Canadian Armed Forces Thread

[Gurn]

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/we-re-effectively-a-border-state-with-russia-defending-canada-s-far-north-called-key-to-protecting-sovereignty/ar-AAUXjKj?ocid=msedgntp

 

Canada needs to look north if it is to make serious efforts to defend its sovereignty, say analysts.

Observers are praising comments made Thursday by Chief of Defence Staff Gen. Wayne Eyre, who made clear his plans to bolster Canada’s presence in the arctic.

“The far-north is a key area of concern,” Eyre said during Thursday’s keynote talk at the 90th Ottawa Conference on Security and Defence — explaining Canada’s northern flanks are also NATO’s northern flanks.

“When NATO talks about 360 (degree) defence, we’ve got to remind them as North Americans — north-North Americans — that, hey, that’s a front for us as well.”

It’s a position David Perry, president and senior analyst at the Canadian Global Affairs Institute (CGAI,) is pleased to see Canada’s top soldier taking.

“It’s absolutely bang on,” he said, echoing Eyre’s point that the Ukraine situation should concern any nation that shares land borders with Russia — a distinguished club that counts Canada as a member.

“We’re effectively a border state with Russia,” Perry said.

“We have a little bit more distance, but given a lot of modernization they’ve put into their military, that distance is shrinking.”

• John Ivison: Ukraine a reminder why we need to make our true north very strong
• Russia is back in its Cold War-era Arctic bases, Canada's defence chief warns

While admitting Russian incursion into Canada’s territory isn’t on the horizon, Eyre said Russia’s increased militarization in their northern frontiers suggests it can’t be ruled out.

“(Russia) has reoccupied formerly-abandoned cold war bases,” Eyre said.

“They have instituted their own A2AD (anti-access/area denial) strategy that, in some cases, is based on what China has done in the South China Sea.”

Back in 2015, intelligence suggested Russia began re-occupying the long-abandoned Nagurskoye Air Base in the country’s far north — a cold-war era military airstrip that, since its construction in the 1950s, served as a staging base for Soviet nuclear bombers.

Two years ago, satellite photos revealed crews in the process of laying down a new 2,500-metre runway at the base, a sign that Russia is proffering some uncomfortably close attention to the Arctic.

Russia’s 2007 stunt of planting a flag on the ocean floor at the North Pole was part of a larger campaign of declaring large swaths of the Arctic as sovereign territory, much of it rich in oil and other natural resources.

Russia’s 2014 annexation of Crimea robbed Ukraine of nearly 80 per cent of offshore oil and gas drilling rights within its exclusive economic zone (EEZ,) extending 200 nautical miles into the Black Sea.

Observers fear Russia, at some point in the future, may try the same in Canada’s north.

 

The key to securing Canada’s north, Perry said, lies in increased surveillance — a familiar role for our nation.

“Being able to have an understanding of what’s happening everywhere in the airspace, anything that potentially goes up in the atmosphere in terms of missiles, what’s happening on the water and what’s happening below the water,” he said.

Believing a Soviet first-strike would come via bombers flying over the North Pole, NORAD established three radar “trip-wires” across Canada — the joint Canada-U.S. “pinetree line” along the 50th parallel, the short-lived “mMid-Canada line” across the county’s centre, and the better-known distant-early warning (DEW) line north of the Arctic Circle.

As ballistic missile technology developed, these detection fences became obsolete.

Intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) are multi-stage rockets that ballistically throw their payloads into space, dropping multiple nuclear-armed re-entry vehicles (MIRVs) from altitudes reaching 2,000 km — around 1,500 km. higher than the International Space Station’s orbit.

Even though today’s early-warning rely heavily on space surveillance, Perry said a multi-layered approach is best, combining physical surveillance with over-the horizon radar and submarine surveillance, employing both undersea sensors and anti-submarine overflights by RCAF CP-140 Aurora aircraft.

Moving ahead with Canada’s politically-mired icebreaker replacement program is also important, Perry said.

“The government made an announcement a couple of years ago about that, but it hasn’t really gone much anywhere in the intervening period.”

Canada’s military spending dropped from 4.2 per cent of GDP in 1960 to less than 1.5 per cent in modern times.

Unveiled in 2017, Canada’s Strong, Secure and Engaged (SSE) defence strategy earmarked $164-billion for capital acquisitions over a 20-year period.

A report released Friday by the Parliamentary Budget Officer said after four years of underspending annual allotments under SSE, updated spending profiles suggest a significant expenditure shift to future fiscal years.

“Compared to initial SSE projections, the new profile shows greater capital expenditures beginning in (fiscal year) 2025-26 through to the end of the 20-year horizon in 2036-37,” the report read.

“Capital expenditure is expected to peak in 2027-28 with a total of $16.3 billion, which represents a 30 per cent increase over the initial projection of $12.6 billion for that fiscal year.”

FY 2017-18 and 2019-20 showed cumulative shortfalls of nearly $5-billion between what CAF planned to spend on capital expenditures compared to what was actually spent.

Spending today’s money tomorrow could result in lower spending power, the report read, owing to inflation — opening the possibility of greater funding to overcome this shortfall.

• Email: bpassifiume@postmedia.com | Twitter: bryanpassifiume

 

[NewbieCanuckFan]

Poutine's incompetance in Ukraine bought us some time I think.  Will take some time for them to recover (not just militarily but economically).  But I'd imagine China's eyes are suddenly looking in that direction as an opportunity (far North).

Edited March 12, 2022 by NewbieCanuckFan

[Gurn]

5 minutes ago, NewbieCanuckFan said:

Poutine's incompetance in Ukraine bought us some time I think.  Will take some time for them to recover (not just militarily but economically).  But I'd imagine China's eyes are suddenly looking in that direction as an opportunity (far North).

China has already said they want a piece of the North- Their claim hand nothing to do with history, just that they feel as a very populated nation they deserve some.

https://maxpolicy.substack.com/p/whats-china-up-to-in-the-arctic?s=r

IF THE WEST HAS LEARNED ANYTHING ABOUT CHINA in recent years, it’s that its leaders will stop at nothing to advance their interests, and will often do so in unpredictable ways. For Canada, the most obvious lesson here was the brazen hostage diplomacy that saw “the two Michaels”, Kovrig and Spavor, imprisoned for nearly three years in retaliation for Canada’s detention of Huawei executive Meng Wanzhou. But there’s another area in which China is flexing its muscles that is much closer to home: the Arctic.

Despite being nearly 1,500 kms from the Arctic Circle, China claims to be a “near-Arctic” state. This alone might not be concerning if it weren’t also for China’s efforts to increase its Arctic presence while simultaneously undermining that of legitimate Arctic states. Although Canada staunchly claims to have sovereignty over the Northwest Passage, China hasn’t accepted this, yet has (concerningly) demonstrated an increased interest in the Arctic. Canada’s periodic military exercises and lack of assertion in the North are clearly not effective in dissuading Chinese interest in the region. As the world recognizes the importance of the Arctic we must do more if we want to maintain our influence. 

From conspiracies that Trudeau has personal ties to the Chinese Communist Party to the general belief that he has no backbone in Chinese foreign policy matters, it is clear that many Canadians are less than confident in our Prime Minister’s ability to defend Canadian interests when up against Xi Jinping. Perhaps the most relevant example of this is the release of the Two Michaels after nearly 3 years in Chinese captivity – a momentous occasion that filled many Canadians with a renewed hope – but only happened thanks to support from President Biden. And what about China’s alleged election interference, which was aimed at supporting the Trudeau Liberals at the expense of the more hawkish Erin O’Toole? Simply put, China wouldn’t want Trudeau in power if they thought he’d put a damper on their interests.

