"Gov't shipbuilding strategy moving towards launch?"/Musings on the CF's future

Start of topic thread (mine) at Milnet.ca:

It seems to me that this, completely politically motivated (and the Liberals would do nothing very different), can only guarantee greatly added costs and slower delivery--and as for number of ships...

Some earlier relevant posts:

JSS: "a compromise between an AOR and a troop ship capable of supporting an amphibious landing is exactly that: a compromise that does neither"

Musings on the JSS...

What the Arctic Offshore Patrol Ships (A/OPSs) are all about

I simply do not believe that all the equipment purchases the government has promised under its "Canada First Defence Strategy" (it's not a strategy, it's essentially a shopping list--see 2. Equipment here, plus list here) will be affordable in the current budgetary climate. After all, the government has already reneged on the commitments it made for stable future funding increases. A government of any other political stripe will not be even that, er, generous.

From an earlier post:

...
I do believe that some future government will be forced to conclude that procuring all the types of equipment above [see link] for the three services is simply unaffordable, and that a serious review of the services' missions must be undertaken to determine which capablities can be eliminated or reduced. Unless the services are to, er, soldier on with clapped-out, increasingly ineffective, equipment.

In other words, some government must decide what operational capabilities of the CF are vital to the national interest and therefore must be funded. And which capabilities are not essential. Otherwise Canada will end up with three services, each of which is trying to be as close as it can be to all-singing and all-dancing (the "multi-purpose, combat-capable forces" mantra--boy is a new White Paper needed). But those services will in fact end up increasingly off-tune and out of step. Because the money will not be there to let the show go on...

In my own view, given ineluctable funding crunches, a substantial blue-water fleet is the least important part of our military in terms of both national interests and what governments actually use the CF for in foreign policy terms (in almost all major cases the Army, with Air Force logistical support).

Whether we need fighters with full capabilities for airspace patrol/interception, air-to-air combat, and precise ground attack is another good question since the government has been unwilling even to use our CF-18s to support troops in Afstan.

Also, why not consider

A civilian maritime patrol aircraft fleet?

to relieve the Air Force of the non-military missions its patrol aircfraft perform and to rationalize and make more effective the government's existing civilian patrol activities?

At some point decisions will have to be made on re-shaping the CF. But governments, and the services themselves, are completely unwilling to face up to issue. So in the future those decisions will likely be made in a fashion that has not been well thought through. With lord knows what results.

Lots more along similar lines at the second part of this post:

British defence budget woes--a lesson for Canada too?

Still, if something could be done about the insistence on building vessels in Canada (a breach in designing them here has finally been made), and about Industrial and Regional Benefits (IRBs, see Benefits to Canadian Communities) generally, budget constraints might be lessened somewhat. Ah, to dream...

Update: Babbling's corking post just after this one touches on the same fundamental theme (though we do differ about the Navy)--and I share his weariness:

...
At the end of the day, both situations - the navy's problems [see here], and the Congo idea [lots more here] - can be traced back to a lack of serious thought in this country about defence issues at all. And I'll be honest with you: I'm getting increasingly tired of trying to make those same arguments again and again and again.

We're getting precisely the defence policy we, as a country, are demanding. What a sad statement that is.