Defining Foreign and Defence Policy (and hence our Military Force)
- Thread starter PPCLI Guy
- Start date
J
jollyjacktar
Guest
jmt18325 said:
I'll repeat myself to you again. There are many of us here who have heard these type of honeyed promises before, by both parties, and had the self same promises go unfulfilled as the carpet gets pulled from under the feet.
You're young. In 10 years, if all this comes to pass, do feel free to make me eat all the shit you like while you crow and gloat nearby. I'll eat it without complaint as I'll deserve it. Until the time there's 88 fighters, 15 CSC, 71K personnel and actual money in hand as promised..... YES, it's too early to gloat. Many talks and BS walks, as the saying goes.
Oldgateboatdriver
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,253
- Points
- 1,010
To be fair, while we have had "shopping list" type of Defence Policy statements before, this is the first one I know of that actually specifies year by year the intended total defence spending over a period of 20 years, both in current dollars and predicted actual dollars of those years.
As we have a road map, we may not have to wait for 10 or 20 years to know if they are delivering: Every year we will be able to see if they hit that year's target. Moreover, with a "road map" like that, and if they manage to get the opposition to bite and criticize as "too little", it would become that much more difficult for any future government to deliver less in any given year (save "Events, dear boy! events!").
As for the various "sustained" deployments proposed on the international scene, I note that it mentions numbers but not provenance. For instance, the about 500 people every second year for 6-9 months could easily be covered by a Navy task force of two ships. So I agree with PPCLI Guy: It will be a matter of how we organize the people we have and the small increase proffered when it materialize. For instance, how much tail could be saved if the Army got rid of its not really existing five Divisions and went to single headquarter governing actually existing brigade groups only? Don't shoot me, I am just suggesting that there are re-organizations possible that correspond to the actual size of our forces that could free a lot more people for front line duties - in all elements probably - but if we keep organizing ourselves the same way as now, increasing to 71,000 will not provide much in terms of extra teeth.
As we have a road map, we may not have to wait for 10 or 20 years to know if they are delivering: Every year we will be able to see if they hit that year's target. Moreover, with a "road map" like that, and if they manage to get the opposition to bite and criticize as "too little", it would become that much more difficult for any future government to deliver less in any given year (save "Events, dear boy! events!").
As for the various "sustained" deployments proposed on the international scene, I note that it mentions numbers but not provenance. For instance, the about 500 people every second year for 6-9 months could easily be covered by a Navy task force of two ships. So I agree with PPCLI Guy: It will be a matter of how we organize the people we have and the small increase proffered when it materialize. For instance, how much tail could be saved if the Army got rid of its not really existing five Divisions and went to single headquarter governing actually existing brigade groups only? Don't shoot me, I am just suggesting that there are re-organizations possible that correspond to the actual size of our forces that could free a lot more people for front line duties - in all elements probably - but if we keep organizing ourselves the same way as now, increasing to 71,000 will not provide much in terms of extra teeth.
- Reaction score
- 146
- Points
- 710
Gov't graphic via twitter:
https://twitter.com/TimmyC62/status/872516511692279808
Mark
Ottawa
https://twitter.com/TimmyC62/status/872516511692279808
Timothy Choi @TimmyC62
Damn, there's that cursed "5-6" #AOPS #AOPV number again...
Mark
Ottawa
George Wallace
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 180
- Points
- 710
GAP said:I think they are going to abide by it for the next 3 years while Trump is in office, then they hope they can dump it for some solid social programs.....
.......and that is only if Trump stays in office for those 3 years..... [
- Reaction score
- 4,240
- Points
- 1,260
- Reaction score
- 4,240
- Points
- 1,260
- Reaction score
- 8,281
- Points
- 1,160
As a plan it has much to commend itself. As with all plans it will be the commitment to the implementation of the intent and not the detail.
Not sure that faster procurement is compatible with stronger controls but that remains to be seen.
On the plus side - commitments to "soldier kit" (boots?) and radios for light forces, emphasis on C4ISR and Log as well as CANSOFCOM and light forces generally, 88 Ftrs, RPAS, LRPAs, SSKs, Sats, 15 CSCs, GBADs - all good stuff.
The stuff that's missing? Strike capability - Tanks, Arty, Strike Missiles for the Air Force (Sidewinder refurb only), Big Honking Ships, more airlift, more helos (especially Attack helos).
So, Boots and Radios, Good Binoculars and lots of vehicles for peoples with blankets, beans and bandages. Not indefensible.
About what one might have expected.
Now if they can actually deliver on tyres and rubber soles you will probably be further ahead than you seem to be now.
As the man said: If Cash.
Given the limitations of the Surface Fleet as projected I would like to see more of the "Global Corvette" capability with an ability to launch a Lt Coy/ SOF force from at least some, if not all, the CSCs. But that is just me beating my ancient and empty drum.
Not sure that faster procurement is compatible with stronger controls but that remains to be seen.
On the plus side - commitments to "soldier kit" (boots?) and radios for light forces, emphasis on C4ISR and Log as well as CANSOFCOM and light forces generally, 88 Ftrs, RPAS, LRPAs, SSKs, Sats, 15 CSCs, GBADs - all good stuff.
The stuff that's missing? Strike capability - Tanks, Arty, Strike Missiles for the Air Force (Sidewinder refurb only), Big Honking Ships, more airlift, more helos (especially Attack helos).
So, Boots and Radios, Good Binoculars and lots of vehicles for peoples with blankets, beans and bandages. Not indefensible.
About what one might have expected.
Now if they can actually deliver on tyres and rubber soles you will probably be further ahead than you seem to be now.
As the man said: If Cash.
Given the limitations of the Surface Fleet as projected I would like to see more of the "Global Corvette" capability with an ability to launch a Lt Coy/ SOF force from at least some, if not all, the CSCs. But that is just me beating my ancient and empty drum.
MilEME09
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,790
- Points
- 1,210
What gets me is actually most of this stuff is already having project offices and such, GBAD? 2019 is suppose to be RFP, replacing support vehicles I read as replace the LSVW and HL, well thats in the 2019-2021 time frame if funding allows. it's all already in the books, and if they wanted to, they could allocate the funds and get these projects going now, and we'd be signing contracts in time for 2019.
- Reaction score
- 35
- Points
- 560
GAP said:I think they are going to abide by it for the next 3 years while Trump is in office, then they hope they can dump it for some solid social programs.....
They may be in for a surprise after the 2020 election then......
A friend described this to me from some press release, where it was portrayed as "Canada stepping up to replace an increasingly isolationist US" (paraphrase). Nice face saving move if true, the Liberals are discovering that reflexive anti Americanism or anti Trumpism is not a viable COA these days.
daftandbarmy
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 32,110
- Points
- 1,160
milnews.ca said:
Nice to see 'merica using the 'Royal' we
- Reaction score
- 2,827
- Points
- 940
Well, we've had input from the Manitoba Community College kid telling us what to think. Just need the POTUS' morning tweets now.
[fingers not crossed; breath not held. We'll see]
Edit: I'm glad that Marc Garneau was there to fill in as Jeff Dunham again. I guess the Honourable Maryam Monsef (Minister for the Status of Women) was unavailable.
[fingers not crossed; breath not held. We'll see]
Edit: I'm glad that Marc Garneau was there to fill in as Jeff Dunham again. I guess the Honourable Maryam Monsef (Minister for the Status of Women) was unavailable.
- Reaction score
- 4,240
- Points
- 1,260
This caught my eye on pg 73 ...Chris Pook said:
Similar threads