Our allies, unfortunately, also recognize that our inaction is no match for China’s “coercive diplomacy” and military preparedness. Canada could have contributed to, and hugely benefited from, the recently signed AUKUS pact. The agreement was largely intended to provide Australia with nuclear submarines to fend off Chinese aggression, but it also committed the partners to collaborate on AI and other technologies. Canada seems to have been deliberately excluded. We’re skilled in many of the information-sharing focus areas specified in the agreement, and we clearly need increased submarine capabilities in order to help maintain the Arctic sovereignty we claim to have. On top of this, many of our closest allies have outright denied Canadian claims to the NWP, leaving us with limited defence partnerships as they relate to the Arctic.

In the meantime, China has been establishing itself in the Arctic in an effort to get a foothold. In 2018, China’s Arctic Policy was published – the first of its kind for an Asian state. The policy, which discusses Chinese interest in Arctic resource extraction, brings light to Chinese efforts to develop industry in the region. China currently controls about 90% of the global trade of rare minerals, and they want to maintain this dominance. As Arctic ice melts and additional resources become accessible, one can bet that China will want a piece of the pie. China already has a robust starting point for strategic investments, with US $19 billion invested in Canadian Arctic mining projects. Until the NWP (or “golden waterway” as it’s been called) becomes ice-free in the summers, China will likely continue seeking additional investment opportunities to increase its hold and resulting influence. Once the strait inevitably becomes easy to transit, China will already have a legitimate reason to do so.

China’s view of Canadian sovereignty over Arctic waters is intentionally unclear – they claim to respect our sovereignty, but again, one would be wise to take Chinese claims with a grain of salt. The Chinese icebreaker Xue Long transited the NWP in 2017, developing valuable chart data while doing so. Following this initial expedition, subsequent Chinese vessels have entered the region (or at least claimed to do so). These tests of sovereignty often take a “research expedition” angle and seem to downplay their Arctic military capabilities. We must, however, keep in mind that China is armed with icebreakers and nuclear submarines, and also has the support of the Kremlin. The Canadian Armed Forces recognizes China as a growing threat in the region, yet without adequate political support, little can be done to prepare for potential conflict.

There are certainly increasing security concerns in the region, however, it’s unlikely that China will wage war on Canada’s Arctic coast. What’s more possible is Canada being pulled into an Arctic conflict as an unwitting ally or, at best, reluctant intermediary. In any event, current Canadian defences are limited and would likely be ineffective against a Chinese adversary. The addition of the Arctic Offshore Patrol Ships to the Royal Canadian Navy and Coast Guard is a step forward, but these brand-new ships lack year-round Arctic capabilities when traveling alone. Other “key” defences are a fleet of aging CF-18 fighters, the Canadian Rangers with their bolt-action rifles, and the North Warning System which is in serious need of renewal. Canada’s soft power capabilities that Trudeau boasts about are not insignificant, however, they’re just not enough given the current state of our hard power capabilities.  

Alternatively, we could more heavily rely on our allies for Arctic defence while we modernize our military capabilities. Canada has been reluctant to welcome allies into the Arctic out of fears that they might challenge our sovereignty, but we can’t stand alone anymore. Trudeau should seriously consider agreeing to the British offer of Arctic co-operation, as we’re unlikely to acquire nuclear submarines elsewhere. An even better option would be to use the opportunity that comes with his new government to develop a more robust strategy and seek entry into AUKUS. 

