CANADA
-
marktigger
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4640
- Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
-
ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: CANADA
A golden opportunity to step into Canada's shoes and circumvent the FMS fee levied on top of the manufacturer's bill (2.5% I believe), from DID of today
"$313 million is the price that Canada would have to pay if it is to exit from the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program. The calculations were made by the Liberal government, and accounts for the difference of what Ottawa had contributed so far since 2006 and the $551 million it pledged to commit when it enrolled into the program."
So, if you buy more than (.025 x units x unit price) minus $313m =0 you make a saving (which dollors appear here, though?)
"$313 million is the price that Canada would have to pay if it is to exit from the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program. The calculations were made by the Liberal government, and accounts for the difference of what Ottawa had contributed so far since 2006 and the $551 million it pledged to commit when it enrolled into the program."
So, if you buy more than (.025 x units x unit price) minus $313m =0 you make a saving (which dollors appear here, though?)
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Re: CANADA
Is there any information as to the actual contenders for the R.C.N naval procurement program.?
Re: CANADA
Canada's official immigration website has crashed during US election results... http://www.cnbc.com/2016/11/09/canadian ... night.html
Re: CANADA
Canada to Super Hornets
Canada pursues interim buy of Boeing Super Hornets
22 November, 2016 BY: Leigh Giangreco Washington DC
The Canadian government will launch an open competition to replace its aging fleet of CF-18 fighter jets and plans to purchase 18 Boeing F/A-18 Super Hornets as an interim fix for its current capability gap.
But defense officials also attempted to placate F-35 prime contractor Lockheed Martin and the US defense industry, with the assurance that Canada will remain a member of the Joint Strike Fighter programme.
The 22 November press conference with Minister of National Defence Harjit Singh Sajjan and top Canadian defense officials was marked by politically charged comments blaming the previous conservative government of Stephen Harper for the failure to procure a replacement fleet for the CF-18 fighters. As a result of the drawn-out fighter procurement, Canada cannot meet its combined NORAD and NATO commitment, according to Sajjan.
In 2015, the liberal party campaigned on the promise to kill the procurement of 65 Lockheed Martin F-35s and launch an open competition. More recently, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau criticized the F-35, saying the jet was “far from working.”
“Because they were not replaced, we now have a capability gap,” Sajjan says. “It is necessary to deal effectively with the situation this government has inherited.”
The full and open competition to replace the CF-18 fleet will begin once Canada’s defense policy review is completed early next year. The competition will take five years and the new fleet will be fully operational in the late 2020s, requiring a further life extension of the current CF-18 fleet along with the interim Super Hornet buy, Minister of Public Services and Procurement Judy Foote says.
"We want to make sure the open and competitive process is a sound one," she says. "Military procurement is complex, we’re not about to cut corners and simplify a process that’s very complex. That’s what the interim will do, but in the meantime with the open competition, we’re going to get it right
Although liberals railed against Lockheed during the campaign, Foote says any contractor who meets the criteria for the replacement fleet will have a shot in the open competition.
Lockheed's own statement following the announcement took on a more dour tone.
"Lockheed Martin recognizes the recent announcement by the Government of Canada of its intent to procure the 4th generation F/A-18 Super Hornet as an interim fighter capability," Lockheed says. "Although disappointed with this decision, we remain confident the F-35 is the best solution to meet Canada’s operational requirements at the most affordable price, and the F-35 has proven in all competitions to be lower in cost than 4th generation competitors."
Canada will enter into negotiations over the interim fleet with Boeing immediately, which will include discussions over price and the aircraft’s interoperability with NATO aircraft. Foote adds the government has a sense of the cost, but did not elaborate on a specific price for the 18 Super Hornets. Boeing deferred a request on cost to the Canadian government.
When asked whether Canada’s move to sole source 18 Super Hornets from Boeing was also a highly political decision, defense officials responded Canada required a fully developed and interoperable aircraft. Based on analysis, the government is confident the Super Hornet meets both those requirements, Sajjan says. Foote also noted because the current fighter procurement involves American aircraft, the government is looking at a US jet for the interim requirement.
“I think it’s important we respond to the needs right now,” Foote says. “We’re not stacking the deck in favor of Boeing any more than we’re in favor of Lockheed by staying in the fighter programme.”
Whether Canada will eventually operate a mixed fleet of Super Hornets and next-generation fighters is to be determined. Sajjan did not directly address where the 18 Super Hornets would go once a new fleet is procured.
“Hard to predict,” he says. “But there’s a need to fill this gap and an interim fleet is required. All of this will be taken into account down the road and the decision will be made at that time.”
Canada pursues interim buy of Boeing Super Hornets
22 November, 2016 BY: Leigh Giangreco Washington DC
The Canadian government will launch an open competition to replace its aging fleet of CF-18 fighter jets and plans to purchase 18 Boeing F/A-18 Super Hornets as an interim fix for its current capability gap.
But defense officials also attempted to placate F-35 prime contractor Lockheed Martin and the US defense industry, with the assurance that Canada will remain a member of the Joint Strike Fighter programme.
The 22 November press conference with Minister of National Defence Harjit Singh Sajjan and top Canadian defense officials was marked by politically charged comments blaming the previous conservative government of Stephen Harper for the failure to procure a replacement fleet for the CF-18 fighters. As a result of the drawn-out fighter procurement, Canada cannot meet its combined NORAD and NATO commitment, according to Sajjan.
In 2015, the liberal party campaigned on the promise to kill the procurement of 65 Lockheed Martin F-35s and launch an open competition. More recently, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau criticized the F-35, saying the jet was “far from working.”
“Because they were not replaced, we now have a capability gap,” Sajjan says. “It is necessary to deal effectively with the situation this government has inherited.”
The full and open competition to replace the CF-18 fleet will begin once Canada’s defense policy review is completed early next year. The competition will take five years and the new fleet will be fully operational in the late 2020s, requiring a further life extension of the current CF-18 fleet along with the interim Super Hornet buy, Minister of Public Services and Procurement Judy Foote says.
"We want to make sure the open and competitive process is a sound one," she says. "Military procurement is complex, we’re not about to cut corners and simplify a process that’s very complex. That’s what the interim will do, but in the meantime with the open competition, we’re going to get it right
Although liberals railed against Lockheed during the campaign, Foote says any contractor who meets the criteria for the replacement fleet will have a shot in the open competition.
Lockheed's own statement following the announcement took on a more dour tone.
"Lockheed Martin recognizes the recent announcement by the Government of Canada of its intent to procure the 4th generation F/A-18 Super Hornet as an interim fighter capability," Lockheed says. "Although disappointed with this decision, we remain confident the F-35 is the best solution to meet Canada’s operational requirements at the most affordable price, and the F-35 has proven in all competitions to be lower in cost than 4th generation competitors."
Canada will enter into negotiations over the interim fleet with Boeing immediately, which will include discussions over price and the aircraft’s interoperability with NATO aircraft. Foote adds the government has a sense of the cost, but did not elaborate on a specific price for the 18 Super Hornets. Boeing deferred a request on cost to the Canadian government.
When asked whether Canada’s move to sole source 18 Super Hornets from Boeing was also a highly political decision, defense officials responded Canada required a fully developed and interoperable aircraft. Based on analysis, the government is confident the Super Hornet meets both those requirements, Sajjan says. Foote also noted because the current fighter procurement involves American aircraft, the government is looking at a US jet for the interim requirement.
“I think it’s important we respond to the needs right now,” Foote says. “We’re not stacking the deck in favor of Boeing any more than we’re in favor of Lockheed by staying in the fighter programme.”
Whether Canada will eventually operate a mixed fleet of Super Hornets and next-generation fighters is to be determined. Sajjan did not directly address where the 18 Super Hornets would go once a new fleet is procured.
“Hard to predict,” he says. “But there’s a need to fill this gap and an interim fleet is required. All of this will be taken into account down the road and the decision will be made at that time.”
-
ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: CANADA
- to the same schedule then as the Swiss and Finnish Hornet replacementsR686 wrote:The full and open competition to replace the CF-18 fleet will begin once Canada’s defense policy review is completed early next year. The competition will take five years and the new fleet will be fully operational in the late 2020s,
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
-
ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: CANADA
The Defence minister making the announcement looks the part:R686 wrote:Minister of Public Services and Procurement Judy Foote says.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-c ... -1.3304931
It took me a while to understand what role Judy Foote had, but then I remembered that Defence was thought to be cooking the books to get their favourite plane, and the project analysis was transferred to Public Works (who are used to counting in bns and over decades).
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
-
RetroSicotte
- Retired Site Admin
- Posts: 2657
- Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Re: CANADA
What an absolute farce.
They conclude the F-35 is the best option, look to buy. The left wing party then slates the "no competition" approach. And now that same party does a no competition approach themselves, repeatedly delaying what they know damn well is the best option. They committed to an election on "cancel the F-35" and now are trying to do everything they can to delay/avoid the clear option.
