# Justin Trudeau hints at boosting Canada’s military spending



## Maxman1

I'll believe it when I see it.


----------



## rmc_wannabe

I have long said that you could fund the CAF to 4 percent of GDP, but we would still lag behind in NATO and be much the same where we are.

It's never the money, it's politics. It's procedures. It's the pork-barreling in our defence spending that makes us a paper tiger in NATO.

My only hope in all of this for the CAF and the GoC, whatever the political stripe that may be, is that it will rouse them out of the "Peace Dividend" slumber. The world has been unstable since 1945. We have used geography, proximity, and association as a Defence Policy ever since. ICBMs don't care how close to the U.S. or how far from Russia/China we are.

Don't give us a dime more, but let us spend money on defence like it matters. The fact we follow the same rules for purchasing a fighter aircraft as we do for buying office furniture for a Service Canada office is disgraceful. Don't treat defense procurement as a stimulus package for Canadian Industry. There I said it.

We spend so much money, time, and effort trying to get that money to stay in Canada; be it by awarding contracts to companies with no capability to produce items without first "retooling" and"developing the production lines", or by hamstringing perfectly competent and competitive bidders by forcing the project to be made in St. Margaret de Poutain de Champignon, QC because the ruling government either lost the seat in the election, or won it with promises.

We spend so much money and staff hours jumping through TBS regulations that are great for other departments, but are terrible for defence procurement. Some items you _have_ to sole source, because there are technologies and capabilities no one else makes. By doing the bid process, you get companies clamoring for a project they can't deliver on, but because they tick the bright boxes on the score sheet....

I truly and honestly belief we need to split from PSPC and legislate that its not beholden to TBS, only to the PBO/PCO. The guiding principles of this new Defence Procurement department should be "Off the shelf, from somewhere else" if there isn't an industry in Canada.

BOOTFORGEN has demonstrated how well we do when we are able to actually get what we need, instead of lining the pockets of a Canadian company that got lucky.

That, but with tanks, fighters, ships, weapons systems....


----------



## Quirky

rmc_wannabe said:


> Don't give us a dime more, but let us spend money on defence like it matters. The fact we follow the same rules for purchasing a fighter aircraft as we do for buying office furniture for a Service Canada office is disgraceful. Don't treat defense procurement as a stimulus package for Canadian Industry.



*angry Quebec enters the chat.


----------



## Dale Denton

If this gov't at all wanted to undertake any changes to CAF policy/procurement, even a budget increase - anything - it would have announced it in the last 2 weeks, or at least made it known we're working on making changes...

"certainly reflections to have"

This is our long-term budgetary response to an unexpected and devastating new land war in europe started by a country we have a long and lightly defended border with whose victims have very strong ties to Canada.

A genuinely honest question for everyone:

"What world event would have to happen for us (gov't) to force us to make the necessary changes to the CAF (its org, people, policies, procurement, vision, etc...)?


----------



## rmc_wannabe

Dale Denton said:


> If this gov't at all wanted to undertake any changes to CAF policy/procurement, even a budget increase - anything - it would have announced it in the last 2 weeks, or at least made it known we're working on making changes...
> 
> "certainly reflections to have"
> 
> This is our long-term budgetary response to an unexpected and devastating new land war in europe to a country by a country we have a long and lightly defended border with whose victims have very strong ties to Canada.
> 
> A genuinely honest question for everyone:
> 
> "What world event would have to happen for us (gov't) to make the necessary changes to the CAF (its org, people, policies, procurement, vision, etc...)?


Alien invasion or zombie apocalypse comes to mind. Both are never going to happen, therefore, it would be the most likely scenario


----------



## Jarnhamar

Dale Denton said:


> "certainly reflections to have"


My favorite part.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Unless they cut some of the process it doesn't matter; large defence spending is now a 6 or 7 department affair with no single person able to make a final decision until you get to the PM. At $40M a lot of IRBs etc kick in, and now TB wants us to do 'Sustainment Business Case Analysis" for any NP project over $20M, which is a formal process with about a two year lead time so far, just to figure out if the support plan makes sense.

Insanity; I could make a fortune as a consultant just sitting in on all the stupid meetings.


----------



## GK .Dundas

The system actually works perfectly, it isn't designed to procure equipment for use by the Canadian Armed Forces. That is  however a byproduct and aside from the work generated by the system there is no end product.
And it gotten to the point where the Armed Forces are no longer considered the end-user and to be honest I suspect no is really is too sure who is. Or if there is even an end-user.


----------



## CBH99

Dale Denton said:


> A genuinely honest question for everyone:
> 
> "What world event would have to happen for us (gov't) to force us to make the necessary changes to the CAF (its org, people, policies, procurement, vision, etc...)?


Someone with some common sense, a drive for efficiency, the fortitude to tell the system that it's broken and needs fixing, and a vision of what the country should look like from a reasonable and doable perspective, while staying ambitious.

Until the leaders of various departments can admit to themselves that they are part of the problem - and communicate a solution to Parliament, nothing will change.


World event required?  A decently smart person, with a big picture in mind, getting into federal politics.

Too bad those ppl tend to go into business instead.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Navy_Pete said:


> Unless they cut some of the process it doesn't matter; large defence spending is now a 6 or 7 department affair with no single person able to make a final decision until you get to the PM. At $40M a lot of IRBs etc kick in, and now TB wants us to do 'Sustainment Business Case Analysis" for any NP project over $20M, which is a formal process with about a two year lead time so far, just to figure out if the support plan makes sense.
> 
> *Insanity; I could make a fortune as a consultant just sitting in on all the stupid meetings.*



Believe me... you don't want to be _*that *_kind of consultant


----------



## Good2Golf

Dale Denton said:


> If this gov't at all wanted to undertake any changes to CAF policy/procurement, even a budget increase - anything - it would have announced it in the last 2 weeks, or at least made it known we're working on making changes...
> 
> "certainly reflections to have"
> 
> This is our long-term budgetary response to an unexpected and devastating new land war in europe started by a country we have a long and lightly defended border with whose victims have very strong ties to Canada.
> 
> A genuinely honest question for everyone:
> 
> "What world event would have to happen for us (gov't) to force us to make the necessary changes to the CAF (its org, people, policies, procurement, vision, etc...)?


NATO Article 5 and a less narcissistic government…


----------



## FJAG

Dale Denton said:


> "What world event would have to happen for us (gov't) to force us to make the necessary changes to the CAF (its org, people, policies, procurement, vision, etc...)?


With this government and the existing bureaucracy there isn't one.

It isn't one thing; its both things.

🍻


----------



## OldSolduer

FJAG said:


> With this government and the existing bureaucracy there isn't one.
> 
> It isn't one thing; its both things.
> 
> 🍻


This government is fervently hoping the Canadian military withers on the vine, dries up and blows away. FJAG we both know what his father was like  - he detested the military until October 1970  and after that it was hung out to dry. This PM is worse. At least the US had Ronald Reagan and the UK had Lady Maggie to put some starch in Pierre's spine - there is no one like that to figuratively cuff the young prince upside the head and tell him to smarten the f&ck up.


----------



## Navy_Pete

daftandbarmy said:


> Believe me... you don't want to be _*that *_kind of consultant


I sure don't, but kind of hilarious to me how many people we don't listen to their recommendations when they are within the system, but suddenly pay attention when they come back as a SME hired by consulting firm with an impressive letter head. Maybe I should just get ahead of the curve and make my standard email signature block fancier with a wax seal or something?

Some things got waived during Afghanistan, so it's possible, but it's a lot easier to do when you are buying something from an OEM. The basic processes were still in place though, and it was Harper that brought in the procurement hydra that is DPS, the gift that keeps on giving ulcers. I don't care what they say, you don't 'streamline' anything by adding more oversight and additional stakeholders with new processes on top of the old ones.

Honestly a decade or so under some kind of benevolent dictator to burn the system down and start from scratch is probably needed to root out all the mini empires, legacy processes etc and build something that makes more sense.


----------



## OldSolduer

Navy_Pete said:


> Honestly a decade or so under some kind of benevolent dictator to burn the system down and start from scratch is probably needed to root out all the mini empires, legacy processes etc and build something that makes more sense.


I'll join your consulting team. 

there is no such thing as a benevolent dictator.


----------



## Kirkhill

daftandbarmy said:


> Believe me... you don't want to be _*that *_kind of consultant


It's a competitive field.  I'm surprised there is an empty chair.


----------



## GK .Dundas

OldSolduer said:


> This government is fervently hoping the Canadian military withers on the vine, dries up and blows away. FJAG we both know what his father was like  - he detested the military until October 1970  and after that it was hung out to dry. This PM is worse. At least the US had Ronald Reagan and the UK had Lady Maggie to put some starch in Pierre's spine - there is no one like that to figuratively cuff the young prince upside the head and tell him to smarten the f&ck up.


That is almost hysterically funny that presupposes that Canadian Prime Ministers actually pay that much attention to the  military. It is just another Government department to them and therein lies the problem..It's not but that is the way it is.
The military is about the only governmental body whose members are required to lay down their lives of asked to.take the lives of their fellow human beings.
What Canadian politicians see is a department that whines about the size of budgets has members who very publicly can't keep it in their pants . Can't win you an election but could conceivably loose one for  you.
And they tend to dress a little oddly too.
You're not dealing with malice by and large you dealing with a strange combination of ignorance  lack of world level experience and irritation.


----------



## PuckChaser

Just floating the idea to see the polling numbers. He's not serious because the rest of Canada isn't serious about defense.


----------



## dapaterson

Fixing Defence procurement starts with fixing the officers who know nothing, decide to ignore all advice on the process, and waste a year or two before restarting and following the process in time to be replaced by an officer who knows nothing and ignores all advice on the process...


----------



## Navy_Pete

OldSolduer said:


> I'll join your consulting team.
> 
> there is no such thing as a benevolent dictator.


No, that's true, but really just thinking of someone in a position of authority that was more worried about getting specific things accomplished than a news soundbite or shares & likes. Harper really set the tone by driving the entire government from the PMO, so definitely doable. Don't agree with a lot of it, but there was never any doubt about where the decisions were made or who had what marching orders. Right now it's a herd of bureacratic cats doing whatever they think is best from their particular departmental perspective, vice a singular vision aligning all of that to what actually achieves the government strategic goals, and the primary concern of the kids in short pants is PR, not effectiveness.

The funny thing is that we've already gone to integrated teams at the working level with PSCP embedded in DND and vice versa, but it splits off back into departmental reporting above that, and all kinds of random departments have input at high levels, so lots of opportunities to spike the wheels and add delays. Nothing like being second guessed by someone who doesn't really understand what you do, but took a two day course so is going to tell you what theoretical best practices are, based on the project description which isn't accurate, because someone from PSPC changed what the project manager wrote so it 'sounded better'.


----------



## daftandbarmy

dapaterson said:


> Fixing Defence procurement starts with fixing the officers who know nothing, decide to ignore all advice on the process, and waste a year or two before restarting and following the process in time to be replaced by an officer who knows nothing and ignores all advice on the process...



Isn't one of the reasons they touted for putting Annand 'The Queen of Pandemic Procurement' in the MND's chair was to fix defence procurement?


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

LMAO, a global pandemic and the largest war in Europe since WW2 and people think this Government will still fund the Armed Forces?

It's the same song and dance every year, I wouldn't get my hopes up.


----------



## Furniture

dapaterson said:


> Fixing Defence procurement starts with fixing the officers who know nothing, decide to ignore all advice on the process, and waste a year or two before restarting and following the process in time to be replaced by an officer who knows nothing and ignores all advice on the process...


Churn is definitely one of the problems we face, on top of everything else. 

A friend of mine at a HQ in Ottawa has had a new director every year for the last three. Nothing moves forward, because by the time the one in the chair is up to speed they are handing over to another person so that new person gets their "tick in a box" for promotion/advancement.


----------



## Jarnhamar

"look at" 


​


----------



## suffolkowner

CAF leadership has never owned responsibility for their own choices. Look at the growth in bloat under CDS Vance while the forces continued to shed operational capabilities. I have a bad feeling you could double the budget and not add one extra fighter jet, truck....

From what I have read smaller purchases under $5M seem to stumble along eventhough they still take too long. The bigger projects just take up too much time and resources right now when we have exhausted our grace period


----------



## FormerHorseGuard

I have always thought for simple things like trucks,  Canada should buy the exact same truck as the USA is buying because we could tag a few trucks on to the order and Canada could save a pile of cash. Bigger orders come with cheaper per unit price.  Air craft and ships,  a lot of countries are building a navy, Canada is looking at some of the exact same ships,  2 or 3 NATO countries come together and get a NATO ship that  would have common parts and common supply chain so parts are available at most NATO ports if required.  Save huge money.  Just because we can build a ship in Canada does not mean we should if it means we can buy them faster and get them to sea faster then going thru the make it Canadian policy. Some of the work could be done here, but not everything has to be done here.  Weapons we need to start getting the same ones as used by the rest of NATO, so common training, supply and ammo can be readily accessed world wide as supply runs out when required.  Canadian only items like uniforms and Arctic equipment should be Canadian made as we know better what is needed and have companies here who make great winter clothing , just get it in army green colours. I worked up North and the Hospital Evac team all worn Canada Goose, bright red or orange so it would stand out on the snow if there was accident and easy  to spot.  We can get it in army green , air force blue etc. 

But instead the Buyers and TB, the Brass want to study it and restudy it over and over till it is out of date and requires a full rebuild and redesign.  Takes years to buy a simple bolt action rifle for the Rangers, even longer to buy a side arm. Trucks are purchased but are not combat ready as they are not built for it.  There has to be a new truck to replace the temporary truck purchase.  Money wasted.  Off the shelf helicopters, then made to look like military grade,  made a Canadian Company in Quebec happy they got the deal.  Navy helicopters delivered years late and no one seems concerned. Just put more money in the hands of the company  to build them.  If they Canada does purchase something worth while, they buy in small orders,  and wait for it to rust out, break down and wear out from use before consider replacements. Spend too much time being the first one to buy and get hosed in the repairs and defects department. 

If they decide to change how they spend money, and increase the budget, they need to learn how to spend it on timely programs and make the programs deliver in a timely matter.  Put the cash on the table and get the best equipment possible for the job.  One time purchases and then equipment being scrapped or retired has to stop. 

Just my opinions


----------



## FJAG

OldSolduer said:


> This government is fervently hoping the Canadian military withers on the vine, dries up and blows away. FJAG we both know what his father was like - he detested the military until October 1970 and after that it was hung out to dry. This PM is worse.


At the risk of this being the 237th time I've gone this route on this forum I tend to side with @dapaterson on this.

Whatever the indifference of this government and this particular leader, the one thing you have to admit is that defence spending actually went up under them both in dollars and as a GDP percentage. My problem has always been that for various reasons the investment that Canadian governments make in defence never result in moving the goal posts forward in defence outputs.

While I think poor political direction, and even interference, has a lot to do with that, I tend to put a large part of the blame on a bureaucratic system, both civilian and military, that results in a lot of unnecessary churn that defeats the best of intentions of any one particular individual. I keep whining about the ResF system needing a top to bottom overhaul. That's not the only thing that does. But you're absolutely right. The lack of strong political oversight and accountability is allowing the military to wither on the vine ... a very expensive vine.

🍻


----------



## Good2Golf

Integration of the military and civil staffs years before integrating of the three services formed a large part of precisely what you describe, FJAG.


----------



## Rifleman62

No F-35's for sure.


----------



## suffolkowner

An alternative view of the Russia-Ukraine war might suggest that there is no need for large reinvestments in our National Defence capabilities considering how poorly Russia has shown in that endeavour


----------



## YZT580

suffolkowner said:


> An alternative view of the Russia-Ukraine war might suggest that there is no need for large reinvestments in our National Defence capabilities considering how poorly Russia has shown in that endeavour


China is the principle problem


----------



## tomydoom

YZT580 said:


> China is the principle problem


For everyone, including the Russians.


----------



## Weinie

YZT580 said:


> Chinas'  is the principles are the problem


FTFY.


----------



## MilEME09

Let's face it, we the CAF are broken, we have admitted it too, atleast internally. However we lack the tools and the leadership to do more then band aid solutions. Bloat, red tape, botched procurement  the issues go on and on, but we are better at playing shell games then fixing problems.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Meanwhile the Aussies, concerned about PRC not Russia--will anyone dare tell PM Trudeau what they're doing? Unlike Canada big defence spending seems good electoral politics down under. Different strokes for...but still pork galore:



> Australia to invest $38B to surge troop strength by 30 percent ​
> "In their last three years in Government, Labor cut Defence spending by 10.5 per cent in real terms," while the current government says "Our Government has increased investment in defence to more than two per cent of GDP."​
> SYDNEY: In a decision that has been in the making for some time, Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison and Defense Minister Peter Dutton announced a huge increase Wednesday to the island state’s force structure.
> 
> Morrison said in a press release that “we need a bigger ADF with more soldiers, sailors and airmen and women to operate the cutting-edge capabilities we’re getting to protect Australia.”
> 
> The uniformed military, currently 60,000 strong, will see an increase of 18,500 troops by 2040. The ministry estimates the cost will be at least $38 billion over the period of 2024-40.
> 
> “This growth in workforce and expertise will enable us to deliver our nuclear powered submarines, ships, aircraft and advanced weapons. It will mean we can build warfighting capabilities in the domains of space, and information and cyber,” Defense Minister Peter Dutton said in the release. “It will also build the resilience we need in critical areas and enable our people to increase intelligence, information and communications capacity.”
> 
> Much of the growth is likely to come for troops — “diggers,” in local parlance — trained for space, nuclear sub and cyber duty, but a press release says the growth “will be even higher when workforce requirements for the nuclear-powered submarines are finalised.”
> 
> Industry sources here have flagged the need for a significant growth in troops trained as space specialists to cope with the substantial increase in ground stations, launch and satellites expected over the next 15 years
> 
> The timing of the release is interesting and there are clear indications from the press release that it is closely tied to the upcoming federal election, where Morrison’s Liberal Party is fighting off a challenge from the opposition Labor Party. The release notes the review was launched as part of the 2020 Force Structure Plan, which committed Australia to a range of new weapons and capabilities, and the main decisions were approved on November 17 last year.
> 
> The release notes that: “the Labor Party’s “defense spending as a share of GDP dropped to 1.56 per cent in the 2012-13 Budget – the lowest level of funding since 1938. In their last three years in Government, Labor cut Defence spending by 10.5 per cent in real terms. Our Government has increased investment in defence to more than two per cent of GDP.”
> 
> It points out that “ADF personnel _will be increased in every state and territory _(emphasis added), with a particular focus on capabilities associated with our trilateral security partnership between Australia, United Kingdom and United States (AUKUS), as well as air, sea, land, space and cyber.” The release also notes that “a majority of the growth” will occur in Queensland, New South Wales, South Australia and Western Australia...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Australia to invest $38B to surge troop strength by 30 percent - Breaking Defense
> 
> 
> "In their last three years in Government, Labor cut Defence spending by 10.5 per cent in real terms," while the current government says "Our Government has increased investment in defence to more than two per cent of GDP."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> breakingdefense.com



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## dimsum

MarkOttawa said:


> Meanwhile the Aussies, concerned about PRC not Russia--will anyone dare tell PM Trudeau what they're doing? Unlike Canada big defence spending seems good electoral politics down under. Different strokes for...but still pork galore:


For context, they have a centre-right govt which has been the most hawkish in decades, and they have an election in a few months.


----------



## FSTO

Okay, I'll admit my bias by stating that our current PM is pretty vacuous at the best of times. But this magical mystery tour has to be one of the most empty of realism I've ever seen. The breathless voice, the non answers, the empty statements. Admittedly the the Ukrainian President is staring death in the face every day but when you put our lad against Zelenskyy the lack of sand in our hero is quite stark.


----------



## suffolkowner

dimsum said:


> For context, they have a centre-right govt which has been the most hawkish in decades, and they have an election in a few months.


The election down under should be interesting with respect to the submarine issue. Continuity is imperative if the Aussies have any hope at succeeding there. The proposed new Eastern submarine base should add some spice


FSTO said:


> Okay, I'll admit my bias by stating that our current PM is pretty vacuous at the best of times. But this magical mystery tour has to be one of the most empty of realism I've ever seen. The breathless voice, the non answers, the empty statements. Admittedly the the Ukrainian President is staring death in the face every day but when you put our lad against Zelenskyy the lack of sand in our hero is quite stark.



Same old same old with Trudeau lots of talk and posing but very little substance. Maybe if trialed by fire he would stand out as well but I look at the lack of real response with regard to our own defence priorities as damming. What moves to secure our own nationality has he even broached? None as far as I know. We sit on our hands on the fighter replacement. I mean we lie our way to whatever measly GDP percentage we are currently at by including non CAF expenditures like the CCG when the CCG has very little constabulary ability. That being taken up mostly by our Kingston Class. Even from a non kinetic standpoint you think we could be helping out with the refugee situation in Poland unless they dont want or need it but I find that hard to believe


----------



## Good2Golf

One can’t be seen as a true leader of a nation if one ‘leads’ by seeing how his Millenial-staffed Star Chamber reacts to his friend Nick Nanos’ latest polls and going from there…


----------



## OldSolduer

FSTO said:


> Okay, I'll admit my bias by stating that our current PM is pretty vacuous at the best of times. But this magical mystery tour has to be one of the most empty of realism I've ever seen. The breathless voice, the non answers, the empty statements. Admittedly the the Ukrainian President is staring death in the face every day but when you put our lad against Zelenskyy the lack of sand in our hero is quite stark.


Truer words have never been spoken - empty headed lunch bucket is my preferred way of describing him. But I am biased.


----------



## Kirkhill

YZT580 said:


> China is the principle problem



In which case time to "Follow the Marines"

They make better Canadian models than the US Army, particularly than III Corps.


----------



## lenaitch

suffolkowner said:


> The election down under should be interesting with respect to the submarine issue. Continuity is imperative if the Aussies have any hope at succeeding there. The proposed new Eastern submarine base should add some spice
> 
> 
> Same old same old with Trudeau lots of talk and posing but very little substance. Maybe if trialed by fire he would stand out as well but I look at the lack of real response with regard to our own defence priorities as damming. What moves to secure our own nationality has he even broached? None as far as I know. We sit on our hands on the fighter replacement. I mean we lie our way to whatever measly GDP percentage we are currently at by including non CAF expenditures like the CCG when the CCG has very little constabulary ability. That being taken up mostly by our Kingston Class. Even from a non kinetic standpoint you think we could be helping out with the refugee situation in Poland unless they dont want or need it but I find that hard to believe


While not willing to give this government, or any in recent memory, a pass on defence spending, is there any standard benchmark for NATO partners to be judged against when it comes to their %/GDP?  I wasn't aware that CCG spending was lumped into any figure the government has used, but I have read that other nations include such services as border enforcement and para-military federal police into their percentage.


----------



## suffolkowner

lenaitch said:


> While not willing to give this government, or any in recent memory, a pass on defence spending, is there any standard benchmark for NATO partners to be judged against when it comes to their %/GDP?  I wasn't aware that CCG spending was lumped into any figure the government has used, but I have read that other nations include such services as border enforcement and para-military federal police into their percentage.


I'm not super familiar with it so Im not sure if expenditures are "approved" or not. I have a couple documents around here somewhere so maybe ill take a look on the weekend. The inclusion of other enforcement and para-military forces is true but to compare it to what our non CAF can contribute is weak on the part of the federal government. If I was NATO I would say nice try


----------



## Weinie

suffolkowner said:


> The election down under should be interesting with respect to the submarine issue. Continuity is imperative if the Aussies have any hope at succeeding there. The proposed new Eastern submarine base should add some spice
> 
> 
> Same old same old with Trudeau lots of talk and posing but very little substance. *Maybe if trialed by fire* he would stand out as well but I look at the lack of real response with regard to our own defence priorities as damming. What moves to secure our own nationality has he even broached? None as far as I know. We sit on our hands on the fighter replacement. I mean we lie our way to whatever measly GDP percentage we are currently at by including non CAF expenditures like the CCG when the CCG has very little constabulary ability. That being taken up mostly by our Kingston Class. Even from a non kinetic standpoint you think we could be helping out with the refugee situation in Poland unless they dont want or need it but I find that hard to believe


He's been trialed by fire once.......................Emergencies Act was the result.


----------



## QV

lenaitch said:


> While not willing to give this government, or any in recent memory, a pass on defence spending, is there any standard benchmark for NATO partners to be judged against when it comes to their %/GDP?  I wasn't aware that CCG spending was lumped into any figure the government has used, but I have read that other nations include such services as border enforcement and para-military federal police into their percentage.


I'd agree with the CCG being lumped in if they doubled as an armed force capable of naval warfare operations, but they can't and are basically unarmed civilians. Including them is playing games.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Increasing our military budget without massive oversight to how it's spent would be meaningless. We can spend $1100 ea. on ergonomic office chairs but not buy helmets with NVG mounts. Our military is built for comfy HQs, not warfighting.


----------



## FSTO

Does anyone think that, at a bare minimum, that we get a Foreign Policy Document so that we can tailor a Defence Policy based on our Foreign Aims and Interests. SSE is now horribly out of date.

I am not very hopeful this will happen. Cripes ze Germans did a 180 in about 72 hrs!


----------



## OldSolduer

FSTO said:


> I am not very hopeful this will happen. Cripes ze Germans did a 180 in about 72 hrs!


There's a good reason for ze Germans to do the about face. A number of years ago a German Army captain told me "Russia is too close".

Russia and Germany have a history shall we say. In that part of the world things like that aren't forgotten easily.


----------



## FSTO

OldSolduer said:


> There's a good reason for ze Germans to do the about face. A number of years ago a German Army captain told me "Russia is too close".
> 
> Russia and Germany have a history shall we say. In that part of the world things like that aren't forgotten easily.


That is our issue, despite the shrinking world, the powers that be in Canada still believe we live in a fireproof house and that the world loves us.


----------



## OldSolduer

FSTO said:


> That is our issue, despite the shrinking world, the powers that be in Canada still believe we live in a fireproof house and that the world loves us.


Amen brother - we learned a long time ago that not everyone loves Canada.


----------



## Blackadder1916

lenaitch said:


> While not willing to give this government, or any in recent memory, a pass on defence spending, *is there any standard benchmark* for NATO partners to be judged against when it comes to their %/GDP?  I wasn't aware that CCG spending was lumped into any figure the government has used, but I have read that other nations include such services as border enforcement and para-military federal police into their percentage.



Yes, there is a definition and it can be found in this document.  https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/2021/6/pdf/210611-pr-2021-094-en.pdf

An excerpt.


> NATO defines defence expenditure as payments made by a national government specifically to meet the needs of its armed forces, those of Allies or of the Alliance. A major component of defence expenditure is payments for Armed Forces financed from within the Ministry of Defence (MoD) budget. Armed Forces include Land, Maritime and Air forces as well as Joint formations such as Administration and Command, Special Operations Forces, Medical Service, Logistic Command, Space Command, Cyber Command, etc. They might also include "*Other Forces*" like Ministry of Interior troops, national police forces, gendarmerie, carabinieri, coast guards etc. In such cases, expenditure is *included only in proportion to the forces that are trained in military tactics, are equipped as a military force, can operate under direct military authority* in deployed operations, and can, realistically, be deployed outside national territory in support of a military force. Also, expenditure on Other Forces financed through the budgets of ministries other than MoD is included in defence expenditure.
> . . . .


----------



## lenaitch

Blackadder1916 said:


> Yes, there is a definition and it can be found in this document.  https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/2021/6/pdf/210611-pr-2021-094-en.pdf
> 
> An excerpt.


Thanks for that.  Seems fairly clear.

But I found this.  No idea of the veracity of the source, I just stumbled across it.

Excerpt:

The Components of U.S. Military Spending​If you really want to get a handle on what the United States spends on defense, you need to look at multiple components.​​The $715 billion base budget for the Department of Defense is the main contributor to the defense budget, but there are a number of other agencies that protect our nation as well, and much of their spending is devoted to the military effort. They include the Department of Veterans Affairs ($113.1 billion). Funding for the VA has been increased by nearly $30 billion over 2018 levels. That's to fund the VA MISSION Act and the VA's healthcare system.  The other agencies are: Homeland Security ($54.9 billion), the State Department ($63.6 billion), and the FBI and Cybersecurity in the Department of Justice ($10.3 billion).​


----------



## KevinB

lenaitch said:


> Thanks for that.  Seems fairly clear.
> 
> But I found this.  No idea of the veracity of the source, I just stumbled across it.
> 
> Excerpt:
> 
> The Components of U.S. Military Spending​If you really want to get a handle on what the United States spends on defense, you need to look at multiple components.​​The $715 billion base budget for the Department of Defense is the main contributor to the defense budget, but there are a number of other agencies that protect our nation as well, and much of their spending is devoted to the military effort. They include the Department of Veterans Affairs ($113.1 billion). Funding for the VA has been increased by nearly $30 billion over 2018 levels. That's to fund the VA MISSION Act and the VA's healthcare system.  The other agencies are: Homeland Security ($54.9 billion), the State Department ($63.6 billion), and the FBI and Cybersecurity in the Department of Justice ($10.3 billion).​


It doesn’t count for NATO, but is more an explanation of what realistically goes into defense and truer costs.

I don’t think it does a good job in some ways, as it basically paints the State Department under defense, but it also explains the what, why, and where of other costs that are key to National Defense that aren’t in the DoD budget. 

For instance veterans affairs, the VA funding is a result of having a standing Military, but it isn’t a direct DoD expense. 

Cyber Security aspects as well defend the national infrastructure, but very few are under DoD etc. 

It’s a decent manner of comparison for counties, as far as a budget allocation for Defense goes but still has flaws.


----------



## childs56

lenaitch said:


> While not willing to give this government, or any in recent memory, a pass on defence spending, is there any standard benchmark for NATO partners to be judged against when it comes to their %/GDP?  I wasn't aware that CCG spending was lumped into any figure the government has used, but I have read that other nations include such services as border enforcement and para-military federal police into their percentage.





			https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/2021/6/pdf/210611-pr-2021-094-en.pdf


----------



## GR66

With a different leader/party in government I would have seen an excellent opportunity to re-open the Keystone XL pipeline project and the Energy East pipeline.  

An agreement to meet our NATO commitment of 2% of GDP (and agreement to take part in the US BMD program) as the carrot for the US combined with a major PR campaign to secure ethical North-American sourced oil and gas for the US and Canada while energy prices are soaring, Russian oil is taboo and President Biden is taking heat for looking to enemy states (and "supposed allies not acting like friends during this crisis" states) Iran, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia and the UAE to take up the slack.

Sadly, this government never seems to miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.


----------



## daftandbarmy

GR66 said:


> With a different leader/party in government I would have seen an excellent opportunity to re-open the Keystone XL pipeline project and the Energy East pipeline.
> 
> An agreement to meet our NATO commitment of 2% of GDP (and agreement to take part in the US BMD program) as the carrot for the US combined with a major PR campaign to secure ethical North-American sourced oil and gas for the US and Canada while energy prices are soaring, Russian oil is taboo and President Biden is taking heat for looking to enemy states (and "supposed allies not acting like friends during this crisis" states) Iran, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia and the UAE to take up the slack.
> 
> Sadly, this government never seems to miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.


----------



## FJAG

daftandbarmy said:


>


I think that misses the analogy.

In order to have a swing and a miss, you need to at least swing.

We haven't swung in a long time. 

😞


----------



## Kirkhill

FSTO said:


> Does anyone think that, at a bare minimum, that we get a Foreign Policy Document so that we can tailor a Defence Policy based on our Foreign Aims and Interests. SSE is now horribly out of date.
> 
> I am not very hopeful this will happen. Cripes ze Germans did a 180 in about 72 hrs!



I have no faith in Justin seeing the light.

On the other hand I have hopes for Chrystia Freeland, Anita Anand and most of this team









						The Prime Minister announces changes in the senior ranks of the Public Service
					

The Prime Minister also congratulated the following individuals who have retired from the Public Service, and thanked them for their dedication and service to Canadians




					pm.gc.ca


----------



## YZT580

GR66 said:


> With a different leader/party in government I would have seen an excellent opportunity to re-open the Keystone XL pipeline project and the Energy East pipeline.
> 
> An agreement to meet our NATO commitment of 2% of GDP (and agreement to take part in the US BMD program) as the carrot for the US combined with a major PR campaign to secure ethical North-American sourced oil and gas for the US and Canada while energy prices are soaring, Russian oil is taboo and President Biden is taking heat for looking to enemy states (and "supposed allies not acting like friends during this crisis" states) Iran, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia and the UAE to take up the slack.
> 
> Sadly, this government never seems to miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.


believe that congress already tried this and the democrats shot it down in flames


----------



## dapaterson

FJAG said:


> I think that misses the analogy.
> 
> In order to have a swing and a miss, you need to at least swing.
> 
> We haven't swung in a long time.
> 
> 😞


Three wives, out of wedlock child, inviting a Cpl to a clothing optional resort... Sounds like a swinger to me.


----------



## Retired AF Guy

Kirkhill said:


> I have no faith in Justin seeing the light.
> 
> On the other hand I have hopes for Chrystia Freeland, Anita Anand and most of this team


Still waiting for him to make a decision of Huawei. So why should we expect a decision o increased defense spending anytime soon?


----------



## suffolkowner

GR66 said:


> With a different leader/party in government I would have seen an excellent opportunity to re-open the Keystone XL pipeline project and the Energy East pipeline.
> 
> An agreement to meet our NATO commitment of 2% of GDP (and agreement to take part in the US BMD program) as the carrot for the US combined with a major PR campaign to secure ethical North-American sourced oil and gas for the US and Canada while energy prices are soaring, Russian oil is taboo and President Biden is taking heat for looking to enemy states (and "supposed allies not acting like friends during this crisis" states) Iran, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia and the UAE to take up the slack.
> 
> Sadly, this government never seems to miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.






YZT580 said:


> believe that congress already tried this and the democrats shot it down in flames



after the midterms President Biden will not be dictating too many policies IMO

never understood the Energy East project what is the benefit of switching from NG to oil, we already need to get NG out from the west as it is and it is under similar price pressures and constraints as the oil


----------



## daftandbarmy

dapaterson said:


> Three wives, out of wedlock child, inviting a Cpl to a clothing optional resort... Sounds like a swinger former CDS to me.



There, added a little history for you


----------



## MilEME09

'We've got to grow': Anand says CAF must recruit more troops amid heightened global uncertainty
					

National Defence Minister Anita Anand says there is an urgent need to attract more Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) personnel amid a 'clear and present' danger to the rules based international order.




					www.ctvnews.ca
				




MND says we need more recruits...and fast


----------



## Eagle_Eye_View

Getting new recruits without the means of equipping them is useless. It's a bigger problem than simply getting more recruits through the door, and don't even get me started on the lack of housing and accommodations on many bases.


----------



## MilEME09

TB said:


> Getting new recruits without the means of equipping them is useless. It's a bigger problem than simply getting more recruits through the door, and don't even get me started on the lack of housing and accommodations on many bases.


True but I think this also sends a signal our MND gives a crap, many of these issues are intertwinded and can't be tackled individually. The federal budget will be the big signal what direction we go.


----------



## Good2Golf

MilEME09 said:


> 'We've got to grow': Anand says CAF must recruit more troops amid heightened global uncertainty
> 
> 
> National Defence Minister Anita Anand says there is an urgent need to attract more Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) personnel amid a 'clear and present' danger to the rules based international order.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.ctvnews.ca
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MND says we need more recruits...and fast




Hope she doesn’t get fired for saying that…


----------



## rmc_wannabe

Anand is a smart politician. She's also very savvy in how logistics can bog down the best of plans (amazing how much that has been discovered in the past 2 years.)

My bet is that by announcing a recruiting push, she is also hinting that the infrastructure and equipment to back those numbers are going to be forthcoming as well.


----------



## suffolkowner

I'll believe it when I see it. Maybe this Russian action has shook the post modernist fairy tale world


----------



## Good2Golf

suffolkowner said:


> I'll believe it when I see it. Maybe this Russian action has shook the post modernist fairy tale world


JT’s breathy non-committal word-salads over in Europe should be enough of an indicator that it’ll be a cold day in Hell before there is any kind of mental shift in the current government’s thinking…


----------



## dimsum

Good2Golf said:


> JT’s breathy non-committal word-salads over in Europe should be enough of an indicator that it’ll be a cold day in Hell before there is any kind of mental shift in the current government’s thinking…


I'm just spitballing here, but I think that if the Deputy PM had her way based on the current situation, we'd probably pull a Germany right now.


----------



## MilEME09

dimsum said:


> I'm just spitballing here, but I think that if the Deputy PM had her way based on the current situation, we'd probably pull a Germany right now.


Some say she is having a lot more pull in cabinet these days over Ukraine


----------



## dimsum

MilEME09 said:


> Some say she is having a lot more pull in cabinet these days over Ukraine


Shouldn't she anyways as the D/PM?


----------



## daftandbarmy

Good2Golf said:


> JT’s breathy non-committal word-salads over in Europe should be enough of an indicator that it’ll be a cold day in Hell before there is any kind of mental shift in the current government’s thinking…



Don't discount the possibility of a split appearing between Liberal Doves and Hawks.

IIRC that the German invasions of 1939/40 tore a few ruling governments apart over similar disagreements. 

Which reminds me, I'll have to stock up on some fresh beer so I can be properly equipped to watch any potential upcoming internecine struggles!


----------



## Jarnhamar

Good2Golf said:


> JT’s breathy non-committal word-salads over in Europe should be enough of an indicator that it’ll be a cold day in Hell before there is any kind of mental shift in the current government’s thinking…


That's certainly something to reflect on.


----------



## Maxman1

daftandbarmy said:


> There, added a little history for you



Don't worry, we have a new CDS lined up. He's most definitely not three Corporals in a trench coat.


----------



## dapaterson

The wheels of government continue to churn.






						Orders In Council - Search
					

Orders In Council - Search




					orders-in-council.canada.ca


----------



## daftandbarmy

dapaterson said:


> The wheels of government continue to churn.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Orders In Council - Search
> 
> 
> Orders In Council - Search
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orders-in-council.canada.ca



'Churn'? More like 'Gallop' I would say...

That's a lightspeed OIC right there


----------



## PPCLI Guy

Good2Golf said:


> JT’s breathy non-committal word-salads over in Europe should be enough of an indicator that it’ll be a cold day in Hell before there is any kind of mental shift in the current government’s thinking…


Yup.  He is not hinting.  He firmly intends to make an announcement....4 times over 2 years...with no commottment, no decisions, no output, no "deliverology".

Sigh.

If only we were a real country


----------



## Remius

rmc_wannabe said:


> Anand is a smart politician. She's also very savvy in how logistics can bog down the best of plans (amazing how much that has been discovered in the past 2 years.)
> 
> My bet is that by announcing a recruiting push, she is also hinting that the infrastructure and equipment to back those numbers are going to be forthcoming as well.


I’m just glad we don’t have the architect of Medusa as minister right now


----------



## QV

dimsum said:


> I'm just spitballing here, but I think that if the Deputy PM had her way based on the current situation, we'd probably pull a Germany right now.


CF will not be much improvement over JT.


----------



## suffolkowner

Remius said:


> I’m just glad we don’t have the architect of Medusa as minister right now


curious if there will be an actual difference in performance and outcomes between the two and why exactly. Is ministerial performance a matter of competence or government priorties


----------



## Kirkhill

More fun with numbers

In 1866 Comms were established.  Toronto, Kingston,  Montreal, Quebec, St John, Halifax and St John's were all linked to London by telegraph.  Instantaneous communications.

In 1867 Confederation ties Toronto, Kingston, Montreal, Quebec, St John and Halifax.
1867 Canada takes over the pre-existing Departments of Public Works

1867 Canada completes Comms with Canada Post ( revenue generator now privatized and not a government endeavour)

1867 Canada secures borders and starts generating revenue by collecting customs and duties at its borders

1867 Canada secures coastal waters and fishing grounds out to the 3-Mile limit.

1868 Thmas D'Arcy McGee, MP, assassinated in Ottawa
1868 Canadian MPs establish the Dominion Police in response
1868 Canadian MPs reinvigorate the pre-existing Militia for the same reason

1871 International pressures and improved communications encourage the British Government to reduce the troop levels in Canada and quit its citadels at Quebec and Kingston and confine their efforts to securing naval stations at Halifax and Esquimalt
1871 Canada stands up two permanent batteries of artillery at Kingston and Quebec as replacements

1872 Comms between Toronto, Canada and Sydney, Australia established via the London, UK exchange when the London to Australia link completed

1873 Canada stands up the North West Mounted Police to secure Rupert's Land, bought from the HBC in 1869
1874 NWMP secures Canada's border territory up to Calgary, Alberta

1876 Canada establishes its own engineering focused Royal Military College at Kingston
1883  Canada establishes the Cavalry School Corps
1883  Canada establishes the Infantry School Corps
1885  Canada establishes the School of Mounted Infantry
1885  Canadian Pacific Railway joins the Pacific to the Atlantic at Craigellachie

1885 RN Esquimalt, BC linked to RN Sydney, Australia by way of RN Halifax, NS and the London UK HQ of the RN.

1902 RN Esquimalt connected by a direct link to RN Sydney, Australia.
1902 RN has instantaneous global wired comms with redundancy.
1902 Civilians benefit from the facility just as they benefited in earlier centuries from the Royal Mail  -  and they willingly paid for access to the service - revenue generator.

1905 Alberta and Saskatchewan spawned from the Northwest Territories that had been bought from the London registered Huguenot firm, the HBC.

1931 Canada gets its own foreign policy with the Westminster Statutes

The reason for the potted history?   I don't want any arguments about seniority when I post the following list. 


Engagement with the World

Global Affairs Canada - 12,503 FTE (Full Time Equivalents on the payroll)
Polar Knowledge - 95 FTE
CSA (Space Agency) - 787 FTE
CSE (Comms) - 2,752
DFO - CCG - 13,000 FTE
CBSA - 14,932 FTE
CIRNA (Northern Affairs) - 1,962 FTE


Internal Affairs

PWGSC - 17,106 FTE
PWGSC (Total DND seconded to PWGSC) - 19,336 FTE
PWGSC (DND seconded to PWGSC for Bases) - 16,493 FTE
PWGSC (DND seconded to PWGSC for Procurement) - 2,843 FTE
Transport Canada - 6,460 FTE
CTSB - 227 FTE
CTA - 187 FTE

Public Safety Canada - 1,200 FTE
CSIS - 3,200 FTE
NSIRA - 100 FTE
NSIC (Parliamentary) - 10 FTE
Office Int Comm - 10 FTE
RCMP Watchdogs - 110 FTE
Off Correctional Investigator - 41 FTE
PBC (Parole Board) - 512 FTE
CSC (Correctional Services) - 18,268 FTE

RCMP - 31,562 FTE

DND - Operational Forces - 3,078 FTE

DND - Ready Forces - 46,716 FTE

DND Defence Team - 18,059 FTE
DND Internal Services - 4,470 FTE
Future Force Design - 2,088 FTE
DND Staff in Total - 24,617 FTE


Or to look at it another way :

*Of the total DND allocation of people - 93,745 FTE*

DND in PWGSC - 19,336 FTE  (21% of Allocation)
DND Staff - 24,617 FTE (26% of Allocation)

Ready Forces - 46,716 FTE (50% of Allocation)

*Operational/Active/Deployed Forces - 3,078 FTE  (3% of Allocation)*


Is that all that the Government asks of DND?
Or is that all that DND can deliver?
Or is it one and the same?

I am going to suggest some untapped/under utilized resources.

Canadian Rangers (actually gainfully employed as an Observer Corps where the highways don't run) - 5,000 authorized
Primary Reserve (Part Time Paid Volunteers) - 28,500 authorized
Supplementary Reserve (Released but with skills) - 19,000 maybe

Veterans - 617,800 released soldiers
Not all of them are old, or unfit.
I suggest at least some of them are finding their way to Ukraine now.
Should the Supplementary Reserve List and the Veterans lists be melded to keep track of soldiers with skills that would be willing to volunteer when and if?

Militia Graduates - 313,500
28,500 Canadians serve with the Militia (Primary Reserve) for, on average, 3 years. Then they move on to other things.  Some join the Regs but what happens to the rest?
313,500 comes from all those Canadians that served in the Militia for 3 years, released at about age 22 and are still under the age of 55.

Cadets, including instructors and Junior Rangers -
Obviously I am not suggesting using these kids as Child Soldiers

But where do the 65,071 cadets in the system annually go once they have quit the Cadets after, again, about 3 years, once they discover boyfriends, girlfriends and cars at about age 15?

If a corps of 28,500 Primary Reservists generates a body of 313,500 people that have some military training and once upon a time were willing to consider soldiering

How many like minded individuals could be found from 65,071 cadets?  867,613.

*What useable skills could be found among 617,800 Veterans, 313,500 Militia Graduates and 867,613 ex Cadets?*

*A pool of 1,798,913.*

Are we sure there is no way to profitably engage as least some of that number and enhance, if not the Ready Force then perhaps the Supplementary List?  Maybe there is a way to engage some of that number in the skills that we see are needed in Ukraine but are not conventionally thought of as military skills.


Tortuous Ramble Ends....  🙃


----------



## Kirkhill

suffolkowner said:


> I'll believe it when I see it. Maybe this Russian action has shook the post modernist fairy tale world



Hope for the best. Prepare for the worst.


----------



## Kirkhill

daftandbarmy said:


> Don't discount the possibility of a split appearing between Liberal Doves and Hawks.
> 
> IIRC that the German invasions of 1939/40 tore a few ruling governments apart over similar disagreements.
> 
> Which reminds me, I'll have to stock up on some fresh beer so I can be properly equipped to watch any potential upcoming internecine struggles!



Nor the possibility that the well-meaning doves, can have a change of heart.  Especially if their basic beliefs are challenged.  

Sometimes converts, proverbially, end up "more Catholic than the Pope".

People are strange.


----------



## Remius

suffolkowner said:


> curious if there will be an actual difference in performance and outcomes between the two and why exactly. Is ministerial performance a matter of competence or government priorties


I would say competence over gvt priorities.  One can still be competent in a department despite gvt priorities.  And it would seem that the best  COA is to send your most competent types when something is a priority. The last thing we need is incompetence when something becomes a priority due to outside forces beyond our control.  

Strangely and by coincidence we got what appears to be a competent one exactly because fixing the CAF sexual misconduct and leadership issue  became a priority.   It just so happened that this crisis happened on her watch.  Lucky us.  Hopefully it will lead to some much needed changes but we’ll see.


----------



## Kirkhill

UK MINDEF wants to raise the budget from 2.3% of GDP to 3.5% to match the US.



> Britain should increase defence spending to the same level as the US, Jeremy Hunt has proposed, as he declared: “Peace comes from strength, not luck.”
> 
> Writing for The Telegraph, the former foreign secretary called the invasion of Ukraine “the biggest failure of Western foreign and security policy in our lifetimes”.
> 
> “It happened because we forgot the most fundamental lesson of the Cold War: the power of deterrence,” he said.
> 
> By “announcing they would not intervene” if Russia invaded Ukraine, the UK and US undercut their attempted deterrence, he argued.
> 
> “Instead of peace through strength we caused war through weakness,” he wrote.











						Jeremy Hunt calls for massive boost in UK defence spending
					

Writing for The Telegraph, former foreign secretary says peace comes from strength, not luck, as Russian invaders close in on Kyiv




					www.telegraph.co.uk


----------



## suffolkowner

Remius said:


> I would say competence over gvt priorities.  One can still be competent in a department despite gvt priorities.  And it would seem that the best  COA is to send your most competent types when something is a priority. The last thing we need is incompetence when something becomes a priority due to outside forces beyond our control.
> 
> Strangely and by coincidence we got what appears to be a competent one exactly because fixing the CAF sexual misconduct and leadership issue  became a priority.   It just so happened that this crisis happened on her watch.  Lucky us.  Hopefully it will lead to some much needed changes but we’ll see.


Hopefully were not reading too much into this. I fear the greatest impediment to any improvement will be the CAF itself and the CDS as it has been in the past


----------



## Halifax Tar

suffolkowner said:


> Hopefully were not reading too much into this. I fear the greatest impediment to any improvement will be the CAF itself and the CDS as it has been in the past



Agree.


----------



## Good2Golf

suffolkowner said:


> Hopefully were not reading too much into this. I fear the greatest impediment to any improvement will be the CAF itself and the CDS as it has been in the past


A contributing factor, to be sure, and primarily the battle between the relatively introspective environmental/service stovepipes and the joint force development trying to work the larger picture.  ECS can still have huge impact that can either help or hider the overall effort…

Whiiiiiich brings us to the Central Agencies…PCO (and PMO), TB(and TBS), PWGSC, Finance and to a lesser degree GAC and DOJ.  Anyone who thinks it’s all DND/CAF hasn’t spent weeks/months answering TBS stoplight question packages deliberately used to throttle DND’s progress and guide things the way the Board members (five of the most powerful Cabinet Members in Government) want (where, how much and when).  No one involved anywhere in the entire process should be getting a pass for good behaviour in procurement.


----------



## OldSolduer

suffolkowner said:


> I'll believe it when I see it. Maybe this Russian action has shook the post modernist fairy tale world


Same.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Good2Golf said:


> View attachment 69399
> 
> Hope she doesn’t get fired for saying that…


Make me a reasonable offer and maybe you could convince me to stay 😆, I'm thinking at least 50k retention bonus 🤣, maybe a little higher to account for inflationary pressures.

It isn't unreasonable seeing as how they spent $$$$$millions of dollars training me in different trades.  😁

I mean if Chrystia Freeland and co offered me enough money, they could even get me to set foot in 🇺🇦 but the money would need to make putting my neck on the line worth it.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Humphrey Bogart said:


> Make me a reasonable offer and maybe you could convince me to stay 😆, I'm thinking at least 50k retention bonus 🤣, maybe a little higher to account for inflationary pressures.
> 
> It isn't unreasonable seeing as how they spent $$$$$millions of dollars training me in different trades.  😁
> 
> *I mean if Chrystia Freeland and co offered me enough money, they could even get me to set foot in 🇺🇦 but the money would need to make putting my neck on the line worth it.*



Welcome to the private sector.

Your passionate, life story fulfilling project is worth exactly what you are willing to pay me to ensure that you can achieve it and not, like the other three times you tried, failing miserably. 

Meanwhile, I'll be over here working with other people who know what my services are worth


----------



## Furniture

Humphrey Bogart said:


> Make me a reasonable offer and maybe you could convince me to stay 😆, I'm thinking at least 50k retention bonus 🤣, maybe a little higher to account for inflationary pressures.
> 
> It isn't unreasonable seeing as how they spent $$$$$millions of dollars training me in different trades.  😁
> 
> I mean if Chrystia Freeland and co offered me enough money, they could even get me to set foot in 🇺🇦 but the money would need to make putting my neck on the line worth it.


I'm sure the "the CAF is paid extremely well for people with a high school education" responses will be coming shortly, as they always do. 

The eventual 1.5-2.5% per year pay increases, that will come in three years, will keep people around and happy... 

What I find interesting is that despite rising housing costs, nobody up the chain decided to look into building more/better barracks, apartments, and RHUs. It wasn't hard to see that eventually housing costs would reach a point that the average CAF member wouldn't be able to buy into the market if they weren't already in. Occupations are already facing issues with not being able to move people because they can't afford to live in the location we want them to go to.  Recruiting 50K more people won't help us if they all release within the first 4-5 years because we moved them places they can't afford to live.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Furniture said:


> I'm sure the "the CAF is paid extremely well for people with a high school education" responses will be coming shortly, as they always do.
> 
> The eventual 1.5-2.5% per year pay increases, that will come in three years, will keep people around and happy...
> 
> What I find interesting is that despite rising housing costs, nobody up the chain decided to look into building more/better barracks, apartments, and RHUs. It wasn't hard to see that eventually housing costs would reach a point that the average CAF member wouldn't be able to buy into the market if they weren't already in. Occupations are already facing issues with not being able to move people because they can't afford to live in the location we want them to go to.  Recruiting 50K more people won't help us if they all release within the first 4-5 years because we moved them places they can't afford to live.


The 50k resigning bonus is essentially a downpayment on a Condo where I live atm.  So I don't think it's even that unreasonable a request if they aren't going to be able to provide me with suitable accommodation 😎


----------



## MilEME09

Furniture said:


> I'm sure the "the CAF is paid extremely well for people with a high school education" responses will be coming shortly, as they always do.
> 
> The eventual 1.5-2.5% per year pay increases, that will come in three years, will keep people around and happy...
> 
> What I find interesting is that despite rising housing costs, nobody up the chain decided to look into building more/better barracks, apartments, and RHUs. It wasn't hard to see that eventually housing costs would reach a point that the average CAF member wouldn't be able to buy into the market if they weren't already in. Occupations are already facing issues with not being able to move people because they can't afford to live in the location we want them to go to.  Recruiting 50K more people won't help us if they all release within the first 4-5 years because we moved them places they can't afford to live.


Agreed, more PMQs, and apartment style barracks for single folks . We need to realize that the Canadian housing market needs to be out of the picture for CAF bases. We have tons of land, not the budget or the will.


----------



## Furniture

Humphrey Bogart said:


> The 50k resigning bonus is essentially a downpayment on a Condo where I live atm.  So I don't think it's even that unreasonable a request if they aren't going to be able to provide me with suitable accommodation 😎





MilEME09 said:


> Agreed, more PMQs, and apartment style barracks for single folks . We need to realize that the Canadian housing market needs to be out of the picture for CAF bases. We have tons of land, not the budget or the will.



I'm sure the CAF will create a new two star position to investigate possible solutions to retention, and get back to us all in 15-30 years.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Furniture said:


> I'm sure the CAF will create a new two star position to investigate possible solutions to retention, and get back to us all in 15-30 years.


That, unfortunately, is exactly what we do.


----------



## dimsum

Furniture said:


> What I find interesting is that despite rising housing costs, nobody up the chain decided to look into building more/better barracks, apartments, and RHUs.


Do those fall under DND/CAF specifically?  Is RP Ops or CFHA under the purview of the co-located base commander?  Specifically, can the military side of the chain even do anything about this?

I'm serious - last time I was at a Wing, the WComd said he would love to build more accommodations, but it wasn't his call.  Mind you, it was a while ago and I probably had a few drinks then, so I may have misheard.


----------



## MilEME09

dimsum said:


> Do those fall under DND/CAF specifically?  Is RP Ops or CFHA under the purview of the co-located base commander?  Specifically, can the military side of the chain even do anything about this?
> 
> I'm serious - last time I was at a Wing, the WComd said he would love to build more accommodations, but it wasn't his call.  Mind you, it was a while ago and I probably had a few drinks then, so I may have misheard.


My understanding is infrastructure is under one organization, same with housing, which has been under funded.


----------



## rmc_wannabe

MilEME09 said:


> My understanding is infrastructure is under one organization, same with housing, which has been under funded.


_CFSCE has entered the chat_

Can confirm


----------



## Furniture

dimsum said:


> Do those fall under DND/CAF specifically?  Is RP Ops or CFHA under the purview of the co-located base commander?  Specifically, can the military side of the chain even do anything about this?
> 
> I'm serious - last time I was at a Wing, the WComd said he would love to build more accommodations, but it wasn't his call.  Mind you, it was a while ago and I probably had a few drinks then, so I may have misheard.


To be fair, I haven't looked into the ARAs for CAF housing, but it is something we have allowed to atrophy to a point that it no longer meets the needs of the CAF. 

That's all the HQ speak I can muster on a Saturday, after a week of leave.


----------



## MilEME09

Furniture said:


> To be fair, I haven't looked into the ARAs for CAF housing, but it is something we have allowed to atrophy to a point that it no longer meets the needs of the CAF.
> 
> That's all the HQ speak I can muster on a Saturday, after a week of leave.


Does anything we have meet our needs any more? Other then the over abundance of HQs


----------



## Furniture

MilEME09 said:


> Does anything we have meet our needs any more? Other then the over abundance of HQs


BOOTFORGEN... entirely because it is the least bureaucratic thing we do WRT kitting out our people.


----------



## ballz

I have been saying for a long time that I would not give the CAF any additional money until it sorts itself out.

In saying that, legislation needs to be passed to give the DND it's own set of contracting rules. Perhaps the TB already has the authority and doesn't need any additional legislation to write that policy, if so, great, time to get on with it. The DND, namely our GOFOs, needs to advocate for this. I don't understand what motivates them to want such esteemed position if it's not to try and influence change for the better... surely it couldn't be all of these pet project COMREL activities, or perhaps that's all it is. This would be such a win for any serving government to implement, I really don't see the downside.

Regarding money, even with the crappy contracting rules, we have no excuse for what we've done to ourselves and just need to admit institutional incompetence - and the root cause of that is individual incompetence. The internal auditors (ADM Review Services) has routinely roasted the CAF for it's inability to manage money and like always, we keep tasking the people who created the god damn mess with fixing it instead of firing them and hiring someone competent.



Furniture said:


> I'm sure the CAF will create a new two star position to investigate possible solutions to retention, and get back to us all in 15-30 years.



No doubt that 2-star was one of the direct causes of the retention issues we've had. See above point about tasking people who create the problem with fixing it.



Furniture said:


> BOOTFORGEN... entirely because it is the least bureaucratic thing we do WRT kitting out our people.



Yup. Easily one of the best things we did, and even still there are people within the CAF that manage to fuck it up by inserting their own incompetence.


----------



## rmc_wannabe

ballz said:


> I have been saying for a long time that I would not give the CAF any additional money until it sorts itself out.
> 
> In saying that, legislation needs to be passed to give the DND it's own set of contracting rules. Perhaps the TB already has the authority and doesn't need any additional legislation to write that policy, if so, great, time to get on with it. The DND, namely our GOFOs, needs to advocate for this. I don't understand what motivates them to want such esteemed position if it's not to try and influence change for the better... surely it couldn't be all of these pet project COMREL activities, or perhaps that's all it is. This would be such a win for any serving government to implement, I really don't see the downside.
> 
> Regarding money, even with the crappy contracting rules, we have no excuse for what we've done to ourselves and just need to admit institutional incompetence - and the root cause of that is individual incompetence. The internal auditors (ADM Review Services) has routinely roasted the CAF for it's inability to manage money and like always, we keep tasking the people who created the god damn mess with fixing it instead of firing them and hiring someone competent.
> 
> (BOOTFORGEN) Easily one of the best things we did, and even still there are people within the CAF that manage to fuck it up by inserting their own incompetence.


Agree on all points. 

We should be identifying the need and sourcing the solution within DND. That should take no longer than 12 months. TB keeps us accountable. Defense Procurement cuts the cheque.

At no point should political considerations take part in the process.


----------



## Furniture

ballz said:


> Regarding money, even with the crappy contracting rules, we have no excuse for what we've done to ourselves and just need to admit institutional incompetence - and the root cause of that is individual incompetence. The internal auditors (ADM Review Services) has routinely roasted the CAF for it's inability to manage money and like always, we keep tasking the people who created the god damn mess with fixing it instead of firing them and hiring someone competent.


One of our biggest problems with competence is we churn through people so fast in key positions that they never learn how to actually do their job. On top of that, we cut positions down to the point that we need each person we have to be marginally competent at several jobs, rather than being an expert in one. 

While it's great that we have "well rounded" leaders, we achieved it at the expense of having experts.


----------



## Good2Golf

rmc_wannabe said:


> Agree on all points.
> 
> We should be identifying the need and sourcing the solution within DND. That should take no longer than 12 months. TB keeps us accountable. Defense Procurement cuts the cheque.


‘Defen(c)e Procurement?’

As in what particular organization in the GoC, do you mean?

In reality, for some lower risk projects, DND is permitted by TB to internally (Ministerially) approve expenditure of some allocated funds and work direct with PSPC to contract said projects within that Department’s contracting authority.  Otherwise, it absolutely is Treasury Board’s approvals that grant both Expenditure Authority (EA) and Contracting Authority (CA) to DND and PSPC, respectively, for major capital projects deemed beyond the departments’ ability to self-approve. 



rmc_wannabe said:


> At no point should political considerations take part in the process.



Hmmm.

Okay, let’s try this approach…the military is under civilian control in Canada.  Civilian control is represented directly by Parliament. Parliament does indeed have political consideration to its business of representing Canadians. 

Thus, procurement will absolutely have political considerations.


----------



## Kirkhill

MilEME09 said:


> My understanding is infrastructure is under one organization, same with housing, which has been under funded.



Why is that a defence issue at all?  Why isn't that purely a PWGSC/PSPC matter?


----------



## dimsum

Kirkhill said:


> Why is that a defence issue at all?  Why isn't that purely a PWGSC/PSPC matter?


And following onto that, why would PSPC care about the DND/CAF requirement for buildings?

From PSPC's perspective, DND accommodations must be so far down the priority list that I'd be shocked they even consider it at all.  

It sucks for us in this forum because we are (or know) people affected by this, but I would be shocked if the average Canadian would care about something that affects about 300k people (and that's generous) throughout the country.  

I'm not saying it's not a valid complaint, I'm saying that most civilians in Canada wouldn't care.


----------



## rmc_wannabe

Good2Golf said:


> ‘Defen(c)e Procurement?’
> 
> As in what particular organization in the GoC, do you mean?
> 
> In reality, for some lower risk projects, DND is permitted by TB to internally (Ministerially) approve expenditure of some allocated funds and work direct with PSPC to contract said projects within that Department’s contracting authority.  Otherwise, it absolutely is Treasury Board’s approvals that grant both Expenditure Authority (EA) and Contracting Authority (CA) to DND and PSPC, respectively, for major capital projects deemed beyond the departments’ ability to self-approve.
Click to expand...

I have largely felt that large capital projects are stymied because of PSPC. A lot of the time, we lose the initiative due to using the wrong tool for the job. Splitting PSPC into a separate department that focuses solely on Defence Procurment is a solution worth looking into


Good2Golf said:


> Hmmm.
> 
> Okay, let’s try this approach…the military is under civilian control in Canada.  Civilian control is represented directly by Parliament. Parliament does indeed have political consideration to its business of representing Canadians.
> 
> Thus, procurement will absolutely have political considerations.
Click to expand...

While I agree with civilian oversight of the military, I don't believe that Defence spending should ever be used for vote buying or partisanship. The amount of time, money, and capabilities that have been wasted due to "it was the last guy's project...not mine" is criminal and has crippled our operational effectiveness. 

If we were a grown up country, we would make defence a non-partisan issue. Sadly we aren't and we see the "No buying F-35s...." scenario play out every election cycle.


----------



## Kirkhill

dimsum said:


> And following onto that, why would PSPC care about the DND/CAF requirement for buildings?
> 
> From PSPC's perspective, DND accommodations must be so far down the priority list that I'd be shocked they even consider it at all.
> 
> It sucks for us in this forum because we are (or know) people affected by this, but I would be shocked if the average Canadian would care about something that affects about 300k people (and that's generous) throughout the country.
> 
> I'm not saying it's not a valid complaint, I'm saying that most civilians in Canada wouldn't care.



Check out the number of departments whose Plans and Priorities include a revenue stream. 

Servicemen get a living allowance together with a salary.
They get to spend that allowance wherever they like.
PWGSC-PSPC can tap into that revenue stream - if they treat their customers right.

It is the Charter School argument.
If the kids are ordered to  a school the quality of the school sucks.
If the kids are free to go to a school of their choice, and take their money with them, the quality of the school drastically increases.

Same for Doctors and health care.

If PSPC saw a viable revenue stream from serving members, the same as it sees from the tenants in its office portfolio, I believe it would be encouraged to act in mutual best interest.


----------



## kev994

MilEME09 said:


> Does anything we have meet our needs any more? Other then the over abundance of HQs


Actually, I’d argue that no one in there has any idea whose got the authority to do anything, since they all just took over this APS and never got a handover, so the whole place is just a matrix of COAs and indecision.


----------



## Good2Golf

rmc_wannabe said:


> I have largely felt that large capital projects are stymied because of PSPC. A lot of the time, we lose the initiative due to using the wrong tool for the job. Splitting PSPC into a separate department that focuses solely on Defence Procurment is a solution worth looking into


If you meant the Defence Procurement Strategy (& Secretariat) then I’d agree with you. The DSP construct was IMO yet another example of trying to improve a system/process by adding additional process, checkpoints and layers of interference approval to the way things were procured, I’m the same way that government thinks that a Royal Commission will always get to the bottom of things and improve them
For the next time…then I’ll agree with you. 

