He who wishes to fight must first count the cost-Sun Tzu

Canada originally purchased 66 Stryker Mobile Gun System vehicles in 2003, which were expected to arrive in 2010. However, in 2006 the Canadian Forces asked its government to cancel the MGS acquisition(from wiki on stryker)

And while I do in a way like the idea of our Military being equiped properly and the Leopard2 being a very good battletank if not one of the best, it doesn't do a lot of good fighting non tank units in the desert of afghanistan. Add to this that they were surplus (like those damn subs billion dollar diesel subs, what a deal they were) and not suppose to cost us very much we get this story;

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/05/17/tanks.html

Canada's purchase and long-term support of 100 slightly used Leopard 2A6 battle tanks will be $1.3 billion — roughly double the Conservative government's initial public estimate last month.

As he detailed a laundry list of military hardware the Conservative government plans to buy over the next few years, Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor surprised the Commons Thursday by announcing there will be a 20-year, $650-million service contract attached to the tank deal.

So again we are seeing a pattern of selling product and then double the cost with a Factory authorized service agent. So to speak.

But wait thers more!

http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2010/07/14/14710671.html

OTTAWA -- The feds are promising -- again -- to build new support ships for $2.6 billion that will help the Navy stay out at sea longer.

Snip

While the two shipyards that will build the vessels have not been chosen, Defence Minister Peter MacKay promised the ships will be built in Canada.

The support ships are part of the government's $35 billion plan to build 28 large vessels and 100 smaller ships for the Navy and Coast Guard over the next 30 years.

Snip

In 2008, the Conservatives scrapped a plan to build three new supply ships for $2.9 billion when contractors were unable to meet the requirements for the government's low price.

In 2007, the government pledged to build six to eight Arctic patrol ships for $3.1 billion, the first of which could arrive by 2014.

In 2008, Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced plans for a new flagship icebreaker, the Diefenbaker, for $720 million. That massive 140-metre-long, made-in-Canada icebreaker will be able to break through nearly three metres of ice and be ready by 2017.

Appologies to sun media as the bulk of the article is reprinted here, its short please use the link.

No the thread is suppose to figure out the tab the cons are building for war making. I'll admit I haven't done a good job. I found some links to spending announcements, but we don't know if there is a time frame on payments or which ones are still even active.

While I think some military procurement is in order, its hard to justify it for invading another nation and not defending ours(the only reason for a military) or multiuse function like ice breaker patrols with search and rescue capabilities. If it is going to be a non bid tender it should only go to a canadian company. Period. So much reaks about our military purchases.

This thread can then be used to see if the military has been put into the general revenues (is this what is putting us in deficit now?) or is it off the books Enron style with creative accounting. The military spending if on the books, will push a big deficit number (just look at the announcements) and an excuse to start chopping social programs like the ones trippie mentioned.Or if not could be a cover for the bank bailout we had while still allowing for spending cuts.

Plus you would think we had already spent 300 billion with how many times things have been re announced.  If we are going to argue something, it would be nice to have the proper data to fight with. If you are prepared you don't look stupid. If go and say "They have spent 300 Billion in the last 4 years" and they say actually it was 45 Billion over 10 years, we would look pretty uninformed and chicken little the sky is falling type.

If your numbers are accurate you sound more intelligent and can better justify your own position without inflating things for no reason. See the gun registry which some conservatives would tell you is 5 billion when it was only(loosely put) a billion and we aren't even sure on that because no one knows how much was spent on it. Still less than the g summit swindle. (as a side note, deer hurst in clements riding is now for sale after taxpayer upgrades. It is listed as a numbered corporation. Would like to know who owns that corp. I suspect a conservative maybe even steamboat tony) ETA the chainlink fence was built in alabama and purchased through a chatham compony and is reselling it as part of their contract. Were they paid in full for the fence to start with?

So we need our best data for the information wars without inflating costs. If you are on the numbers, people will give see you as a doing your homework and being credible. If you inflate and blow it out of proportion it seems like you are ranting as oppose to being critical of spending.

I hope that clears things up.

http://www.militaryindustrialcomplex.com/

Interesting site.