The Problem:

Military hardware (including planes, ships, vehicles, guns, missiles and the accompanying electronics and communications equipment) are very expensive, extremely complex and hard to choose. Furthermore, the Canadian requirements are unique to Canada because we try to get multiple uses out of a limited number of pieces of equipment, whereas the United States and other powers tend to develop specialized hardware for very specific missions. Canada can not afford such luxuries. Therefore we must choose our military hardware very prudently for Canadian requirements.

The selection process for Canadian Armed Forces takes much study, which results in long lead times of up to twenty years before the ships or planes actually get into service with our armed forces. For example, the cancellation of the helicopters occurred in about the 16th year of a twenty year plan. That plan was actually started by the Liberals, and then brought to fruition by the Conservatives. With the cancellation Canada lost $6.4 billion in contracts and Canadian jobs, as well as almost $1.0 billion in money already spent plus cancellation penalty fees.

Politicians, especially the members of Cabinet, are ill suited to making intelligent decisions on such a complex subject, because they do not have the training or interest to fully understand the implications of deciding on what military hardware should be acquired by Canada. Advice politicians receive from presently serving military men and women may also be perceived to be prejudiced in favor of the individual's branch of the armed forces, and not necessarily in the best interest of Canada. Thus the most knowledgeable advice is often not followed. The selection process in Canada has severe flaws.

Proposed Solution:

A "Military Hardware Purchasing Commission" made up of eminently qualified experts in military matters, and experts in the various kinds of military hardware needed to handle all military needs for the foreseeable future, should be set up by Act of Parliament. The chore of selecting and purchasing the most appropriate military hardware and electronic equipment should be placed in the hands of that Commission.

The Commissioners should be appointed, and the individual commissioners should serve as part time personnel, receiving only nominal remuneration. Thus service on the Commission should be a matter of service to the country, and not a place for old political hacks.

The entire purchasing for all the Armed Forces of: vehicles, ships, aircraft, weapons, and communications equipment shall be decided by the Commission after hearing submissions from each of the armed forces. It will be the duty of the Commission to decide the priorities by which each service should get equipment, and to coordinate the electronics and communications abilities of all the services.

A guaranteed annual budget of about $2.5 to $3 billion per year for at least 10 years in advance will be required for the purchases by the Commission. Should the government of the day decide to change that level of spending, such changes should only be applicable to future purchases. Existing contracts should be carried forward to their completion Any changes in the budget for the Commission should not be applicable to any existing contracts. The Commission should develop long term plans for ongoing replacement of military hardware as each species of the diversified ever changing military apparatus and munitions becomes obsolete.

For example:

- the Sea King helicopters are well overdue for replacement. The replacement helicopters should already be in place - not just be up for tender as we are now doing. The Navy needs an all-weather helicopter capable of carrying up to 12 people plus a full compliment of equipment and supplies, and have a range of 500 nautical miles (simplified specification). The new Frigates would be at least three times more effective with such a helicopter. (ie. 1 Frigate + 1 all-weather Helicopter = 3 Frigates + 3 Sea King Helicopters)

- the CF18 fighter planes are already 12 years old, and should be replaced when they are 20 years old. The lead time for such a purchase ought to be at least 10 years in order to ensure that the new purchase will indeed be the best for Canadian needs, and that some of the manufacturing is done in Canada - thereby creating jobs for Canadians, and tax revenue for the Government o/f Canada.

- the Hercules transport aircraft are 30 years old and due for replacement. Last year on the way to South Timor, twice these aircraft had to return to Canada because of equipment failure, despite the fact that the planes were carrying urgently needed supplies. There has been no talk of replacement for these well used aircraft.

- the armed personnel carriers used by the Army in Bosnia kept breaking down, sometimes in dangerous situations. Some new money was found to by "off the shelf", but only a few of such vehicles owned by the Army were replaced - what about the rest of those vehicles.

- When it comes to weapons, the choices of guns, missiles, bombs and even bullets, is so vast that it really needs an expert to understand the subtle advantages and disadvantages of each.

- Communications and surveillance equipment for use by all the armed forces, including hydrophones for use under the sea, are also very sophisticated and are constantly being improved and upgraded with new technology. It is important that all the Armed Forces are using compatible equipment that is coordinated for joint exercises. This affects decisions on which equipment should be purchased for the best long range use.

Discussion:

Since Canada has adopted the concept that our military spending must be curtailed, the Canadian military as a whole has been reduced to a very small number. Recently a decision was made by the Cabinet to cut back on our peace keeping activities because the resources of our military have been stretched too far.

The shortfall on military spending has seriously affected the purchasing of military hardware. Our Sea King helicopters are over 30 years old (normal useful life is about 20 years). It is silly to buy brand new state of the art warships that rely for top performance on state of the art helicopters, and then cancel the helicopters. It now takes three brand new warships with old helicopters to do the work that one new warship could do with one new helicopter. The ship and the helicopter were designed to work together. But the government cancelled the helicopters. The Navy needs an all weather helicopter with a range of 500 nautical miles (simplified specification), capable of rescuing crew of a downed fishing trawler (i.e. up to 15 people including flight crew). Only one helicopter with three engines (required for all-weather flying) with that capability exists today, and the Liberals cancelled it, together with the $6.4 billion in Canadian contracts and Canadian jobs. Now they are thinking of buying essentially the same helicopter in a stripped down version and having a different name.

The old reliable Hercules transport aircraft are around 30 years old, and replacement will be needed soon. Even the CF-18 fighter planes are 12 years old and will need to be replaced with more modern planes in a few years, but no plans have yet been made for their replacement.

The army had trouble in Bosnia with their aging armored personnel carriers, which were frequently breaking down. It is scary enough for the army to be in fighting trim, without having the added risk of vehicles breaking down while in action. Hurriedly plans were made to buy new vehicles. Now what kind of military planning is that? It seems that governments shy away from spending on military equipment until they are faced with a crises. That is no way to maximize the military capabilities of the new equipment, nor does it create the maximum number of Canadian jobs. Making such decisions in the midst of some kind of crises is not satisfactory.

Few people seem to realize that elements of our Armed Forces have been in war type situations somewhere or other in the world almost continuously for the last fourteen years. In much of the world, our armed forces are better appreciated than they are at home. Next to the RCMP, our armed forces have become the most widely held and respected image of Canada.

If we are going to ask these men and women of our Armed Forces to go out and risk their lives routinely in the name of Canada, the least we can do is give them the very best of equipment and munitions. This requires long term planning and scheduled purchasing of all manner of vehicles, ships, planes, munitions, and electronic devices. All of this must fit together to produce an integrated fighting unit on land, sea and air, that is equipped to act alone or as a contingent of an international operation.

The decision makers who are intrusted to select the equipment to be used by the Canadian Armed Forces should be people having knowledge and experience. This is generally not the prime interest nor the strength of the type of people who seek public office, and it is similarly not something that the members of the Cabinet can be expected to fully understand. Therefore this function should be intrusted to a Commission made up of knowledgeable persons, and they should have to deal with the job of keeping the whole of the armed forces supplied with modern functional equipment designed to specifically meet the unique Canadian needs.

Respectfully submitted by:

Email: yoursay@halsays.com

Please Send Me Your Opinion

(Please enter subject as "Military Purchases")

Return to Main Page

You are visitor number to this page