is a very positive story," Mr. Graham told reporters after a speech in which he defended the deployment of thousands of troops to Afghanistan.
At a news conference earlier in the day, Mr. Kenny released the first of three reports on the state of the Canadian Forces. The first assessed the overall status of the military; the others will recommend solutions.
"We talk about the elastic band that you can't stretch any farther," Mr. Kenny said. "They have muddled through up to now. What we're saying is that at some point the elastic snaps, and we think we are at that point now."
Mr. Kenny has long been a champion of the Canadian Forces and has often said that they suffer from acute underfunding.
The report said the air force was struggling to keep its cargo planes in the air and the army had to borrow night-vision goggles from reservists for a mission to Haiti.
"An incredible amount of brain power and energy is used in order to keep the military functioning the way they're going," Mr. Kenny said. "It's a disproportionate amount that can only be resolved by having more money for more modern equipment."
Mr. Graham said doubling military spending in the short term is impossible. The last federal budget called for bringing the Forces' annual budget to $19-billion in five years, he said.
"I understand from the generals, the admirals, and all the experts, that you can only absorb so much money at one time," he said.
"We've got the amount of money we need to do the job we have to do. I think it's an exaggeration to say at this time that the Forces are stretched thin."
Mr. Graham said troops are happy with recent deployments, such as the mission to the southern United States after hurricane Katrina.
"I'm travelling around the [Canadian Forces] bases and enthusiastic young people are saying, 'Wow, for the first time in a long time, we're moving ahead and we feel terrific,' " Mr. Graham said.
In his speech to the Canadian Club in Ottawa, Mr. Graham presented the federal government's rationale for the mission in Afghanistan, where the troops are providing security as well as hunting insurgents.
"Some have described this as a peacekeeping mission, while others have characterized it as a radical departure from Canada's traditional role as peacekeepers," he said. "This mission is not about terminology. It blends many elements, including peacekeeping and combat."
[url=http://www.ch2bc.org/index16.htm]WHATEVER HAPPENED TO
BALLARD'S FUEL CELL SUBS?[/url]
$1:
The navy paid a Canadian company more than $12 million to develop a high-tech fuel-cell propulsion system for its submarines, then shelved the project when the company lost interest. Briefing notes obtained under the Access to Information Act show that the Defence Department invested the money through Ballard Power Systems, a Vancouver fuel-cell company, between 1983 and 1996. ...The navy used the promise of such technology when it was trying to convince the government of Jean Chretien to buy four used subs from Britain in the 1990s, Defence Department briefing notes show. ...Canada is watching as other countries, including Sweden and Germany, outfit their subs with AIP technology. HDW, the company that provided Germany with its subs, acquired several fuel-cell modules from Ballard in 1996 for $9.3 million.
bootlegga @ Sun Oct 02, 2005 5:44 am
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
No offence, but the separatists and their open hostility to the USA coupled with the liberal hostility to the USA coupled with Canada's recent coziness with China don't bode well for the Pentagon wanting to share the crown jewels with Canada.
Again, no offence, but were I in the Pentagon I'd be loathe to want to toss Canada the keys to a Virginia class, a Seawolf, or a Los Angeles knowing that the probability of the technology being shared with a hostile France or China was very high or at least risky enough to warrant grave concern in allowing the transaction. Or, even worse, one of these ships could potentially be used against us by a rogue Quebecois navy were an independent Quebec to inherit/seize such vessels from the RCN.
Again, no offence, but were I in the Pentagon I'd be loathe to want to toss Canada the keys to a Virginia class, a Seawolf, or a Los Angeles knowing that the probability of the technology being shared with a hostile France or China was very high or at least risky enough to warrant grave concern in allowing the transaction. Or, even worse, one of these ships could potentially be used against us by a rogue Quebecois navy were an independent Quebec to inherit/seize such vessels from the RCN.
Well, we first talked about them when Reagan and Mulroney were running things in the 80s, when we were 'best buddies' and Irish eyes were smiling, but we still couldn't get them then, even with the Cold War on. My bet is it has very little to do with separatists and more with the USN enjoying the near monopoly of transiting under the Arctic ice in Canadian waters and doing what it wants, when it wants.
Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 10 Next