If you mean the actual non-DPS(S) organization, I’d beg to differ.   Working several MCPs, I found working with PSPC directly (not the ‘we’re here to help and make things ‘easier’’ overhead, but key working members at the ADM/DG/ExFir/Dir level) to be a positive experience, they were sincerely committed to helping DND acquire capability it needs. 

As a general rule…”more process” in and of itself doesn’t improve things. 


rmc_wannabe said:


> While I agree with civilian oversight of the military, I don't believe that Defence spending should ever be used for vote buying or partisanship. The amount of time, money, and capabilities that have been wasted due to "it was the last guy's project...not mine" is criminal and has crippled our operational effectiveness.
> 
> If we were a grown up country, we would make defence a non-partisan issue. Sadly we aren't and we see the "No buying F-35s...." scenario play out every election cycle.


This I totally agree with you.  Defence should have general agreement by all of government that is based on something like a Defence policy and a task and capability based plan that is agreed by ALL of Parliament, not just a timely-costed glossy brochure like SSE.  It should transcend Governments and refreshed on a regular basis, again by whole of Parliament, vice being used as a target to help balance outrageous promises in other areas as is want to happen.


----------



## daftandbarmy

rmc_wannabe said:


> Agree on all points.
> 
> We should be identifying the need and sourcing the solution within DND. That should take no longer than 12 months. TB keeps us accountable. Defense Procurement cuts the cheque.
> 
> *At no point should political considerations take part in the process.*



Like every other major spending decision made by the Federal government, right?


----------



## Kirkhill

Good2Golf said:


> As a general rule…”more process” in and of itself doesn’t improve things.



Carve that in stone over the doors of every government building.

If you can't figure it out after 3 iterations you can't figure it out.  Move on!


----------



## McG

dimsum said:


> From PSPC's perspective, DND accommodations must be so far down the priority list that I'd be shocked they even consider it at all.


Living accommodations should be a DCC problem, not PSPC.


----------



## Halifax Tar

I like the idea of letting the CAF govern its own procurement, I really do.

But right now I cant trust LT(N) HoDs to manage a small department budget correctly without going broke in the first 4 months of the FA.  

Couple this with the fact that that LT(N) won't be held accountable for the fiscal mismanagement and will likely get promoted I will firmly place my feet on the side that says the CAF is a petulant child who will blow it's allowance on mechanix gloves and multi tools if left to its own devices, and definitely requires adults to manage its shekels.

To sum up, great idea.  But no.


----------



## PuckChaser

McG said:


> Living accommodations should be a DCC problem, not PSPC.


Good thing DCC sucks just as bad as PSPC at their job then...


----------



## SeaKingTacco

PuckChaser said:


> Good thing DCC sucks just as bad as PSPC at their job then...


Depends where you are. I had really, really good luck with a small DCC cell, out west.


----------



## PuckChaser

As you get closer to the common sense blackhole of the NCR, I think things get worse


----------



## Halifax Tar

We can yell and scream at the TBS and PSPC all we want but the first step to fixing this is showing we are good fiscal managers with what we have now.  

I don't blame TBS and PSPC when I see the shit we pull all the time.  The problem is us.


----------



## MilEME09

Halifax Tar said:


> We can yell and scream at the TBS and PSPC all we want but the first step to fixing this is showing we are good fiscal managers with what we have now.
> 
> I don't blame TBS and PSPC when I see the shit we pull all the time.  The problem is us.


You'd think with all these finance officer's, we would be good at it


----------



## dapaterson

CAF finance officers are trained as budget managers, not accountants.  Most would be hard pressed to discuss why there is a chart of accounts and what it represents; are poor at differentiating between the four votes used by DND/CAF; and receive little to no formal training on the mechanics of government which is a sine qua non at the more senior levels (LCol+).  A finance officer who can't discuss Main Estimates, Supplementary Estimates, and the Annual Reference Level Update isn't a finance officer.


----------



## kev994

dapaterson said:


> CAF finance officers are trained as budget managers, not accountants.  Most would be hard pressed to discuss why there is a chart of accounts and what it represents; are poor at differentiating between the four votes used by DND/CAF; and receive little to no formal training on the mechanics of government which is a sine qua non at the more senior levels (LCol+).  A finance officer who can't discuss Main Estimates, Supplementary Estimates, and the Annual Reference Level Update isn't a finance officer.


I was recently shocked to find out they do zero training in procurement. Explains why they keep talking about multiple quotes for Standing Offers.


----------



## dapaterson

There is sometimes confusion between Standing Offers and Supply Arrangements.

More fun is when a unit is geographically dispersed, and supported by multiple RDAOs, each of which has a different interpretation of the rules that they inflict.  Requiring a LCol CO to report back on why that terrible, terrible Sgt Mat Mgt Tech doesn't have three quotes on hand after spending $9 on batteries is clearly an optimal use of everyone's time, right?


----------



## Halifax Tar

MilEME09 said:


> You'd think with all these finance officer's, we would be good at it



You have no idea how many times I have had or have witnessed LogOs get completely disregarded because the NWO or Inf O just didn't think they needed to follow that monetary or procurement policy. 

And again, it gets picked up on the compliance inspection and it's all giggles and back slaps and don't do it again Billy tehehehe.


----------



## Halifax Tar

dapaterson said:


> There is sometimes confusion between Standing Offers and Supply Arrangements.
> 
> More fun is when a unit is geographically dispersed, and supported by multiple RDAOs, each of which has a different interpretation of the rules that they inflict.  Requiring a LCol CO to report back on why that terrible, terrible Sgt Mat Mgt Tech doesn't have three quotes on hand after spending $9 on batteries is clearly an optimal use of everyone's time, right?



I understand you're point but generally you don't need three quotes for a 9$ PReq.


----------



## Halifax Tar

kev994 said:


> I was recently shocked to find out they do zero training in procurement. Explains why they keep talking about multiple quotes for Standing Offers.



There is serious debate around this.  Before I went on this French course I conducted Supply compliance inspections on ships and we had two civilian auditors who looked after procurement.  Magnificently detailed people. 

I will tell you they read the FAM/PAM to state that SOA or not the quotes matrix must be followed. 

It's the first Sunday of my March break so I don't have their references.  But I too questioned it.


----------



## MilEME09

Halifax Tar said:


> You have no idea how many times I have had or have witnessed LogOs get completely disregarded because the NWO or Inf O just didn't think they needed to follow that monetary or procurement policy.
> 
> And again, it gets picked up on the compliance inspection and it's all giggles and back slaps and don't do it again Billy tehehehe.


Sounds like a FinO needs a bit more power to prevent stuff from going ahead if policy isn't followed.


----------



## dapaterson

Halifax Tar said:


> I understand you're point but generally you don't need three quotes for a 9$ PReq.


Oh, believe me, I know.  The RDAO, on the other hand, had a different opinion.


----------



## Halifax Tar

MilEME09 said:


> Sounds like a FinO needs a bit more power to prevent stuff from going ahead if policy isn't followed.



No, people need to be held accountable for misuse of public funds.  

Can't manage your units budge and procurement, doesn't sound to me like your ready for that next step.  Back in the pool you go Billy.

The truth is we don't take Logistics/Procurement seriously.  And we refuse to let operators and operations fail because of their disregard of Logistics.  It's a vicious cycle.


----------



## MilEME09

Halifax Tar said:


> No, people need to be held accountable for misuse of public funds.
> 
> Can't manage your units budge and procurement, doesn't sound to me like your ready for that next step.  Back in the pool you go Billy.
> 
> The truth is we don't take Logistics/Procurement seriously.  And we refuse to let operators and operations fail because of their disregard of Logistics.  It's a vicious cycle.


I would argue we do not let anyone fail, but I agree there is a culture of lacking accountability for anything that doesn't cause injury or death in the majority of situations. If you can't handle tax payer money properly, you shouldn't have access to it.


----------



## rmc_wannabe

A lot of it has to do with the general ignorance of fiscal policy and the "how to acquire" for specific items. This is across the CAF and is both a NCO/Officer problem.

I have had to walk Project Management officers through sub unit ITI processes.

How are they supposed to advise higher level commanders on acquiring capabilities, when they don't know how to get a monitor life cycled? 

You can talk about the product delivery and outcomes til you're blue in the face, but if you don't have an understanding of what's already on standing offer or is a LCMM item...you look foolish.


----------



## Remius

ADM Mat runs basic procurement, complex procurement and bid evaluation courses etc etc. The issue is that those courses were so poorly maintained because the technical authority for those courses didn’t commit the time or energy to keep them up to date and was a secondary task.  So when basic procurement could no longer be taught due to outdated course material it had a trickle on effect.  Basically leaving this stuff to OJT.  And that can lead to skill gaps depending on who is providing the OJT. 

Not sure if they’ve managed to fix those courses or what not but it was a problem a few years ago.


----------



## kev994

Halifax Tar said:


> There is serious debate around this.  Before I went on this French course I conducted Supply compliance inspections on ships and we had two civilian auditors who looked after procurement.  Magnificently detailed people.
> 
> I will tell you they read the FAM/PAM to state that SOA or not the quotes matrix must be followed.
> 
> It's the first Sunday of my March break so I don't have their references.  But I too questioned it.


🤯 I thought the whole point is that the negotiations/price comparisons had already been done. Just when I thought I knew what I was doing….


----------



## Halifax Tar

kev994 said:


> 🤯 I thought the whole point is that the negotiations/price comparisons had already been done. Just when I thought I knew what I was doing….



I mean clear, no interpretation needed instructions would be nice too.  

I get it.  I was shocked too.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Furniture said:


> BOOTFORGEN... entirely because it is the least bureaucratic thing we do WRT kitting out our people.



And probably also Logistik Unicorp.

If there was only a way to provide the same type of service for field kit as well...


----------



## MilEME09

daftandbarmy said:


> And probably also Logistik Unicorp.
> 
> If there was only a way to provide the same type of service for field kit as well...


Hopefully the Russo-Ukrainian War is a wake up call that we can't take our sweet a** time any more, time to kick things into high gear. Select a fighter jet, if possible cut steel on the CSC, more LAVs, etc....


----------



## dangerboy

daftandbarmy said:


> And probably also Logistik Unicorp.
> 
> If there was only a way to provide the same type of service for field kit as well...


They are working on it: Operational Clothing & Footwear (OCFC2) (W8486-206245/A) - Buyandsell.gc.ca



> 1.2.1 Summary Background
> The Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) is responsible for protecting Canada and defending its sovereignty, defending North America and contributing to international peace and security. To carry out their responsibilities, CAF members must be equipped with operational clothing and footwear (OCF) that provides the necessary protection and operational mobility to conduct daily operations anywhere in the world.
> 
> OCFC2 builds on the existing Consolidated Clothing Contract (C3) model operating in DND today for dress and occupational / environment uniform commodities, offering assurance of a tried and proven business model which has evolved through the last 20 years.
> 
> For all items stipulated under contract, a prime vendor would be responsible for their acquisition, as well as inventory and distribution management and other services. This managed clothing solution (MCS) provides for the opportunity to develop a direct delivery system between the contractor and the individual military member. In addition, OCFC2 will allow for lower contract management and administrative overhead, lower inventory, improved acquisition cycles, improved response times for corrective actions and product improvement while allowing the apparel, textile and footwear industries to remain competitive, innovative and responsive.
> 
> 1.2.2 Brief Description
> 
> The MCS will provide end-to-end management of the DND supply chain for Operational Clothing and Footwear (OCF), from acquisition and/or manufacturing to inventory management to distribution. It will include professional and design services as well as configuration management.
> 
> The successful bidder will supply DND with a complete supply chain management approach that encompasses program management services, professional services, manufacturing, warehousing and inventory management, order processing and management, and distribution and delivery.
> 
> The MCS will also provide an online Order Management System (OMS) for use by Authorized Users who will order items for Direct Delivery to the address of their choice.
> 
> National and international deliveries may be required by the successful Bidder; destinations will only be specified at time of order.


----------



## daftandbarmy

MilEME09 said:


> Hopefully the Russo-Ukrainian War is a wake up call that we can't take our sweet a** time any more, time to kick things into high gear. Select a fighter jet, if possible cut steel on the CSC, more LAVs, etc....



This article, from 2019, is illuminating and probably reflects the fact that all political parties are more focused on what will get them votes, which means that defence is on the back burner. Even now, with Russia killing Ukrainians on a daily basis, the politicians are using various weasel words to avoid sound too 'martial'.

The problem isn't the politicians IMHO, it's that Canadians don't care about defence.

For example, Roosevelt struggled to get the US involved in WW2 and it wasn't until Pearl Harbour, when the public were galvanized to enter the war against Japan 2 years after the Germans invaded Poland, that he was able to act on public sentiments. And they still had to wait until Germany declared war on the US to enter the fight against Germany.

We might see similar dynamics play out here:

Amid global unrest, Canada's political parties say little about security, defence​
In order to know what most of the major parties think about the uncertain state of the world, and Canada's place in it, you have to dig — _really _dig — to find it.

The ideas, solutions and proposals around security and defence from the Liberals, New Democrats and the Green Party  are buried, in some cases, at the very back of their platform documents. The Conservatives released their detailed platform plank on Tuesday.

The relative positioning of the policy pitches  — along with the dearth of debate about the turbulence beyond the country's borders — has alarmed defence policy experts who say now is not the time for politics as usual.

"This is the time we need the clearest, most strategic thinking since the end of the Second World War, in terms of how we do Canadian security," said Rob Huebert, a defence expert at the University of Calgary. "It is not an exaggeration to say we are on the cusp of the most dangerous geopolitical environment we've seen in our lifetime."



			https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/fed-elxn-world-1.5303672


----------



## daftandbarmy

dangerboy said:


> They are working on it: Operational Clothing & Footwear (OCFC2) (W8486-206245/A) - Buyandsell.gc.ca


----------



## Halifax Tar

dangerboy said:


> They are working on it: Operational Clothing & Footwear (OCFC2) (W8486-206245/A) - Buyandsell.gc.ca



So many issues putting operational kit in a system like Logistics Unicorps.  Who by the way is out if stock of just about everything it seems.  Good thing it's just buttons and bows. 

I'd be interested to know how it runs returns.  And draws items back items as entitlement expires.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Halifax Tar said:


> So many issues putting operational kit in a system like Logistics Unicorps.  Who by the way is out if stock of just about everything it seems.
> 
> Imagine if that was ruck sacks, helmets and tacvests.



Kids around the world are ordering similar items from Amazon etc on a daily basis these days, I don't know why we can't make that happen for 'non-weapon' type products.


----------



## Halifax Tar

daftandbarmy said:


> Kids around the world are ordering similar items from Amazon etc on a daily basis these days, I don't know why we can't make that happen for 'non-weapon' type products.



Mark my words if those goes through its going to be a disaster if it's anything more than combats and NCDs.


----------



## kev994

daftandbarmy said:


> Kids around the world are ordering similar items from Amazon etc on a daily basis these days, I don't know why we can't make that happen for 'non-weapon' type products.


I remember a loadmaster ~10 years ago who refused to buy his own knee pads, and couldn’t be issued them because they weren’t on his SOI. So he would stop by supply a couple times a week and trade in the pants that he wore the knees out on during his last flight. I can’t imagine an online system that could keep up with this.


----------



## Kirkhill

Justin Trudeau hints at boosting Canada’s military spending
					

Justin Trudeau hints at boosting Canada’s military spending  Canada says it will look at increasing its defence spending and tacked on 10 more Russian names to an ever growing sanctions list.  By Tonda MacCharles Ottawa Bureau Mon., March 7, 2022  Riga, LATVIA—On the 13th day of the brutal...




					army.ca
				






Priorities, man! Priorities!

(I still suck at this quoting others bit - meant as response to D&B on Canadian Interest).


----------



## dimsum

kev994 said:


> I remember a loadmaster ~10 years ago who refused to buy his own knee pads, and couldn’t be issued them because they weren’t on his SOI.


The person(s) who wrote the SOI for LMs clearly don't know what LMs do.  How do you update them, aside from the UCR route?


----------



## Halifax Tar

dimsum said:


> The person(s) who wrote the SOI for LMs clearly don't know what LMs do.  How do you update them, aside from the UCR route?



Every SOI has an OPI.  It's right on the cover page.  That's step one.  They can take you from there.


----------



## Blackadder1916

A snapshot comparison with selected NATO partners.

The numbers are as provided in this NATO document https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/2021/6/pdf/210611-pr-2021-094-en.pdf  and I've focused on the members whose defense spending for 2021 (estimated) exceeds $10 billion.

The columns are: defense expenditures in millions (all amounts USD); real GDP in billions and the percentage of def expenditure;  the per capita GDP and per capita def expenditure;  number of military pers;  the last four columns are the percentage of def expenditure for "equipment", "personnel", "infrastructure", and "other" as defined in the linked document - "other" is primarily defined as "O&M".


CountryDef Exped
(millions)GDP (billions)
/ % def expPer capita
GDP / def expPers #Eqpt %Pers %Infstr %Other %Canada26,5231,697 / 1.3944,100 / 63271.117.6647.53.3231.52France58,7292,534 / 2.0137,400 / 751208.027.842.533.0226.65Germany64,7853,521 / 1.5342,200 /  644189.118.5541.753.6936.06Italy29,7631,821 / 1.4130,500 / 428174.228.960.541.678.89Netherlands14,378828 / 1.4547,100 / 68540.826.247.263.2623.28Poland13,369575 / 2.1015,000 / 314121.226.147.924.9721.01Spain14,8751,250 / 1.0226,200 / 267123.922.7560.120.7316.41Turkey13,0571,073 / 1.5712,700 / 199445.429.0552.471.9516.53United Kingdom72,7653,014 / 2.2944,700 / 1,023156.224.2632.691.4241.64United States811,14020,601 / 3.5262,100 / 2,1861351.529.3537.471.5831.59

One item that caught my attention is the percentage allocated to "personnel" and the difference between the UK and USA numbers compared to the others.


----------



## daftandbarmy

kev994 said:


> I remember a loadmaster ~10 years ago who refused to buy his own knee pads, and couldn’t be issued them because they weren’t on his SOI. So he would stop by supply a couple times a week and trade in the pants that he wore the knees out on during his last flight. I can’t imagine an online system that could keep up with this.



Would an organization that can deliver 4.2 billion packages annually, world wide, be able to keep up?

Amazon now ships more parcels than FedEx​
For years, three companies — FedEx, UPS and the U.S. Postal Service — have controlled nearly the entire last-mile delivery market in the U.S. But a new report suggests that Amazon, through its shipping arm Amazon Logistics, is no longer a marginal threat to these companies — it has, in fact, begun shipping more parcels than FedEx, and is nearly at the shipping levels of UPS.

According to data from Pitney Bowes, a technology company focused on shipping and postage, Amazon is now one of the top deliverers of parcel shipments — meaning boxes and packages delivered to people’s homes. In 2020, Amazon Logistics delivered 4.2 billion parcel shipments, up from 1.9 billion in 2019. It now makes up, by volume, 21% of the parcel shipments in the U.S., behind the USPS (38%) and UPS (24%) but ahead of FedEx for the first time (16%).









						Amazon now ships more parcels than FedEx
					

Amazon Logistics has begun shipping more parcels than FedEx, and is nearly at the shipping levels of UPS.




					www.modernretail.co


----------



## MilEME09

Amazon.mil.ca coming soon?


----------



## Gunnar

MilEME09 said:


> Amazon.mil.ca coming soon?


Plus, if you subscribe to Amazon Prime, you can get ammo, maintenance and much much more!


----------



## Halifax Tar

daftandbarmy said:


> Would an organization that can deliver 4.2 billion packages annually, world wide, be able to keep up?
> 
> Amazon now ships more parcels than FedEx​
> For years, three companies — FedEx, UPS and the U.S. Postal Service — have controlled nearly the entire last-mile delivery market in the U.S. But a new report suggests that Amazon, through its shipping arm Amazon Logistics, is no longer a marginal threat to these companies — it has, in fact, begun shipping more parcels than FedEx, and is nearly at the shipping levels of UPS.
> 
> According to data from Pitney Bowes, a technology company focused on shipping and postage, Amazon is now one of the top deliverers of parcel shipments — meaning boxes and packages delivered to people’s homes. In 2020, Amazon Logistics delivered 4.2 billion parcel shipments, up from 1.9 billion in 2019. It now makes up, by volume, 21% of the parcel shipments in the U.S., behind the USPS (38%) and UPS (24%) but ahead of FedEx for the first time (16%).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amazon now ships more parcels than FedEx
> 
> 
> Amazon Logistics has begun shipping more parcels than FedEx, and is nearly at the shipping levels of UPS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.modernretail.co



Not what we need.  We need vast quantities of stores in the right places gathering dust and waiting to be used.  

This, like LUC is great for the niceties like DEUs I'd even say CADPAT and NCDs but for operational kit this is a mistake.


----------



## ballz

dapaterson said:


> CAF finance officers are trained as budget managers, not accountants.  Most would be hard pressed to discuss why there is a chart of accounts and what it represents; are poor at differentiating between the four votes used by DND/CAF; and receive little to no formal training on the mechanics of government which is a sine qua non at the more senior levels (LCol+).  A finance officer who can't discuss Main Estimates, Supplementary Estimates, and the Annual Reference Level Update isn't a finance officer.



Way to open up my old wounds. I was writing a big long post in response to this, and then remembered that part of releasing was that I would leave the utter catastrophe that is CAF finance behind me so I just deleted it all. Suffice to say, your first sentence is too generous, and I don't agree with the last sentence.

And then your subsequent posts on RDAOs triggered me. We might as well just get rid of national policies / documents like the FAMs and have Base SOPs, since the CDAO's failure actually supervise RDAOs has just led to having to re-learn every rule every time you are posted to a new RDAO's AO, or a new RDAO is posted in, or a new RDAO staff member is posted in... in other words, try to re-learn everything, every year.

Can't wait to go to work tomorrow and be surrounded by competence.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Halifax Tar said:


> Not what we need.  *We need vast quantities of stores in the right places gathering dust and waiting to be used*.
> 
> This, like LUC is great for the niceties like DEUs I'd even say CADPAT and NCDs but for operational kit this is a mistake.



Until they're obsolete, and we can't get rid of them anyways so they just sit there taking up resources for nothing, right?


----------



## Underway

daftandbarmy said:


> This article, from 2019, is illuminating and probably reflects the fact that all political parties are more focused on what will get them votes, which means that defence is on the back burner. Even now, with Russia killing Ukrainians on a daily basis, the politicians are using various weasel words to avoid sound too 'martial'.
> 
> The problem isn't the politicians IMHO, it's that Canadians don't care about defence.
> 
> For example, Roosevelt struggled to get the US involved in WW2 and it wasn't until Pearl Harbour, when the public were galvanized to enter the war against Japan 2 years after the Germans invaded Poland, that he was able to act on public sentiments. And they still had to wait until Germany declared war on the US to enter the fight against Germany.
> 
> We might see similar dynamics play out here:
> 
> Amid global unrest, Canada's political parties say little about security, defence​
> In order to know what most of the major parties think about the uncertain state of the world, and Canada's place in it, you have to dig — _really _dig — to find it.
> 
> The ideas, solutions and proposals around security and defence from the Liberals, New Democrats and the Green Party  are buried, in some cases, at the very back of their platform documents. The Conservatives released their detailed platform plank on Tuesday.
> 
> The relative positioning of the policy pitches  — along with the dearth of debate about the turbulence beyond the country's borders — has alarmed defence policy experts who say now is not the time for politics as usual.
> 
> "This is the time we need the clearest, most strategic thinking since the end of the Second World War, in terms of how we do Canadian security," said Rob Huebert, a defence expert at the University of Calgary. "It is not an exaggeration to say we are on the cusp of the most dangerous geopolitical environment we've seen in our lifetime."
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/fed-elxn-world-1.5303672


Here's the rub.  We don't _need_ clear thinking at all about defense.  We can continue to muddle on with no understanding of geopolitics and have no defense budget because we are likely the only place in the world that only fights in wars because we _want_ too. 

Since 1812 there hasn't been a single conflict that we entered that wasn't essentially voluntary. Boer War and WW1 we were roped in because of Empire obligations but really we didn't have to go if we didn't want to.  And every single conflict since has been more and more voluntary.

We have no existential threats.  We have no enemies.  We have no external continental interests which _require_ us to fight a war (aka are so critical to national interests we have to spend treasure and blood to ensure they continue as they are).  All that is taken care of by the US.  So as long as we don't mind them paying the freight we can sit here fat and happy.

Kitchen table issues drive voters.  In Ukraine the kitchen table issue was Russia.  The current Canadian equivalent is mask mandates.  We are so safe we can afford to be soft on defense.  And so parties will say what they need to for the current soundbite and move on to things that really drive voters.


----------



## Halifax Tar

daftandbarmy said:


> Until they're obsolete, and we can't get rid of them anyways so they just sit there taking up resources for nothing, right?



That's all part of life cycle management.  The part once it reaches obsolescence is either disposed according to policies of sold off through CADC. 

No argument we can be better, that's exactly what I want.  

Step one acknowledge the importance of the Supply chain and man it and fund it to be robust and strong.


----------



## dapaterson

ballz said:


> Way to open up my old wounds. I was writing a big long post in response to this, and then remembered that part of releasing was that I would leave the utter catastrophe that is CAF finance behind me so I just deleted it all. Suffice to say, your first sentence is too generous, and I don't agree with the last sentence.
> 
> And then your subsequent posts on RDAOs triggered me. We might as well just get rid of national policies / documents like the FAMs and have Base SOPs, since the CDAO's failure actually supervise RDAOs has just led to having to re-learn every rule every time you are posted to a new RDAO's AO, or a new RDAO is posted in, or a new RDAO staff member is posted in... in other words, try to re-learn everything, every year.
> 
> Can't wait to go to work tomorrow and be surrounded by competence.



Sorry - I rewrote and made it unclear - a LCol+ finance officer needs to understand the estimates process and ARLU, since the majority are in NDHQ and engaged in staff processes where those are relevant.

Not necessary knowledge for a Lt fresh from Borden.

(The lack of competence in compensation administration is a whole other topic of discussion)


----------



## Kirkhill

Blackadder1916 said:


> A snapshot comparison with selected NATO partners.
> 
> The numbers are as provided in this NATO document https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/2021/6/pdf/210611-pr-2021-094-en.pdf  and I've focused on the members whose defense spending for 2021 (estimated) exceeds $10 billion.
> 
> The columns are: defense expenditures in millions (all amounts USD); real GDP in billions and the percentage of def expenditure;  the per capita GDP and per capita def expenditure;  number of military pers;  the last four columns are the percentage of def expenditure for "equipment", "personnel", "infrastructure", and "other" as defined in the linked document - "other" is primarily defined as "O&M".
> 
> 
> CountryDef Exped
> (millions)GDP (billions)
> / % def expPer capita
> GDP / def expPers #Eqpt %Pers %Infstr %Other %Canada26,5231,697 / 1.3944,100 / 63271.117.6647.53.3231.52France58,7292,534 / 2.0137,400 / 751208.027.842.533.0226.65Germany64,7853,521 / 1.5342,200 /  644189.118.5541.753.6936.06Italy29,7631,821 / 1.4130,500 / 428174.228.960.541.678.89Netherlands14,378828 / 1.4547,100 / 68540.826.247.263.2623.28Poland13,369575 / 2.1015,000 / 314121.226.147.924.9721.01Spain14,8751,250 / 1.0226,200 / 267123.922.7560.120.7316.41Turkey13,0571,073 / 1.5712,700 / 199445.429.0552.471.9516.53United Kingdom72,7653,014 / 2.2944,700 / 1,023156.224.2632.691.4241.64United States811,14020,601 / 3.5262,100 / 2,1861351.529.3537.471.5831.59
> 
> One item that caught my attention is the percentage allocated to "personnel" and the difference between the UK and USA numbers compared to the others.



*Same table reorganized*


CountryDef ExpedGDP (billions)Per capitaPers #Eqpt %Pers %Infstr %Other %(millions)/ % def expGDP / def expUnited States811,140​20,601 / 3.5262,100 / 2,1861351.5​29.35​37.47​1.58​31.59​United Kingdom72,765​3,014 / 2.2944,700 / 1,023156.2​24.26​32.69​1.42​41.64​Germany64,785​3,521 / 1.5342,200 / 644189.1​18.55​41.75​3.69​36.06​France58,729​2,534 / 2.0137,400 / 751208​27.8​42.53​3.02​26.65​Italy29,763​1,821 / 1.4130,500 / 428174.2​28.9​60.54​1.67​8.89​Canada26,523​1,697 / 1.3944,100 / 63271.1​17.66​47.5​3.32​31.52​Spain14,875​1,250 / 1.0226,200 / 267123.9​22.75​60.12​0.73​16.41​Netherlands14,378​828 / 1.4547,100 / 68540.8​26.2​47.26​3.26​23.28​Poland13,369​575 / 2.1015,000 / 314121.2​26.1​47.92​4.97​21.01​Turkey13,057​1,073 / 1.5712,700 / 199445.4​29.05​52.47​1.95​16.53​

“*The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars / But in ourselves,"  - an appropriate thought as we approach the Ides of March.*

I am a big fan of, and major proponent of, increasing our Defence Expenditure to 2% of GDP.  I think it would be lovely if we achieved 3.52% of GDP like the US. I would even take the 0.7% of GDP that we are supposed to set aside for foreign aid make it available for humanitarian operations conducted by the Department of National Defence.

But I also agree with those that argue that Cabinet, Treasury Board, Public Services and Procurement Canada, DND and the Canadian Armed Forces wouldn't have a clue how to spend that.  Not just on what to spend but the mechanisms necessary to get the money where it needs to be in a timely fashion.

The logistics of money?

The first problem we face is defining the amount of money sent to people, fellow Canadians, that are being hired to wield the tools of defence, and how much is being spent on the tools themselves.


CountryActive militaryReserve militaryParamilitaryTotal% of Popn% of Popn(total)(active)Turkey355,200​378,700​156,800​890,700​1.08​0.43​United States1,395,350​843,450​0​2,238,800​0.67​0.42​France203,250​41,050​100,500​344,800​0.51​0.3​Poland114,050​0​75,400​189,450​0.5​0.3​Italy161,550​17,900​176,350​355,800​0.57​0.26​Spain122,850​14,900​75,800​213,550​0.45​0.26​United Kingdom153,200​75,450​0​228,650​0.35​0.23​Germany183,400​30,050​0​213,450​0.27​0.23​Netherlands33,600​6,000​6,500​46,100​0.27​0.19​Canada66,500​34,400​4,500​105,400​0.28​0.18​

Before we look at how much we pay ourselves to defend ourselves we should probably take a look at how many of us we hire to do the fighting for us.

We employ 0.18% of our total population of 38,000,000 to defend us.  To fight for us.  
We hire 66,500 of us to do the fighting for the other 37,933,500 of us.
66,500 of us to operate the tools necessary to keep threats away from us.



PersonnelCountryActive military% of BudgetExpenditureExpenditureper active mbr%(millions)USDTurkey355,200​52.476,85119,288United States1,395,350​37.47303,934217,819France203,250​42.5324,977122,890Poland114,050​47.926,40656,172Italy161,550​60.5418,019111,535Spain122,850​60.128,94372,795United Kingdom153,200​32.6923,787155,267Germany183,400​41.727,015147,303Netherlands33,600​47.266,795202,233Canada66,500​47.512,598189,450


Canada is not stingy when it comes to covering its personnel.  It looks pretty good compared the $19,288 per year that Turkey spends on each service person.  It compares very favourably to Britain, France, Germany and Italy.  The only countries that spend more on their people than Canada are the Netherlands and the US.

We spend a lot on our people.

We don't spend a lot on the tools they need.


CountryActive militaryEquipment% of BudgetExpenditureExpenditureper active mbr(millions)USDUnited States1,395,35029.35$ 238,070$ 170,616United Kingdom153,20024.26$ 17,653$ 115,227Netherlands33,60026.20$ 3,767$ 112,114France203,25027.80$ 16,327$ 80,328Canada66,50017.66$ 4,684$ 70,436Germany183,40018.55$ 12,018$ 65,527Italy161,55028.90$ 8,602$ 53,244Poland114,05026.10$ 3,489$ 30,595Spain122,85022.75$ 3,384$ 27,546Turkey355,20029.05$ 3,793$ 10,679

Poland, Spain and Turkey have special economic circumstances that put them in a different category to Canada.

Canada is a G7 country.  An position it shares with France, Germany and Italy, as well as the UK and the US.
We can afford to do better.  We should do better.

The Netherlands, a strong EU member and not notably a warmonger, is in the same league as the US and the UK spending $112,000 annually to supply the necessary tools for its defence.  This compares to the $115,000 the UK spends.

The US spends significantly more, at $170,000 but for the purposes of this exercise I suggest we treat it as an outlier.  Just as Poland, Spain and Turkey should be treated at the other end of the spectrum.

Our peers are France, Germany and Italy.   We fair fairly well in that division.  

But, and this is where opinion matters, I think we should be emulating the Netherlands lead and aspiring to a similar budget.

Raising our $70,436 expenditure to a Netherlands equivalent expenditure of $112,000 would raise the capital budget from $4,684,000,000 to $7,448,000,000.  That 60% increase in the capital budget, or $2,764,000,000, would only  represent  a 10% increase in the total defence budget raising it to  $29,287,000,000.   That would also be a rise from 1.39% of GDP to 1.7%.  Not 2% but getting closer.



*Summary to date *- keep the size of the force the same and make it more effective by spending the same amount per soldier as the Netherlands on the tools they need to conduct an effective defence.

Raise the Capital Budget by 60% adding $2,764,000,000 annually.  

This will still leave us short of the NATO 2% target but 1.7% is better than 1.4%.  Half Way there.

More to Follow.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Kirkhill said:


> *Same table reorganized*
> 
> 
> CountryDef ExpedGDP (billions)Per capitaPers #Eqpt %Pers %Infstr %Other %(millions)/ % def expGDP / def expUnited States811,140​20,601 / 3.5262,100 / 2,1861351.5​29.35​37.47​1.58​31.59​United Kingdom72,765​3,014 / 2.2944,700 / 1,023156.2​24.26​32.69​1.42​41.64​Germany64,785​3,521 / 1.5342,200 / 644189.1​18.55​41.75​3.69​36.06​France58,729​2,534 / 2.0137,400 / 751208​27.8​42.53​3.02​26.65​Italy29,763​1,821 / 1.4130,500 / 428174.2​28.9​60.54​1.67​8.89​Canada26,523​1,697 / 1.3944,100 / 63271.1​17.66​47.5​3.32​31.52​Spain14,875​1,250 / 1.0226,200 / 267123.9​22.75​60.12​0.73​16.41​Netherlands14,378​828 / 1.4547,100 / 68540.8​26.2​47.26​3.26​23.28​Poland13,369​575 / 2.1015,000 / 314121.2​26.1​47.92​4.97​21.01​Turkey13,057​1,073 / 1.5712,700 / 199445.4​29.05​52.47​1.95​16.53​
> 
> “*The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars / But in ourselves,"  - an appropriate thought as we approach the Ides of March.*
> 
> I am a big fan of, and major proponent of, increasing our Defence Expenditure to 2% of GDP.  I think it would be lovely if we achieved 3.52% of GDP like the US. I would even take the 0.7% of GDP that we are supposed to set aside for foreign aid make it available for humanitarian operations conducted by the Department of National Defence.
> 
> But I also agree with those that argue that Cabinet, Treasury Board, Public Services and Procurement Canada, DND and the Canadian Armed Forces wouldn't have a clue how to spend that.  Not just on what to spend but the mechanisms necessary to get the money where it needs to be in a timely fashion.
> 
> The logistics of money?
> 
> The first problem we face is defining the amount of money sent to people, fellow Canadians, that are being hired to wield the tools of defence, and how much is being spent on the tools themselves.
> 
> 
> CountryActive militaryReserve militaryParamilitaryTotal% of Popn% of Popn(total)(active)Turkey355,200​378,700​156,800​890,700​1.08​0.43​United States1,395,350​843,450​0​2,238,800​0.67​0.42​France203,250​41,050​100,500​344,800​0.51​0.3​Poland114,050​0​75,400​189,450​0.5​0.3​Italy161,550​17,900​176,350​355,800​0.57​0.26​Spain122,850​14,900​75,800​213,550​0.45​0.26​United Kingdom153,200​75,450​0​228,650​0.35​0.23​Germany183,400​30,050​0​213,450​0.27​0.23​Netherlands33,600​6,000​6,500​46,100​0.27​0.19​Canada66,500​34,400​4,500​105,400​0.28​0.18​
> 
> Before we look at how much we pay ourselves to defend ourselves we should probably take a look at how many of us we hire to do the fighting for us.
> 
> We employ 0.18% of our total population of 38,000,000 to defend us.  To fight for us.
> We hire 66,500 of us to do the fighting for the other 37,933,500 of us.
> 66,500 of us to operate the tools necessary to keep threats away from us.
> 
> 
> 
> PersonnelCountryActive military% of BudgetExpenditureExpenditureper active mbr%(millions)USDTurkey355,200​52.476,85119,288United States1,395,350​37.47303,934217,819France203,250​42.5324,977122,890Poland114,050​47.926,40656,172Italy161,550​60.5418,019111,535Spain122,850​60.128,94372,795United Kingdom153,200​32.6923,787155,267Germany183,400​41.727,015147,303Netherlands33,600​47.266,795202,233Canada66,500​47.512,598189,450
> 
> 
> Canada is not stingy when it comes to covering its personnel.  It looks pretty good compared the $19,288 per year that Turkey spends on each service person.  It compares very favourably to Britain, France, Germany and Italy.  The only countries that spend more on their people than Canada are the Netherlands and the US.
> 
> We spend a lot on our people.
> 
> We don't spend a lot on the tools they need.
> 
> 
> CountryActive militaryEquipment% of BudgetExpenditureExpenditureper active mbr(millions)USDUnited States1,395,35029.35$ 238,070$ 170,616United Kingdom153,20024.26$ 17,653$ 115,227Netherlands33,60026.20$ 3,767$ 112,114France203,25027.80$ 16,327$ 80,328Canada66,50017.66$ 4,684$ 70,436Germany183,40018.55$ 12,018$ 65,527Italy161,55028.90$ 8,602$ 53,244Poland114,05026.10$ 3,489$ 30,595Spain122,85022.75$ 3,384$ 27,546Turkey355,20029.05$ 3,793$ 10,679
> 
> Poland, Spain and Turkey have special economic circumstances that put them in a different category to Canada.
> 
> Canada is a G7 country.  An position it shares with France, Germany and Italy, as well as the UK and the US.
> We can afford to do better.  We should do better.
> 
> The Netherlands, a strong EU member and not notably a warmonger, is in the same league as the US and the UK spending $112,000 annually to supply the necessary tools for its defence.  This compares to the $115,000 the UK spends.
> 
> The US spends significantly more, at $170,000 but for the purposes of this exercise I suggest we treat it as an outlier.  Just as Poland, Spain and Turkey should be treated at the other end of the spectrum.
> 
> Our peers are France, Germany and Italy.   We fair fairly well in that division.
> 
> But, and this is where opinion matters, I think we should be emulating the Netherlands lead and aspiring to a similar budget.
> 
> Raising our $70,436 expenditure to a Netherlands equivalent expenditure of $112,000 would raise the capital budget from $4,684,000,000 to $7,448,000,000.  That 60% increase in the capital budget, or $2,764,000,000, would only  represent  a 10% increase in the total defence budget raising it to  $29,287,000,000.   That would also be a rise from 1.39% of GDP to 1.7%.  Not 2% but getting closer.
> 
> 
> 
> *Summary to date *- keep the size of the force the same and make it more effective by spending the same amount per soldier as the Netherlands on the tools they need to conduct an effective defence.
> 
> Raise the Capital Budget by 60% adding $2,764,000,000 annually.
> 
> This will still leave us short of the NATO 2% target but 1.7% is better than 1.4%.  Half Way there.
> 
> More to Follow.



Sometimes I wish your posts were videos lol  

Good post!


----------



## Remius

Anand says Canada on track to hit defence spending targets but asks, ‘is that enough?’ - National | Globalnews.ca
					

Defence Minister Anita Anand said on Friday that Canada is "still on track" to hit spending targets, and billed the current moment as a "crucial" one for Canada and allies.




					globalnews.ca
				




I get the impression that Anand is testing the waters or setting the scene on public opinion with some of her media interviews about increasing defence commitments.


----------



## tomydoom

Kirkhill said:


> *Same table reorganized*
> 
> 
> CountryDef ExpedGDP (billions)Per capitaPers #Eqpt %Pers %Infstr %Other %(millions)/ % def expGDP / def expUnited States811,140​20,601 / 3.5262,100 / 2,1861351.5​29.35​37.47​1.58​31.59​United Kingdom72,765​3,014 / 2.2944,700 / 1,023156.2​24.26​32.69​1.42​41.64​Germany64,785​3,521 / 1.5342,200 / 644189.1​18.55​41.75​3.69​36.06​France58,729​2,534 / 2.0137,400 / 751208​27.8​42.53​3.02​26.65​Italy29,763​1,821 / 1.4130,500 / 428174.2​28.9​60.54​1.67​8.89​Canada26,523​1,697 / 1.3944,100 / 63271.1​17.66​47.5​3.32​31.52​Spain14,875​1,250 / 1.0226,200 / 267123.9​22.75​60.12​0.73​16.41​Netherlands14,378​828 / 1.4547,100 / 68540.8​26.2​47.26​3.26​23.28​Poland13,369​575 / 2.1015,000 / 314121.2​26.1​47.92​4.97​21.01​Turkey13,057​1,073 / 1.5712,700 / 199445.4​29.05​52.47​1.95​16.53​
> 
> “*The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars / But in ourselves,"  - an appropriate thought as we approach the Ides of March.*
> 
> I am a big fan of, and major proponent of, increasing our Defence Expenditure to 2% of GDP.  I think it would be lovely if we achieved 3.52% of GDP like the US. I would even take the 0.7% of GDP that we are supposed to set aside for foreign aid make it available for humanitarian operations conducted by the Department of National Defence.
> 
> But I also agree with those that argue that Cabinet, Treasury Board, Public Services and Procurement Canada, DND and the Canadian Armed Forces wouldn't have a clue how to spend that.  Not just on what to spend but the mechanisms necessary to get the money where it needs to be in a timely fashion.
> 
> The logistics of money?
> 
> The first problem we face is defining the amount of money sent to people, fellow Canadians, that are being hired to wield the tools of defence, and how much is being spent on the tools themselves.
> 
> 
> CountryActive militaryReserve militaryParamilitaryTotal% of Popn% of Popn(total)(active)Turkey355,200​378,700​156,800​890,700​1.08​0.43​United States1,395,350​843,450​0​2,238,800​0.67​0.42​France203,250​41,050​100,500​344,800​0.51​0.3​Poland114,050​0​75,400​189,450​0.5​0.3​Italy161,550​17,900​176,350​355,800​0.57​0.26​Spain122,850​14,900​75,800​213,550​0.45​0.26​United Kingdom153,200​75,450​0​228,650​0.35​0.23​Germany183,400​30,050​0​213,450​0.27​0.23​Netherlands33,600​6,000​6,500​46,100​0.27​0.19​Canada66,500​34,400​4,500​105,400​0.28​0.18​
> 
> Before we look at how much we pay ourselves to defend ourselves we should probably take a look at how many of us we hire to do the fighting for us.
> 
> We employ 0.18% of our total population of 38,000,000 to defend us.  To fight for us.
> We hire 66,500 of us to do the fighting for the other 37,933,500 of us.
> 66,500 of us to operate the tools necessary to keep threats away from us.
> 
> 
> 
> PersonnelCountryActive military% of BudgetExpenditureExpenditureper active mbr%(millions)USDTurkey355,200​52.476,85119,288United States1,395,350​37.47303,934217,819France203,250​42.5324,977122,890Poland114,050​47.926,40656,172Italy161,550​60.5418,019111,535Spain122,850​60.128,94372,795United Kingdom153,200​32.6923,787155,267Germany183,400​41.727,015147,303Netherlands33,600​47.266,795202,233Canada66,500​47.512,598189,450
> 
> 
> Canada is not stingy when it comes to covering its personnel.  It looks pretty good compared the $19,288 per year that Turkey spends on each service person.  It compares very favourably to Britain, France, Germany and Italy.  The only countries that spend more on their people than Canada are the Netherlands and the US.
> 
> We spend a lot on our people.
> 
> We don't spend a lot on the tools they need.
> 
> 
> CountryActive militaryEquipment% of BudgetExpenditureExpenditureper active mbr(millions)USDUnited States1,395,35029.35$ 238,070$ 170,616United Kingdom153,20024.26$ 17,653$ 115,227Netherlands33,60026.20$ 3,767$ 112,114France203,25027.80$ 16,327$ 80,328Canada66,50017.66$ 4,684$ 70,436Germany183,40018.55$ 12,018$ 65,527Italy161,55028.90$ 8,602$ 53,244Poland114,05026.10$ 3,489$ 30,595Spain122,85022.75$ 3,384$ 27,546Turkey355,20029.05$ 3,793$ 10,679
> 
> Poland, Spain and Turkey have special economic circumstances that put them in a different category to Canada.
> 
> Canada is a G7 country.  An position it shares with France, Germany and Italy, as well as the UK and the US.
> We can afford to do better.  We should do better.
> 
> The Netherlands, a strong EU member and not notably a warmonger, is in the same league as the US and the UK spending $112,000 annually to supply the necessary tools for its defence.  This compares to the $115,000 the UK spends.
> 
> The US spends significantly more, at $170,000 but for the purposes of this exercise I suggest we treat it as an outlier.  Just as Poland, Spain and Turkey should be treated at the other end of the spectrum.
> 
> Our peers are France, Germany and Italy.   We fair fairly well in that division.
> 
> But, and this is where opinion matters, I think we should be emulating the Netherlands lead and aspiring to a similar budget.
> 
> Raising our $70,436 expenditure to a Netherlands equivalent expenditure of $112,000 would raise the capital budget from $4,684,000,000 to $7,448,000,000.  That 60% increase in the capital budget, or $2,764,000,000, would only  represent  a 10% increase in the total defence budget raising it to  $29,287,000,000.   That would also be a rise from 1.39% of GDP to 1.7%.  Not 2% but getting closer.
> 
> 
> 
> *Summary to date *- keep the size of the force the same and make it more effective by spending the same amount per soldier as the Netherlands on the tools they need to conduct an effective defence.
> 
> Raise the Capital Budget by 60% adding $2,764,000,000 annually.
> 
> This will still leave us short of the NATO 2% target but 1.7% is better than 1.4%.  Half Way there.
> 
> More to Follow.


I am struck by the fact that Italy, which spends less than Canada , has carrier air groups and an amphib capability.    Admittedly Italian shipyards are among the most  modern in the world, but still..


----------



## daftandbarmy

tomydoom said:


> I am struck by the fact that Italy, which spends less than Canada , has carrier air groups and an amphib capability.    Admittedly Italian shipyards are among the most  modern in the world, but still..



Different priorities 









						WE.org - WE Charity | We're in this together
					






					www.we.org


----------



## Remius

daftandbarmy said:


> Different priorities
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WE.org - WE Charity | We're in this together
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.we.org


What is Italian pay like?


----------



## Remius

Quick check has Italian average military pay at 51k and ours at 67k.


----------



## tomydoom

Remius said:


> What is Italian pay like?


Less then Canada, I would assume, based on the Charts.  But If I am reading the charts correctly, they also spend a good deal less on equipment per service member.


----------



## GK .Dundas

One has.to understand that Italy's military have to operate on a daily basis in the real world. The Canadian Forces have to operate in Ottawa's.world....where ever  that may be.
Although I've begun to wonder if the current crisis has actually started to sink in. I  mean the the Russians have actually used the "N" word and the other two bio and chemical. 
Furthermore  both Sweden and Finland are actually publicly open to joining.NATO. Think about the previous sentence.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Remius said:


> What is Italian pay like?



Conscripts don't get paid much.

Hmmmm .....


----------



## tomydoom

GK .Dundas said:


> One has.to understand that Italy's military have to operate on a daily basis in the real world. The Canadian Forces have to operate in Ottawa's.world....where ever  that may be.


Prioritising a  Quebec based source for organic fair trade peace mittens and water box thingies, I'm sure.


----------



## FSTO

The Minister did the rounds of the Sunday Talk shows. Was very vague when asked about the relevance of SSE as it retains tot the current international security climate. I'm hoping that this means that there is going to be a refreshment of this policy in the near future, but only after a Foreign Policy document is produced. DND/CAF is shooting blind if we don't know what our International policy arcs of fire are.


----------



## Remius

FSTO said:


> The Minister did the rounds of the Sunday Talk shows. Was very vague when asked about the relevance of SSE as it retains tot the current international security climate. I'm hoping that this means that there is going to be a refreshment of this policy in the near future, but only after a Foreign Policy document is produced. DND/CAF is shooting blind if we don't know what our International policy arcs of fire are.


I’d be fine with a stronger NORAD and focus on the Arctic.   That would cover a lot of bases.  Biggest threats to the Arctic is Russia and China.  

So that would be a good start.


----------



## rmc_wannabe

daftandbarmy said:


> Conscripts don't get paid much.
> 
> Hmmmm .....


Italy abolished conscription in 2000 and didn't have a draft after 2003. It's been a volunteer force since before we rolled into Kandahar in broken Iltis'.

Italians, unlike most Canadians, remember how unruly the neighbours can get.


----------



## SupersonicMax

tomydoom said:


> I am struck by the fact that Italy, which spends less than Canada , has carrier air groups and an amphib capability.    Admittedly Italian shipyards are among the most  modern in the world, but still..


Do they include their SAR capability in those numbers?


----------



## Remius

SupersonicMax said:


> Do they include their SAR capability in those numbers?


And carabinieri?


----------



## Quirky

Remius said:


> I’d be fine with a stronger NORAD and focus on the Arctic.   That would cover a lot of bases.  Biggest threats to the Arctic is Russia and China.
> 
> So that would be a good start.



-Disband the Army, or severely reduce it, and teach citizens how to handle/fire rifles incase of invasion. Do we really need a deployable fulll-time  Army? Keep SOF?
-Rebrand the Navy to a Coast Guard. Get more ships.
-Focus on NORAD defense and increase Transport support for humanitarian aid (need to justify being in NATO). Dissolve CAF SAR and contract it out to private companies.

Off-topic: Holy hell does Singapore have a solid Air Force, what's their deal?


----------



## Remius

Quirky said:


> -Disband the Army, or severely reduce it, and teach citizens how to handle/fire rifles incase of invasion. Do we really need a deployable fulll-time  Army? Keep SOF?
> -Rebrand the Navy to a Coast Guard. Get more ships.
> -Focus on NORAD defense and increase Transport support for humanitarian aid (need to justify being in NATO). Dissolve CAF SAR and contract it out to private companies.
> 
> Off-topic: Holy hell does Singapore have a solid Air Force, what's their deal?


I’m in agreement with the army.  I’d reduce the full time and increase the reserves or even double it.  Make it mostly combat arms and some CSS.   But that would require massive changes to reserve TOS.

Keep SOF.  keep specialists and CSS. And a full time cadre of trainers/instructors for the combat arms element 

Increase the airforce and Navy significantly.


----------



## dimsum

SupersonicMax said:


> Do they include their SAR capability in those numbers?


Probably not.  From Wiki, the Italian Coast Guard does SAR, backed up by Navy and Air Force assets.


----------



## RangerRay

tomydoom said:


> I am struck by the fact that Italy, which spends less than Canada , has carrier air groups and an amphib capability.    Admittedly Italian shipyards are among the most  modern in the world, but still..



How much of our costs are energy and transportation costs of being in a large, cold, sparsely populated country?  I know it’s often a factor in other organizations in this country.  If we weren’t paying so much in heating buildings and moving people and stuff around, would we have a more skookum military?


----------



## GK .Dundas

Funny thing, usually when someone mentions somebody else's navy having a carrier or  for  that matter any piece of gucci kit . There is almost spinal reflex  reply of "We don't need that , besides some one  else will provide (fill in blank here) ".
I guess those pigeons have come home to roost. Our cupboard isn't just bare there are actually 'fracking' pieces of the cupboard missing.
I suspect that the usual suspects are currently in a state of shock a large heaping dose of reality tends to do that. All though I do wonder how long that will last?


----------



## daftandbarmy

Quirky said:


> -Disband the Army, or severely reduce it, and teach citizens how to handle/fire rifles incase of invasion. Do we really need a deployable fulll-time  Army? Keep SOF?
> -Rebrand the Navy to a Coast Guard. Get more ships.
> -Focus on NORAD defense and increase Transport support for humanitarian aid (need to justify being in NATO). Dissolve CAF SAR and contract it out to private companies.
> 
> Off-topic: Holy hell does Singapore have a solid Air Force, what's their deal?



'China' is Singapore's deal... 

Despite being a tiny nation they also have hundreds of tanks, but you won't hear much about that


----------



## RangerRay

GK .Dundas said:


> Funny thing, usually when someone mentions somebody else's navy having a carrier or  for  that matter any piece of gucci kit . There is almost spinal reflex  reply of "We don't need that , besides some one  else will provide (fill in blank here) ".
> I guess those pigeons have come home to roost. Our cupboard isn't just bare there are actually 'fracking' pieces of the cupboard missing.
> I suspect that the usual suspects are currently in a state of shock a large heaping dose of reality tends to do that. All though I do wonder how long that will last?


I think those pigeons came home to roost a few years ago but were in denial then, and still in denial now.


----------



## MilEME09

RangerRay said:


> I think those pigeons came home to roost a few years ago but were in denial then, and still in denial now.


The world once again has forced us to care about defense. It us upto us to listen and get our house in order. While I'm optimistic about our new minister, I am not confident in our over bloated bureaucracy not to screw this up.


----------



## daftandbarmy

rmc_wannabe said:


> Italy abolished conscription in 2000 and didn't have a draft after 2003. It's been a volunteer force since before we rolled into Kandahar in broken Iltis'.
> 
> Italians, unlike most Canadians, remember how unruly the neighbours can get.



Looks like it was 2005, but there are some things about compulsory service that don't seem to have gone away. It's kind of confusing actually....

_Italy ends compulsory military service_

Bringing Italy into line with most of the rest of Europe, the Italian parliament Thursday approved plans to make the armed services all-volunteer from January 1, ending universal military conscription.

*However, anyone wanting to join the police, the para-military carabinieri, the customs service or the fire service will still have first to serve a year in the army for a monthly salary of up to 980 euros (1,178 dollars).*

Those born in 1985 will be the last to be called up, unless they have obtained student or other exemptions.






						Italy ends compulsory military service
					

METATEXT



					www.spacewar.com


----------



## dimsum

Quirky said:


> Off-topic: Holy hell does Singapore have a solid Air Force, what's their deal?


Getting invaded, then occupied during WWII tends to change your defence outlook.

That, and China.


----------



## Good2Golf

MilEME09 said:


> The world once again has forced us to care about defense. It us upto us to listen and get our house in order. While I'm optimistic about our new minister, I am not confident in our over bloated bureaucracy not to screw this up.


Bureaucracy remains a secondary issue. Primary issue remains the will (desire) of Government to do the absolute least required for defence as possible, and then just a teenie bit less, just for good measure.  Upthread the reality surfaced for a bit…Canada only has to engage in extraterritorial action as it feels it wants to, and for continental defence, despite at times vitriolic “We’re not Americans!” we are more than happy to live under Uncle Sam’s protective umbrella…yet still complain about even that..

Camada has no right to be at all preachy and virtuous to anyone…but that of course, won’t stop us from being so…most irritatingly in a vapid, breathily preachy voice… 🤮


----------



## KevinB

daftandbarmy said:


> 'China' is Singapore's deal...
> 
> Despite being a tiny nation they also have hundreds of tanks, but you won't hear much about that


They also have more sniper rifles than the CF too


----------



## Kirkhill

In addition to Personnel (48%) and Equipment (18%) the NATO budget covers Infrastructure and Others.

Infrastructure is a minor component (1-5%).  Canada is strictly middle of the road.  No real reason to change anything.




InfrastructurePoland4.97​Turkey1.95​Spain0.73​Germany3.69​Canada3.32​Netherlands3.26​France3.02​Italy1.67​United States1.58​United Kingdom1.42​

Which brings us to the Other Category

Other expenditure includes operations and maintenance expenditure, other R&D expenditure and expenditure not allocated among above-mentioned categories.

And this one is all over the shop.




OtherUnited Kingdom41.64​Germany36.06​United States31.59​Canada31.52​France26.65​Netherlands23.28​Poland21.01​Spain16.41​Italy8.89​

It is not useful to compare nations to nations.   Each nation has its own  needs and standards.  The one thing I would say is that this is one area where more is generally better.

Ultimately this category is about troops using equipment.  It is about training the troops and maintaining the equipment and ensuring that when called out on operations, which also comes out of this budget, that their tools are in the best condition possible.

It is about spending money for fuel, for tires, for tracks, for bearings, for batteries, for bullets, for worn out barrels and return springs, for broken night vision goggles, radios, GPS systems, missiles, UAVs, targets.... engines, fuel hoses, hydraulic lines... worn out boots and pants.....

The more money available here the better the tools in the tool kit are, the more proficient the troops are and the better their morale. And troops with high morale are less likely to get into trouble.

So,

GDP  of 1697 BUSD
Defence Expenditure of  26.5 BUSD or 1.39% of GDP

Defence Personnel Budget of 12.7 BUSD or 48% of the Budget or 0.66% of GDP
Defence Infrastructure Budget of 0.9 BUSD or 3% of the Budget or 0.05% of GDP
Stand fast on those lines and we have committed to put supply a body of 66,500 Canadians to Defend the Country .

0.18% of the population and 0.71% of GDP

Defence Equipment Budget (Current) of  4.7 BUSD or 18% of the Budget or 0.27% of GDP
Raising our Equipment Budget to the same proportion as the Netherlands on a CAF member basis
Defence Equipment Budget (Netherlands Standard) of 7.4 BUSD or 0.44% of GDP.
The change to the Netherlands Standard would require an additional annual investment of 2.7 BUSD or 0.17% of GDP.
This would be a 58% increase in the Equipment Budget and a 10% increase in the Total Defence Budget to 29.2 BUSD or 1.72% of GDP

So how much to spend on The Other?

Currently we spend 31.52% of the Defence Budget of 26.5 BUSD or 8.4 BUSD  or $126,000 for each of the 66,500 Active Members

The NATO Target is 2% of GDP or 2% of GDP 32.6 BUSD

If we hold the Personnel Budget at 12.7 BUSD (0.66% of GDP)
And the Infrastructure Budget at 0.9 BUSD (0.05% of GDP)
And raise the Equipment Budget 60% to 7.4 BUSD (0.44% of GDP)
For a total of 21 BUSD (1.24% of GDP)

And if we decide to match the NATO target of 2% of GDP or 32.6 BUSD
Then that creates a Budget for the Other of 32.6 BUSD - 21 BUSD or 11.6 BUSD (0.7% of GDP)

That budget represents Canadians sitting by radios waiting for distress calls and flying yellow aircraft to the rescue.
It represents Canadians monitoring satellites and any imagery they can get a hold of to look for changes - new things - people, things, the environmen, so that our government knows more of what is happening in our country, all 10,000,000 square kilometers.
It also represents the same surveillance of seas around our coasts, both our own seas and the High, or international seas.

It represents Canadians monitoring Drones (when we get them) flying missions to investigate things that are discovered by the surveillance systems.
It represents Canadians flying CP140s (which need replacing) flying patrols over all those millions of square kilometers and responding to targets needing investigation.  On the land, on the water and under the water.
It represents Canadians flying CF18s (which also need replacing) flying intercept missions to investigate things of interest in the air, on the ground and on the seas and determining it they are threats.
It represents Canadians bobbing around at sea for weeks in AOPVs, MCDVs, CPF Frigates and Submarines extending Canada's government on to the seas.  Floating islands that let others know that Canada rules and protects here.  Islands from which helicopters fly, from which rescue comes, that provide temporary homes for the RCMP, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans,  and Environment officers and all the other law enforcement officers that enforce Canada's laws.

And it also represents the ability to support the enforcement of Canada's laws and the decisions of Canada's Parliament and Government with lethal, destructive fore if that jurisdiction is challenged.  It represents bullets, grenades, shells, bombs, torpedoes and missiles that are designed to remove threats when the threats won't listen to reason.

Finally, it represents a tiny force of Canadians, not more than 15,000, of whom some 5000 will come within speaking distance of other people whose intentions will range from friendly to hostile and are probably unknown. A force designed Advance to Contact, discover the capabilities and intentions of the potential threat and then be able to accompany it or destroy it.  More bullets, grenades, shells, bombs and missiles.

66,500 Canadians out of 38,000,000 or 0.18% of all Canadians or 1 in 555 defending us and our territory.

15,000 Canadians out of 38,000,000 or 0.04% of all Canadians or 1 in 2500 required to go out make contact with people who may be lost fishermen, refugees, lone killers or foreign armies.

5,000 Canadians out of 38,000,000 or 0.01% of all Canadians or 1 in 7,600 required to go out and actually get close enough to speak to those unknown people. And take the chance of dying if the unknown doesn't want to talk to the Canadian and the Canadian doesn't shoot fast enough.

And in their spare time, when they aren't patrolling Canada and training to act in the defence of Canada we Canadians lend our fellow Canadians to other countries to help them manage their problems.  And they are always welcome.  Because they are good at their jobs.



These troops are supported by other Canadians willing to assist and supply armed assistance on a part time basis.  These are the Reserves, and the Rangers.  The Rangers are officially described as paramilitaries by NATO

38,000,000 Canadians

66,500 Canadians actively engaged in the defence of Canada
15,000 Canadians Advance to Contact
5,000 Canadians in hailing distace

4,500 Canadian Rangers observing and reporting on the 70% of Canada where there are no roads
34,400 Canadian Reservists available to assist if they are needed and called for
68,000 Young Canadian Cadets curious about helping to defend Canada

607,951 Registered Canadian Hockey Players in Canada in the 2019/2020 season.


Our GDP is stated as being 1690 BUSD
Divide that by 38,000,000 and you get US$44,473 per Canadian.
1.39% of that is US$618 per year.
Or US$1.69 per day
Or $2.16 Canadian per Canadian per day.


Raising the Equipment Budget 60% would raise that  $2.16 to $2.62
Or $0.46 per Canadian per day.
Less than $0.50 extra per Canadian per day from each of 38,000,000 to give the 66,500 the tools they need to defend the 38,000,000 and the 607,951 Registered Canadian Ice Hockey Players

Raising the Other Budget, the Surveillance, Patrols, Maintenance, Research and Development and Exercise Budget to bring the Total Defence Expenditure up to the NATO Target of 20%, would raise the $2.62 per Canadian per day to $3.11 per Canadian per day
Or an additional $0.49 per Canadian per day.

In total, to raise the Canadian National Defence Budget, money spent with Canadians defending Canadians,  from its current 1.39% of GDP to the NATO target of 2% would cost each of those 38,000,000 Canadians an additional $0.95 per day.


An additional 95 cents per day to equip the 66500 Canadians defending us with new Satellites, new Radar, new Drones, new Patrol Aircraft, new Interceptors, Air Defence systems and new Communications and Electronic Warfare systems, new Transport Aircraft and Ships, new Helicopters.

And new Armour to protect those 15,000 that Advance to Contact and the 5,000 that get close enough to talk to the unknown.

Also to supply ammunition to eliminate any discovered  threats.

And also to cover the expenditure of tires, diesel, beans, bandages and bullets necessary to keep the force well trained.

For 95 cents a day more.

For $3.11


----------



## Kirkhill

The next step is figuring out how to spend the money the CAF is given so that they don't have to turn it back in at the end of the year because they couldn't spend it fast enough.

Or figure out how to get that money carried over to the next year and added to next year's budget.

Just because the money went away it doesn't mean the problem went away.  The problem is still there.  Just with less money.


----------



## Kirkhill

The link to the data on which the above was based.









						Defence Expenditure of NATO Countries (2014-2021)
					

NATO collects defence expenditure data from Allies and publishes it on a regular basis. Each Ally's Ministry of Defence reports current and estimated future defence expenditure according to an agreed definition of defence expenditure. The amounts represent payments by a national government...




					www.nato.int


----------



## daftandbarmy

KevinB said:


> They also have more sniper rifles than the CF too



And bigger training areas 

Australia-Singapore Military Training Initiative​ 
The  Australia-Singapore Military Training Initiative (ASMTI) is an opportunity for  Australia to build Defence capability and enhance its bilateral relationship  with Singapore, while providing enduring economic benefits to Central and North  Queensland.