China already has a foothold in the Arctic. It’s possible that as their power in Canada increases, we might be able to work through issues diplomatically, however, we must also be prepared for alternative situations. Simply saying that we have sovereignty isn’t enough, especially when key allies don’t agree. Sovereignty isn’t something you have, it is something you do. Given Trudeau’s habit of shying away from tough negotiations, in particular as they relate to China, we should be concerned, especially considering China’s power and the unpredictability with which they tend to wield it. Even though change might be challenging or beyond Trudeau’s comfort zone, it must happen. Putting in the work now, either with regards to our defence capabilities or strategic alliances, might enable us to finally prove our Arctic sovereignty should a military conflict arise. (JV)

 

And

https://thediplomat.com/2018/01/china-stakes-its-claim-to-the-arctic/

After a long period of speculation, the government of China released its first White Paper on the Arctic on January 26. The document, entitled “China’s Arctic Policy” (《中国的北极政策》), was introduced by Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs Kong Xuanyou at a Beijing press conference hosted by the country’s State Council Information Office. In addition to outlining Beijing’s specific objectives in the Arctic, the document also confirmed that China’s Arctic interests would be tied to the expanding Belt and Road trade initiative via a “Polar Silk Road.”

The opportunities that have been created in the Arctic for maritime shipping were a major part of the paper. China anticipates making extensive use of newly developing shipping routes, including the Northern Sea Route (NSR) north of Siberia, which has the potential to connect China with markets in Russia and Northern Europe, as well as the Northwest Passage in the Canadian Arctic, and the Central Arctic Route, which may become more accessible in the summer months.

The White Paper brought together many strands of China’s Arctic diplomacy that had evolved over the past five years, including the idea of the country as a “near Arctic state” and a key stakeholder in the region in addition to linkages with the Belt and Road. The document stressed China’s geographic proximity to the Arctic, as well as the effects of climate change on the country and Beijing’s burgeoning cross-regional diplomacy with Arctic states. As the paper noted, as non-Arctic countries were not in a position to claim “territorial sovereignty” in the far north, countries south of the Arctic Circle have the right to engage in scientific research and navigation, as well as economic activities such as resource extraction, fishing, and the laying of cables and pipelines.

Although Beijing has sought to avoid being seen as challenging the status quo in the Arctic, its policies, summarized in the White Paper, have also reflected concerns about being marginalized from what the Chinese government sees as an economically important region due to the country’s lack of Arctic geography. As with other areas of emerging Chinese foreign policy, there was the promise that the Arctic would be approached via the concepts of “respect, cooperation, win-win results and sustainability,” including respecting the rights and responsibilities of both Arctic and non-Arctic states, and ensuring that the benefits of the Arctic are shared equally.

The document also encapsulated Beijing’s emerging goals in the far north as the need to “understand, protect, develop, and participate in the governance of the Arctic.” With each of these endeavors, Beijing pledged to work with Arctic governments but also with international organizations, including the United Nations and the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), in deepening its presence in regional affairs. This suggests that China is seeking a more comprehensive approach to engaging the region beyond scientific diplomacy, which had been the cornerstone of Chinese activities in the region since the country became a formal observer in the Arctic Council in 2013. Before that achievement, Beijing has been seeking to raise its presence in the region through its research base at Ny-Ålesund in Svalbard, exploration missions using the country’s icebreaker, the Xuelong (Snow Dragon) and supporting joint scientific projects. At the same time, however, the paper confirmed that Beijing was seeking to move beyond strictly scientific cooperation as its interests in the economic opportunities in the Arctic have grown as a result of climate change.

Enjoying this article? Click here to subscribe for full access. Just $5 a month.

Among the economic possibilities that the paper elucidated, in addition to the further development of shipping routes, was the greater availability of fossil fuels and minerals and potential for sustainable energy such as wind and geothermal power, as well as seafood and service industries such as tourism. It was stressed, however, that Beijing was committed to the responsible development of these resources in partnership with local actors and in accordance with international law.