Sometimes, when I feel bad about the UK's forces, I look at what Canada goes through, and I feel a little luckier.
They conclude the F-35 is the best option, look to buy. The left wing party then slates the "no competition" approach. And now that same party does a no competition approach themselves, repeatedly delaying what they know damn well is the best option. They committed to an election on "cancel the F-35" and now are trying to do everything they can to delay/avoid the clear option.
Sometimes, when I feel bad about the UK's forces, I look at what Canada goes through, and I feel a little luckier.
Re: CANADA
No timeline for the new Jets or how much, this article seems to sum it it. It surprising how much angst this is generating normally one rejoices when aircraft are bought, something like this should have been done 5 years ago.
Former military procurement chiefs slam Liberals’ fighter jet plan
OTTAWA — Two former heads of military procurement have slammed the Liberal government's plan to buy 18 Super Hornet fighter jets as a legally dubious waste of taxpayer dollars.
The Liberals announced this week that the government will launch an open competition next year to replace all 77 of the air force's CF-18s — a process that's expected to last up to five years.
In the meantime, they say they will enter negotiations to purchase Boeing Super Hornets without a competition because the air force is facing a critical shortage of warplanes, which poses an "urgent" need.
Such a need is one of the few exceptions in the federal procurement law that lets the government purchase new military equipment as a stop-gap until a full competition can be held.
Applying the exception will let the government "move forward on an expedient basis to obtain the equipment that the men and women of the air force needs," Jessica Turner, Public Procurement Minister Judy Foote's spokeswoman, said in an email.
The previous Conservative government introduced the clause last year to fill a gap after its two resupply vessels were forced to retire early.
The Conservatives subsequently awarded a $700-million contract to Davie Shipyard in Levis, Que., to modify a civilian ship to provide resupply capabilities for the navy until full replacements could be built.
But in separate interviews, Alan Williams and Dan Ross said they don't believe there really is an urgent need, because the government could pick a new fighter jet through an open competition in two years or less.
"I question the whole legality of this," said Williams, who served as assistant deputy minister of materiel at National Defence from 2000 to 2005 and has been a vocal critic of sole-sourcing defence contracts.
"Holding a competition within a year is even doable. It's not like you're starting everything all over again."
They also said operating an "interim" fleet would significantly increase the air force's operational costs, not to mention the billions that will be spent to simply acquire the Super Hornets.
"This was probably the worst possible option," said Ross, who succeeded Williams as assistant deputy minister of materiel and recommended the F-35 to the previous Conservative government.
"The taxpayers will bear the cost of this and it's not necessary."
The government has refused to say how much it expects to pay for the Super Hornets, or what it will do with them if another jet fighter wins the promised competition.
But Ross and Williams predicted the figure could run anywhere between $3 billion and $8 billion, depending on what is included and how long they are kept.
Officials say the cost of the Super Hornets won't hit the government's bottom line or make the deficit any bigger in the short term because there is already $9 billion set aside by the previous Conservative government for the purchase of fighter jets.
However, there is no extra money in the fiscal framework for another tranche of jets. Those planes will need fresh financing to the order of many billions of dollars.
Analysts have long warned that the military is dealing with unrealistic expectations under a tight spending cap, though the government says it will address that problem with a new defence policy next year.
Representatives for Boeing's rivals were quietly grumbling on Wednesday about the government's decision to buy the Super Hornets without a competition.
But none was prepared to make a public fuss, saying instead that they planned to bring their concerns to the government when it launches a competition next year.
Former military procurement chiefs slam Liberals’ fighter jet plan
OTTAWA — Two former heads of military procurement have slammed the Liberal government's plan to buy 18 Super Hornet fighter jets as a legally dubious waste of taxpayer dollars.
The Liberals announced this week that the government will launch an open competition next year to replace all 77 of the air force's CF-18s — a process that's expected to last up to five years.
In the meantime, they say they will enter negotiations to purchase Boeing Super Hornets without a competition because the air force is facing a critical shortage of warplanes, which poses an "urgent" need.
Such a need is one of the few exceptions in the federal procurement law that lets the government purchase new military equipment as a stop-gap until a full competition can be held.
Applying the exception will let the government "move forward on an expedient basis to obtain the equipment that the men and women of the air force needs," Jessica Turner, Public Procurement Minister Judy Foote's spokeswoman, said in an email.