						Home : ASMTI   : Department of Defence
					

Department of Defence. Defending Australia and its national interests.




					defence.gov.au


----------



## KevinB

daftandbarmy said:


> And bigger training areas
> 
> Australia-Singapore Military Training Initiative​
> The  Australia-Singapore Military Training Initiative (ASMTI) is an opportunity for  Australia to build Defence capability and enhance its bilateral relationship  with Singapore, while providing enduring economic benefits to Central and North  Queensland.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Home : ASMTI   : Department of Defence
> 
> 
> Department of Defence. Defending Australia and its national interests.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> defence.gov.au


When I was their for their sniper rifle program the ranges in Singapore where tightly controlled (and a colossal cluster for the non SOF units to get weapons to the range).   I always marveled at their equipment and ingenuity but wondered how they could train in large formations.    They seem to have solved that part now.


----------



## dimsum

daftandbarmy said:


> And bigger training areas
> 
> Australia-Singapore Military Training Initiative​
> The  Australia-Singapore Military Training Initiative (ASMTI) is an opportunity for  Australia to build Defence capability and enhance its bilateral relationship  with Singapore, while providing enduring economic benefits to Central and North  Queensland.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Home : ASMTI   : Department of Defence
> 
> 
> Department of Defence. Defending Australia and its national interests.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> defence.gov.au


AFAIK all Singaporean pilots are initially trained in Australia at RAAF Base Pearce next to Perth.  There were Singaporean navigator students in Winnipeg at one point.

Then there's that whole chunk of their Air Force in the US.


----------



## Kirkhill

tomydoom said:


> I am struck by the fact that Italy, which spends less than Canada , has carrier air groups and an amphib capability.    Admittedly Italian shipyards are among the most  modern in the world, but still..



Italy also has a well developed military industry system, that generates a lot of revenue from exports (Oto-Melara and Fincantieri immediately come to mind) and Italy is not averse to subsidizing when it can.  It also steers clear of ITAR rules when it can.


----------



## Kirkhill

FSTO said:


> The Minister did the rounds of the Sunday Talk shows. Was very vague when asked about the relevance of SSE as it retains tot the current international security climate. I'm hoping that this means that there is going to be a refreshment of this policy in the near future, but only after a Foreign Policy document is produced. DND/CAF is shooting blind if we don't know what our International policy arcs of fire are.



How about a clear statement of Domestic Policy first.  After all it is National Defence we're talking about.  Our expeditionary capability, in my view is only part of that National plan.


----------



## Kirkhill

SupersonicMax said:


> Do they include their SAR capability in those numbers?


And the Carabinieri? They would probably show up in the Paramilitary category I guess.


----------



## Kirkhill

Quirky said:


> -Disband the Army, or severely reduce it, and teach citizens how to handle/fire rifles incase of invasion. Do we really need a deployable fulll-time  Army? Keep SOF?
> -Rebrand the Navy to a Coast Guard. Get more ships.
> -Focus on NORAD defense and increase Transport support for humanitarian aid (need to justify being in NATO). Dissolve CAF SAR and contract it out to private companies.
> 
> Off-topic: Holy hell does Singapore have a solid Air Force, what's their deal?



I get the impulse but in all fairness our army is not much bigger than some countries SOF in any event.


----------



## Kirkhill

daftandbarmy said:


> 'China' is Singapore's deal...
> 
> Despite being a tiny nation they also have hundreds of tanks, but you won't hear much about that



Not much track wear running around Singapore. 

Hundreds of relocatable pill boxes.


----------



## Kirkhill

daftandbarmy said:


> Looks like it was 2005, but there are some things about compulsory service that don't seem to have gone away. It's kind of confusing actually....
> 
> _Italy ends compulsory military service_
> 
> Bringing Italy into line with most of the rest of Europe, the Italian parliament Thursday approved plans to make the armed services all-volunteer from January 1, ending universal military conscription.
> 
> *However, anyone wanting to join the police, the para-military carabinieri, the customs service or the fire service will still have first to serve a year in the army for a monthly salary of up to 980 euros (1,178 dollars).*
> 
> Those born in 1985 will be the last to be called up, unless they have obtained student or other exemptions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Italy ends compulsory military service
> 
> 
> METATEXT
> 
> 
> 
> www.spacewar.com



Kind of like the incentive plan there.  I wonder if they have something similar for health and environmental services on the non-violent side of things?


----------



## Halifax Tar

Quirky said:


> -Disband the Army, or severely reduce it, and teach citizens how to handle/fire rifles incase of invasion. Do we really need a deployable fulll-time  Army? Keep SOF?
> -Rebrand the Navy to a Coast Guard. Get more ships.
> -Focus on NORAD defense and increase Transport support for humanitarian aid (need to justify being in NATO). Dissolve CAF SAR and contract it out to private companies.
> 
> Off-topic: Holy hell does Singapore have a solid Air Force, what's their deal?



Full agreement I know people hate it but we really don't need a deployable Army.

A solid small SOF organization and some territorials is all we need for land forces.  

Almost all of our defense spending should be towards sea and air power.


----------



## FJAG

Not to get too cranky here but when you are part of a mutual defence alliance the other guys expect that you'll contribute something across the board and not just the crap that suits you. 

 It's an old formula that has pretty much worked for some 70 years now.

Toodles.

🍻


----------



## blacktriangle

I think the argument could be made to keep some well trained & resourced RegF Light Inf. We have a lot of territory to defend. Then there's always the possibility of NEO, reinforcing NATO on short notice, or another counterinsurgency type mission. And unless SOF has moved to DE, those people have to start somewhere.


----------



## suffolkowner

FJAG said:


> Not to get too cranky here but when you are part of a mutual defence alliance the other guys expect that you'll contribute something across the board and not just the crap that suits you.
> 
> It's an old formula that has pretty much worked for some 70 years now.
> 
> Toodles.
> 
> 🍻


I'm curious if that is actually true? Has NATO ever sat down and tried to rationalize contributions and get some specialization? Or do they as you say want everyone to be the all singing and dancing force?


----------



## Halifax Tar

FJAG said:


> Not to get too cranky here but when you are part of a mutual defence alliance the other guys expect that you'll contribute something across the board and not just the crap that suits you.
> 
> It's an old formula that has pretty much worked for some 70 years now.
> 
> Toodles.
> 
> 🍻



Since when has that mattered in Canada ? 

I remain convinced we do not need a deployable Army.  What we do need are big robust air and sea forces.


----------



## Halifax Tar

blacktriangle said:


> I think the argument could be made to keep some well trained & resourced RegF Light Inf. We have a lot of territory to defend. Then there's always the possibility of NEO, reinforcing NATO on short notice, or another counterinsurgency type mission. And unless SOF has moved to DE, those people have to start somewhere.





suffolkowner said:


> I'm curious if that is actually true? Has NATO ever sat down and tried to rationalize contributions and get some specialization? Or do they as you say want everyone to be the all singing and dancing force?



I'd wager if we went to NATO and said we're shutting down the army and instead were going to be the among the world's best in quality and quantity for air and sea power they'd be pretty excited about that.


----------



## QV

Remius said:


> I’m in agreement with the army.  I’d reduce the full time and increase the reserves or even double it.  Make it mostly combat arms and some CSS.   But that would require massive changes to reserve TOS.
> 
> Keep SOF.  keep specialists and CSS. And a full time cadre of trainers/instructors for the combat arms element
> 
> Increase the airforce and Navy significantly.


And reserve army doctrine should be added: how to become the insurgent, in case were invaded by land and we still don’t have the hardware needed to defend.


----------



## Furniture

Halifax Tar said:


> I'd wager if we went to NATO and said we're shutting down the army and instead were going to be the among the world's best in quality and quantity for air and sea power they'd be pretty excited about that.


I'd wager we'd be even more a of a joke as a "world leader", or "soft power" if we did that, and we'd get laughed out of the room. 

Canada can afford a modern, well killed out army of a reasonable size, alongside a capable air force and navy. The last thing Canada needs is further support for the militia myth...


----------



## Quirky

QV said:


> And reserve army doctrine should be added: how to become the insurgent, in case were invaded by land and we still don’t have the hardware needed to defend.


If your Navy and Air Force are good enough, those land invasion crafts won't come anywhere near the shores.


----------



## suffolkowner

Halifax Tar said:


> Full agreement I know people hate it but we really don't need a deployable Army.
> 
> A solid small SOF organization and some territorials is all we need for land forces.
> 
> Almost all of our defense spending should be towards sea and air power.


I do kinda hate it. 
Do we have a deployable army?
I feel like our sea and air power must already consume much of the budget?
We should be able to field a decent somewhat more capable army than we do for a small increase in funds. Just as we should be able to reequip the RCAF and RCN.

By cutting the Army how much more are we going to get out of/for the RCN and RCAF?


----------



## Remius

suffolkowner said:


> I do kinda hate it.
> Do we have a deployable army?
> I feel like our sea and air power must already consume much of the budget?
> We should be able to field a decent somewhat more capable army than we do for a small increase in funds. Just as we should be able to reequip the RCAF and RCN.
> 
> By cutting the Army how much more are we going to get out of/for the RCN and RCAF?


You could shift full time PYs to the airforce and navy. 

I would gather that the Navy and Air Force are constantly more operational than the Army is.  Coasts need patrolling, air needs patrolling.  Our land?  Yes but really the only ones truly really doing that are the Rangers up North. 

I’m not sure that we need the kind of army we have when it could be designed as a small core able to surge when and as needed.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Furniture said:


> I'd wager we'd be even more a of a joke as a "world leader", or "soft power" if we did that, and we'd get laughed out of the room.
> 
> Canada can afford a modern, well killed out army of a reasonable size, alongside a capable air force and navy. The last thing Canada needs is further support for the militia myth...



I fully disagree.  If we went to NATO and said we are going to immediately meet or exceed the 2% expenditure on defense BUT our contribution will be solely Naval and Air forces I feel like they would be happy.  We should be the go to for ASW/Convoy protection and Air Superiority.

Why do we need a deployable Army ?  What we need is territorials with small arms, manpads and hand held antitank capability.  And lots of them.  They should be solely for DOMOPs and Territorial defense.  We need a strong and mobile SOF component for what ever arises.  I posted in another thread we could petition the US for them to allow Canadians to join the US Army.



suffolkowner said:


> I do kinda hate it.
> Do we have a deployable army?
> I feel like our sea and air power must already consume much of the budget?
> We should be able to field a decent somewhat more capable army than we do for a small increase in funds. Just as we should be able to reequip the RCAF and RCN.
> 
> By cutting the Army how much more are we going to get out of/for the RCN and RCAF?



See for your self

RCN:





						Commander Royal Canadian Navy  - Canada.ca
					

March 2020 - Essential information to familiarize the Minister with the Department.




					www.canada.ca
				




Army:





						Commander Canadian Army  - Canada.ca
					

March 2020 - Essential information to familiarize the Minister with the Department.




					www.canada.ca
				




RCAF:





						Commander Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) - Canada.ca
					

March 2020 - Essential information to familiarize the Minister with the Department.




					www.canada.ca
				




This of course is missing all of the joint stuff.  Just the bare bones for each command.


----------



## Furniture

Halifax Tar said:


> I fully disagree.  If we went to NATO and said we are going to immediately meet or exceed the 2% expenditure on defense BUT our contribution will be solely Naval and Air forces I feel like they would be happy.  We should be the go to for ASW/Convoy protection and Air Superiority.
> 
> Why do we need a deployable Army ?  What we need is territorials with small arms, manpads and hand held antitank capability.  And lots of them.  They should be solely for DOMOPs and Territorial defense.  We need a strong and mobile SOF component for what ever arises.  I posted in another thread we could petition the US for them to allow Canadians to join the US Army.


So when the next SFOR, KFOR, or ISAF comes up Canada can be the large, rich nation sitting back sending in air lift? I'm sure that will go over well with our partners while their troops are coming home in body bags. Just like Canada looked down on NATO partners that weren't carrying their share of the load with ISAF.

From a purely selfish Canadian point of view there is sense in it, but there is no way that Canada would be taken seriously if all we could muster was fighters, airlift, and convoy escorts. 

The USA will always be the go-to for air superiority, even if we wanted to buy the best fighters they wouldn't sell them to us. Unless we plan to expand our fleet many times compared to what we have(we can't even staff what we have), we will never be the "convoy escorts" of NATO.  

Lastly, do you really want people who want to serve in the army to go south to the USA to do it? Where will our reserves come from if anyone who wants to be army full time has gone south? Are you assuming they will do their initial contract, and come running home for Tim's, and Heartland re-runs?


----------



## Halifax Tar

Furniture said:


> So when the next SFOR, KFOR, or ISAF comes up Canada can be the large, rich nation sitting back sending in air lift? I'm sure that will go over well with our partners while their troops are coming home in body bags. Just like Canada looked down on NATO partners that weren't carrying their share of the load with ISAF.
> 
> Do you think anyone would have missed us if we didn't show up in KAF or SFOR ?  Do you think the big heads don't realize it takes a monumental effort it takes to move men and material and support them ?
> 
> From a purely selfish Canadian point of view there is sense in it, but there is no way that Canada would be taken seriously if all we could muster was fighters, airlift, and convoy escorts.
> 
> Is Canada being taken seriously now while we try to be all singing all dancing ?
> 
> The USA will always be the go-to for air superiority, even if we wanted to buy the best fighters they wouldn't sell them to us. Unless we plan to expand our fleet many times compared to what we have(we can't even staff what we have), we will never be the "convoy escorts" of NATO.
> 
> I think we can play a bigger part in our partnership with our continental friends.  Carry our weight and more if you will.
> 
> We have to expand our Navy many times over.  No real quantity of material can yet be moved by air as efficiently or in matching volume as by sea.  Truly the most important battle ground NATO has is the North Atlantic.
> 
> Lastly, do you really want people who want to serve in the army to go south to the USA to do it? Where will our reserves come from if anyone who wants to be army full time has gone south? Are you assuming they will do their initial contract, and come running home for Tim's, and Heartland re-runs?
> 
> I'm trying to provide options.  At this point anyone I know with dual citizenship and a desire went south anyways.


----------



## rmc_wannabe

suffolkowner said:


> I do kinda hate it.
> Do we have a deployable army?
> I feel like our sea and air power must already consume much of the budget?
> We should be able to field a decent somewhat more capable army than we do for a small increase in funds. Just as we should be able to reequip the RCAF and RCN.
> 
> By cutting the Army how much more are we going to get out of/for the RCN and RCAF?


 The problem with the notion of getting rid of the Army is basically advocating cutting off a limb to save the body, when there's antibiotics for the infection.

We can have a solid military; Navy, Air Force, and Army, but it will require one thing we haven't had in decades: political will.

I hope we see this conflict doing 2 things that are needed for Canadians:

1. The G7, NATO, and our "friends around the world" finally call out politicians out on their bullshit. We talk a good game, but are the first ones to get up and leave when the cheque drops.

and

2. Canadians take a long, hard look at our ability to defend ourselves. I'm sure Ukraine was sure the West would come to their rescue. Article 5 is Article 5, but I bet the tepid NATO response to a conventional war in Europe has done "wonders" to comfort the Baltic states. We often joke about Poland being the speedbump between Moscow and Berlin, I wonder how many Canadians realize we're the speed bump between Moscow and Washingston? 

The previous POTUS was willing to walk from NATO due to inaction. Thar same POTUS sparked division and instability directly across our border. If we cannot depend on our allies, we need to be able to depend on ourselves; currently we cannot defend our coasts or our airspace, let alone when the rubber hits the road in a ground invasion.


----------



## Kirkhill

Halifax Tar said:


> Full agreement I know people hate it but we really don't need a deployable Army.
> 
> A solid small SOF organization and some territorials is all we need for land forces.
> 
> Almost all of our defense spending should be towards sea and air power.



Keep the Army but rework it so that it is deployable in small and large units.

Now if only the Navy would let them on board, or build them their own boat.

I'd take half a dozen Absalons in a Pinch



By the way, that is a Type 26 CSC with a big garage.

Could you spare half a dozen out of that 15 you're building?


----------



## suffolkowner

Halifax Tar said:


> I fully disagree.  If we went to NATO and said we are going to immediately meet or exceed the 2% expenditure on defense BUT our contribution will be solely Naval and Air forces I feel like they would be happy.  We should be the go to for ASW/Convoy protection and Air Superiority.
> 
> Why do we need a deployable Army ?  What we need is territorials with small arms, manpads and hand held antitank capability.  And lots of them.  They should be solely for DOMOPs and Territorial defense.  We need a strong and mobile SOF component for what ever arises.  I posted in another thread we could petition the US for them to allow Canadians to join the US Army.
> 
> 
> 
> See for your self
> 
> RCN:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Commander Royal Canadian Navy  - Canada.ca
> 
> 
> March 2020 - Essential information to familiarize the Minister with the Department.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.canada.ca
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Army:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Commander Canadian Army  - Canada.ca
> 
> 
> March 2020 - Essential information to familiarize the Minister with the Department.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.canada.ca
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RCAF:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Commander Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) - Canada.ca
> 
> 
> March 2020 - Essential information to familiarize the Minister with the Department.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.canada.ca
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This of course is missing all of the joint stuff.  Just the bare bones for each command.


The personnel numbers are obviously quite different but the operating budget numbers don't seem to support the proposition

RCN $715M
RCAF $1060M
Army $935

I'd have to see some numbers and outcomes first. On the surface army personnel have to be a major cost driver but their weapons/platforms aren't in relation to those employed by the RCAF and RCN. A $250M F-35 is should outfit a decent amount of grunts and a $4000M CSC sure would


----------



## Kirkhill

FJAG said:


> Not to get too cranky here but when you are part of a mutual defence alliance the other guys expect that you'll contribute something across the board and not just the crap that suits you.
> 
> It's an old formula that has pretty much worked for some 70 years now.
> 
> Toodles.
> 
> 🍻



Helicopters.

AKA  Flying Tanks.
And Infantry with ATGMs, MANPADs and heliportable vehicles.

Tara!


----------



## Kirkhill

Halifax Tar said:


> I'd wager if we went to NATO and said we're shutting down the army and instead were going to be the among the world's best in quality and quantity for air and sea power they'd be pretty excited about that.



I don't know.  Marines seem to be in fashion these days.  And you don't need to Holystone the decks anymore.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Kirkhill said:


> Keep the Army but rework it so that it is deployable in small and large units.
> 
> Now if only the Navy would let them on board, or build them their own boat.
> 
> I'd take half a dozen Absalons in a Pinch
> 
> View attachment 69469
> 
> By the way, that is a Type 26 CSC with a big garage.
> 
> Could you spare half a dozen out of that 15 you're building?



I like it!  Turn the Army into a Marine corps and make them subservient to the RCN


----------



## Remius

It wouldn’t be doing away with the army.  It would be a restructure to allow surges.  Large reserve with cadre of full time specialists, trainers and maybe a small full time combat capability.  Like armour or artillery. So when we have an ISAF type situation we can surge the numbers to where they can get to.  We already do work up training for that stuff anyways.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Remius said:


> It wouldn’t be doing away with the army.  It would be a restructure to allow surges.  Large reserve with cadre of full time specialists, trainers and maybe a small full time combat capability.  Like armour or artillery. So when we have an ISAF type situation we can surge the numbers to where they can get to.  We already do work up training for that stuff anyways.



So Militia Myth in stone ?  I like it!


----------



## Kirkhill

Furniture said:


> I'd wager we'd be even more a of a joke as a "world leader", or "soft power" if we did that, and we'd get laughed out of the room.
> 
> Canada can afford a modern, well killed out army of a reasonable size, alongside a capable air force and navy. The last thing Canada needs is further support for the militia myth...



Right up until the last line....

Why is it always an either or thing with you guys?

Isn't Ukraine demonstration enough that the local defence force and the professional strike force can live side by side and fight effectively.

Fight effectively meaning kill invaders, not brawl with each other.


----------



## KevinB

Halifax Tar said:


> Since when has that mattered in Canada ?
> 
> I remain convinced we do not need a deployable Army.  What we do need are big robust air and sea forces.


At the end of the day the Army does the dying - what NATO wants is partners equally committed to that task.

If you said you where shuttering the Army, you'd be laughed out of the room, regardless of what you had with an Air Force or Navy.

The Reserves are a colossal joke - so don't bother saying what the Army could do with them alone.
  *not a dig at individual reserves - just the system is set for the Res to be worthless other than individual augments at this point.

Now what Canada should do is have 1 Heavy Bde, and 1 Medium, and 1 Light of Regulars - and revamp the Res structures to support those.
   I'd argue that a Heavy and Medium force could be at lower readiness than the Light Force, IF the Reserve system is fixed.

Like the US Army - where you get XVIII Corps in first - the Light - Airborne and AirMobile - then you move your Stryker (Medium) and Abrams/Bradley (Heavy) units in.


----------



## Kirkhill

Halifax Tar said:


> I fully disagree.  If we went to NATO and said we are going to immediately meet or exceed the 2% expenditure on defense BUT our contribution will be solely Naval and Air forces I feel like they would be happy.  We should be the go to for ASW/Convoy protection and Air Superiority.
> 
> Why do we need a deployable Army ?  What we need is territorials with small arms, manpads and hand held antitank capability.  And lots of them.  They should be solely for DOMOPs and Territorial defense.  We need a strong and mobile SOF component for what ever arises.  I posted in another thread we could petition the US for them to allow Canadians to join the US Army.
> 
> 
> 
> See for your self
> 
> RCN:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Commander Royal Canadian Navy  - Canada.ca
> 
> 
> March 2020 - Essential information to familiarize the Minister with the Department.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.canada.ca
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Army:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Commander Canadian Army  - Canada.ca
> 
> 
> March 2020 - Essential information to familiarize the Minister with the Department.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.canada.ca
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RCAF:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Commander Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) - Canada.ca
> 
> 
> March 2020 - Essential information to familiarize the Minister with the Department.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.canada.ca
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This of course is missing all of the joint stuff.  Just the bare bones for each command.



A heliportable brigade with flying tanks capable of launching and landing domestically, on foreign lands or on ships.

Work in abundance for the willing.


----------



## Kirkhill

Halifax Tar said:


> I like it!  Turn the Army into a Marine corps and make them subservient to the RCN



I'd leave CRCN/CCA/CRCAF to fight that out among them.... except that is what has got us here.


----------



## Kirkhill

I love me some Absalon porn.









						Absalon Class Combat / Flexible Support Ship, Denmark
					

The two Absalon Class vessels, built by Odense Steel Shipyard for the Danish Navy, are flexible support ships (combat support ships). The ships can be equipped for naval warfare, land attack, strat…




					thaimilitaryandasianregion.wordpress.com


----------



## KevinB

meanwhile in Germany...
germany-to-buy-f-35-warplanes-for-nuclear-deterrence


----------



## Halifax Tar

KevinB said:


> At the end of the day the Army does the dying - what NATO wants is partners equally committed to that task.
> 
> That's not really always true.  The highest casualty rates in WW2 were in the German submarine service.  What NATO wants is for the USA to quickly move its forces from NA to Europe and sustain both the USA and Europe in the battle.  That's all done by sea.  Hence why NATOs most important battle ground is under, on and above the North Atlantic.
> 
> If you said you where shuttering the Army, you'd be laughed out of the room, regardless of what you had with an Air Force or Navy.
> 
> I mean that's all you say sure.  But your basically using a sound bite here.
> 
> The Reserves are a colossal joke - so don't bother saying what the Army could do with them alone.
> *not a dig at individual reserves - just the system is set for the Res to be worthless other than individual augments at this point.
> 
> No disagreement a restructuring is/would be required.
> 
> Now what Canada should do is have 1 Heavy Bde, and 1 Medium, and 1 Light of Regulars - and revamp the Res structures to support those.
> I'd argue that a Heavy and Medium force could be at lower readiness than the Light Force, IF the Reserve system is fixed.
> 
> Like the US Army - where you get XVIII Corps in first - the Light - Airborne and AirMobile - then you move your Stryker (Medium) and Abrams/Bradley (Heavy) units in.
> 
> Why ?


----------



## Kirkhill

KevinB said:


> meanwhile in Germany...
> germany-to-buy-f-35-warplanes-for-nuclear-deterrence



"Ve haff been haffing zecond tots.  Ve haff decided to let you sell us your silly planes after all."


----------



## Kirkhill

I actually have no issue with the structure of either the Regs or the Reserves beyond some minor tinkering.

4 Regional commands (5 if you add the North as its own separate commands.  Call them Regions, Districts or Narwhals if you like.  Designed to organize their territories and proof them against emergencies.  Organize Rangers, Reserves and Air Defence as well as Disaster Command and Control, Logistics and Medical Services.  May as well be a Major General as a District Commissioner.

1 Strike Division with 3 Field Brigades and One Support Brigade.  Armour and Arty to the Rear.  Lt Cavalry,  Infantry, Engineers and EW to the Fore
Deployable in Brigade Gps and Battle Gps with Atts and Dets.  Trains at home as a Div working with the Regional forces.

1 SOF Group (no idea what they do or how they do it but I want some).


----------



## Furniture

Canada having troops on the ground, under fire, provides reassurance to our partners that we mean to stick to our commitment. It also shows solidarity with our partners, which helps discourage others from getting ideas. Using our lack of large commitment to previous missions as proof we should commit less now is exactly the kind of thinking that has lead to the cuts we are struggling with today. 

Again, if we aren't being taken seriously now, we should be working to fix that, not reinforce it...

There is no doubt that the Atlantic will be important, but our fleet of seven CPFs even if multiplied by 10 isn't enough for Canada to be a serious naval power that would replace the USN as the main convoy escort. Can Canada sustain 100+ heavies, is that the best use of our resources?

If Canada wants to help Europe, we should have troops on the ground there as a deterrent, and as a show of solidarity with our allies. Right now, and under your proposal, it's far too easy for Canada to decide that maybe we'll let the oceans protect us, and pull our support out on a whim. 

Your proposal for Canadians to be allowed in the US Army would essentially be the death knell for the CAF. Why would a Canadian government pay for ships and planes, when Canadians can protect Canada as part of the US military? 

@Kirkhill 

The militia myth needs to die because it encourages Canadians, and their government to believe that a group of plucky farmers can just grab rifles and be professional, competent soldiers. If you don't need expensive professionals and the kit they need, it's easier to justify a tiny, underequipped army. 

In Ukraine they have a core standaing army of 200K supporting the hundreds of thousands of reservists.


----------



## Good2Golf

FJAG said:


> Not to get too cranky here but when you are part of a mutual defence alliance the other guys expect that you'll contribute something across the board and not just the crap that suits you.
> 
> It's an old formula that has pretty much worked for some 70 years now.
> 
> Toodles.
> 
> 🍻


You mean like SP 155mm, ATACM, MLRS, ADATS, a handful of towed 155mm, 120mm mortars, 81mm mortars, even less than a hand full of towed 105mm, etc.?


----------



## Kirkhill

Furniture said:


> @Kirkhill
> 
> The militia myth needs to die because it encourages Canadians, and their government to believe that a group of plucky farmers can just grab rifles and be professional, competent soldiers. If you don't need expensive professionals and the kit they need, it's easier to justify a tiny, underequipped army.
> 
> In Ukraine they have a core standaing army of 200K supporting the hundreds of thousands of reservists.



Well kill the farmer's myth and figure out how to get hundreds of thousands of Canadians to offer free labour to manage crises.

You'll not get the job done with just the professionals.

No better than trying to chop down an oak with a spear.

I am a fan of professionals.  Equally I am a fan of volunteers and enthusiastic amateurs.  Just take a look at those charts above.  It isn't the equipment or the infrastructure that is killing us.  Its the salaries and the training.

Even operations only account for some 3000 or so professionals annually.  And even that number includes augmentations from the part-time auxiliaries of the Reserve.

7 frigates won't command the Atlantic.  How much of the North German Plain, or the Ukrainian Steppes, will a single understrength Mech Brigade command?  Canadians are likely to die in both places. And now we're debating how much respect those dead Canadians will buy when negotiating the next trade and climate deal.


----------



## MilEME09

Good2Golf said:


> You mean like SP 155mm, ATACM, MLRS, ADATS, a handful of towed 155mm, 120mm mortars, 81mm mortars, even less than a hand full of towed 105mm, etc.?


Or our obsession with doing more with less, thus buying bigger trucks, and less of them? Russias losses in Ukraine is essentially taking the whole Canadian army and making in combat ineffective in two weeks.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Furniture said:


> I assume this was all to me.
> 
> Canada having troops on the ground, under fire, provides reassurance to our partners that we mean to stick to our commitment. It also shows solidarity with our partners, which helps discourage others from getting ideas. Using our lack of large commitment to previous missions as proof we should commit less now is exactly the kind of thinking that has lead to the cuts we are struggling with today.
> 
> Has it ?  Or are we just doing this this way because reasons ?   People die at sea and in the Air.  But why is the the preeminent proof of payment how many soldiers have died ?  Do Canadians think this is a worthy alter ?  If were going to sacrifice people I would rather it be for a better reason than to say we were there too.
> 
> Again, if we aren't being taken seriously now, we should be working to fix that, not reinforce it...
> 
> This we agree on.
> 
> There is no doubt that the Atlantic will be important, but our fleet of seven CPFs even if multiplied by 10 isn't enough for Canada to be a serious naval power that would replace the USN as the main convoy escort. Can Canada sustain 100+ heavies, is that the best use of our resources?
> 
> The North Atlantic isn't important its everything.  If we don't have the freedom to move men an material across it Europe is finished all stop.  You are right, our current fleet isn't big enough.  Hence why it needs a massive expansion.  We don't need to over take the the USN, as we did in WW2 for escort duties, but we can take enough pressure off them to allow them to conduct other operations or raise the amount of convoys at sea.  Ultimately Canada will decide regardless of what you and I think is the best use of our resources.
> 
> If Canada wants to help Europe, we should have troops on the ground there as a deterrent, and as a show of solidarity with our allies. Right now, and under your proposal, it's far too easy for Canada to decide that maybe we'll let the oceans protect us, and pull our support out on a whim.
> 
> Yeah no thank you.  Sacrificing a BG in Latvia to say we were there is a waste.  Do it right and be big and scary or don't do it all.  Otherwise you're just wasting lives.
> 
> Our oceans do protect us and we need to get some nasty sleek greyhounds of death on those seas to keep them protecting us.
> 
> Your proposal for Canadians to be allowed in the US Army would essentially be the death knell for the CAF. Why would a Canadian government pay for ships and planes, when Canadians can protect Canada as part of the US military?
> 
> Its just an idea to appease those who really want to be in the Army.


----------



## suffolkowner

Its not obvious to me what the solution is or that things are going to change too much for the better even simpler things like some army reorganization. Its also not obvious to me that we really have a personnel problem in the CAF or even just the Army. We don't get bang for the buck and no one has held CAF leadership or should I say management to account. We are over managed. Our procurement is over managed. There should be a way to get better performance out of the CDS etc.. But yes the RCN and RCAF seem to be the organizations that are easiest to see the path forward


----------



## Halifax Tar

suffolkowner said:


> Its not obvious to me what the solution is or that things are going to change too much for the better even simpler things like some army reorganization. Its also not obvious to me that we really have a personnel problem in the CAF or even just the Army. We don't get bang for the buck and no one has held CAF leadership or should I say management to account. We are over managed. Our procurement is over managed. There should be a way to get better performance out of the CDS etc.. But yes the RCN and RCAF seem to be the organizations that are easiest to see the path forward



Agreed.  If we're going to play the Army game then let's do it and do it right.


----------



## suffolkowner

Halifax Tar said:


> Agreed.  If we're going to play the Army game then let's do it and do it right.


Right now I might argue what is the right way for the army lol. But we've had a long time to realize that we needed to upgrade our anti tank and air defence games. An actual real commitment to recapitalize the CAF just as they are would be a start. As we sit here waiting to find out whether we are going to get F-35's or Gripens, what is going to replace the Auroras, and the Polaris. 3 easy slam dunk replacements


----------



## Halifax Tar

Kirkhill said:


> Well kill the farmer's myth and figure out how to get hundreds of thousands of Canadians to offer free labour to manage crises.
> 
> You'll not get the job done with just the professionals.
> 
> No better than trying to chop down an oak with a spear.
> 
> I am a fan of professionals.  Equally I am a fan of volunteers and enthusiastic amateurs.  Just take a look at those charts above.  It isn't the equipment or the infrastructure that is killing us.  Its the salaries and the training.
> 
> Even operations only account for some 3000 or so professionals annually.  And even that number includes augmentations from the part-time auxiliaries of the Reserve.
> 
> 7 frigates won't command the Atlantic.  How much of the North German Plain, or the Ukrainian Steppes, will a single understrength Mech Brigade command?  Canadians are likely to die in both places. And now we're debating how much respect those dead Canadians will buy when negotiating the next trade and climate deal.



I would also argue some plucky farmers are proving to be pretty nasty little opponents for what was 3 weeks ago a much feared country's Army.


----------



## Furniture

Kirkhill said:


> Well kill the farmer's myth and figure out how to get hundreds of thousands of Canadians to offer free labour to manage crises.


They won't, so we need to be prepared to pay for it, and given the overall labour shortages in Canada, we need to pay handsomely.



Kirkhill said:


> You'll not get the job done with just the professionals.
> 
> No better than trying to chop down an oak with a spear.
> 
> I am a fan of professionals.  Equally I am a fan of volunteers and enthusiastic amateurs.  Just take a look at those charts above.  It isn't the equipment or the infrastructure that is killing us.  Its the salaries and the training.


I'd love to see a massive increase in the number of reservists, but just like the full time forces, we need to pay them well, and offer other bonuses to get people to show up. Canadian's aren't into "God, Queen, and Country" these days, and even back in the WWII they weren't... The money was good if you signed up to fight, and were from a poor area. 



Kirkhill said:


> Even operations only account for some 3000 or so professionals annually.  And even that number includes augmentations from the part-time auxiliaries of the Reserve.


We send that many away, and struggle to do it now. How do you propose we fix that by cutting down on the number of full time people we have? For every person deployed we need someone on career training, someone on deployment training, someone on rest/leave, someone teaching the career courses, someone teaching the deployment training, someone doing planning for training, someone planning the missions, someone feeding the planners and trainers, someone paying the planners, trainers, and feeders, etc... Some of those jobs can be civilian, but you also need places for people to work as a break from training, and deploying. 



Kirkhill said:


> 7 frigates won't command the Atlantic.  How much of the North German Plain, or the Ukrainian Steppes, will a single understrength Mech Brigade command?  Canadians are likely to die in both places. *And now we're debating how much respect those dead Canadians will buy when negotiating the next trade and climate deal.*


That is always part of the calculation... It's not pretty, but if you aren't "in" the game, you don't get as much say at the end of the game when the spoils are being divided. 

@Halifax Tar 

If Canadians aren't willing to have Canadian troops die on the ground in Latvia, they aren't willing to have Canadians die at sea, or in the air over the Atlantic either. Divesting the ability to fight on the ground, just so we can "take pressure" off the USN is never going to be enough to make our NATO allies happy, and Canada won't spend the money to achieve it. 

Also, your East Coast is showing... The Pacific theater is just as vital to our national interests if China gets squirrely. NATO isn't our only concern, we are a Pacific Ocean bordering country, with interests in Asia. 

I think you are seriously underestimating how much it matters to be in the fight alongside your allies. If the best we can do is some planes, and ships, why would anyone send their army here to help us if we need it?


----------



## Kirkhill




----------



## MilEME09

If we want to increase our forces, we need to actually train troops quickly. That means we need to stop trying to do everything at once, fill the schools with instructors from the units and push people through over the next two years.


----------



## suffolkowner

I think one of the points made is that we dont really know what we want as a nation or as an alliance. Maybe NATO has said it doesn't want nations to specialize or maybe it hasn't even asked itself that. For decades we concentrated on anti-submarine warfare to the exclusion of a lot of other capabilities. I'm assuming we just didn't do that of our own accord


----------



## FJAG

Good2Golf said:


> You mean like SP 155mm, ATACM, MLRS, ADATS, a handful of towed 155mm, 120mm mortars, 81mm mortars, even less than a hand full of towed 105mm, etc.?


I was thinking the aspirational Army - you know - the one I've been yammering about for several years.



MilEME09 said:


> If we want to increase our forces, we need to actually train troops quickly. That means we need to stop trying to do everything at once, fill the schools with instructors from the units and push people through over the next two years.


I really have a hard time with that part of the F2025 concept but then I do not know the details of the problem or the plan to fix it. And you know what they say about details and devils ...

I served during a surge phase when we ramped the arty up across the board to create the AD batteries. We didn't ramp up the school. We sent the soldiers to the regiments and used regimental resources to run course after course after course. ... and we were short-handed in the regiments at the time but we could see the benefit of what we were doing right before our eyes. I can't imagine a battalion that can't round up a dozen folks to train two platoons at a time. (or better yet haul them out of cubicles in Ottawa) Technical schools might be another matter.

There's a lot of stuff that desperately needs a reset.

🍻


----------



## Kirkhill

Furniture said:


> They won't, so we need to be prepared to pay for it, and given the overall labour shortages in Canada, we need to pay handsomely.



I think you underestimate your fellow Canadians.  I don't think we lack willing candidates.  Maybe we're just not using the right bait?



> Volunteering​The below infographics display 2010 survey data.  The latest data on giving and volunteering (2013) is now available from Statistics Canada.
> 
> The 2010 stats show that 47% (or over 13 million) volunteer. In total 2 billion hours were volunteered, the equivalent of 1.1 million full time jobs. On average, volunteers contributed 156 hours each (roughly 21 working days).
> 
> 
> _Demographics_​*Age:* Not surprisingly youngest age group (ages 15-24) represents the highest percentage of volunteers (at 58%). It is interesting to see that folks between 35 and 44 are a close second at 54%. Similar to what we see in financial giving, those who occupy the 65 + category donate the largest number of hours.
> 
> *Region:* Saskatchewan and Prince Edward Island show the highest volunteer rates. Nova Scotia and British Columbia reported the largest average annual hours volunteered.
> 
> _Why we volunteer_​Canadians state that the primary reason they volunteer is to contribute to their communities. The next two major reasons are to use skills and experience and because they have been personally affected by the cause. The breakdown is as follows:
> 
> 
> to make a contribution to community (93%);
> to use skills and experience (78%);
> personally affected by the organization's cause (59%);
> to explore one's own strengths (48%);
> because their friends volunteer (48%);
> to network with others (46%);
> to improve job opportunities (22%); and
> to fulfill religious obligations or beliefs (21%).








						Research About Volunteering in Canada | Sector Source
					

Volunteering The below infographics display 2010 survey data.  The latest data on giving and volunteering (2013) is now available from Statistics Canada.




					sectorsource.ca
				






> NFPA estimates there were approximately 152,650 local firefighters in the Canada during the period 2014 to 2016. Of the total number of firefighters 26,000 (17%) were career firefighters and *126,650 (83%)* were volunteer firefighters.
> 
> Volunteer firefighters freely volunteer their efforts as a way of serving and giving back to their community. They often do not receive monetary compensation from the fire department. *If they are paid, it is typically in the form of small stipends or annual bonuses*.





			The Canadian Coast Guard Auxiliary
		




> The *Canadian Coast Guard Auxiliary* (*CCGA*; French: _Garde côtière auxiliaire canadienne_, _GCAC_) is a Canada-wide volunteer marine association dedicated to marine search and rescue (SAR) and the promotion of boating safety, through association with the Canadian Coast Guard under the auspices of Canada's National Search and Rescue Program.
> 
> Members of the CCGA are usually recreational boaters and commercial fishermen who use their vessels to assist the Canadian Coast Guard with search and rescue (SAR) as well as boating safety education. CCGA members who assist in SAR operations have their vessel insurance covered by CCG, as well as any fuel and operating costs associated with a particular tasking.
> 
> The CCGA enables the CCG to provide maritime SAR coverage in many isolated areas of Canada's coastlines without having to maintain an active base and/or vessels in those areas. The auxiliary is dedicated to providing a permanent day and night search and rescue service to cover marine requirements in Canada and prevent the loss of life and injury.
> 
> 
> Save lives at risk
> Reduce the number and severity of SAR incidents
> Promote marine safety
> Support the Canadian Coast Guard
> Provide a humanitarian service
> Maintain the highest professional standards
> Promote dedication and pride of membership











						Search and Rescue Volunteer Association of Canada
					

Registered not-for-profit, educational organization that supports, coordinates, develops, informs, promotes, implements search, rescue and emergency response.




					sarvac.ca
				











						Volunteer | Search and Rescue Volunteer Association of Canada
					

Volunteer with SARVAC! Click the YouTube links to view brief videos of ground search and rescue in Canada.




					sarvac.ca
				











						National Search and Rescue Program - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## Kirkhill

MilEME09 said:


> If we want to increase our forces, we need to actually train troops quickly. That means we need to stop trying to do everything at once, fill the schools with instructors from the units and push people through over the next two years.



Or, when re-equipping, take a good hard look at what the minimum training requirements really are and focus on weapons, comms, nav and movement.  All the rest of the stuff can be used as filler later.   And train at the armouries.  Not the schools.


----------



## Kirkhill

Another under-exploited pool of candidates?

27%
of Canadians, 18 years and older, participate in sport.






						Participation in Sport | CFLRI
					






					cflri.ca


----------



## GR66

FJAG said:


> I was thinking the aspirational Army - you know - the one I've been yammering about for several years.
> 
> 
> I really have a hard time with that part of the F2025 concept but then I do not know the details of the problem or the plan to fix it. And you know what they say about details and devils ...
> 
> I served during a surge phase when we ramped the arty up across the board to create the AD batteries. We didn't ramp up the school. We sent the soldiers to the regiments and used regimental resources to run course after course after course. ... and we were short-handed in the regiments at the time but we could see the benefit of what we were doing right before our eyes. I can't imagine a battalion that can't round up a dozen folks to train two platoons at a time. (or better yet haul them out of cubicles in Ottawa) Technical schools might be another matter.
> 
> There's a lot of stuff that desperately needs a reset.
> 
> 🍻


Maybe part of the problem is that we treat every recruit like they are lifers that are going to retire with 25 years of service.  Perhaps with some of the combat trades...those ones that we need to grow rapidly in case of a major shooting war...we should focus on more recruits, trained more quickly and serving for shorter terms of service.  Let the bulk of them release after 2-3 years and provide a much larger pool of semi-trained civilians (and potential CT Reservists) and invest more time in those individuals that decide to continue their CF careers.


----------



## suffolkowner

Kirkhill said:


> I think you underestimate your fellow Canadians.  I don't think we lack willing candidates.  Maybe we're just not using the right bait?


Its not a unique problem to the CAF's as there is a huge disconnect between employers and employees. But the CAF is ridiculous especially when you have people waiting years to get in. Who does that?(I mean a couple of my buddies did but wow)


----------



## Brad Sallows

Boosting defence spending is achieved if anything that qualifies as defence spending is boosted, or the parameters are redefined to include stuff not already included.  Don't get hopes up.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Furniture said:


> @Halifax Tar
> 
> If Canadians aren't willing to have Canadian troops die on the ground in Latvia, they aren't willing to have Canadians die at sea, or in the air over the Atlantic either. Divesting the ability to fight on the ground, just so we can "take pressure" off the USN is never going to be enough to make our NATO allies happy, and Canada won't spend the money to achieve it.
> 
> I think if Canadians witnessed our BG in Latvia become the equivalent of sacrificial lamb I think they would be appalled.  Again if were going to do this Army thing we should do it right.  Right now I only hope our BG in Latvia doesn't have to die at the alter for a better post war bargaining position, because if that's the whole goal then there is a better way to do this and we could probably have a bigger impact, all be it behind the curtain and not on the stage.
> 
> Also, your East Coast is showing... The Pacific theater is just as vital to our national interests if China gets squirrely. NATO isn't our only concern, we are a Pacific Ocean bordering country, with interests in Asia.
> 
> Not at all, this whole conversation has been NATO centric; or at least that's been my perception.  For the Pacific and Artic we need subs.  Probably nukes.  Bottle up China on their land and make leaving their shores certain death while closing off their sea trade routes, sink their merchant fleet everywhere.
> 
> I think you are seriously underestimating how much it matters to be in the fight alongside your allies. If the best we can do is some planes, and ships, why would anyone send their army here to help us if we need it?
> 
> I think you're missing that fighting alongside your allies is more than boots on the ground.  Keeping the NA Supply route open during a war in Europe will be difference between a victory or loss.  Europe knows this.  They have not the raw material, man power or manufacturing to sustain a prolonged conflict.  And their industry will be leveled fast.
> 
> Who can send their Army here to help us ?  Who could invade us ?  And if we have to defend against an invasion, that doesn't come from the USA, the front line will be in the air and at sea.  And if the invasion does come from the USA, ala Fallout universe, we wont be able to stop that anyhow.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Well, stand up the North Atlantic convoy protection force again.

Luckily the RCN culture has survived over 70 years of 'neglect' due to focusing on less important tasks so it shouldn't take us long to get back in the saddle 


Putin's threat to UK: 'I could sink your ships without a world war'​VLADIMIR PUTIN warned the UK that Russia could sink its ships without sparking a global conflict in a furious rant last year.​
Putin's forces continue to bombard major cities in Ukraine as the invasion nears three weeks.

The war has heightened tensions between Russia and the UK, but Moscow and London have been at loggerheads for years.

This was seen in June 2021 when Putin warned the UK that his forces could sink British ships.

Putin said Russia could have sunk a British warship that it accused of illegally entering its territorial waters without starting World War 3 and accused Washington of a role in the "provocation".

At the time, Moscow had already expressed anger in the direction of the UK after British ships operated near Crimea.

Russia annexed Crimea from Ukraine in 2014, but Britain and most of the world still recognise the Black Sea peninsula as part of Ukraine, not Russia.

Putin, speaking during his annual question and answer session with voters, signalled his anger over the operations.

When asked if the world had stood on the precipice of World War 3 during the standoff, Putin said: "Of course not.

"Even if we had sunk the ship, it is hard to imagine that the world would have been on the verge of World War 3 because those doing it know that they could not emerge as victors from such a war."

Putin accused the US and UK of planning the episode together, saying a US spy plane had taken off from Greece earlier on the same day to watch how Russia would respond to the British warship.












						Putin's threat to UK: 'I could sink your ships without a world war'
					

VLADIMIR PUTIN warned the UK that Russia could sink its ships without sparking a global conflict in a furious rant last year.




					www.express.co.uk


----------



## Halifax Tar

daftandbarmy said:


> Well, stand up the North Atlantic convoy protection force again.
> 
> Luckily the RCN culture has survived over 70 years of 'neglect' due to focusing on less important tasks so it shouldn't take us long to get back in the saddle
> 
> 
> Putin's threat to UK: 'I could sink your ships without a world war'​VLADIMIR PUTIN warned the UK that Russia could sink its ships without sparking a global conflict in a furious rant last year.​
> Putin's forces continue to bombard major cities in Ukraine as the invasion nears three weeks.
> 
> The war has heightened tensions between Russia and the UK, but Moscow and London have been at loggerheads for years.
> 
> This was seen in June 2021 when Putin warned the UK that his forces could sink British ships.
> 
> Putin said Russia could have sunk a British warship that it accused of illegally entering its territorial waters without starting World War 3 and accused Washington of a role in the "provocation".
> 
> At the time, Moscow had already expressed anger in the direction of the UK after British ships operated near Crimea.
> 
> Russia annexed Crimea from Ukraine in 2014, but Britain and most of the world still recognise the Black Sea peninsula as part of Ukraine, not Russia.
> 
> Putin, speaking during his annual question and answer session with voters, signalled his anger over the operations.
> 
> When asked if the world had stood on the precipice of World War 3 during the standoff, Putin said: "Of course not.
> 
> "Even if we had sunk the ship, it is hard to imagine that the world would have been on the verge of World War 3 because those doing it know that they could not emerge as victors from such a war."
> 
> Putin accused the US and UK of planning the episode together, saying a US spy plane had taken off from Greece earlier on the same day to watch how Russia would respond to the British warship.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Putin's threat to UK: 'I could sink your ships without a world war'
> 
> 
> VLADIMIR PUTIN warned the UK that Russia could sink its ships without sparking a global conflict in a furious rant last year.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.express.co.uk



The poor RN is only a shadow of its cold war self.


----------



## Kirkhill

Brad Sallows said:


> Boosting defence spending is achieved if anything that qualifies as defence spending is boosted, or the parameters are redefined to include stuff not already included.  Don't get hopes up.



As in:  the last thing we need is more infrastructure so what we will get is infrastructure?


----------



## suffolkowner

Think we might be better going light/medium anti-tank and anti-air in the Baltics.

Only slightly tongue in cheek. Sacrifice everything for a bunch of Barracuda subs, B-21's, and F-35's plus whatever multipliers needed for them like 330-MRTT, P-8's


----------



## Jarnhamar

Caught an odd comment from MND Anand in an article at Global.



> “We know from our defence policy that *we will be increasing defence spending *by 70 per cent over the nine-year period beginning in 2017,” she said.



Have we been increasing defence spending since 2017? The wording seems odd.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Jarnhamar said:


> Caught an odd comment from MND Anand in an article at Global.
> 
> 
> 
> Have we been increasing defence spending since 2017? The wording seems odd.



Lots of words not so much in the way of quantifiable eh ?


----------



## dapaterson

I suspect that increasing capital expenditures as JSS/CSC/Next Gen Fighter projects enter implementation could account for that growth (plus regular inflationary increases).

It's always all about the reference points to pick.


----------



## suffolkowner

Canada   (Canadian dollars)
2014   20,076
2015   23,900
2016   23,474
2017   30,761
2018   29,025
2019   29,949
2020   31,644
2021   33,674

from the nato document


----------



## Zipperhead99

Kirkhill said:


> Another under-exploited pool of candidates?
> 
> 27%
> of Canadians, 18 years and older, participate in sport.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Participation in Sport | CFLRI
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cflri.ca


Certainly agree on the under-exploited.  Here in the BC Interior we have Junior, Junior A, Junior B hockey teams and CJFL: all with kids that are physically fit, have worked as part of a team so they should have that loyalty / teamwork / respect for coaches (i.e. officers and NCOs) that would make them great candidates for the CAF but, alas we never target them for recruiting and personally I feel that it is an opportunity lost


----------



## Good2Golf

Zipperhead99 said:


> Certainly agree on the under-exploited.  Here in the BC Interior we have Junior, Junior A, Junior B hockey teams and CJFL: all with kids that are physically fit, have worked as part of a team so they should have that loyalty / teamwork / respect for coaches (i.e. officers and NCOs) that would make them great candidates for the CAF but, alas we never target them for recruiting and personally I feel that it is an opportunity lost


That would certainly be something new for the CAF; integrating hockey into the PER recruiting system.


----------



## suffolkowner

Good2Golf said:


> That would certainly be something new for the CAF; integrating hockey into the PER recruiting system.


 thats how my nephew joined the army, it didn't work out


----------



## Remius

Zipperhead99 said:


> Certainly agree on the under-exploited.  Here in the BC Interior we have Junior, Junior A, Junior B hockey teams and CJFL: all with kids that are physically fit, have worked as part of a team so they should have that loyalty / teamwork / respect for coaches (i.e. officers and NCOs) that would make them great candidates for the CAF but, alas we never target them for recruiting and personally I feel that it is an opportunity lost


We did that sort of thing before.  It wasn’t that successful.  Most kids that age still think they have a shot at the NHL or what not and want to play hockey not join the military.  Same with most sports at that level.  Or they get better deals to play varsity sports in the US or Europe.

Not saying it couldn’t be tried again but it didn’t work that much from what I saw when we did.  And we actually had a war on as well.


----------



## QV

2 years mandatory service immediately after high school for all. Earn credit towards post secondary, learn to be a #1 rifleman. You can decide to leave after 2, select people would get offers to stay and join the regs as ncm or officer stream to form the professional core. The period of service is treated with honour even after only 2 years. A culture of esprit de corps is society wide.

Everyone wins.


----------



## Remius

QV said:


> 2 years mandatory service immediately after high school for all. Earn credit towards post secondary, learn to be a #1 rifleman. You can decide to leave after 2, select people would get offers to stay and join the regs as ncm or officer stream to form the professional core. The period of service is treated with honour even after only 2 years. A culture of esprit de corps is society wide.
> 
> Everyone wins.


Or tie in mandatory basic training following HS.  July and august.  8 week BMQ.  Those that show potential or want to could be invited to continue down a full time career path.  Incorporate the recruiting process with that basic not to waste time.  Those that don’t stay on beyond that initial basic would have the option to join the Territorials.  Best case scenario is you create a more realistic selection process, worst case is you have a lot of people who get some form of military training that could be called upon if ever.  

Problem though is cost.


----------



## SupersonicMax

Remius said:


> Problem though is cost.


And the popularity of the proposal with the general population.


----------



## daftandbarmy

QV said:


> 2 years mandatory service immediately after high school for all. Earn credit towards post secondary, learn to be a #1 rifleman. You can decide to leave after 2, select people would get offers to stay and join the regs as ncm or officer stream to form the professional core. The period of service is treated with honour even after only 2 years. A culture of esprit de corps is society wide.
> 
> Everyone wins.



The best way to teach someone to hate their country is to force them into compulsory military service when they're 18.

Or so conscripts from other countries have told me


----------



## Kilted

Jarnhamar said:


> Caught an odd comment from MND Anand in an article at Global.
> 
> 
> 
> Have we been increasing defence spending since 2017? The wording seems odd.


There are troops at my unit that have gone out and bought their own civilian rucksacks, because they can't get issued them.  Last year some were buying their own sleeping bags because they weren't issued them.


----------



## Remius

SupersonicMax said:


> And the popularity of the proposal with the general population.


True lol


----------



## GR66

QV said:


> 2 years mandatory service immediately after high school for all. Earn credit towards post secondary, learn to be a #1 rifleman. You can decide to leave after 2, select people would get offers to stay and join the regs as ncm or officer stream to form the professional core. The period of service is treated with honour even after only 2 years. A culture of esprit de corps is society wide.
> 
> Everyone wins.


So we've swung from disbanding the Army all together to compulsory military service?  I think both are equally unrealistic (and undesirable).  

Volunteer is definitely the way to go.  Make the commitment just long enough to impart some useful skills but short enough that joining doesn't set you too far back in starting a different career if the Army isn't for you.

Maybe something like 6 months with a Reg Force Battalion for BMQ/DP1 and an exercise.  Trained recruits then have a choice to compete for a full-time 1 or 2 year Reg Force contract position, or alternately serve one year on Class A service with a Reserve unit near their home.


----------



## daftandbarmy

GR66 said:


> So we've swung from disbanding the Army all together to compulsory military service?  I think both are equally unrealistic (and undesirable).
> 
> Volunteer is definitely the way to go.  Make the commitment just long enough to impart some useful skills but short enough that joining doesn't set you too far back in starting a different career if the Army isn't for you.
> 
> Maybe something like 6 months with a Reg Force Battalion for BMQ/DP1 and an exercise.  Trained recruits then have a choice to compete for a full-time 1 or 2 year Reg Force contract position, or alternately serve one year on Class A service with a Reserve unit near their home.



I think you've just described something like SYEP, which was a big boost for the CAF at the time as I recall...


----------



## suffolkowner

mandatory service is unnecessary and undesired in my opinion but there are over 400,000 reaching military age yearly many of which could benefit personally as well as the country and the armed forces


----------



## daftandbarmy

suffolkowner said:


> mandatory service is unnecessary and undesired in my opinion but there are over 400,000 reaching military age yearly many of which could benefit personally as well as the country and the armed forces



It's a marketing opportunity, not a compulsory service solution.

We suck at sales, in general. It wouldn't take much to change that IMHO.


----------



## QV

daftandbarmy said:


> The best way to teach someone to hate their country is to force them into compulsory military service when they're 18.
> 
> Or so conscripts from other countries have told me


Lots of countries do this to varying degrees:

Denmark
Israel
Sweden
Switzerland
Norway

I doubt the majorities in those places hate their country. To do this we‘d need the general population to see the necessity and have a basic understanding the world is not safe, and mature responsible politicians for bipartisan adoption. Since we have neither, it’s moot, and so is any real defence spending increase because $10 daycare is more important. 

Or we could keep doing what we’re doing and expect different results I suppose.


----------



## mariomike

daftandbarmy said:


> I think you've just described something like SYEP, which was a big boost for the CAF at the time as I recall...



They called it SSEP during my time in, but SYEP sounds pretty similar...

Joined the PRes when I was 16.  Gave them three full summers as a student / reservist, before starting my full-time career.

After that, two weeks leave with pay every summer for PRes training.



> Employees can take a leave of absence with pay, for the two week period of absence, to attend the Canadian Armed Forces Reserve Training Program.


----------



## MilEME09

Problem is training courses aren't two weeks, hell mine were 3 months, had to switch jobs many tines because employeers didn't like playing ball, and it's not worth filing a complaint


----------



## FJAG

I'll stick with my model:

1) Recruit during high school - put on ResF BTL;

2) full summer employment to take BMQ from day school ends to day university or community college starts - tailor course to fit the break;

3) pay tuition and fees for those taking specialty course we want (paramedics, mechanics, cooks, heavy truckers) in exchange for obligatory period of service. Minimal 1 weekend per month training to keep in touch and build habit of being there;

4) full summer employment for four month DP1 course;

5) repeat 3);

6) full summer employment for four month DP2 course;

7) repeat 3) and 6) until education completed (especially officers with 4 years university;

8) after education complete transfer from BTL to a RegF or ResF unit with an obligatory period of service commensurate with education supported (2-3 years)

9) ResF units have obligatory training restricted to 10 monthly weekends and a three week exercise - selected reservists could be given a 1 year Class B to fill particular roles e.g. vehicle tech to bulk out a ResF maintenance company with full-time tradesmen and gain civilian work experience;

10) At end of obligatory service offer signing bonus for those considered worth keeping for a further period of obligatory service.

End state - a ResF individual trained to Reg F standards from the get go and capable of immediate CT or augmentation to a RegF unit; a system capable of generating a constant, predictable stream of soldiers; 

🍻


----------



## FJAG

MilEME09 said:


> Problem is training courses aren't two weeks, hell mine were 3 months, had to switch jobs many tines because employeers didn't like playing ball, and it's not worth filing a complaint


That's why one should concentrate on students, and train the hell out of them for the full summers when they are looking for work anyway. 

In three summers and two academic years (five summers and four years for officers and certain others) you should be able to get them BMQ, DP1 and 2 trained in whatever trade. After that you go on a reduced cycle of obligatory training which caters for outside work and the family.

Get them while they're young and needing cash.

😉


----------



## daftandbarmy

FJAG said:


> I'll stick with my model:
> 
> 1) Recruit during high school - put on ResF BTL;
> 
> 2) full summer employment to take BMQ from day school ends to day university or community college starts - tailor course to fit the break;
> 
> 3) pay tuition and fees for those taking specialty course we want (paramedics, mechanics, cooks, heavy truckers) in exchange for obligatory period of service. Minimal 1 weekend per month training to keep in touch and build habit of being there;
> 
> 4) full summer employment for four month DP1 course;
> 
> 5) repeat 3);
> 
> 6) full summer employment for four month DP2 course;
> 
> 7) repeat 3) and 6) until education completed (especially officers with 4 years university;
> 
> 8) after education complete transfer from BTL to a RegF or ResF unit with an obligatory period of service commensurate with education supported (2-3 years)
> 
> 9) ResF units have obligatory training restricted to 10 monthly weekends and a three week exercise - selected reservists could be given a 1 year Class B to fill particular roles e.g. vehicle tech to bulk out a ResF maintenance company with full-time tradesmen and gain civilian work experience;
> 
> 10) At end of obligatory service offer signing bonus for those considered worth keeping for a further period of obligatory service.
> 
> End state - a ResF individual trained to Reg F standards from the get go and capable of immediate CT or augmentation to a RegF unit; a system capable of generating a constant, predictable stream of soldiers;
> 
> 🍻



As per 2), you could offer a 'Gap Year' of military service, between Grade 12 and Uni, and probably get alot of interest. Especially if it comes with alot of travel as well as education credits, or whatever.


----------



## TacticalTea

FJAG said:


> I'll stick with my model:
> 
> 1) Recruit during high school - put on ResF BTL;
> 
> 2) full summer employment to take BMQ from day school ends to day university or community college starts - tailor course to fit the break;
> 
> 3) pay tuition and fees for those taking specialty course we want (paramedics, mechanics, cooks, heavy truckers) in exchange for obligatory period of service. Minimal 1 weekend per month training to keep in touch and build habit of being there;
> 
> 4) full summer employment for four month DP1 course;
> 
> 5) repeat 3);
> 
> 6) full summer employment for four month DP2 course;
> 
> 7) repeat 3) and 6) until education completed (especially officers with 4 years university;
> 
> 8) after education complete transfer from BTL to a RegF or ResF unit with an obligatory period of service commensurate with education supported (2-3 years)
> 
> 9) ResF units have obligatory training restricted to 10 monthly weekends and a three week exercise - selected reservists could be given a 1 year Class B to fill particular roles e.g. vehicle tech to bulk out a ResF maintenance company with full-time tradesmen and gain civilian work experience;
> 
> 10) At end of obligatory service offer signing bonus for those considered worth keeping for a further period of obligatory service.
> 
> End state - a ResF individual trained to Reg F standards from the get go and capable of immediate CT or augmentation to a RegF unit; a system capable of generating a constant, predictable stream of soldiers;
> 
> 🍻


As long as your model doesn't involve 12-24 month long enrollment and transfer processes, just about anything can work...

My 2c...


----------



## MilEME09

FJAG said:


> That's why one should concentrate on students, and train the hell out of them for the full summers when they are looking for work anyway.
> 
> In three summers and two academic years (five summers and four years for officers and certain others) you should be able to get them BMQ, DP1 and 2 trained in whatever trade. After that you go on a reduced cycle of obligatory training which caters for outside work and the family.
> 
> Get them while they're young and needing cash.
> 
> 😉


I agree, where I see the opportunity is just like the army, most civilian jobs are busiest in the summer. Non student reservists could probably find an easier time to get time off Oct to March then they can May to Aug. Why not run a course or two in the winter catering to the other group?


----------



## daftandbarmy

TacticalTea said:


> As long as your model doesn't involve 12-24 month long enrollment and transfer processes, just about anything can work...
> 
> My 2c...



Well, in that case....


----------



## FJAG

MilEME09 said:


> I agree, where I see the opportunity is just like the army, most civilian jobs are busiest in the summer. Non student reservists could probably find an easier time to get time off Oct to March then they can May to Aug. Why not run a course or two in the winter catering to the other group?


No reason why not. I see a regional training organization that is part of CADTC which I conveniently call "Depot battalions". These are located out of Edmonton, Meaford, Valcartier and Aldershot but with companies and platoons located in all major cities with ResF units and student populations.

The role of the Depot Battalions is to take over recruiting and BTL management from the moment the person shows an interest to when trained and transferred to a unit. I see a full-time cadre large enough to manage all the administration and course management year round with ResF and RegF augmentation through the summers. There is no reason why they couldn't also conduct courses during the academic year while the main mass is in civilian schools.

I've been focusing mainly on ResF training during the 1 May to 30 Aug timeframe but with appropriate staffing there is no reason why they couldn't take over training of RegF personnel during the 1 Sep to 30 Apr period as well.

Officer and DP3 and higher training stays with the CTC. (which may or may not delegate some of that down to the Depot Battalions)



TacticalTea said:


> As long as your model doesn't involve 12-24 month long enrollment and transfer processes, just about anything can work...
> 
> My 2c...


For the life of me I can't understand how that ever was allowed to develop. 

Putting recruiting; individual training up to DP2; common courses for RegF and ResF all under one agency should remove many of the administrative barriers to BTL management. If one for example absorbs the CFRG and sufficient medical staff (both CF and contract clinics) and security clearance into these battalions should lessen problems. One could even go so far as to have Depot Battalions do BMQ for the RCN and RCAF and totally absorb the CAF recruit school system. 

Such a system using either local armouries or semi-austere summer training camps would have a much greater ability to expand and contract for throughputs than the current regime which is limited by fixed infrastructure. Leaning heavily on Community Colleges for teaching the fundamentals of tech trades would greatly reduce the burden on our own trade schools (which would then only have to concern themselves with adding on the specific military aspects while at the same time giving the students a provincially recognized civilian trade qualification.

🍻


----------



## mariomike

MilEME09 said:


> Problem is training courses aren't two weeks, hell mine were 3 months, had to switch jobs many tines because employeers didn't like playing ball, and it's not worth filing a complaint



Sorry to hear that. Military Leave was written into our collective agreement. You did not have to ask permission. It was your right - under certain circumstances.