Moreover, the Arctic was further identified as a “blue economic passage,” which would be connected to the greater Belt and Road network, a status which was first mentioned in a June 2017 document released by the State Oceanic Administration (SOA) and the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC). Thus, the paper called for Chinese firms to participate in the development of Arctic development infrastructure. Over the past few years, examples of Chinese joint ventures have included support for the Yamal liquefied natural gas project, which formally came online in December of last year, potential investment in natural gas pipelines in Alaska, and emerging mining enterprises in Greenland. However, there have also been some setbacks, such as the decision made this month by the Chinese National Offshore Oil Corporation (CNOOC) to withdraw from a potential offshore oil-drilling project in Iceland due to scarce initial findings.

From an institutional viewpoint, the paper reiterated China’s support for international law as well as regional cooperation on the governmental level, including the Arctic Council, as well as Track II organizations such the Arctic Circle forum and the China-Nordic Arctic Research Center. The environment was also listed as a priority for China’s Arctic engagement, including protecting the local ecosystems and addressing the impact of climate change. One of Beijing’s main justifications for referring to China as a near Arctic state was the links made between extreme weather conditions, as well as air pollution patterns, and Arctic climate change. The white paper also called for the promotion of peace and stability in the Arctic as well as support for the cordial resolution of disputes in the region and the promotion of maritime safety as the Arctic opens to greater commercial activity. In addition to cooperating bilaterally and multilaterally with the Arctic regional states, the paper cited recent cooperation with Asian neighbors, namely Japan and South Korea, on Arctic research.

ADVERTISEMENT

Raising public awareness of the Arctic was mentioned both in the paper and at this week’s press conference. Although China’s involvement in the region can be traced back to almost a century ago, the Arctic for most of the Chinese public is still a remote novelty. Indeed, publicity has been increasing in the past few years to educate the country about the significance of the Far North. Rediscovering the Arctic, (the Chinese title being Beiji, Beiji! or Arctic, Arctic!), a 2016 documentary by China’s Central Television (CCTV), was produced to comprehensively introduce the region from the perspectives of international relationships, environmental and economic issues, as well as the various forms of Chinese regional engagement.

The environment and climate change in the Arctic, and how Beijing has been contributing accordingly, was discussed throughout the white paper, and can be regarded part of a broader picture of Chinese foreign policy as “a responsible major country” to tackle global warming. Notably, in 1997, China ratified the Kyoto Protocol, and in 2015, China was a major participant at the watershed climate summit in Paris, and conveyed its support for international cooperation to address climate change issues. China’s Arctic policy will be a major test of that commitment.

In the short term, the release of the White Paper confirms that China’s Arctic policy has begun to both mature and diversify behind scientific diplomacy, and also serves to stress that the region has grown in importance as the Belt and Road process accelerates and that China is determined to be counted as a major Arctic player.

 

[Boudrias]

Serious public discussion of critical Canadian strategic imperatives doesn’t happen in Canada. The idea that politicians of any party would call for ‘enhanced’ investment in northern defence smacks of ignorance of the situation or poor knowledge of the actual challenges. 
 

As a serious world player Canada has to have the ability to secure our borders and ability to project forces on a global scale. Alliance’s are an aid in this process not a solution. The USA has been an ally that Canada has deferred its responsibilities to on an ongoing basis. American and Canadian interests are not always in allignment. This is particularly true in our North. Russia and China are obvious adversaries. 
 

A strong military requires a strong economy. Canada doesn’t have a particularly strong economy. Grossly over dependent on the USA and fundamentally a price taker on our income. A major national security issue was the effective utilization of our energy reserves that could have funded a more independent international role. That opportunity has been subverted by American money and influence and by the Liberal government of Canada. Subverted to the degree that what opportunity exists is not even discussed in a public forum. To add to this disaster are opposition parties who do not appear to have ant well thought out positions to put forward.

[Ghostsof1915]

Has there been any decision on the fighters? Saab or the newer version of F-18? I think Sweden would probably want to be notified of what Canada wants. Because 

if we won't buy, they might increase their own fighter defence, with Putin being psychotic as he is. 