The previous Conservative government introduced the clause last year to fill a gap after its two resupply vessels were forced to retire early.
The Conservatives subsequently awarded a $700-million contract to Davie Shipyard in Levis, Que., to modify a civilian ship to provide resupply capabilities for the navy until full replacements could be built.
But in separate interviews, Alan Williams and Dan Ross said they don't believe there really is an urgent need, because the government could pick a new fighter jet through an open competition in two years or less.
"I question the whole legality of this," said Williams, who served as assistant deputy minister of materiel at National Defence from 2000 to 2005 and has been a vocal critic of sole-sourcing defence contracts.
"Holding a competition within a year is even doable. It's not like you're starting everything all over again."
They also said operating an "interim" fleet would significantly increase the air force's operational costs, not to mention the billions that will be spent to simply acquire the Super Hornets.
"This was probably the worst possible option," said Ross, who succeeded Williams as assistant deputy minister of materiel and recommended the F-35 to the previous Conservative government.
"The taxpayers will bear the cost of this and it's not necessary."
The government has refused to say how much it expects to pay for the Super Hornets, or what it will do with them if another jet fighter wins the promised competition.
But Ross and Williams predicted the figure could run anywhere between $3 billion and $8 billion, depending on what is included and how long they are kept.
Officials say the cost of the Super Hornets won't hit the government's bottom line or make the deficit any bigger in the short term because there is already $9 billion set aside by the previous Conservative government for the purchase of fighter jets.
However, there is no extra money in the fiscal framework for another tranche of jets. Those planes will need fresh financing to the order of many billions of dollars.
Analysts have long warned that the military is dealing with unrealistic expectations under a tight spending cap, though the government says it will address that problem with a new defence policy next year.
Representatives for Boeing's rivals were quietly grumbling on Wednesday about the government's decision to buy the Super Hornets without a competition.
But none was prepared to make a public fuss, saying instead that they planned to bring their concerns to the government when it launches a competition next year.
-
ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: CANADA
You could say that if the 18 SHs cost (over their life) the same as 70plus F-35s (to procure?)R686 wrote:Ross and Williams predicted the figure could run anywhere between $3 billion and $8 billion, depending on what is included and how long they are kept.
Officials say the cost of the Super Hornets won't hit the government's bottom line or make the deficit any bigger in the short term because there is already $9 billion set aside by the previous Conservative government for the purchase of fighter jets.
However, there is no extra money in the fiscal framework for another tranche of jets. Those planes will need fresh financing to the order of many billions of dollars.
Analysts have long warned that the military is dealing with unrealistic expectations under a tight spending cap
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Re: CANADA
It's a political stitch up for the RCAF from the turds in office who sprout this when in election mode.ArmChairCivvy wrote:
You could say that if the 18 SHs cost (over their life) the same as 70plus F-35s (to procure?)
But since it is to be forced on them hopefully they can get them to pre-wire in the Growler stuff then at a later date make an additional EW Squadron.
-
ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: CANADA
From the ozzie experience that would make it 18 x $300k extra
... goes into roundation errors
... goes into roundation errors
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Re: CANADA
The problem with Growler scenarios is that they need to purchase F models and then crew them with "back-enders" (navigators, air warfare officers &/or airborne electronics analysts, or whatever you choose to call them).
No such category of aircrew exists in the Canadian system, at least for fast jets. In Australia there was the F111 community to draw upon.
Now it could probably be done if you stripped out a few guys from the maritime patrol community, but not all them will be capable of a fast jet environment, and you sure as hell will mess up the maritime training pipeline. And there won't be any "greybeards" to help either. It will be a very green immature capability for quite a while.
No such category of aircrew exists in the Canadian system, at least for fast jets. In Australia there was the F111 community to draw upon.
Now it could probably be done if you stripped out a few guys from the maritime patrol community, but not all them will be capable of a fast jet environment, and you sure as hell will mess up the maritime training pipeline. And there won't be any "greybeards" to help either. It will be a very green immature capability for quite a while.
Re: CANADA
Mercator wrote:The problem with Growler scenarios is that they need to purchase F models and then crew them with "back-enders" (navigators, air warfare officers &/or airborne electronics analysts, or whatever you choose to call them).
No such category of aircrew exists in the Canadian system, at least for fast jets. In Australia there was the F111 community to draw upon.
Now it could probably be done if you stripped out a few guys from the maritime patrol community, but not all them will be capable of a fast jet environment, and you sure as hell will mess up the maritime training pipeline. And there won't be any "greybeards" to help either. It will be a very green immature capability for quite a while.
