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

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

loke

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 958
  • Joined: 14 Nov 2008, 19:07

Unread post08 Apr 2020, 12:22

ricnunes wrote:I don't think so. The competition at this stage specifically specifies that 88 fighter jets must be procured including associated equipment and weapons.
Here:
https://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/app-acq/a ... 8-eng.html

The only way that I see the numbers changing again would be if the competition above got cancelled and a new one with new numbers being started afterwards.

Regarding budget, don't forget that Canada is one of the world's wealthiest nations. So I'm pretty sure that there's plenty of resources (money) available to Canada to purchase both the fleet of 88 fighter aircraft and the planned/required ships for the Navy if the need arises (which kinda seems to be the case).

You are clearly clueless regarding budgetary aspects, and the (lack of) willingness of Canada to increase the defence budget... the current COVID-19 will make something that was already impossible, even more so.
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2191
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post08 Apr 2020, 12:29

Big difference between willingness to spend, ability to spend and most importantly spending what is acceptable to voters.
Offline

optimist

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1247
  • Joined: 20 Nov 2014, 03:34
  • Location: australia

Unread post08 Apr 2020, 12:52

Prime Ministers come and go. A new white paper changes everything and the canadian forces tear their hair out again. Or applaud for a decent decision. Who knows? But it is the reason, they find themselves where they are now.
Aussie fanboy
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2664
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post08 Apr 2020, 14:22

loke wrote:You are clearly clueless regarding budgetary aspects, and the (lack of) willingness of Canada to increase the defence budget... the current COVID-19 will make something that was already impossible, even more so.


I was talking about the ability not willingness. And even the later (the willingness) will depend alot on several factors (many/most of them political) such as for example the need for a certain government to keep a certain number (88) of promised fighter aircraft which is already translated to a public competition due to a promise (i.e. if the current Liberal government decides to order less than 88 then it would look even more foolish than it is since the 88 number was due to their "capability gap" rant). By the way and speaking about numbers, this case Canadian military equipment, did you know that a 6th AOPS ship was added to the previously planned list of 5 AOPS ships planned for the Canadian Navy? (and this was only due to fitting the government's political agenda and nothing to do with capabilities or budgets)

My point is: If increasing (or maintaining) the number of planned military equipped to be acquired fits the government narrative then such 'strategy' will be followed and the budged will reflect (or be amended to reflect) this. So please don't 'acuse' me of being "clueless regarding budgetary aspects" (even if you disagree)!

And regarding COVID-19, guess what?? It doesn't only affect Canada, it affects the entire world!
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline

loke

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 958
  • Joined: 14 Nov 2008, 19:07

Unread post08 Apr 2020, 14:35

ricnunes wrote:
loke wrote:You are clearly clueless regarding budgetary aspects, and the (lack of) willingness of Canada to increase the defence budget... the current COVID-19 will make something that was already impossible, even more so.


I was talking about the ability not willingness. And even the later (the willingness) will depend alot on several factors (many/most of them political) such as for example the need for a certain government to keep a certain number (88) of promised fighter aircraft which is already translated to a public competition due to a promise (i.e. if the current Liberal government decides to order less than 88 then it would look even more foolish than it is since the 88 number was due to their "capability gap" rant). By the way and speaking about numbers, this case Canadian military equipment, did you know that a 6th AOPS ship was added to the previously planned list of 5 AOPS ships planned for the Canadian Navy? (and this was only due to fitting the government's political agenda and nothing to do with capabilities or budgets)

My point is: If increasing (or maintaining) the number of planned military equipped to be acquired fits the government narrative then such 'strategy' will be followed and the budged will reflect (or be amended to reflect) this. So please don't 'acuse' me of being "clueless regarding budgetary aspects" (even if you disagree)!

And regarding COVID-19, guess what?? It doesn't only affect Canada, it affects the entire world!

Having the "ability" to do something does not help much if the politicians do not allocate the money.

The current Canadian government is giving priority to it's navy, as you yourself point out above.

COVID-19 affects the whole world, what is your point? My point is that politicians who already give low priority to defence, will not give it higher priority in the current situation -- au contrair, it will be given even lower priority.

No way Canada is going to increase their defence budgets in the current situation. And I would not be surprised if it will be reduced, at least in real terms, in the near future. Of course many countries in Europe will most likely do the same. There will be some exceptions, for instance Finland (I suggest you read my post in the Finnish "F-35" thread, to learn more about this).
Offline

optimist

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1247
  • Joined: 20 Nov 2014, 03:34
  • Location: australia

Unread post09 Apr 2020, 00:13

Who knows, with instability in the world. There may be an increase in defence spending.
Aussie fanboy
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6583
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post09 Apr 2020, 05:46

optimist wrote:Who knows, with instability in the world. There may be an increase in defence spending.



Extremely, doubtful....


The US alone was looking to cut back on Defense in the coming budgets and that was before the Coronavirus Crisis!
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2191
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post09 Apr 2020, 08:43

optimist wrote:Who knows, with instability in the world. There may be an increase in defence spending.


There was this and a certain neighbor to the south pointing something about Canada being "slightly delinquent".
https://www.defensenews.com/global/the- ... -10-years/

Add $7-8b that some people claimed as broken promises on defence spending...
Offline

optimist

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1247
  • Joined: 20 Nov 2014, 03:34
  • Location: australia

Unread post09 Apr 2020, 09:01

1.2 increase to 1.4% GDP, wasn't exactly what I was thinking. I think 2% is the wests aspirational goal. It was more about if something kicks off after covid.
Aussie fanboy
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2664
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post09 Apr 2020, 13:03

optimist wrote:Who knows, with instability in the world. There may be an increase in defence spending.


