Increased funding

[Bike to Live]

Now that the Conservatives have a majority, do you think the CF will receive its much needed funding?

 

[PuckChaser]

In these economic times, and with no mission after Afghanistan? Probably not. We'll be lucky not to have our increases rolled back slightly to help balance the books. Once the books are balanced, I'm sure our capital acquisition projects will get the funding they need.

 

[FactorXYZ]

How much are the F-35's gonna cost us (for this year).

 

[OldSolduer]

Now that the Conservatives have a majority, do you think the CF will receive its much needed funding?

No. We may see a cut now that the big Afghan mission is done.

 

[dapaterson]

DND/CF currently fails to spend over 4% of its budget.  More money will just mean mroe that doesn't get spent.  Look at today's Windsor Star for an article.

The previous budget (that failed to pass) began a process of slight reductions to planned increases in defence spending.  SO DND/CF will still get more, just not as much mroe as was once planned.  Those "reductions" are to be $500M this year, and $1B in each of the folowing 3 years, or about 1/3 of the government's target of $11B in savings over 4 years.

 

[the 48th regulator]

Now that the Conservatives have a majority, do you think the CF will receive its much needed funding?

Can you please define what "Much needed funding" means.

Please don't give anecdotal, legion hall opinions.


dileas

tess

 

[PuckChaser]

How much are the F-35's gonna cost us (for this year).

Nothing, they're not going to be in production yet.

 

[Bike to Live]

Can you please define what "Much needed funding" means.

Please don't give anecdotal, legion hall opinions.


dileas

tess

I am glad you asked.

Our Navy is too small and  Air force is almost non-existant.

 

[dapaterson]

I am glad you asked.

Our Navy is too small and  Air force is almost non-existant.

What are the strategic effects you think we should achieve, and, from those, what resources are required to meet those goals?  What resources do we currently have and are they optimally employed, or should we realign them to meet those goals?

 

[the 48th regulator]

I am glad you asked.

Our Navy is too small and  Air force is almost non-existant.

Based on what criteria? 

dileas

tess

 

[jeffb]

Our Navy is too small and  Air force is almost non-existant.

Based on what? Our "non-existant" (sic) air force is currently doing a pretty good job right now in Libya. Such a good job in fact that we are running out of bombs.

 

[dapaterson]

Based on what? Our "non-existant" (sic) air force is currently doing a pretty good job right now in Libya. Such a good job in fact that we are running out of bombs.

And the real Air Force is doing stellar work in keeping the air bridges open to both large international deployments, together with supporting transportation for disaster relief at home.

Though if you were to lobby for two more C-17s, a dozen more Herc Js and a new FWSAR platform I don't know if I could argue with you.

 

[Dennis Ruhl]

I am glad you asked.

Our Navy is too small

One of the worlds longest coastlines - 3 antique destroyers, 12 frigates, 4 perpetually dry-docked obsolete subs.  Plus some wannabe warships suited for training or policing.  Even the frigates are pushing 20 years.  I never realized it was that bad but it sure is.

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

Perhaps we could throw 3 x Batteries worth of MANPADs in for the Air Defence too?

 

[the 48th regulator]

One of the worlds longest coastlines - 3 antique destroyers, 12 frigates, 4 perpetually dry-docked obsolete subs.  Plus some wannabe warships suited for training or policing.  Even the frigates are pushing 20 years.  I never realized it was that bad but it sure is.

Are we to beef up our Navy to fulfill historical feel good needs, or is there a tactical need for them?

This has been argued ad nausea on the forums, which I believe you have stomped your feet within a few threads.

Back to the Original Posters ranting....please explain.

dileas

tess

 

[jeffb]

And the real Air Force is doing stellar work in keeping the air bridges open to both large international deployments, together with supporting transportation for disaster relief at home.

You are absolutely correct of course.  Sometimes my Army brain focuses on kinetic effects.  I'm a gunner though so I guess you can't blame me for liking things that go boom.  :nod:

 

[psionic0]

Should it really matter where the money is spent. All branches are in need of it. True the army has been the focus for the last several years. However that is due to the last mission.  That being said, most of the equipment that was bought for the Afghan mission was done reactionary. In most cases, it took a casualty for the powers that be to cough up the equipment necessary to keep our troops safe. Remember folks, we used to travel to streets of Kabul in open top ILTIS's. Who'd be willing to do that today?

 

[dapaterson]

Should it really matter where the money is spent. All branches are in need of it. True the army has been the focus for the last several years. However that is due to the last mission.  That being said, most of the equipment that was bought for the Afghan mission was done reactionary. In most cases, it took a casualty for the powers that be to cough up the equipment necessary to keep our troops safe. Remember folks, we used to travel to streets of Kabul in open top ILTIS's. Who'd be willing to do that today?

(1) The Navy, Army and Air Force are unable to spend the funding they currently have; every year millions of dollars are lapsed.  How will throwing more money at them change any thing - when they are unable to spend the money they already have?

(2) You might want to read up on COIN and interactions with the population before denouncing vehicles.


Besides, your comments are very broad and lacking in any detail.  What is more money needed for?  Where specifically should it be applied?  Are there any places the CF can save money to reinvest in more important areas?

 

[Dennis Ruhl]

(1) The Navy, Army and Air Force are unable to spend the funding they currently have; every year millions of dollars are lapsed.  How will throwing more money at them change any thing - when they are unable to spend the money they already have?

I would consider the administration failing to go to heroic lengths to spend all the available funds by March 31 every year as a plus rather than a minus.  The March spending spree in government adds little to programs, but simply serves to sustain budgets at a higher level for the upcoming year.

 

[OldSolduer]

I would consider the administration failing to go to heroic lengths to spend all the available funds by March 31 every year as a plus rather than a minus.  The March spending spree in government adds little to programs, but simply serves to sustain budgets at a higher level for the upcoming year.

Spending it just cause you have it means diddly squat. I agree.

A coherent well thought out plan might help.....just sayin....... :2c: