- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Like Mr. Sallows said, this is just a repackaging of a lot of old spending promises (we all know the Sea King fiasco), presented in such a way as to make the sheeple of this country (with their ever so short memories) think the *new* Liberals (Hmmm, who was Chretien‘s finance shlub?) are showing some concern for the welfare of the troops. Typical Liberal mushmouthed spin.
A
ArmyBrat
Guest
So, the $7 Billion is going towards 3 new supply/transport ships (Which is an awesome C2 investment) - new fixed wing SAR planes (Another awesome thing we need) - the Strykers (Ummmm, why are we buying these again?) -- and the maritime helicopters.
Not a bad day for defence, huh?
What about airlift? Tactical airlift...not that strategic airlift you all seem to have your hearts set on. Replacing some of the older Herc with new, extended Hercs? Keep in mind, next to the USA...the only allie that has strategic airlift is Britain, with 4 C-17s. But, replacing the Hercs with extended new ones would be good.
Not a bad day for defence, huh?
What about airlift? Tactical airlift...not that strategic airlift you all seem to have your hearts set on. Replacing some of the older Herc with new, extended Hercs? Keep in mind, next to the USA...the only allie that has strategic airlift is Britain, with 4 C-17s. But, replacing the Hercs with extended new ones would be good.
- Reaction score
- 6,135
- Points
- 1,160
I wonder if Canada Steamship Lines, or one of it‘s subsidiarys, is going to end up operating the new transport ships. The navy doesn‘t have the manpower, but Paul Martin‘s (son‘s) company does. Pretty suspicious that a shipping mangnate would all of a sudden decide to give us ships. Kinda like the Cretin buying new planes from his son in law at Bombardier.
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 430
Well by the time the JSS enters service tyhe navy will hopefully have the crews for them after all we will be using the crews from our two existing AORs plus whatever is taken in during recruiting.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Bits and pieces...
Jay Hill (Conserv Defence critic) slaughtered the Gagetown press conference for the sham it was. The only good thing coming out is now we all get tax relief for overseas deployments.
For me, thats $2100 for the last three months I spent during roto 13 Bosnia. It may serve as an incentive for people to go over again and again, but not so much to get people into the military in the first place.
As for the MGS,
I loved my time on Leopards, but thier time with our army is about done. We need to replace them. The Armour forum has discussed at length the replacement choices so lets not get into it here.
But just how many are we getting...
I heard 66 earlier in the Throne speach, another 66 at the budget, and 66 again yesterday in Gagetown... that over 370 vehicles...boy what a fleet.
Anybody else sick of hearing the same old crap over and over again.
Keep it coming, I am still voting Conservative.
Jay Hill (Conserv Defence critic) slaughtered the Gagetown press conference for the sham it was. The only good thing coming out is now we all get tax relief for overseas deployments.
For me, thats $2100 for the last three months I spent during roto 13 Bosnia. It may serve as an incentive for people to go over again and again, but not so much to get people into the military in the first place.
As for the MGS,
I loved my time on Leopards, but thier time with our army is about done. We need to replace them. The Armour forum has discussed at length the replacement choices so lets not get into it here.
But just how many are we getting...
I heard 66 earlier in the Throne speach, another 66 at the budget, and 66 again yesterday in Gagetown... that over 370 vehicles...boy what a fleet.
Anybody else sick of hearing the same old crap over and over again.
Keep it coming, I am still voting Conservative.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Well said Army Medic
Conservative all the way
Conservative all the way
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 410
You know the way I see it, it doesn‘t matter who gets voted in. They all say what we want to hear to get in then flip flop on what they say. Same spots different leapord. There is 0 accountablility in every level of gov‘t these days.
B
^*^batman^*^
Guest
i think i will believe we get the money when we get it, and how it is spent, most likeley wasted on crap we dont need, or very overpriced stuff we do?!?!?!
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Well said CFL, But one thing to consider, its not like we have anything to loose going Conservative, it not like it could get any worse.and they are saying alot more then the liberals are, which isnt necesarily a bad thing or good thing either.
Plus everyone has to make a choice and ask them selfs, whos is the greater evil of the two parties. too me, the Liberals are the bigger evil.
Plus everyone has to make a choice and ask them selfs, whos is the greater evil of the two parties. too me, the Liberals are the bigger evil.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Replacing our Leos with more heavy MBTs isn‘t really a realistic option considering our perpetually cash-strapped status. MGS brings two advantages:
1. Half as heavy as a Leo, which means cheaper and easier to deploy. I recently read that armour twice as heavy costs four times as much to deploy and maintain, and that the US M1 fleet costs the equivilant of Canada‘s defence budget to maintain.
2. Common chassis with out existing LAV 111 fleet, meaning considerable logistical simplicity and efficiency
Unfortunately, MGS also brings a host of serious engineering problems, protection/survivability problems and mobility problems. My vote would be for the M8 Thunderbolt with RPG protection and band tracks, which is also about half the weight of a Leo.
Essentially the army will no longer be suited to conventional warfighting (unless it‘s prepared to encounter serious problems); Missions like Haiti, Bosnia and Kabul are ideal for our new-look army. To some, then, the transformation makes complete sense. Anyone with warfighting in mind is going to think differently.
1. Half as heavy as a Leo, which means cheaper and easier to deploy. I recently read that armour twice as heavy costs four times as much to deploy and maintain, and that the US M1 fleet costs the equivilant of Canada‘s defence budget to maintain.
2. Common chassis with out existing LAV 111 fleet, meaning considerable logistical simplicity and efficiency
Unfortunately, MGS also brings a host of serious engineering problems, protection/survivability problems and mobility problems. My vote would be for the M8 Thunderbolt with RPG protection and band tracks, which is also about half the weight of a Leo.
Essentially the army will no longer be suited to conventional warfighting (unless it‘s prepared to encounter serious problems); Missions like Haiti, Bosnia and Kabul are ideal for our new-look army. To some, then, the transformation makes complete sense. Anyone with warfighting in mind is going to think differently.
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 11,983
- Points
- 1,160
Can I ask the question: What is the difference between our army and Australia's?
We have often being involved in the same missions, we similar issues in regard to size and population. We also have the same allies. Australia bought the M1's because they know that SE Asia is the next hotspot and they also realize that if they want to play ball in the world, they need the right equipment. I think they main difference between them and us, is they have a government that has some balls, we have eunuchs.
We have often being involved in the same missions, we similar issues in regard to size and population. We also have the same allies. Australia bought the M1's because they know that SE Asia is the next hotspot and they also realize that if they want to play ball in the world, they need the right equipment. I think they main difference between them and us, is they have a government that has some balls, we have eunuchs.
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 410
Australia spends more does it not? They are also closer to the danger so the public/gov‘t see the need for a beefier army.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
they spend a **** of alot more then we do, I will have to find a sight a saw a little while ago with a break down of nations in size, population, and what they spends on their military GDP.
Unless the manufacturers of military equipment alter the price to fit accordingly with the size of a country‘s GDP (which I‘m pretty sure they don‘t!) a budget is a budget, a dollar is a dollar. I believe we spend more on a dollar-per-dollar basis than they do, just we spend it on...something else...
Similar threads