[King Heffy]

24 minutes ago, Boudrias said:

Serious public discussion of critical Canadian strategic imperatives doesn’t happen in Canada. The idea that politicians of any party would call for ‘enhanced’ investment in northern defence smacks of ignorance of the situation or poor knowledge of the actual challenges. 
 

As a serious world player Canada has to have the ability to secure our borders and ability to project forces on a global scale. Alliance’s are an aid in this process not a solution. The USA has been an ally that Canada has deferred its responsibilities to on an ongoing basis. American and Canadian interests are not always in allignment. This is particularly true in our North. Russia and China are obvious adversaries. 
 

A strong military requires a strong economy. Canada doesn’t have a particularly strong economy. Grossly over dependent on the USA and fundamentally a price taker on our income. A major national security issue was the effective utilization of our energy reserves that could have funded a more independent international role. That opportunity has been subverted by American money and influence and by the Liberal government of Canada. Subverted to the degree that what opportunity exists is not even discussed in a public forum. To add to this disaster are opposition parties who do not appear to have ant well thought out positions to put forward.

That offer from the UK needs to be accepted.

[JM_]

51 minutes ago, Boudrias said:

Serious public discussion of critical Canadian strategic imperatives doesn’t happen in Canada. The idea that politicians of any party would call for ‘enhanced’ investment in northern defence smacks of ignorance of the situation or poor knowledge of the actual challenges. 
 

As a serious world player Canada has to have the ability to secure our borders and ability to project forces on a global scale. Alliance’s are an aid in this process not a solution. The USA has been an ally that Canada has deferred its responsibilities to on an ongoing basis. American and Canadian interests are not always in allignment. This is particularly true in our North. Russia and China are obvious adversaries. 
 

A strong military requires a strong economy. Canada doesn’t have a particularly strong economy. Grossly over dependent on the USA and fundamentally a price taker on our income. A major national security issue was the effective utilization of our energy reserves that could have funded a more independent international role. That opportunity has been subverted by American money and influence and by the Liberal government of Canada. Subverted to the degree that what opportunity exists is not even discussed in a public forum. To add to this disaster are opposition parties who do not appear to have ant well thought out positions to put forward.

to the bolded point: its why I want to see a massive investment in Canadian manufacturing, including military. One of the nice benefits of military contracts is the requirement of the participating companies to invest in Canadian R&D and post-secondary research. It just helps to grow even more manufacturing. 

[Boudrias]

48 minutes ago, King Heffy said:

That offer from the UK needs to be accepted.

Sorry but what offer is that?

[Boudrias]

22 minutes ago, JM_ said:

to the bolded point: its why I want to see a massive investment in Canadian manufacturing, including military. One of the nice benefits of military contracts is the requirement of the participating companies to invest in Canadian R&D and post-secondary research. It just helps to grow even more manufacturing. 

 

[Boudrias]

42 minutes ago, JM_ said:

to the bolded point: its why I want to see a massive investment in Canadian manufacturing, including military. One of the nice benefits of military contracts is the requirement of the participating companies to invest in Canadian R&D and post-secondary research. It just helps to grow even more manufacturing. 

Smart utilization of resources is basic stuff. I am not well informed but it appears the LPC has done a decent job of providing funding for tech research in Canadian universities. Whether enough or not? Basic research conversion to viable industry has to have a formulaic process. We often see young companies who are successful move to the USA for added funding or improved market ops. Listing on Nasdaq becomes an necessity to provide the liquidity for founders to cash out. That hurts. Lots of cred to Shopify as a serious Canadian winner. 
 

Manufacturing: IMO there should be a serious accounting of the Auto Pact. It is obvious that conversion to EV is leaving Canada holding the bag. As a market of 40 million we have more clout than what is recognized. Not overly confident about what numbers long term manufacturing will offer. 10’s of thousands pulling wrenches in assembly plants are done I think. 
Pump Canadian oil to 7-8 million boe/day with a mega expansion of LNG on both coasts and look out. I don’t think even Trudeau will be able to spend it fast enough. Of course you realize I am saying that with a pained expression on my face. I cannot think of a politician in Canada that  can sell what is needed to the country. Most Canadians are about as concerned as their politicians.

Edited March 12, 2022 by Boudrias

[Alflives]

1 minute ago, Boudrias said:

Smart utilization of resources is basic stuff. I am not well informed but it appears the LPC has done a decent job of providing funding for tech research in Canadian universities. Whether enough or not? Basic research conversion to viable industry has to have a formulaic process. We often see young companies who are successful move to the USA for added funding or improved market ops. Listing on Nasdaq becomes an necessity to provide the liquidity for founders to cash out. That hurts. Lots of cred to Shopify as a serious Canadian winner. 
 

Manufacturing: IMO there should be a serious accounting of the Auto Pact. It is obvious that conversion to EV is leaving Canada holding the bag. As a market of 40 million we have more clout than what is recognized. Not overly confident about what numbers long term manufacturing will offer. 10’s of thousands pulling wrenches in assembly plants are done I think. 
Pump Canadian oil to 7-8 million boe/day with a mega expansion of LNG on both coasts and look out. I don’t think even Trudeau will be able to spend it fast enough. Of course you realize I am saying that with a pained expression on my face. I cannot think of a politician in Canada that sell what is needed to the country. Most Canadians are about as concerned as their politicians.

We should be making and stockpiling nukes.  Lots and Lots of nukes.  

[King Heffy]

2 hours ago, Boudrias said:

Sorry but what offer is that?

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/britain-uk-canada-arctic-defence-submarines-russia-china-1.6187347

[JM_]

1 hour ago, Boudrias said:

Smart utilization of resources is basic stuff. I am not well informed but it appears the LPC has done a decent job of providing funding for tech research in Canadian universities. Whether enough or not? Basic research conversion to viable industry has to have a formulaic process. We often see young companies who are successful move to the USA for added funding or improved market ops. Listing on Nasdaq becomes an necessity to provide the liquidity for founders to cash out. That hurts. Lots of cred to Shopify as a serious Canadian winner. 

IMO they have done an OK job funding research, I wouldn't say its a shining area for them.  The problem isn't the research funding, we drop the ball on licensing and getting ideas to market. As you say, the US tends to pick up what we develop. I've seen it for over 20 years in med tech. One of the companies I worked with early in my career started in Burnaby, but is now worth about 200 million and is based in the US, in large part due to a lack of commercialization support. Its far too common a story.

 

1 hour ago, Boudrias said:

 

Manufacturing: IMO there should be a serious accounting of the Auto Pact. It is obvious that conversion to EV is leaving Canada holding the bag. As a market of 40 million we have more clout than what is recognized. Not overly confident about what numbers long term manufacturing will offer. 10’s of

thousands pulling wrenches in assembly plants are done I think. 

we should be doing far more of this. One area I'd love to see us do far more in is green trucking. More electric trucks for in town work, more hydrogen for long haulers. If we converted our trucking fleets to green sources we'd meet our Paris targets. I don't understand why Trudeau hasn't put far more focus on this area. 

 

1 hour ago, Boudrias said:

 

Pump Canadian oil to 7-8 million boe/day with a mega expansion of LNG on both coasts and look out. I don’t think even Trudeau will be able to spend it fast enough. Of course you realize I am saying that with a pained expression on my face. I cannot think of a politician in Canada that  can sell what is needed to the country. Most Canadians are about as concerned as their politicians.

I'm wondering if Charest can be that guy. A lot of good things happened under Mulroney so maybe he can pick up where old Brian left off. 

[Boudrias]

1 hour ago, King Heffy said:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/britain-uk-canada-arctic-defence-submarines-russia-china-1.6187347

IMHO Canada should have had nuclear subs decades ago. Aussies showing us the way. Canada could be building them! 

[King Heffy]

Just now, Boudrias said:

IMHO Canada should have had nuclear subs decades ago. Aussies showing us the way. Canada could be building them! 

Doesn't have to be an either/or.  We aren't going to fight off the Russians or Chinese by ourselves so let's work with our allies as well as build up our own military.

[Boudrias]

1 hour ago, JM_ said:

IMO they have done an OK job funding research, I wouldn't say its a shining area for them.  The problem isn't the research funding, we drop the ball on licensing and getting ideas to market. As you say, the US tends to pick up what we develop. I've seen it for over 20 years in med tech. One of the companies I worked with early in my career started in Burnaby, but is now worth about 200 million and is based in the US, in large part due to a lack of commercialization support. Its far too common a story.

 

we should be doing far more of this. One area I'd love to see us do far more in is green trucking. More electric trucks for in town work, more hydrogen for long haulers. If we converted our trucking fleets to green sources we'd meet our Paris targets. I don't understand why Trudeau hasn't put far more focus on this area. 

 

I'm wondering if Charest can be that guy. A lot of good things happened under Mulroney so maybe he can pick up where old Brian left off. 

I highly doubt Charest has any chance of CPC leadership.  

[JM_]

2 minutes ago, Boudrias said:

I highly doubt Charest has any chance of CPC leadership.  

thats too bad, PP will just be focused on fake culture wars and not real ones, imo. He certainly isn't competent to increase our manufacturing sector. 

[Gurn]

9 minutes ago, Boudrias said:

IMHO Canada should have had nuclear subs decades ago. Aussies showing us the way. Canada could be building them! 

Nuclear power subs might be ok'ed by the Canadian public, but I doubt it.

Too many will confuse that for nuclear armed.

Also nuke subs are  quite noisy, compared to electric/aip system subs.

With the Arctic sea lanes opening up, due to less ice, a nuke sub's underwater endurance is no longer as big a selling point.

 

 

France almost sold some   'conventional power' subs to the Australians, so maybe Canada can get a deal from them.

Though honestly I'd rather go German-they build excellent subs and tanks

Part of the deal is that half or more of the subs have to be built in Canada.

 

 

[King Heffy]

1 minute ago, gurn said:

Nuclear power subs might be ok'ed by the Canadian public, but I doubt it.

Too many will confuse that for nuclear armed.

Also nuke subs are  quite noisy, compared to electric/aip system subs.

With the Arctic sea lanes opening up, due to less ice, a nuke sub's underwater endurance is no longer as big a selling point.

 

 

France almost sold some   'conventional power' subs to the Australians, so maybe Canada can get a deal from them.

Though honestly I'd rather go German-they build excellent subs and tanks

Part of the deal is that half or more of the subs have to be built in Canada.

 

 

Plus side if we'd taken the same subs as the Aussies would have been parts availability and the potential for joint maintenance deals.

[Gurn]

Few years back there was an opportunity to purchase a Mistral class helicopter ship from France- as Russia had just been sanctioned for taking over Crimea.

Comes with a full service hospital, with dental and all.

Ability to carry  a few tanks

a couple of fast attack boats.

Can carry a large amount of soldiers for a decent period of time.

 

Just from a disaster relief point of view I believe a case can be made for purchase.

Would have been a good option, buy one, get others built in Canada, to go along with the new frigates, arctic patrol ships and the new icebreakers.

 

15 new frigates would equal 5 on each coast

6 helicopter ships  - 2 on each coast- could also carry drones.

 

Bringing Canada up to it's soon to occur NATO financial commitment would mean about $5 billion in extra funding for each of the 3 branches of military, per year.

 

Edit to add.

Probably want 9 of the amphibious assault ships as a normal rotation has 1 at sea, 1 prepping for sea and 1 in refit.

Also provides enough ships to have a fleet doing duty, helping out in the world; not just on our coast.

Edited March 12, 2022 by gurn