Good point never thought of that just assumed from an Australian perspective.
It's not that they can't do it just needs to be funded now if they plan to do it and start embedding with the USN just as we did. And that might be jr out from F35 for good under his watch.
-
dmereifield
- Senior Member
- Posts: 2762
- Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
-
GastonGlocker
- Member
- Posts: 321
- Joined: 05 Jun 2015, 03:08
Re: CANADA
You really have to wonder when they will make it law that politicians will be held accountable for bad decision's that throw away taxpayers money needlessly.
http://www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/news/c ... g-billions
If you whee on a board of directors they can go to gaol for something's.
http://www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/news/c ... g-billions
If you whee on a board of directors they can go to gaol for something's.
-
ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: CANADA
From that link
"questioned the Liberal claim that the CF-18s are on their last legs. He has pointed out that military officers have stated those jets can operate effectively until 2025, more than enough time for a permanent replacement to be bought. "
"Last legs" is relative. If you want a new type (and the SH is a new type) in service by 2025, you will need to start the detailed speccing (old/ new weapons? etc) and contract negotiations this year
- interesting if any of the ASH (proposed) changes make it into the spec, e.g. internal IRST (rather than podded)?
- Trump might pay for some of that, just to get the alternative navy fighter fully costed (would be downright mad for Canada to do it, for 18 a/c)
"questioned the Liberal claim that the CF-18s are on their last legs. He has pointed out that military officers have stated those jets can operate effectively until 2025, more than enough time for a permanent replacement to be bought. "
"Last legs" is relative. If you want a new type (and the SH is a new type) in service by 2025, you will need to start the detailed speccing (old/ new weapons? etc) and contract negotiations this year
- interesting if any of the ASH (proposed) changes make it into the spec, e.g. internal IRST (rather than podded)?
- Trump might pay for some of that, just to get the alternative navy fighter fully costed (would be downright mad for Canada to do it, for 18 a/c)
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Re: CANADA
The Canadian Department of Defence needs to pull its finger out as the SH won't be in production too much longer, relatively. A few more for the USN/USMC, Australia and Kuwait.
Then the only game in town (if they buy U.S.) will be the F35A.
Then the only game in town (if they buy U.S.) will be the F35A.
Admin Note: This user is banned after turning most of their old posts into spam. This is why you may see their posts containing nothing more than dots or symbols. We have decided to keep these posts in place as it shows where they once were and why other users may be replying to things no longer visible in the topic. We apologise for any inconvenience.
-
ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: CANADA
Well, we dont know.arfah wrote:the SH won't be in production too much longer, relatively. A few more for the USN/USMC, Australia and Kuwait.
But the furthest out, projected use of legacy Hornets was by Kuwait (2030, but they have already made their move).
2025 seems like a hard deadline now, to get any deals by way of replacement fleets (Canada, Finland... about Switzerland, one does not know if they want to retain the mixed fleet idea; or scale down to one, multi-purpose fleet).
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Re: CANADA
True, there's no definite deadline as Uncle Donald's administration may procure additional SH in place of F35C's which would extend the production run.ArmChairCivvy wrote:Well, we dont know.
However, the Canucks still need to get the ball rolling as the solution they could end up with would be the one they 'didn't' want. Even though it may be the better aircraft?
Admin Note: This user is banned after turning most of their old posts into spam. This is why you may see their posts containing nothing more than dots or symbols. We have decided to keep these posts in place as it shows where they once were and why other users may be replying to things no longer visible in the topic. We apologise for any inconvenience.
-
ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: CANADA
If this turns out to be true
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 72276.html
then of course the CANUCKS will be delighted and the union of the two countries will grow ever closer ?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 72276.html
then of course the CANUCKS will be delighted and the union of the two countries will grow ever closer ?
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
-
Aethulwulf
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1029
- Joined: 23 Jul 2016, 22:46
Re: CANADA
Canadian Government has just published its Defence Policy Review, in which it states it will increase defence spending by 70% between 2016/17 and 2026/27.
Amoung others things it had committed to:
•a full complement of 15 Canadian Surface Combatants
•modernisation of the Victoria class subs
•88 new advanced fighter jets
•replacing their P-3 Orion MPAs
•20000 new assault rifles
Amoung others things it had committed to:
•a full complement of 15 Canadian Surface Combatants
•modernisation of the Victoria class subs
•88 new advanced fighter jets
•replacing their P-3 Orion MPAs
•20000 new assault rifles