Two weeks Leave With Pay  ( city pay, not PRes pay )  every summer.
That was for summer "Concentration". Not sure if they still call it that, or even if they still have it?

Two weeks of PRes cost city taxpayers 200 hours pay. ( 80 hours for the reservist and another 80 hours OT at time-and-a-half to cover the their shifts. )

If you wanted more than two weeks, there better be a war on.

Military Leave
24.09 (a) Leave of absence shall be granted to employees to serve in the Armed Forces during hostilities or during a time of war as declared by the Government of Canada. Seniority will accumulate during such leave.




FJAG said:


> That's why one should concentrate on students, and train the hell out of them for the full summers when they are looking for work anyway.


^ This.

SSEP paid me three full summers of PRes, until I started my full-time career.

Thereafter,  two weeks Leave With Pay ( city pay rate, not PRes ) every summer.
Salary & Benefits​


> Employees are paid their regular pay provided they submit any compensation received for military service to the city treasurer, unless this compensation is paid for days they are not scheduled to work.



( With 12-hour shifts, you didn't work many days anyway. )



> Compensation received for travelling expenses and meal allowance does not have to be returned to the city.





> All benefits continue during the leave.





> An employee’s service is not affected by the leave. An employee’s vacation entitlement, seniority and pension credit do not change.


----------



## OceanBonfire

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1503416416212553734


----------



## KevinB

OceanBonfire said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1503416416212553734


A report that tells nothing other than the CAF doesn't manage money well.
   Shocking.

Also the Germans just spent more in one year in Capital acquisitions than Canada expects to over 10, almost 15...


----------



## FSTO

OceanBonfire said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1503416416212553734


Kicking the can down the road is what Canada does best!


----------



## Brad Sallows

> 2 years mandatory service immediately after high school for all.



No fucking way.  The mind is still developing; people on either an academic or occupational track should be in school still.


----------



## BillN

FSTO said:


> Kicking the can down the road is what Canada does best!


Did anyone expect anything different????


----------



## Kirkhill

FSTO said:


> Kicking the can down the road is what Canada does best!


Jam tomorrow!


----------



## QV

Brad Sallows said:


> No fucking way.  The mind is still developing; people on either an academic or occupational track should be in school still.


Then 1-2 years immediately after post secondary completion.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

KevinB said:


> A report that tells nothing other than the CAF doesn't manage money well.
> Shocking.
> 
> Also the Germans just spent more in one year in Capital acquisitions than Canada expects to over 10, almost 15...


SSE= Sort of, Sometime, Excuses


----------



## Brad Sallows

> Then 1-2 years immediately after post secondary completion.



Whatever.  The number of high school graduates in Canada each year is somewhere near or above 300,000.   Got a plan to run 10,000 basic training platoons each year?


----------



## KevinB

How about 20 CSC, 5 JSS, some sort of RORO Big Honking ship, and new Subs for the Navy (I will even drop my preference for SSN if it gets a decent AIP new boat)
  140 F-35's, 25 P-8, 180 FVL (replace the Cyclone, and the Griffons, Cormorants) for a pure fleet Utility, while I am partial to the Bell submission, the Sikorsky/LocMart may be better for Naval and SAR as tilt rotor has some issues with space and downwash, add 15 more Hooks, find a way to get more C-17's (used low hour ones, or see what it would take to get Boeing to kick the line back up - I suspect some other customers want the same) - and UAV's for the Air Force.

Army - sort out the Reserves.

 1 Heavy Bde (30-70 reg/res) - Prepositioned in Europe (Latvia comes to mind - but the Ukraine might be a good spot after this is all settled)
  2 Med Bde (30-70 reg/res)
  1 Light Bde  70/30 reg/res) *rapid response force until your heavier forces can get into an area
  1 Combat Support Bde (70/30 reg/res)
  2 Service Support Bdes (50/50 reg/res)


I have now spend 80 years of CAF budget in less than a decade...


----------



## TacticalTea

KevinB said:


> How about 20 CSC, 5 JSS, some sort of RORO Big Honking ship, and new Subs for the Navy (I will even drop my preference for SSN if it gets a decent AIP new boat)
> 140 F-35's, 25 P-8, 180 FVL (replace the Cyclone, and the Griffons, Cormorants) for a pure fleet Utility, while I am partial to the Bell submission, the Sikorsky/LocMart may be better for Naval and SAR as tilt rotor has some issues with space and downwash, add 15 more Hooks, find a way to get more C-17's (used low hour ones, or see what it would take to get Boeing to kick the line back up - I suspect some other customers want the same) - and UAV's for the Air Force.
> 
> Army - sort out the Reserves.
> 
> 1 Heavy Bde (30-70 reg/res) - Prepositioned in Europe (Latvia comes to mind - but the Ukraine might be a good spot after this is all settled)
> 2 Med Bde (30-70 reg/res)
> 1 Light Bde  70/30 reg/res) *rapid response force until your heavier forces can get into an area
> 1 Combat Support Bde (70/30 reg/res)
> 2 Service Support Bdes (50/50 reg/res)
> 
> 
> I have now spend 80 years of CAF budget in less than a decade...


Any reason we can't get on that AUKUS SSN deal?

Also holy molly the Raider X FVL looks like an amazing weapons platform. Here's to hoping all the dreams come true... hah!


----------



## KevinB

TacticalTea said:


> Any reason we can't get on that AUKUS SSN deal?
> 
> Also holy molly the Raider X FVL looks like an amazing weapons platform. Here's to hoping all the dreams come true... hah!


I think SSN is a bridge to far for Canada at this moment.
   I didn't include AH yet either, because getting a decent Helo UH is a larger priority to me than getting an AH at this point -- small steps


----------



## Kirkhill

*There is more than the Canadian Solution for organizing defence.

Denmark is a country of less than 6 million people with an area a bit smaller than Nova Scotia.*
Canada is a country of 38,000,000.

*We have 7 times the population and 232 times the area.*

In World War 2 it was overrun by Germany when the Danish government told the Danish Army to not resist and lay down their arms.
This didn't sit well with many Danes who organized their own resistance who fought the Germans for the next 5 years.

After the war the government reinstated the army.
But the resistance movement wanted to ensured that the defence of the nation was in the hands of the people so they organized the Home Guard.
The Army is the Government's Army.
The Home Guard is, effectively Parliament's Army.

*The Government's Army*

The Government's Army is paid and its ranks filled by volunteers and conscripts.
Every 18 year old  is registered for conscription but most are never called up.
Most positions are filled by volunteers from the list.
Conscripts do 4 months training and can then be released or can volunteer for additional service with the Danish equivalent of the Ceremonial Guards and other duties.  They can also sign on for full time contracts and volunteer for overseas service.
This system sustains a paid* Government Army with a High Command and a 2 Brigade Divisional Force with 25,400 active member*s.

Multiply by 7 and *the Canadian equivalent would be 7 Divisions, 14 Brigades and 177,800 active members.*



> Technically all Danish 18-year-old males are conscripts (37,897 in 2010, of whom 53% were considered suitable for duty).[36] Due to the large number of volunteers, 96-99% of the number required in the past three years,[37] the number of men actually called up is relatively low (4200 in 2012). There were additionally 567 female volunteers in 2010, who pass training on "conscript-like" conditions.[38]



The active army is backed by a Reserve force of ex-members



> WHAT IS THE RESERVE
> 
> The reserve is the group of military personnel who are not permanently employed in the Armed Forces, but have signed a contract with the Armed Forces to be available for military service. (Similarly, the Danish Emergency Management Agency has a reserve of non-permanent contractual personnel who are also organized in the HPRD).
> 
> The reserve consists of soldiers of all ranks from the constable and sergeant group and officers up to the rank of colonel. All have a full military education equivalent to that of permanent staff. Many reservists are former permanent line personnel who have left the Armed Forces and, like the other reservists, have a civilian job as their primary occupation.
> 
> WHY THE RESERVE?
> 
> Military defense uses reserve personnel for several reasons, the most important of which is probably that it is the cheapest way to use personnel. If a reservist is called up for service 35 days a year, he is free for the Armed Forces for the other 330 days of the year. For this reason, the Reserve is typically used for peak loads. For example, one in five international operations deployed in 2008 was by the Reserve. Secondly, the Reserve is a bridge-builder between civil society and the Armed Forces. It brings civilian values and ideas into the Armed Forces and is the Armed Forces' ambassadors in the civilian. Third, a large majority of the reservists possess attractive civilian competencies that the Armed Forces directly or indirectly benefit from. Fourth, having a Reserve Defense provides operational flexibility:
> 
> HOW BIG IS THE RESERVE IN DENMARK?
> 
> In 2013, about 3,000 reservists have an availability contract with the Armed Forces in 2013, and they deliver about 25,000 days of command, corresponding to approx. 120 man-years. In fact, most of the admission days are provided by less than 1,000 reservists. The Danish defense spends about 0.3% of the defense budget on the Reserve's available service, and is, like Estonia and Italy, among the NATO countries that use the Reserve the least. In contrast, the UK and US spend from 5 to 10 per cent of the defense budget on their reserves.




*The Home Guard (Parliament's Army)*

This is the direct equivalent of the Territorial Defence Forces of Ukraine and Sweden, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Norway.  Finnland is organized differently.  There everyone is in the army.

The Home Guard works and trains with the Army, Navy and Air Force, and is coordinated by the High Command but it is not part of them.
The Home Guard, under a Major General,  has its own Command Structure, independent of the Government Army.
It has its own representative in parliament.
Aside from a small staff it is an unpaid volunteer organization.



> Dual Leadership​The Home Guard has a dual military - civilian leadership:
> 
> The Commander of the Home Guard, Major General Jens Garly, is responsible for the training and deployment of units and also for the overall supervision of the Home Guard
> The Commissioner of the Danish Home Guard, Søren Espersen, is responsible for recruitment and gaining support for the Home Guard in the Danish population.



It is built around local companies.  The highest rank available to the unpaid volunteer in Captain.
Most volunteers are young civilians already started on their civvy career.
They attend the local sessions for interesting training and camaraderie as well as to "Be Prepared".
And they do it for free.



> The Volunteers in the Danish Home Guard​
> 
> The members of the Home Guard take part in the defence and support of the country on a voluntary and unpaid basis.
> 
> Men and women from the age of 18 can apply for membership. A military background is not necessary. The wish to participate is more important.



This site opens to a great presentation on the Homeguard, volunteering and training.
Hjemmeværnet



> *The Army Home Guard*
> 
> The Army Home Guard volunteer soldiers are specially *trained to support the Armed Forces, the Police and the Emergency Management Agency* in their task solution on land, both in Denmark and abroad.
> 
> All members of the Army Home Guard have completed a* basic military training in line with the Army's basic training*. The tasks range from traffic regulation and security, to securing Danish socially important companies. The Army Home Guard also supports the Armed Forces in connection with the training of conscripts and soldiers who are to be sent out for international tasks.
> 
> In recent years, the Army Home Guard has been on international missions with the Armed Forces, for example in Afghanistan and Kosovo.
> 
> *The Home Guard volunteers come from all parts of society - together they have an interest in defense and a desire to help society and make a difference.*





> Copenhagen attacks spur Home Guard interest
> 
> Interest in enrolling in the Danish Home Guard doubled in the week after a gunman opened fire at a cultural centre and killed a Jewish security guard, recruitment officials said on Friday.
> 
> Interest in the Home Guard increased after both the Paris and Copenhagen attacks.
> 
> *The Home Guard normally receives an average of 27 recruitment inquiries per week*,  (189 Canadian or 9828 Canadian Equivalents per year)- but in the week after the February 14-15 Copenhagen shootings, 85 Danes signed up. In the first week following the Paris attacks, 40 Danes contacted the Home Guard. An additional 75 signed up the following week.
> 
> “I think it is natural that people react in different ways when they suddenly feel that their country and society is under attack. Some want to take concrete action and for them the Home Guard is a way to support the military and protect society,” Krenchel said.
> 
> *The Home Guard recruitment process takes up to four months*
> 
> One of the weapons that El-Hussein used was *an M95 rifle that had previously been stolen from the home of a Danish Home Guard member.* That led the military service to order its *4,300  *(30,100 Canadian Equivalents with their rifles at home*) volunteer members in March to turn in their rifle bolts*, making them unable to be fired.
> 
> That decision led to a mixed political response. While Defence Minister Nicolai Wammen expressed his “full trust” in the Home Guard, many opposition MPs criticized the decision.
> 
> “When one hands in their bolt, it’s the same as handing in their weapon. So it is basically saying that now our Home Guard is unarmed. I think that is the wrong decision,” Danish People’s Party spokeswoman Marie Krarup told DR.
> 
> Troels Lund Poulsen, a spokesman for primary opposition party Venstre, told Berlingske it was “insane” to implement what he characterized as a drastic decision, while Holger Nielsen of the left-wing Socialist People’s Party countered that disarming Home Guard members was “sensible”.



The Home Guard also has its own Special Force, the Special Support and Reconnaissance Company (SSR)



> *The Home Guard's Special Support and Reconnaissance Company (SSR)* is specially trained in obtaining information under difficult tactical conditions and supports the solution of the Armed Forces' national and international tasks.
> 
> As the Home Guard's national special force, SSR must be able to *support the Armed Forces' special operations forces with patrols and staff - also internationally.* This places great demands on the individual soldier.
> 
> 
> The unit consists of *volunteer personnel from the Home Guard who are specially selected, specially trained and specially equipped to be able to perform special reconnaissance and information retrieval in small highly trained teams*.





> *Military service and civilian affairs*
> 
> SSR gives you a unique opportunity to get the best out of the military world while you have a civilian job or are doing other things unrelated to the Armed Forces in general.
> 
> If you, like many others, still want to have the experiences that the military can give you in the form of exercises, courses and personal competencies, then SSR is a good place to be. *You will be able to meet your physical and personal challenges while you can also have a civilian job.*





> *Physical and mental challenges*
> 
> Great demands are placed on your physical endurance and your mental resilience. You will be faced with physical challenges that require you to *keep your shape straight.*
> 
> You sometimes want to *get to the limit of what you can physically handle*, and you want to train for it. This option must also be rewarded, and you will therefore have *the opportunity to train with others* who also have this option.
> 
> This means that *the physical requirements must be able to be met at all times *and form a foundation for you to be able to complete the demanding exercises and courses in which SSR participates.





> *SSR in preparation for other military units*
> 
> If you have the desire to become a Hunter (Jaeger-Commando) or a Frogman, SSR is a good place to start. The service provides a good physical, mental, personal and professional foundation.* The training in SSR is demanding because we place high demands on you so that SSR can fulfill its obligations in the cooperation agreement with the Danish special operations forces.*
> 
> Through the service in SSR, you get a professional and personal surplus, which can help you against the dream of being admitted to one of the two corps. SSR can give you the push to get off to a good start - you then have to complete the rest yourself.






> Personal skills
> 
> An important part of the service in SSR is about not skipping where the fence is lowest.
> 
> You will be continually influenced to get things done in the best way. During the service, there will be situations where it can be directly life-threatening if things are not done properly or the individual wastes his or her professional competence. You will therefore be greeted with the attitude that you keep working until the task is solved extremely satisfactorily.
> 
> SSR thus expects one to behave properly and have situational awareness. On the other hand, one cannot have served in SSR without being influenced in a positive way.






> Unique unity
> 
> When you have gone through a lot of hardships together and seen how dependent you are on each other, you get a unique friendship.
> 
> During exercises and courses, you will usually spend many hours with other people who share the same interests as you and who are willing to help you in all situations. This unity is difficult to find elsewhere and will be something that characterizes you during, but also after a completed service in SSR.
> 
> Something magical happens between people who are dependent on each other under extreme conditions. You will therefore find both support and camaraderie at SSR.



The SSR is not the entirety of the Home Guard but what it is pitching is likely what appeals to the rest of the volunteers.

It obviously isn't about the money.  It isn't paid.

It is about service, challenge, friendship and interest and above all a feeling of wanting to contribute.







> *Tasmania’s very own royal, Crown Princess Mary of Denmark has enrolled in the Danish Home Guard.*
> 
> The Crown Princess will learn* how to handle and fire a weapon, first aid, marching drills, signal training, fire-fighting and rescue skills while she attends elementary training at the Home Guard training centre.*
> 
> When she finishes her training, Princess Mary will be attached to the Home Guard ‘total defence’ region in Copenhagen.






> *Crown Princess Mary completes Home Guard Training
> 
> Continuing and completing her training with the Danish Home Guard between February 17 and 19,* Crown Princess Mary has been *promoted to the rank of lieutenant in the Home Guard*. She is now attached to the staff of Total Defence Region Copenhagen.
> 
> Mary *began her basic Home Guard training in January 2008*, and continued with *NGO training that November*. She undertook a further* officiers course this year between January 19 and 21, plus on January 28.
> 
> Mary passed a course in shooting, first aid and surviving in the wild*, meaning that she can now serve in Denmark's Home Guard.
> 
> By training with the organisation, which would defend the nation in the event of an attack, the princess is following in the footsteps of her mother-in-law Queen Margrethe. The Home Guard was formed in 1949, with its members drawn from World War II resistance fighters.







> Facts about the Danish Home Guard​
> The Home Guard is a volunteer military organisation.
> The Home Guard had 46,651 members as of October 2014 .
> The active force had 15,808 volunteer soldiers as of October, 2014. The remaining volunteers belong to the Home Guard Reserve.
> Approximately 15 percent of all volunteer soldiers are women.
> The task of the Home Guard is to support the Armed Forces – nationally as well as internationally.  In addition, the Home Guard supports the police, the emergency services and other authorities in carrying out their duties.
> 1,845 people applied for enrollment in the Home Guard, and 1,301 volunteers signed a contract in 2014 (as of November 2014).
> 868 of the new volunteers (68 percent) were aged 18-32.
> The appropriation allocated to the Home Guard in the Finance Bill amounted to 498,4 m. DKK in 2014.




Facts about the Danish  Canadian Home Guard​
*The Home Guard is a volunteer military organisation.*
The Home Guard had 46,651* 326,557  members* as of October 2014 .
The active force had 15,808 *110,656 volunteer soldi**er**s *as of October, 2014. The remaining volunteers belong to the Home Guard Reserve
(an armed active force of 4,300 *30,100 volunteer soldiers keep their rifles at home*)
(a *Special Support and Reconnaissance Company  Battalion is sustained)*
Approximately 15 percent of all volunteer soldiers are wome
*The task of the Home Guard is to support the Armed Forces* – nationally as well as internationally.  In addition, the Home Guard supports the police, the emergency services and other authorities in carrying out their duties.
1,845  *12,915 people applied for enrollment* in the Home Guard, and 1,301 *9,107 volunteers signed a contract* in 2014 (as of November 2014).
868 *6,076 of the new volunteers (68 percent) were aged 18-32.*
*The appropriation allocated to the Home Guard* in the Finance Bill amounted to 498,4 m. DKK *655 MCAD* in 2014.

In case some think that $655,000,000  per year is too much to sustain a pool of 326,557 military age volunteers with some training

$217,912,613 – Cadets & Junior Rangers
9,668 Reserves Supporting Cadets






						Vice Chief of the Defence Staff  - Canada.ca
					

March 2020 - Essential information to familiarize the Minister with the Department.




					www.canada.ca
				




*54,325 Cadets* (as of March 1, 2020)
*4,271 youths Junior Rangers participating in over 135 patrols*.


And if you think this unrealistic  I remind you of



> The 2010 stats show that 47% (or over* 13 million) volunteer*. In total 2 billion hours were volunteered, the equivalent of *1.1 million full time jobs*. On average, volunteers contributed *156 hours each (roughly 21 working days)*.





> NFPA estimates there were approximately 152,650 local firefighters in the Canada during the period 2014 to 2016. Of the total number of firefighters 26,000 (17%) were career firefighters and *126,650 (83%)* were *volunteer firefighters*.
> 
> *Volunteer firefighters freely volunteer their efforts* as a way of serving and giving back to their community. *They often do not receive monetary compensation* from the fire department. If they are paid, it is typically in the form of small stipends or annual bonuses.




The right bait?


----------



## Kirkhill

Going back to Blackadder's table that started all this, and slotting in Denmark


CountryDef ExpedGDP (billions)Per capitaPers #Eqpt %Pers %Infstr %Other %(millions)/ % def expGDP / def expUnited States811,14020,601 / 3.5262,100 / 2,1861351.529.3537.471.5831.59United Kingdom72,7653,014 / 2.2944,700 / 1,023156.224.2632.691.4241.64Germany64,7853,521 / 1.5342,200 / 644189.118.5541.753.6936.06France58,7292,534 / 2.0137,400 / 75120827.842.533.0226.65Italy29,7631,821 / 1.4130,500 / 428174.228.960.541.678.89Canada26,5231,697 / 1.3944,100 / 63271.117.6647.53.3231.52Spain14,8751,250 / 1.0226,200 / 267123.922.7560.120.7316.41Netherlands14,378828 / 1.4547,100 / 68540.826.247.263.2623.28Poland13,369575 / 2.1015,000 / 314121.226.147.924.9721.01Turkey13,0571,073 / 1.5712,700 / 199445.429.0552.471.9516.53Denmark5,522338 / 1.6357,700 / 81318.322.3545.392.4429.83









						The Danish Armed Forces
					

The Danish Armed Forces maintain the sovereignty of Denmark as well as Greenland and the Faroe Islands, and are part of Danish society's overall readiness in the event of national crises and disasters.   Internationally Denmark has a longstanding tradition for participating in military...




					www.forsvaret.dk
				





			https://www.hjv.dk/sider/english.aspx


----------



## Maxman1

dapaterson said:


> CAF finance officers are trained as budget managers, not accountants.  Most would be hard pressed to discuss why there is a chart of accounts and what it represents; are poor at differentiating between the four votes used by DND/CAF; and receive little to no formal training on the mechanics of government which is a sine qua non at the more senior levels (LCol+).  A finance officer who can't discuss Main Estimates, Supplementary Estimates, and the Annual Reference Level Update isn't a finance officer.





kev994 said:


> I was recently shocked to find out they do zero training in procurement. Explains why they keep talking about multiple quotes for Standing Offers.



I've been trying to convince my sister to join her local reserve unit as a finance officer. She's an accountant, with a four year BBA in finance, and in the past worked for a procurement firm. Sounds like she might be overqualified.


----------



## MilEME09

Maxman1 said:


> I've been trying to convince my sister to join her local reserve unit as a finance officer. She's an accountant, with a four year BBA in finance, and in the past worked for a procurement firm. Sounds like she might be overqualified.


I think we need that right now


----------



## TacticalTea

Kirkhill said:


> Facts about the Danish  Canadian Home Guard​
> *The Home Guard is a volunteer military organisation.*
> The Home Guard had 46,651* 326,557  members* as of October 2014 .
> The active force had 15,808 *110,656 volunteer soldiers *as of October, 2014. The remaining volunteers belong to the Home Guard Reserve
> (an armed active force of 4,300 *30,100 volunteer soldiers keep their rifles at home*)
> (a *Special Support and Reconnaissance Company  Battalion is sustained)*
> Approximately 15 percent of all volunteer soldiers are wome
> *The task of the Home Guard is to support the Armed Forces* – nationally as well as internationally.  *In addition, the Home Guard supports the police, the emergency services and other authorities in carrying out their duties.*
> 1,845  *12,915 people applied for enrollment* in the Home Guard, and 1,301 *9,107 volunteers signed a contract* in 2014 (as of November 2014).
> 868 *6,076 of the new volunteers (68 percent) were aged 18-32.*
> *The appropriation allocated to the Home Guard* in the Finance Bill amounted to 498,4 m. DKK *655 MCAD* in 2014.


You had my curiosity, and this part got my attention. DOMOPS might be where we find the most use out of these guys so that the Army can actually focus on warfighting?

Plus, it'd be a splendid recruiting tool; join to fight wildfires, floods, epidemics and serve your community. Boy scouts for adults.

Might make them more easily employable too, since - under the right legal construct - there wouldn't be a dodgy question of force employment on Canadian soil. Conceivably, the Home Guard could legally fall under military command only in times of armed conflict, just like the USCG.


----------



## Kirkhill

TacticalTea said:


> You had my curiosity, and this part got my attention. DOMOPS might be where we find the most use out of these guys so that the Army can actually focus on warfighting?
> 
> Plus, it'd be a splendid recruiting tool; join to fight wildfires, floods, epidemics and serve your community. *Boy scouts for adults.*
> 
> Might make them more easily employable too, since - under the right legal construct - there wouldn't be a dodgy question of force employment on Canadian soil. Conceivably, the Home Guard could legally fall under military command only in times of armed conflict, just like the USCG.




Eggzacky!!!

And, as you say, leave the warfighting for the Professionals.

And if they need additional help they have a pool of volunteers from which to draw, if they ask politely.


----------



## RangerRay

I don’t know about expecting more from volunteers. I was part of a fully funded ground SAR unit (i.e. we didn’t do bake sales) with all the gear and equipment we needed, but we faced the same attendance problems as my former PRes unit; 30-50 people on paper but less than a dozen who showed up regularly for practice, training and taskings, and even fewer who filled “management” roles. As such, those dedicated few who showed up got burnt out quickly, especially management, so we had high turnover.  Like the PRes, advanced training took place out of town, on our own time, sometimes 7 hours away in the Big Smoke.  We were paid only expenses for training and taskings. 

I think it’s wishful thinking that motivated volunteers are going to save our bacon. A lot of volunteers put in exactly as much effort as they’re paid, especially when life gets in the way. At least in the PRes, they paid us beer money!


----------



## Brad Sallows

> Plus, it'd be a splendid recruiting tool; join to fight wildfires, floods, epidemics and serve your community. Boy scouts for adults.



The people who occasionally boost their income by working extra hours when called upon to help in other parts of the country probably don't want underpaid competition.

Sure is easy to propose things that result in someone else's time or income being imposed upon.


----------



## RangerRay

TacticalTea said:


> Plus, it'd be a splendid recruiting tool; join to fight *wildfires*, floods, epidemics and serve your community. Boy scouts for adults.


We already have agencies for wildfire suppression.


----------



## MilEME09

Brad Sallows said:


> The people who occasionally boost their income by working extra hours when called upon to help in other parts of the country probably don't want underpaid competition.
> 
> Sure is easy to propose things that result in someone else's time or income being imposed upon.


A long time ago reserve CSS was part of the national recovery plan, we actually had class A members on call. Now it's all contracted out


----------



## rmc_wannabe

Here lies our current problem with the PRes: Gotta pay the bills somehow.

We offer very little in the way of protection or cushion for folks when we ask them to serve their country on a part time basis. A lot of the people we recruit as reservists are working full time or are students pursuing a degree so they can be employed full time.

I look at the Ontario Government's recent changes to support Reservists and can already see HR departments trying to find loopholes. If we are going to have a Nordic socialist ideal of a "Home Guard" we need to ensure we provide the same sort of safe guards.


----------



## Kirkhill

Continuing with my fascination on the subject of Denmark

We have 7x the population but only 5x the wealth.   Rich Danish buggers.

With that I took a look at the kit the Danes have and multiplied it by 5.

We would end up with

95x Cesar 155mm SPH (Wheeled)
105x LAV mounted 120mm mortars
220x Leo2A7
220x CV9035
2200x LAVs
890x Armoured HMMWV
75x Jackal

The Navy would end up with

15x Iver Huitfeldt Air Defence Frigates (ABM/Tomahawk Capable)
10x Absalon ASW/Support Frigates (Tank Transport Capable)
20x Thetis Class Frigates
15x Knud Rasmussen Patrol Vessels

The Air Force would end up with

163x F16 (being phased out)
135x F35 (being phased in)
20x Challenger MPA
20x C130J
55x Fennec Helicopters
45x SH-60
70x Merlin/Cormorant

40x NASAMS AD Batteries with 240x launchers 
30x Radar Stations

All with a budget of less than 2% of GDP. (1.6 to be precise)


----------



## Kirkhill

RangerRay said:


> I don’t know about expecting more from volunteers. I was part of a fully funded ground SAR unit (i.e. we didn’t do bake sales) with all the gear and equipment we needed, but we faced the same attendance problems as my former PRes unit; 30-50 people on paper but less than a dozen who showed up regularly for practice, training and taskings, and even fewer who filled “management” roles. As such, those dedicated few who showed up got burnt out quickly, especially management, so we had high turnover.  Like the PRes, advanced training took place out of town, on our own time, sometimes 7 hours away in the Big Smoke.  We were paid only expenses for training and taskings.
> 
> I think it’s wishful thinking that motivated volunteers are going to save our bacon. A lot of volunteers put in exactly as much effort as they’re paid, especially when life gets in the way. At least in the PRes, they paid us beer money!



I don't care if they regularly show up.  Or if they get all the training.  

I care about getting that regular dozen for free.
And, in the event of an emergency, as many of the rest as are willing to show up.
It all helps.


----------



## Kirkhill

Brad Sallows said:


> The people who occasionally boost their income by working extra hours when called upon to help in other parts of the country probably don't want underpaid competition.
> 
> Sure is easy to propose things that result in someone else's time or income being imposed upon.



I keep forgetting.
Public Service is a union shop in Canada.

The Danes have stronger unions than we have over here and yet they still manage to support an unpaid Homeguard.


----------



## Kirkhill

RangerRay said:


> We already have agencies for wildfire suppression.



Again, back to the Union.

This is about organizing for the day when the professionals are overwhelmed.


----------



## mariomike

TacticalTea said:


> Plus, it'd be a splendid recruiting tool; join to fight wildfires, floods, epidemics and serve your community.



"Serve your community."

How many employers grant Military Leave for anything short of "war as declared by the Government of Canada." ?

Especially when serving their community is their profession.

Saw this upthread,

*>Volunteer firefighters freely volunteer their efforts* as a way of serving and giving back to their community. *They often do not receive >monetary compensation* from the fire department. If they are paid, it is typically in the form of small stipends or annual bonuses.

We didn't have vollies or part-timers in our town. "It's a career, not a hobby".

But, I did look online at the collective agreements of some volunteer firefighter unions in Ontario.  Take a look at the "small stipends".


----------



## Kirkhill

rmc_wannabe said:


> Here lies our current problem with the PRes: Gotta pay the bills somehow.
> 
> We offer very little in the way of protection or cushion for folks when we ask them to serve their country on a part time basis. A lot of the people we recruit as reservists are working full time or are students pursuing a degree so they can be employed full time.
> 
> I look at the Ontario Government's recent changes to support Reservists and can already see HR departments trying to find loopholes. If we are going to have a Nordic socialist ideal of a "Home Guard" we need to ensure we provide the same sort of safe guards.




This mob is not asked to serve their country.  If they go overseas they have to volunteer and sign a regular short term enlistment contract (typically 6 months) and get covered under that.

These are people voluntarily, freely, at no charge, making themselves available to serve their local community.  If they are injured then the local, government funded health care system looks after them. The same way it would if they injured themselves down at the local Sporthalle playing handball.

This is not about padding the Army and building Corps for Generals.
It is about preparing for emergencies that include people shooting.


----------



## MilEME09

rmc_wannabe said:


> Here lies our current problem with the PRes: Gotta pay the bills somehow.
> 
> We offer very little in the way of protection or cushion for folks when we ask them to serve their country on a part time basis. A lot of the people we recruit as reservists are working full time or are students pursuing a degree so they can be employed full time.
> 
> I look at the Ontario Government's recent changes to support Reservists and can already see HR departments trying to find loopholes. If we are going to have a Nordic socialist ideal of a "Home Guard" we need to ensure we provide the same sort of safe guards.


Agreed, in Alberta we need to provide 30 days written notice including date we leave and date we will return. Army changes course dates on you less than 30 days out? Well good luck to you cause bow your employer can just say no, and not keep your job.


----------



## suffolkowner

Kirkhill said:


> Continuing with my fascination on the subject of Denmark
> 
> We have 7x the population but only 5x the wealth.   Rich Danish buggers.
> 
> With that I took a look at the kit the Danes have and multiplied it by 5.
> 
> We would end up with
> 
> 95x Cesar 155mm SPH (Wheeled)
> 105x LAV mounted 120mm mortars
> 220x Leo2A7
> 220x CV9035
> 2200x LAVs
> 890x Armoured HMMWV
> 75x Jackal
> 
> The Navy would end up with
> 
> 15x Iver Huitfeldt Air Defence Frigates (ABM/Tomahawk Capable)
> 10x Absalon ASW/Support Frigates (Tank Transport Capable)
> 20x Thetis Class Frigates
> 15x Knud Rasmussen Patrol Vessels
> 
> The Air Force would end up with
> 
> 163x F16 (being phased out)
> 135x F35 (being phased in)
> 20x Challenger MPA
> 20x C130J
> 55x Fennec Helicopters
> 45x SH-60
> 70x Merlin/Cormorant
> 
> 40x NASAMS AD Batteries with 240x launchers
> 30x Radar Stations
> 
> All with a budget of less than 2% of GDP. (1.6 to be precise)


Yep god we're cheap, freeloaders but when CAF leadership is happy with the outputs and growing NDHQ thats what you get. Cant spend $2+B a year because there is no political imperative to do so in fact just the opposite so adding another $2+B a year in unspent funds is just a waste

I think we are probably going to need  some sort of expansion or creation of a national emergency response force in addition to the Reserve. Volunteer or not who knows but it should not be that hard to grab 1% of Brads 300,000 + turning military age each year for all our needs. Do we need more than that as a bump up in recruitment? May have to incentivize or get better at marketing


----------



## Brad Sallows

How we did it back in the day is irrelevant.

Most people are not interested in delaying their start in life out of the high school gate by two years, especially when called for by people who never faced that liability and never will.

Many people who have the occupational skills needed to fight fires, control floods, repair ice damage, etc are not in any kind of union and like OT.  Partly displacing their earning opportunities is a sh!tty thing to do.

If we do the proper thing and leave all the high-speed work to the people with high-speed skills, that leaves shovel work.  I'm not sure many people will spend formal time in any kind of "Home Guard" to learn how to dig holes and fill sandbags, and I'm certain no formal training or structure is needed.

So far we've been able to manage our crises, so these solutions - conscripted service, overinflated public welfare emergency militia - are looking for as-yet undemonstrated problems.

If there's more money for defence, spend it on real soldiers and real soldiering.


----------



## rmc_wannabe

Kirkhill said:


> This mob is not asked to serve their country.  If they go overseas they have to volunteer and sign a regular short term enlistment contract (typically 6 months) and get covered under that.
> 
> These are people voluntarily, freely, at no charge, making themselves available to serve their local community.  If they are injured then the local, government funded health care system looks after them. The same way it would if they injured themselves down at the local Sporthalle playing handball.
> 
> This is not about padding the Army and building Corps for Generals.
> It is about preparing for emergencies that include people shooting.


Not saying it would be. I just was saying that our quasi-capitalist society doesn't lend well to "volunteering." Especially in the last 5 to 10 years.

Look at Canadian Blood Services, Red Cross, St. John's Ambulance.... all are screaming for volunteers but are coming up short. Why? People are working longer hours, for more days, with less pay. 

Unless we are in the business of allowing people to come train and volunteer, through legislation and/or incentives for these employers to let folks go... it's much the same problem we see with our PRes.


----------



## Kirkhill

Brad Sallows said:


> How we did it back in the day is irrelevant.
> 
> Most people are not interested in delaying their start in life out of the high school gate by two years, especially when called for by people who never faced that liability and never will.
> 
> Many people who have the occupational skills needed to fight fires, control floods, repair ice damage, etc are not in any kind of union and like OT.  Partly displacing their earning opportunities is a sh!tty thing to do.
> 
> If we do the proper thing and leave all the high-speed work to the people with high-speed skills, that leaves shovel work.  I'm not sure many people will spend formal time in any kind of "Home Guard" to learn how to dig holes and fill sandbags, and I'm certain no formal training or structure is needed.
> 
> So far we've been able to manage our crises, so these solutions - conscripted service, overinflated public welfare emergency militia - are looking for as-yet undemonstrated problems.
> 
> If there's more money for defence, spend it on real soldiers and real soldiering.



This is about people being organized to do what they can when they can as johnny on the spot.  Even if it is just forming bucket brigades until the professionals come to save them.  With any luck they might have put the fire out before they get their.

And yes Denmark has professional Emergency Services as well.

But still people volunteer...

And others still join the army.

A bigger (per capita) and better equipped army than we provide.


----------



## Kirkhill

rmc_wannabe said:


> Not saying it would be. I just was saying that our quasi-capitalist society doesn't lend well to "volunteering." Especially in the last 5 to 10 years.
> 
> Look at Canadian Blood Services, Red Cross, St. John's Ambulance.... all are screaming for volunteers but are coming up short. Why? People are working longer hours, for more days, with less pay.
> 
> Unless we are in the business of allowing people to come train and volunteer, through legislation and/or incentives for these employers to let folks go... it's much the same problem we see with our PRes.



We're not talking about two week camps here.

We're talking about heading down to the local armouries for a couple of hours a couple of times a week.  This is about teaching skills to people who are eager to learn skills that might come in handy some day.

And if they become interested enough they might volunteer for a short term contract.  And then maybe a longer one, Or go onto the Reserve rolls.

This is about connecting with people who might, maybe, someday become a soldier/sailor/aviator/aviatrix.
In the meantime, in local emergencies, they can be put to use, even if it is just directing traffic.


----------



## Brad Sallows

> This is about people being organized to do what they can when they can as johnny on the spot.



Sure, and I see it in video and stills every time there is some kind of emergency : locals (mostly) showing up and doing stuff.  And then the army shows up and does the same stuff, which I'm not convinced is actually necessary except as a matter of reassuring those who need reassurance.  The CAF brings useful skill sets, but mostly those are not the ones that are going to be taught to part-timers.

People showing up to learn stuff still costs money, and I'm unconvinced there's much return on investment if they don't actually show up for the real thing.

[Add: there is a potential positive point; if they show up at existing armouries then it will only be a matter of time before the idea of having a mess open on Home Guard Night occurs to someone.  So it might improve mess revenues.]


----------



## Furniture

Kirkhill said:


> This is about people being organized to do what they can when they can as johnny on the spot.  Even if it is just forming bucket brigades until the professionals come to save them.  With any luck they might have put the fire out before they get their.
> 
> And yes Denmark has professional Emergency Services as well.
> 
> But still people volunteer...
> 
> And others still join the army.
> 
> A bigger (per capita) and better equipped army than we provide.


Denmark has lots of people with a living connection to a time their country was occupied by a foreign invader, that tends to inspire people to care about defending their country in a way Canadians don't. 



Brad Sallows said:


> Sure, and I see it in video and stills every time there is some kind of emergency : locals (mostly) showing up and doing stuff.  And then the army shows up and does the same stuff, which I'm not convinced is actually necessary except as a matter of reassuring those who need reassurance.  The CAF brings useful skill sets, but mostly those are not the ones that are going to be taught to part-timers.
> 
> People showing up to learn stuff still costs money, and I'm unconvinced there's much return on investment if they don't actually show up for the real thing.
> 
> *[Add: there is a potential positive point; if they show up at existing armouries then it will only be a matter of time before the idea of having a mess open on Home Guard Night occurs to someone.  So it might improve mess revenues.]*


The last thing the CAF needs is more people coming into the messes to drink, and misbehave.


----------



## Maxman1

MilEME09 said:


> I think we need that right now



What does the career path look like for a finance officer? I've also heard candidates with a degree can sometimes skip OCdt and even 2LT.


----------



## Kirkhill

Brad Sallows said:


> Sure, and I see it in video and stills every time there is some kind of emergency : locals (mostly) showing up and doing stuff.  And then the army shows up and does the same stuff, which I'm not convinced is actually necessary except as a matter of reassuring those who need reassurance.  The CAF brings useful skill sets, but mostly those are not the ones that are going to be taught to part-timers.



This Home Guard organization is about exactly that.  Organizing those people that would show up in any case and making them more useful.

And I agree that most of the time the Army's contribution is a photo-op rather than meaningfully changing the course of the event.  That usually gets done locally.  We agree.




Brad Sallows said:


> People showing up to learn stuff still costs money, and I'm unconvinced there's much return on investment if they don't actually show up for the real thing.



Yes it does.   We spend something like 215 million dollars annually doing exactly that for 60,000 13 to 18 year olds in the Cadets and Junior Rangers.

This programme in essence is continuation of the Cadet programme.  Cadets, or as was said, Boy Scouts for adults.  The Danes spend, in equivalent terms, 650 million dollars for 326,000 willing adults.  We spend 1,500 million, 1.5 billion, on Canadian Heritage.  Use some of that budget.



Brad Sallows said:


> [Add: there is a potential positive point; if they show up at existing armouries then it will only be a matter of time before the idea of having a mess open on Home Guard Night occurs to someone.  So it might improve mess revenues.]



Turn it into an Aussie Legion.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Kirkhill said:


> Continuing with my fascination on the subject of Denmark
> 
> We have 7x the population but only 5x the wealth.   Rich Danish buggers.
> 
> With that I took a look at the kit the Danes have and multiplied it by 5.
> 
> We would end up with
> 
> 95x Cesar 155mm SPH (Wheeled)
> 105x LAV mounted 120mm mortars
> 220x Leo2A7
> 220x CV9035
> 2200x LAVs
> 890x Armoured HMMWV
> 75x Jackal
> 
> The Navy would end up with
> 
> 15x Iver Huitfeldt Air Defence Frigates (ABM/Tomahawk Capable)
> 10x Absalon ASW/Support Frigates (Tank Transport Capable)
> 20x Thetis Class Frigates
> 15x Knud Rasmussen Patrol Vessels
> 
> The Air Force would end up with
> 
> 163x F16 (being phased out)
> 135x F35 (being phased in)
> 20x Challenger MPA
> 20x C130J
> 55x Fennec Helicopters
> 45x SH-60
> 70x Merlin/Cormorant
> 
> 40x NASAMS AD Batteries with 240x launchers
> 30x Radar Stations
> 
> All with a budget of less than 2% of GDP. (1.6 to be precise)


Where the eff do they park them all, glorified City State


----------



## RangerRay

MilEME09 said:


> Agreed, in Alberta we need to provide 30 days written notice including date we leave and date we will return. Army changes course dates on you less than 30 days out? Well good luck to you cause bow your employer can just say no, and not keep your job.


On that point, an employer might be fine losing a volunteer FD employee for the afternoon. But I know that same employer isn’t so keen on losing a volunteer GSAR employee for a few days to look for a missing hiker/skier/hunter/mushroom picker.     

Add to that the calls usually come at 8 pm on a Sunday night, it’s hard to find and retain volunteers for anything because of life.


----------



## Kirkhill

Colin Parkinson said:


> Where the eff do they park them all, glorified City State



In fairness, that is IF we bought at the same rate that they bought.  Divide those numbers by find and park them in Nova Scotia and you aren't far off their reality.

We might have to encroach on New Brunswick


----------



## daftandbarmy

Kirkhill said:


> Continuing with my fascination on the subject of Denmark
> 
> We have 7x the population but only 5x the wealth.   Rich Danish buggers.
> 
> With that I took a look at the kit the Danes have and multiplied it by 5.
> 
> We would end up with
> 
> 95x Cesar 155mm SPH (Wheeled)
> 105x LAV mounted 120mm mortars
> 220x Leo2A7
> 220x CV9035
> 2200x LAVs
> 890x Armoured HMMWV
> 75x Jackal
> 
> The Navy would end up with
> 
> 15x Iver Huitfeldt Air Defence Frigates (ABM/Tomahawk Capable)
> 10x Absalon ASW/Support Frigates (Tank Transport Capable)
> 20x Thetis Class Frigates
> 15x Knud Rasmussen Patrol Vessels
> 
> The Air Force would end up with
> 
> 163x F16 (being phased out)
> 135x F35 (being phased in)
> 20x Challenger MPA
> 20x C130J
> 55x Fennec Helicopters
> 45x SH-60
> 70x Merlin/Cormorant
> 
> 40x NASAMS AD Batteries with 240x launchers
> 30x Radar Stations
> 
> All with a budget of less than 2% of GDP. (1.6 to be precise)



Denmark is the cork in Russia's Baltic bottle, so no surprise really.


----------



## Kirkhill

daftandbarmy said:


> Denmark is the cork in Russia's Baltic bottle, so no surprise really.



The surprise is that they can get the job done for less than 2% of GDP.



> We would end up with
> 
> 95x Cesar 155mm SPH (Wheeled)  - vs 37x M777
> 105x LAV mounted 120mm mortars - vs  0x
> 220x Leo2A7 - vs 80x  various
> 220x CV9035 - vs 0x
> 2200x LAVs - vs 900x various
> 890x Armoured HMMWV - vs 500x TAPV
> 75x Jackal - ???
> 
> The Navy would end up with
> 
> 15x Iver Huitfeldt Air Defence Frigates (ABM/Tomahawk Capable) - vs 12x CPF
> 10x Absalon ASW/Support Frigates (Tank Transport Capable) - vs 0x
> 20x Thetis Class Frigates - vs 0x
> 15x Knud Rasmussen Patrol Vessels - vs 14x AOPV/MCDV
> 
> The Air Force would end up with
> 
> 163x F16 (being phased out) - vs 80?x F18
> 135x F35 (being phased in) - vs who knows what who knows when
> 20x Challenger MPA - vs 14?x CP140
> 20x C130J - vs 17x?
> 55x Fennec Helicopters vs 85x Griffon
> 45x SH-60 - vs 24x Cyclone
> 70x Merlin/Cormorant - vs 14x Cormorant
> 
> 40x NASAMS AD Batteries with 240x launchers - vs 0x
> 30x Radar Stations
> 
> All with a budget of less than 2% of GDP. (1.6 to be precise)
> 
> To be fair we do have some C17s, CH47s, some tankers and 4 slightly used subs as well.


----------



## mariomike

MilEME09 said:


> Problem is training courses aren't two weeks, hell mine were 3 months, had to switch jobs many tines because employeers didn't like playing ball, and it's not worth filing a complaint



Right.

Which is why those three full summers of PRes training during high school helped prepare for when full-time training was reduced to two weeks every summer.



> That's why one should concentrate on students, and train the hell out of them for the full summers when they are looking for work anyway.





> In three summers and two academic years (five summers and four years for officers and certain others) you should be able to get them BMQ, DP1 and 2 trained in whatever trade. After that you go on a reduced cycle of obligatory training which caters for outside work and the family.


----------



## Remius

Brad Sallows said:


> Whatever.  The number of high school graduates in Canada each year is somewhere near or above 300,000.   Got a plan to run 10,000 basic training platoons each year?


DLN.  😂


----------



## Brad Sallows

> Boy Scouts for adults.



They can go to Burning Man like everyone else.


----------



## CBH99

mariomike said:


> Right.
> 
> Which is why those three full summers of PRes training during high school helped prepare for when training was reduced to two weeks every summer.


I remember back when I joined, we had QL2 and QL3.  They’d run both courses essentially back to back during the summers, so a brand new recruit was an employable private by the time he/she went back to their unit.  

I scratch my head at how long courses are now, and yet it still seems to take longer to bring a recruit up to basic qualified standard than it used to. 

3 full summers?  I don’t even know if many would still be motivated.  I don’t think I would be.  

Same with recruiting.


----------



## lenaitch

Comparing a Danish-type Home Guard with some kind of pan-Canadian national volunteer force strikes me as a bit problematic.  We don't have the history that inspired their creation of their Home Guard.  What is being exampled for our volunteer forces sounds like it would include few if any skills that would be useful to a military service should the need arise.

The numbers quoted for volunteerism is Canada is impressive, but it is such a broad category.  Elderly retirees helping out at a blood clinic are difficult to compare with a volunteer firefighter if, for no other reason, there are provincial standards for fire services.  Even at that, Ontario is proposing a system of certification for VFFs, which departments are concerned will crater their staff.  In our area, fire services are having difficulty in attracting volunteers.  It seems most local employers are pretty good about it, but unless you are employed locally, you're not much help.  Many folks in rural areas travel a lot farther for work now and many rural areas are 'graying-out'.  Response time is important.  It's one thing to organize a bag-filling team for tomorrow than it is to staff a truck to head to a burning house RFN.

For such a volunteer force, what is the hook?  Helping your community?   You need to be lot more specific because things like training, risk and personal interest are important.  Someone interested in GSAR might not want to pull mangled bodies out of a car wreck.  Someone willing to fill sandbags might not be physically able to stomp through the bush.  Someone willing to show up and help shelter evacuees probably isn't at risk of hurting themselves or others.

I have been both a volunteer and 'managed' volunteers (term used very loosely - it's often like herding cats).  If the goal is to fill sandbags, the person who hasn't shown for training in a year but seems to know which end of a shovel to hold will probably work, but I wouldn't send them into a burning house or drop them in the deep bush with a pump.  Sometimes good intentions are all you need - sometimes not.

I just don't see how some all-singin'all-dansin' highly-trained-but-still-generalist group of domestic volunteers would somehow adequately address our domestic emergency needs and still somehow be an adjunct to the military.   Although I don't know much about them, are even the Canadian Rangers trained in some level of military tactical skills, other  than perhaps some range work with their finally-new rifles?


----------



## mariomike

CBH99 said:


> 3 full summers?  I don’t even know if many would still be motivated.  I don’t think I would be.



High school students can join PRes when 16 ( with parental consent ), as I and others did.



> After that you go on a reduced cycle of obligatory training which caters for outside work and the family.



Or, wait to join the PRes until after graduation, and hope your employer is agreeable to giving you time off for your part-time job.

From this super-thread, and others like it, YMMV from employer to employer.









						Reservists Job Protection Superthread
					

From the CFLC rep: training is training, regardless of what it is.    That's great.  Saw this on their website,   having the right to do something is one thing, but actually doing it can be something else altogether. And if you have to fall back on legislation to get military leave for Reserve...




					www.milnet.ca
				




Some reservists I knew were marginally employed, so time off worked out ok for them.


----------



## daftandbarmy

lenaitch said:


> Comparing a Danish-type Home Guard with some kind of pan-Canadian national volunteer force strikes me as a bit problematic.  We don't have the history that inspired their creation of their Home Guard.  What is being exampled for our volunteer forces sounds like it would include few if any skills that would be useful to a military service should the need arise.



I've worked with the Danish Home Guard, and the Norwegian equivalent, on various NATO exercises. 

There is no way that they are anything like our reservists, who are trained to the same standards - ish as the Reg F to facilitate augmentation etc.

They are good at what they are intended to do: fight a defensive battle - within about 1 km of their homes - for key points like bridges etc. as a delaying tactic to enable mobilization to successfully take place before the Russians roll through.

We can see some of this playing out in the Ukraine right now, I believe, with their Home Guard equivalent.

A nation without the same threats of invasion and occupation by an overwhelmingly powerful and aggressive neighbour, that happens to have armoured divisions a mere couple of hour's drive from their capital, has no need for such a force.


----------



## KevinB

daftandbarmy said:


> A nation without the same threats of invasion and occupation by an overwhelmingly powerful and aggressive neighbor, that happens to have armored, Light and Medium divisions a mere couple of hour's drive from their capital, has no need for such a force.


Fixed the spelling of neighbor, and  for our Armored Divs and added some of the other forces


----------



## Furniture

KevinB said:


> Fixed the spelling of neighbor, and  for our Armored Divs and added some of the other forces


The invasion has begun!


----------



## KevinB

Furniture said:


> The invasion has begun!


We don't need more democrats


----------



## TacticalTea

KevinB said:


> Fixed the spelling of neighbor, and  for our Armored Divs and added some of the other forces


Those are absolutely not fixes!


----------



## daftandbarmy

KevinB said:


> Fixed the spelling of neighbor, and  for our Armored Divs and added some of the other forces



Thank you! And as for the source of the _colors _of your flag, you're welcome


----------



## Kirkhill

daftandbarmy said:


> I've worked with the Danish Home Guard, and the Norwegian equivalent, on various NATO exercises.
> 
> There is no way that they are anything like our reservists, who are trained to the same standards - ish as the Reg F to facilitate augmentation etc.
> 
> They are good at what they are intended to do: fight a defensive battle - within about 1 km of their homes - for key points like bridges etc. as a delaying tactic to enable mobilization to successfully take place before the Russians roll through.
> 
> We can see some of this playing out in the Ukraine right now, I believe, with their Home Guard equivalent.
> 
> *A nation without the same threats of invasion and occupation by an overwhelmingly powerful and aggressive neighbour, that happens to have armoured divisions a mere couple of hour's drive from their capital, has no need for such a force.*



And thereby hangs our tale....

If there is no need for a Territorial Defence Force then there is no NEED for a professional force to support them.
The professional force becomes merely a nice to have tool of foreign policy.
Tanks fall into the "should have" category.

On the other hand ICBMs,  SLBMs, IRBMs, SRBMs, ALCMs, SLCMs, GLCMs, UAVs and LAMs (Extra-Large to Nano-Small, VTOL or launched from runways or ships or subs or fixed or portable launchers, soft launch or JATO or RATO....)  are all real threats.  Even mortars, which were used in the City of London, let alone in Israel and Ukraine, are real threats.
There is a NEED for an Air Defence Force.
The threat is ubiquitous. 
The principle targets at risk are infrastructure, the cities and military bases.
Elint, Satellites, ships, subs,  UAVs, LRPAs, Interceptors, GBAD (fixed, relocatable and manoeuverable) all fall into the "must have" category.

The ground threat in Canada is the individual and the small team. Their primary weapons will be man portable systems and whatever they can transport in a car, a van, a truck or a sea-can.

That requires a lot of local eyes, the means of reporting and the means of reacting quickly.  
I will agree that three to five  bases separated by  thousands of miles, and nationally centralized EOD assets, even with long range VTOL aircraft, does not, to me, sound like a recipe for an effective response.

Which is why EOD and Tactical squads are proliferating across Canada in police departments.
Police departments who are also actively engaging volunteers to assist them with eyes on the streets and radios.
Police departments and Fire departments that handle emergencies and are always looking for extra manpower to assist.



			RCMP volunteer programs  | Royal Canadian Mounted Police


----------



## mariomike

> Ontario is proposing a system of certification for VFFs, which departments are concerned will crater their staff. In our area, fire services are having difficulty in attracting volunteers.



No volunteer firefighters in the GTA.
King City to the north, Milton to the west and Bowmanville to the east may, or may not, have vollies.

There are Medical Venturers and Fire Venturers, but they are Scouting organizations.

Regarding vollies outside the GTA,









						Attracting, retaining volunteer firefighters a challenge
					

Attracting and retaining volunteer firefighters is one of the biggest challenges faced by fire departments in Ontario's rural areas,  Andrew Torrance ...




					www.thestar.com


----------



## Furniture

Kirkhill said:


> And thereby hangs our tale....
> 
> *If there is no need for a Territorial Defence Force then there is no NEED for a professional force to support them.
> The professional force becomes merely a nice to have tool of foreign policy.
> Tanks fall into the "should have" category.*
> 
> On the other hand ICBMs,  SLBMs, IRBMs, SRBMs, ALCMs, SLCMs, GLCMs, UAVs and LAMs (Extra-Large to Nano-Small, VTOL or launched from runways or ships or subs or fixed or portable launchers, soft launch or JATO or RATO....)  are all real threats.  Even mortars, which were used in the City of London, let alone in Israel and Ukraine, are real threats.
> There is a NEED for an Air Defence Force.
> The threat is ubiquitous.
> The principle targets at risk are infrastructure, the cities and military bases.
> Elint, Satellites, ships, subs,  UAVs, LRPAs, Interceptors, GBAD (fixed, relocatable and manoeuverable) all fall into the "must have" category.


Except for the reality that our international partners expect/demand that we provide troops for international missions. We can pretend that doesn't matter, but as a country that manufactures little, and exports a lot of resources, international trade/partnerships are key. If we fall even farther behind our partners expectations, we can expect to be pushed even farther down the line when it comes to trade.

I agree that we need strong air and naval forces, but I absolutely disagree that a standing army is a "nice to have" just because we are unlikely to need to use them at home.

Edit: Apparently someone else agrees with me.
John Keess: Canada ignores the security needs of its European partners at its own peril


----------



## Kirkhill

Furniture said:


> Except for the reality that our international partners expect/demand that we provide troops for international missions. We can pretend that doesn't matter, but as a country that manufactures little, and exports a lot of resources, international trade/partnerships are key. If we fall even farther behind our partners expectations, we can expect to be pushed even farther down the line when it comes to trade.
> 
> I agree that we need strong air and naval forces, but I absolutely disagree that a standing army is a "nice to have" just because we are unlikely to need to use them at home.



Exactly

It is an expectation or demand by others.  It is a trade off.  It is not in the same league as foreign tanks in our streets.

There is a difference between defending the Nation and defending the Nation's Interests.

Defending the homeland is different than defending a Canadian mine in Argentina.


.... And I know lots of people agree with you.


----------



## TacticalTea

Furniture said:


> Except for the reality that our international partners expect/demand that we provide troops for international missions. We can pretend that doesn't matter, but as a country that manufactures little, and exports a lot of resources, international trade/partnerships are key. If we fall even farther behind our partners expectations, we can expect to be pushed even farther down the line when it comes to trade.
> 
> I agree that we need strong air and naval forces, but I absolutely disagree that a standing army is a "nice to have" just because we are unlikely to need to use them at home.
> 
> Edit: Apparently someone else agrees with me.
> John Keess: Canada ignores the security needs of its European partners at its own peril


I completely agree with that.


----------



## Kirkhill

Even if I stipulate that an Expeditionary Army is a necessity we still then run straight into the questions of the nature of that army.

And that is the other problem the Army has.

As an Expeditionary Force, that the government can choose to commit, or not commit, that the government can choose the scale of the commitment, the time of the commitment, the speed of the commitment, the duration of the commitment, the location of the commitment, the season of the commitment, the allies for the commitment, the enemy of the commitment, ... and none of it has any critical impact on the National Defence program, then the Army is left floundering. Especially when it tries to be everything to everyone so it can say "Yes Sir! No Sir! Three bags full Sir!" for fear of losing an opportunity to be useful.

There is no reason why our Army couldn't be a Marine Army or a Heliportable Army or a Light Army or a Heavy Army or even a Medium Army.  Or for that matter even the Army we have.  It can be whatever it and the government want it to be because its composition, its employment are matters of choice.  Not necessity.


----------



## mariomike

MilEME09 said:


> Agreed, in Alberta we need to provide 30 days written notice including date we leave and date we will return. Army changes course dates on you less than 30 days out? Well good luck to you cause bow your employer can just say no, and not keep your job.



Alberta,



> An eligible employee can take:
> up to 20 days each calendar year for annual training
> Employers are not required to pay wages or benefits during leave, unless stated in an employment contract or collective agreement.



We only got 14 days each calandar year for annual training, but with wages and benefits.



> Problem is training courses aren't two weeks, hell mine were 3 months



Easier to train during summer vacation, than asking an employer for time off.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Furniture said:


> Except for the reality that our international partners expect/demand that we provide troops for international missions. We can pretend that doesn't matter, but as a country that manufactures little, and exports a lot of resources, international trade/partnerships are key. If we fall even farther behind our partners expectations, we can expect to be pushed even farther down the line when it comes to trade.
> 
> I agree that we need strong air and naval forces, but I absolutely disagree that a standing army is a "nice to have" just because we are unlikely to need to use them at home.
> 
> Edit: Apparently someone else agrees with me.
> John Keess: Canada ignores the security needs of its European partners at its own peril



You're not wrong.  The issue lays in the employment of said Army.  Do we need to be expeditionary ?  Is our small contribution worth much, would it's sacrifice be of value  or would our efforts better concentrated else where ?

The people of Canada through the GoC need to answer these questions on what they want us to do.


----------



## Kirkhill

Furniture said:


> Except for the reality that our international partners expect/demand that we provide troops for international missions. We can pretend that doesn't matter, but as a country that manufactures little, and exports a lot of resources, international trade/partnerships are key. If we fall even farther behind our partners expectations, we can expect to be pushed even farther down the line when it comes to trade.
> 
> I agree that we need strong air and naval forces, but I absolutely disagree that a standing army is a "nice to have" just because we are unlikely to need to use them at home.
> 
> Edit: Apparently someone else agrees with me.
> John Keess: Canada ignores the security needs of its European partners at its own peril




We are looking at the same problem the US (and others) have faced.

The US Army has been looking for a job since the interior of the US was pacified.  Until WWI it was a small force.  It was again after WWI and up to WWII.  Its cause wasn't helped after WWII when it lost control of its United States Army Air Force.  Its primary purpose was as a garrison force for Europe.  Most of the internal work in the US since all the Federal Territories became States has been handled by the Police and the National Guard with the FBI being the lead Federal Agency.

Foreign policy is the remit of the State Department, with the CIA being its intelligence agency and the US Navy and the US Marines supplying its own Navy, Air Force and Army.

Our Army, as an instrument of foreign policy, in my view, has a lot in common with the USMC in that it is required to serve the nation's foreign interests.   It should embrace that.  But it also means getting buy in from the Navy.  Not because I anticipate forcing beacheads.  But because we need to be able to relocate an expeditionary army and also need relocatable bases from which to operate.  And a bit of air support would go a long way as well.

Leave National Defence, per se, to NORAD and the RCAF, the RCN, the RCMP, the Coast Guard and Border Services as well as the Rangers. There is also a role for the Royal Regiment of Canadian Artillery there in Air Defence.

The Reserves then get a choice.
Which path do they want to follow?
Support of National Defence?
Or Support of the Expeditionary Force?
Or can they walk and chew gum?

Edit Again (keep forgetting stuff - forgot the Navy)


----------



## Kirkhill

The Navy needs to do a bit of bending as well.  Both in accepting an inshore role and a transport role.


----------



## Kirkhill

Is the Whitehouse guarded by the US Marines, rather than the US Army, because it is the first port of call for foreigners?  The President as the first ambassador for These United States?  A State Department enclave, isolated from the rest of the States.  Kind of like a glorified Ellis Island.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Kirkhill said:


> The Navy needs to do a bit of bending as well.  Both in accepting an inshore role and a transport role.



I see the RCN as an institutional Logistics FP organization.  I also think it should be the preferred taxi for the Army.  

I don't think you'd find resistance to this.  We just need to the people and the ships.


----------



## KevinB

Kirkhill said:


> The Navy needs to do a bit of bending as well.  Both in accepting an inshore role and a transport role.





Halifax Tar said:


> I see the RCN as an institutional Logistics FP organization.  I also think it should be the preferred taxi for the Army.
> 
> I don't think you'd find resistance to this.  We just need to the people and the ships.



Bending isn't the word I would use -- expansion is.
  The Navy needs more assets - as having a bunch of RORO transports doesn't do anyone any good if they are unguarded.


----------



## Kirkhill

KevinB said:


> Bending isn't the word I would use -- expansion is.
> The Navy needs more assets - as having a bunch of RORO transports doesn't do anyone any good if they are unguarded.



If only we could afford, per capita, the Danish Navy



> The Navy would end up with
> 
> 15x Iver Huitfeldt Air Defence Frigates (ABM/Tomahawk Capable) - vs 12x CPF
> 10x Absalon ASW/Support Frigates (Tank Transport Capable) - vs 0x
> 20x Thetis Class Frigates - vs 0x
> 15x Knud Rasmussen Patrol Vessels - vs 14x AOPV/MCDV


----------



## MarkOttawa

And consider this: this government is planning to buy 88 new fighters for the RCAF (most likely the F-35A, which the Germans have now also decided to acquire, note the role they are for), with the endlessly postponed decision supposed to be announced this year. Knock on wood. That will be just over one-third the modern fighter forces the four Nordic countries combined will be deploying well before our air force can deploy its new planes. That is being done with a total population just under three quarters of Canada’s and with a very much smaller area to cover compared to this country:




> …In the future Denmark and Norway will have a total of 79 F-35s. The Nordic fighter aircraft force will be at 243 if a coalition is expanded to include 64 F-35s from Finland and 100 Gripen from Sweden.











						POLICY BRIEF: Nordic Airpower Cooperation and Finland’s F-35 decision: Towards a New Era? | NUPI
					

Finland’s F-35 decision enhances the airpower collaboration between the Nordic states.




					www.nupi.no
				




‘Twould be nice to see the Canadian media point out those numbers–if they are even aware of them. Of course different countries procure different amounts and types of kit for their various services. Still the numbers are striking.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Good2Golf

Halifax Tar said:


> The people of Canada through the GoC need to answer these questions on what they want us to do.


 Not sure that is ever going to happen, Canadians haven’t substantively cared since 1945, and I don’t think they will, because aside from some higher gas and food prices, their happy with their comfortable lives in secure Fortress (North) America.

