Canadian Military

Hank C
#1
Heres what I was able to find on Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...y_expenditures

Rank Country Military expenditures, USD Date of information
World Total 896,235,600,000
1 United States 370,700,000,000 March 2003
-- European Union 205,326,700,000 est. (see note)
2 People's Republic of China* 67,490,000,000 2004
3 Japan 45,841,000,000 2004
4 France 45,000,000,000 2005
5 United Kingdom 42,836,500,000 2003
6 Germany 35,063,000,000 2003
7 Italy 28,182,800,000 2003
8 Saudi Arabia 18,000,000,000 2002
9 India 16,970,000,000 2004
10 Australia 16,650,000,000 2004
11 South Korea 16,180,000,000 2004
12 Turkey 16,155,000,000 2004
13 Brazil 11,000,000,000 2004
14 Canada 10,458,269,000 2004
15 Spain 9,906,500,000 2003
16 Netherlands 9,408,000,000 2004
17 Israel 9,110,000,000 FY03
18 Republic of China (Taiwan) 7,574,000,000 2003
19 Mexico 6,043,000,000 2004
20 Greece 5,790,000,000 2004
 
Hank C
#2
If we can increase our spending to about 8th, between Italy and Saudi Arabia I would be happy. Anything to put us ahead of those lousy Australians
 
the caracal kid
#3
why do you put so much value in comparative military spending, Hank?
 
Finder
#4
I think a lot of money is wasted in the Canadian military on upkeeping out dated Eqipment. Really buying/making new will actually save us money over time and give us better abilities.
 
the caracal kid
#5
I may, or it may not, Finder.

A lot of money is wasted in many governmental areas, and newer equiptment won't fix that problem.

The government needs to work towards maximal value per dollar rather than more dollars.
 
FiveParadox
Liberal
#6
If only we could just live in a world where money was not a necessity at all? Where Canada would say "Oh dear, the United States appears to have a shortage of lumber! Well, we have some to spare," while Japan exports a few classroom sets of computers to rural-area schools in India.
 
Finder
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by the caracal kid

I may, or it may not, Finder.

A lot of money is wasted in many governmental areas, and newer equiptment won't fix that problem.

The government needs to work towards maximal value per dollar rather than more dollars.

Thats a big problem too. forgot to mention that. We really are not getting the bang for the dollar we should be, and your right this is in many area's.
 
I think not
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by Hank C

If we can increase our spending to about 8th, between Italy and Saudi Arabia I would be happy. Anything to put us ahead of those lousy Australians

Really Hank? I'll be happy when we rank 10th or so, which would mean somebody else is running around the world, leaving some money for OUR social programs for a change.
 
Mogz
Conservative
#9
That amount for Canada is low by a few billion, however the data was for the 2004 fiscal year.

Quote:

The government needs to work towards maximal value per dollar rather than more dollars.

Couldn't agree more there. A great example of this is the Canadian Navy's submarines. An idea was floated before the Upholders were purchased from Britain, for Canada to purchase the plans to build 5 Trafalgar Class Nuclear Attack Submarines from Britain. The idea was dismissed due to cost, however nuclear submarines are cheaper to operate in the long run. The Upholders (redubbed Victoria Class) are Diesel/Electric, expensive to operate and with only a fraction of the range that nuclear vessels have. In addition to creating numerous jobs in Canadian Shipyards, yes buying nuclear submarines would have needed a large influx of cash at the start, but in the long run Canada would have saved money. This shortsightedness was the epitome of the Liberal Government, a cabinet i'm happy to see go. Will the Conservatives be able to undo the Liberal screw ups? Perhaps, we'll see.

P.S.

Quote:

If we can increase our spending to about 8th, between Italy and Saudi Arabia I would be happy. Anything to put us ahead of those lousy Australians

We are ahead of Australia as of 2005. Going in to 2006 we're even further ahead, and by 2007 they'll be a distant memory.
 
Finder
#10
Our main problem is not how much we spend, but how we spend it and what we get for it.
 
I think not
#11
Here's a list for 2004, Hank you're already ahead of the land down under.

1. United States $455.3
2. United Kingdom 47.4
3. France 46.2
4. Japan 42.4
5. China 35.4
6. Germany 33.9
7. Italy 27.8
8. Russia 19.4
9. Saudi Arabia 19.3
10. Korea, South $15.5
11. India 15.1
12. Israel 10.7
13. Canada 10.6
14. Turkey 10.1
15. Australia 10.1

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0904504.html
 
Hank C
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by the caracal kid

why do you put so much value in comparative military spending, Hank?

your absolutely correct, its not strictly the amount we spend, but what we spend it on.


Quote:

Here's a list for 2004, Hank you're already ahead of the land down under.

yea, problem is now there is a huge discrepancy with the numbers.
 
Hank C
#13
http://start.shaw.ca/start/enCA/News...c=n022033A.xml



New defence treaty with U.S. to include maritime surveillance: minister
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

HALIFAX (CP) - A new North American defence treaty with the United States will not compromise Canada's control over its own military, nor will it mean automatic adoption of American plans for a ballistic missile defence system, newly appointed Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor said Monday.

