CANADA

[dmereifield]

Hopefully that's 15 T26's and 88 F35#S

[inch]

pity uk couldn't increase its budget 70% ,we would be doing great with o.o7increase instead of the 0.5 they promising ,aye theres nowt like heading for the stars in your ambition ,and the guv just having a wild spending frenzy with that 0.5 hope they don't get a nose bleed with all the excitement .mind you it might be a new guv yet who knows but the result will be the same for our forces

[Aethulwulf]

Before you get too excited, a 70% increase over 10 years amounts to an average 5.5% increase each year.

Still a lot greater than the UK's announced 0.5% yearly increase.

[inch]

I know that's what I just said,our guv (uk) get excited about 0.5 % .they think its very ambitious heading for the stars in there increase .well done Canada

[Timmymagic]

efore you get too excited, a 70% increase over 10 years amounts to an average 5.5% increase each year.

Still a lot greater than the UK's announced 0.5% yearly increase.

For context you have to remember that although we think we've got it bad currently the Canadians only spend 1% of GDP on defence. That 70% increase still won't mean they're close to the UK's current, too low, percentage.

Truth be told it's likely that they had no choice as well, too many items of kit reaching it's OSD simultaneously.

[R686]

Picks this up from another forumn where he had a closer look at the document, I still have not read it yet no time.


John Newman @DT

Bit of 'smoke and mirrors' in the announcement to increase from the current 0.9% of GDP to 1.4% of GDP by 2026-2027.

On the surface it looks like an increase of 0.5%, but if you read things a bit more closely (Table 2, page 46, Forecasted Defence Spending.., will explain what I mean), the Canadian Government has said (words to the effect):

"well actually we have been spending more than 0.9% this year, it's actually 1.19%, which includes defence spending by other departments..."

Bottom line is (now with 'other departments' defence spending included), spending won't be increasing by 0.5% (from 0.9 to 1.4), it's actually about 0.21% of GDP, that's smoke and mirrors to me!!!

http://dgpaapp.forces.gc.ca/en/canada-d ... report.pdf

[Timmymagic]

It is. But ANY increase for the Canadians is a good thing. They've been on their arse longer than we have. The only saving grace has been a decent buoyant gdp so its 1% of a decent amount. If they'd had 2% for the last 15-20 years they would be in incredibly good shape.

Well apart from naval helicopters obviously....

[R686]

It is. But ANY increase for the Canadians is a good thing. They've been on their arse longer than we have. The only saving grace has been a decent buoyant gdp so its 1% of a decent amount. If they'd had 2% for the last 15-20 years they would be in incredibly good shape.

Well apart from naval helicopters obviously....

Yeh your right any increase is welcome, just hate the spin they put on things, it's this very reason for the rise of trumpism across democratic nations

[Timmymagic]

Yeh your right any increase is welcome, just hate the spin they put on things, it's this very reason for the rise of trumpism across democratic nations

Absolutely, budget increases being announced that include previously announced spending or that just plain aren't true. And they think we don't realise.....the public stopped believing the announcements ages ago and yet politicians still talk about why they can't understand the publics distrust of them and general disengagement. They never learn that there is always a reaction when anger or disdain goes too far. Only problem is the public nearly always go in the wrong direction, Trumpism is the perfect example. Everyone is sick to death of lying dissembling politicians so they go and choose THE lying and dissembling politician of all time....you couldn't make it up.

Anyway here's hoping the Canadian military finally get at least some of the things they need. It would be good if they could reclaim their spot in the top 2 nations at ASW, its not the personnel, its the kit.

[inch]

who are the top nations at asw ?

[R686]

who are the top nations at asw ?

1, Japan
2, USA
3, UK

[abc123]

who are the top nations at asw ?

1, Japan
2, USA
3, UK

Not the UK?

[dmereifield]

who are the top nations at asw ?

1, Japan
2, USA
3, UK

How do you determine these rankings? Quality of ASW assess? Quantity? Experience, training, competency?

From what I've read in the public domain, the T23 (and future T26), Merlins and Astutes are more capable ASW assets than their American equivalents. So are you ranking them higher due to the quantity of assets, and their large MPA fleet? Or something else?

[R686]

who are the top nations at asw ?

1, Japan
2, USA
3, UK

How do you determine these rankings? Quality of ASW assess? Quantity? Experience, training, competency?

From what I've read in the public domain, the T23 (and future T26), Merlins and Astutes are more capable ASW assets than their American equivalents. So are you ranking them higher due to the quantity of assets, and their large MPA fleet? Or something else?

Yes an overall capabilty not just shipping, fixed wing and rotary

[SKB]

Happy 150th Birthday Canada !