The CAF has been traditionally weak on the whole regarding assessing and pitching that formula to Government of what it believes best represents what politicians believe it is that Canadians are willing to begrudgingly accept as a necessary evil to contribute to, that doesn’t materially impact their aforementioned cushy comfortable lives.


----------



## Halifax Tar

MarkOttawa said:


> ‘Twould be nice to see the Canadian media point out those numbers–if they are even aware of them. Of course different countries procure different amounts and types of kit for their various services. Still the numbers are striking.
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



I'm not sure the MSM in Canada supports the F35.  They championed pretty hard against it under Harper. 

I also dont think you will find much media support for showing Canadians that we need to rebuild the CAF.


----------



## KevinB

Halifax Tar said:


> I'm not sure the MSM in Canada supports the F35.  They championed pretty hard against it under Harper.
> 
> I also dont think you will find much media support for showing Canadians that we need to rebuild the CAF.


I think that is mostly because they don't know what absolute dire straights the CAF is in.
   I think when a CFP snaps in half - and a CF18 drops out of the sky there will be huge complaints of why things where not fixed before that.


----------



## suffolkowner

Kirkhill said:


> The surprise is that they can get the job done for less than 2% of GDP.


The solution suggests itself. Hire Danish CDS to run CAF


----------



## McG

So, 2% or maybe more … ?

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1504179716563034114


----------



## Kirkhill

suffolkowner said:


> The solution suggests itself. Hire Danish CDS to run CAF



Or perhaps this group is more to the point?









						Welcome to DALO
					

The Danish Ministry of Defence Acquisition and Logistics Organisation (DALO) is responsible for procurement, supply, maintenance, development and decommission of material capabilities, IT and services for the armed Danish forces and Emergency Agency.




					www.fmi.dk


----------



## Kirkhill

McG said:


> So, 2% or maybe more … ?
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1504179716563034114



She's in.  Chrystia may be in.  Now for the rest of Cabinet and the Liberal Party backers.


----------



## dapaterson

With D/PM who is also Min Fin in, nobody else matters.


----------



## Kirkhill

dapaterson said:


> With D/PM who is also Min Fin in, nobody else matters.


Your fingers to God's eyes....


----------



## Retired AF Guy

Interesting item from Jean Charest who is running for leader of the CPC.



> *Jean Charest: It's time to increase defence spending*
> My Conservative government will make significant changes and upgrades to our nation's military capabilities.​
> By: Jean Charest
> 
> National security is a necessity, not a luxury. The war in Ukraine has illustrated the need to bolster our security capabilities here in Canada. The current government has remained content to underfund national defence for too long. The Liberal governments' inaction has undermined our ability to support our allies, most recently Ukraine.
> 
> Democracy is at stake. Lives are at stake. The world needs more from Canada. Now.
> 
> Recent shipments of lethal equipment, while welcome, are long overdue from the government and have been obstructed in many cases by further logistical challenges – a price you pay for being late out the blocks.
> 
> We need to stop playing catch up and start getting ahead with all public policy, but with national security policy in particular. Anticipation and planning are critical to protecting and defending our values when they are threatened by armed aggression and tyrants.
> 
> Our military procurement system is broken. For years experts have been warning about our incompetence at making major defence purchases. The past few weeks have shown us the price of our inaction.
> 
> While our allies, the United States, the United Kingdom and Australia, have entered into a new security pact to counter China in the Pacific, Canada wasn't even invited to the table.
> 
> Germany, Sweden, and other NATO allies promise to increase their military spending to prepare for the uncertain times ahead. Canada has a moral responsibility to act. Now is the time.
> 
> If elected as the leader, my Conservative government will make significant changes and upgrades to our nation's military capabilities. I will move quickly to ramp up Canadian defence spending to two percent of GDP, increase personnel to 100,000 and equip our forces for the challenging times ahead. I will modernize our cyber security infrastructure to prepare for future risks. And I will fix our embarrassing procurement system to ensure we get the equipment we desperately need.
> 
> The current conflict has also driven home the need to assert our sovereignty, especially in our North. As major sea lanes, essential to global trade and export of our natural resources, open within our arctic territory, we must be on high alert to Russian and Chinese encroachment. Neither recognizes our sovereignty there. In fact, no one really recognizes our sovereignty there and the imbalance in our military investments compared to our allies explains why that's the case.
> 
> The war in Ukraine is a cruel reminder of why we cannot ignore these threats. Russia has a modern military base in the arctic - another area where indecision and delay could be extremely costly unless addressed.
> 
> A proud Canada must assert its sovereignty in the North and generate military support through major investments in equipment and coordination with our NATO allies. We need to get our act together.
> 
> The threats remain real and demand immediate attention from leaders willing to act in the best interests of their respective nations.
> Canadians need experience and expertise overseeing our military. We need a government that supports our military.
> 
> A Conservative government that places tangible outcomes ahead of politics will lead us through these dangerous times. This country's brightest minds and the best technology must be available and incentivized to contribute to our security, especially as warfare becomes more technological and unpredictable.
> 
> That includes investing in cybersecurity to protect the military and our critical industries. As with so many things, our energy sector is on the cutting edge of technology for defending itself from cyberattacks, and we need a government that doesn't vilify it but leans on its prowess to protect the country and the economy.
> 
> 
> _Jean Charest served as the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada from 1993 to 1998, deputy prime minister in 1993 and as the premier of Quebec from 2003 to 2012._




Link


----------



## TacticalTea

Retired AF Guy said:


> Interesting item from Jean Charest who is running for leader of the CPC.
> 
> 
> 
> Link


Ah for fuck's sake.

I had sworn to myself I wouldn't vote for him, and now look how's massacred my promise.

Have any of his rivals said anything about the military, yet?


----------



## Kilted

Retired AF Guy said:


> Interesting item from Jean Charest who is running for leader of the CPC.
> 
> 
> 
> Link


Isn't our authorized strength already over 100,000?


----------



## FSTO

Now I know that they (both the Liberals and the Conservatives) will not give details. I just have this feeling that there is no plan to better use the money. That there isn't going to be a clear eyed assessment on what sort of forces we need to do the jobs and duties we want. 

Jean Charest's tweet has nothing in it to change my mind.


----------



## Remius

TacticalTea said:


> Ah for fuck's sake.
> 
> I had sworn to myself I wouldn't vote for him, and now look how's massacred my promise.
> 
> Have any of his rivals said anything about the military, yet?


Not yet.  Charest is the only one to present actual policy plans. Polievre is mostly sound bites with little detail on how he would do whatever.  Brown and Lewis I think not much.  But we can cut them  all a break since they all recently announced they would run.  I’m sure events in Ukraine will all shape their platforms.


----------



## Furniture

Kilted said:


> Isn't our authorized strength already over 100,000?


I suspect he is talking about Regs, not Reg/Res combined.


----------



## Halifax Tar

KevinB said:


> I think that is mostly because they don't know what absolute dire straights the CAF is in.
> I think when a CFP snaps in half - and a CF18 drops out of the sky there will be huge complaints of why things where not fixed before that.



Well tragedy makes for heady news and higher ratings.


----------



## dangerboy

It looks like our cupboards are bare: 



__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1504206283183898628


----------



## GK .Dundas

dangerboy said:


> It looks like our cupboards are bare:
> 
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1504206283183898628


The  cupboard is not only bare but half the shelves are missing.
You know I have spent almost 20 years when the subject of either foreign policy or defence  giving what I felt was a realistic  appraisal of the state of  our military. 
I usually got one of three responses.
First , it can't possibly be that bad. Second , this is Canada , every body likes us or   The Americans will protect us.


----------



## Good2Golf

dapaterson said:


> With D/PM who is also Min Fin in, nobody else matters.


----------



## daftandbarmy

McG said:


> So, 2% or maybe more … ?
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1504179716563034114



What?


----------



## Kirkhill

Good2Golf said:


> View attachment 69509




@dapaterson 
Not to pour too much more salt but as was previously noted...



> Melanie Joly said:
> Canada is not a nuclear power, it is not a military power,” she told CTV Power Play host Evan Solomon. “We’re a middle-sized power and* what we’re good at is convening *and making sure that diplomacy is happening, and *meanwhile convincing other countries to do more.*



Pixie dust, unicorns and rainbows ...


----------



## MilEME09

Kirkhill said:


> @dapaterson
> Not to pour too much more salt but as was previously noted...
> 
> 
> 
> Pixie dust, unicorns and rainbows ...


Cause talking did so well at stopping the Russo-Ukrainian war


----------



## TacticalTea

Kirkhill said:


> @dapaterson
> Not to pour too much more salt but as was previously noted...
> 
> 
> 
> Pixie dust, unicorns and rainbows ...


Such a ridiculous perspective. 

I guess our contribution to WW2 was useless? We didn't go to Korea? Afghan didn't happen either? And nothing happened in Bosnia?

Clueless twitter-Party.


----------



## Remius

TacticalTea said:


> Such a ridiculous perspective.
> 
> I guess our contribution to WW2 was useless? We didn't go to Korea? Afghan didn't happen either? And nothing happened in Bosnia?
> 
> Clueless twitter-Party.


Ultimately though you are talking about the past.  We aren’t a military power anymore and haven’t been for a while .  It’s an honest statement.  As much as I think her words are a bit misplaced she isn’t wrong in this case.  

That doesn’t mean we can’t contribute.  But let’s be honest about what we can actually do with what we have.  And it isn’t that much in the grand scheme. 

We lament that we are under equipped, under manned and lack capabilities and that the cupboard is worse than bare and yet when someone points it out we get offended.  

I take her comments as a good sign that maybe, finally the gvt is actually admitting that we can’t do as much on the military side of things instead of saying a bunch of BS about how we are more than capable and that we contribute our share blah blah.  The first step is admitting we have a problem and fix it.   

Her statement and Anand saying that maybe we need to aggressively start increasing our defence spending and commitments is a sign that maybe a new narrative on defence spending is coming.  

Like most, I’ll believe it when I see it but at least the gvt isn’t living in denial or trying to convince Canadians that everything in defence is all fine and  dandy.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Remius said:


> Ultimately though you are talking about the past.  We aren’t a military power anymore and haven’t been for a while .  It’s an honest statement.  As much as I think her words are a bit misplaced she isn’t wrong in this case.
> 
> That doesn’t mean we can’t contribute.  But let’s be honest about what we can actually do with what we have.  And it isn’t that much in the grand scheme.
> 
> We lament that we are under equipped, under manned and lack capabilities and that the cupboard is worse than bare and yet when someone points it out we get offended.
> 
> I take her comments as a good sign that maybe, finally the gvt is actually admitting that we can’t do as much on the military side of things instead of saying a bunch of BS about how we are more than capable and that we contribute our share blah blah.  The first step is admitting we have a problem and fix it.
> 
> Her statement and Anand saying that maybe we need to aggressively start increasing our defence spending and commitments is a sign that maybe a new narrative on defence spending is coming.
> 
> Like most, I’ll believe it when I see it but at least the gvt isn’t living in denial or trying to convince Canadians that everything in defence is all fine and  dandy.



Agree.  It's a cold hard truth.  

It's statements like these though that might actually wake up the Canadian public to our true position on this planet.


----------



## SupersonicMax

Kirkhill said:


> @dapaterson
> Not to pour too much more salt but as was previously noted...
> 
> 
> 
> Pixie dust, unicorns and rainbows ...


Well, this is true.  We are not a military power.  Maybe we were in the past but it’s not the case anymore, probably since the Korean War.  We contribute to warfare in that we’ll provide people and equipment an contribute to someone else’s initiative. We chose our battles.  And that’s the key, right there, to our contribution. 

Canada, as a generally rational nation, measures its military involvement well.  When Canada participates militarily, it sends a message to the World and gives legitimacy to a military operation. When we do not, that also sends a powerful message. When we are asked to participate militarily to an operation, it is not because of our military might: it’s because it gives legitimacy.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Remius said:


> Her statement and Anand saying that maybe we need to aggressively start increasing our defence spending and commitments is a sign that maybe a new narrative on defence spending is coming.


Anand's statement is a used car sales pitch.

We already agreed to model of car, 2% GDP.

We've had years to provide that but we didn't. Now the dealership is offering "options" to provide the car they were already supposed to provide. On top of that there's new options to provide something less than promised, and options to provide "an even better model" i.e exceeding what we promised.


----------



## FormerHorseGuard

we need a serious increase in spending to just replaced what  we sent to the Ukraine.  Ammo, Carls, vests, nvgs, rations, helmets, machine guns, sniper rifles ,   plus jet fuel to get it there. Our transport fleet will have decades cut off their service life with the amount of service they are flying right now. 

Plus new equipment incase we get into a shooting war again.  The freezer has thawed everything out and we are getting back to the post war 2 worries. The wall came down but it is being rebuilt with the blood of innocent people over there.


----------



## dimsum

On a related, but completely different note, how does one make it so the original article stays at the top like this one?  Can it be the norm for all threads that have articles?


----------



## SupersonicMax

FormerHorseGuard said:


> Our transport fleet will have decades cut off their service life with the amount of service they are flying right now.



No it won’t.  It is taken from an already allocated yearly flying rate.  Our Air Mobility fleets are used to high tempos (it is pretty much their routine).


----------



## daftandbarmy

Jarnhamar said:


> Anand's statement is a used car sales pitch.
> 
> We already agreed to model of car, 2% GDP.
> 
> We've had years to provide that but we didn't. Now the dealership is offering "options" to provide the car they were already supposed to provide. On top of that there's new options to provide something less than promised, and options to provide "an even better model" i.e exceeding what we promised.



As along as there are some FNC1s left, I'll be good if they drag me back


----------



## Quirky

SupersonicMax said:


> Our Air Mobility fleets are used to high tempos (it is pretty much their routine).



We are used to doing more with less, so lets make it our SOP.


----------



## SupersonicMax

Quirky said:


> We are used to doing more with less, so lets make it our SOP.


An airplane that doesn’t fly doesn’t make financial sense.  High Op Tempo for the aircraft, especially transport aircraft,  is perfectly normal.


----------



## Quirky

SupersonicMax said:


> An airplane that doesn’t fly doesn’t make financial sense.  High Op Tempo for the aircraft, especially transport aircraft,  is perfectly normal.


It's not the airplanes i'm worried about..


----------



## Weinie

daftandbarmy said:


> As along as there are some FNC1s left, I'll be good if they drag me back


I would like FN # 0L0608, which I was issued in Cornwallis in 1983. It shot straight.


----------



## Weinie

SupersonicMax said:


> An airplane that doesn’t fly doesn’t make financial sense.  High Op Tempo for the aircraft, especially transport aircraft,  is perfectly normal.


So we should call it Normal Op Tempo?


----------



## SupersonicMax

Weinie said:


> So we should call it Normal Op Tempo?


The the aircraft, yes.  But as Quirky alluded to, not for personnel.


----------



## Jarnhamar

SupersonicMax said:


> Canada, as a generally rational nation, measures its military involvement well.  When Canada participates militarily, it sends a message to the World and gives legitimacy to a military operation. When we do not, that also sends a powerful message. When we are asked to participate militarily to an operation, it is not because of our military might: it’s because it gives legitimacy.


What would you say the reason is that Canada being involved gives something legitimacy?

You mention we measure our military involvement well. Isn't that due to our military being is in such a shit state, not for more lofty, philosophical reasons?


----------



## TacticalTea

Remius said:


> Ultimately though you are talking about the past.  We aren’t a military power anymore and haven’t been for a while .  It’s an honest statement.  As much as I think her words are a bit misplaced she isn’t wrong in this case.
> 
> That doesn’t mean we can’t contribute.  But let’s be honest about what we can actually do with what we have.  And it isn’t that much in the grand scheme.
> 
> We lament that we are under equipped, under manned and lack capabilities and that the cupboard is worse than bare and yet when someone points it out we get offended.
> 
> I take her comments as a good sign that maybe, finally the gvt is actually admitting that we can’t do as much on the military side of things instead of saying a bunch of BS about how we are more than capable and that we contribute our share blah blah.  The first step is admitting we have a problem and fix it.
> 
> Her statement and Anand saying that maybe we need to aggressively start increasing our defence spending and commitments is a sign that maybe a new narrative on defence spending is coming.
> 
> Like most, I’ll believe it when I see it but at least the gvt isn’t living in denial or trying to convince Canadians that everything in defence is all fine and  dandy.


 I agree with your assessment, but I don't see how it follows from her statement.

Saying "Canada is not a military power and that's that" is a fatalistic argument against increased military spending, not a call to action, far from it.

And those examples of military deployments I provided... Of course they're in "the past"!

The military is an insurance policy. You don't call up your insurance broker when you're about to crash your car! Just like you don't cancel your insurance after the crash. 

It takes years, decades to build a strong military, ready to respond to threats.

We are a *degraded* military power only because she and her friends have let it degrade.


----------



## JLB50

Canada was a second if not third rate military power prior to WW1 and WW2, yet look what we accomplished in both of those wars.  Maybe I’m wrong but I think Ministers Freeland and Anand are strong Believers in having a strong military.


----------



## Brad Sallows

The state of Canada's military capability doesn't just happen.  It is a consequence of what federal governments did or left undone.  If it is unsatisfactory, it can be made satisfactory.  All that lacks is political will and some clear thinking.


----------



## dimsum

TacticalTea said:


> The military is an insurance policy. You don't call up your insurance broker when you're about to crash your car! Just like you don't cancel your insurance after the crash.
> 
> It takes years, decades to build a strong military, ready to respond to threats.


I broadly agree with the idea but I find the "insurance" analogy too simplistic.  Our issues aren't just limited to funding DND/CAF, but what we do with the money already given.  



JLB50 said:


> Canada was a second if not third rate military power prior to WW1 and WW2, yet look what we accomplished in both of those wars.


Yes, but the tech level was very different.  Today's combat systems are so advanced that we can't roll out aircraft, ships, and tanks at the same rates as we did in WWII.


----------



## rmc_wannabe

As I stated earlier, unfortunately the Russo-Ukranian has to be the event that is finally rousing the Great Reset crew from their slumber. 

We have reaped the harvest of over 30 years of relative peace and security; but now it's time to beat the ploughshares into swords. At least some of them.


----------



## JLB50

Brad Sallows said:


> The state of Canada's military capability doesn't just happen.  It is a consequence of what federal governments did or left undone.  If it is unsatisfactory, it can be made satisfactory.  All that lacks is political will and some clear thinking.


It seems to me that the invasion of Ukraine has made Canadians increasingly aware of the importance of having a strong and capable military.  Hopefully our politicians will stop dithering.


----------



## Remius

TacticalTea said:


> We are a *degraded* military power only because she and her friends have let it degrade.



It goes way further back than just her and her friends.


----------



## GK .Dundas

TacticalTea said:


> Ah for fuck's sake.
> 
> I had sworn to myself I wouldn't vote for him, and now look how's massacred my promise.
> 
> Have any of his rivals said anything about


----------



## RangerRay

> Melanie Joly said:
> Canada is not a nuclear power, it is not a military power,” she told CTV Power Play host Evan Solomon. “We’re a middle-sized power and* what we’re good at is convening *and making sure that diplomacy is happening, and *meanwhile convincing other countries to do more.*



My problem with this statement isn’t the obvious one about the state of our military. It’s her statement about our diplomatic heft. She is thinking about a long time ago when we had diplomatic strength. That time has long since past due to the hollowing out of External Affairs/Foreign Affairs/Global Affairs by every PM since P. Trudeau.

She, and many other Canadians, is drinking her own bath water.


----------



## GK .Dundas

Umm how do I undo  this? Fumble fingered today .I


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Canada will not be dramatically increasing Military spending.  Inflation is going to cripple this Government's spending power over the next two years and the focus of which ever Government is in power will be dealing with that.  Most likely through rate hikes and austerity not seen since the 70s/80s 😄

Remember when they said inflation was "transitory" 😉









						Mortgage Rundown: The Bank of Canada may have made its gravest policy error since inflation targeting began
					

Canada is now dealing with not only one pandemic, but two. COVID-19 and inflation, the latter being a virus that spreads just as fast




					www.theglobeandmail.com
				




I am hoping to get all of money out of this Government's hands ASAP, including all of my pension money.  The payout cannot come soon enough 😬


----------



## KevinB

JLB50 said:


> It seems to me that the invasion of Ukraine has made Canadians increasingly aware of the importance of having a strong and capable military.  Hopefully our politicians will stop dithering.


That occurred before before on 9-11...
   The attention span of the Canadian voter for the Military is like a gnat.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

KevinB said:


> That occurred before before on 9-11...
> The attention span of the Canadian voter for the Military is like a gnat.


Unfortunately the dinner bill for past actions is due and there isn't any money left for home insurance 😑


----------



## TacticalTea

RangerRay said:


> Humphrey Bogart said:
> 
> 
> 
> Canada will not be dramatically increasing Military spending.  Inflation is going to cripple this Government's spending power over the next two years and the focus of which ever Government is in power will be dealing with that.  Most likely through rate hikes and austerity not seen since the 70s/80s 😄
> 
> Remember when they said inflation was "transitory" 😉
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mortgage Rundown: The Bank of Canada may have made its gravest policy error since inflation targeting began
> 
> 
> Canada is now dealing with not only one pandemic, but two. COVID-19 and inflation, the latter being a virus that spreads just as fast
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theglobeandmail.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am hoping to get all of money out of this Government's hands ASAP, including all of my pension money.  The payout cannot come soon enough 😬
Click to expand...

I fear you are right.

We're in the middle of a long, multifaceted economic crisis.

Governments will have to cut taxes and/or expenses to preserve their taxpayer's purchasing power and not crowd out investments that would restart the economy.

Or, accept that we live in a new, dangerous, climate-catastrophe-bound and de-globalized world, and that the consumerism we've sustained for decades is a thing of the past.


----------



## YZT580

JLB50 said:


> It seems to me that the invasion of Ukraine has made Canadians increasingly aware of the importance of having a strong and capable military.  Hopefully our politicians will stop dithering.


It has also made people aware of just how vacuous the words of our PM and his coterie are.  Just hope they remember for more than 1 week after this particular war ends


----------



## Old Sweat

After watching our ministers address the issue, I can only think of the old saw that talk is cheap and military rebuilding is not, and they will opt for the cheapest solution.


----------



## mariomike

rmc_wannabe said:


> I look at the Ontario Government's recent changes to support Reservists and can already see HR departments trying to find loopholes.





> Employees who are reservists and who are deployed to an international operation or to an operation within Canada that is or will be providing assistance in dealing with an emergency or its aftermath (including search and rescue operations, recovery from national disasters such as flood relief, military aid following ice storms, and aircraft crash recovery) are entitled under the ESA to unpaid leave for the time necessary to engage in that operation.



Unfortunately, nothing about leave - paid or unpaid - for training,


----------



## TacticalTea

RangerRay said:


> My problem with this statement isn’t the obvious one about the state of our military. It’s her statement about our diplomatic heft. She is thinking about a long time ago when we had diplomatic strength. That time has long since past due to the hollowing out of External Affairs/Foreign Affairs/Global Affairs by every PM since P. Trudeau.
> 
> She, and many other Canadians, is drinking her own bath water.


It seems appropriate to express here my opinion on the purpose of Canada's military, to call back the discussion we were having a few pages back ITT.

Yes, diplomacy. Of course that's how we like to envision Canada's role in the world.

But diplomacy is a multi-lateral affair. Would the sanctions against Russia have any effect at all had they been enacted solely by Canada? Or even only by CAN/US? Obviously not.

We want to project ideals of peace, justice, and democracy in the greatest respect of the most fundamental rules of international law; sovereignty, human rights, fair trade. But we can't do it alone.

We need like-minded partners. The NATO and EU member-states, of course, but it's more wide-ranging than that. Mexico. Japan. Australia. Even India, despite all its troubles, it is still a democracy and a respectable actor in the international community.

If we sit back and let all those partners fall to tyranny, however, who are we even going to engage with diplomatically? If European democracies fall, one by one, what sort of world will we find ourselves living surviving in?

Thus, in the absence of real military threats to Canada itself, I think the primary purpose of the CAF is to preserve and support the liberal, rules-based world order that we helped usher into existence just at the midway point of our history as a country.

We can't sit by as the world's democracies are assaulted, lest we end up isolated and weakened. We ought to be able to deploy ourselves beyond our own borders, to enable a positive contribution to a coalition effort without dragging down our partners. America's protection should be empowering, not debilitating.

If we don't have the air and sealift to cross the oceans that safeguard our homeland, the air defenses to shield our army, the supply lines to feed it, and the air support to enable its advance... I don't see how we can actually help our friends half a world away. It is not sufficient to concern ourselves strictly with issues of domestic importance, such as Arctic sovereignty and the oft-brandished ''longest coastline, along three oceans''.

In the words of the late great Colonel Sanders Teddy Roosevelt, ''Speak softly and carry a big stick''. Otherwise, our words will be nothing but pure wind, to borrow from Orwell.



Sidenote: to address the idea that Canada punches above its weight... yeah we should probably stop trying to do that. We're spread so thin we can't effectively take in and train people.


----------



## Jarnhamar

rmc_wannabe said:


> Here lies our current problem with the PRes: Gotta pay the bills somehow.
> 
> We offer very little in the way of protection or cushion for folks when we ask them to serve their country on a part time basis. A lot of the people we recruit as reservists are working full time or are students pursuing a degree so they can be employed full time.
> 
> I look at the Ontario Government's recent changes to support Reservists and can already see HR departments trying to find loopholes. If we are going to have a Nordic socialist ideal of a "Home Guard" we need to ensure we provide the same sort of safe guards.


Years ago I had some interactions with upset employers. They were very much pro-reservist and tried to support not only hiring reservists but giving them time off for training.
Problem was maturity and human nature. Troops were calling their work on a Wednesday or Thursday saying they needed the weekend off for training, or last minute tasks/summer training. They were rightly upset about their employees "being ordered to train last minute".

The US system works because reservists are ordered to deploy or attend training. From what I can tell it's known in advance. In Canada everything reservists do is voluntary.

If we're going to protect reservists with job protection then it's only fair we figure out how to make said training mandatory and not when they feel like it e.g. providing a yearly training schedule (because it's not always the troops fault but the units).


----------



## MilEME09

Jarnhamar said:


> Years ago I had some interactions with upset employers. They were very much pro-reservist and tried to support not only hiring reservists but giving them time off for training.
> Problem was maturity and human nature. Troops were calling their work on a Wednesday or Thursday saying they needed the weekend off for training, or last minute tasks/summer training. They were rightly upset about their employees "being ordered to train last minute".
> 
> The US system works because reservists are ordered to deploy or attend training. From what I can tell it's known in advance. In Canada everything reservists do is voluntary.
> 
> If we're going to protect reservists with job protection then it's only fair we figure out how to make said training mandatory and not when they feel like it e.g. providing a yearly training schedule (because it's not always the troops fault but the units).


In some cases it's the troops not being open, if I need time off I have it booked in advance. Anything last minute I engage my employer to see if they cab afford to give me the time off.

Though sometimes the army messes up, I once had Borden fail to let me unit know my course dates changes to a week earlier, then call my unit asking where I am day 1 of course. To say the least I had to pick between my civi job and the army because my boss was none to happy about the idea of letting me go a week early.


----------



## Kat Stevens

Re the thread title, he couldn't boost a golf cart, let alone a military budget.


----------



## TacticalTea

Cartoonist sums up my point with a picture.


----------



## FJAG

RangerRay said:


> My problem with this statement isn’t the obvious one about the state of our military. It’s her statement about our diplomatic heft. She is thinking about a long time ago when we had diplomatic strength. That time has long since past due to the hollowing out of External Affairs/Foreign Affairs/Global Affairs by every PM since P. Trudeau.
> 
> She, and many other Canadians, is drinking her own bath water.


You would have thought that the 2020 election for two UN Security Council seats for Europe and other would have made the point for her. Three countries ran for two seats: Norway, Ireland, Canada. Guess who didn't get in. 

Yup. Our diplomatic heft is mighty. (Place sarcasm emoji here)

🍻


----------



## Remius

FJAG said:


> You would have thought that the 2020 election for two UN Security Council seats for Europe and other would have made the point for her. Three countries ran for two seats: Norway, Ireland, Canada. Guess who didn't get in.
> 
> Yup. Our diplomatic heft is mighty. (Place sarcasm emoji here)
> 
> 🍻


But they sure know how to troll lol.  That UN ambassador of ours sure knows how to lol.


----------



## ArmyRick

Weinie said:


> I would like FN # 0L0608, which I was issued in Cornwallis in 1983. It shot straight.


It shot straight? Or the guys working the butts wanted to get the day done so bad they pencil poked your 5 round grouping dead center?


----------



## MilEME09

ArmyRick said:


> It shot straight? Or the guys working the butts wanted to get the day done so bad they pencil poked your 5 round grouping dead center?


First round was on target, that's how they knew where to poke


----------



## mariomike

daftandbarmy said:


> I know several employers, some of them ex-military, who refuse to hire reservists because they always want time off to go do military stuff and leave behind extra work for everyone else.



I agree with FJAG,


> For me, the big factor, as I alluded to above, is to absolutely maximize the training effort during the reservists school years when there are no competing family and employer concerns.  Once trained, the only real necessity is to do a form of refresher training for the bulk of the unit.



When they graduate high school / college, something like this, perhaps,








						Military Service
					

Policy Statement The City of Toronto supports employees who want to participate in the military reserve force and allows them to take a leave of absence to fulfill their reserve duties. Application All employees listed below are eligible for Military Service leave. Non-union employees CUPE local...




					www.toronto.ca


----------



## Good2Golf

TacticalTea said:


> View attachment 69533
> Cartoonist sums up my point with a picture.


Put it this way….if an RCAF Spitfire that had flown air patrol over Normandy during D-Day was to fly, the same duration as Canada’s CF-18s have been to date, that Spitfire would have still been flying in front line service after we had received our first CF-18s…


----------



## dimsum

Good2Golf said:


> Put it this way….if an RCAF Spitfire that had flown air patrol over Normandy during D-Day was to fly, the same duration as Canada’s CF-18s have been to date, that Spitfire would have still been flying in front line service after we had received our first CF-18s…


Then again, if an RCAF Spitfire was compared to USAF KC-135 or B-52, they would be still flying.


----------



## Good2Golf

Well, at least 8-12 years longer. 😉


----------



## Blackadder1916

Good2Golf said:


> Put it this way….if an RCAF Spitfire that had flown air patrol over Normandy during D-Day was to fly, the same duration as Canada’s CF-18s have been to date, that Spitfire would have still been flying in front line service after we had received our first CF-18s…





dimsum said:


> Then again, if an RCAF Spitfire was compared to USAF KC-135 or B-52, they would be still flying.



Or a Dak . . .






						Canadian Warplanes 4: Douglas CC-129 Dakota
					

Harold writes articles on Canadian military history, including Military Parachuting, Warplanes, Armour and Artillery, Castles, Fortifications, Sieges and Battles, Warships, The Cold War, Women in the Canadian Forces, First Nations and Black Canadian Military Service. Each article is supported by...




					www.silverhawkauthor.com
				




Douglas Dakota Mk. III(Serial No. ), FZ671, C/N 12256, later  (Serial No. 12944), in the markings of No. 437 Squadron, RCAF, coded Z-2B, painted as a Second World War camouflaged transport.

FZ671 was *delivered to the No. 48 Squadron, RAF on 4 Feb 1944*.  This Dakota made *at least two flights into Arnhem for Operation Market Garden*.  The first one was on 17 Jul 1944.   The Pilot Officer on the first lift was Flight Lieutenant A.C. Blythe, RCAF, who went on to win a DFC.  It also went in on the third lift on 19 Sep 1944, with Pilot Officer A.M. Smith.
It joined 4No. 37 Squadron, RCAF in Sep 1945 and also served with Nos. 426, 429, 435, and 437 Squadrons, No. 25 Ambulance, and No. 1 Air Navigation School through the years as FZ671. Its Serial Number changed to 12944 with the Canadian Armed Forces in June 1970. It was transferred to No. 429 Squadron at Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, in March 1975, and then to No. 429 Communications Squadron in Winnipeg, Manitoba, from 1979 to 1980. 12944 was* struck off strength with the RCAF on 14 Apr 1989*.  It now resides in the Heritage Air Park as Dakota EZ761.


----------



## Weinie

ArmyRick said:


> It shot straight? Or the guys working the butts wanted to get the day done so bad they pencil poked your 5 round grouping dead center?


I was the second best shot in my platoon. Apparently, the butt guys liked the top guy more.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

The issue with Defence Spending is the fiscal pressures will be exacerbated by Inflation.  Defence Inflation is also more pronounced than regular inflation so the problems are magnified in a hyper-inflationary environment.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer warned about this problem 10 years ago.  I will dig up the report (our Govt's archiving is pretty bad).

And they just put out another update:






						Planned Capital Spending Under Strong, Secure, Engaged – Canada’s Defence Policy: 2022 Update
					

The Parliamentary Budget Officer (PBO) provides independent analysis to Canadian Parliament on the state of the nation's finances, the government's ...




					www.pbo-dpb.gc.ca
				




Key highlights:

We _*underspent*_ each of the 4 years since SSE was published

Inflation is expected to cause additional pressures going forward


----------



## TacticalTea

Humphrey Bogart said:


> The issue with Defence Spending is the fiscal pressures will be exasperated by Inflation.  Defence Inflation is also more pronounced than regular inflation so the problems are magnified in a hyper-inflationary environment.
> 
> The Parliamentary Budget Officer warned about this problem 10 years ago.  I will dig up the report (our Govt's archiving is pretty bad).
> 
> And they just put out another update:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Planned Capital Spending Under Strong, Secure, Engaged – Canada’s Defence Policy: 2022 Update
> 
> 
> The Parliamentary Budget Officer (PBO) provides independent analysis to Canadian Parliament on the state of the nation's finances, the government's ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.pbo-dpb.gc.ca
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Key highlights:
> 
> We _*underspent*_ each of the 4 years since SSE was published
> 
> Inflation is expected to cause additional pressures going forward
> 
> View attachment 69549


The word you're looking for is exacerbated.


----------



## Weinie

TacticalTea said:


> The word you're looking for is exacerbated.


Exasperated works in this context.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

TacticalTea said:


> The word you're looking for is exacerbated.


Damn auto correct LMAO

I'm just gonna blame my phone keyboard and sausage fingers 😁


----------



## YZT580

Humphrey Bogart said:


> Damn auto correct LMAO
> 
> I'm just gonna blame my phone keyboard and sausage fingers 😁


you were thinking logically, your keyboard was thinking emotionally


----------



## TacticalTea

Weinie said:


> Exasperated works in this context.


To my - admittedly limited - knowledge, fiscal pressures do not typically experience feelings and emotions but I'll take your word for it


----------



## The Bread Guy

A bit of optimism ...








						FIRST READING: Buckle up for a Canadian defence spending splurge
					

Brian Mulroney urges Tories to stop "destroying" each other




					nationalpost.com
				





> ... Defence Minister Anita Anand said this week that *she will be tabling “aggressive” options to significantly boost Canada’s rate of defence spending once the cabinet starts planning its spring budget*. Depending on how it goes, this could spell the biggest surge in Canadian defence spending in more than 50 years.
> 
> *Canada, of course, has one of the most lacklustre defence spending records in NATO.* While members of the alliance are expected to spend 2 per cent of national GDP on defence, Canada only spends about 1.4 per cent. Speaking to CBC this week, Anand said she was drafting proposals under which Canada could hit or exceed the 2 per cent baseline. *That would be roughly an extra $10 billion to spend on the military each year*.
> 
> Pessimists, however, will argue that *the Canadian Armed Forces’ problem is not merely one of spending*, given that it can’t seem to spend the money it already has. Last year, for instance, the Department of Defence failed to spend $1.2 billion of its allocated budget, continuing a trend of lapsed defence spending that has been occurring quite regularly since the government of Stephen Harper.
> 
> *The Canadian military also has a penchant to make procurement far more expensive and painful than it needs to be*. We’ve brought this up before, but when the British Army replaced its standard-issue pistols in 2010, it took them three years and $14.5 million. For the Canadian Army, replacing the exact same pistol has required 15 years and more than $100 million.
> 
> *We also happen to have **one of the most top-heavy militaries in NATO.* Despite an ever-shrinking pool of enlisted personnel, Canada retains about as many generals and admirals as at the height of the Cold War ...


We'll see ...


----------



## TacticalTea

The Bread Guy said:


> A bit of optimism ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FIRST READING: Buckle up for a Canadian defence spending splurge
> 
> 
> Brian Mulroney urges Tories to stop "destroying" each other
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nationalpost.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We'll see ...


Why do we have so many GOFOs? Any insightful articles on the matter out there?


----------



## Remius

TacticalTea said:


> Why do we have so many GOFOs? Any insightful articles on the matter out there?


That has long been a question with a variety of answers.


----------



## Kat Stevens

TacticalTea said:


> Why do we have so many GOFOs? Any insightful articles on the matter out there?


Because they haven't all been swooped up in one scandal or another. Be patient, they'll get to them eventually.


----------



## Remius

The Bread Guy said:


> A bit of optimism ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FIRST READING: Buckle up for a Canadian defence spending splurge
> 
> 
> Brian Mulroney urges Tories to stop "destroying" each other
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nationalpost.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We'll see ...


I’ve been hinting that Anand is laying the groundwork for an increase to or close to 2%.

What remains to be seen is how much of this will be real tangible things or more smoke and mirrors.

With Force reconstitution there is a golden opportunity to make some real institutional changes.


----------



## dapaterson

Post Somalia orders to shrink to about 65 GOFOs,then accelerating growth starring under Hillier, hitting its stride under Vance.

From an organizational norms perspective, a lot of it reads as Vance using new positions and promotions as a tool to keep subordinates happy and preventing them from working to undermine him.

Frankly, given the CAF's operational outputs, three Cpls in a trenchcoat would probably be sufficient.


----------



## TacticalTea

dapaterson said:


> hitting its stride under Vance.
> 
> From an organizational norms perspective, a lot of it reads as Vance using new positions and promotions


Doesn't he need TB approval for new such positions though?


----------



## KevinB

dapaterson said:


> Post Somalia orders to shrink to about 65 GOFOs,then accelerating growth starring under Hillier, hitting its stride under Vance.
> 
> From an organizational norms perspective, a lot of it reads as Vance using new positions and promotions as a tool to keep subordinates happy and preventing them from working to undermine him.
> 
> Frankly, given the CAF's operational outputs, three Cpls in a trenchcoat would probably be sufficient.


I for one always thought the CDS should have been a MG, with CCA, CRCN and CRCAF a 1*  - a few OUTCAN 1*'s for a total of 6 max.
   Makes it easier to cull Col's for 1* positions and the 1*'s should be keen to prove they should be the next 2* CDS.


----------



## dapaterson

TacticalTea said:


> Doesn't he need TB approval for new such positions though?


MND, with TB concurrence. 






						QR&O: Volume I - Chapter 2 Government and Organization - Canada.ca
					

Queen's Regulations and Orders - QR&O - Chapter 2 - Government and Organization




					www.canada.ca


----------



## dimsum

KevinB said:


> I for one always thought the CDS should have been a MG, with CCA, CRCN and CRCAF a 1*  - a few OUTCAN 1*'s for a total of 6 max.
> Makes it easier to cull Col's for 1* positions and the 1*'s should be keen to prove they should be the next 2* CDS.


Yeah but then we have an even quieter voice than the 3* NZ Chief of Defence Force


----------



## Kat Stevens

dimsum said:


> Yeah but then we have an even quieter voice than the 3* NZ Chief of Defence Force


We should come up with a 5*, call him Ultra General for CDS and watch all the other heads in the NATO cafeteria explode.


----------



## TacticalTea

So I went looking a bit and came across this statement which many of you have referenced around here:

_Eyre blamed the military’s sexual misconduct crisis and the COVID-19 pandemic for the exodus.
“We need our mid-level leaders to dig deep and do this for the institution, to put service before self, not to retreat into retirement, but to advance forward and face the challenges head-on,” Eyre stated._

And, just... I mean... wow... _''Am I so out of touch? No. It's the children who are wrong'' _


----------



## dimsum

Kat Stevens said:


> We should come up with a 5*, call him Ultra General for CDS and watch all the other heads in the NATO cafeteria explode.


Why reinvent the wheel?

Field Marshal
Admiral of the Fleet
Marshal of the Royal (Canadian) Air Force


----------



## The Bread Guy

Kat Stevens said:


> We should come up with a 5*, call him Ultra General for CDS and watch all the other heads in the NATO cafeteria explode.


Wouldn't even need to reinvent the wheel ...


----------



## JLB50

The Bread Guy said:


> Wouldn't even need to reinvent the wheel ...
> View attachment 69557


A military version of a Pearly Queen?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I think we should send JT and Butts to Kiev so they can show the world how brilliant they think they are.


----------



## Furniture

TacticalTea said:


> *Why do we have so many GOFOs?* Any insightful articles on the matter out there?


Great question, I suspect the only way to find out is to stand up a new two star position to study it.


----------



## dapaterson

Under the new three star who is responsible for culture?


----------



## MilEME09

dapaterson said:


> Under the new three star who is responsible for culture?


Who will report to a new committee we will stand up to study the issue headed by a 4 star


----------



## Furniture

I just realized something... Governments in Canada have been working in secret to ensure the CAF upholds one of it's strongest traditions. 

Canada has entered each World War woefully understaffed, and underequipped. As we sit on the brink of WWIII the government has worked tirelessly to set us up to maintain that proud tradition. 

I guess I should write a thank you note to my MP.


----------



## kev994

You guys are focusing on the numerator when we could easily just shrink GDP and not have to fix anything.


----------



## Booter

dimsum said:


> I broadly agree with the idea but I find the "insurance" analogy too simplistic.  Our issues aren't just limited to funding DND/CAF, but what we do with the money already given.
> 
> 
> Yes, but the tech level was very different.  Today's combat systems are so advanced that we can't roll out aircraft, ships, and tanks at the same rates as we did in WWII.


And the bureaucracy is as well


----------



## The Bread Guy

Furniture said:


> I just realized something... Governments in Canada have been working in secret to ensure the CAF upholds one of it's strongest traditions.
> 
> Canada has entered each World War woefully understaffed, and underequipped. As we sit on the brink of WWIII the government has worked tirelessly to set us up to maintain that proud tradition.
> 
> I guess I should write a thank you note to my MP.


Like they say, history rhymes ....


----------



## armrdsoul77

We Have No Air Defence For Our Army – Why? - RUSI(NS)


----------



## GK .Dundas

Sat down and started a quick and dirty list of stuff that assuming the Government is actually serious about  rebuilding the beast  . And assuming the beast it self can actually get out of it's own way. 
This just what I came up with while sitting a work it's incredibly incomplete.
As I said it's just a start.
350 M1A1s lease or buy. 
75 M109A7s lease .
75 Himars  lease or buy.
75 M163A1 buy
500 M224A1 60 mm mortars Buy.
600 Oshkosh 8x8 tanker and drops capable trucks.
500 Javelin launchers
Stingers - lots !
This is all very tentative and set in marshmallow.
This is just for the Army and just the stuff we should be trying to get from the Americans. I haven't mentioned ammunition and with one exception I haven't touched logistics yet .
It's important enough to warrant a stand alone post of it's own.


----------



## Maxman1

Add a similar amount of M120/Soltam K6 120mm mortars and L9A1 51mm mortars. And more L16/M252 81mm mortars.

But, why Abrams and not the same number of Leopard 2s?


----------



## Remius

Maxman1 said:


> Add a similar amount of M120/Soltam K6 120mm mortars and L9A1 51mm mortars. And more L16/M252 81mm mortars.
> 
> But, why Abrams and not the same number of Leopard 2s?


Agreed.  Why not Leopards?  We already use them, and the latest variants are arguably better that the latest Abrams.


----------



## ArmyRick

Here is what really happens folks...
we get all that extra cash because for the Liberals its popular to stand off against Russia (need a competent military) so all that new cash gets broken down as
-20% more for Public works to pretend to look for more ships, planes, guns and drones. After 18 years we will have 3 new drones and 2 new patrol ships armed with C9s on pintle mount (yes I said C9s, gotta arm those new patrol ships), BUT defence procurement will have oodles of well paid civ employees
-15% for increased pay and benefits (I am all for fair pay but it gets to a point where the military ends up recruiting the wrong recruits)
-10% for new GOFO positions
-20% new social, culture and woke training for service members
-20% for temporary increase hiring of new recruits (the CAF, reserve and regular, will go on a hiring binge for 2-3 years and then suddenly turn the taps off
-15% upgrade all the existing and aging equipment

There. Wish I was wrong but I am not, sadly. The CAF and DND is so bloated with bureaucrats and BS, they don't know how to spend the money WISELY.


----------



## ueo

JLB50 said:


> It seems to me that the invasion of Ukraine has made Canadians increasingly aware of the importance of having a strong and capable military.  Hopefully our politicians will stop dithering.


Proably won't. As a general rule Canadians don't much care about our modern military posture unless its going into retirement homes, fighting fires or aid after a flood. We're really self centered IMO.


----------



## ueo

Jarnhamar said:


> Years ago I had some interactions with upset employers. They were very much pro-reservist and tried to support not only hiring reservists but giving them time off for training.
> Problem was maturity and human nature. Troops were calling their work on a Wednesday or Thursday saying they needed the weekend off for training, or last minute tasks/summer training. They were rightly upset about their employees "being ordered to train last minute".
> 
> The US system works because reservists are ordered to deploy or attend training. From what I can tell it's known in advance. In Canada everything reservists do is voluntary.
> 
> If we're going to protect reservists with job protection then it's only fair we figure out how to make said training mandatory and not when they feel like it e.g. providing a yearly training schedule (because it's not always the troops fault but the units).


We do this dance every 3-4 years. Have been since WW1. Still no workable resolution.


----------



## Remius

'We have to do more': Foreign affairs minister on Canada's defence spending
					

Foreign Affairs Minister Melanie Joly says she thinks that Canada’s military needs to be 'better equipped' and that the government has to 'do more' when it comes to stepping up the defence budget.




					www.ctvnews.ca
				




I expect a  budget increase for Defence.  Between Anand, Joly and Freyland, the messaging is pretty clear.


----------



## Remius

ueo said:


> Proably won't. As a general rule Canadians don't much care about our modern military posture unless its going into retirement homes, fighting fires or aid after a flood. We're really self centered IMO.


They only care when it becomes cool to care.  Right now Ukraine is the cool thing in the world right now.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Remius said:


> 'We have to do more': Foreign affairs minister on Canada's defence spending
> 
> 
> Foreign Affairs Minister Melanie Joly says she thinks that Canada’s military needs to be 'better equipped' and that the government has to 'do more' when it comes to stepping up the defence budget.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.ctvnews.ca
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I expect a  budget increase for Defence.  Between Anand, Joly and Freyland, the messaging is pretty clear.



For me I will believe it when its more than promised spending years down the road.  

We need huge capital real investments and we need them now.  Soul sourced major purchases of weapons systems need to happen.  And we need drastic increased recruitment.  

Honestly we are so far behind the 8 ball for people I am not sure how the system could deal with a massive influx of people without  ending up with thousands on pat platoons for years again.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Remius said:


> the messaging is pretty clear.



I'd say thats more soundbytes than messaging. This is messaging.

Trudeau delays billions in military spending while touring NATO 


> While Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was touring Europe expressing solidarity with Canada’s NATO partners last week, a new study by the Parliamentary Budget Officer said *his government has postponed billions of dollars in capital spending to replace aging military equipment promised in 2017.*
> 
> Yves Giroux said the Trudeau government has so far “underspent” $10 billion of the $164 billion it promised for 348 projects, including replacing outdated warships, jet fighters and military vehicles from 2017-18 to 2036-37.
> 
> It took Giroux four years to get the full list of the projects and more funding delays are expected during the 20-year project.


----------



## Remius

Halifax Tar said:


> For me I will believe it when its more than promised spending years down the road.
> 
> We need huge capital real investments and we need them now.  Soul sourced major purchases of weapons systems need to happen.  And we need drastic increased recruitment.
> 
> Honestly we are so far behind the 8 ball for people I am not sure how the system could deal with a massive influx of people without  ending up with thousands on pat platoons for years again.


You’d have to reconstitute and focus on that and pretty much just that.  We are already seing things like Nijemengen and other nice to do things cancelled.   Cancel a bunch of stuff.   Focus on training.  Post more people to schools and get it done.   Decentralise  training and run courses everywhere.


----------



## Remius

Jarnhamar said:


> I'd say thats more soundbytes than messaging. This is messaging.
> 
> Trudeau delays billions in military spending while touring NATO


All things that were said and done before the world just went to shyte.  I think they got a dose of reality in the last few weeks.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Halifax Tar said:


> *Honestly we are so far behind the 8 ball for people I am not sure how the system could deal with a massive influx of people without  ending up with thousands on pat platoons for years again.*


The honest truth is DND and the CAF has been so under-resourced for so long that I don't think Canadians truly grasp how much money is actually required to even be able to begin to compete with a Modern Peer-Force.

Take our Defence Budget now and increase it by 100% annually and you might, in a decade from now, turn it in to cream.  

Most of the new money will go towards undoing the effects of a couple of decades of underfunding.  Then there is Defence inflation, which is always greater than General inflation. 

The department is FUBAR, no doubt about it.  I'm just happy I won't be dealing with it anymore in a few months time 😉

PS:

If there was a sense that the Leopard had actually changed its spots, I would consider coming back but.....

It would cost the CAF mucho beaucoup dollars as I would expect a signing bonus 🤑


----------



## GK .Dundas

Remius said:


> Agreed.  Why not Leopards?  We already use them, and the latest variants are arguably better that the latest Abrams.





Maxman1 said:


> Add a similar amount of M120/Soltam K6 120mm mortars and L9A1 51mm mortars. And more L16/M252 81mm mortars.
> 
> But, why Abrams and not the same number of Leopard 2s?


Simple , three reasons for this. One the American are literally next door the Germans you may have noticed are across an   Ocean. 
Two , the Americans have fairly large stocks of the vehicle and can spare a small number.
The Germans do not  and are from all appearances are about to start a rather panicked rebuild of their own.
Three, we really have to rebuild our political capital with the Americans .


----------



## Halifax Tar

Remius said:


> All things that were said and done before the world just went to shyte.  I think they got a dose of reality in the last few weeks.



Negative, the world has been shyte for a long time, this is not new.  Our people just buried their heads further into the sand and were happy being fed bread and circuses.  

Canadians are complacent and lazy when it comes to world affairs, but want to be big boys on the stage.  Guess what ?  It doesn't work like that. 

I really want to blame JT and his team for this; and while they are holding the reins right now this goes all the way back to the mid 60s.  As much as I despise him we now need him and his team to fix this.  



Remius said:


> You’d have to reconstitute and focus on that and pretty much just that.  We are already seing things like Nijemengen and other nice to do things cancelled.   Cancel a bunch of stuff.   Focus on training.  Post more people to schools and get it done.   Decentralise  training and run courses everywhere.



Yup.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Humphrey Bogart said:


> The honest truth is DND and the CAF has been so under-resourced for so long that I don't think Canadians truly grasp how much money is actually required to even be able to begin to compete with a Modern Peer-Force.
> 
> Take our Defence Budget now and increase it by 100% annually and you might, in a decade from now, turn it in to cream.
> 
> Most of the new money will go towards undoing the effects of a couple of decades of underfunding.  Then there is Defence inflation, which is always greater than General inflation.
> 
> The department is FUBAR, no doubt about it.  I'm just happy I won't be dealing with it anymore in a few months time 😉
> 
> PS:
> 
> If there was a sense that the Leopard had actually changed its spots, I would consider coming back but.....
> 
> It would cost the CAF mucho beaucoup dollars as I would expect a signing bonus 🤑



Its kind of like looking at a house that's really a complete demo and instead hoping we can just slap some new paint on it lol


----------



## suffolkowner

GK .Dundas said:


> Simple , three reasons for this. One the American are literally next door the Germans you may have noticed are across an   Ocean.
> Two , the Americans have fairly large stocks of the vehicle and can spare a small number.
> The Germans do not  and are from all appearances are about to start a rather panicked rebuild of their own.
> Three, we really have to rebuild our political capital with the Americans .



The Abrams is a better tank in my opinion right now it also has a better and clearer upgrade future. Yes its a bit thirsty and super heavy so would likely be worse than useless in Ukraine right now. But the APU probably helps a little with that. Not sure on the need for 350 of them though


----------



## mariomike

Humphrey Bogart said:


> I'm just happy I won't be dealing with it anymore in a few months time 😉



Good luck in your future endeavors.


----------



## suffolkowner

Humphrey Bogart said:


> The honest truth is DND and the CAF has been so under-resourced for so long that I don't think Canadians truly grasp how much money is actually required to even be able to begin to compete with a Modern Peer-Force.
> 
> Take our Defence Budget now and increase it by 100% annually and you might, in a decade from now, turn it in to cream.
> 
> Most of the new money will go towards undoing the effects of a couple of decades of underfunding.  Then there is Defence inflation, which is always greater than General inflation.
> 
> The department is FUBAR, no doubt about it.  I'm just happy I won't be dealing with it anymore in a few months time 😉
> 
> PS:
> 
> If there was a sense that the Leopard had actually changed its spots, I would consider coming back but.....
> 
> It would cost the CAF mucho beaucoup dollars as I would expect a signing bonus 🤑





Halifax Tar said:


> Its kind of like looking at a house that's really a complete demo and instead hoping we can just slap some new paint on it lol



There's no way out of this pickle without the political drive to do so. We do not have the procurement system to achieve any timely results. These things can easily be laid at the feet of the government in power. But it wasn't Harper or Trudeau that made CDS Vance double the number of GOFO's while simultaneously watching combat capability erode. What is the solution to that? Just doubling the defence budget I would want to take the bet that it would add any combat capability at all. I think there is a culture problem that extends way past sexual harassment issues


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Halifax Tar said:


> Its kind of like looking at a house that's really a complete demo and instead hoping we can just slap some new paint on it lol


Yep, not to mention our current kit is already bloody antiquated.

I liked the story about how the Army is using TOW missiles which the article points out "are outdated technolgy".

I hate to tell them but most of our kit is outdated technology and that's across the services:  missiles, guns, fighters, tanks, ships, sensors, etc.  A lot of it is last-gen tech.


----------



## lenaitch

GK .Dundas said:


> Simple , three reasons for this. One the American are literally next door the Germans you may have noticed are across an   Ocean.
> Two , the Americans have fairly large stocks of the vehicle and *can spare a small number.*
> The Germans do not  and are from all appearances are about to start a rather panicked rebuild of their own.
> Three, we really have to rebuild our political capital with the Americans .


Why does so much of our procurement end up in redirecting/highjacking/whining our way into, somebody else's equipment stock or order book (rhetorical question - we all know why).


----------



## Jarnhamar

Remius said:


> We are already seing things like Nijemengen and other nice to do things cancelled.


That was a weird move. Nijemengen hardly seemed like it required a lot of horse power. And it was canceled well before things started getting hot in Ukraine.


Remius said:


> Decentralise  training and run courses everywhere.


Easier said than done. We're still seeing 10K or something members releasing per year. Members on MELs seem to be at an all time high. Still having leadership and accountability issues. We'll need a system where we can easily punt undesirables instead of letting them cling on for years.



Remius said:


> All things that were said and done before the world just went to shyte.  I think they got a dose of reality in the last few weeks.


A big enough dose to smash through funding for new warships, planes, helicopters? PY positions and facilities? It's taken us over 15 years (and counting) to get a new pistol. What you're suggesting is a complete 540 degree turn.

I see promises of new funding that's light on actual details with lengthily timelines to give the LPC room to put the money towards other projects when Ukraine dies down.

The LPC is taking advantage of the situation touring Europe getting tons of nice photos instead of putting in overtime hours at work figuring shit out.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

suffolkowner said:


> There's no way out of this pickle without the political drive to do so. We do not have the procurement system to achieve any timely results. These things can easily be laid at the feet of the government in power. But it wasn't Harper or Trudeau that made CDS Vance double the number of GOFO's while simultaneously watching combat capability erode. What is the solution to that? Just doubling the defence budget I would want to take the bet that it would add any combat capability at all. I think there is a culture problem that extends way past sexual harassment issues


The situation is too complex and multi-faceted to even be able to explain adequately on here.

We would need to significantly beef up the Staff and HQs in our present system with actual worker bees, as opposed to our MO of more senior officers and bureaucrats, to even be able to begin to achieve anything.

We would also need to download/decentralize spending/approval authorities to lower levels of the organization to really see any results. 

Essentially, improving our Military is going to require undoing the Bureaucratic Machine we've managed to build up around ourselves over the past few decades.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

I've worked in our National HQs before.  The culture that exists within our Higher HQs (L2 and Above) is the antithesis of dynamic, innovative, progressive.

I 100% guarantee that I could fire 80% of the people in some of our L2+ HQ and see no actual decrease in outputs.


----------



## Remius

Jarnhamar said:


> That was a weird move. Nijemengen hardly seemed like it required a lot of horse power. And it was canceled well before things started getting hot in Ukraine.


Force reconstitution was already being done due to COVID.  But keep cancelling anything that has nothing to do with rebuilding and training.  I would turn the whole machine into a training establishment until we get to where we need to be.


Jarnhamar said:


> Easier said than done. We're still seeing 10K or something members releasing per year. Members on MELs seem to be at an all time high. Still having leadership and accountability issues. We'll need a system where we can easily punt undesirables instead of letting them cling on for years.


Yes.  Efficiency needs to go hand in hand with any changes.  Like you I’m doubtful but we’ll see. I’d simplify the recruiting process and risk manage certain things.


Jarnhamar said:


> A big enough dose to smash through funding for new warships, planes, helicopters? PY positions and facilities? It's taken us over 15 years (and counting) to get a new pistol. What you're suggesting is a complete 540 degree turn.


Yep.  But out of the box thinking and some improvising would be in order. 


Jarnhamar said:


> I see promises of new funding that's light on actual details with lengthily timelines to give the LPC room to put the money towards other projects when Ukraine dies down.
> 
> The LPC is taking advantage of the situation touring Europe getting tons of nice photos instead of putting in overtime hours at work figuring shit out.


Quite likely.  But we’ll see what comes out of this when budget time comes. 

I am fully prepared to be disappointed.  But I still have room to be pleasantly surprised.


----------



## GR66

GK .Dundas said:


> Simple , three reasons for this. One the American are literally next door the Germans you may have noticed are across an   Ocean.
> Two , the Americans have fairly large stocks of the vehicle and can spare a small number.
> The Germans do not  and are from all appearances are about to start a rather panicked rebuild of their own.
> Three, we really have to rebuild our political capital with the Americans .


I'd add to this that in most situations where we are likely to deploy tanks we are almost certainly going to be deploying along side American forces also using the Abrams.  Not so certain that we'll be deploying alongside other nations using the Leopard.  If the Ukraine conflict has shown us anything it's that logistics are absolutely a key enabler for military effectiveness and being fully interoperable with American forces would be a force multiplier for both our forces.

I'd go so far as suggesting that for any new military equipment purchases we should first look at what the US is using and justify why the same equipment isn't suitable for the Canadian military before we start shopping elsewhere.  That would ensure maximum interoperability with our closest ally and simplify our logistics in case of war.  It could also possibly encourage investment by US military contractors in the Canadian economy either for direct production or production of components within the supply chain if they see the potential for ongoing orders coming from Canada.  It should also hopefully simplify our procurement system as it would only have to deal with those items where there is a demonstrated Canadian-specific need that isn't met by current US systems.

As far as our tanks go specifically I'd propose gifting our Leopards to Poland which is currently upgrading some of their Soviet-era vehicles with Leopards already which would give them the opportunity to then gift an equivalent number of their now surplus T-72s to Ukraine.  We could then reach out the the US to replace our 82 x Leopards with enough Abrams to equip a Canadian ABCT (plus spares).


----------



## Halifax Tar

We have the ability to push through purchases for military equipment.  And we have the justification, its a question of hand wringing and dealing with the inevitable MSM fallout of actually giving the CAF a modern ability to kill. 

Sometimes Govs need to do what's right and not what will win seats.  Do our politicians have that will power ?


----------



## suffolkowner

GR66 said:


> I'd add to this that in most situations where we are likely to deploy tanks we are almost certainly going to be deploying along side American forces also using the Abrams.  Not so certain that we'll be deploying alongside other nations using the Leopard.  If the Ukraine conflict has shown us anything it's that logistics are absolutely a key enabler for military effectiveness and being fully interoperable with American forces would be a force multiplier for both our forces.
> 
> I'd go so far as suggesting that for any new military equipment purchases we should first look at what the US is using and justify why the same equipment isn't suitable for the Canadian military before we start shopping elsewhere.  That would ensure maximum interoperability with our closest ally and simplify our logistics in case of war.  It could also possibly encourage investment by US military contractors in the Canadian economy either for direct production or production of components within the supply chain if they see the potential for ongoing orders coming from Canada.  It should also hopefully simplify our procurement system as it would only have to deal with those items where there is a demonstrated Canadian-specific need that isn't met by current US systems.
> 
> As far as our tanks go specifically I'd propose gifting our Leopards to Poland which is currently upgrading some of their Soviet-era vehicles with Leopards already which would give them the opportunity to then gift an equivalent number of their now surplus T-72s to Ukraine.  We could then reach out the the US to replace our 82 x Leopards with enough Abrams to equip a Canadian ABCT (plus spares).


I believe we have moved in this direction a little bit where the last few procurements state that the equipment needs to be in operation by at least two allied nations. Don't quote me on that lol.


Halifax Tar said:


> We have the ability to push through purchases for military equipment.  And we have the justification, its a question of hand wringing and dealing with the inevitable MSM fallout of actually giving the CAF a modern ability to kill.
> 
> Sometimes Govs need to do what's right and not what will win seats.  Do our politicians have that will power ?



Yes just lacking the political will. The Liberals are actually the party in a good position to do so as I don't see push back from the Conservatives like you would unfortunately if the roles were reversed ie AW101 and F-35


----------



## Kirkhill

Halifax Tar said:


> For me I will believe it when its more than promised spending years down the road.
> 
> We need huge capital real investments and we need them now.  Soul sourced major purchases of weapons systems need to happen.  And we need drastic increased recruitment.
> 
> Honestly we are so far behind the 8 ball for people I am not sure how the system could deal with a massive influx of people without  ending up with thousands on pat platoons for years again.



More than capital investments I'd like to see the magazines reloaded so that training could be upgraded.  And start filling the system with single shot "disposable" systems.

Money for new gaskets, seals and bearings would also be good.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Halifax Tar said:


> We have the ability to push through purchases for military equipment.  And we have the justification, its a question of hand wringing and dealing with the inevitable MSM fallout of actually giving the CAF a modern ability to kill.
> 
> Sometimes Govs need to do what's right and not what will win seats.  Do our politicians have that will power ?


All about the money!  Not just how much but who and how they are given authority to spend.


----------



## dimsum

suffolkowner said:


> The Liberals are actually the party in a good position to do so as I don't see push back from the Conservatives like you would unfortunately if the roles were reversed ie AW101 and F-35


In this specific case, I don't think any party in its right political mind would push back - _maybe_ the Bloc.   

Canada has the world's 2nd largest Ukrainian population - those are a lot of votes that they would stand to lose.


----------



## KevinB

Humphrey Bogart said:


> I've worked in our National HQs before.  The culture that exists within our Higher HQs (L2 and Above) is the antithesis of dynamic, innovative, progressive.
> 
> I 100% guarantee that I could fire 80% of the people in some of our L2+ HQ and see no actual decrease in outputs.


I bet it would increase…


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

KevinB said:


> I bet it would increase…


Get rid of all the sand and the oil will provide even better lubrication 😎


----------



## GK .Dundas

[/QUOTE]





suffolkowner said:


> The Abrams is a better tank in my opinion right now it also has a better and clearer upgrade future. Yes its a bit thirsty and super heavy so would likely be worse than useless in Ukraine right now. But the APU probably helps a little with that. Not sure on the need for 350 of them though


If I were King it would be in the range of almost 850 -1200 .And that is a very realistic number if you really think about it and are being serious about the current threat.. 
At first glance it looks utterly insane until you start taking into account , training ,maintenance, upgrades and war reserve stocks. Then you have losses through accidents  . 
The  reserves get a troop per each regiment at first then you grow that to a squadron .
 I'm presuming of course that the threat is real and we are serious.


----------



## Kirkhill

suffolkowner said:


> The Abrams is a better tank in my opinion right now it also has a better and clearer upgrade future. Yes its a bit thirsty and super heavy so would likely be worse than useless in Ukraine right now. But the APU probably helps a little with that. Not sure on the need for 350 of them though



On the other hand the Leo  has the advantage of being built and supported in the most likely theater of operations.  And there are a fair number of existing chassis to refurbish locally.

