News   Jan 06, 2025
Concord Sky Rises Skyward Above Its Heritage Walls
 749     0 
News   Jan 06, 2025
QuadReal Revises Plans for 45-Storey Rental Tower in Midtown Toronto
 1.4K     1 
News   Jan 06, 2025
News Roundup for January 6, 2025
 521     0 

Xenophobic Layton plays the anti-Yankee card

yes, eight years ago, now the Defense Budget is at 7.86 billion (CIA fact book 2003), a difference of almost 3 BILLION, Australia has since added 1 billion more to their budget and Canada continues to slash the Defense Budget, Ideally a budget of 11-12.5 billion yearly is Ideal to allow for new equipment and growth, so we need to add 3.14-4.64 Billion more a year for Defense funding so are armed forces don't collapse.
 
Even an immediate cash infusion might not be enough - afterall, procurement of new equipment takes time (just think the replacements for Sea Kings). Apparently, we will be losing heavy lift capability real soon.

And gawd forbid one should ask how our CF-18s are doing. As much as I don't like the US, joining their JSF program might be a wise thing to do, with potential benefits to our aerospace industry...

GB
 
The CF-18s are actually undergoing a modernization program right now, but our C-130s are the most abused fleet in the world with only about 1/3 that stand ready at one time. Also our new SAR helicopters based out of Trenton have been grounded for lack of spares and are forced to fall back on the ancient Labrador.
 
well as was mentioned before the Canadian Forces has no Sea/Air Lift Capabilities any more, and soon the C-130 will be retired and then what? we have an armed forces that can't get off the Continent, our navy has no sea lift ability, are we going to be hitching a ride off the US forever? I hope not.
 
We've never had a heavy lift capability. We have a medium lift capability that's supposed to be enhanced 2010-2015 (CC-130E replacement).

The Sea King replacement project should have been suspended along with the the rest of the military projects, pending the foreign policy/defence review. Martin's failure to do that shows that he really hasn't grasped how deep a hole the CF is in.

Kevin
 
this game the Government is playing with cutting money to our Defense policy will mean if the Armed forces do not see more money soon (alot more money), they will be unable to do much more than watch the next time there is a major international (or National) crisis, and perhaps our Sovereignty will pay the price.
 
Our budget is about $11 billion, Canadian dollars. About $7.5 billion US. Guess what, though. With the change in the exchange rate, the military, according to those CIA statistics, would've gotten an extra billion dollars. Will they notice it? I don't think so. Those figures based on exchange rates can be very misleading.
 
They'd be better off using constant dollars at a fixed, average exchange rate.
 
Our sovereignty is not going to be an issue if there's an international crisis, unless that crisis is a direct challenge to our sovereignty (ie Denmark asserts authority over part of the Arctic). It's even less likely that the size of the CF is going to be relevant to internal sovereignty operations.

However, Canada requires credible military force to influence international military operations and carry out foreign policy. If the CF isn't rebuilt, our foreign policy will suffer.

Kevin
 
Agreed drunknsubmrnr (I just figured out your alias! - call me slow :b )

It's more about relevance with regards to our foreign policy than sovereignty. As to challenges to the latter, I am afraid Denmark is less of a concern than say the US and the Northwest passage...

GB
 
Still, what would even the strongest military do to keep the U.S. out of the Northwest Passage? What are we going to do? Sink them? The only way we can get that kind of recognition is through diplomacy. We should sail a rusty oil tanker through their waters off Seattle or something and see how they feel.
 
:-D

The Danes are actually making a play for one of the islands, but it's not a big deal yet.

The US has a legitimate claim for using the NorthWest Passage as an international shipping channel. However, that doesn't give them the right to claim any Canadian land in the Arctic, just to drive ships through the passage. Canada can still enforce national laws on pollution etc. It's really not a big deal.

We did put a rusty tanker off Seattle a few times. It was called "HMCS Provider".

Kevin
 
unimaginative:

Diplomacy with the beligerent US administrations? Right!

drunknsub:

re: claims

Doesn't a good chunk of the passage falls within our 12 nautical mile territorial waters? If so, how can one legitmately claim that it is an "international shipping channel"?

GB
 
We as Canadians, have for years been trained to define ourselves through xenophobic hatred of America.
These sicko racist Canadian nationalists must be stopped!
 
Xenophobic hatred? Please, give me a break, quite a few of us wasn't even raised here, and it doesn't take much for us to see American policies as it is.

Better "racist Canadian nationalists" than "racist American sympathizers" - at least I know where the loyalites of the first group lies.

GB
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top