No inside trading information, just an interested observer, but if we are looking for an official position on what we want our military to be, the latest white paper Strong, Secure, Engaged is helpful:
Executive summary
www.canada.ca
It boils down to:
- Domestic: SAR, Aid to the Civil Power, Sovereignty
- NORAD and NATO commitments
- UN engagement
The spending projections (they don't qualify as estimates) do not include upgrades to arctic surveillance, which I don't recall even being mentioned in the paper.
The problem is, like all policy papers that have preceded it over the years, it is just pretty words on paper. No Canadian politician of any party actually wants to spend money on the military because there are no votes in it. The military and foreign policy are, at best, a short throwaway line in an election platform. In terms of operational prowess and bravery by our military personnel, we are historically recognized internationally and 'punch above our weight. In terms of our interantional relations, it seems we are prone to talk loudly and carry a small stick. It's like we agree to co-host a lavish party then bring the napkins while others do all the rest. We, the electorate perennially allows them to get away with it. 'Who''s going to invade us' and 'the US will protect us are, in my view, specious arguments. Yes, push come to shove, the US would probably protect us, but they would unilaterally do it their way and on their timing and terms, in support of their interests, not ours. We have never started a conflict and will never be able to take on a peer-adversary by ourselves, and we shouldn't aspire to, but if we are going to be part of our alliances, we need to do our share.
In terms of equipment, mid-life life extensions are fine to a point, but there are often limits what you can upgrade a particular platform to do. At some point, they are just very well running old things. My buddy's 1950 Ford pick-up running like a Swiss watch but it's still as capable as a 1950 Ford pick-up. We probably wring more life out of a platform and use them well past their best before date than probably any other mature nation. As well, they can have a nasty habit of simply crapping out at the most inopportune time. Our last destroyer and both our remaining supply ships were determined to be unseaworthy long before there was a program to replace them. Many of the platforms are older than the folks that operate them and the list of aging equipment is growing because the programs to replace them keep stopped and restarted then kicked down the road. I actually don't blame the military professionals for wanting the best of the best; it's their ass on the line, but they know that their kids or grand kids will still be using them. Although they are not without their problems, as a peer nation in terms of population, GDP and world status, Australia seems to get a lot more bag for their pretty similar buck.
Defence funding is always treated as discretionary spending. For certain, the current economic situation is dire, but I'm not convinced defence spending will be any the worse for it - it's always going to be like pulling teeth whether we are $300Bn in debt or rolling in dough. I'm not certain, but I believe the costing for many of the platforms, such a fighters and frigates, does include long term costs, so it's not like the figures that get published will be spent over one or even two or three budget cycles. I'm not knowledgeable enough to posit which replacement is better than the next, but know that the ultimate decision is as much, is not more, a political one than an operational one.
mediabiasfactcheck.com