Keep the 80 or so we have in Canada and get the Germans to refurb another 120 or so for us and keep them in their warehouses.


----------



## Navy_Pete

The big problem with a lot of the up front spending is that there isn't the training/support infrastructure for anything. We need a lot more worker bees on the LCMM side, and having 9 different fleets with unique equipment makes it a lot harder to support everything, so any big one off buys of shiny kit adds work to an already overworked bunch of people. And with a bunch of existing training gaps on equipment we already have, it's already a problem.

Getting contractor support for individual items isn't bad, but most of it is integrated somewhere with other kit, and that's not something that's easy to contract for, and has a long ramp up time. And someone still has to manage that contract, so HR will continue to be a problem, and we've already tapped most experience contractors who can't find people either.

I just don't see us having the peopel to actually grow anything; I think we'd be better off shrinking a bit and focusing on properly supporting equipment we have, instead of trying to get even bigger when we are stuggling to support what we currently have.


----------



## YZT580

Halifax Tar said:


> We have the ability to push through purchases for military equipment.  And we have the justification, its a question of hand wringing and dealing with the inevitable MSM fallout of actually giving the CAF a modern ability to kill.
> 
> Sometimes Govs need to do what's right and not what will win seats.  Do our politicians have that will power ?


If the libs and cons can sit down as adults and produce a workable bi-party agreement winning seats won't matter.  Each will maintain their status quo and contest the others as they do now.  Plus, if the libs order stuff now, it will all be forgotten by the next election: even if the election were next month.  Forget getting buyin from the NDP.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Navy_Pete said:


> The big problem with a lot of the up front spending is that there isn't the training/support infrastructure for anything. We need a lot more worker bees on the LCMM side, and having 9 different fleets with unique equipment makes it a lot harder to support everything, so any big one off buys of shiny kit adds work to an already overworked bunch of people. And with a bunch of existing training gaps on equipment we already have, it's already a problem.
> 
> Getting contractor support for individual items isn't bad, but most of it is integrated somewhere with other kit, and that's not something that's easy to contract for, and has a long ramp up time. And someone still has to manage that contract, so HR will continue to be a problem, and we've already tapped most experience contractors who can't find people either.
> 
> I just don't see us having the peopel to actually grow anything; I think we'd be better off shrinking a bit and focusing on properly supporting equipment we have, instead of trying to get even bigger when we are stuggling to support what we currently have.


I've said this for a long time.  I would rather have a Defence Force that is smaller, but better equipped and more agile than what we currently have.

We've also got a whole lot of staff power tied up managing hollow units and formations.


----------



## rmc_wannabe

I can dream:

-a one time x Billion dollar investment in capital projects to bring us up to peer with a NATO contributing nation at %2 GDP. Let's use Denmark or Poland.
-capital projects must be a pre-existing, off the shelf capability. Zero requirement for Made in Canada .
-all capital projects under this program must be delivered NLT 3 years after contract being signed.

Call it the CAF Great Reset or something.

As for personnel:

-Change Universality of Service so non-deployable jobs can only be filled by non-deployable pers. It has baffled me that we either boot people with 10 plus years of corporate knowledge for not being able to possibly deploy at some time. It also baffles me that we take someone employable in a bde and send th to instruct for 4 years because "breadth of knowledge."

-Severely amend the grounds for medical release; if you're able to be retained in a non-operational role, keep that person in a uniform. If you are able to be retained and you choose not to... no golden ticket.

-Cull the Senior Officer corps and limit staff positions within HQs: 10th Mtn Division doesn't have a J35-2-3-5-6... a CMBG shouldn't either.

-accept that you're going to have high turnover. Millennial and Gen Z are big believers in the Gig Economy. Offer a solid 5 - 10 years of gainful employment and benefits; including training and schooling incentives.

-develop a proper Canadian Military Culture. There I said it. We have a lot of British military traditions, but have seen a lot of spill over of "Americanisms" that have affected our organizational structure. The U.S. Army has the numbers to have multiple layers of command. We don't have the luxury. Make our numbers count.


----------



## Kirkhill

Remius said:


> Force reconstitution was already being done due to COVID.  But keep cancelling anything that has nothing to do with rebuilding and training.  I would turn the whole machine into a training establishment until we get to where we need to be.
> 
> Yes.  Efficiency needs to go hand in hand with any changes.  Like you I’m doubtful but we’ll see. I’d simplify the recruiting process and risk manage certain things.
> 
> Yep.  But out of the box thinking and some improvising would be in order.
> 
> Quite likely.  But we’ll see what comes out of this when budget time comes.
> 
> I am fully prepared to be disappointed.  But I still have room to be pleasantly surprised.



If they were serious I might be thinking about this:

Year 1

Refurbish existing gear. Sustain.
Restock magazines. Sustain.
Purchase additional small arms and disposable weapons and pyro. Sustain.

Year 2 

Launch Recruitment and Training Focus for 1 year to bring up numbers.  Sustain.
Artillery focus on Portable and Light Systems (to include ATGMs, SAMs and LAMs). Sustain.
Air focus on UAVs. Sustain.

Year 3
GBAD Focus. Sustain
Armour and Artillery Focus. Sustain. 

Year 4
Air Focus. Sustain.
Navy Focus. Sustain.

And when I say Focus I mean Initial Operating Capacity for new systems.
Planning and Purchasing needs to start immediately.
And be sustained.


----------



## TacticalTea

Halifax Tar said:


> Honestly we are so far behind the 8 ball for people I am not sure how the system could deal with a massive influx of people without  ending up with thousands on pat platoons for years again.


Speaking with PCCs and CMs, the focus for a while has been manning operations, with training coming almost dead last.

It seems to me we've got it upside down.


dimsum said:


> In this specific case, I don't think any party in its right political mind would push back - _maybe_ the Bloc.
> 
> Canada has the world's 2nd largest Ukrainian population - those are a lot of votes that they would stand to lose.


Even the Bloc is a centrist party, I'd expect more opposition from NDP/Greens


----------



## daftandbarmy

rmc_wannabe said:


> -develop a proper Canadian Military Culture. There I said it. We have a lot of British military traditions, but have seen a lot of spill over of "Americanisms" that have affected our organizational structure. The U.S. Army has the numbers to have multiple layers of command. We don't have the luxury. Make our numbers count.



The more that people my age retire out of the CAF, the more the culture shift will happen, IMHO.

The younger troops are already there, they just used to look at dusty old anglophiles like me and roll their eyes, I hope


----------



## Kirkhill

daftandbarmy said:


> The more that people my age retire out of the CAF, the more the culture shift will happen, IMHO.
> 
> The younger troops are already there, they just used to look at dusty old anglophiles like me and roll their eyes, I hope



Is it just the Canadian Military Culture or is it the Canadian National Culture?

The Military Culture will always be a subset of the National Culture.

Is the National Culture sufficiently militaristic to support a military with its own independent culture?

For me that is an open question.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Kirkhill said:


> Is it just the Canadian Military Culture or is it the Canadian National Culture?
> 
> The Military Culture will always be a subset of the National Culture.
> 
> Is the National Culture sufficiently militaristic to support a military with its own independent culture?
> 
> For me that is an open question.


I'm of the view that Canadian National Culture in 2022 is fundamentally at odds with Military Culture writ large.

War is a team sport, individuals don't matter.  Look at the meat grinder that is Ukraine atm.  Rockets, Bombs, Missiles and Shells don't give a damn about "accommodations".  

We are sacrificing group cohesion to cater to the individual.  It's an interesting experiment 😉


----------



## Retired AF Guy

Not sure if this is proper spot for this, so Mods can move it if warranted. And my apologies if its been posted somewhere else. Since we are talking about rearming the CF with modern weapon systems including ATGM I happened to find this article stating that JTF-2 had purchased an unknown number of Israeli Spike missile systems. So if we are looking at purchasing new anti-tank weapons, go with the Spike system, as I've mentioned before, it comes in more variants then the US Javelin, and apparently its already in Canadian service. so we already have soldiers trained in its use.

Machine translation below:



> *For Special Forces: The Canadian Army has purchased Rafael Spike missiles*
> 
> The Canadian military has confirmed to Israel Defense that in 2016 the Ministry of Defense purchased a version of the missile system. His reference comes after the publication of photos of Canadian soldiers who fought in Iraq, along with Raphael's missile system
> 
> Ami Rohex Dumba | 21/11/2019
> 
> The Special Forces of the Canadian Army purchased Spike missiles from the Raphael Company in 2016, as confirmed by Captain Jamie Donovan, of the Canadian Defense Forces Defense Forces. "In 2016, the Canadian Ministry of National Defense purchased a version of the SPIKE missile system to command special operational forces in Canada," the spokesman said in a statement.
> 
> The purchase item was first published on the Peresh website based on photos that were leaked to the network. In the same photos, Canadian soldiers were seen during the fighting in Mosul, Iraq in 2016, equipped with spike missiles. The photo was taken from an article by the Kurdish Rudaw channel, in which a pair of Canadian soldiers are seen on the armor of the Kurdish forces, admiring a Spike LR launcher from the new model ("Unified Launcher"). The Canadian soldiers wore ordinary uniforms with a badge that clearly looked like the Canadian flag. Following the publication, we contacted the Canadian Army, which confirmed the correctness of the purchase.
> 
> Meanwhile, Rafael announced earlier this week that it had recently signed a major contract to supply spike missiles to the German army. The transaction was made through Rafael's subsidiary in Europe - Eurospike . The company explained that this is a multi-year framework agreement for the supply of missiles and launchers from the Spike family.
> 
> As part of the framework agreement, the first shipment will include 1,500 spike missiles, alongside hundreds of ICLU launchers . "The multi-year agreement will allow the German Ministry of Defense to continue to purchase Spike missiles in the coming years.



Original Link  (In Hebrew)


----------



## Czech_pivo

Remius said:


> 'We have to do more': Foreign affairs minister on Canada's defence spending
> 
> 
> Foreign Affairs Minister Melanie Joly says she thinks that Canada’s military needs to be 'better equipped' and that the government has to 'do more' when it comes to stepping up the defence budget.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.ctvnews.ca
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I expect a  budget increase for Defence.  Between Anand, Joly and Freyland, the messaging is pretty clear.


It needs to be coupled with an increase in overall members of the CAF.  No reason why we can’t be sitting at say, 90-95k full time and another 50-60km in the reserves.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Humphrey Bogart said:


> I've said this for a long time.  I would rather have a Defence Force that is smaller, but better equipped and more agile than what we currently have.
> 
> We've also got a whole lot of staff power tied up managing hollow units and formations.


Smaller than 68,000 people spread across the Army, Navy and Air Force?


----------



## rmc_wannabe

Kirkhill said:


> Is it just the Canadian Military Culture or is it the Canadian National Culture?
> 
> The Military Culture will always be a subset of the National Culture.
> 
> Is the National Culture sufficiently militaristic to support a military with its own independent culture?
> 
> For me that is an open question


The problem is that our Canadian Military Culture and our Canadian National Culture parted ways around 1968 (possibly even sooner). We were an relic of a bygone Era. We had no need for defense, because we were a nation of statesmen. We were an "honest broker, middle power." Our Military Culture, therefore, developed in an echo chamber, and as an orphan from our National Identity.

Given our 15 years working closely with the Americans as the lead element in ISAF, we developed a lot of bad habits, in the sense that we look up and have grandiose ideas of what a proper "Combat Team" looks like and what the BLUF (I loathe the term) of an operation should be. 

We will never have a military funded, equipped, or manned to the same scale as the US, but yet we still chase that dream with our military structures and thinking.


----------



## KevinB

IMHO picking non American systems it dumb.  
  You live above the largest military industry on the planet, use it.


----------



## KevinB

Retired AF Guy said:


> Not sure if this is proper spot for this, so Mods can move it if warranted. And my apologies if its been posted somewhere else. Since we are talking about rearming the CF with modern weapon systems including ATGM I happened to find this article stating that JTF-2 had purchased an unknown number of Israeli Spike missile systems. So if we are looking at purchasing new anti-tank weapons, go with the Spike system, as I've mentioned before, it comes in more variants then the US Javelin, and apparently its already in Canadian service. so we already have soldiers trained in its use.
> 
> Machine translation below:
> 
> 
> 
> Original Link  (In Hebrew)


Spike is trash compared to Javelin. There are several non open source Javelin options that can’t be discussed here that would be good compliments to CAF needs.


----------



## Kirkhill

Humphrey Bogart said:


> I'm of the view that Canadian National Culture in 2022 is fundamentally at odds with Military Culture writ large.
> 
> War is a team sport, individuals don't matter.  Look at the meat grinder that is Ukraine atm.  Rockets, Bombs, Missiles and Shells don't give a damn about "accommodations".
> 
> We are sacrificing group cohesion to cater to the individual.  It's an interesting experiment 😉



And yet the British Army came from an Individualistic Culture.  As did the American one.

It is an interesting question and, in my view, it is all about understanding both the capabilities of the National Culture and the needs of the Military Culture.  I believe there is a Canadian balance to be found but I don't know what it is.


----------



## daftandbarmy

rmc_wannabe said:


> The problem is that our Canadian Military Culture and our Canadian National Culture parted ways around 1968 (possibly even sooner). We were an relic of a bygone Era. We had no need for defense, because we were a nation of statesmen. We were an "honest broker, middle power." Our Military Culture, therefore, developed in an echo chamber, and as an orphan from our National Identity.
> 
> Given our 15 years working closely with the Americans as the lead element in ISAF, we developed a lot of bad habits, in the sense that we look up and have grandiose ideas of what a proper "Combat Team" looks like and what the BLUF (I loathe the term) of an operation should be.
> 
> We will never have a military funded, equipped, or manned to the same scale as the US, but yet we still chase that dream with our military structures and thinking.



One of the reasons I remained a company commander for so long (too long?) was because it was inspiring to connect with so many young, keen Canadians on a regular basis.

Talk to just about any teenager, in just about any rifle company or its equivalent, and you'll find yourself talking to a great example of Canadian military culture.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

rmc_wannabe said:


> The problem is that our Canadian Military Culture and our Canadian National Culture parted ways around 1968 (possibly even sooner). We were an relic of a bygone Era. We had no need for defense, because we were a nation of statesmen. We were an "honest broker, middle power." Our Military Culture, therefore, developed in an echo chamber, and as an orphan from our National Identity.
> 
> Given our 15 years working closely with the Americans as the lead element in ISAF, we developed a lot of bad habits, in the sense that we look up and have grandiose ideas of what a proper "Combat Team" looks like and what the BLUF (I loathe the term) of an operation should be.
> 
> We will never have a military funded, equipped, or manned to the same scale as the US, but yet we still chase that dream with our military structures and thinking.


Our Military Culture also drew from a class of people that is in diminishing supply:

White men from rural areas and small town Canada.  Men that had they not joined the Armed Forces, would have found a place working in mining, oil + gas, forestry, farming and fishing.  

Many often served for a time then went off to work in those industries.  

We are now trying to attract from an increasingly larger pool of other groups that don't want to serve in the Military.  Many of them left places to a) get away from persecution and the military/security forces carrying them out or b) to actively avoid military service.  

Interesting conundrum we now find ourselves in.


----------



## Kirkhill

KevinB said:


> IMHO picking non American systems it dumb.
> You live above the largest military industry on the planet, use it.


Kev, I agree in part but, to be blunt we are already invested in some gear, like the Leos, and most of the gear you are willing to lease at short notice is not your top of the line stuff and is due for replacement or upgrading.

Your new gee-whiz kit is going to refurb your own forces for the foreseeable future.  Just as the Germans are going to be directing their activities to their forces.

We can get lots of gear to fight the last battle.  Can we get the stuff to fight the next one?

We are literally back to 1939 with everyone rearming at the same time.  Canada needs to look at licence manufacture of kit nationally.  Not because of Regional Benefits. But simply because available plant will be operating at max capacity.  If we want it it is likely we will have to build it.

Now can you send us a few M109s to make FJAG happy?


----------



## Retired AF Guy

KevinB said:


> Spike is trash compared to Javelin. There are several non open source Javelin options that can’t be discussed here that would be good compliments to CAF needs.


Thank you for the clarification. Much appreciated..


----------



## dapaterson

rmc_wannabe said:


> As for personnel:
> 
> -Change Universality of Service so non-deployable jobs can only be filled by non-deployable pers. It has baffled me that we either boot people with 10 plus years of corporate knowledge for not being able to possibly deploy at some time. It also baffles me that we take someone employable in a bde and send th to instruct for 4 years because "breadth of knowledge."
> 
> -Severely amend the grounds for medical release; if you're able to be retained in a non-operational role, keep that person in a uniform. If you are able to be retained and you choose not to... no golden ticket.



Non deployable personnel?  Hard non deployable positions should be "relief" for operational pers to get a pause.  If you're not deployable, well, in a defence context, that's a position that needs to be contracted out or civilianized - unless its necessary for ship to shore.  Permanently filling them with non-deployable people means you're burning out the deployable people.

The 71,500 Reg + 30,000 Res are hard caps - we must manage our military (including BTL, ATL, SPHL) within those limits. Retaining "Can't do military tasks" personnel cuts into those numbers.  Having a one of one position filled by someone being retained whose limitations include "Can only work two, sometimes three three hour days a week" does not serve the institution well.

Keeping Bob because he's been in for ten years but can't be employed in his military role is green welfare.  (Or Navy blue welfare, or sky blue welfare).  That's not the role of the CAF.  Maybe there's a need for Bob's experience within defence as a civilian or a contractor - why keep him filling one of our limited positions when he can't do the job?

More broadly speaking, every time the CAF says "Hell yeah, we can accommodate people with conditions X, Y and Z" the CAF erodes universality of service, and risks being ordered to radically amend entry standards - if we can accommodate non-deployable people, why can't we enrol non-deployable people from day one?


----------



## rmc_wannabe

daftandbarmy said:


> One of the reasons I remained a company commander for so long (too long?) was because it was inspiring to connect with so many young, keen Canadians on a regular basis.
> 
> Talk to just about any teenager, in just about any rifle company or it's equivalent, and you'll find yourself talking to a great example of Canadian military culture.


I will agree that we have quality members joining our ranks. I would also argue that people who have an investment in military matters are invested whole hog.

The problem is that those who aren't, are the ones who cut the cheques for procurement and campaign for votes; most of said votes come from people who give zero fucks about military matters. Like we saw in Afghanistan, we were a military at war, not a nation.

So what's the answer? To me, we need to have a frank discussion with ourselves, as a military, and cut the bullshit about us "punching above our weight." After we strip bare the bloated HQ structure we built trying to be something we're not, go to Parliament and lay it all out for them. "If you want to be a middle power, this is what it will take and what it will cost." 

Until we tell them what is needed, we will continue to see someone else's vision of "Canadian Military Culture" as a result of differing political opinions. It will be a revolving door of priorities and promises every 4 years. Mich like it had been for the last 60 years.


----------



## Furniture

I don't understand the obsession with American kit for "compatibility". We will end up Canadianizing it to the point it is no longer compatible, then be left with an expensive orphan fleet.

Another consideration we need to look at, is the USA willing to sell us the top version, or just a stripped down export version of their kit? Is a stripped down Javelin more useful to us than NLAW? Also, the US defence budget is significantly larger than ours, can we actually afford to buy American kit in quantities high enough to be used/useful?

As an example, a Javelin costs $78K USD per missile, the NLAW is $33K USD. Can we can get more weapons, and more training out of the same number of dollars with the "good enough" NLAW?*

If I was Emperor of Canada I'd be shopping for the "good enough" kit we can buy in large numbers, rather than chasing the top of the line super expensive kit we can only afford in numbers too small to be useful.

*I realize they are different categories of missile, but since we lack either category of missile currently, it makes more sense to me to invest in the category we can more easily afford to buy and train with.


----------



## daftandbarmy

dapaterson said:


> Non deployable personnel?  Hard non deployable positions should be "relief" for operational pers to get a pause.  If you're not deployable, well, in a defence context, that's a position that needs to be contracted out or civilianized - unless its necessary for ship to shore.  Permanently filling them with non-deployable people means you're burning out the deployable people.
> 
> The 71,500 Reg + 30,000 Res are hard caps - we must manage our military (including BTL, ATL, SPHL) within those limits. Retaining "Can't do military tasks" personnel cuts into those numbers.  Having a one of one position filled by someone being retained whose limitation include "Can only work two, sometimes three three hour days a week" does not serve the institution well.




And readiness has become more of a headliner maker recently, for obvious reasons. Before COVID we were aprraently 80% deployable. Now? Who knows....

Military readiness 'one of the things that keeps me awake at night,' says Canada's top soldier​'The world is getting more dangerous every day and we need to be ready for it,' said Gen. Wayne Eyre​
Defence Minister Anita Anand has said the country has the capacity to send those 3,400 military members, even with a diminished force of about 65,000 regular members and 30,000 reservists. But the government has faced questions about whether it can sustain that level of deployment. 

Eyre said the military options that he brings forward to the defence minister are based on "what we can realistically generate and put together to have a credible contribution to the alliance." 

"But this speaks to why we need to accelerate many of the things that I talked about: getting more people in, getting the projects that we have on the books through the various gateways and into the hands of our people," he said. "There's no single silver bullet for readiness."

*Before the pandemic hit, the defence department estimated that roughly 80 per cent of the military could meet its operational obligations if called upon. New figures on the military's state of readiness have not been published. *



			https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-military-state-of-readyness-1.6380922


----------



## MilEME09

KevinB said:


> Spike is trash compared to Javelin. There are several non open source Javelin options that can’t be discussed here that would be good compliments to CAF needs.


What about the British NLAW?  Seems highly effective in Ukraine and is much cheaper to produce.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

MilEME09 said:


> What about the British NLAW?  Seems highly effective in Ukraine and is much cheaper to produce.


Not the same kind of missile. They do different jobs, in different range bands.


----------



## Good2Golf

KevinB said:


> IMHO picking non American systems it dumb.
> You live above the largest military industry on the planet, use it.


If only we had a mutual agreement about mutually reinforcing our defense/defence production capabilities….oh wait….we’ve had one for 2/3 of a Century…

US-Canada Defense Production Sharing Agreement (1956) 



			https://www.ccc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/defence-production-sharing-agreement-en.pdf


----------



## FJAG

Furniture said:


> I don't understand the obsession with American kit for "compatibility". We will end up Canadianizing it to the point it is no longer compatible, then be left with an expensive orphan fleet.


Easy answer that's totally within our control - stop Canadianizing stuff. Go whole hog for an integrated North American defence industry.



Furniture said:


> Another consideration we need to look at, is the USA willing to sell us the top version, or just a stripped down export version of their kit? Is a stripped down Javelin more useful to us than NLAW? Also, the US defence budget is significantly larger than ours, can we actually afford to buy American kit in quantities high enough to be used/useful?


Why worry about what might or might not happen. If we integrate more why wouldn't they sell us top of the line stuff? If we buy production run stuff without customization we share in scale of production savings.



Furniture said:


> As an example, a Javelin costs $78K USD per missile, the NLAW is $33K USD. Can we can get more weapons, and more training out of the same number of dollars with the "good enough" NLAW?*


They are different systems with different characteristics especially range. Why not buy both for example the NLAW for the section and the Javelin for a platoon's weapon's section/ battalion ATGM platoon.



Furniture said:


> If I was Emperor of Canada I'd be shopping for the "good enough" kit we can buy in large numbers, rather than chasing the top of the line super expensive kit we can only afford in numbers too small to be useful.


Of course. But what may be good enough for one role might be inadequate for another.



Furniture said:


> *I realize they are different categories of missile, but since we lack either category of missile currently, it makes more sense to me to invest in the category we can more easily afford to buy and train with.


Personally I tend to look at arms purchases from an effects standpoint and work backwards to the price. Find what you need and then determine if you can afford it and, if not adjust the plan accordingly by either more funding or reassessing the effects desired and how to accomplish them. That may require major organizational changed. It's a complex balancing act.

🍻


----------



## MilEME09

SeaKingTacco said:


> Not the same kind of missile. They do different jobs, in different range bands.


So better to say NLAW is to replace M72, Javalin as a more mobile TOW? I gotta start reading up on anti armour weapons more.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

MilEME09 said:


> So better to say NLAW is to replace M72, Javalin as a more mobile TOW? I gotta start reading up on anti armour weapons more.


NLAW seems to fit better around the Carl G niche. M72 is not much good against modern tanks, but it is really cheap and can really mess up bunkers/defensive positions and, I suppose, older AFVs.

Javelin is a medium to long range (depending on version, if you believe wikipedia) anti-armour system that can destroy just about any armoured vehicle in the world.


----------



## dimsum

FJAG said:


> Easy answer that's totally within our control - stop Canadianizing stuff. Go whole hog for an integrated North American defence industry.


For some stuff, yes.  However, there is also a need for CAN eyes only stuff. 

Also, we may be certifying stuff to different levels.  Cold weather standards for us are different than the Americans, for example.


----------



## FJAG

MilEME09 said:


> So better to say NLAW is to replace M72, Javalin as a more mobile TOW? I gotta start reading up on anti armour weapons more.


I'm dead set against "replacing" things unless there is an equivalent system (cost, weight, ease of use) that delivers a better effect. Then by all means do so.

These things are almost more in the class of ammunition than pure weapons systems and I see no reason why one can't have 1) an AT weapon that a single soldier can carry (eg M72/AT-4); 2) an more effective longer ranged weapon within the section or platoon (eg NLAW / Javelin); 3) an even more effective longer ranged weapon at the battalion level (eg Javelin/others?) and finally 4) an even more improved much longer ranged weapon system at the GS level (such as armed drones)

I think one wants to build an envelope of weapons which fit within (or define) the roles of the various tactical elements. I won't presume how those should be organized and armed but the end effect should be a layered defence that has the appropriate weapon at the appropriate level and whose costs and ease of use are commensurate with where it is deployed. Like everyone, I'd love to see Javelin everywhere but is that either practical or cost effective considering all the other things we need?

🍻


----------



## Furniture

FJAG said:


> Easy answer that's totally within our control - stop Canadianizing stuff. Go whole hog for an integrated North American defence industry.
> 
> 
> Why worry about what might or might not happen. If we integrate more why wouldn't they sell us top of the line stuff? If we buy production run stuff without customization we share in scale of production savings.
> 
> 
> They are different systems with different characteristics especially range. Why not buy both for example the NLAW for the section and the Javelin for a platoon's weapon's section/ battalion ATGM platoon.
> 
> 
> Of course. But what may be good enough for one role might be inadequate for another.
> 
> 
> Personally I tend to look at arms purchases from an effects standpoint and work backwards to the price. Find what you need and then determine if you can afford it and, if not adjust the plan accordingly by either more funding or reassessing the effects desired and how to accomplish them. That may require major organizational changed. It's a complex balancing act.
> 
> 🍻


I realize there are solutions to the problems presented, my point is more that we have a long enough track record of doing exactly what I said, and I don't see that changing suddenly. Canada is still part of Fortress America, so we don't "need" an expensive military in the eyes of the public, particularly when things are going well. Nobody was clamoring for more defence spending in the last couple of elections, and by the time the next one rolls around I suspect $10/day daycare will still be more enticing to voters than Javelins, F-35s, self propelled artillery, or even CAF housing/pay/benefits.

It would be great if Canada would actually take defence seriously, and send an appropriate amount of thought, effort, and cash on it. History has shown we won't, so my idea is to make the best use of the money while the going is good, and buy system we can afford to maintain even when times get lean.

We lack any modern infantry AT weapons.  We could spend money on the top of the line Javelin, buy a bunch today, and in five years when the budget is being cut again we would have a system to expensive to actually use/train with, or we could buy less expensive SR weapons like NLAW, and even with reduced budgets the cost per missile _might_ help keep it affordable enough to be use/train with.

Maybe I'm just a pessimist, but I think the CAF would be far better served if we stopped wishing/asking for the Bentleys of military kit, and accepted we can only realistically afford Hondas. Sure a Bentley is better in every measurable way, but if can't afford to dive it because of gas costs and maintenance, the Honda is actually a better match for our needs.


----------



## FJAG

dimsum said:


> For some stuff, yes.  However, there is also a need for CAN eyes only stuff.


I'm not sure of how critical that is when it comes to hardware components. If we're talking communications and data link controls I would assume that there are ways to do that at the code or chip level. Quite frankly I think we have too many discrete silos that mitigate against easy interoperability with our allies despite our constant search for common standards. 

I know that you are on a project where this may matter, at least in our eyes, but I'm not so sure that it really does all that much at the weapon system level.



dimsum said:


> Also, we may be certifying stuff to different levels.  Cold weather standards for us are different than the Americans, for example.


I know that we ended up with the Sperwer instead of the Shadow 200 (which is what we really wanted) because AAI Corp would not certify the cold weather requirement that DLR 8 had put into the tender. The fact that the UOR was specifically for Afghanistan where, even around Kabul, the climate was milder (and eventually in Kandahar much milder).

Most of the heavy Army equipment required is for use in the temperate conditions of the European (or if you are pessimistic southern Canadian environment). It doesn't need Arctic standards. Americans generally factor Alaskan conditions into design specs at the low end.

Our problem, IMHO, is that all too frequently we impose limiting standards on ourselves that 1) aren't realistic and 2) take viable contenders out of the game.

🍻


----------



## FJAG

Furniture said:


> ...Canada is still part of Fortress America, so we don't "need" an expensive military in the eyes of the public, particularly when things are going well. Nobody was clamoring for more defence spending in the last couple of elections, and by the time the next one rolls around I suspect $10/day daycare will still be more enticing to voters than Javelins, F-35s, self propelled artillery, or even CAF housing/pay/benefits.


Then why spend $26 billion on what we are getting now? Just go the Iceland route and take that money, form a beefed up coast guard and gendarmerie, jump out of NATO, enter a bilateral agreement with just the US and give the rest to the $10 child care?

There are dozens of reasons why not. The job of a politician is to do the right thing and not the popular thing. 



Furniture said:


> It would be great if Canada would actually take defence seriously, and send an appropriate amount of thought, effort, and cash on it. History has shown we won't, so my idea is to make the best use of the money while the going is good, and buy system we can afford to maintain even when times get lean.


There are times we do. The 1960s was one. The 1980s was another. We go in fits and starts.



Furniture said:


> We lack any modern infantry AT weapons.  We could spend money on the top of the line Javelin, buy a bunch today, and in five years when the budget is being cut again we would have a system to expensive to actually use/train with, or we could buy less expensive SR weapons like NLAW, and even with reduced budgets the cost per missile _might_ help keep it affordable enough to be use/train with.


I'll stay with my layered approach. One thing is that weapon training is not expensive. These things are simpler to operate and much of the training can be done on simulators. Going back to the Javelin AD system of the 1990s - they were in large measure operated by reservists who did most of their training on simulators and might have only fired one missile during their service. The large cost associated with them is a question of how many launcher units do you want to buy (if it uses a launcher unit) and how many do you want in your war stocks and what is their shelf life/refurbishment cycle?



Furniture said:


> Maybe I'm just a pessimist, but I think the CAF would be far better served if we stopped wishing/asking for the Bentleys of military kit, and accepted we can only realistically afford Hondas. Sure a Bentley is better in every measurable way, but if can't afford to dive it because of gas costs and maintenance, the Honda is actually a better match for our needs.


Here we agree. That's why I like layers. There's a point though. If the Bentley keeps you alive and in control then it's worth every penny. If the Honda gets you killed and loses you the war then it wasn't worth a plugged nickel.

🍻


----------



## MilEME09

FJAG said:


> I'm not sure of how critical that is when it comes to hardware components. If we're talking communications and data link controls I would assume that there are ways to do that at the code or chip level. Quite frankly I think we have too many discrete silos that mitigate against easy interoperability with our allies despite our constant search for common standards.
> 
> I know that you are on a project where this may matter, at least in our eyes, but I'm not so sure that it really does all that much at the weapon system level.
> 
> 
> I know that we ended up with the Sperwer instead of the Shadow 200 (which is what we really wanted) because AAI Corp would not certify the cold weather requirement that DLR 8 had put into the tender. The fact that the UOR was specifically for Afghanistan where, even around Kabul, the climate was milder (and eventually in Kandahar much milder).
> 
> Most of the heavy Army equipment required is for use in the temperate conditions of the European (or if you are pessimistic southern Canadian environment). It doesn't need Arctic standards. Americans generally factor Alaskan conditions into design specs at the low end.
> 
> Our problem, IMHO, is that all too frequently we impose limiting standards on ourselves that 1) aren't realistic and 2) take viable contenders out of the game.
> 
> 🍻


You mean like the new MSVS SMP having DEF? Which if you don't have the vehicle will not work. One would think of having a by pass, while I'm all for environmentally friendly, in a military vehicle that shouldn't be a factor


----------



## FJAG

MilEME09 said:


> You mean like the new MSVS SMP having DEF? Which if you don't have the vehicle will not work. One would think of having a by pass, while I'm all for environmentally friendly, in a military vehicle that shouldn't be a factor


I'm not sure what DEF is but I presume something that meets some Canadian environmental standard.

But the answer is: exactly. Military equipment by definition causes environmental harm in numerous ways. They are also an almost insignificant percentage of the volume of polluters and are an essential commodity. There should be built into our environmental regulations opt out clauses for SMPs.

🍻


----------



## suffolkowner

MilEME09 said:


> You mean like the new MSVS SMP having DEF? Which if you don't have the vehicle will not work. One would think of having a by pass, while I'm all for environmentally friendly, in a military vehicle that shouldn't be a factor


do US vehicles have DEF?

*Quick look at the Oshkosh manual shows no DEF or particulate filters*


----------



## Kirkhill

Pool of Canadians


38,000,000Total Canadians100%​31,981,916Canadians 15 and Over84%​30,879,381Canadians 18 and Over81%​

Existing evidence of social cohesion (% of Total)


23,940,000Religious Canadians63%​9,500,000Observant Canadians25%​4,000,000Union Members11%​

Inclination to work for the common good


13,300,000Volunteers35%​2,070,000,000​hours per year1,035,000Full Time Equivalents1,330,000Core Volunteers4%​548,550Full Time Equivalents16hours per week1,995,000Engaged Volunteers5%​248,400Full Time Equivalents5hours per week9,975,000Occasional Volunteers26%​238,050Full Time Equivalents1hour per week

Volunteer activities


1,596,000Sports12%​1,596,000Social Service Non-Profits12%​1,330,000Education and Research10%​1,197,000Religion9%​798,000Health6%​

In 2005 when the population was only 80% of what it is now


Population aged 15 and overTotal Team Sport PlayersthousandsTotal population26,106​Total participants7,314​Ice hockey1,298​Soccer708​Basketball626​Baseball520​Volleyball513​Curling294​Softball265​Football244​Ball hockey128 ERugby116 EIn-line hockey68 ETotal Team Sport Participants4,468​


Population aged 15 and overTotal Individual Sport PlayersthousandsTotal population26,106​Total participants7,314​Golf1,487​Swimming764​Skiing (downhill/alpine)490​Cycling459​Tennis403​Snowboarding270​Badminton268​Skiing (cross-country/nordic)197​Bowling (10 pin)177​Mountain-boarding167​Squash152 EBowling (5 pin)123 ECanoeing/kayaking93 EMartial arts88 ESnowshoeing73 EGymnastics72 EKarate72 EEquestrian69 EIn-line skating67 ETotal Individual Sport Participants4,682​

76,000 Guides with 21,000 volunteers
53,000 Scouts with 17,000 volunteers
54,000 Cadets with 7,800 CIC
5,000 Junior Rangers

How many are into extreme sports?

How many kids and adults are playing on-line adventure games and first person shooter and multi-player video games?  

How many airsoft and paintball players are there?  Aren't those team players?

How many people spend their time staring at screens looking to interact with the rest of the world?

Archaeology has been exploiting the crowd for a long while now with people spending their free time interpreting air and satellite images looking for lumps, bums, shine, shape and shadow in order to locate ancient landforms and constructions.

And with all of that potential we struggle to maintain a volunteer force of 23,000.

Perhaps the fault is within ourselves?

We're not offering the right opportunities.


----------



## Kirkhill

MilEME09 said:


> What about the British NLAW?  Seems highly effective in Ukraine and is much cheaper to produce.


 Useful kit it seems but it is an 800m weapon vs a 4000m weapon.

One is a Section weapon while the other is a Coy/Bn weapons although it is simple enough that it can be pushed down to the Section to convert the entire Battalion into an Anti-Tank Battalion.

Much like the Machine Gun of the Machine Gun Platoons and Companies of yore were pushed down to the Section and the entire Battalion is now a Machine Gun Battalion.


----------



## Kirkhill

MilEME09 said:


> So better to say NLAW is to replace M72, Javalin as a more mobile TOW? I gotta start reading up on anti armour weapons more.


Closer.

M72 still has its place.  It is better than a hand grenade in my opinion.

However it can be supplemented by the NLAW and the AT4 (The Carl Gustav without the The Carl Gustav).

And, yes, the Javelin instead of the TOW.


----------



## Blackadder1916

GR66 said:


> I'd add to this that *in most situations where we are likely to deploy tanks we are almost certainly going to be deploying along side American forces also using the Abrams*.  Not so certain that we'll be deploying alongside other nations using the Leopard.  If the Ukraine conflict has shown us anything it's that logistics are absolutely a key enabler for military effectiveness and being fully interoperable with American forces would be a force multiplier for both our forces.
> 
> I'd go so far as suggesting that for any new military equipment purchases we should first look at what the US is using and justify why the same equipment isn't suitable for the Canadian military before we start shopping elsewhere.  That would ensure maximum interoperability with our closest ally and simplify our logistics in case of war.  It could also possibly encourage investment by US military contractors in the Canadian economy either for direct production or production of components within the supply chain if they see the potential for ongoing orders coming from Canada.  It should also hopefully simplify our procurement system as it would only have to deal with those items where there is a demonstrated Canadian-specific need that isn't met by current US systems.
> 
> As far as our tanks go specifically I'd propose gifting our Leopards to Poland which is currently upgrading some of their Soviet-era vehicles with Leopards already which would give them the opportunity to then gift an equivalent number of their now surplus T-72s to Ukraine.  We could then reach out the the US to replace our 82 x Leopards with enough Abrams to equip a Canadian ABCT (plus spares).



Not necessarily so.  From both an historical perspective (_I exempt Afghanistan as we didn't deploy a "mechanized formation"_) and our current NATO land commitment, we don't actually "integrate" with the American army sustainment system all that much.  And that should be one of the factors considered in selecting major equipment - who'll provide repair, recovery, replacement (and will it be compatible) in the echelon above that which we deploy.  We have much greater need of interoperability with the US in air and naval operations.

What do I foresee in the short-term (up to ten years) as to our "army" commitment?  It will likely be a greater reinforcement of our current NATO deployment (eFP Latvia).  While it's currently a bit of a dog's breakfast with odds and sods from several countries, the tanks in that battlegroup are Leopards (Poland and Spain), so we may not be working alongside Abrams.  It makes sense (_but who says that military thinking should make sense_) to build on existing operational structures rather that change horses in mid-stride.  Regardless of how the situation in Ukraine evolves, my suggestion would be to initially increase the Canadian presence on the ground to a full battle group with an adequate tranche of supporting arms and services.  Hopefully the other NATO contributors would also increase their participation with the goal to round out a brigade group.  Eventually, we should provide the majority of combat power (on the ground and dedicated/legitimate for quick fly-over to marry with equipment), and then it would make sense for Canada to command such a NATO brigade (or to be one of primary nations to rotate command).  The next step would be to organize an integrated operational HQ with the Latvians.


----------



## KevinB

dimsum said:


> For some stuff, yes.  However, there is also a need for CAN eyes only stuff.
> 
> Also, we may be certifying stuff to different levels.  Cold weather standards for us are different than the Americans, for example.


Most US Cold Weather standards are stricter than Canadian at least for Army kit.  No idea about Air or Navy standards.

We also read everyone’s mail anyway.


----------



## Furniture

FJAG said:


> Then why spend $26 billion on what we are getting now? Just go the Iceland route and take that money, form a beefed up coast guard and gendarmerie, jump out of NATO, enter a bilateral agreement with just the US and give the rest to the $10 child care?


I suspect if Canadian politicians figured they could get away with it, they would. The US and other partners likely remind them that the cost of not having a token military is worse than continuing to play Weekend At Bernie's with the CAF... 



FJAG said:


> There are dozens of reasons why not. The job of a politician is to do the right thing and not the popular thing.


We know that, but do the politicians? I haven't seen much evidence of it in the last 20 years I have been paying attention to politics. 



FJAG said:


> There are times we do. The 1960s was one. The 1980s was another. We go in fits and starts.


If we have to go back 40-60 years to find proof that Canada _can _occasionally be serious about defence, I think my point stands. Remember in the 60s and 80s there were still many voters with memories of WWI/WWII, we have spent the last 30 years living in peace and prosperity. Even now the average Canadian has seen zero impact from the war in Ukraine, other than images on their TV and phone. 



FJAG said:


> I'll stay with my layered approach. One thing is that weapon training is not expensive. These things are simpler to operate and much of the training can be done on simulators. Going back to the Javelin AD system of the 1990s - they were in large measure operated by reservists who did most of their training on simulators and might have only fired one missile during their service. The large cost associated with them is a question of how many launcher units do you want to buy (if it uses a launcher unit) and how many do you want in your war stocks and what is their shelf life/refurbishment cycle?


It's a fair point about training, but we should maybe shoot them more than once in a career as well.  

I guess my idea with AT weapons like NLAW/Spike SR, etc., is that we are better off having _some_ capability now, that we can maintain, than we are going whole hog buying a couple of top end LR systems that we don't have enough of to actually deploy with, or train with. 



FJAG said:


> Here we agree. That's why I like layers. There's a point though. If the Bentley keeps you alive and in control then it's worth every penny. If the Honda gets you killed and loses you the war then it wasn't worth a plugged nickel.
> 
> 🍻



That's why I said Honda, not Lada 

My point is we should be looking at the best affordable systems, rather than chasing after the top end stuff we can't/won't buy enough of. We are going to lose kit and people in a war. We need the Honda level of kit, that is safe, effective, and affordable enough to buy enough of it to be useful in a real war. 

I agree that layers of systems is the best bet, I just worry that we will spend so much time trying to find the "best" layers, then conclude we can't afford the best, so we end up like we are now with no layers at all.


----------



## Kat Stevens

Every country deserves an army, their own or someone else's.


----------



## JLB50

Kirkhill said:


> Pool of Canadians
> 
> 
> 38,000,000Total Canadians100%​31,981,916Canadians 15 and Over84%​30,879,381Canadians 18 and Over81%​
> 
> Existing evidence of social cohesion (% of Total)
> 
> 
> 23,940,000Religious Canadians63%​9,500,000Observant Canadians25%​4,000,000Union Members11%​
> 
> Inclination to work for the common good
> 
> 
> 13,300,000Volunteers35%​2,070,000,000​hours per year1,035,000Full Time Equivalents1,330,000Core Volunteers4%​548,550Full Time Equivalents16hours per week1,995,000Engaged Volunteers5%​248,400Full Time Equivalents5hours per week9,975,000Occasional Volunteers26%​238,050Full Time Equivalents1hour per week
> 
> Volunteer activities
> 
> 
> 1,596,000Sports12%​1,596,000Social Service Non-Profits12%​1,330,000Education and Research10%​1,197,000Religion9%​798,000Health6%​
> 
> In 2005 when the population was only 80% of what it is now
> 
> 
> Population aged 15 and overTotal Team Sport PlayersthousandsTotal population26,106​Total participants7,314​Ice hockey1,298​Soccer708​Basketball626​Baseball520​Volleyball513​Curling294​Softball265​Football244​Ball hockey128 ERugby116 EIn-line hockey68 ETotal Team Sport Participants4,468​
> 
> 
> Population aged 15 and overTotal Individual Sport PlayersthousandsTotal population26,106​Total participants7,314​Golf1,487​Swimming764​Skiing (downhill/alpine)490​Cycling459​Tennis403​Snowboarding270​Badminton268​Skiing (cross-country/nordic)197​Bowling (10 pin)177​Mountain-boarding167​Squash152 EBowling (5 pin)123 ECanoeing/kayaking93 EMartial arts88 ESnowshoeing73 EGymnastics72 EKarate72 EEquestrian69 EIn-line skating67 ETotal Individual Sport Participants4,682​
> 
> 76,000 Guides with 21,000 volunteers
> 53,000 Scouts with 17,000 volunteers
> 54,000 Cadets with 7,800 CIC
> 5,000 Junior Rangers
> 
> How many are into extreme sports?
> 
> How many kids and adults are playing on-line adventure games and first person shooter and multi-player video games?
> 
> How many airsoft and paintball players are there?  Aren't those team players?
> 
> How many people spend their time staring at screens looking to interact with the rest of the world?
> 
> Archaeology has been exploiting the crowd for a long while now with people spending their free time interpreting air and satellite images looking for lumps, bums, shine, shape and shadow in order to locate ancient landforms and constructions.
> 
> And with all of that potential we struggle to maintain a volunteer force of 23,000.
> 
> Perhaps the fault is within ourselves?
> 
> We're not offering the right opportunities.


Somewhere, a few years ago, I read that in 1962 (pretty much the height of the Cold War), Canada‘s armed forces totalled 125,000.  That was back when our population was only 18,000,000, only half of what it is today.  Also, back then only men were allowed to join.  Mind you, I’m not sure if that 125,000 figure included the reserves or not.  Also, training wasn’t as specialized as it is today, etc. etc. etc. Still…

Countless Canadians I’ve talked to (both native-born and recent immigrants) have told me that they basically see Canada‘s military role in the world as a peace keeping force…even though (IMHO) peace keeping isn’t what it used to be and probably never what was what ”it used to be”, especially after Ruanda and the Balkans.  Also, Canadian diplomatic strength isn’t what it used to be either.

Despite the fact that I consider myself basically a Liberal, the liberal press seems to continually push this agenda that the military is basically a relic of the past and that it should be underfunded and understaffed...kind of like “defund the police”. The only time they seem to exhibit any positive sentiments is on November 11th when they say how much they are grateful to those who have served and/or paid the ultimate price.  Otherwise, pack up the sentiments and store them on a shelf until next year, same time.

I do believe that a lot of Canadians, both men and women, would be willing to serve.  However, it’s often a case of “out of sight…out of mind”.  It’s been several years since I’ve seen any CAF recruitment commercials on TV and if there are any on the social media, I have yet to see them.  Also, an appeal to patriotism seems quite anachronistic in today’s culture.  

I only hope that everyone—the members of all political parties, the media and the general public—will awaken from their long slumber now that the invasion of Ukraine is threatening world stability. Is it too late for Canada given the state of its lack of military commitment? I don’t think so, but definitely things would have been much better if both the Conservative and Liberals who have governed this country over the years would have made a serious commitment to defence.  Basically, will Canada finally show that it has a spine?  Australia should serve as a role model for us.  

Anyway, I’m probably preaching here to the converted.  In conclusion, I do believe that if enough Canadians make their opinions known then government will eventually listen. In the last few weeks I have sent numerous emails to my MP as well as Ministers Anand, Freeland and the Prime Minister.  I like to think that my voice made a difference when the announcement was made earlier this week that the Defence budget will likely increase.  Hey, it’s a start.


----------



## Booter

As long as the training system and procurement processes are working against it throwing money at it won’t increase the effectiveness of the org.

I know there are ways around procurement- but it’s not ideal- and we tend to gravitate back to the bureaucratic Process.

The pipe has gotten too narrow for training, almost designed to keep itself slow- so money and bodies forced in don’t really have an effect.

Like a billion dollars into a nursing program in NB. If the training pipe isn’t addressed- no increase in bodies. Just burnt money.

The CF and some other organizations need a hard restart on philosophy and goals. What are we going to do? What can we do well? What does that look like. What can a reservist do well? With how much training? How much more before they can be plugged in effectively?

I guess I remain stuck on the idea that we aren’t using money effectively. So more money isn’t going to make us effective


----------



## Kirkhill

JLB50 said:


> Somewhere, a few years ago, I read that in 1962 (pretty much the height of the Cold War), Canada‘s armed forces totalled 125,000.  That was back when our population was only 18,000,000, only half of what it is today.  Also, back then only men were allowed to join.  Mind you, I’m not sure if that 125,000 figure included the reserves or not.  Also, training wasn’t as specialized as it is today, etc. etc. etc. Still…
> 
> Countless Canadians I’ve talked to (both native-born and recent immigrants) have told me that *they basically see Canada‘s military role in the world as a peace keeping force*…even though (IMHO) peace keeping isn’t what it used to be and probably never what was what ”it used to be”, especially after Ruanda and the Balkans.  Also, Canadian diplomatic strength isn’t what it used to be either.
> 
> Despite the fact that I consider myself basically a Liberal, the liberal press seems to continually push this agenda that the military is basically a relic of the past and that it should be underfunded and understaffed...kind of like “defund the police”. The only time they seem to exhibit any positive sentiments is on November 11th when they say how much they are grateful to those who have served and/or paid the ultimate price.  Otherwise, pack up the sentiments and store them on a shelf until next year, same time.
> 
> I do believe that a lot of Canadians, both men and women, would be willing to serve.  However, it’s often a case of “out of sight…out of mind”.  It’s been several years since I’ve seen any CAF recruitment commercials on TV and if there are any on the social media, I have yet to see them.  Also,* an appeal to patriotism seems quite anachronistic in today’s culture*.
> 
> I only hope that everyone—the members of all political parties, the media and the general public—will awaken from their long slumber now that the invasion of Ukraine is threatening world stability. Is it too late for Canada given the state of its lack of military commitment? I don’t think so, but definitely things would have been much better if both the Conservative and Liberals who have governed this country over the years would have made a serious commitment to defence.  Basically, will Canada finally show that it has a spine?  Australia should serve as a role model for us.
> 
> Anyway, I’m probably preaching here to the converted.  In conclusion, I do believe that if enough Canadians make their opinions known then government will eventually listen. In the last few weeks I have sent numerous emails to my MP as well as Ministers Anand, Freeland and the Prime Minister.  I like to think that my voice made a difference when the announcement was made earlier this week that the Defence budget will likely increase.  Hey, it’s a start.




I don't know if an appeal to patriotism is anachronistic.  Canadians seem quite willing to point out their fellow countrymen in foreign lands, like the US.  They seem to like to differentiate themselves from other nations.  They enjoy celebrating their victories over other nations.  They are at pains to point out that they are not like other nations.  They are particularly patriotic about not being patriotic.

They do see themselves as separate and distinct.  I think that is a definition of nationalism and patriotism.

Also, perhaps we should be making more of the urge to be peace-keepers/peace-builders/peace-makers.

If we want to send a 1000 bed hospital into a war zone to treat children we need transport to get it there and to get the patients to the hospital and then to safety.  We need engineers to build it and maintain it and its services.  We need logisticians to keep it supplied with beans, blankets and bandages.

And we need security to defend the kids and the hospital workers.

We need GBAD to supply a dome.  We need infantry and ATGMs to supply a hedge.  We need cavalry and ISR to patrol the perimeter.  We need a strike force to counter incursions.

In other words, to protect the innocent we need an army.

Perhaps there is an urge to protect, even if there is no perceived need to defend.


----------



## KevinB

Furniture said:


> I suspect if Canadian politicians figured they could get away with it, they would. The US and other partners likely remind them that the cost of not having a token military is worse than continuing to play Weekend At Bernie's with the CAF...
> 
> 
> We know that, but do the politicians? I haven't seen much evidence of it in the last 20 years I have been paying attention to politics.
> 
> 
> If we have to go back 40-60 years to find proof that Canada _can _occasionally be serious about defence, I think my point stands. Remember in the 60s and 80s there were still many voters with memories of WWI/WWII, we have spent the last 30 years living in peace and prosperity. Even now the average Canadian has seen zero impact from the war in Ukraine, other than images on their TV and phone.
> 
> 
> It's a fair point about training, but we should maybe shoot them more than once in a career as well.
> 
> I guess my idea with AT weapons like NLAW/Spike SR, etc., is that we are better off having _some_ capability now, that we can maintain, than we are going whole hog buying a couple of top end LR systems that we don't have enough of to actually deploy with, or train with.
> 
> 
> 
> That's why I said Honda, not Lada
> 
> My point is we should be looking at the best affordable systems, rather than chasing after the top end stuff we can't/won't buy enough of. We are going to lose kit and people in a war. We need the Honda level of kit, that is safe, effective, and affordable enough to buy enough of it to be useful in a real war.
> 
> I agree that layers of systems is the best bet, I just worry that we will spend so much time trying to find the "best" layers, then conclude we can't afford the best, so we end up like we are now with no layers at all.


The CAF isn’t big enough you can afford to not buy the best.


----------



## SupersonicMax

KevinB said:


> The CAF isn’t big enough you can afford to not buy the best.


If that was the case, I’d be driving a Range Rover Sport. At some point, we need to procuring something that we’ll have in quantity enough to train and employ.  If we can only buy a handful and never use it, it’s no good.


----------



## KevinB

SupersonicMax said:


> If that was the case, I’d be driving a Range Rover Sport. At some point, we need to procuring something that we’ll have in quantity enough to train and employ.  If we can only buy a handful and never use it, it’s no good.


My point is even with every solider, airperson, and sailor kitted out with the best equipment, and a robust war stock - the CAF needs are not really that big due to its size.  

When you only have 140 ish (IIRC that was the original Hornet buy) Fighters that need to be all and do all, that budget shouldn’t be a deal breaker for Canada a G-7 Nation, neither should the ships, subs and everything else needed for a ~130k pers Armed Force to be absolutely cutting edge with ample stocks of material to support training and combat deployments.


----------



## Furniture

KevinB said:


> The CAF isn’t big enough you can afford to not buy the best.


This goes back to what I said before though, we will look at the best, decide it costs too much, and end up with nothing... Like we currently stand with GBAD, modern anti-armour weapons, and many other capabilities that a rich country should have. 

Having Ford Ranger Tremors painted green, kitted out with Starstreak launchers would put the CAF 100% ahead of where it is now with GBAD, even if it's a less than ideal solution. 

Having NLAW, Spike SR, etc., in the hands of Pte Bloggins, is better than what we have now, even if the Javelin is a better system overall.  

My point isn't that we should buy cheap crap, it's that we should shoot for many "mid-tier" systems rather than a few really high end ones. 

If the the best is affordable enough for us to buy lots, buy the best. If the best means we end up with 20 systems parked in Gagetown because we can't "risk" damaging them, they are useless.


----------



## TacticalTea

KevinB said:


> My point is even with every solider, airperson, and sailor kitted out with the best equipment, and a robust war stock - the CAF needs are not really that big due to its size.
> 
> When you only have 140 ish (IIRC that was the original Hornet buy) Fighters that need to be all and do all, that budget shouldn’t be a deal breaker for Canada a G-7 Nation, neither should the ships, subs and everything else needed for a ~130k pers Armed Force to be absolutely cutting edge with ample stocks of material to support training and combat deployments.


If we respected our 2% commitment, true.


----------



## rmc_wannabe

Furniture said:


> This goes back to what I said before though, we will look at the best, decide it costs too much, and end up with nothing... Like we currently stand with GBAD, modern anti-armour weapons, and many other capabilities that a rich country should have.
> 
> Having Ford Ranger Tremors painted green, kitted out with Starstreak launchers would put the CAF 100% ahead of where it is now with GBAD, even if it's a less than ideal solution.
> 
> Having NLAW, Spike SR, etc., in the hands of Pte Bloggins, is better than what we have now, even if the Javelin is a better system overall.
> 
> My point isn't that we should buy cheap crap, it's that we should shoot for many "mid-tier" systems rather than a few really high end ones.
> 
> If the the best is affordable enough for us to buy lots, buy the best. If the best means we end up with 20 systems parked in Gagetown because we can't "risk" damaging them, they are useless.


1 on the Range is better than 20 on order, which is better than  300 in depot.

All are better than Zero.


----------



## GK .Dundas

Furniture said:


> This goes back to what I said before though, we will look at the best, decide it costs too much, and end up with nothing... Like we currently stand with GBAD, modern anti-armour weapons, and many other capabilities that a rich country should have.
> 
> Having Ford Ranger Tremors painted green, kitted out with Starstreak launchers would put the CAF 100% ahead of where it is now with GBAD, even if it's a less than ideal solution.
> 
> Having NLAW, Spike SR, etc., in the hands of Pte Bloggins, is better than what we have now, even if the Javelin is a better system overall.
> 
> My point isn't that we should buy cheap crap, it's that we should shoot for many "mid-tier" systems rather than a few really high end ones.
> 
> If the the best is affordable enough for us to buy lots, buy the best. If the best means we end up with 20 systems parked in Gagetown because we can't "risk" damaging them, they are useless.


A couple of years ago I mentioned on here a cheap and.fairly effective way of getting an air defence capability purchase surplus German RL 202s and mount them on the back of milvardos.. Sprinkle with hand held stingers and you have decent.self propelled air defence system.


----------



## FJAG

JLB50 said:


> I’m not sure if that 125,000 figure included the reserves or not. Also, training wasn’t as specialized as it is today, etc. etc. etc. Still…


The 125,000 was Reg F only. The Militia fluctuated around that time from around 48,500 in 1964 to some 13,000 in 1971.

🍻


----------



## KevinB

Furniture said:


> This goes back to what I said before though, we will look at the best, decide it costs too much, and end up with nothing... Like we currently stand with GBAD, modern anti-armour weapons, and many other capabilities that a rich country should have.
> 
> Having Ford Ranger Tremors painted green, kitted out with Starstreak launchers would put the CAF 100% ahead of where it is now with GBAD, even if it's a less than ideal solution.
> 
> Having NLAW, Spike SR, etc., in the hands of Pte Bloggins, is better than what we have now, even if the Javelin is a better system overall.
> 
> My point isn't that we should buy cheap crap, it's that we should shoot for many "mid-tier" systems rather than a few really high end ones.
> 
> If the the best is affordable enough for us to buy lots, buy the best. If the best means we end up with 20 systems parked in Gagetown because we can't "risk" damaging them, they are useless.


The CAD underspent the allocated budget in the last two years that could have acquired 200 CV-90, 100 M109A6, and 80 MSHORAD systems.
   There is absolutely no reason even at the current decrepit funding that it can't get enough top end systems to do everything with.

I'd suggest that a lot of positions inside the Nebulous HDHQ Directorates could be better done by placing LO and Tech WO positions down at our various PM shops - getting in on the ground with US Mil systems - I think you could save billions in that manner fairly easily.


----------



## TacticalTea

KevinB said:


> The CAD underspent the allocated budget in the last two years that could have acquired 200 CV-90, 100 M109A6, and 80 MSHORAD systems.
> There is absolutely no reason even at the current decrepit funding that it can't get enough top end systems to do everything with.
> 
> I'd suggest that a lot of positions inside the Nebulous HDHQ Directorates *could be better done by placing* *LO and Tech WO positions down at our various PM shops* - getting in on the ground with US Mil systems - I think you could save billions in that manner fairly easily.


That's what I've been thinking about as well.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Fingers crossed....


FIRST READING: Buckle up for a Canadian defence spending splurge​
Defence Minister Anita Anand said this week that *she will be tabling “aggressive” options to significantly boost Canada’s rate of defence spending once the cabinet starts planning its spring budget*. Depending on how it goes, this could spell the biggest surge in Canadian defence spending in more than 50 years.​
*Canada, of course, has one of the most lacklustre defence spending records in NATO.* While members of the alliance are expected to spend 2 per cent of national GDP on defence, Canada only spends about 1.4 per cent. Speaking to CBC this week, Anand said she was drafting proposals under which Canada could hit or exceed the 2 per cent baseline. *That would be roughly an extra $10 billion to spend on the military each year*.

Pessimists, however, will argue that *the Canadian Armed Forces’ problem is not merely one of spending*, given that it can’t seem to spend the money it already has. Last year, for instance, the Department of Defence failed to spend $1.2 billion of its allocated budget, continuing a trend of lapsed defence spending that has been occurring quite regularly since the government of Stephen Harper.

*The Canadian military also has a penchant to make procurement far more expensive and painful than it needs to be*. We’ve brought this up before, but when the British Army replaced its standard-issue pistols in 2010, it took them three years and $14.5 million. For the Canadian Army, replacing the exact same pistol has required 15 years and more than $100 million.

*We also happen to have one of the most top-heavy militaries in NATO.* Despite an ever-shrinking pool of enlisted personnel, Canada retains about as many generals and admirals as at the height of the Cold War.

After the Russian Federation asked the U.N. Security Council for a resolution backing humanitarian relief for Ukraine, the Canadian delegation took the liberty of “editing” their request and posting it online. PHOTO BY CANADIAN MISSION TO THE UNITED NATIONS

*WAR IN UKRAINE*​
In late February, two RCAF C-130s were sent to Europe to help ferry Canadian guns, bullets and rocket launchers into an undisclosed NATO airfield in Eastern Europe, where the weapons are then moved into Ukraine. But the National Post’s John Ivison felt he should remind us that this is a recent development for the Canadian government, who has thus far made it a habit to strenuously ignore Ukrainian requests for lethal aid. *Virtually until the moment that Russian warplanes began to bomb Kyiv, Canada refused to send guns to Ukraine*, demanded that its aid not be used for weapons and even gave the Ukrainians a hard time when they tried to buy Canadian-made arms with their own money.









						FIRST READING: Buckle up for a Canadian defence spending splurge
					

Brian Mulroney urges Tories to stop "destroying" each other




					nationalpost.com


----------



## daftandbarmy

SeaKingTacco said:


> NLAW seems to fit better around the Carl G niche. M72 is not much good against modern tanks, but it is really cheap and can really mess up bunkers/defensive positions and, I suppose, older AFVs.
> 
> Javelin is a medium to long range (depending on version, if you believe wikipedia) anti-armour system that can destroy just about any armoured vehicle in the world.



And then - as you know - there are attack helicopters, which were pretty much invented to take on Soviet armoured formations on the central front over 50 years ago, of which we have a total of Zero. This situation is unique amongst other NATO countries, I think.

Maybe Anita will get us some Apache, in the upcoming defence spend, and bring us up to 1970 levels of readiness in this regard


----------



## KevinB

daftandbarmy said:


> And then - as you know - there are attack helicopters, which were pretty much invented to take on Soviet armoured formations on the central front over 50 years ago, of which we have a total of Zero. This situation is unique amongst other NATO countries, I think.
> 
> Maybe Anita will get us some Apache, in the upcoming defence spend, and bring us up to 1970 levels of readiness in this regard


Sorry Bell doesn't build those - and Bell Miracle doesn't build Cobras or UH-1Y Venom either, if they built 1Y's and AH-1Z's it would be a worthwhile defense industry...


----------



## Remius

KevinB said:


> Sorry Bell doesn't build those - and Bell Miracle doesn't build Cobras or UH-1Y Venom either, if they built 1Y's and AH-1Z's it would be a worthwhile defense industry...


Airwolf.  I want Airwolf.


----------



## dimsum

Remius said:


> Airwolf.  I want Airwolf.


This is the best I can give you:


----------



## GK .Dundas

dimsum said:


> This is the best I can give you:
> 
> View attachment 69570


Failing airwolf would  you settle for I guess it's Boeing that builds them the AH 6 I.


----------



## FJAG

dimsum said:


> This is the best I can give you:
> 
> View attachment 69570


Your best is not good enough.

My guess is that any increase in spending will end up buying us more GOFOs and cubicle warmers in Ottawa.








😁


----------



## BirdGunner96

KevinB said:


> The CAD underspent the allocated budget in the last two years that could have acquired 200 CV-90, 100 M109A6, and 80 MSHORAD systems.
> There is absolutely no reason even at the current decrepit funding that it can't get enough top end systems to do everything with.
> 
> I'd suggest that a lot of positions inside the Nebulous HDHQ Directorates could be better done by placing LO and Tech WO positions down at our various PM shops - getting in on the ground with US Mil systems - I think you could save billions in that manner fairly easily.


As the name states, I am a recently retired Air Defender ( 6 months free). It has been like pushing a wet rope up a hill for the past 12 years, or if you like, pounding you head against wall! Have the white hat, was the first Canadian on the year long AD GCC course in the UK, went from zero to hero on  Rapier FSC , HVM StarStreak LML+ Stormer platform. As well qualified Javelin S-15, 35mm Gun/Skyguard and ADATS. It is so unfortunate that Putin's megalomania has initiated this conversation, there have been pers in the CF advocating very hard for some form of AD. Unfortunately, as we stated 12 years ago, keep it a separate trade " Black beret Strat, Blue beret Air Force or even Navy" , as long it as far away from the Royal Regiment of Artillery as possible, cross training/ streaming should never had been an option. The only accomplishment was to produce more Officer / MWO (if you speak french positions). Take some of the numerous  Reserve Arty Units (LG 1, C2), equip them with BV206, quads and a MANPAD system. Sry, rant over.


----------



## daftandbarmy

BirdGunner96 said:


> As the name states, I am a recently retired Air Defender ( 6 months free). It has been like pushing a wet rope up a hill for the past 12 years, or if you like, pounding you head against wall! Have the white hat, was the first Canadian on the year long AD GCC course in the UK, went from zero to hero on  Rapier FSC , HVM StarStreak LML+ Stormer platform. As well qualified Javelin S-15, 35mm Gun/Skyguard and ADATS. It is so unfortunate that Putin's megalomania has initiated this conversation, there have been pers in the CF advocating very hard for some form of AD. Unfortunately, as we stated 12 years ago, keep it a separate trade " Black beret Strat, Blue beret Air Force or even Navy" , as long it as far away from the Royal Regiment of Artillery as possible, cross training/ streaming should never had been an option. The only accomplishment was to produce more Officer / MWO (if you speak french positions). Take some of the numerous  Reserve Arty Units (LG 1, C2), equip them with BV206, quads and a MANPAD system. Sry, rant over.



What a sh*t show. Thank you for trying all those years!

It seems that Canadian GBAD be like:


----------



## SeaKingTacco

BirdGunner96 said:


> As the name states, I am a recently retired Air Defender ( 6 months free). It has been like pushing a wet rope up a hill for the past 12 years, or if you like, pounding you head against wall! Have the white hat, was the first Canadian on the year long AD GCC course in the UK, went from zero to hero on  Rapier FSC , HVM StarStreak LML+ Stormer platform. As well qualified Javelin S-15, 35mm Gun/Skyguard and ADATS. It is so unfortunate that Putin's megalomania has initiated this conversation, there have been pers in the CF advocating very hard for some form of AD. Unfortunately, as we stated 12 years ago, keep it a separate trade " Black beret Strat, Blue beret Air Force or even Navy" , as long it as far away from the Royal Regiment of Artillery as possible, cross training/ streaming should never had been an option. The only accomplishment was to produce more Officer / MWO (if you speak french positions). Take some of the numerous  Reserve Arty Units (LG 1, C2), equip them with BV206, quads and a MANPAD system. Sry, rant over.


We have probably crossed paths. AD IG course graduate, 1997…


----------



## dimsum

BirdGunner96 said:


> Unfortunately, as we stated 12 years ago, keep it a separate trade " Black beret Strat, Blue beret Air Force or even Navy" , as long it as far away from the Royal Regiment of Artillery as possible, cross training/ streaming should never had been an option.


What trade do you think it should have been a part of?  Or did you mean it should have been its own trade?


----------



## BirdGunner96

95% of NCO's told everyone that could hear that it was a stupid idea, maybe 5 officers had the balls to stand up. They were soon ostracized.


----------



## BirdGunner96

dimsum said:


> What trade do you think it should have been a part of?  Or did you mean it should have been its own trade?


Its own, but that was not an option to be an orphan.


----------



## Kilted

daftandbarmy said:


> Fingers crossed....
> 
> 
> FIRST READING: Buckle up for a Canadian defence spending splurge​
> Defence Minister Anita Anand said this week that *she will be tabling “aggressive” options to significantly boost Canada’s rate of defence spending once the cabinet starts planning its spring budget*. Depending on how it goes, this could spell the biggest surge in Canadian defence spending in more than 50 years.​


The government can throw as much money at us as they want, but we still need the people in uniform. As it is we can't fill all the empty spots we have.  We need to stop turning people away based on their skin colour and gender just to be able to fill quotas. (I know that some recruiters were told to turn away white males, I don't know if it was a local thing, or how widespread. I of course cannot name my sources).


----------



## FJAG

BirdGunner96 said:


> As the name states, I am a recently retired Air Defender ( 6 months free). It has been like pushing a wet rope up a hill for the past 12 years, or if you like, pounding you head against wall! Have the white hat, was the first Canadian on the year long AD GCC course in the UK, went from zero to hero on  Rapier FSC , HVM StarStreak LML+ Stormer platform. As well qualified Javelin S-15, 35mm Gun/Skyguard and ADATS. It is so unfortunate that Putin's megalomania has initiated this conversation, there have been pers in the CF advocating very hard for some form of AD. Unfortunately, as we stated 12 years ago, keep it a separate trade " Black beret Strat, Blue beret Air Force or even Navy" , as long it as far away from the Royal Regiment of Artillery as possible, cross training/ streaming should never had been an option. The only accomplishment was to produce more Officer / MWO (if you speak french positions). Take some of the numerous  Reserve Arty Units (LG 1, C2), equip them with BV206, quads and a MANPAD system. Sry, rant over.


I had a preview of that when we stood up air defence in the 70s.

We started off debating which direction to take as the RCA is a small organization PY wise and there's a point at certain levels where both senior officers and senior NCMs need to slot into generic career bands. I think the same situation is again rearing its head with the STA specialty. When GBAD finally stands up it will probably be at the one or two battery level. What was once a 450PY career field will probably end up at less than 200 (especially if reservists take on many positions)

Under our current battlegroup centric system specialty knowledge is critical up to the MWO and major level - ie gun battery, STA bty and soon GBAD battery. Major's need to know their own field cold and majors running a battlegroup FSCC must have a fundamental understanding of STA and GBAD as well. But where do you find the more rounded experts that you need at the LCol and CWO level if they've simply come up in one silo?

It's a difficult balancing act as between viable career profiles and ensuring people with the right qualifications reach the right leadership and staff levels at the right time. If one was to create AD as its own specialty one would probably hit a career choke point at roughly ten years for both officers and NCMs. At that point they'd join the competition for the great herd of the "any trade or classification" group. One might see a competition for CO and RSM of 4 GS being split between AD and STA silos but neither silo would be of value in a CS regt role without the cross training.

It becomes even harder if, like one should, one converts many of the lower ranked PYs to reservist positions.

I frankly do not know the answer. It's one of the issues that the RCA is working on.

🍻


----------



## BirdGunner96

FJAG said:


> I had a preview of that when we stood up air defence in the 70s.
> 
> We started off debating which direction to take as the RCA is a small organization PY wise and there's a point at certain levels where both senior officers and senior NCMs need to slot into generic career bands. I think the same situation is again rearing its head with the STA specialty. When GBAD finally stands up it will probably be at the one or two battery level. What was once a 450PY career field will probably end up at less than 200 (especially if reservists take on many positions)
> 
> Under our current battlegroup centric system specialty knowledge is critical up to the MWO and major level - ie gun battery, STA bty and soon GBAD battery. Major's need to know their own field cold and majors running a battlegroup FSCC must have a fundamental understanding of STA and GBAD as well. But where do you find the more rounded experts that you need at the LCol and CWO level if they've simply come up in one silo?
> 
> It's a difficult balancing act as between viable career profiles and ensuring people with the right qualifications reach the right leadership and staff levels at the right time. If one was to create AD as its own specialty one would probably hit a career choke point at roughly ten years for both officers and NCMs. At that point they'd join the competition for the great herd of the "any trade or classification" group. One might see a competition for CO and RSM of 4 GS being split between AD and STA silos but neither silo would be of value in a CS regt role without the cross training.
> 
> It becomes even harder if, like one should, one converts many of the lower ranked PYs to reservist positions.
> 
> I frankly do not know the answer. It's one of the issues that the RCA is working on.
> 
> 🍻


Well said


----------



## TacticalTea

Article announces "Here's where increased military spending could go to", fails to actually answer that, talks about identity politics instead, Toronto Raptors, and issues that have nothing to do with Ukraine/Europe


----------



## Maxman1

That's to be expected from the Grope & Flail.


----------



## TacticalTea

Maxman1 said:


> That's to be expected from the Grope & Flail.


Huh? It's from Global News, not G&M


----------



## Haggis

The Liberal government has $50B worth of unfulfilled election promises already.   This will probably fall into the "too hard" pile in the PMO once the war in Ukraine falls back to page six.


----------



## dimsum

FJAG said:


> I had a preview of that when we stood up air defence in the 70s.
> 
> We started off debating which direction to take as the RCA is a small organization PY wise and there's a point at certain levels where both senior officers and senior NCMs need to slot into generic career bands. I think the same situation is again rearing its head with the STA specialty. When GBAD finally stands up it will probably be at the one or two battery level. What was once a 450PY career field will probably end up at less than 200 (especially if reservists take on many positions)
> 
> Under our current battlegroup centric system specialty knowledge is critical up to the MWO and major level - ie gun battery, STA bty and soon GBAD battery. Major's need to know their own field cold and majors running a battlegroup FSCC must have a fundamental understanding of STA and GBAD as well. But where do you find the more rounded experts that you need at the LCol and CWO level if they've simply come up in one silo?
> 
> It's a difficult balancing act as between viable career profiles and ensuring people with the right qualifications reach the right leadership and staff levels at the right time. If one was to create AD as its own specialty one would probably hit a career choke point at roughly ten years for both officers and NCMs. At that point they'd join the competition for the great herd of the "any trade or classification" group. One might see a competition for CO and RSM of 4 GS being split between AD and STA silos but neither silo would be of value in a CS regt role without the cross training.
> 
> It becomes even harder if, like one should, one converts many of the lower ranked PYs to reservist positions.
> 
> I frankly do not know the answer. It's one of the issues that the RCA is working on.
> 
> 🍻


...and don't forget, the RCAF is looking at the RCA (or whoever deals with this) for airfield defence as well.


----------



## Retired AF Guy

KevinB said:


> IMHO picking non American systems it dumb.
> You live above the largest military industry on the planet, use it.


I have to disagree with you. There is an old saying, " About never putting all your eggs in one basket." The same principle applies to defence procurement.


----------



## KevinB

Retired AF Guy said:


> I have to disagree with you. There is an old saying, " About never putting all your eggs in one basket." The same principle applies to defence procurement.


The difference is, if our chicken coop shits the bed - everyone is FUBAR.

We share a land border - it is much easier to get stuff to Canada in a time of need that way - as opposed to getting stuff from Europe.


----------



## YZT580

has anyone really examined the toll in hardware in Ukraine?  Our entire purchase order of new aircraft would now be so much scrap metal if we were engaged in any kind of peer war.  To this civilian, you need at least a third more aircraft even if the numbers beyond 88 are sitting in a hangar.  When the shooting starts you can't order anymore; you go with what you have.  It would probably be wise to shop for a second aircraft i.e. F16 for pure airborne intercept and keep your F35 types for battlefield control.  You definitely need some kind of ground/air system, hopefully combining high altitude/long range and manpads.  Decent anti-armour weapons.  If you don't, you might as well stay home and hoist your flag in the inverted position.


----------



## FJAG

dimsum said:


> ...and don't forget, the RCAF is looking at the RCA (or whoever deals with this) for airfield defence as well.


I wonder if we still have any of the ADATS and Oerlikons warehoused in Montreal? Or the Boffins?


----------



## Quirky

YZT580 said:


> has anyone really examined the toll in hardware in Ukraine?  Our entire purchase order of new aircraft would now be so much scrap metal if we were engaged in any kind of peer war.  To this civilian, you need at least a third more aircraft even if the numbers beyond 88 are sitting in a hangar.  When the shooting starts you can't order anymore; you go with what you have.  It would probably be wise to shop for a second aircraft i.e. F16 for pure airborne intercept and keep your F35 types for battlefield control.  You definitely need some kind of ground/air system, hopefully combining high altitude/long range and manpads.  Decent anti-armour weapons.  If you don't, you might as well stay home and hoist your flag in the inverted position.



We don't have the personnel to keep our dwindling fighter force flying as it is, ramming more aircraft, of different type no less, into the bases won't do anything. We need to retain, rebuild and recruit, this will take years and Billions. We can double the amount of people in the CAF, but there won't be anywhere to house them. Building new housing is just as important as purchasing new toys.


----------



## Kirkhill

Quirky said:


> We don't have the personnel to keep our dwindling fighter force flying as it is, ramming more aircraft, of different type no less, into the bases won't do anything. We need to retain, rebuild and recruit, this will take years and Billions. We can double the amount of people in the CAF, but there won't be anywhere to house them. Building new housing is just as important as purchasing new toys.



All this talk about Air Defence, RCAF and RCA and Ground Based Air Defence has got me playing with words again.

It strikes me that Fighters, Low Cost Attritables, UAVs, Drones and Missiles are all "Ground Based".  Fighters are Manned Ground Based Air Defence Systems.


----------



## dimsum

FJAG said:


> Or the Boffins?


Time to scour some museums!    

There should be an extra 12 since the MCDVs don't have them installed anymore.


----------



## GR66

Blackadder1916 said:


> Not necessarily so.  From both an historical perspective (_I exempt Afghanistan as we didn't deploy a "mechanized formation"_) and our current NATO land commitment, we don't actually "integrate" with the American army sustainment system all that much.  And that should be one of the factors considered in selecting major equipment - who'll provide repair, recovery, replacement (and will it be compatible) in the echelon above that which we deploy.  We have much greater need of interoperability with the US in air and naval operations.
> 
> What do I foresee in the short-term (up to ten years) as to our "army" commitment?  It will likely be a greater reinforcement of our current NATO deployment (eFP Latvia).  While it's currently a bit of a dog's breakfast with odds and sods from several countries, the tanks in that battlegroup are Leopards (Poland and Spain), so we may not be working alongside Abrams.  It makes sense (_but who says that military thinking should make sense_) to build on existing operational structures rather that change horses in mid-stride.  Regardless of how the situation in Ukraine evolves, my suggestion would be to initially increase the Canadian presence on the ground to a full battle group with an adequate tranche of supporting arms and services.  Hopefully the other NATO contributors would also increase their participation with the goal to round out a brigade group.  Eventually, we should provide the majority of combat power (on the ground and dedicated/legitimate for quick fly-over to marry with equipment), and then it would make sense for Canada to command such a NATO brigade (or to be one of primary nations to rotate command).  The next step would be to organize an integrated operational HQ with the Latvians.


I'd argue that in the case of a full-scale shooting war in Europe that ONLY the US would have the surplus capacity to provide Canada with any replacement vehicles and parts.  Any spare capacity for European vehicles would go to the European users as only the US maintains enough surplus capacity to provide for anyone else besides themselves.  All the more reason in my mind to establish even greater interoperability and formal links with the US Army at echelons above the (aspirational) Brigade level deployment that the CF would be capable of.


----------



## daftandbarmy

YZT580 said:


> has anyone really examined the toll in hardware in Ukraine?  Our entire purchase order of new aircraft would now be so much scrap metal if we were engaged in any kind of peer war.  To this civilian, you need at least a third more aircraft even if the numbers beyond 88 are sitting in a hangar.  When the shooting starts you can't order anymore; you go with what you have.  It would probably be wise to shop for a second aircraft i.e. F16 for pure airborne intercept and keep your F35 types for battlefield control.  You definitely need some kind of ground/air system, hopefully combining high altitude/long range and manpads.  Decent anti-armour weapons.  If you don't, you might as well stay home and hoist your flag in the inverted position.



Decades of 'Brush Fire Wars' have skewed our understanding about what it takes to fight and win a major conflict (s). Time to pay the Piper....


----------



## Brad Sallows

Depending on how a war escalates, Europe might not be the only theatre.  Most raising and training of new forces and replacements will still be in Canada.  It's best to have fewer types of equipments.  It's easier to ship stuff coming into Canada across a secure land border than a contested ocean.


----------



## Furniture

KevinB said:


> The difference is, if our chicken coop shits the bed - everyone is FUBAR.
> 
> We share a land border - it is much easier to get stuff to Canada in a time of need that way - as opposed to getting stuff from Europe.



I think the concern is more that political games could see us denied access to support and parts. A softwood lumber dispute could turn into no more spares for any of our kit as a way to force us to do what the USA wants.


----------



## FJAG

dimsum said:


> Time to scour some museums!
> 
> There should be an extra 12 since the MCDVs don't have them installed anymore.


In case the RPAS falls behind, you can probably resuscitate Sperwer 161001 that's at the Canadian Aviation and Space Museum, too. 

😉


----------



## Haggis

YZT580 said:


> has anyone really examined the toll in hardware in Ukraine?  Our entire purchase order of new aircraft would now be so much scrap metal if we were engaged in any kind of peer war.


We have no near peer threats in our hemisphere. Anything combat we do won't be unilateral or local unless Newfoundland and Labrador decide that Joey Smallwood was wrong in 1949 and secede.


----------



## Kirkhill

Haggis said:


> We have no near peer threats in our hemisphere. Anything combat we do won't be unilateral or local unless Newfoundland and Labrador decide that Joey Smallwood was wrong in 1949 and secede.


On the other hand Haggis, an M72 or the Russian RPG-18 would make a very bad day for a Mountie patrol car.

The downside of all of this effective manportable gear means that you don't have bring Tanks into Canada to disrupt the functioning of government and civil life.

C4, M72s, AT4s, NLAWs and Stingers in the hands of small bands could really do a number on Canada's economy.


----------



## Booter

The eastern most part of Russia lies In the Western Hemisphere. I know it’s a cheap shit- but our house is no longer fireproof


----------



## FJAG

Quirky said:


> We don't have the personnel to keep our dwindling fighter force flying as it is, ramming more aircraft, of different type no less, into the bases won't do anything. We need to retain, rebuild and recruit, this will take years and Billions. We can double the amount of people in the CAF, but there won't be anywhere to house them. Building new housing is just as important as purchasing new toys.


Actually that has me taking a different tack again. I think we have enough PYs already, just badly distributed. Currently we're understrength so obviously recruiting to get back up to strength is necessary. I would be very hesitant to increase PYs until we've thoroughly examined and enabled our reserve force with equipment and training and proper employer/employee legislation.

All that more PYs do is add more annually recurring expenses which will once again limit the funding of the equipment and O&M components.

My approach is that all new dollars should go into equipping the whole force, Reg and Res, which will double the size of the Army's capabilities. The one PY exception that I would make is adding the necessary PYs to maintain the new equipment and that existing equipment that is currently being inadequately maintained.

Basically I firmly believe that our RegF is big enough to meet Canada's peacetime obligations. What we need to work on is Canada's ability to surge and sustain the size of its force in an emergency. That is fundamentally a ResF function. We need a well organized, trained, equipped and led ResF - that should be our priority.

One thing that I would stop immediately is the divestment of older equipment. You can't grow a force if you are constantly divesting item A and replacing it with the same number, or less, of item B. Much of this equipment should go into reserve stock (and yest here is a maintenance cost involved with that). We're currently looking at divesting perfectly serviceable Bisons and TLAVs while we have a ResF with no equipment. Rather than looking at a way to maintain them, we're tossing them. I have similar thoughts about the F-18s. It costs billions to bring a new aircraft fleet on line while one could also maintain an old fleet for tens or several hundreds of millions if one built in the maintenance structure and and properly organized the reserve component to operate them like the Air National Guard. They may not be the newest thing but they would be an additional capability when the shit hits the fan.

🍻


----------



## TacticalTea

Haggis said:


> We have no near peer threats in our hemisphere. Anything combat we do won't be unilateral or local unless Newfoundland and Labrador decide that Joey Smallwood was wrong in 1949 and secede.


Hm? If the Newfies so decided, and the Feds wanted to force them back in, you can count me out!


----------



## Kirkhill

What were you saying about PYs?

The solution first presented itself in the Diefenbaker era with the 700 km BOMARC.
However that required a nuclear warhead due to lack of precision.

Kratos now offers the 2600 km Mako and the 3400 km Valkyrie that can be launched from fixed bases like the BOMARC and the existing line of Kratos drones.













						Kratos to show low-cost Valkyrie and Mako "wingman" combat drones
					

Defense company Kratos has announced that it will show two low-cost combat drones at the Paris Air Show next week, offering an insight as to what military conflicts might look like in the foreseeable future – a manned combat jet leading dozens of 1,000 km/h lethally-armed unmanned companions.




					newatlas.com


----------



## dimsum

Kirkhill said:


> View attachment 69596View attachment 69597
> 
> What were you saying about PYs?
> 
> The solution first presented itself in the Diefenbaker era with the 700 km BOMARC.
> However that required a nuclear warhead due to lack of precision.
> 
> Kratos now offers the 2600 km Mako and the 3400 km Valkyrie that can be launched from fixed bases like the BOMARC and the existing line of Kratos drones.
> 
> View attachment 69598
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kratos to show low-cost Valkyrie and Mako "wingman" combat drones
> 
> 
> Defense company Kratos has announced that it will show two low-cost combat drones at the Paris Air Show next week, offering an insight as to what military conflicts might look like in the foreseeable future – a manned combat jet leading dozens of 1,000 km/h lethally-armed unmanned companions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newatlas.com



I'll say that despite the glossy brochure, none of those aircraft (Loyal Wingman, the Kratos products, Project Mosquito in the UK, etc) are anywhere near production ready.

In 10 years?  Maybe.


----------



## Kirkhill

FJAG said:


> Actually that has me taking a different tack again. I think we have enough PYs already, just badly distributed. Currently we're understrength so obviously recruiting to get back up to strength is necessary. I would be very hesitant to increase PYs until we've thoroughly examined and enabled our reserve force with equipment and training and proper employer/employee legislation.
> 
> All that more PYs do is add more annually recurring expenses which will once again limit the funding of the equipment and O&M components.
> 
> My approach is that all new dollars should go into equipping the whole force, Reg and Res, which will double the size of the Army's capabilities. The one PY exception that I would make is adding the necessary PYs to maintain the new equipment and that existing equipment that is currently being inadequately maintained.
> 
> Basically I firmly believe that our RegF is big enough to meet Canada's peacetime obligations. What we need to work on is Canada's ability to surge and sustain the size of its force in an emergency. That is fundamentally a ResF function. We need a well organized, trained, equipped and led ResF - that should be our priority.
> 
> One thing that I would stop immediately is the divestment of older equipment. You can't grow a force if you are constantly divesting item A and replacing it with the same number, or less, of item B. Much of this equipment should go into reserve stock (and yest here is a maintenance cost involved with that). We're currently looking at divesting perfectly serviceable Bisons and TLAVs while we have a ResF with no equipment. Rather than looking at a way to maintain them, we're tossing them. I have similar thoughts about the F-18s. It costs billions to bring a new aircraft fleet on line while one could also maintain an old fleet for tens or several hundreds of millions if one built in the maintenance structure and and properly organized the reserve component to operate them like the Air National Guard. They may not be the newest thing but they would be an additional capability when the shit hits the fan.
> 
> 🍻





dimsum said:


> I'll say that despite the glossy brochure, none of those aircraft (Loyal Wingman, the Kratos products, Project Mosquito in the UK, etc) are anywhere near production ready.
> 
> In 10 years?  Maybe.


I'll take that bet.  2 years.

And the Turks or Israelis will be first.


----------



## KevinB

Kirkhill said:


> I'll take that bet.  2 years.
> 
> And the Turks or Israelis will be first.


Bad bet IMHO


----------



## TacticalTea

Kirkhill said:


> I'll take that bet.  2 years.
> 
> And the Turks or Israelis will be first.


It's always those guys!

How does Israel do procurement? Naturally, military issues are much more pressing and critical to them, but if we can import some good ideas that'd be great...


----------



## dimsum

TacticalTea said:


> How does Israel do procurement? Naturally, military issues are much more pressing and critical to them, but if we can import some good ideas that'd be great...


They make damn near everything at home.  What isn't made at home, the US provides because of their geopolitical location.


----------



## KevinB

TacticalTea said:


> It's always those guys!
> 
> How does Israel do procurement? Naturally, military issues are much more pressing and critical to them, but if we can import some good ideas that'd be great...


They get a slew of kit from us. 
   They developed things for their needs that doesn’t alway make sense for the rest of us. 

But they have been surrounded by enemies since the creation of Israel, so they had a little bit of focus. 

IMHO most of Israeli kit isn’t a great choice for Western ‘Expeditionary’ Forces.


----------



## Kirkhill

Also: "Don't you know there's a war on!"

Yes, they will beg, borrow and steal whatever they can get their hands on to protect themselves.

Their first priority is devising methods to eliminate threats.  Even if inefficiently. 
Their next priority is to make their kit more efficient.
Their third priority is to accommodate Civil Airspace Rules. - If they accommodate them at all.  They can always do what Ukraine has done and shut down the airspace.

As to the 10 years - that was then, this is now.
Consider 5 years during WW2.
Consider 5 years at the beginning of the Cold War.

I don't believe adding TB2 software, or even Hero-120 software, to a Kratos Target Drone is beyond the capability of either the Turks or the Israelis.  Or for that matter the Swedes, Finns, Poles, Ukrainians, Iranians, Indians or Chinese. Or Singapore or Taiwan. Or Japan or Korea.

And one F35 will by you 30 or more of the Mako/Valkyrie beasts.  Lots of opportunities to experiment and losses won't break the bank.

Definitely not 10 years.

Congress might hold things up for 10 years.  Canada for 20 years or so.  But not the rest of the world.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Russian media highlights the fact that Canada is scrapping the bottom of the barrel 








						Canada says aiding Ukraine has ‘exhausted’ its stock of weapons
					

Canada has depleted its own stock of weapons in a bid to assist Ukraine during its conflict with Russia, Defense Minister Anita Anand says




					www.rt.com


----------



## YZT580

Quirky said:


> We don't have the personnel to keep our dwindling fighter force flying as it is, ramming more aircraft, of different type no less, into the bases won't do anything. We need to retain, rebuild and recruit, this will take years and Billions. We can double the amount of people in the CAF, but there won't be anywhere to house them. Building new housing is just as important as purchasing new toys.


absolutely agree, but you had better have the other products on order because lead time is measured in years and years.  Decide what is needed, start the recruitment programme to operate it, order the gear, start your training programme.  That is the sequence that needs to be followed.  Oh, and one last thing, stop with the wringing of hands in despair.


----------



## MilEME09

Colin Parkinson said:


> Russian media highlights the fact that Canada is scrapping the bottom of the barrel
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Canada says aiding Ukraine has ‘exhausted’ its stock of weapons
> 
> 
> Canada has depleted its own stock of weapons in a bid to assist Ukraine during its conflict with Russia, Defense Minister Anita Anand says
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.rt.com


I mean they do know what that looks like right now.....


----------



## Haggis

Kirkhill said:


> On the other hand Haggis, an M72 or the Russian RPG-18 would make a very bad day for a Mountie patrol car.


Is this meant to infer that we are capable only of seeing an insurgency or terrorist attack as "near peer"?


Kirkhill said:


> The downside of all of this effective manportable gear means that you don't have bring Tanks into Canada to disrupt the functioning of government and civil life.


All you need is big trucks and a bouncy castle or two, apparently


Kirkhill said:


> C4, M72s, AT4s, NLAWs and Stingers in the hands of small bands could really do a number on Canada's economy.


The possession of which - except for the C4 - has been banned under the May 1st, 2020 OIC...  no one would dare!


----------



## Kirkhill

Haggis said:


> Is this meant to infer that we are capable only of seeing an insurgency or terrorist attack as "near peer"?



No. Not at all.  Just that the quality of the threat continues to evolve and may require a different range of responses.



Haggis said:


> All you need is big trucks and a bouncy castle or two, apparently







Haggis said:


> The possession of which - except for the C4 - has been banned under the May 1st, 2020 OIC...  no one would dare!



Sorry.  Forgot.  Canada.  No lawbreakers here.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Haggis said:


> Is this meant to infer that we are capable only of seeing an insurgency or terrorist attack as "near peer"?
> 
> All you need is big trucks and a bouncy castle or two, apparently
> 
> The possession of which - except for the C4 - has been banned under the May 1st, 2020 OIC...  no one would dare!


god forbid you bought a empty LAW tube back in the day from the surplus store, because fibreglass are to dangerous in the public hands.


----------



## Retired AF Guy

KevinB said:


> The difference is, if our chicken coop shits the bed - everyone is FUBAR.
> 
> We share a land border - it is much easier to get stuff to Canada in a time of need that way - as opposed to getting stuff from Europe.





Furniture said:


> I think the concern is more that political games could see us denied access to support and parts. A softwood lumber dispute could turn into no more spares for any of our kit as a way to force us to do what the USA wants.


Furniture beat me to it! Six-seven years ago I would have said we can trust the United States to help us out, but then Donald Trump** came along and kicked over the apple cart. And unfortunately, Joe Biden in my opinion isn't much better. Right now,  it appears the US is going through a "US first" phase and like Furniture said its not inconceivable that a future US President (a re-elected Trump!!) using defence procurement as trade tool against Canada. That is why I say diversify our defence procurement, just like we should diversify our economy.

** Actually, it might have started with Obama; there was no reason to cancel Keystone XL then to sharpen his credentials among the progressive wing  of the Democratic Party.


----------



## KevinB

The one thing you can count on from us, is not screwing defense contracts.


----------



## Good2Golf

Retired AF Guy said:


> Furniture beat me to it! Six-seven years ago I would have said we can trust the United States to help us out, but then Donald Trump** came along and kicked over the apple cart. And unfortunately, Joe Biden in my opinion isn't much better. Right now,  it appears the US is going through a "US first" phase and like Furniture said its not inconceivable that a future US President (a re-elected Trump!!) using defence procurement as trade tool against Canada. That is why I say diversify our defence procurement, just like we should diversify our economy.
> 
> ** Actually, it might have started with Obama; there was no reason to cancel Keystone XL then to sharpen his credentials among the progressive wing  of the Democratic Party.


…so long as we keep scraping the closet for a measly 1.3%GDP for Defence and keep riding on America’s defense coattails, we can probably expect the same treatment from them…and arguably deservedly so…


----------



## Retired AF Guy

Good2Golf said:


> …so long as we keep scraping the closet for a measly 1.3%GDP for Defence and keep riding on America’s defense coattails, we can probably expect the same treatment from them…and arguably deservedly so…


And you are so, so right..


----------



## Kilted

Retired AF Guy said:


> Furniture beat me to it! Six-seven years ago I would have said we can trust the United States to help us out, but then Donald Trump** came along and kicked over the apple cart. And unfortunately, Joe Biden in my opinion isn't much better. Right now,  it appears the US is going through a "US first" phase and like Furniture said its not inconceivable that a future US President (a re-elected Trump!!) using defence procurement as trade tool against Canada. That is why I say diversify our defence procurement, just like we should diversify our economy.
> 
> ** Actually, it might have started with Obama; there was no reason to cancel Keystone XL then to sharpen his credentials among the progressive wing  of the Democratic Party.


I'm just going to say one thing....CANZUK.


----------



## suffolkowner

Unless Trudeau personally pushes the grocery cart up and down the aisles of the US MIC pretty hard to see how we can effectively boost our spending on equipment considering it takes at least a  good(read bad) 15 yrs to procure major capital projects and even some little projects that I am familiar with take 5 yrs. Its going to be a long process the way we are going


----------



## daftandbarmy

suffolkowner said:


> Unless Trudeau personally pushes the grocery cart up and down the aisles of the US MIC pretty hard to see how we can effectively boost our spending on equipment considering it takes at least a  good(read bad) 15 yrs to procure major capital projects and even some little projects that I am familiar with take 5 yrs. Its going to be a long process the way we are going



Dude, he's got more important things to do these days


----------



## suffolkowner

He has to check which way the wind is blowing first


----------



## Kirkhill

Colin Parkinson said:


> god forbid you bought a empty LAW tube back in the day from the surplus store, because fibreglass are to dangerous in the public hands.



It could never happen in Canada.  But it might happen on the Malahat.



			https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/military-rocket-launcher-found-near-victoria-1.867896


----------



## Kirkhill

Retired AF Guy said:


> Furniture beat me to it! Six-seven years ago I would have said we can trust the United States to help us out, but then Donald Trump** came along and kicked over the apple cart. And unfortunately, Joe Biden in my opinion isn't much better. Right now,  it appears the US is going through a "US first" phase and like Furniture said its not inconceivable that a future US President (a re-elected Trump!!) using defence procurement as trade tool against Canada. That is why I say diversify our defence procurement, just like we should diversify our economy.
> 
> ** Actually, it might have started with Obama; there was no reason to cancel Keystone XL then to sharpen his credentials among the progressive wing  of the Democratic Party.



Actually



> TIL President Johnson once grabbed Canadian Prime Minister Pearson by the lapels and shouted: "Don't you come into my living room and piss on my rug" after a disagreement about Vietnam war


----------



## TacticalTea

Derp


----------



## Kirkhill

TacticalTea said:


> The problem here was definitely PET!
> 
> LBJ was quite the character hah!



Take another read.  

LBJ was roughing up our very own Peacekeeper in Chief - Lester B. Pearson.


----------



## dapaterson

Diefenbaker and Kennedy also had less than cordial relations.  Canadian PMs do not, as a rule, have good personal relationships with POTUS.


----------



## TacticalTea

Kirkhill said:


> Take another read.
> 
> LBJ was roughing up our very own Peacekeeper in Chief - Lester B. Pearson.


Ope, ya, my bad, guess I should put on my glasses


----------



## FJAG

BirdGunner96 said:


> As the name states, I am a recently retired Air Defender ( 6 months free). It has been like pushing a wet rope up a hill for the past 12 years, or if you like, pounding you head against wall! Have the white hat, was the first Canadian on the year long AD GCC course in the UK, went from zero to hero on  Rapier FSC , HVM StarStreak LML+ Stormer platform. As well qualified Javelin S-15, 35mm Gun/Skyguard and ADATS. It is so unfortunate that Putin's megalomania has initiated this conversation, there have been pers in the CF advocating very hard for some form of AD. Unfortunately, as we stated 12 years ago, keep it a separate trade " Black beret Strat, Blue beret Air Force or even Navy" , as long it as far away from the Royal Regiment of Artillery as possible, cross training/ streaming should never had been an option. The only accomplishment was to produce more Officer / MWO (if you speak french positions). Take some of the numerous  Reserve Arty Units (LG 1, C2), equip them with BV206, quads and a MANPAD system. Sry, rant over.


Sorry for backsliding to this post again from yesterday. 

I just wanted to add on that I was looking through some reference material of mine and found a presentation going back to an Artillery Working Group of Oct 2006 which identified that the Air Defence Officer MOSID, alongside HUMINT, Int and several others were considered by the Army to be "distressed" classification and that there was a critical shortage which required the career manager to repatriate AD officers to AD units. Interestingly this is shortly after the AD branch was downsized and the ResF component sent back to the gun lines. That's a bit of a paradox as one would think that if the branch was contracting then there ought to be a surplus of officers (although this is also the time we stood up another 9 FOOs, extra folks in the FSCCs and started converting a battery to STA. It was a bit of a furball.

I hope to find out where those PYs went. At the moment I'm guessing that CMTC and the .COMs had a lot to do with that.

🍻


----------



## Maxman1

TacticalTea said:


> Huh? It's from Global News, not G&M



My bad, I misread the source.


----------



## Retired AF Guy

dapaterson said:


> Diefenbaker and Kennedy also had less than cordial relations.  Canadian PMs do not, as a rule, have good personal relationships with POTUS.


Except for Mulroney and Reagan.


----------



## Weinie

Retired AF Guy said:


> Except for Mulroney and Reagan.


"When Irish Eyes Are Smiling."

when Irish eyes are smiling mulroney and reagan - Bing video


----------



## TacticalTea

Weinie said:


> "When Irish Eyes Are Smiling."
> 
> when Irish eyes are smiling mulroney and reagan - Bing video


Your link didn't work for me so here's one from youtube


----------



## MilEME09

Well now, even the CBC says we are poorly equipped.....



			https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ukraine-russia-shoulder-mounted-missile-tank-javelin-stinger-1.6389525


----------



## FJAG

MilEME09 said:


> Well now, even the CBC says we are poorly equipped.....
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ukraine-russia-shoulder-mounted-missile-tank-javelin-stinger-1.6389525


How would they know? That would take investigative reporting. Not their strong suit.

🍻


----------



## Gunnar

FJAG said:


> How would they know? That would take investigative reporting. Not their strong suit.


The same way they know anything?  They’ve been told by their political masters to shape public opinion?  This could actually be good news.


----------



## The Bread Guy

More from the bough-and-paid-for media:  *"The war in Ukraine could force Canada to shed its self-image as a peacekeeper"*

#DareToDream


----------



## GK .Dundas

The Bread Guy said:


> More from the bough-and-paid-for media:  *"The war in Ukraine could force Canada to shed its self-image as a peacekeeper"*
> 
> #DareToDream


To be honest it's a fairly accurate,appraisal of both Putin and the West's rather naive view of him and war.


----------



## OldSolduer

Gunnar said:


> The same way they know anything?  They’ve been told by their political masters to shape public opinion?  This could actually be good news.


The same way dictators tell Pravda what to report.


----------



## GK .Dundas

The last western journalists in  Maripoul (sp?) were from Associated Press . The reason they left was that they realised that the Russians were actively and quite deliberately hunting them.
Guess Vlad doesn't want any witnesses?


----------



## daftandbarmy

I wonder what might come out of this latest trip, if anything, apart from some mutual tut tutting, hand wringing and virtue signalling. I can't see Canada coming off well unless the PM is willing to bring some bigger military commitments to the table:


Prime Minister to travel to Belgium to meet with allies and partners to continue addressing Russia’s invasion of Ukraine​

The Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, will travel to Brussels, Belgium, from March 23 to 25, 2022, to engage with European Union, NATO and G7 leaders to build on our coordinated response to Russia’s illegal and unjustifiable invasion of Ukraine.

On March 23, the Prime Minister will address the European Parliament where he will speak on peace and security, defending democracy, and transatlantic cooperation for the benefit of people in Canada and the European Union. This will be the Prime Minister’s second address to the European Parliament on the close Canada-European Union partnership.

On March 24, the Prime Minister will meet with leaders from Allied countries at the NATO Summit to further coordinate support for Ukraine, and discuss further strengthening NATO’s deterrence and defence measures.

The Prime Minister will then attend the G7 Heads of State and Government Meeting where leaders will discuss the current situation in Ukraine and its wider global impacts, including food security and energy supply.

While in Belgium, Prime Minister Trudeau will meet with the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen.









						Prime Minister to travel to Belgium to meet with allies and partners to continue addressing Russia’s invasion of Ukraine
					

On March 23, the Prime Minister will address the European Parliament where he will speak on peace and security, defending democracy, and transatlantic cooperation for the benefit of people in Canada and the European Union. This will be the Prime Minister’s second address to the European...




					pm.gc.ca


----------



## Good2Golf

I hope he’s not as ineloquent and preachy as Bob Rae was at the UNGA…

#preparedfordisappointmentandembarrasment


----------



## Quirky

European Word Salad Tour 2022.

Canada can't contribute anymore weapons, aid or substantial military assistance. Words, thoughts and telling Europeans how to conduct diplomacy is Canada now. I highly doubt anyone cares what Trudeau has to say.


----------



## Good2Golf

Quirky, I think you accidentally mis-spelled “Word Salad” 😉


----------



## Remius

Canada will likely be telling its partners about plans to increase defence spending.  

But the devil is in the details.  What are we going to be spending it on and when?


----------



## rmc_wannabe

Empty promises and empty words, that's all I'm expecting. Be prepared for us to no longer have a seat at the grown ups table.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

rmc_wannabe said:


> Empty promises and empty words, that's all I'm expecting. Be prepared for us to no longer have a seat at the grown ups table.


Especially with the new Coalition that's forming, apparently to keep PMJT in power until 2025.

The focus of the current administration will be on continuation of bread and circus for the masses at the expense of other portfolios 😉


----------



## OldSolduer

Remius said:


> Canada will likely be telling its partners about plans to increase defence spending.
> 
> But the devil is in the details.  What are we going to be spending it on and when?


I can tell you all I want that I plan to be an astronaut but action is what counts.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

OldSolduer said:


> I can tell you all I want that I plan to be an astronaut but action is what counts.


I think everyone at one point said they wanted to be an astronaut 😁


----------



## OldSolduer

Humphrey Bogart said:


> I think everyone at one point said they wanted to be an astronaut 😁


I did actually but eating crayons 🖍  got in the way


----------



## Halifax Tar

daftandbarmy said:


> I wonder what might come out of this latest trip, if anything, apart from some mutual tut tutting, hand wringing and virtue signalling. I can't see Canada coming off well unless the PM is willing to bring some bigger military commitments to the table:
> 
> 
> Prime Minister to travel to Belgium to meet with allies and partners to continue addressing Russia’s invasion of Ukraine​
> 
> The Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, will travel to Brussels, Belgium, from March 23 to 25, 2022, to engage with European Union, NATO and G7 leaders to build on our coordinated response to Russia’s illegal and unjustifiable invasion of Ukraine.
> 
> On March 23, the Prime Minister will address the European Parliament where he will speak on peace and security, defending democracy, and transatlantic cooperation for the benefit of people in Canada and the European Union. This will be the Prime Minister’s second address to the European Parliament on the close Canada-European Union partnership.
> 
> On March 24, the Prime Minister will meet with leaders from Allied countries at the NATO Summit to further coordinate support for Ukraine, and discuss further strengthening NATO’s deterrence and defence measures.
> 
> The Prime Minister will then attend the G7 Heads of State and Government Meeting where leaders will discuss the current situation in Ukraine and its wider global impacts, including food security and energy supply.
> 
> While in Belgium, Prime Minister Trudeau will meet with the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prime Minister to travel to Belgium to meet with allies and partners to continue addressing Russia’s invasion of Ukraine
> 
> 
> On March 23, the Prime Minister will address the European Parliament where he will speak on peace and security, defending democracy, and transatlantic cooperation for the benefit of people in Canada and the European Union. This will be the Prime Minister’s second address to the European...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pm.gc.ca



The best thing our allies could do would be to ignore us.  That might stir things up.


----------



## Remius

OldSolduer said:


> I can tell you all I want that I plan to be an astronaut but action is what counts.


If we can accelerate and invest in immediate needs that will be a start.  Tangible action like bypassing the normal procurement BS and get things we need right now.  Get NVGs for every combat arms troop, accelerate pistol acquisition, get radios for dismounted troops and buy a bunch of man portable AT systems.  Easy fast wins.  Increase numbers and focus everything on training.   Settle the F35 thing now and revisit the continental anti ballistic missile system position.   Lots of low hanging fruit that can fix a lot of our issues. 

I agree, long term promises with no effect and can be changed on a whim means nothing.


----------



## OldSolduer

Remius said:


> If we can accelerate and invest in immediate needs that will be a start.  Tangible action like bypassing the normal procurement BS and get things we need right now.  Get NVGs for every combat arms troop, accelerate pistol acquisition, get radios for dismounted troops and buy a bunch of man portable AT systems.  Easy fast wins.  Increase numbers and focus everything on training.   Settle the F35 thing now and revisit the continental anti ballistic missile system position.   Lots of low hanging fruit that can fix a lot of our issues.
> 
> I agree, long term promises with no effect and can be changed on a whim means nothing.


You’re asking for more than JT wants to give


----------



## Good2Golf

Halifax Tar said:


> The best thing our allies could do would be to ignore us.  That might stir things up.


I’d actually love to see them literally set up a separate, small table for Canada to sit by itself.


----------



## Halifax Tar

I would love that.


----------



## Remius

OldSolduer said:


> You’re asking for more than JT wants to give


I don’t care what he wants.  I’m looking to Anand and Freyland.  The actual adults in the room.


----------



## FSTO

Good2Golf said:


> I’d actually love to see them literally set up a separate, small table for Canada to sit by itself.


Make Canada sit with Iceland. No scratch that, at least Iceland has no illusions and would likely be insulted that they had the freeloaders of freeloaders foisted upon them.


----------



## Jarnhamar

I watched the Prime Ministers address this morning about the Liberal-NDP tag team. It sounded like someone asked about reaching NATOs 2% GDP goal and the Prime Minister completely danced around it and didn't answer. I wonder why?

New dental care program
Universal national pharmacare program    
Measures aimed at affordability and housing costs i
Early Learning and Child Care Act’;
Proceed with policies and programs meant to target climate change;
10-day paid sick leave policy 
Invest more in Indigenous reconciliation including supporting residential school survivors;
improving mail-in balloting and potentially allowing a three-day voting period.

With all the very expensive promises the LPC made the NDP for their support the money has to come from somewhere.

I have a feeling we might go with option "don't reach 2% GDP"


----------



## Kirkhill

Remius said:


> I don’t care what he wants.  I’m looking to Anand and Freyland.  The actual adults in the room.


We can hope.

On the other hand, Joly and Trudeau (Edit: and Singh).


----------



## dimsum

Jarnhamar said:


> I watched the Prime Ministers address this morning about the Liberal-NDP tag team. It sounded like someone asked about reaching NATOs 2% GDP goal and the Prime Minister completely danced around it and didn't answer. I wonder why?
> 
> New dental care program
> Universal national pharmacare program
> Measures aimed at affordability and housing costs i
> Early Learning and Child Care Act’;
> Proceed with policies and programs meant to target climate change;
> 10-day paid sick leave policy
> Invest more in Indigenous reconciliation including supporting residential school survivors;
> improving mail-in balloting and potentially allowing a three-day voting period.
> 
> With all the very expensive promises the LPC made the NDP for their support the money has to come from somewhere.
> 
> I have a feeling we might go with option "don't reach 2% GDP"


I'll play slight Devil's Advocate:

If I weren't in the military, those top 3 things would make or break who I voted for.  Hell, even with me being in the military, I think those are very important issues to tackle - maybe even beyond the defence budget.  

If I were asked right now whether those top 3 things were more important than raising the DND budget, I'd probably agree.  I'm sure that Joe Bloggins who has zero military connection would definitely agree.

Some in CAF Reddit have said (not incorrectly) that it's not just how much money, but _how we spend the money we're given_.  If we're still wasting and/or giving back funds then what's the point of increasing funds?  If procurement processes are still slow, and the same detractors for service in the CAF are still there, does it really matter if Canada goes up to 2% GDP or not?


----------



## YZT580

dimsum said:


> I'll play slight Devil's Advocate:
> 
> If I weren't in the military, those top 3 things would make or break who I voted for.  Hell, even with me being in the military, I think those are very important issues to tackle - maybe even beyond the defence budget.
> 
> If I were asked right now whether those top 3 things were more important than raising the DND budget, I'd probably agree.  I'm sure that Joe Bloggins who has zero military connection would definitely agree.
> 
> Some in CAF Reddit have said (not incorrectly) that it's not just how much money, but _how we spend the money we're given_.  If we're still wasting and/or giving back funds then what's the point of increasing funds?  If procurement processes are still slow, and the same detractors for service in the CAF are still there, does it really matter if Canada goes up to 2% GDP or not?


even without the add-ons, the NDP are definitely not pro military.  My guess is an increase in budget with the purchasing kicking in after 2025


----------



## Brad Sallows

Given the shopping list negotiated to keep the government in office until 2025 and the likelihood that base interest rate increases are going to influence the cost of rolling over government debt, the likelihood of meaningful increased military spending making the cut is pretty small.


----------



## McG

Remius said:


> Get NVGs for every combat arms troop ...


This is the way we do our shopping on the cheap, and it is why we will be in trouble if we get into a peer fight. Our A Ech, B Ech, and formation level support will get no night vision, a quarter of the required radios, antiquated trucks, and armoured vehicles fitted but not with weapon systems. Stop thinking in ways that give goodies for the F ech and nothing for the rest.  If the service battalion cannot kill Spetsnaz at night, then Spetsnaz will kill service battalions at night.  Radios, weapons, and night vision need to be pervasive through a field brigade and not exclusive goodies of combat arms.


----------



## Remius

McG said:


> This is the way we do our shopping on the cheap, and it is why we will be in trouble if we get into a peer fight. Our A Ech, B Ech, and formation level support will get no night vision, a quarter of the required radios, antiquated trucks, and armoured vehicles fitted but not with weapon systems. Stop thinking in ways that give goodies for the F ech and nothing for the rest.  If the service battalion cannot kill Spetsnaz at night, then Spetsnaz will kill service battalions at night.  Radios, weapons, and night vision need to be pervasive through a field brigade and not exclusive goodies of combat arms.


 I only listed a few items off the cuff that would be easily purchased and acquired not the be all end all.    Of course equip the rest.  Equip the whole army with those things.  I’m not advocating making this a combat arms only thing.


----------



## OldSolduer

McG said:


> This is the way we do our shopping on the cheap, and it is why we will be in trouble if we get into a peer fight. Our A Ech, B Ech, and formation level support will get no night vision, a quarter of the required radios, antiquated trucks, and armoured vehicles fitted but not with weapon systems. Stop thinking in ways that give goodies for the F ech and nothing for the rest.  If the service battalion cannot kill Spetsnaz at night, then Spetsnaz will kill service battalions at night.  Radios, weapons, and night vision need to be pervasive through a field brigade and not exclusive goodies of combat arms.


And the requisite training as well. And a mindset that says “we can do this “


----------



## OldSolduer

YZT580 said:


> even without the add-ons, the NDP are definitely not pro military.  My guess is an increase in budget with the purchasing kicking in after 2025


The NDP are nothing but Communists who aren’t in a hurry.


----------



## rmc_wannabe

Jarnhamar said:


> I watched the Prime Ministers address this morning about the Liberal-NDP tag team. It sounded like someone asked about reaching NATOs 2% GDP goal and the Prime Minister completely danced around it and didn't answer. I wonder why?
> 
> New dental care program
> Universal national pharmacare program
> Measures aimed at affordability and housing costs i
> Early Learning and Child Care Act’;
> Proceed with policies and programs meant to target climate change;
> 10-day paid sick leave policy
> Invest more in Indigenous reconciliation including supporting residential school survivors;
> improving mail-in balloting and potentially allowing a three-day voting period.
> 
> With all the very expensive promises the LPC made the NDP for their support the money has to come from somewhere.
> 
> I have a feeling we might go with option "don't reach 2% GDP"


I think that this announcement will lead to a lot of finger pointing in Brussels. This might be a blessing in disguise.

Hard to claim empty pockets to your insurance company, when you're doing a multi-billion dollar home reno...


----------



## McG

Remius said:


> I only listed a few items off the cuff that would be easily purchased and acquired not the be all end all.    Of course equip the rest.  Equip the whole army with those things.  I’m not advocating making this a combat arms only thing.


Okay. In the army project world, if someone says “we’ll buy X for the infantry” then right from the start “for the infantry” becomes a constraint and the project scope will never be allowed to increase to address other users’ needs for X.  Worse, the fact that we just bought X will become an argument against creating a second project to by X for other users who need it.


----------



## TacticalTea

dimsum said:


> I'll play slight Devil's Advocate:
> 
> If I weren't in the military, those top 3 things would make or break who I voted for.  Hell, even with me being in the military, I think those are very important issues to tackle - maybe even beyond the defence budget.
> 
> If I were asked right now whether those top 3 things were more important than raising the DND budget, I'd probably agree.  I'm sure that Joe Bloggins who has zero military connection would definitely agree.
> 
> Some in CAF Reddit have said (not incorrectly) that it's not just how much money, but _how we spend the money we're given_.  If we're still wasting and/or giving back funds then what's the point of increasing funds?  If procurement processes are still slow, and the same detractors for service in the CAF are still there, does it really matter if Canada goes up to 2% GDP or not?


Those are provincial issues. Even military matters notwithstanding, they'll be reason enough for me to vote out the government. We have a constitution, respect it.

The only one I'd tolerate is temporary federal intervention in housing, because there does seem to be a housing crisis. Just like I'd support federal intervention wrt to the opioids crisis.



OldSolduer said:


> The NDP are nothing but Communists who aren’t in a hurry.


It sounds harsh but it's true. You have anything deeper than a superficial conversation with the average NDP voter and the communism eventually shows its face.


----------



## KevinB

McG said:


> Okay. In the army project world, if someone says “we’ll buy X for the infantry” then right from the start “for the infantry” becomes a constraint and the project scope will never be allowed to increase to address other users’ needs for X.  Worse, the fact that we just bought X will become an argument against creating a second project to by X for other users who need it.


BNVDFORGEN


----------



## KevinB

Jarnhamar said:


> I watched the Prime Ministers address this morning about the Liberal-NDP tag team. It sounded like someone asked about reaching NATOs 2% GDP goal and the Prime Minister completely danced around it and didn't answer. I wonder why?
> 
> New dental care program
> Universal national pharmacare program
> Measures aimed at affordability and housing costs i
> Early Learning and Child Care Act’;
> Proceed with policies and programs meant to target climate change;
> 10-day paid sick leave policy
> Invest more in Indigenous reconciliation including supporting residential school survivors;
> improving mail-in balloting and potentially allowing a three-day voting period.
> 
> With all the very expensive promises the LPC made the NDP for their support the money has to come from somewhere.
> 
> I have a feeling we might go with option "don't reach 2% GDP"


You forgot the last item - Russian Language classes...

 Canada is building a wonderful glass house - when everyone else is picking up rocks.


----------



## Jarnhamar

dimsum said:


> I'll play slight Devil's Advocate:
> 
> If I weren't in the military, those top 3 things would make or break who I voted for.  Hell, even with me being in the military, I think those are very important issues to tackle - maybe even beyond the defence budget.
> 
> If I were asked right now whether those top 3 things were more important than raising the DND budget, I'd probably agree.  I'm sure that Joe Bloggins who has zero military connection would definitely agree.
> 
> Some in CAF Reddit have said (not incorrectly) that it's not just how much money, but _how we spend the money we're given_.  If we're still wasting and/or giving back funds then what's the point of increasing funds?  If procurement processes are still slow, and the same detractors for service in the CAF are still there, does it really matter if Canada goes up to 2% GDP or not?



Cometely agree with everything you said.

What's happening in Ukraine is terrible, but not having  $10 day care, a dental plan, and affordable housing is more terrible. 

Hard to disagree when you brought up another great point. If we're already wasting money, giving back money, and shitting the procurement bed what will more money do? 


All that to say the "time to get serious about defense" talk from the government is hollow.


----------



## Brad Sallows

So there's high confidence that dental services won't turn into walk-in clinics and wait lists, then?


----------



## OldSolduer

And to add Communists are those that are jealous of anyone who has anything valuable - except for their cronies - and want to rob you of it - legally of course while telling you it’s for your own good.


----------



## Jarnhamar

McG said:


> If the service battalion cannot kill Spetsnaz at night, then Spetsnaz will kill service battalions at night.  Radios, weapons, and night vision need to be pervasive through a field brigade and not exclusive goodies of combat arms.



I still think CAF members should be issued personal weapons they retain throughout their career. Likewise in most cases with STANO.


----------



## dimsum

Jarnhamar said:


> I still think CAF members should be issued personal weapons they retain throughout their career. Likewise in most cases with STANO.


That might be feasible with the Army and certain parts of the Air Force (even then, probably a stretch), but I can't see that working out on a ship.


----------



## Jarnhamar

dimsum said:


> That might be feasible with the Army and certain parts of the Air Force (even then, probably a stretch), but I can't see that working out on a ship.


How come? (never been on a ship)


----------



## Weinie

Good2Golf said:


> I’d actually love to see them literally set up a separate, small table for Canada to sit by itself.


And the table would be turned around, pointing into the carbon-free future corner.


----------



## Brad Sallows

I suppose that most progressives in Canada have no intention of getting to (true) communism.  The closest they want to approach is a hefty welfare state, with themselves in charge, living comfortably.  If they even went as far as the USSR, they'd still intend to be part of the dacha-owning class; it would not do to merely live in a state-assigned apartment like everyone else.  They could do that right now, if that was truly where their political/social sentiments lie.  They could wear baggy, ill-fitting suits; take another look at our leaders.   I've never had to scratch one very deeply to find someone who thinks he "deserves" everything he's been able to achieve on the foundation of winning the birth lottery for aptitude with language and/or numbers.  Just observe one long enough to see what he says about people born less fortunate in that respect.


----------



## OldSolduer

Brad Sallows said:


> I suppose that most progressives in Canada have no intention of getting to (true) communism.  The closest they want to approach is a hefty welfare state, with themselves in charge, living comfortably.  If they even went as far as the USSR, they'd still intend to be part of the dacha-owning class; it would not do to merely live in a state-assigned apartment like everyone else.  They could do that right now, if that was truly where their political/social sentiments lie.  They could wear baggy, ill-fitting suits; take another look at our leaders.   I've never had to scratch one very deeply to find someone who thinks he "deserves" everything he's been able to achieve on the foundation of winning the birth lottery for aptitude with language and/or numbers.  Just observe one long enough to see what he says about people born less fortunate in that respect.


You’ve described Soviet Communism very well. When the “progressives” start rebelling then that’s when the secret policeman’s knock happens….


----------



## Weinie

Brad Sallows said:


> I suppose that most progressives in Canada have no intention of getting to (true) communism.  The closest they want to approach is a hefty welfare state, with themselves in charge, living comfortably.  If they even went as far as the USSR, they'd still intend to be part of the dacha-owning class; it would not do to merely live in a state-assigned apartment like everyone else.  They could do that right now, if that was truly where their political/social sentiments lie.  They could wear baggy, ill-fitting suits; take another look at our leaders.   I've never had to scratch one very deeply to find someone who thinks he "deserves" everything he's been able to achieve on the foundation of winning the birth lottery for aptitude with language and/or numbers.  Just observe one long enough to see what he says about people born less fortunate in that respect.


This. Them vs. Us


----------



## Halifax Tar

Jarnhamar said:


> How come? (never been on a ship)



Space.


----------



## Kirkhill

Halifax Tar said:


> Space.



Bigger ships.  With lockers.  And separate heads.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Kirkhill said:


> Bigger ships.  With lockers.  And separate heads.



And sharks with frickin lazers.... I'll believe it when I see it...


----------



## Remius

Halifax Tar said:


> And sharks with frickin lazers.... I'll believe it when I see it...


Small submersibles.  One per man.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Halifax Tar said:


> Space.


If sailors don't bring personal weapons on to a ship could they store them at their respective HQs and CQ buildings?


----------



## Halifax Tar

Jarnhamar said:


> If sailors don't bring personal weapons on to a ship could they store them at their respective HQs and CQ buildings?



That capacity would be more doable.  But the space currently does not exist so either we need to create new vaults or steal space and convert.  

Honestly I'm not sure it's necessary.  I think equalizing SA proficiency and marksmanship with fitness requirements would be adequate. 

A simple emphasis on basic operation and marksmanship on the standard service rifle and side arm would be adequate.


----------



## Quirky

Jarnhamar said:


> I still think CAF members should be issued personal weapons they retain throughout their career. Likewise in most cases with STANO.


HANDGUNFORGEN?

While I agree with the concept, I wouldn't trust some people with a screw driver, nevermind an issued pistol. I wouldn't give our members that much personal responsibility. It's why we have a tool control program and even with all the policies in place, planes still go flying with wrenches in internal compartments.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Halifax Tar said:


> That capacity would be more doable.  But the space currently does not exist so either we need to create new vaults or steal space and convert.
> 
> Honestly I'm not sure it's necessary.  I think equalizing SA proficiency and marksmanship with fitness requirements would be adequate.
> 
> A simple emphasis on basic operation and marksmanship on the standard service rifle and side arm would be adequate.


The problem is a lot of CAF members treat their weapons and equipment like trash. There's no accountability. They'll hand carry their personal laptops or game consoles like a first born child but throw and pile their rifles in the back of a truck like firewood.

There's been a few times my unit's been told to hand over STANO to the reserves to support their summer training and the kit comes back absolutely trashed and missing parts. Other reg force units aren't as bad in my experience (likely due to the close proximity of the lenders) but the same shit still happens.

Finding space would be easy, just make it a no fail task


----------



## Kilted

FSTO said:


> Make Canada sit with Iceland. No scratch that, at least Iceland has no illusions and would likely be insulted that they had the freeloaders of freeloaders foisted upon them.


They are also one of the few countries to have ever been occupied by Canada.


----------



## dapaterson

Jarnhamar said:


> There's been a few times my unit's been told to hand over STANO to the reserves to support their summer training and the kit comes back absolutely trashed and missing parts. Other reg force units aren't as bad in my experience (likely due to the close proximity of the lenders) but the same shit still happens.


Having been on the other side, lending eqpt to the Reg F from a Res F unit, let me reassure you that it works both ways.


----------



## OldSolduer

dapaterson said:


> Having been on the other side, lending eqpt to the Reg F from a Res F unit, let me reassure you that it works both ways.


Bingo!!!!


----------



## IKnowNothing

OldSolduer said:


> The NDP are nothing but Communists who aren’t in a hurry.



It's funny.  I (and I don't think you) would consider the Scandinavian social democracies Communists, and a lot of the program initiatives that the NDP pushes would fit well with that model being the "goal"-  and personally that's a goal I whole heartedly agree with.  

But there's just a sort of- idealistic out of touchness- about the NDP that I detest.


----------



## Brad Sallows

Not much point being strongly committed to supplying tasked eqpt in working order with full EIS if the school staff responsible aren't as committed to returning it in same condition.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Jarnhamar said:


> The problem is a lot of CAF members treat their weapons and equipment like trash. There's no accountability. They'll hand carry their personal laptops or game consoles like a first born child but throw and pile their rifles in the back of a truck like firewood.
> 
> There's been a few times my unit's been told to hand over STANO to the reserves to support their summer training and the kit comes back absolutely trashed and missing parts. Other reg force units aren't as bad in my experience (likely due to the close proximity of the lenders) but the same shit still happens.
> 
> Finding space would be easy, just make it a no fail task



The key word is accountability.  We have policy for this.


----------



## dimsum

Jarnhamar said:


> If sailors don't bring personal weapons on to a ship could they store them at their respective HQs and CQ buildings?


Wouldn't that defeat the purpose of having it with them?  The ship _is_ the HQ/CQ, for all intents and purposes, for most of the ship's company.  

Unless you were going to exchange clothing or go a higher-level admin office (I believe CPFs handle their pay and admin internally, but MCDV folks went to the Naval Reserve Coordination Centre), most sailors have almost no need to go outside the ship for work stuff.


----------



## Retired AF Guy

KevinB said:


> You forgot the last item - Russian Language classes...
> 
> Canada is building a wonderful glass house - when everyone else is picking up rocks.


Considering PMJT love of all things Chinese I would think Chinese language lessons more appropriate.


----------



## Jarnhamar

dimsum said:


> Wouldn't that defeat the purpose of having it with them?  The ship _is_ the HQ/CQ, for all intents and purposes, for most of the ship's company.
> 
> Unless you were going to exchange clothing or go a higher-level admin office (I believe CPFs handle their pay and admin internally, but MCDV folks went to the Naval Reserve Coordination Centre), most sailors have almost no need to go outside the ship for work stuff.


I'm not sure how ships work but if sailors all have access to firearms on a ship then absolutely. Bring them on and store them.


----------



## Jarnhamar

dapaterson said:


> Having been on the other side, lending eqpt to the Reg F from a Res F unit, let me reassure you that it works both ways.


I believe it, 100%.


----------



## dimsum

Jarnhamar said:


> I'm not sure how ships work but if sailors all have access to firearms on a ship then absolutely. Bring them on and store them.


Which, again, brings up the issue of space to correctly store them (and ammo).  Space is surprisingly tight on a warship.  Also, small arms lockers are locked.  Unless you're suggesting that those should not be locked...

Also, I generally hate to bring it up but I think it's warranted in this case:  Aside from NTOG, NST, and boarding party, why should sailors realistically need to have their own issued sidearm?  If you're down to using your C7 or 9mm onboard your own ship, something very bad has happened already.


----------



## OldSolduer

dimsum said:


> If you're down to using your C7 or 9mm onboard your own ship, something very bad has happened already.


Absolutely. Good point.


----------



## Jarnhamar

dimsum said:


> Which, again, brings up the issue of space to correctly store them (and ammo).  Space is surprisingly tight on a warship.  Also, small arms lockers are locked.  Unless you're suggesting that those should not be locked...
> 
> Also, I generally hate to bring it up but I think it's warranted in this case:  Aside from NTOG, NST, and boarding party, why should sailors realistically need to have their own issued sidearm?  If you're down to using your C7 or 9mm onboard your own ship, something very bad has happened already.


Thats fair, it could very well not be a tenable idea for the Navy.


----------



## Weinie

Halifax Tar said:


> The key word is accountability.  We have policy for this.,* but rarely apply or enforce it.*


FTFY.


----------



## Kirkhill

Jarnhamar said:


> Thats fair, it could very well not be a tenable idea for the Navy.



Store them with the belaying pins, cutlasses and boarding pikes.


