My expereince is that they promise things up front but don't always deliver after the fact. This is more to do with things such as promises for in country work.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
My expereince is that they promise things up front but don't always deliver after the fact. This is more to do with things such as promises for in country work.I suppose the test will be if the Poles are happy with their recent deliveries from Korea, including their new K2 Black Panther tanks, K9 Thunder self-propelled howitzers, FA-50 light combat aircraft and Chunmoo multiple rocket launch systems.
Cooperation is key and a tested solution—hulls in one (lower-cost) location and further construction elsewhere with better expertise. I remember a successful experience of building of chemical tankers in such way.South Korea seems to be on a roll recently, they've got a lot of export wins for their heavy vehicles. And for ships, they're the second largest produces of merchant ships in the world, after China, so they sure know how to churn out hulls economically (now whether that translates into competent warships is another matter).
Note that 5% is not yet a formal target. Even if it does become a target, it is more likely to be via a combination of 3.5% core military requirements with the rest will go towards defence and security related investments, including infrastructure and building industrial capacity. It will also not be mandatory - even the current 2% is a target, not a membership fee as some would try to imply.I also expect PM Carney to sign onto achieving the coming new 5% NATO target.
I don't like that Carney is throwing the Coast Guard budget into the CAF expenditure column. The Canadian Coast Guard vessels are unarmed, and serve the Department of Fisheries and Ocean (DFO), not the CAF or RCN.Note that 5% is not yet a formal target. Even if it does become a target, it is more likely to be via a combination of 3.5% core military requirements with the rest will go towards defence and security related investments, including infrastructure and building industrial capacity. It will also not be mandatory - even the current 2% is a target, not a membership fee as some would try to imply.
i personally hate such arbitrary % of GDP targets. I would prefer countries look at actual capabilities (needed and existing) and focus on those rather than simplistic (sound bite) targets.
I don't like that Carney is throwing the Coast Guard budget into the CAF expenditure column. The Canadian Coast Guard vessels are unarmed, and serve the Department of Fisheries and Ocean (DFO), not the CAF or RCN.
This unarmed CCG ship is not a naval vessel...
And I believe the USCG funding does come from the Pentagon budget.
Indeed - to put it in context, going from 2% to 5% is over a doubling of budgets. That's no small undertaking.The 2->5% bump is quite huge, and I would expect that NATO members would try to weasel all kinds of expenses into the target, in order to make it easier to achieve.
Not sure what the criterias are for what can be counted as defense related spending and what cannot, but it would make sense to have some common standards for this, to avoid needless strife due to some members counting expense X and others not.
Interesting, given the armament and sometimes Harpoon missiles fitted to their fleet.AFAIK, the USCG is funded by its own appropriations that are entirely separate from the defense budget.
Agreed - I think they fall under the Treasury DepartmentAFAIK, the USCG is funded by its own appropriations that are entirely separate from the defense budget.
I think they got caught up in the Reagan-era 600-Ship push. Offensive capabilities like SSMs have not been carried post-Cold War, AFAIKInteresting, given the armament and sometimes Harpoon missiles fitted to their fleet.
View attachment 835160
Agreed - I think they fall under the Treasury Department
Yep. I was actually looking it up - you beat me to itNo more.
Department of Homeland Security.
Agreed. I think Canada had best absorb the sunk costs and any cancelation fines, and offer its F-35s to the next country in the L-M queue. Instead let's look to Europe, not necessarily for cost savings, but to keep the US at arms length. If the SAAB Gripen is good enough for NATO members Sweden, Hungary, Czech Rep and now Portugal, along with operators in the Americas (Brazil and now Columbia) it should be good enough for Canada.Alternatively, if showing a big middle finger to the current US president is seen as more important, damn the torpedoes full speed ahead, cancel the F-35, and then lease some smaller numbers of 4th gen fighters as a stop-gap measure while restarting the tendering?
I believed that because of rhe territory's size, Canada would prefed a two engines fighter.I think Canada had best absorb the sunk costs and any cancelation fines, and offer its F-35s to the next country in the L-M queue. Instead let's look to Europe, not necessarily for cost savings, but to keep the US at arms length. If the SAAB Gripen is good enough for NATO members Sweden, Hungary, Czech Rep and now Portugal, along with operators in the Americas (Brazil and now Columbia) it should be good enough for Canada.
This is the most plain spoken PM I can recall.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/carney ... -1.7555928
"The United States is beginning to monetize its hegemony: charging for access to its markets and reducing its relative contributions to our collective security, We will ensure every dollar is invested wisely, including by prioritizing made-in-Canada manufacturing and supply chains. We should no longer send three-quarters of our defence capital spending to America."
I think that was a major factor in the original CF-18 purchase. Is the modern assumption that military engines are now so reliable that single-engined aircraft are viable for Canada? After all, the F-35 is single-engined.....I believed that because of rhe territory's size, Canada would prefed a two engines fighter.
If we want twin engines and an aircraft from outside of the US, we have only the Eurofighter and Rafale. But is that false reassurance anyway? IIRC, today's jet engined are very reliable, and if a failure damages critical systems (hydraulics, fuel lines, avionics), both engines might be intact, but the aircraft is still doomed.I believed that because of rhe territory's size, Canada would prefed a two engines fighter.
Really?Note that 5% is not yet a formal target. Even if it does become a target, it is more likely to be via a combination of 3.5% core military requirements with the rest will go towards defence and security related investments, including infrastructure and building industrial capacity. It will also not be mandatory - even the current 2% is a target, not a membership fee as some would try to imply.
i personally hate such arbitrary % of GDP targets. I would prefer countries look at actual capabilities (needed and existing) and focus on those rather than simplistic (sound bite) targets.