I would say that's a possibility indeed.

There have been cries from within several countries in the west for a much less dependence and reliance on China's manufactured goods (due to COVID-19) while at the same time the US is apparently relinquishing its role as the world's police and first responder. Such stance may require that the same and other countries to be more dependent on their own military forces for defence which would mean a real need to increase defence spendings.
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6370
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post09 Apr 2020, 15:18

Corsair1963 wrote:
optimist wrote:Who knows, with instability in the world. There may be an increase in defence spending.



Extremely, doubtful....


The US alone was looking to cut back on Defense in the coming budgets and that was before the Coronavirus Crisis!



Enemy gets a vote.

The US has been trying to get back to "normal" for 10 years now, and damned if the bad guys arent helping us more :(

world is less stable than it was just 6 weeks ago. I'm not in the predictions business, but this could theoretically be the beginning of a new cold war. Defense spending may also be used to anchor the economy "no more super Hornets? That's silly! Have a dozen more!"
Choose Crews
Offline

loke

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 958
  • Joined: 14 Nov 2008, 19:07

Unread post12 Apr 2020, 12:02

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is likely to face questions from other leaders of the NATO military alliance next week as new figures show Canadian military spending is expected to remain stagnant this year.

All NATO members agreed in 2014 to work toward spending two per cent of their gross domestic products on defence within a decade, a pledge that has taken on added significance thanks to U.S. President Donald Trump.

Yet new NATO figures published Friday estimate Canada will spend around 1.31 per cent of its GDP on its military this year — the same as last year.

The Liberals actually changed the way Canada reports its defence spending to NATO when it unveiled their defence policy, largely to ensure the country’s investments were being properly acknowledged amid U.S. pressure to spend more.


So there was a slight spending increase, but it has now stopped. And it seems one of the reasons why spending increased was simply because the Liberals changed the way they reported, including more costs from their national budget that previously was not defined part of "defence" -- so a one-off.

Unless there is a new Cold War, Canada will not increase their defence budget.

Also, due to the COVID-19 crisis the Canadian GDP is set to shrink; if they do not reduce the defence budget this will mean that there will be a percentage increase of the GDP.... which I am sure the Liberals will try to sell to Trump...

https://globalnews.ca/news/6236653/cana ... -spending/

My guess is, they will either postpone the fighter competition, or reduce the number of a/c. Or both.
Offline

optimist

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1247
  • Joined: 20 Nov 2014, 03:34
  • Location: australia

Unread post13 Apr 2020, 04:59

I think I'm missing the point. I really don't know how many F-35 they will buy. I really don't know when they will buy them. What I do know is that there isn't a hope, that they will get Gripens.
Aussie fanboy
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2664
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post13 Apr 2020, 11:07

loke wrote:Also, due to the COVID-19 crisis the Canadian GDP is set to shrink; if they do not reduce the defence budget this will mean that there will be a percentage increase of the GDP.... which I am sure the Liberals will try to sell to Trump...

https://globalnews.ca/news/6236653/cana ... -spending/

My guess is, they will either postpone the fighter competition, or reduce the number of a/c. Or both.


Even if you're right, you're forgetting another option which would allow maintaining the planned 88 aircraft number, such as:
- Reducing the number of the Surface Combatant Ships (Destroyer/Frigate) to be procured/build. Currently Canada plans to procure/build "up to 15" of such ships. If they procure 14 instead 15 then considerable money could/would be spared. For example building 15 of such ships is expected to cost $53.2 Billion CAD or around $34.8 Billion USD as I'm typing. Note that this value is excluding other project costs such as project development, spare parts, training and other associated costs (it refers to Production/building cost only). Source:
https://www.pbo-dpb.gc.ca/web/default/f ... port_E.pdf

This means that each of those future Surface Combatant Ships should in theory cost (building alone) around $2.32 Billion USD. This is the equivalent of 29 (twenty-nine) F-35A's.
Ok, I'm perfectly aware that such calculations aren't that straightforward but I believe that you can get the idea.

And the above is by only reducing the number of planned Surface Combatant Ships from 15 to 14 which BTW would mean that an equal number of ships to be operated from each coast (Atlantic and Pacific) or more precisely 7 on each cost.
This number could even go lower or down as 12, which would mean a one-to-one replacement of the current Surface Combatant Ship fleet (Halifax-class Frigates).
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6370
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post15 Apr 2020, 00:38

https://www.thepostmillennial.com/canad ... d-pronouns


“Based on a recent CAF cultural and normative shift to promote gender diversity and associated inclusiveness, CFPAS [Canadian Forces Personnel Appraisal System] writing policy and guide will also reflect this new reality where *****, gender identity, and gender expression are prohibited grounds of discrimination under the Canadian Human Rights Act. Forthwith the use of gender pronouns such as quote he/his and she/her unquote are not to be used when drafting pers. Members will be referred to by rank and name or by using gender-neutral pronouns such as they/their.”


Absolutely dehumanizing!!

Wow Leafs. Wow.
Choose Crews
PreviousNext

Return to Program and politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests