Trudeau’s point man on national defence has few answers

[Locutus]

really?

Four months into his tenure as defence minister, Harjit Sajjan, (above) the former colonel who battled the Taliban in Afghanistan, still has little to say about what defence policy on his watch will look like.

During a 90-minute grilling Tuesday morning by MPs, including Liberals, on the House of Commons defence committee, Sajjan was asked several questions about Canada’s defence policy. He hemmed, hawwed, and stumbled through his testimony, declining to provide any details on the CF-18 replacement process; the use of armed drones, Canada’s cyberwarfare abilities; how Canada can help defend North America against Russian aggression or any other topics he was asked about.

Sajjan’s excuse? Canada’s defence policy is under review, a review that will not be complete until the end of the year.

“I think it would be very premature and irresponsible of us to make snap decisions so early on,” Sajjan explained to reporters after the meeting.

And yet Sajjan’s cabinet colleagues have not been shy at all about making “snap decisions” in their portfolios. Environment Minister Catherine McKenna, for example, did not hesitate to figure out how to implement nation-wide carbon-pricing. Finance Minister Bill Morneau is blazing ahead with huge deficits. And Immigration Minister John McCallum got right to it upon his swearing-in to speed up the flow of Syrian refugees.


shine on here:


Trudeau’s point man on national defence has few answers | David Akin’s On the Hill

 

[Curious Cdn]

I'm waiting for some major military hardware acquisition to be cancelled, "Chretien style", thus leaving our twenty first century military with a Cold War weapons system for the next three decades. The Liberals have done that before and more than once, for both fiscal and ideological reasons.

 

[MHz]

Didn't he sign a deal with Israel for an iron dome version to look after the far north??

 

[Curious Cdn]

Didn't he sign a deal with Israel for an iron dome version to look after the far north??

They'll get it for him wholesale!

 

[MHz]

They only buy wholesale, they always sell at retail prices. It doesn't work any other way when you are the 'middleman'. The Arrow 3 would have the right range if they were installed at the north end of Hudson Bay. (yet short of being able to hit Russia in a preemptive first strike)

 

[Bar Sinister]

What do you expect? The Harper government's defence policies were poorly thought out at best, partly because it rushed into things. There really is no rush to replace obsolete fighter aircraft that were designed to fight the USSR with already obsolete aircraft of the same type. And Russian aggression is pretty much a myth. Ukraine is still there and holding on to almost all of its territory since the annexation of Crimea. Also drones are just as expensive as fighter aircraft given the huge amount of infrastructure required to maintain them. If Canada decides to go that route it will require a very large commitment in dollars and manpower to make drones effective.

 

[Murphy]

What do you expect? The Harper government's defence policies were poorly thought out at best, partly because it rushed into things. There really is no rush to replace obsolete fighter aircraft that were designed to fight the USSR with already obsolete aircraft of the same type. And Russian aggression is pretty much a myth. Ukraine is still there and holding on to almost all of its territory since the annexation of Crimea. Also drones are just as expensive as fighter aircraft given the huge amount of infrastructure required to maintain them. If Canada decides to go that route it will require a very large commitment in dollars and manpower to make drones effective.

The former Conservative government inherited old, tired equipment that no government - Conservative or Liberal - could have adequately upgraded, given the money available. There simply wasn't enough of it. Maintenance and upgrades were put off for too long. We continue to pay for not replacing things that were due.

For example, when I joined the service in 1977, I trained using equipment that was, for the most part, purchased in the 1950s and 1960s. The trng officers and NCOs used to joke about the age of the things we were using.

Some things, like the T6 bomb trailer for example, were obtained by the RCAF in WWII. The MJ1 bomb jack was purchased in the early 1960s. I trained with it in the late 1970s. It is still being used in Cold Lake and Bagotville today. There is an upgraded model in the works, but only a couple of test vehicles have been seen in the field. These motorized bomb jacks are over 50 yrs old.

Approximately half of the equipment presently being used by the RCAF in Borden is thirty to fifty yrs old. Some is even older.

No single government can be blamed for the slow disintegration of resources and equipment. Defence is usually the first department to have their budget slashed or money redirected somewhere else. All federal governments have done this - regardless of political affiliation.

Large purchases like ships or planes are planned and budgeted for years in advance. They have to be because of the huge costs involved. For example, certain capital expenditures of the previous government will come into effect this year, next year and the years after. This will happen with the Liberal government's future budget allocations after they no longer are the government. For Ottawa, this is the circle of life.

Certain expenditures/purchases can be delivered quickly - uniforms or new rank insignia for example. Others, because of the huge capital outlay, require time. This long length of time comes from the time to accept and decide on contract tenders, the time to build the items (ship or planes usually take forever) and negotiating an acceptable time period to pay for things that will cost the country billions.

Things like new planes require additional expenditures for support equipment, personnel trng to use and maintain the new equipment, purchasing spare parts and any other costs related to the acquisition.

When talking about governments allocating money, the politics can be stifling.

Over the past 30 years, the only PM/government who caused big problems for military managers was Chretien. His changes caused gaps in equipment acquisitions and a huge capital outlay for no return. His biggest gaffe was the EH101 project cancellation. That cost the taxpayer almost as much in costs and cancellation penalties as it would had we just taken the choppers. That does not even take into consideration the time lost, persons put at risk or bloated maintenance costs to keep the Sea King running. The Sea King entered service in 1963 and was to be replaced. At the last flight safety briefing I attended, 30 hrs of maintenance was required for every hour in the air.

---

This first photo shows a yellow trailer - a T6 - three wheeled trailer made by Massey Ferguson in WWII. The photo is from 1966. The trailer had been in use about 25 yrs at this time. And yes, it's the same company that made tractors. Presently, this trailer is used mostly for torpedo loading and chaff and flare transport on the flight line.

This second photo is a picture of a MJ1A motorized bomb jack. Built and purchased in the 1960s. The model had an upgrade in the early 1990s to change the transmission from a 3 speed standard to automatic. And that's no joke. A fellow I used to work with got pinned between a hangar wall and the back of this jack. He had both legs crushed when it went into gear and caught him.

Both are still in use.

 

[Curious Cdn]

The former Conservative government inherited old, tired equipment that no government - Conservative or Liberal - could have adequately upgraded, given the money available. There simply wasn't enough money. Maintenance and upgrades were put off for too long.

For example, when I joined the service in 1977, I trained using equipment that was, for the most part, purchased in the 1950s and 1960s. The trng officers and NCOs used to joke about the age of the things we were using.

Some things, like the T6 bomb trailer for example, were obtained by the RCAF in WWII. The MJ1 bomb jack was purchased in the early 1960s. I trained with it in the late 1970s. It is still being used in Cold Lake and Bagotville today. There is an upgraded model in the works, but only a couple of test vehicles have been seen in the field. These motorized bomb jacks are over 50 yrs old.

Approximately half of the trng equipment presently being used by the RCAF in Borden is thirty to fifty yrs old.

No single government can be blamed for the slow disintegration of resources and equipment. Defence is usually the first department to have their budget slashed or money redirected somewhere else. All federal governments have done this - regardless of political affiliation.

Large purchases like ships or planes are planned and budgeted for years in advance. They have to be because of the huge costs involved. For example, certain capital expenditures of the previous government will come into effect this year, next year and the years after. This will happen with the Liberal government's future budget allocations after they no longer are the government. For Ottawa, this is the circle of life.

Certain expenditures/purchases can be delivered quickly - uniforms or new rank insignia for example. Others, because of the huge capital outlay, require time. This long length of time comes from the time to accept and decide on contract tenders, the time to build the items (ship or planes usually take forever) and negotiating an acceptable time period to pay for things that will cost the country billions.

Things like new planes require additional expenditures for support equipment, personnel trng to use and maintain the new equipment, purchasing spare parts and any other costs related to the acquisition.

When talking about governments allocating money, the politics can be stifling.

Over the past 30 years, the only PM/government who caused big problems for military managers was Chretien. His changes caused gaps in equipment acquisitions and a huge capital outlay for no return. His biggest gaffe was the EH101 project cancellation. That cost the taxpayer almost as much in costs and cancellation penalties as it would had we just taken the choppers. That does not even take into consideration the time lost, persons put at risk or bloated maintenance costs to keep the Sea King running. At the last flight safety briefing I attended, 16 hrs of maintenance was required for every hour in the air.

I sailed on a destroyer built in the early 1950's, as well as a couple of other antiques in the 70s. For the first two months this year, I fought back a pneumonia that wouldn't quite go away. The subject of lung cancer came up, seeing as we were cuckooned in asbestos everywhere in our old DDEs and DDHs. It proved to be negative but I did get the sh1t scared out of me for 48 hours.


PS, Our guns up forward (3"/50s) were designed to shoot down Japanese Kamikaze and were far less than useless against jet aircraft and Exocets, etc.

"Mr.Trudeau's Navy"

 

[Murphy]

Sajjan might have been a capable commander, but is in way over his head in his present job. The guy has got to go. No commander or leader blames other persons or situations for his lack of forward movement. You fix things or step aside.

 

[pgs]

I'm waiting for some major military hardware acquisition to be cancelled, "Chretien style", thus leaving our twenty first century military with a Cold War weapons system for the next three decades. The Liberals have done that before and more than once, for both fiscal and ideological reasons.

I am hoping to sell the Government Of Canada my herd of horse .
So far I sent a request to the Right Honorable Justin Trudeau Liberal Member of Parliament ,sadly he has failed to reply . Maybe we want to modernize .

 

[damngrumpy]

Changes in government policy should never be done on the backs of envelopes on the
way to a meeting. There is a major policy if we were attacked and needed to take action
I agree there needs to be a shorter time table as well and we should have continued the
bombing campaign I disagree with the idea of pulling out of the attacks on ISIS for sure

 

[JLM]

Changes in government policy should never be done on the backs of envelopes on the
way to a meeting. There is a major policy if we were attacked and needed to take action
I agree there needs to be a shorter time table as well and we should have continued the
bombing campaign I disagree with the idea of pulling out of the attacks on ISIS for sure

Yep, whatever your philosophy there are times when War is necessary. (Sorry Gerry, but it's a fact of life, or at least continued life)

 

[Bar Sinister]

The former Conservative government inherited old, tired equipment that no government - Conservative or Liberal - could have adequately upgraded, given the money available. There simply wasn't enough of it. Maintenance and upgrades were put off for too long. We continue to pay for not replacing things that were due.

For example, when I joined the service in 1977, I trained using equipment that was, for the most part, purchased in the 1950s and 1960s. The trng officers and NCOs used to joke about the age of the things we were using.

Some things, like the T6 bomb trailer for example, were obtained by the RCAF in WWII. The MJ1 bomb jack was purchased in the early 1960s. I trained with it in the late 1970s. It is still being used in Cold Lake and Bagotville today. There is an upgraded model in the works, but only a couple of test vehicles have been seen in the field. These motorized bomb jacks are over 50 yrs old.

Approximately half of the equipment presently being used by the RCAF in Borden is thirty to fifty yrs old. Some is even older.

No single government can be blamed for the slow disintegration of resources and equipment. Defence is usually the first department to have their budget slashed or money redirected somewhere else. All federal governments have done this - regardless of political affiliation.

Large purchases like ships or planes are planned and budgeted for years in advance. They have to be because of the huge costs involved. For example, certain capital expenditures of the previous government will come into effect this year, next year and the years after. This will happen with the Liberal government's future budget allocations after they no longer are the government. For Ottawa, this is the circle of life.

Certain expenditures/purchases can be delivered quickly - uniforms or new rank insignia for example. Others, because of the huge capital outlay, require time. This long length of time comes from the time to accept and decide on contract tenders, the time to build the items (ship or planes usually take forever) and negotiating an acceptable time period to pay for things that will cost the country billions.

Things like new planes require additional expenditures for support equipment, personnel trng to use and maintain the new equipment, purchasing spare parts and any other costs related to the acquisition.

When talking about governments allocating money, the politics can be stifling.
.

I hear you. Certainly basic changes should be made including improving the pay and accommodation for armed forces personnel. However, right now we are in a period of rapid technological change and rushing into buying equipment like the F35 or other military equipment we may never use is probably not a good idea. I think what needs to be done is to look at what the role of the Canadian military should be in the next few decades. Is it to be a global force taking part in conflicts like Afghanistan or should its role focus on more of a self-defence role? What I really don't think we should so is simply duplicate the equipment that our allies already have. The US already has thousands of fighter aircraft. Does Canada really need to add to that total? Canada has a small military and a small military budget. Any money that is spent has to fit within the vision of what the government wants it to do and I think it would be smart not to rush into buying equipment simply because our allies want to sell it to us.

I apologize for truncating your post, but I didn't think it was necessary to post everything again.

 

[davesmom]

The Trudeau government gutted the Canadian military. Paul Hillyer made it all into one military, no more army, navy and air force. Not only did they downsize and let their equipment stagnate, they ruined morale.
My husband was in the RCAF in the '60s. He left when his term was up in 1966 because he knew there was no future in it.

 

[Jinentonix]

I am hoping to sell the Government Of Canada my herd of horse .
So far I sent a request to the Right Honorable Justin Trudeau Liberal Member of Parliament ,sadly he has failed to reply . Maybe we want to modernize .

Well, they kind of have. We did take delivery of a number of brand new MBTs not too long ago. Initially the idea was to buy lighter armoured vehicles, but after the CF's experience in A-stan someone with some brains said, "We need real tanks" and someone with even more brains said, "Yep, let's buy some".

 

[MHz]

Why not build our own tanks?

 

[taxslave]

really?

Four months into his tenure as defence minister, Harjit Sajjan, (above) the former colonel who battled the Taliban in Afghanistan, still has little to say about what defence policy on his watch will look like.

During a 90-minute grilling Tuesday morning by MPs, including Liberals, on the House of Commons defence committee, Sajjan was asked several questions about Canada’s defence policy. He hemmed, hawwed, and stumbled through his testimony, declining to provide any details on the CF-18 replacement process; the use of armed drones, Canada’s cyberwarfare abilities; how Canada can help defend North America against Russian aggression or any other topics he was asked about.

Sajjan’s excuse? Canada’s defence policy is under review, a review that will not be complete until the end of the year.

“I think it would be very premature and irresponsible of us to make snap decisions so early on,” Sajjan explained to reporters after the meeting.

And yet Sajjan’s cabinet colleagues have not been shy at all about making “snap decisions” in their portfolios. Environment Minister Catherine McKenna, for example, did not hesitate to figure out how to implement nation-wide carbon-pricing. Finance Minister Bill Morneau is blazing ahead with huge deficits. And Immigration Minister John McCallum got right to it upon his swearing-in to speed up the flow of Syrian refugees.


shine on here:


Trudeau’s point man on national defence has few answers | David Akin’s On the Hill

SO he hasn't been told what his position is yet.

 

[Murphy]

I hear you. Certainly basic changes should be made including improving the pay and accommodation for armed forces personnel. However, right now we are in a period of rapid technological change and rushing into buying equipment like the F35 or other military equipment we may never use is probably not a good idea. I think what needs to be done is to look at what the role of the Canadian military should be in the next few decades. Is it to be a global force taking part in conflicts like Afghanistan or should its role focus on more of a self-defence role? What I really don't think we should so is simply duplicate the equipment that our allies already have. The US already has thousands of fighter aircraft. Does Canada really need to add to that total? Canada has a small military and a small military budget. Any money that is spent has to fit within the vision of what the government wants it to do and I think it would be smart not to rush into buying equipment simply because our allies want to sell it to us.

I apologize for truncating your post, but I didn't think it was necessary to post everything again.

We are in a consistent state of change, and the Cdn military's equipment upgrades have never been rushed. If anything, there is a history of them taking too long, or not happening at all.

A sad example is the cancellation of the EH101 by Chretien. But that is just one instance of Ottawa's hemming and hawing. Commit, then cancel. Governments always blame the one before for the need to reassess. In the meantime, our taxes pour almost unabated into a huge money pit of contracts, research, reviews, and ultimately, penalties for cancellations.

Sajjan's suggestion that a military review is the reason for his inaction is silly. It suggests that he is either not capable of doing the job, or is under direction from cabinet to say nothing. There can be no other reason.

Military reviews happen all the time, regardless of government, who is the CDS or who is the current MND. Sajjan's job is to keep things running. He has a budget right now, so the question is, what are you going to do to keep DND running? It is irresponsible to point to others or blame a process, using them as an excuse. The minister's job, in large part, is to ensure that the military commanders have the tools they need to do their job.

Ex. the Gulf War

In the 1970s, the greatest threat was the communists. The reaction to that threat was to provide ground troops and support to Europe. The Iron Curtain was still up and any military reaction would be to strike against the USSR and it's satellites. We needed ground support a/c and air to ground munitions to counter the threat of the time.

That role changed, and continues to change every few years. When the Gulf War started in 1990 - specifically Gulf War One - our role had morphed to that of escort/air patrols. But most of our equipment was for a ground war in Europe. The fighter role went from dropping bombs on ground targets to escorting bombers and defending against airborne targets. At that time, much of Canada's explosive stock was air to ground munitions (bombs). With the changing role, we now needed air to air missiles. So we bought a bunch.

Unfortunately, these acquisitions took time. Some of the missiles we already had - AIM 7s - were outmoded and needed to be replaced. Enter the AIM 120, an updated medium range missile. At a cost of approx. $350,000 ea., it became expensive.

Unfortunately, no government anywhere in the world is capable of reacting quickly enough to any change. By the time enough equipment is paid for and held in stock to react to constantly morphing world events, it is almost or completely obsolete. IOW, you are always behind the times.

The media and politicians continually argue about the next big equipment needs. By the time they settle their war of words, pony up the cash and start receiving the equipment, the world has moved on to another crisis - with different needs. It's never ending.

Sajjan could very well be made the sacrificial lamb. Listening to him speak and attempting to answer questions was painful. He appeared unprepared and indecisive. Perhaps he naturally has a stutter or sounds unsure of himself. Frankly, I found that odd for a former military commander, and a man who has been appointed as a cabinet minister.

Time will tell, but if he keeps that public face, he will be replaced. Trudeau won't have a choice.

 

[taxslave]

The former Conservative government inherited old, tired equipment that no government - Conservative or Liberal - could have adequately upgraded, given the money available. There simply wasn't enough of it. Maintenance and upgrades were put off for too long. We continue to pay for not replacing things that were due.

For example, when I joined the service in 1977, I trained using equipment that was, for the most part, purchased in the 1950s and 1960s. The trng officers and NCOs used to joke about the age of the things we were using.

Some things, like the T6 bomb trailer for example, were obtained by the RCAF in WWII. The MJ1 bomb jack was purchased in the early 1960s. I trained with it in the late 1970s. It is still being used in Cold Lake and Bagotville today. There is an upgraded model in the works, but only a couple of test vehicles have been seen in the field. These motorized bomb jacks are over 50 yrs old.

Approximately half of the equipment presently being used by the RCAF in Borden is thirty to fifty yrs old. Some is even older.

No single government can be blamed for the slow disintegration of resources and equipment. Defence is usually the first department to have their budget slashed or money redirected somewhere else. All federal governments have done this - regardless of political affiliation.

Large purchases like ships or planes are planned and budgeted for years in advance. They have to be because of the huge costs involved. For example, certain capital expenditures of the previous government will come into effect this year, next year and the years after. This will happen with the Liberal government's future budget allocations after they no longer are the government. For Ottawa, this is the circle of life.

Certain expenditures/purchases can be delivered quickly - uniforms or new rank insignia for example. Others, because of the huge capital outlay, require time. This long length of time comes from the time to accept and decide on contract tenders, the time to build the items (ship or planes usually take forever) and negotiating an acceptable time period to pay for things that will cost the country billions.

Things like new planes require additional expenditures for support equipment, personnel trng to use and maintain the new equipment, purchasing spare parts and any other costs related to the acquisition.

When talking about governments allocating money, the politics can be stifling.

Over the past 30 years, the only PM/government who caused big problems for military managers was Chretien. His changes caused gaps in equipment acquisitions and a huge capital outlay for no return. His biggest gaffe was the EH101 project cancellation. That cost the taxpayer almost as much in costs and cancellation penalties as it would had we just taken the choppers. That does not even take into consideration the time lost, persons put at risk or bloated maintenance costs to keep the Sea King running. The Sea King entered service in 1963 and was to be replaced. At the last flight safety briefing I attended, 30 hrs of maintenance was required for every hour in the air.

---

This first photo shows a yellow trailer - a T6 - three wheeled trailer made by Massey Ferguson in WWII. The photo is from 1966. The trailer had been in use about 25 yrs at this time. And yes, it's the same company that made tractors. Presently, this trailer is used mostly for torpedo loading and chaff and flare transport on the flight line.

This second photo is a picture of a MJ1A motorized bomb jack. Built and purchased in the 1960s. The model had an upgrade in the early 1990s to change the transmission from a 3 speed standard to automatic. And that's no joke. A fellow I used to work with got pinned between a hangar wall and the back of this jack. He had both legs crushed when it went into gear and caught him.

Both are still in use.

About 10 years back I worked at CFB Comox as a mechanic. I mostly looked after fuel trucks and fire trucks. Every time a Their newest fire truck was older than my volunteer dept. oldest truck.Since the Sea KIngs land pretty much right in front of the refueling depot every time one came in we would all head for the back of the building. One day walking through the HQ I came up behinf an officer carrying his dress clothes. Among other bits of useless bling he had a sword. Never one to pass up an opportunity I told him I knew the Alarmed Farces were short on cash and not very modern but taking a big knife to a gunfight was not really a good way to defend yourself. He was not amused.Don't know why.

Why not build our own tanks?

WE don't need enough of them. Cheaper to outsource to countries with real armies.

 

[Murphy]

The sword was for ceremonial purposes. He was probably tagged for a parade.