[R686]

And the saga of RCAF Hornet replacement is getting more bizarre by the minute, but if we can get some coin for them all the better

http://australianaviation.com.au/2017/0 ... c-hornets/


But you never know Pakistan are still flying the ex RAAF Mirage IIIO(A) and upgraded under Project ROSE (Retrofit Of Strike Element)

[Defiance]

They need to make a decision, but they don't want to make a decision yet, so they're kicking it down the road for as little cost as possible.

I'm sure that can't go badly

[ArmChairCivvy]

The new Gvmnt is de-emphasizing expeditionary ops. That was the rationale for JSF: one plane capable of such ops AND the contribution to NORAD.

Not to mention the more recent trade spat where Boeing is seen as the "OpFor". Funnily enough there is only one plane that would suit Canada's currents requirements: the Pak-Fa/ Su-57... forgetting that it is not currently living up to its own spec because there is no suitable engine available.
- yes, it is a joke; how about Turkey doing NATO air defence with AS-400s?

[james k]

Mirrors my experience as an Army Medic (as an RN Medic earlier in my career I never worked with the Australians and Kiwi's). Since 2000 I've worked with them all Americans, Canuks, Aussies and Kiwis and I've not worked alongside or observed any better

Those problems notwithstanding, I just want to take this opportunity to offer some praise for the Canadian forces. I worked with them a lot in the Northeastern Pacific doing ASW and as operators, they are as good as it gets. Extremely professional. In truth, the only nation from the "Anglosphere" with which I haven't operated extensively is New Zealand, and they are all as good as it gets.

[james k]

It states that the ex-RAAF aircraft masy be used for spares. This is interesting because Canada also brought the EX-USMC VH71 Kestrel variant of Merlin as a source of spares for their Cormorant variants. Having used the spares they are considering a rebuild of (some or all) the Kestrels to boost numbers.

No I didn't make it up, no I don't have a link, it's just something I remember reading recently.

Picks this up from another forumn where he had a closer look at the document, I still have not read it yet no time.


John Newman @DT

Bit of 'smoke and mirrors' in the announcement to increase from the current 0.9% of GDP to 1.4% of GDP by 2026-2027.

On the surface it looks like an increase of 0.5%, but if you read things a bit more closely (Table 2, page 46, Forecasted Defence Spending.., will explain what I mean), the Canadian Government has said (words to the effect):

"well actually we have been spending more than 0.9% this year, it's actually 1.19%, which includes defence spending by other departments..."

Bottom line is (now with 'other departments' defence spending included), spending won't be increasing by 0.5% (from 0.9 to 1.4), it's actually about 0.21% of GDP, that's smoke and mirrors to me!!!

http://dgpaapp.forces.gc.ca/en/canada-d ... report.pdf

[R686]

It states that the ex-RAAF aircraft masy be used for spares. This is interesting because Canada also brought the EX-USMC VH71 Kestrel variant of Merlin as a source of spares for their Cormorant variants. Having used the spares they are considering a rebuild of (some or all) the Kestrels to boost numbers.

No I didn't make it up, no I don't have a link, it's just something I remember reading recently.

yes remember reading something about that, from memory they were supposed to be the new presidential helicopter fleet but for some reason they kept on blowing the budget. I think it was Obama that done away with them.

In regards to the RAAF legacy fleet I expected them to be used as a source for spares, in the same way that the USMC bought the ex UK Harrier fleet and to an extant the RAAF used the boneyard as a source of spare for the old F111 fleet before its retirement, ironically we could have kept them going for another twenty years such was the level of spares available to us hence Air Power Australia dream of the uber-pig

[ArmChairCivvy]

Ottawa Citizen reports that Boeing has walked away from the negotiations to get the trade dispute withdrawn, so the ozzie deal's likelihood has gone up a couple of notches

[Smokey]

@ Eurofighter (BAE Systems, Leonardo, Airbus Defence) Get your arses in gear!

[Aethulwulf]

The Canadian government expects bids for a multi-billion dollar fleet of new warships to be submitted by early November, with a winner selected sometime next year. But bidders will be allowed a one-time free pass if their proposals initially don’t meet Canada’s requirements, giving them the opportunity to rejig their bids for the $62-billion program.

“They’ll get feedback on whether the bids meet all of Canada’s mandatory requirements,” Lisa Campbell, an assistant deputy minister at Public Services and Procurement Canada, said in an interview. “Where there are gaps they’ll be allowed one time — only once — to submit additional information to demonstrate that their bids meet our requirements.”

She said having that option improves the competition in the long run and removes past issues where firms had been punted immediately for not meeting all criteria.

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/canada/bi ... 4fa2a07638

[ArmChairCivvy]

"feedback on whether the bids meet all of Canada’s mandatory requirements,” Lisa Campbell, an assistant deputy minister at Public Services and Procurement Canada, said in an interview. “Where there are gaps they’ll be allowed one time — only once — to submit additional information to demonstrate that their bids meet our requirements.”

Other than that "only once" I expect the T31 process to proceed similarly, but more iteratively... ref. the mutant-ninja thought (being allowable)