The existing binational agreement on continental air defence, the North American Aerospace Defence Command or NORAD, will be expanded to include maritime surveillance, the minister said following a tour of the sprawling navy dockyard in Halifax.

But O'Connor, in his first public statement since being appointed to the defence portfolio, downplayed the significance of the new treaty, dismissing the suggestion that it could lead to U.S. warships patrolling Canadian waters.

The agreement will mean "merely a transfer of information," he told reporters in the hangar deck of the Canadian frigate HMCS Halifax.

"It doesn't change our responsibility as a country. We have to look after our own sovereignty. We have to deal with any threats coming from the sea."

Once ratified, the new treaty would allow for intelligence on shipping data and threats to the sea lanes to be piped directly into NORAD headquarters, which is jointly staffed by the Canadian and U.S. military at Peterson Air Force Base in Colorado Springs, Colo.

The expanded pact is expected to be ready for signing in May, when the existing treaty expires, O'Connor said.

NORAD was founded in 1958, at the height of the Cold War, to counter the threat of Soviet nuclear bombers and missiles. Since the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, there's been increasing pressure to modernize the organization's role in order to monitor all external threats.

Critics have said an expanded air defence treaty could inadvertently sweep Canada into the U.S. government's controversial and largley unproven ballistic missile defence program.

The U.S. proposal envisions a series bases across the continent, where small missiles could be launched to shoot down ballistic missiles fired at North America by rogue nations.

O'Connor said the Conservative government's position on missile defence has not changed since the federal election campaign.

"If the Americans approach us to negotiate ballistic missile defence, we would enter into negotiations," he said.

"If we perceive this to be in our national interest, we would bring this to Parliament and Parliament must approve our participation."

A year ago, the former Liberal government turned down Washington's formal request to be part of the program, but changes made to NORAD agreement last summer allow its radar to track incoming missiles.
 
Hank C
#14
I know if it came to a vote the NDP and Bloq would most likely whip their MPs to vote against this "American" idea, but I am not so sure about the moderates in the Liberal party. I'm sure a few of them were not pleased with Martins decision (which was based on poll numbers, not intillegence) to shut down talks without proper discussion.
 
Curiosity
#15
I would hope....

That Canada's self-defense and interest in keeping it maintained would not be a competition with what the U.S. is up to.

Comparisons are not always accurate in terms of money or equipment because of the differing land masses and climate conditions in countries. Canada has a huge land mass largely unguarded and if Canada wishes to retain their sovereignty, they must consider what they themselves have to guard, not what the Australians are doing or any other country.

I think Russia would be the best comparison for land mass and climate conditions, keeping in mind how impoverished Russia is, not only because of all the wars it engaged in, but because of its enormous land mass, even without all the USSR countries attached.
 
The Gunslinger
#16
I'll be happy when we get some aircraft carriers, and not a moment before!

But alas, the very definition of a pipedream...
 
Mogz
Conservative
#17
Quote:

Canada has a huge land mass largely unguarded and if Canada wishes to retain their sovereignty, they must consider what they themselves have to guard, not what the Australians are doing or any other country.

Exactly Wednesday. We have th largest coastline and only a modest Navy. Our Artic is massive and the only regular activity up there is by the Canadian Rangers. At last count I think there was around 7500 of them, clearly not enough to keep an eye on the entire Arctic.

Quote:

I'll be happy when we get some aircraft carriers, and not a moment before!

But alas, the very definition of a pipedream...

Not really Gun, the Conservatives are looking at getting the plans for and constructing 2 WASP Class Amphibious Assault Ships. While not as large as a super-carrier, these ships serve a dual purpose. The ability to transport troops to a distant shore and dump them right in to theatre, and the ability to house a moderate air arm. If you couple WASP Class ships with the Conservatives plans to introduce both helicopter gunships, and VTOL (Verticle Take-off and Landing) Aircraft (i.e. the Harrier Jumpjet) and you've got a decent force projector. Will it happen? We'll see.

 
Blackleaf
#18
Countries spending the most on defence 2005 ($ Billions)

United States.. 420.7
China.. 62.5
Russia ..61.9
Britain ..51.1
Japan ..44.7
France ..41.6
Germany ..30.2
India ..22
Saudi Arabia ..21.3
South Korea.. 20.7
Italy ..17.2
Australia ..13.2
Brazil.. 13.1
Canada ..10.9
Turkey ..9.8
Israel ..9.7
Netherlands.. 9.7
Spain ..8.8
Taiwan ..8.3


economist.com
 
#juan
No Party Affiliation
#19
I don't think we spend nearly enough on defense but,

Canada's defense budget for 2005 was $15.5 billion and the Conservatives have promised to raise it by a considerable amount. Recruiting offices are looking for a further 5,000 people plus we are shopping for heavy lift aircraft.
 
