[bootlegga]

RUEZ RUEZ:

I would like to see Viking get a contract for airplanes. I applied for a job with them a couple weeks ago.

Good luck!

To me, Viking is a win-win. Canadians get jobs and the CF continues using a proven product (which means less training for pilots and maintenance). It's a no-brainer...

[ridenrain]

I'm all for us building the plane but first off, the military must decide what it needs, not lobbyists.

[RUEZ]

ridenrain ridenrain:

I'm all for us building the plane but first off, the military must decide what it needs, not lobbyists.

If it means we can build them in Canada, and especially in the West I think we can give and take a little.

[CanadianGigolo]

I think it's a fine idea...not since ww2 has Canada built up it's military.
As Obama wants to dismantle, Harper should increase the Canadian arms forces.

Sammy

[bootlegga]

ridenrain ridenrain:

I'm all for us building the plane but first off, the military must decide what it needs, not lobbyists.

The problem with procurement isn't lobbyists so much, its the desire of our generals and admirals to have all the fancy toys everyone else has.

Case in point, an amphibious assault ship. Hillier and other CDS' before him were convinced we needed a BHS (Big honking ship) to land troops in hostile situations. But when since WW2 has Canada ever really needed that capability? Never. But because other medium powers like the Dutch and Aussies have them/are building them, suddenly we need them too. Never mind each of those nations have very different strategic concerns than us. If we actually need one, then fine, build one. But inventing a 'need' for such an expensive purchase is ludicrous.

Frankly, I think a huge problem with the CF is the CF itself. Like Canada, it's self conscious and constantly worried that everyone will forget about them and they'll wind up like they were in the interwar years, massively undermanned and using obsolete equipment. Sure they are 'small' by recent Canadian standards, but they are far larger than anything we maintained in peacetime prior to the onset of the Cold War.

So they constantly try to drum up business saying we need this or that, when most of the time we don't. Instead of pushing for tools to defend the Arctic, they're worrying about expeditionary capabilities that Canada hasn't needed since WW2. Instead of pushing for new destroyers and/or supply ships, they're trying to buy the most expensive SAR plane, mostly because the US is doing it.

[ridenrain]

..but who better to advise than than the people who's blood might be on the line?
The politician who's only there for 4 years?
The Lobbyist who only cares about the contract?
Do we want Mulroney or Shreiber buying what we might desperately need?

I concur that they may be looking to keep up with the Cpt. Jones but I'm sure we can do better than we are doing.

[bootlegga]

ridenrain ridenrain:

..but who better to advise than than the people who's blood might be on the line?
The politician who's only there for 4 years?
The Lobbyist who only cares about the contract?
Do we want Mulroney or Shreiber buying what we might desperately need?

I concur that they may be looking to keep up with the Cpt. Jones but I'm sure we can do better than we are doing.

In democracies, this is generally the way things work;

Rule 1: It is up to said government to determine what the role of the CF is, not the CF.

Rule 2: The CF follows decisions the elected government, not the other way around.


Therefore, I'd prefer that policy, and therefore by extension, procurement, is determined by the government not the CF. The CF might be able to tell the government which tank is better than another, but it's not their job to tell the government that we need tanks that can swim or fly, unless the government tells them that we want that capability.

This keeping up with the Joneses is a direct contravention of the way a military is supposed to act. They are supposed to be told do this (kill subs for example) and then say, we need ASW frigates to do it. The government then builds them frigates. What it doesn't do is build missile cruisers, just because some admirals think we need them.

The way it works now is that the CF says, we want this plane to do this job and then expects the government to buy it for them.

[ridenrain]

Do you believe the leadership of the Canadian armed forces are not in touch with the job they have?

Please.. let's not go back to the dark old says where the government told the forces they could have anything they wanted, as long as it was green and made in Quebec.

I trust them to know the tasks are they face and I trust them to choose the tools they need to complete the job at hand.

get tired of arguing defence with you Boot.
We agree what we need and we agree what we can do but we always let politics become the stumbling block.

[Scape]

You trust the institution most known for the ivory tower mentality? Please Rain. I have a lot of respect for the men and women who serve the country but there is a big problem with a big fish in a small pond mentality that runs amuck when they are 'trusted' with power. They need to be told what to do and answer to the people who pay the bills, you let go of that leash and that dog WILL bite you. Why do you think the forces HAD to be broken up in the 60's to begin with? THEY COULD NOT SHARE TO SAVE THEIR OWN HIDES. They had to be forced into separate elements because they were hording resources just because they could and they didn't want the others (Army, Air or Navy) to have a leg up.

It's not that they intend to do it, it's the nature of the job one that was set up with the idea of taking orders not making policy.

[ridenrain]

Please. I simply don't see the Canadian Military industrial complex behind all this.
Military planners are always guilty of fighting the last war but since we're not through with Chretien's war yet, please grant them the credence that those who are in the fight know best how to fight it.

Rather than go back to argiing unification, I'll simply say that it was a wrong headed cost saving measure that haunts us to this day.

[DerbyX]

Scape Scape:

You trust the institution most known for the ivory tower mentality? Please Rain. I have a lot of respect for the men and women who serve the country but there is a big problem with a big fish in a small pond mentality that runs amuck when they are 'trusted' with power. They need to be told what to do and answer to the people who pay the bills, you let go of that leash and that dog WILL bite you. Why do you think the forces HAD to be broken up in the 60's to begin with? THEY COULD NOT SHARE TO SAVE THEIR OWN HIDES. They had to be forced into separate elements because they were hording resources just because they could and they didn't want the others (Army, Air or Navy) to have a leg up.

It's not that they intend to do it, it's the nature of the job one that was set up with the idea of taking orders not making policy.

Thats what 2Cdo said when I asked him if the military would enjoy the government simply saying "here is X dollars for the operating budget and Y dollars to spend for purchases over Z years" You decide. He pretty much said we'd see a level of infighting exceeding Ottawa.

I didn't realize that was the basis for consolidating the forces. All I've ever heard is the usual "the Libs hated the military so they did it" thought.

[bootlegga]

ridenrain ridenrain:

Do you believe the leadership of the Canadian armed forces are not in touch with the job they have?

Please.. let's not go back to the dark old says where the government told the forces they could have anything they wanted, as long as it was green and made in Quebec.

I trust them to know the tasks are they face and I trust them to choose the tools they need to complete the job at hand.

get tired of arguing defence with you Boot.
We agree what we need and we agree what we can do but we always let politics become the stumbling block.

Did I mention a political party in my last post? Yeah, I didn't think so. Even when I did mention Harper, it had nothing to do with him being a Conservative, but with his decision NOT to have an honest competition to choose several of our last major purchases. That criticism would have come from me no matter who did it. Sole sourcing the C-17 and CH-47 were mistakes, because they led the CF to think they could get whatever they wanted simply by saying "Well, this is the only model that will work for us".

No, you're the one who brought politics up by talking about green shit made in Quebec (a backhand at the Liberal if I've ever seen one).

The problem isn't politics from politicans, but politics from the CF itself. Each service (army, navy, air force) still believes that they are the one group which protects Canada from external threats, while the other two are just along for the ride. I made a post in another thread about this very issue, and was derirded by some vets here as saying regimental/interservice rivalry is a good thing.