kEiThZ
Superstar
I think we'll see more setups like AUKUS where Canada is just bypassed when new arrangements are made. Eventually, some of these current forums will be deprecated. But I guess we can still pretend to be important till that happens.
|
|
|
- Thread starter kEiThZ
- Start date
I think we'll see more setups like AUKUS where Canada is just bypassed when new arrangements are made. Eventually, some of these current forums will be deprecated. But I guess we can still pretend to be important till that happens.
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
Well we will see where Five Eyes goes. Though it must also be said that nothing is permanent if we get our act together and demonstrate our utility - but that requires performance, not platitudes.
First and foremost on my mind is our counterintelligence and counterinfluence efforts - we have a society uniquely vulnerable to threat actors (diverse and highly open - with significant - and electorally critical - communities vulnerable due to linkages with these actors). I would be cringing hard if I am an allied nation watching the current mess around political interference in our country.
AoD
Last edited:
lenaitch
Senior Member
Perhaps. Scraping the keel on draught clearance and I'm not sure the height above water has been set since they were evaluating various mast options. Regardless, as far as I know, the only Canadian shipyard is Heddle and their three sites. From reading their website, I'm not sure they are set up to build ships from the keel up. Modern shipbuilding is typically done in modules, and I'm not sure they have the 'hall' and hoisting capacity for it.
I understand the National Shipbuilding Strategy has tossed them some non-combat work (CCG, research, etc.) but many aspects of a combatant, such as welding, are highly specialized. Even our main yards are struggling to re-build these skills because of the sporadic nature of our naval builds.
afransen
Senior Member
It is indeed a shame. Shipbuilding is more about the assembly line (that is what you are buying) and not so much the ships. If we think it is important to maintain domestic capability we should be planning to build more or less continuously.
lenaitch
Senior Member
I'm not sure successive Canadian governments have cared much about sovereign domestic capacity; we seem to be content behind a branch plant economy. Admittedly, in many fields, you need a solid international market simply because we lack a sustainable domestic market. In terms of complex naval construction - which I don't know much about - it would seem to make sense to have had an evolutionary approach and essentially have a 'keel laid down' at any given time. The key factor is skills retention, Of course, that would require a single shipyard-of-record unless we want to start shuffling modules around the country (maybe that's an option too, I don't know).
kEiThZ
Superstar
Debatable. Really cutting it close here.
Seawaymax - Wikipedia
Canadian Surface Combatant - Wikipedia
The CSC is absolutely huge. With the exception of length, a lot of other dimensions are really closer to the old tankers than to frigates it is replacing. There are even debates over whether this should really be called a frigate. The closest analogous vessels in service today are all destroyers:
Type 45 destroyer - Wikipedia
Arleigh Burke-class destroyer - Wikipedia
Hobart-class destroyer - Wikipedia
kEiThZ
Superstar
I honestly don't remember a time when Canada has been called out this much and this publicly.
Towered
Superstar
Good. Maybe public shaming by our allies will produce results.
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
Not sure if this account is reliable but:
ottawacitizen.com
I find it slightly incongruous that she would be ousted from Defence because of her stance on spending to be handed basically the portfolio for government spending at large.
AoD
Anita Anand ousted as Defence Minister because proposed policy update too costly, say sources
Reworking of the defence policy update is underway after the document proposed by National Defence was deemed to be unrealistic.
ottawacitizen.com
I find it slightly incongruous that she would be ousted from Defence because of her stance on spending to be handed basically the portfolio for government spending at large.
AoD
kEiThZ
Superstar
Not sure if this account is reliable but:
Anita Anand ousted as Defence Minister because proposed policy update too costly, say sources
Reworking of the defence policy update is underway after the document proposed by National Defence was deemed to be unrealistic.
I find it slightly incongruous that she would be ousted from Defence because of her stance on spending to be handed basically the portfolio for government spending at large.
AoD
Let's hope this isn't the case. It would be bad for Canada if this turns out to be true.
lenaitch
Senior Member
Treasury Board oversees spending; it doesn't come up with the requests. She's now the banker, not the buyer.Not sure if this account is reliable but:
Anita Anand ousted as Defence Minister because proposed policy update too costly, say sources
Reworking of the defence policy update is underway after the document proposed by National Defence was deemed to be unrealistic.
I find it slightly incongruous that she would be ousted from Defence because of her stance on spending to be handed basically the portfolio for government spending at large.
AoD
afransen
Senior Member
Given her strong performance, I'm not sure Treasury Board is the best use of her talents.
kEiThZ
Superstar
Northern Light
Superstar
Dear lord that was painful.
Blair is and was a politician, even when in uniform at TPS.
He comes off here as deflecting, unclear, and really avoiding saying anything of substance.
I don't expect any press release bombshells for your typical interview; but some things said were exceeding tenuous at best, (we're on target to reach 2%)...... by when?
One could agree or disagree with the fairness of the target, there's some reasonable debate about how it is accounted for (some countries count veteran pensions, others don't as an example).
But there is no way we're tracking towards 2%. in the near to medium term.
Just own the choice; and/or be specific about change.
The PBO's report on this from June 2022, shows the current projections:
Report Link:
kEiThZ
Superstar
The LPC changed the definition to include everything but the proverbial kitchen sink into defence spending in 2017, with some Enronesque accounting. We probably have one of the most generous definitions in NATO.
The new push is for this:
But I can't imagine that most of NATO would agree to that. And besides which, even including those wouldn't add more than 0.1% per year when you add it all up:
I won't even get into crazy difference between the RCMP and an actual gendarmerie. The more we push on changing definitions instead of just trying to make the target or accept our failure, the more ridiculous we look. Imagine going to a climate conference and lobbying to change the definition of a greenhouse gas. This is security equivalent.