The Gunslinger
#20
Mogz, I had heard about the WASP's, but I thought that it was just rumour.
 
Nosferax
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by The Gunslinger

I'll be happy when we get some aircraft carriers, and not a moment before!

But alas, the very definition of a pipedream...

Well we did have 2 of those until (and a little after) the Korean war (The first one was The Canada I believe, the second one was The Bonaventure). We scraped them, mostly due to the fact that they were built during the 2nd WW and were getting obsolete but also to "accomodate" our southern neighbor. Kinda like we did when we scrapped the Avro Arrow.



Edit: The Bonaventure we bought from the Royal Navy was originaly the HMS Powerful. The others were on loan.

They were light escort AC.

All in all Canada had 5 AC under it's command in it's naval history:

HMCS Bonaventure (1945, ex-British HMS Powerful) - Retired 1970
HMCS Magnificent (1944) - Returned to Britain 14 June 1957
HMCS Warrior (1944) - Returned to Britain 1948, sold to Argentina 1958 and renamed Independencia
HMCS Puncher (1943)
HMCS Nabob (1943)

The Puncher and Nabob where escort carrier (not more than converted cargo with a flight deck).
 
Jersay
#22
We are suppose to be getting 8 Orca class patrol ships by 2007, which is pretty cool. But there is nothing after that on the radar so far.

And we get a 14 billion dollar budget for 2005 add on 1.23 billiopn promised by the Liberals, and then add on the 5.3 billion extra promised by the Conservatives.

Then the 23,000 soldiers promised by the Conservatives and the 8,000 by the Liberals I think Canada is doing pretty well.

However there is no information on any new equipment for the Air force or Navy.
 
I think not
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by Wednesday's Child

Canada has a huge land mass largely unguarded and if Canada wishes to retain their sovereignty, they must consider what they themselves have to guard, not what the Australians are doing or any other country.

I think Russia would be the best comparison for land mass and climate conditions, keeping in mind how impoverished Russia is, not only because of all the wars it engaged in, but because of its enormous land mass, even without all the USSR countries attached.

Actually the US would be a better example, as the US has more land mass than Canada. Canada has more water area than the US, so it would really make more sense to boost their navy as an all out invasion is highly unlikely.
 
Jersay
#24
No Canada and America have about the same landmass, Canada slightly more.
 
Jay
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by Jersay

And we get a 14 billion dollar budget for 2005 add on 1.23 billiopn promised by the Liberals,

The Liberals probably were promising "billiopns", for all you were going to see of it.

 
I think not
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by Jersay

No Canada and America have about the same landmass, Canada slightly more.

The US has more land mass, slightly more, but more nonetheless. Canada has more water area which makes it as a whole larger than the US.
 
Jay
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by I think not

Quote: Originally Posted by Jersay

No Canada and America have about the same landmass, Canada slightly more.

The US has more land mass, slightly more, but more nonetheless. Canada has more water area which makes it as a whole larger than the US.

We'd still kick your *** though....
 
Jersay
#28
Quote:

Canada has a land mass of 9,970,610 square kilometers

http://www.ocanada.ca/geography/

9,161,923 sq km

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/...k/geos/us.html

9,093,507 sq km

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/...k/geos/ca.html

I guess you are right. And only by 60 thousand.
 
Curiosity
#29
ITN

I believe when I was stating Russia would be a better comparative for Canada, I mean primarily because of the climate and landmass
affected by the same hemispheric conditions.

Patrolling ice-bound arctic waters is a whole nuther program that the U.S. is concerned with only in Alaska and minimally at that.

Of course NORAD would probably combine all of the defensive positioning under one command anyway. Heck I don't know what I'm talking about.....
 
Doryman
#30
[quote="Jersay"]We are suppose to be getting 8 Orca class patrol ships by 2007, which is pretty cool. But there is nothing after that on the radar so far.



Mmmmm... Jersay those Orcas are training vessels for Reserve MARS officers, not "patrol vessels". They have the ability to mount a .50 cal, but they probably won't. Most likely they'll be used to train young JOUTs in how to not crash a ship, and we'll probably share them with the Cadets, like we do with the YAG's at the moment. Nothing bursts your bubble like passing a BOTC course and then cutting your teeth by conning a vessel you once piloted as a pimply 13 year old cadet... Humble pie, yum yum! The only thing the ORCA's will do with their extended range is allow young JOUT's get drunk and beat up in Seattle instead of getting drunk and beat up in VietNanaimo. Whatever, I'll take it.


I think the Navy is headed for more of a support role, lately. HQ ships and transport vessels. If we keep up the way we're going, we'll just be limo drivers for the boys in the green pyjamas. Le sigh...
 

Similar Threads

31
Canadian Military`s Shame
by JBeee | Apr 18th, 2009
6
Aboriginals and the Canadian Military
by CDNBear | Jan 15th, 2007
23
Canadian Military Brass muzzled
by Jersay | Apr 16th, 2006
0
Canadian Military failing
by Jersay | Dec 30th, 2005
no new posts