Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 program

Program progress, politics, orders, and speculation
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

charlielima223

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1068
  • Joined: 12 Jan 2014, 19:26

Unread post19 Oct 2019, 21:56

pushoksti wrote:
Canada is smart enough to know that we can let the US spend themselves into oblivion on defence. I’ll keep my healthcare instead of wasting billions on a military we don’t need just so we can keep up with the Jones’s. Just remember that the US’ massive military complex didn’t prevent 9/11.


Defense spending vs government social spending programs is a different debate. As far as 9/11 is concerned; that was a failure of intelligence and LE and the communication between the two. Since then the intelligence apparatus of the US has grown far beyond exponential. Enforcement of federal and local laws has had better enforcement through the years.

Back to Canada and the F-35
Offline

optimist

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 990
  • Joined: 20 Nov 2014, 03:34
  • Location: australia

Unread post19 Oct 2019, 23:17

XanderCrews wrote:
steve2267 wrote:Why are we discussing healthcare here?



Because in Canada they'll give up whatever it takes to keep it. sovereignty, military, alliances, Europe, you name it. Thats what started us down this rabbit hole

Your logic on this doesn't work. It is the US that is giving up more money, than Canada for healthcare. If the US adopted the Canadian system. They would save money. The extra 6.6% could more than triple the US military spending, from its current 3.2% https://www.statista.com/statistics/217 ... f-the-gdp/



The US pay 16.6% of GDP for healthcare.
Canada pays 10%

Image
Aussie fanboy
Offline

pushoksti

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 204
  • Joined: 01 Nov 2008, 04:50
  • Location: Canadar

Unread post20 Oct 2019, 16:24

XanderCrews wrote:You seem offended, and at the same time are validating everything I said. Wheres the problem here? :|


Misunderstanding. My apologise.

Image

ricnunes wrote:However none of this would happen - the waste of money and resources on old and useless aircraft - if the Canadian government has taken the right decision on all and every aspect which would have been to purchase the F-35 back in 2010 (as again, other of our closest allies did).


Knowing the sheer lack of manpower we had in those days, it's gotten better since a little, I don't think we'd be able to field a F35 fleet and keep the CF-18s in any sort of deployable state. When the F35 is chosen, I can see maintenance being contracted out much like the C295 we just bought for the first 5 years until we recruit enough people.
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5442
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post20 Oct 2019, 18:36

optimist wrote:Your logic on this doesn't work. It is the US that is giving up more money, than Canada for healthcare. If the US adopted the Canadian system. They would save money.


Pass. I'd prefer to have the ability to control how much I spend on insurance rather than have the government decide that for me. It's bad enough they bill me every paycheck for medicare (which I don't even use). If anything, they should be giving me that back. Now THAT would save me some money.
"There I was. . ."
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2199
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post20 Oct 2019, 20:28

pushoksti wrote:Knowing the sheer lack of manpower we had in those days, it's gotten better since a little, I don't think we'd be able to field a F35 fleet and keep the CF-18s in any sort of deployable state. When the F35 is chosen, I can see maintenance being contracted out much like the C295 we just bought for the first 5 years until we recruit enough people.


If Canada had chosen the F-35 back then in 2010 or actually and to be more precise if Canada didn't cancel the F-35 selection back then, then this would have followed the same procedure has done by Britain, Netherlands, Australia, Norway, etc... and if all these countries and even more managed to select the F-35 back then, then "sure as hell" that Canada could have done the same, don't you think?
A 4th/4.5th gen fighter aircraft stands about as much chance against a F-35 as a guns-only Sabre has against a Viper.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5812
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post21 Oct 2019, 00:40

Conservatives promise to 'protect' defence spending from deficit battle

Defence takes a fifth of the federal budget and has often been a target for deficit cutters


The Conservatives have pledged to "protect" the budget of the Department of National Defence even as they work to eliminate the federal deficit.

In their election platform, the Tories said they would find $5 billion in savings by cutting operational expenses, but were not clear on precisely what that meant, other than to say it would not affect services to Canadians.

The Liberals, through their two-year-old defence policy, committed to increase defence spending by 70 per cent to $32 billion annually by 2024-25 — a program that would unfold at precisely the same time a potential Conservative government intends to cut expenditures.​​

The Liberals have also set in motion plans to buy two of the military's biggest-ticket items — new fighter jets and navy frigates.

Conservative leader Andrew Scheer said Wednesday his party would stick with those purchases, but would be more efficient.

"We are committed to the funding allocated to the Department of National Defence," he said during a campaign stop in in southwestern Ontario. "We will not do what the Liberals did, which is waste hundreds of millions of dollars stopping and starting the procurement process."

The Conservatives have pledged to depoliticize the process of buying military equipment and have complained about the Liberal government's delivery timelines and decisions, including the plan to purchase used Australian F-18s to supplement the existing fighter jet force until a decision is made on brand-new warplanes.

Says money wasted

"They have wasted so much money when it comes to procurement," Scheer said, adding that Conservatives would "protect the budgets of National Defence [and] we're going to ensure that the money that's allocated to National Defence is spent wisely."

At least two experts wonder how the Conservatives can live up to that pledge in light of the fact the Defence Department is the single biggest discretionary expense on the federal balance sheet and the last two times Conservatives — or Liberals — tried to balance the budget, military spending took major hits.

Under the government of former prime minister Stephen Harper, the defence budget was cut by $2.1 billion annually and the department racked up sizeable chunks of lapsed spending, money that was appropriated by Parliament, but not spent.

The reduction took place after the Afghan war and the department faced concurrent spending cuts through the Conservative strategy review and deficit reduction action plan.

Both Liberal and Conservative governments in the 1990s cut defence spending and postponed buying new equipment, most notably new maritime helicopters, which only came into service in the last few years

Defence spending an obvious target

"Balancing a federal budget without looking at defence spending is extraordinarily difficult, to impossible," said Dave Perry, an analyst and expert in defence spending at the Canadian Global Affairs Institute. "Defence spending accounts for one-fifth of the federal budget."

And even if the Conservatives did look for savings, a change to the accounting structure at Defence leaves little room for them to recoup much money by cancelling or postponing equipment purchases.

Reducing the size of the military or the civil service was something previous governments did, but Perry said those kinds of cuts "take two years or more" to make their way through the system.

Kevin Page, the former parliamentary budget officer and CEO of the Institute of Fiscal Studies and Democracy, said much of what all of the parties are proposing — and their ability to deliver — is contingent on the kind of Parliament that is elected on Monday.

In a minority government scenario, the Conservatives might find themselves struggling to deliver savings outside of the Defence Department, he suggested.

Would need majority

"If elected, I would assume the Conservatives would need a majority government to push through the savings on direct program spending – infrastructure, wage bills, other operations, corporate and development assistance," Page said.

The Liberal record on defence spending is up for debate.

An internal DND slide presentation, obtained by CBC News, lays out projections for the department going to up to the 2036-37 fiscal year.

Faced with extraordinary pressure from the Trump administration to meet NATO's goal of earmarking two per cent of gross domestic product for military spending, the Liberal government committed to a 70 per cent increase by 2024-25.

The Feb. 25, 2019 slide presentation shows that spending will peak in 2026-27 and begin to fall again in the preceding decade.

The document also shows that, for two years running, the Liberals have not spent as much as they planned on new equipment. While $12.7 billion was set aside in their plan between 2017-19 for new military gear, the Trudeau government only asked Parliament for permission to spend $8.34 billion — leaving $4.4 billion still in the treasury.

The slide presentation said part of the reason is that some existing projects came in under budget, but in one-third of the instances the spending delay was because the Defence Department — or the federal government in general — could not get the projects organized.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/conser ... -1.5323618
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2199
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post21 Oct 2019, 14:24

Corsair1963 wrote:The Conservatives have pledged to depoliticize the process of buying military equipment and have complained about the Liberal government's delivery timelines and decisions, including the plan to purchase used Australian F-18s to supplement the existing fighter jet force until a decision is made on brand-new warplanes.


First of all, thanks for the article Corsair. :thumb:

Secondly, I'm glad someone within the political power recognizes exactly the problem that I previously mentioned and which I find it to be the main route/cause of the mess that is the Canadian military procurement, which is Political Interference!

As such, let's see IF the Conservatives will win the elections (Today) and IF yes, IF they (Conservatives) will actually fulfill the promise above.
A 4th/4.5th gen fighter aircraft stands about as much chance against a F-35 as a guns-only Sabre has against a Viper.
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6018
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post21 Oct 2019, 14:46

optimist wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:
steve2267 wrote:Why are we discussing healthcare here?



Because in Canada they'll give up whatever it takes to keep it. sovereignty, military, alliances, Europe, you name it. Thats what started us down this rabbit hole

Your logic on this doesn't work.


neither does US government interference in Americans' healthcare. :mrgreen: There are a myraid reasons why the US citizens are not a fan of government interference in healthcare. Too many to go into here. Suffice to say though that if the ability to spend more on defense was a result of Canadian style healthcare, we wouldn't have disappeared down the Healthcare vs Defence" rabbit hole debate we are have now correct?

extra 6.6% could more than triple the US military spending, from its current 3.2%


Why oh why do Canadians not spend more on defence then when they have Canadian style healthcare?

your logic doesn't work
Choose Crews
Offline
User avatar

botsing

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 859
  • Joined: 05 Dec 2015, 18:09
  • Location: The Netherlands

Unread post21 Oct 2019, 16:50

The Netherlands is doing pretty well in that healthcare index and we recently bought even more F-35's!

Ergo: Canada's healthcare will combine just fine with F-35's.
"Those who know don’t talk. Those who talk don’t know"
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2199
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post21 Oct 2019, 22:23

botsing wrote:The Netherlands is doing pretty well in that healthcare index and we recently bought even more F-35's!

Ergo: Canada's healthcare will combine just fine with F-35's.


DITTO!
A 4th/4.5th gen fighter aircraft stands about as much chance against a F-35 as a guns-only Sabre has against a Viper.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5812
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post22 Oct 2019, 04:08

ricnunes wrote:
First of all, thanks for the article Corsair. :thumb:

Secondly, I'm glad someone within the political power recognizes exactly the problem that I previously mentioned and which I find it to be the main route/cause of the mess that is the Canadian military procurement, which is Political Interference!

As such, let's see IF the Conservatives will win the elections (Today) and IF yes, IF they (Conservatives) will actually fulfill the promise above.



Sounds like the Liberals are going to pull it out..... :?


Trudeau's Liberals to form Canadian minority government - CBC

OTTAWA (Reuters) - Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s ruling Liberals will form a minority government, the Canadian Broadcasting Corp projected on Monday after polls closed across the country.

The Liberals were leading or elected in 146 out of 304 electoral districts that had reported results by about 10:30 p.m. EDT (0230 GMT on Tuesday), the CBC said. Trudeau needed to win 170 seats to secure a second majority government...........

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-canad ... C?rpc=401&
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23466
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post22 Oct 2019, 05:31

Justin Trudeau wins second term as Canadian prime minister
22 Oct 2019 Matthew Knott

"...The Liberals are forecast to win 161 seats, down from 184 in the past election and just short of the 170 needed to win a majority. The Conservatives are expected to win 116 seats, the Bloc Québécois 34 seats and the left-wing New Democrats 24 seats. The Green Party won three seats...."

Photo: "A one-year-old Justin Trudeau is held by his mother, Margaret, in a car in 1972" http://img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tena ... BRcQXp.img (JPG 3.6Mb)


Source: http://www.msn.com/en-au/news/world/jus ... ar-AAJ8RBy
Attachments
JustinTrudeauOneYearOldMotherMagaret1972CropGrySmall.jpg
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2199
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post22 Oct 2019, 09:39

Yes, it seems that Trudeau managed to win more mandates and thus being able to form a minority government. This despite the Conservatives having actually won more votes (apparently the first time that such situation happens since 1979).

Resuming, in terms of mandates:
- Liberals: 157
- Conservatives: 121

Popular/percentage of votes:
- Conservatives: 34.42%
- Liberals: 33.05%

Source:
https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/ ... ap-results

Well, at least the Liberals didn't get he majority of mandates and the diferences between the Liberals and Conservatives in terms of mandates isn't that big so, apparently this time "Wonder Boy" can't do whatever it pleases. (silver lining again...)
A 4th/4.5th gen fighter aircraft stands about as much chance against a F-35 as a guns-only Sabre has against a Viper.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5812
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post22 Oct 2019, 10:06

Honestly, maybe easier now for Trudeau to acquire the F-35. Not like he has to worry about re-election again....
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5812
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post22 Oct 2019, 10:08

OMG....If, Trudeau could win re-election. Hell, so could TRUMP.............. :shock:
PreviousNext

Return to Program and politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 19 guests