----------



## KevinB

Jarnhamar said:


> The problem is a lot of CAF members treat their weapons and equipment like trash. There's no accountability. They'll hand carry their personal laptops or game consoles like a first born child but throw and pile their rifles in the back of a truck like firewood.
> 
> There's been a few times my unit's been told to hand over STANO to the reserves to support their summer training and the kit comes back absolutely trashed and missing parts. Other reg force units aren't as bad in my experience (likely due to the close proximity of the lenders) but the same shit still happens.
> 
> Finding space would be easy, just make it a no fail task


Dude - you tag all your shit N/S when a big ask like that comes in....
   😎


----------



## SupersonicMax

Jarnhamar said:


> I still think CAF members should be issued personal weapons they retain throughout their career. Likewise in most cases with STANO.


I never felt the need to have my own weapon.  I shoot weapons (those that aren’t on aircraft) once a year to get the tick in the box. Even on deployment, its actual utility is debatable.


----------



## Jarnhamar

SupersonicMax said:


> I never felt the need to have my own weapon.  I shoot weapons (those that aren’t on aircraft) once a year to get the tick in the box. Even on deployment, its actual utility is debatable.


You don't think pilots should carry personal weapons when flying over hostile territory?


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

There is very little need for 95% of a Ship's Company to carry a weapon or even have access to one.

Those who need access:

Officer of the Day
Duty Petty Officer
Naval Boarding Party
Deck Department 
Force Protection Component (as required)

The way the small arms locker on board a Frigate at least is setup is as follows:

1.  Dedicated pistols and carbines for the boarding party
2.  Pistols, Rifles, C9s, .50cals that the Ship holds.

There is a Small Arms Custodian (from Deck Dept) who looks after the Locker and will issue the weapons when they are required.

The DPO (or POOW at sea) also carries a key that can open up Small Arms Locker as necessary.

Ammunition is controlled separately from this.  It's set up in a way so no one person can open both the locker and the magazine at the same time.

Very few people actually need to use weapons on Ship.  This is the entire purpose why the Navy has courses like NBP and so that the Ship has specialists who can actually do the jobs when required.  The problem is the Navy doesn't employ these people appropriately.

It's the exact same issue the Army faces with courses like AOA.  We send a MCpl on AOA and then they come back to the unit, are supposed to be a SME at something and the unit/senior leaders don't listen to them due to rank, etc.


----------



## Brad Sallows

> why should sailors realistically need to have their own issued sidearm?



Zombies.  You never know when half the crew is going to turn.


----------



## Haggis

Jarnhamar said:


> There's been a few times my unit's been told to hand over STANO to the reserves to support their summer training and the kit comes back absolutely trashed and missing parts. Other reg force units aren't as bad in my experience (likely due to the close proximity of the lenders) but the same shit still happens.


I cannot count the number of times my unit was ordered to send equipment/weapons/vehicles with full EIS to Maple Whatever, CTC, Storming Bear etc. only to have to come back missing every single piece of EIS and shortly thereafter be declared BER by my support base.


----------



## dimsum

Humphrey Bogart said:


> We send a MCpl on AOA and then they come back to the unit, are supposed to be a SME at something and the unit/senior leaders don't listen to them due to rank, etc.


FFS.  What's the point in sending people to become SMEs if the leadership won't listen to their SME-ness?


----------



## rmc_wannabe

dimsum said:


> FFS.  What's the point in sending people to become SMEs if the leadership won't listen to their SME-ness?


I have spent a career being the SME in the room, watching in abject horror as my CoC does the opposite of what my recommendations were. 

"The Cpl just doesn't understand how his expertise and reality impacts my operational planning process..."


----------



## Halifax Tar

rmc_wannabe said:


> I have spent a career being the SME in the room, watching in abject horror as my CoC does the opposite of what my recommendations were.
> 
> "The Cpl just doesn't understand how his expertise and reality impacts my operational planning process..."



My friend we share the same frustration.  My last ships captain only wanted to talk to officers.  So I would follow my HoD up to his flats filling her ears with all the info I could and giving her any material and then I would pace the flats while I awaited the outcome.  

I really felt bad for her.  She did her best, and was as frustrated as I at it.


----------



## Furniture

rmc_wannabe said:


> I have spent a career being the SME in the room, watching in abject horror as my CoC does the opposite of what my recommendations were.
> 
> "The Cpl just doesn't understand how his expertise and reality impacts my operational planning process..."


Been there, I had a MCDV Captain tell me that "based on his experience" the weather I was briefing wouldn't happen, since "the weather is usually nicer on a more southern route"... What did I know, I was just an air force Cpl? 

They then proceeded to sail into the very storm I briefed them about a few days after leaving Halifax, and encountered 17m significant wave heights.


----------



## Blackadder1916

dimsum said:


> . . .   If you're down to using your C7 or 9mm onboard your own ship, something very bad has happened already.



Or let a cook handle the very bad . . . firearms not necessary.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Brad Sallows said:


> Zombies.  You never know when half the crew is going to turn.



Or there will be a world wide pandemic.


----------



## OldSolduer

Kirkhill said:


> Store them with the belaying pins, cutlasses and boarding pikes.


Hey - can you get me a cutlass on the sly? nudge nudge wink wink


----------



## Weinie

OldSolduer said:


> Hey - can you get me a cutlass on the sly? nudge nudge wink wink


Ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm..........................cutlassssssssses.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

dimsum said:


> I'll play slight Devil's Advocate:
> 
> If I weren't in the military, those top 3 things would make or break who I voted for.  Hell, even with me being in the military, I think those are very important issues to tackle - maybe even beyond the defence budget.
> 
> If I were asked right now whether those top 3 things were more important than raising the DND budget, I'd probably agree.  I'm sure that Joe Bloggins who has zero military connection would definitely agree.
> 
> Some in CAF Reddit have said (not incorrectly) that it's not just how much money, but _how we spend the money we're given_.  If we're still wasting and/or giving back funds then what's the point of increasing funds?  If procurement processes are still slow, and the same detractors for service in the CAF are still there, does it really matter if Canada goes up to 2% GDP or not?


And all of the above just supports the fact we have become a real expensive variant of Government welfare LOL


----------



## SupersonicMax

Jarnhamar said:


> You don't think pilots should carry personal weapons when flying over hostile territory?


Sure. But their utility is fairly limited.  And it doesn’t need to be my own.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Furniture said:


> Been there, I had a MCDV Captain tell me that "based on his experience" the weather I was briefing wouldn't happen, since "the weather is usually nicer on a more southern route"... What did I know, I was just an air force Cpl?
> 
> They then proceeded to sail into the very storm I briefed them about a few days after leaving Halifax, and encountered 17m significant wave heights.



It's OK, no one listened to the Professor either


----------



## dapaterson

daftandbarmy said:


> It's OK, no one listened to the Professor either


Only Ginger is left...






(Well, the Harlem Globetrotters are too, but...)


----------



## GK .Dundas

SupersonicMax said:


> Sure. But their utility is fairly limited.  And it doesn’t need to be my own.





SupersonicMax said:


> Sure. But their utility is fairly limited.  And it doesn’t need to be my own.


Snerk!
Two things, Please remind me of their limited utility when you find yourself on the ground.
Oh and the second thing...Right! Welcome to the Infantry, sir !


----------



## Kilted

dapaterson said:


> Only Ginger is left...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (Well, the Harlem Globetrotters are too, but...)


Yeah, but she was replaced....twice. Now that I think if it, her role was kind of like the CDS.


----------



## Halifax Tar

GK .Dundas said:


> Snerk!
> Two things, Please remind me of their limited utility when you find yourself on the ground.
> Oh and the second thing...Right! Welcome to the Infantry, sir !



I was wondering how long it was going take for this everyone's a rifleman crap to infest this thread.


----------



## SupersonicMax

GK .Dundas said:


> Snerk!
> Two things, Please remind me of their limited utility when you find yourself on the ground.
> Oh and the second thing...Right! Welcome to the Infantry, sir !


Sorry but a 9mm with 2 mags won’t help me too much on the ground. When you read the story of folks that actually ejected over in Iraq and Kosovo, most didn’t even fire a single shot before being captured.


----------



## dimsum

SupersonicMax said:


> Sorry but a 9mm with 2 mags won’t help me too much on the ground. When you read the story of folks that actually ejected over in Iraq and Kosovo, most didn’t even fire a single shot before being captured.


Sounds like you guys need these:









						The USAF Created a Mini Rifle That Fits in Its Ejection Seats
					

This compact M4 carbine helps aircrews stay alive until rescue.




					www.popularmechanics.com


----------



## lenaitch

TacticalTea said:


> *Those are provincial issues*. Even military matters notwithstanding, they'll be reason enough for me to vote out the government. We have a constitution, respect it.
> 
> The only one I'd tolerate is temporary federal intervention in housing, because there does seem to be a housing crisis. Just like I'd support federal intervention wrt to the opioids crisis.
> 
> 
> It sounds harsh but it's true. You have anything deeper than a superficial conversation with the average NDP voter and the communism eventually shows its face.


Only because it has evolved that way.  Other than "quarantine" (federal) and "hospitals" (provincial), anything else to do with healthcare is not mentioned at all in the Constitution.  As in most things, it's complicated:



			The Federal Role in Health and Health Care
		


To get around the perennial 'just give us the money and we'll spend how we like', I saw one analysis (which of course I can't find now) that suggested the feds may go with paying for dental services directly.  If I was a dentist and aware of the massive successes of platforms like Phoenix, I'd be a little concerned.

Pharmacare in terms of a single buyer makes a lot of sense to me, simply from the perspective of buying power..  Regardless, for both, the devil will be in the details.


----------



## Spencer100

lenaitch said:


> Only because it has evolved that way.  Other than "quarantine" (federal) and "hospitals" (provincial), anything else to do with healthcare is not mentioned at all in the Constitution.  As in most things, it's complicated:
> 
> 
> 
> The Federal Role in Health and Health Care
> 
> 
> 
> To get around the perennial 'just give us the money and we'll spend how we like', I saw one analysis (which of course I can't find now) that suggested the feds may go with paying for dental services directly.  If I was a dentist and aware of the massive successes of platforms like Phoenix, I'd be a little concerned.
> 
> Pharmacare in terms of a single buyer makes a lot of sense to me, simply from the perspective of buying power..  Regardless, for both, the devil will be in the details.


Because the Federal government is so good at buying things............


----------



## daftandbarmy

lenaitch said:


> Only because it has evolved that way.  Other than "quarantine" (federal) and "hospitals" (provincial), anything else to do with healthcare is not mentioned at all in the Constitution.  As in most things, it's complicated:
> 
> 
> 
> The Federal Role in Health and Health Care
> 
> 
> 
> To get around the perennial 'just give us the money and we'll spend how we like', I saw one analysis (which of course I can't find now) that suggested the feds may go with paying for dental services directly.  If I was a dentist and aware of the massive successes of platforms like Phoenix, I'd be a little concerned.
> 
> Pharmacare in terms of a single buyer makes a lot of sense to me, simply from the perspective of buying power..  Regardless, for both, the devil will be in the details.



The UK has a had a nationalized dental program for years.

And there's even a poem about that 

Teeth

English Teeth, English Teeth!
Shining in the sun
A part of British heritage
Aye, each and every one.
English Teeth, Happy Teeth!
Always having fun
Clamping down on bits of fish
And sausages half done.
English Teeth! HEROES' Teeth!
Hear them click! and clack!
Let's sing a song of praise to them -
Three Cheers for the Brown Grey and Black.

Spike Milligan


----------



## MilEME09

SupersonicMax said:


> Sorry but a 9mm with 2 mags won’t help me too much on the ground. When you read the story of folks that actually ejected over in Iraq and Kosovo, most didn’t even fire a single shot before being captured.


I'd agree, but on the flip side, as a tech, I need both my hands when working, so a pistol or a PDW would be helpful instead of a C7. Personally I think CSS types should have C8s, or if the budget allows, a MP7 type weapon.


----------



## rmc_wannabe

MilEME09 said:


> I'd agree, but on the flip side, as a tech, I need both my hands when working, so a pistol or a PDW would be helpful instead of a C7. Personally I think CSS types should have C8s, or if the budget allows, a MP7 type weapon.


In Afghanistan, It was a joy climbing in an out of various vehicle types to do Comms installs while getting whacked in the head with by my slung C7A2.  Apparently its more crucial to have the Duty O in the TOC strapped with a 9mm they're afraid they'll ND with 🤷‍♂️


----------



## Dale Denton

Under Liberal-NDP deal, Singh won’t oppose higher defence spending in exchange for billions on social programs​
Source - Globe and Mail


> The New Democrats say they won’t stand in the way of higher military spending to confront the Russian threat as long as Prime Minister Justin Trudeau approves billions of dollars in new social programs as part of a deal to prop up the minority Liberal government until June, 2025.
> 
> Mr. Trudeau flew to Brussels on Tuesday evening for a special NATO leaders summit on Ukraine, and is under pressure from Western allies to boost defence spending significantly in the federal budget expected in April. Other NATO allies, such as Germany, Denmark and the United Kingdom, have vowed to increase spending on new weapons, equipment and fighter jets to counter Russian aggression.
> 
> Before Mr. Trudeau left for Brussels, he and NDP leader Jagmeet Singh held separate news conferences to announce the deal to keep the Liberals in power for the next three years in exchange for parliamentary co-operation and progress on key NDP policies, including an income-based dental care program, national pharmacare and issues such as housing and climate change.
> 
> The text of the agreement is silent on defence at a time when Canada is under international pressure to fulfill a long-time pledge to boost military spending to 2 per cent of its GDP, a request from NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg to counter the increasing global threat of Russian aggression.





> Mr. Trudeau said the deal does not preclude increasing defence spending. Mr. Singh said his party would not block purchases of new equipment for the Canadian Armed Forces in the upcoming federal budget, provided it does not come at the expense of the billions in new social spending in areas such as health and dental care that are promised in Tuesday’s deal.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Dale Denton said:


> Under Liberal-NDP deal, Singh won’t oppose higher defence spending in exchange for billions on social programs​
> Source - Globe and Mail



And this is a good example of where Trudeau is now in the 'black mail nut cracker'...


----------



## Weinie

Dale Denton said:


> Under Liberal-NDP deal, Singh won’t oppose higher defence spending in exchange for billions on social programs​
> Source - Globe and Mail


Pork-barreling at it’s apogee.


----------



## daftandbarmy

MilEME09 said:


> I'd agree, but on the flip side, as a tech, I need both my hands when working, so a pistol or a PDW would be helpful instead of a C7. Personally I think CSS types should have C8s, or if the budget allows, a MP7 type weapon.



I dunno, I'm definitely out of my lane here, but why not just post a sentry while the others go about their business?


----------



## MilEME09

daftandbarmy said:


> I dunno, I'm definitely out of my lane here, but why not just post a sentry while the others go about their business?


As an MRT crew it is my self and 1 other person. If the vehicle crew is with the casualty  they pull security, if not, my driver does, 1 person can't cover 360 easily


----------



## rmc_wannabe

daftandbarmy said:


> I dunno, I'm definitely out of my lane here, but why not just post a sentry while the others go about their business?


Pfft, Listen to this guy... having enough personnel to post a sentry. I was lucky to have a second tech on hand when I got zapped due to poor grounding.


----------



## daftandbarmy

MilEME09 said:


> As an MRT crew it is my self and 1 other person. If the vehicle crew is with the casualty  they pull security, if not, my driver does, 1 person can't cover 360 easily



Yeah, good point.

That's one of the reasons I usually had my (personal and highly illegal, but screw 'em) .357 magnum stuck in a pocket somewhere.


----------



## Brad Sallows

>Under Liberal-NDP deal, Singh won’t oppose higher defence spending in exchange for billions on social programs​
For those always lamenting the lack of "compromise" in politics, this is what "compromise" looks like ("we agree to fund both of our wish lists").


----------



## lenaitch

Spencer100 said:


> Because the Federal government is so good at buying things............


With the prices that should be realized from the sheer volumes involved as a single buyer for an entire population, one would think that even the government couldn't . . . well, maybe you're right, they could probably screw it up.


----------



## KevinB

MilEME09 said:


> I'd agree, but on the flip side, as a tech, I need both my hands when working, so a pistol or a PDW would be helpful instead of a C7. Personally I think CSS types should have C8s, or if the budget allows, a MP7 type weapon.


Avoid Mp7 or P90 type ‘PDW’ weapons like the plague.


----------



## GK .Dundas

daftandbarmy said:


> Yeah, good point.
> 
> That's one of the reasons I usually had my (personal and highly illegal, but screw 'em) .357 magnum stuck in a pocket somewhere.


Looks like we might have to reinvent the .30 cal. carbine. 
It was designed for that role it had if memory serves both the muzzle velocity and the impact of a .357 magnum.   effective range  Realistically 120 yards.Actually less if one person's reminisces about it in Korea are accurate.


----------



## TacticalTea

Dale Denton said:


> Under Liberal-NDP deal, Singh won’t oppose higher defence spending in exchange for billions on social programs​
> Source - Globe and Mail


Translation: one of those things isn't happening, OR, neither will get the appropriate funding.


----------



## KevinB

GK .Dundas said:


> Looks like we might have to reinvent the .30 cal. carbine.
> It was designed for that role it had if memory serves both the muzzle velocity and the impact of a .357 magnum.   effective range  Realistically 120 yards.Actually less if one person's reminisces about it in Korea are accurate.


The CAF already has a good option for CSS. The C8CQB.


----------



## daftandbarmy

KevinB said:


> The CAF already has a good option for CSS. The C8CQB.



What about the APC9K!!!


----------



## KevinB

daftandbarmy said:


> What about the APC9K!!!


More idiocy.  
   The MP trade wanted a different gun. 
 They got one.  

No one gave a lot of thought to the requirement.


----------



## TacticalTea

KevinB said:


> More idiocy.
> The MP trade wanted a different gun.
> They got one.
> 
> No one gave a lot of thought to the requirement.


You dislike them generally because they're 9mm? I'm curious to hear what is wrong specifically.


----------



## Kirkhill

TacticalTea said:


> Translation: one of those things isn't happening, OR, neither will get the appropriate funding.



A glimmer of hope?  From Warren Kinsella



> For now, us mere mortals — you know, the ones who previously thought we were the bosses in this erstwhile democracy — are left to contemplate motive. Which is what everyone does when confronted with a crime scene. Since we know whodunnit, in this undemocratic crime, we are left to ask: Why did they?
> 
> This writer counts four possibilities. Here they are. ....
> 
> Four, and this motive is the most likely: Justin Trudeau is leaving, or wants to. Given his performance in the last federal election (where he phoned it in), and given his recent Instagram-sponsored junkets around the globe (wherein he could just use the phone instead), Trudeau looks decidedly disinterested in the job. Unhappy, too — which is what most Canadians are feeling about him: Unhappy.
> 
> An Axis of Weasels dirty deal gives Trudeau lots of runway to cobble together some sort of a legacy achievement, which is necessary in his case: His only legacy, to date, is the SNC-Lavalin scandal, the Aga Khan scandal, and the WE scandal. And lots of missteps and malapropisms that caused us peoplekind to wince.
> 
> So, he needs a big legacy thing. And, along the way, it would buy his successor — whomever she may be — sufficient time to clean out the muck in the PMO Augean stables. New leader, new team, new plan, blah blah blah. The usual.











						KINSELLA: Breaking down the motive for this undemocratic Liberal-NDP backroom deal
					

An Axis of Weasels dirty deal gives Trudeau lots of runway to cobble together some sort of a legacy achievement




					torontosun.com
				






> Mr. Trudeau’s chief of staff, Katie Telford, and senior adviser Jeremy Broadhurst, who is chief of staff to Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland, began serious negotiations with the NDP Leader’s chief of staff, Jennifer Howard, and Anne McGrath, the party’s national director. The final deal was hammered out by the two leaders and approved on Monday night, when both Liberal and NDP caucuses signed on, according to the sources.











						Under Liberal-NDP deal, Singh won’t oppose higher defence spending in exchange for billions on social programs
					

In exchange for co-operation on their policy priorities, New Democrats pledge to support budget bills and other confidence votes as part of the Liberals-NDP deal




					www.theglobeandmail.com
				




I caught about 2 minutes of JTs speech to the EU before my gag reflex kicked in.  I figured I would read about it in the funny pages.  But from the tone and content - middle class, democracy, climate change - I figure he is pitching himself for some international position.

I hope it happens soon.


----------



## Halifax Tar

KevinB said:


> Avoid Mp7 or P90 type ‘PDW’ weapons like the plague.



I think we've talked about this but I loved the MP5.  Old I get it, but it worked and was accurate and easy to maneuver. 



GK .Dundas said:


> Looks like we might have to reinvent the .30 cal. carbine.
> It was designed for that role it had if memory serves both the muzzle velocity and the impact of a .357 magnum.   effective range  Realistically 120 yards.Actually less if one person's reminisces about it in Korea are accurate.



The LCF will make sure any new PDW for the CSS trades get gobbled by everyone else who should be using a rifle.


----------



## MarkOttawa

And only 1/3 max of Euro Parliament's MEPs were in the chamber--but Murray Brewster CBC reported only "packed public galleries (https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ukraine-russia-nato-trudeau-stoltenberg-1.6394609)"--probably packed by our three missions in Brussels 






Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Czech_pivo

TacticalTea said:


> Translation: one of those things isn't happening, OR, neither will get the appropriate funding.


OR, a massive tax grab is about to be announced - cough cough - 1% flat tax on the sale of your personal residence...


----------



## Good2Golf

C8 should


KevinB said:


> The CAF already has a good option for CSS. The C8CQB.


The C8 should have been the standard small arm for all positions, less hard Cbt Arms position, where the long barrel might be useful in the 250-400m range.

I had an aviation colleague tell me with a straight face that he thought the C7 was a necessity for all aircrew, since we would “need to reach out to 600m if we ever went down.”  I told him we would part ways ASAP if we ever went down, and that I’d rather stick with the SE.. part of SERE, than drawing fire and having to do the ..RE part of SERE.  He thought a lot of himself as a shooter, but I don’t recall a strong correlation between PWT3 score and his self-assessment.

The only time I found a 9mm useful was in dealing with Soviet-trained locals who mentally aligned them to ‘guy with the pistol is to be listened to, while guys with rifles should stand to the side and *mill about while they talked with ‘pistol guy’ .’

*edit: mill, not kill


----------



## Czech_pivo

MarkOttawa said:


> And only 1/3 max of Euro Parliament's MEPs were in the chamber--but Murray Brewster CBC reported only "packed public galleries (https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ukraine-russia-nato-trudeau-stoltenberg-1.6394609)"--probably packed by our three missions in Brussels
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa


I read that as well.  Unless they've change the sitting format in the cheap seats at Strasbourg since I last sat in there in the mid-90s (and that's possible given the enlargement of the EU since I had much to do with it), it could have been the entire Liberal entourage and press corps and it be considered full.


----------



## IKnowNothing

Czech_pivo said:


> OR, a massive tax grab is about to be announced - cough cough - 1% flat tax on the sale of your personal residence...



More likely (and effectively- given the state of the housing market) a stiff buyers flat tax on any single family dwelling not being purchased to be the buyer's personal residence


----------



## KevinB

C8SFW with a low power (1-6x) variable for most Infantry. 
C8CQB with Red Dot for pretty much everyone else.


----------



## Brad Sallows

> a stiff buyers flat tax on any single family dwelling not being purchased to be the buyer's personal residence



Costs are inevitably passed on to end consumers (buyers, renters).


----------



## IKnowNothing

Brad Sallows said:


> Costs are inevitably passed on to end consumers (buyers, renters).


True, but the intent would be similar to a foreign buyers tax and create lower priced principal residences, not higher priced rentals. Would it work / how would it need to be designed? Don't know.  But we already have precedent for all of
-buyer pay time of sale taxes (Land Transfer)
-buyer segmentation taxes (foreign)
-differentiation between principal residence and non (capital gains exemption)

There's a lot of space for a tax to generate and income and influence the housing market before getting to a sellers tax on principal residence.

But going way OT here


----------



## TacticalTea

Brad Sallows said:


> Costs are inevitably passed on to end consumers (buyers, renters).


Not when demand is elastic, such as when said demand is propped up by speculation.

Now is that the case right now? I have no idea. Are there other factors that could make me wrong? Yes. My point is just that no, as a rule, costs are not inevitably passed on to consumers. Although, generally, at least in part, and in some sectors, it may be in very large part so.


----------



## Kirkhill

Good2Golf said:


> C8 should
> 
> The C8 should have been the standard small arm for all positions, less hard Cbt Arms position, where the long barrel might be useful in the 250-400m range.
> 
> I had an aviation colleague tell me with a straight face that he thought the C7 was a necessity for all aircrew, since we would “need to reach out to 600m if we ever went down.”  I told him we would part ways ASAP if we ever went down, and that I’d rather stick with the SE.. part of SERE, than drawing fire and having to do the ..RE part of SERE.  He thought a lot of himself as a shooter, but I don’t recall a strong correlation between PWT3 score and his self-assessment.
> 
> The only time I found a 9mm useful was in dealing with Soviet-trained locals who mentally aligned them to ‘guy with the pistol is to be listened to, while guys with rifles should stand to the side and kill about while they talked with ‘pistol guy’ .’



Or should that just be everybody gets a C8.

MG/DMR tms get 7.62.


----------



## Good2Golf

Kirkhill said:


> Or should that just be everybody gets a C8.
> 
> MG/DMR tms get 7.62.


Not sure I’d go that far…because I wouldn’t want  to be ‘that guy’ the same way Mr. C7-to-fight-his-way-away-from-the-crashsite, and try to tell INF/ARTY that a C8 would suffice…some might want the extra reach the C7 gives, but I think most A/B-echelon folks (and tankers) would be better off with the C8.


----------



## Remius

Kirkhill said:


> A glimmer of hope?  From Warren Kinsella
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KINSELLA: Breaking down the motive for this undemocratic Liberal-NDP backroom deal
> 
> 
> An Axis of Weasels dirty deal gives Trudeau lots of runway to cobble together some sort of a legacy achievement
> 
> 
> 
> 
> torontosun.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Under Liberal-NDP deal, Singh won’t oppose higher defence spending in exchange for billions on social programs
> 
> 
> In exchange for co-operation on their policy priorities, New Democrats pledge to support budget bills and other confidence votes as part of the Liberals-NDP deal
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theglobeandmail.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I caught about 2 minutes of JTs speech to the EU before my gag reflex kicked in.  I figured I would read about it in the funny pages.  But from the tone and content - middle class, democracy, climate change - I figure he is pitching himself for some international position.
> 
> I hope it happens soon.


I’ve said before.  I am convinced he won’t be running again.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Remius said:


> I’ve said before.  I am convinced he won’t be running again.



Tu pense ?

I dunno I think he will.  But I could be wrong.  I don't really foresee any opposition for him.


----------



## Kirkhill

Halifax Tar said:


> Tu pense ?
> 
> I dunno I think he will.  But I could be wrong.  I don't really foresee any opposition for him.



I don't know.  I don't even know if I think so.  But I need to have hope.


----------



## KevinB

Good2Golf said:


> Not sure I’d go that far…because I wouldn’t want  to be ‘that guy’ the same way Mr. C7-to-fight-his-way-away-from-the-crashsite, and try to tell INF/ARTY that a C8 would suffice…some might want the extra reach the C7 gives, but I think most A/B-echelon folks (and tankers) would be better off with the C8.


Theoretical range. 
   The C8SFW 16” barrel is more than enough for any practical 5.56mm range. 
   Heck I shot a guy @400m with a 10.3” Mk18 - yes I brought the wrong gun, but the C8CQB in 11.5” barrel length is fine for 300m and in. 
   Mostly it’s troops not hitting targets - not the weapon…


----------



## Ostrozac

KevinB said:


> Theoretical range.


Exactly. The whole “C7 massively out ranges C8” thing is a bit of an urban legend dating back to iron sights being the standard, as with an iron sighted weapon a longer sight radius does indeed help with long range accuracy. With an optic, not so much.


----------



## KevinB

Ostrozac said:


> Exactly. The whole “C7 massively out ranges C8” thing is a bit of an urban legend dating back to iron sights being the standard, as with an iron sighted weapon a longer sight radius does indeed help with long range accuracy. With an optic, not so much.


I shot a 16” gun at CFSAC with a 1-4 S&B Short Dot and had no issues outshooting C7’s at 500m.  
   Other than one R22eR MWO getting angry I shot a match in sandals, and didn’t find my ‘dress of the day’ comments humorous, I won  a couple of matches, which I don’t think he appreciated.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Remius said:


> I’ve said before.  I am convinced he won’t be running again.


It won’t be soon enough and the damage done will be long term.


----------



## Remius

Canadians split on raising taxes for defence spending: poll
					

A new poll has found that Canadians are split on whether they support increasing income tax to help bolster Canada's defence spending against possible threats.




					www.ctvnews.ca
				




Interesting results.


----------



## TacticalTea

Remius said:


> Canadians split on raising taxes for defence spending: poll
> 
> 
> A new poll has found that Canadians are split on whether they support increasing income tax to help bolster Canada's defence spending against possible threats.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.ctvnews.ca
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting results.


I'm actually surprised there's an even split towards more taxes for defence spending. This is more support than I expected.

As well as greater support for increased defence spending (45%) than social spending (39%).


----------



## Good2Golf

Remius said:


> Canadians split on raising taxes for defence spending: poll
> 
> 
> A new poll has found that Canadians are split on whether they support increasing income tax to help bolster Canada's defence spending against possible threats.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.ctvnews.ca
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting results.


Because a tax increase would only be need for Defence increases, not the bazillions of dollars for universal pharmacies and dental care… 🙄

Another crap survey set up to bias the answer from the outset…Canadians deserve everything they’re not going to get…


----------



## Underway

Good2Golf said:


> Not sure I’d go that far…because I wouldn’t want  to be ‘that guy’ the same way Mr. C7-to-fight-his-way-away-from-the-crashsite, and try to tell INF/ARTY that a C8 would suffice…some might want the extra reach the C7 gives, but I think most A/B-echelon folks (and tankers) would be better off with the C8.


I thought the tankers already used C8's?



Ostrozac said:


> Exactly. The whole “C7 massively out ranges C8” thing is a bit of an urban legend dating back to iron sights being the standard, as with an iron sighted weapon a longer sight radius does indeed help with long range accuracy. With an optic, not so much.


Individually, but what's the section range.  The range where a section can hit a target (or is that not a thing anymore).  I'm fairly confident that the C7 one is longer by a significant amount.  Isn't that a useful metric considering you don't attack a position by yourself?

edit:  of course I prefer a C8 myself, range really isn't an issue onboard ship!


----------



## Good2Golf

Underway said:


> I thought the tankers already used C8's?


They do, I just wouldn’t want to be part of any implied support to forcing C7 on all orgs who should have the C8 pulled and given the C7 back again (to wit Armour, which I agree should retain the C8).


----------



## Remius

TacticalTea said:


> I'm actually surprised there's an even split towards more taxes for defence spending. This is more support than I expected.
> 
> As well as greater support for increased defence spending (45%) than social spending (39%).


That was my take as well.


----------



## Underway

Good2Golf said:


> They do, I just wouldn’t want to be part of any implied support to forcing C7 on all orgs who should have the C8 pulled and given the C7 back again (to wit Armour, which I agree should retain the C8).


In Afghanistan I saw a mix within the infantry platoons.  The LAV Sgt had one, as did the platoon commander, and a few other positions that spent a lot of time in the turret.


----------



## Good2Golf

Yeah, primary time actually in the vehicle, Aircraft etc. vice travel then dismount, would be good justification for the C8.  I’m glad I had a C8 bombing around in a LandCruiser…I don’t think I even extended the butt-stock once during my tour.


----------



## TacticalTea

Remius said:


> That was my take as well.


Kinda shows we have the wrong government for the job...

Just like our southern neighbour had the wrong government for the job in 2020...

It's like we're all eternally cursed or something.


----------



## TacticalTea

lenaitch said:


> Only because it has evolved that way.  Other than "quarantine" (federal) and "hospitals" (provincial), anything else to do with healthcare is not mentioned at all in the Constitution.  As in most things, it's complicated:
> 
> 
> 
> The Federal Role in Health and Health Care
> 
> 
> 
> To get around the perennial 'just give us the money and we'll spend how we like', I saw one analysis (which of course I can't find now) that suggested the feds may go with paying for dental services directly.  If I was a dentist and aware of the massive successes of platforms like Phoenix, I'd be a little concerned.
> 
> Pharmacare in terms of a single buyer makes a lot of sense to me, simply from the perspective of buying power..  Regardless, for both, the devil will be in the details.


To my point:



			Legault warns new Liberal-NDP alliance will trigger confrontation with provinces
		


I much prefer Charest's (and, logically, Bernier's) approach of respecting the Provinces and their competences. 

Federation. The socialists ought to be reminded of what that means.


----------



## Altair

TacticalTea said:


> To my point:
> 
> 
> 
> Legault warns new Liberal-NDP alliance will trigger confrontation with provinces
> 
> 
> 
> I much prefer Charest's (and, logically, Bernier's) approach of respecting the Provinces and their competences.
> 
> Federation. The socialists ought to be reminded of what that means.


I like how some are coming out swinging at the NDP now. 

Most times they are ignored because they are not the governing party or opposition, but people are no longer keeping their powder dry. 

If QC wants to opt out of federal programs, they are free to. Ontario hasn't signed on to the federal childcare plan, they are just going to sacrifice the money on the table for it. So opt out, and keep your jurisdiction, just don't expect a penny.


----------



## MilEME09

Canada would need to spend up to $25B more per year to meet NATO defence target: PBO
					

Parliamentary Budget Officer Yves Giroux estimates Canada would need to set aside between $20 to 25 billion per year to meet NATO's defence spending target.



					www.ctvnews.ca


----------



## dimsum

MilEME09 said:


> Canada would need to spend up to $25B more per year to meet NATO defence target: PBO
> 
> 
> Parliamentary Budget Officer Yves Giroux estimates Canada would need to set aside between $20 to 25 billion per year to meet NATO's defence spending target.
> 
> 
> 
> www.ctvnews.ca


This is not what I would have expected from the NDP:



> Meanwhile, NDP foreign affairs critic Heather McPherson said the issue of Canada’s declining military resourcing is both longstanding and nonpartisan.
> 
> “We have seen our military be decimated over [the] long-term. This is not something that has just happened. We have not provided the tools that our soldiers, our men and women in uniform, need to do the jobs that we're asking them to do safely,” she said.


----------



## Czech_pivo

MilEME09 said:


> Canada would need to spend up to $25B more per year to meet NATO defence target: PBO
> 
> 
> Parliamentary Budget Officer Yves Giroux estimates Canada would need to set aside between $20 to 25 billion per year to meet NATO's defence spending target.
> 
> 
> 
> www.ctvnews.ca


Here’s my chequebook and pen, how much do I write out for my share.


----------



## Czech_pivo

dimsum said:


> This is not what I would have expected from the NDP:


Kind of hard for them to say otherwise when their Socialist brothers and sisters in the Nordic countries and Germany are stepping up to the plate and funding/expending their military.


----------



## TacticalTea

Altair said:


> I like how some are coming out swinging at the NDP now.
> 
> Most times they are ignored because they are not the governing party or opposition, but people are no longer keeping their powder dry.
> 
> If QC wants to opt out of federal programs, they are free to. Ontario hasn't signed on to the federal childcare plan, they are just going to sacrifice the money on the table for it. So opt out, and keep your jurisdiction, just don't expect a penny.


No, that is an outrageous way of conducting business.
If a province opts out, it should get all the money that would've otherwise gone to the program.

Again. We are not a unitary republic. The federal government is not the provinces' superior.

As for the NDP... They're usually ignored because they knowingly present ridiculous ideas that have no chance of being implemented. I like to call that the advantage of irresponsibility: parties that have never held (or have no near-term prospects of holding) executive power can afford to make outlandish promises because they know they'll never be taken to task on those promises. And also because, having never held power, they don't really know how to do the job.


----------



## Altair

TacticalTea said:


> No, that is an outrageous way of conducting business.
> If a province opts out, it should get all the money that would've otherwise gone to the program.


Except that is absolutely ridiculous. Imagine provinces opting out of the universal health care and pocketing the change? That would be on par with this. Why ever sign on with a federal program when they could just get a payout instead?


TacticalTea said:


> Again. We are not a unitary republic. The federal government is not the provinces' superior.


If the province doesn't want dental coverage, they can opt out. Then the leadership of that province can explain why every other Canadian has dental coverage and not them. But they should not see a penny of the funding that was allocated to that program. 


TacticalTea said:


> As for the NDP... They're usually ignored because they knowingly present ridiculous ideas that have no chance of being implemented. I like to call that the advantage of irresponsibility: parties that have never held (or have no near-term prospects of holding) executive power can afford to make outlandish promises because they know they'll never be taken to task on those promises. And also because, having never held power, they don't really know how to do the job.


Absolutely true. Its just funny to me how they always get a pass because nobody takes them seriously to suddenly everyone taking them very very seriously.


----------



## Brad Sallows

A weakness of the NDP is their desire to sometimes "do something", which is difficult without the means.


----------



## TacticalTea

Altair said:


> Except that is absolutely ridiculous. Imagine provinces opting out of the universal health care and pocketing the change? That would be on par with this. Why ever sign on with a federal program when they could just get a payout instead?


Seems entirely acceptable to me. It's that province's problem if they don't want universal healthcare. Most of the time, there actually is a compensation available in case the province opts out of a program. In this case, it's a provincial competence, according to the Supreme Court, as per Section 92 of the Constitution, granting authority to the provinces over issues of local or private nature.

I don't see why the feds should have any say in this. They should focus on doing what they were created for: collective defence and interprovincial trade. Those two pillars of our constitutional history are as important today as they ever were.


----------



## Good2Golf

Altair said:


> Except that is absolutely ridiculous. Imagine provinces opting out of the universal health care and pocketing the change? That would be on par with this. Why ever sign on with a federal program when they could just get a payout instead?



Yeah!!! You tell him, Altair!  No opting out for any province!!!

And not just child care plans, but all plans…like…say…the federal pension plan.


🤔


----------



## Altair

TacticalTea said:


> Seems entirely acceptable to me. It's that province's problem if they don't want universal healthcare. Most of the time, there actually is a compensation available in case the province opts out of a program. In this case, it's a provincial competence, according to the Supreme Court, as per Section 92 of the Constitution, granting authority to the provinces over issues of local or private nature.


Except those same Provinces come cap in hand asking for more and more money for health transfers for their area of responsibility, Healthcare. 

And Canadians expect the federal government to do things outside their jurisdiction all the time, in regards to things like healthcare, and housing, once being provincial, the other municipal. And federal politicians get stuck taking the blame all the same. 


TacticalTea said:


> I don't see why the feds should have any say in this. They should focus on doing what they were created for: collective defence and interprovincial trade. Those two pillars of our constitutional history are as important today as they ever were.


The feds have their priorities, and if the province wants to get the service they can join in the program. Or not. Ontario hasn't signed on the the federal childcare plan. That's fine. Their money for 2021-2022 lapses in April and they wont receive a penny of that years money. 

Provinces can work with the feds or they wont see the money. Or they can raise their own money and run their own programs.


----------



## Altair

Good2Golf said:


> Yeah!!! You tell him, Altair!  No opting out for any province!!!
> 
> And not just child care plans, but all plans…like…say…the federal pension plan.
> 
> 
> 🤔


Provinces can opt out all they want. 

Just don't expect to see money the feds have allocated for that program.


----------



## TacticalTea

Altair said:


> Except those same Provinces come cap in hand asking for more and more money for health transfers for their area of responsibility, Healthcare.
> 
> And Canadians expect the federal government to do things outside their jurisdiction all the time, in regards to things like healthcare, and housing, once being provincial, the other municipal. And federal politicians get stuck taking the blame all the same.
> 
> The feds have their priorities, and if the province wants to get the service they can join in the program. Or not. Ontario hasn't signed on the the federal childcare plan. That's fine. Their money for 2021-2022 lapses in April and they wont receive a penny of that years money.
> 
> Provinces can work with the feds or they wont see the money. Or they can raise their own money and run their own programs.


Nah, fam.

If the federal govt has enough money to run or fund provincial programs, then it needs to reduce taxes or increase equalization. That's what it did for Quebec, in fact. Quebeccers pay almost no federal income tax, but much more to the provincial government.

If Canadians blame the federal for their own province's shortcomings... welp... that's on them for not understanding how their country works.


----------



## Altair

TacticalTea said:


> Nah, fam.


Ya Fam.









						Ontario has entered 'next phase' of negotiations with feds on child-care deal, official confirms
					

Education Minister Stephen Lecce is refusing to say whether Ontario parents stand to lose out on retroactive rebates of thousands of dollars should the province fail to reach a childcare deal with the Trudeau government by the end of the fiscal year on March 31.




					www.cp24.com
				






> In a statement provided to CP24 on Tuesday, a spokesperson for Federal Minister of Families, Children and Social Development Karina Gould confirmed that Ontario “submitted a first draft of its action plan” on how it intends to disperse the funds late last week, allowing for “negotiations to move to the next phase.”
> 
> The development comes as the March 31 end of the fiscal year fast approaches.
> 
> Federal officials have told CTV News Toronto that more than a billion dollars of the funding promised to Ontario was intended for the 2021-2022 fiscal year and could “lapse” if a deal isn’t reached by the end of this month.


Lapse. Not compensated, lapse. Not lowered taxes for Ontario, lapsed.

So provinces can opt out all they want. Let their funding lapse.


TacticalTea said:


> If the federal govt has enough money to run or fund provincial programs, then it needs to reduce taxes or increase equalization. That's what it did for Quebec, in fact. Quebeccers pay almost no federal income tax, but much more to the provincial government.


The provinces certainly think the feds have enough money to fund THEIR healthcare jurisdiction. Treating the federal government like a money tree, shaking it down for loose billions they think the feds have hanging aboot.

No strings of course, just free money.  Shame its not how it works. The feds give the money, they can attach strings to it. Harper found this out the hard way when he gave Quebec a few hundred million for equalization and Quebec turned around and gave a their citizens a tax break.


TacticalTea said:


> If Canadians blame the federal for their own province's shortcomings... welp... that's on them for not understanding how their country works.


Except thats not how it works at the ballot box.


----------



## TacticalTea

Altair said:


> Ya Fam.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ontario has entered 'next phase' of negotiations with feds on child-care deal, official confirms
> 
> 
> Education Minister Stephen Lecce is refusing to say whether Ontario parents stand to lose out on retroactive rebates of thousands of dollars should the province fail to reach a childcare deal with the Trudeau government by the end of the fiscal year on March 31.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cp24.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lapse. Not compensated, lapse. Not lowered taxes for Ontario, lapsed.
> 
> So provinces can opt out all they want. Let their funding lapse.
> 
> The provinces certainly think the feds have enough money to fund THEIR healthcare jurisdiction. Treating the federal government like a money tree, shaking it down for loose billions they think the feds have hanging aboot.
> 
> No strings of course, just free money.  Shame its not how it works. The feds give the money, they can attach strings to it.
> 
> Except thats not how it works at the ballot box.


Sure. If that's your view. I think it just goes to show the federal Left has no respect for provinces, their competence, and federalism.


dimsum said:


> This is not what I would have expected from the NDP:


Going back on to the topic of the thread, though, what a ridiculous headline? And really, she had to ask Mr Giroux - an expert from the PBO - to do a basic crossed product?
I would like to think Canadians are smart enough to execute ''GDP in billions'' * 2%... Not any harder than calculating tips for your haircut...


----------



## Altair

TacticalTea said:


> Sure. If that's your view. I think it just goes to show the federal Left has no respect for provinces, their competence, and federalism.


At the end of the day, I think that if the federal government is funding a program, that money shouldn't be taken and spent on something else. Then we end up with a hodgepodge of programs across the country.

This province has universal health care, this one doesn't. This province has childcare, this one doesn't. This province has legal weed, this one doesn't. Having a federal standard is not a bad thing, especially if the feds are funding it. If a province never signs on to a federal plan(looking at Alberta and Quebec here) and just dump that money into other things we don't end up with equal levels of services across the country, which is also in the constitution and the basis behind equalization.


TacticalTea said:


> To go back to the topic of the thread, though, what a ridiculous headline? And really, she had to ask Mr Oliphant to do a basic crossed product?
> I would like to think Canadians are smart enough to execute ''GDP in billions'' * 2%... Not any harder than calculating tips for your haircut...


Do people even know what our GDP is?

That said, I hate our budgets. I like pie charts. if not pie charts, lines of income and expenses. Not a word salad of priorities and plans. Just tell me how much is being spent on what. I was trying to nail down the RCMP budget a while ago and it took me 29 minutes longer than it should have.


----------



## TacticalTea

Altair said:


> At the end of the day, I think that if the federal government is funding a program, that money shouldn't be taken and spent on something else. Then we end up with a hodgepodge of programs across the country.
> 
> This province has universal health care, this one doesn't. This province has childcare, this one doesn't. This province has legal weed, this one doesn't. Having a federal standard is not a bad thing, especially if the feds are funding it. If a province never signs on to a federal plan(looking at Alberta and Quebec here) and just dump that money into other things we don't end up with equal levels of services across the country, which is also in the constitution and the basis behind equalization.


To determine what should be federal and what should be provincial, refer to Section 92 of the constitution...


Altair said:


> Do people even know what our GDP is?


I don't. But google does. It's literally one click. ''Canada GDP''. Bam. Move the decimal point twice to the left then double the amount. Bam. Now you know what our defence budget should be.


----------



## Dale Denton

I understand the hesitation to get to 2% as a significant portion would be wasted due to delays and corresponding inflation (to name a few).

Perhaps the CF could just release its own report on what force it could sustain and at what %GDP?
Get to the chase and present simple, easy to understand options (to compensate for lack of military knowledge in Canada).

Just something simple like:

"This is what we need based on our threat analysis after Ukraine, and this is our professional opinion we need a force of XYZ, this much time, and this many billions."

Lay out our limitations and embarrassing mishaps due to our aging fleets, show how dangerous Canadians would be.

"At current projected rates, we could sustain a XYZ sized CAF, and we'd have to drop these capabilities forever."

"To build each of these options, we'd still need more money to replace old required equipment and this number of weapons, vehicles."

And make it public...


----------



## Kirkhill

Altair said:


> At the end of the day, I think that if the federal government is funding a program, that money shouldn't be taken and spent on something else. Then we end up with a hodgepodge of programs across the country.
> 
> This province has universal health care, this one doesn't. This province has childcare, this one doesn't. This province has legal weed, this one doesn't. Having a federal standard is not a bad thing, especially if the feds are funding it. If a province never signs on to a federal plan(looking at Alberta and Quebec here) and just dump that money into other things we don't end up with equal levels of services across the country, which is also in the constitution and the basis behind equalization.
> 
> Do people even know what our GDP is?
> 
> That said, I hate our budgets. I like pie charts. if not pie charts, lines of income and expenses. Not a word salad of priorities and plans. Just tell me how much is being spent on what. I was trying to nail down the RCMP budget a while ago and it took me 29 minutes longer than it should have.



How would you feel about a budget presented on a per capita basis?


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

With recruitment lagging, Canadian military preparing new ethos, dress code
					

Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) leadership says it hopes a new military ethos and dress code refresh will help address a much-needed culture shift as it struggles to recruit more diverse personnel.



					www.ctvnews.ca
				




Meanwhile CAF be like.... we really need a lot of people and are severely understaffed but like not any white males...

Also 70% of our workforce is white male and we have no idea why they are leaving.


----------



## Altair

Kirkhill said:


> How would you feel about a budget presented on a per capita basis?


having to do math per line item?


----------



## daftandbarmy

Raise taxes to pay for increases in defence expenditures?

Survey results are mixed:


Canadians split on raising taxes for defence spending: poll​

A new poll has found that Canadians are split on whether they support increasing the income tax to help bolster Canada's defence spending against possible threats.

The latest national public opinion poll from Nanos Research, commissioned by CTV News and The Globe and Mail, reports that 19 per cent of respondents support and 28 per cent somewhat support the move. However, polling showed 31 per cent of those surveyed oppose raising taxes for defence spending while 17 per cent somewhat oppose it.

Five per cent of respondents reported they were unsure of how they felt about this.









						Canadians split on raising taxes for defence spending: poll
					

A new poll has found that Canadians are split on whether they support increasing income tax to help bolster Canada's defence spending against possible threats.




					www.ctvnews.ca


----------



## TacticalTea

Humphrey Bogart said:


> With recruitment lagging, Canadian military preparing new ethos, dress code
> 
> 
> Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) leadership says it hopes a new military ethos and dress code refresh will help address a much-needed culture shift as it struggles to recruit more diverse personnel.
> 
> 
> 
> www.ctvnews.ca
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meanwhile CAF be like.... we really need a lot of people and are severely understaffed but like not any white males...
> 
> Also 70% of our workforce is white male and we have no idea why they are leaving.


Yeah I thought that was a weird-ass thing to say.

Is it implying that there is no difference between a Newfie, a Queb, and an Albertan? That only skin colour is what defines an individual? That diversity is only good if it's visible in photo ops? That's some dystopian stuff right there.

Not to mention, she seems like she has a problem with having 71% white males, while white people represent 77% of Canada. Is that somehow unexpected? Is she really all that surprised that...  gasp, men and women have differing interests?

But no, surely our recruitment woes have nothing to do with the fact that the government keeps firing career servicemen for political reasons and that the enlistment process can take years, during which people lose all interest they had in the first place / find other opportunities.

And imma jump on this one : _"Lt.-Gen. Jennie Carignan, chief of professional conduct and culture'' _
So, huh... how many Professional Conduct Brigades are there? How many personnel are deployed on Culture Operations at present?

Heavens... A whole Lieutenant-General. But no, we're not top-heavy...  Plus isn't she the first female combat arms general? I'd be insulted to be tasked with this. ''No, no, we don't give actual commands to women''... Christ's sake.


----------



## Halifax Tar

TacticalTea said:


> Yeah I thought that was a weird-ass thing to say.
> 
> Is it implying that there is no difference between a Newfie, a Queb, and an Albertan? That only skin colour is what defines an individual? That diversity is only good if it's visible in photo ops? That's some dystopian stuff right there.
> 
> Not to mention, she seems like she has a problem with having 71% white males, while white people represent 77% of Canada. Is that somehow unexpected? Is she really all that surprised that...  gasp, men and women have differing interests?
> 
> But no, surely our recruitment woes have nothing to do with the fact that the government keeps firing career servicemen for political reasons and that the enlistment process can take years, during which people lose all interest they had in the first place / find other opportunities.
> 
> And imma jump on this one : _"Lt.-Gen. Jennie Carignan, chief of professional conduct and culture'' _
> So, huh... how many Professional Conduct Brigades are there? How many personnel are deployed on Culture Operations at present?
> 
> Heavens... A whole Lieutenant-General. But no, we're not top-heavy...  Plus isn't she the first female combat arms general? I'd be insulted to be tasked with this. ''No, no, we don't give actual commands to women''... Christ's sake.



I think we just became best friends


----------



## McG

TacticalTea said:


> As well as greater support for increased defence spending (45%) than social spending (39%).


It is what happens when a large number of voters perceive an existential threat for the first time in their lives.


----------



## Remius

TacticalTea said:


> And imma jump on this one : _"Lt.-Gen. Jennie Carignan, chief of professional conduct and culture'' _
> So, huh... how many Professional Conduct Brigades are there? How many personnel are deployed on Culture Operations at present?
> 
> Heavens... A whole Lieutenant-General. But no, we're not top-heavy...  Plus isn't she the first female combat arms general? I'd be insulted to be tasked with this. ''No, no, we don't give actual commands to women''... Christ's sake.



I think you may have missed a few memos.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Remius said:


> I think you may have missed a few memos.



I think you missed the point of his statement...


----------



## Remius

Halifax Tar said:


> I think you missed the point of his statement...


Nope.  I got it loud and clear.


----------



## WLSC

TacticalTea said:


> Yeah I thought that was a weird-ass thing to say.
> 
> Is it implying that there is no difference between a Newfie, a Queb, and an Albertan? That only skin colour is what defines an individual? That diversity is only good if it's visible in photo ops? That's some dystopian stuff right there.
> 
> Not to mention, she seems like she has a problem with having 71% white males, while white people represent 77% of Canada. Is that somehow unexpected? Is she really all that surprised that...  gasp, men and women have differing interests?
> 
> But no, surely our recruitment woes have nothing to do with the fact that the government keeps firing career servicemen for political reasons and that the enlistment process can take years, during which people lose all interest they had in the first place / find other opportunities.
> 
> And imma jump on this one : _"Lt.-Gen. Jennie Carignan, chief of professional conduct and culture'' _
> So, huh... how many Professional Conduct Brigades are there? How many personnel are deployed on Culture Operations at present?
> 
> Heavens... A whole Lieutenant-General. But no, we're not top-heavy...  Plus isn't she the first female combat arms general? I'd be insulted to be tasked with this. ''No, no, we don't give actual commands to women''... Christ's sake.


I know a bit about the professional side of the house.  You have no idea how strong direction they need to have it coherent.  That piece should have been done years ago.  Cloud shoveler were kings, now they have to share space with other and reality of training calendar.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

TacticalTea said:


> Yeah I thought that was a weird-ass thing to say.
> 
> Is it implying that there is no difference between a Newfie, a Queb, and an Albertan? That only skin colour is what defines an individual? That diversity is only good if it's visible in photo ops? That's some dystopian stuff right there.
> 
> Not to mention, she seems like she has a problem with having 71% white males, while white people represent 77% of Canada. Is that somehow unexpected? Is she really all that surprised that...  gasp, men and women have differing interests?
> 
> But no, surely our recruitment woes have nothing to do with the fact that the government keeps firing career servicemen for political reasons and that the enlistment process can take years, during which people lose all interest they had in the first place / find other opportunities.
> 
> And imma jump on this one : _"Lt.-Gen. Jennie Carignan, chief of professional conduct and culture'' _
> So, huh... how many Professional Conduct Brigades are there? How many personnel are deployed on Culture Operations at present?
> 
> Heavens... A whole Lieutenant-General. But no, we're not top-heavy...  Plus isn't she the first female combat arms general? I'd be insulted to be tasked with this. ''No, no, we don't give actual commands to women''... Christ's sake.


Well on the bright side, there are so many other opportunities out there, particularly in the private sector. 

It took this white male only a few weeks to get a job offer after I submitted my VR 😂, for a safety sensitive position.

Interview
Background Check
Medical + Drug & Alcohol Testing
Offer

3 weeks total time.  Take that for action CFRG 🤣


----------



## Quirky

So we need more diversity to fix retention….what planet do they live in? Let’s completely ignore failing equipment, no equipment, shit posting locations be it location or massive increase in COL, toxic leadership, etc, etc. The koolaid is strong with this one.


----------



## Remius

Humphrey Bogart said:


> Well on the bright side, there are so many other opportunities out there, particularly in the private sector.
> 
> It took this white male only a few weeks to get a job offer after I submitted my VR 😂, for a safety sensitive position.
> 
> Interview
> Background Check
> Medical + Drug & Alcohol Testing
> Offer
> 
> 3 weeks total time.  Take that for action CFRG 🤣


Add a PT test at the interview or medical and we could do the same.  We just have to want to.


----------



## Remius

Quirky said:


> So we need more diversity to fix retention….what planet do they live in? Let’s completely ignore failing equipment, no equipment, shit posting locations be it location or massive increase in COL, toxic leadership, etc, etc. The koolaid is strong with this one.


Diversity is only one part of it and yes it should be addressed.  It’s only one part of the issues that the CAF faces.  

What we have to do though is put as much effort into all of those issues that we seem to be doing for diversity.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Remius said:


> Diversity is only one part of it and yes it should be addressed.  It’s only one part of the issues that the CAF faces.
> 
> What we have to do though is put as much effort into all of those issues that we seem to be doing for diversity.



I'm cool with diversity but how do we accomplish this ?  

We can't force people to join.


----------



## Good2Golf

Halifax Tar said:


> I'm cool with diversity but how do we accomplish this ?
> 
> We can't force people to join.


The Government could, it just chooses not to.

"Words, not deeds."


----------



## Remius

Halifax Tar said:


> I'm cool with diversity but how do we accomplish this ?
> 
> We can't force people to join.


In some regards I think a lot of what Quirky listed is part of the solution.  He mentions toxic leaders and crappy postings.  I think a lot of our diversity issues would fix themselves if those things get fixed first. 

Inclusive dress regs can help as we’ve seen but that only scratches the surface.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Remius said:


> Add a PT test at the interview or medical and we could do the same.  We just have to want to.


There is a PT test for this job as well, you do it once you start training, like they do in the CAF. 

The CAF is just institutionally incompetent.  It somehow manages to keep getting worse every year.



Remius said:


> Diversity is only one part of it and yes it should be addressed.  It’s only one part of the issues that the CAF faces.
> 
> What we have to do though is put as much effort into all of those issues that we seem to be doing for diversity.



What they need to do is allow anyone who is capable of joining and fulfilling the requirements of their occupation and universality of service, the opportunity to do so.

The simple fact is, Military formations fight as units and not as individuals and the CAF approach of hyper-individualism and you can be whoever you wanna be is..... counter-intuitive to forming cohesive fighting units.

Ironically, there are already formations that have been doing this "integrating diverse groups of people" thing for a couple of hundred years, are an elite fighting formation and have a very successful model:











Code #2 of the Legion Code of Honour:

*2 – Each legionnaire is your brother in arms, whatever his nationality, his race or his religion might be. You will demonstrate this by the strict solidarity which must always links members of the same family.*

_








						Code of Honour
					

About principles Once there was a man. A man and his life’s journey. A life’s journey never told, full with pain and with unshared memories. Leaving all behind? Thoughts. Hesitations. One more drin…




					thefrenchforeignlegionfirsthand.wordpress.com
				



_
This model could be further adapted to conform to meet our requirements.  But individualism should absolutely play no part in it and it's fundamentally contrary to how you build soldiers, which Militaries know how to do because they have been doing it for thousands of years.


----------



## FSTO

For some reason people in positions of influence at the GoC think there is this horde of young white farmers, fishermen, miners, and foresters out there clogging up the recruiting system and not allowing a more diverse range of people to join the CAF. Have they not read their own Statistics Canada reports? Those folks are long gone and the problem is the byzantine CAF recruiting system. But lets keep up the boogy man!


----------



## daftandbarmy

FSTO said:


> For some reason people in positions of influence at the GoC think there is this horde of young white farmers, fishermen, miners, and foresters out there clogging up the recruiting system and not allowing a more diverse range of people to join the CAF. Have they not read their own Statistics Canada reports? Those folks are long gone and the problem is the byzantine CAF recruiting system. But lets keep up the boogy man!



You mean the system that still relies heavily on visiting high schools and malls, phone calls, and putting up warry posters like I used to do in 1979?

The amazing thing I found, when I had the Recruting cell in my Coy, was that the people who were much, much younger than me could not be convinced to do anything else, mainly because the Bde Recruiting Staff were driving the whole, aberrant, 'That 70s show' behaviour.


----------



## Remius

Humphrey Bogart said:


> There is a PT test for this job as well, you do it once you start training, like they do in the CAF.
> 
> The CAF is just institutionally incompetent.  It somehow manages to keep getting worse every year.
> 
> 
> 
> What they need to do is allow anyone who is capable of joining and fulfilling the requirements of their occupation and universality of service, the opportunity to do so.
> 
> The simple fact is, Military formations fight as units and not as individuals and the CAF approach of hyper-individualism and you can be whoever you wanna be is..... counter-intuitive to forming cohesive fighting units.
> 
> Ironically, there are already formations that have been doing this "integrating diverse groups of people" thing for a couple of hundred years, are an elite fighting formation and have a very successful model:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Code #2 of the Legion Code of Honour:
> 
> *2 – Each legionnaire is your brother in arms, whatever his nationality, his race or his religion might be. You will demonstrate this by the strict solidarity which must always links members of the same family.*
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Code of Honour
> 
> 
> About principles Once there was a man. A man and his life’s journey. A life’s journey never told, full with pain and with unshared memories. Leaving all behind? Thoughts. Hesitations. One more drin…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thefrenchforeignlegionfirsthand.wordpress.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _
> This model could be further adapted to conform to meet our requirements.  But individualism should absolutely play no part in it and it's fundamentally contrary to how you build soldiers, which Militaries know how to do because they have been doing it for thousands of years.


The French Foreign legion is bad example for a lot of reasons and that model would be difficult to emulate here.  Although some parts of it could be adapted but here are some of the key differences:

1- there are no minimum educational standards.  (Not sure the CAF is ready to do that)
2- members don’t swear allegiances to France only the unit.  (Not sure how that would go over in our system)
3- three years of service gets you citizenship (this should be adopted here)

And they have a massive access to their target groups in very close proximity. 

And remember the Legion has a long history of being a unit full of non citizens for reasons that are well known.


----------



## Quirky

Remius said:


> Inclusive dress regs can help as we’ve seen but that only scratches the surface.


Inclusive dress regs are utter nonsense and have nothing to do with retention or recruiting. People don't join or stay in the military because the dress code is gender specific. I mean cool, inclusive dress regs, wooooo. Thanks guys. CAF leadership talking without actually saying anything, again.


----------



## FSTO

FSTO said:


> For some reason people in positions of influence at the GoC think there is this horde of young white farmers, fishermen, miners, and foresters out there clogging up the recruiting system and not allowing a more diverse range of people to join the CAF. Have they not read their own Statistics Canada reports? Those folks are long gone and the problem is the byzantine CAF recruiting system. But lets keep up the boogy man!


For context, way back in the dark ages I grew up during the start of the great rural depopulation movement. I missed walking the mile and half to the one room school house by a year (they closed most of them in 1966). When I got on the bus that headed to town, it was a big bus and packed with kids and there was over 30 buses heading into town and this was repeated in every town in the area. 12 years later, there was about 10 buses, they were small and there was barely any kids in them.


----------



## Furniture

Quirky said:


> Inclusive dress regs are utter nonsense and have nothing to do with retention or recruiting. People don't join or stay in the military because the dress code is gender specific. I mean cool, inclusive dress regs, wooooo. Thanks guys. CAF leadership talking without actually saying anything, again.


Dress is a dissatisfier, and it costs us nothing to fix it. I doubt people are releasing entirely because of dress issues, but add dress issues on top of everything else, and it might be the straw that broke the camel's back. 

That it has taken so long to finally look into fixing 1950s era dress regs is pretty sad.


----------



## WLSC

Quirky said:


> So we need more diversity to fix retention….what planet do they live in? Let’s completely ignore failing equipment, no equipment, shit posting locations be it location or massive increase in COL, toxic leadership, etc, etc. The koolaid is strong with this one.


No, we need to get rid of toxic leadership and the rest will/should fall in.  Diversity is not the driver, being a relevant employer is.  From what I understand, that CPCC goal.  Notting new, just forgotten…


----------



## Remius

Quirky said:


> Inclusive dress regs are utter nonsense and have nothing to do with retention or recruiting. People don't join or stay in the military because the dress code is gender specific. I mean cool, inclusive dress regs, wooooo. Thanks guys. CAF leadership talking without actually saying anything, again.


i said it only scratches the surface.  But it isn’t utter none sense. 

A good chunk of the younger women I’ve served with have stated flat out that being able to wear their hair with less restrictive rules was a big deal for them.   I’m not saying it keeps them in or out.  But that change was appreciated. 

And plenty of people when I was in recruiting asked about hair.  Men and women.  

And questions about turbans comes up. 

Again, it’s part of the whole slew of issues.  Not the be all end all.  Deaths by a thousand cuts and all that.  If the institution dismisses it it won’t get any better.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Furniture said:


> Dress is a dissatisfier, and it costs us nothing to fix it. I doubt people are releasing entirely because of dress issues, but add dress issues on top of everything else, and it might be the straw that broke the camel's back.
> 
> That it has taken so long to finally look into fixing 1950s era dress regs is pretty sad.



I circulate in a crowd of people who have high schoolers that are all thinking about what their kids are going to do once they graduate.

I'm just about the only person they know who has any military experience, anywhere.

Believe me, the dress regs are the last thing they think about when helping their kids make important life choices.


----------



## Furniture

daftandbarmy said:


> I circulate in a crowd of people who have high schoolers that are all thinking about what their kids are going to do once they graduate.
> 
> I'm just about the only person they know who has any military experience, anywhere.
> 
> Believe me, the dress regs are the last thing they think about when helping their kids make important life choices.


I'm aware it's not a high priority for people considering joining, but as I said, it is a dissatisfier for those already in. Retention is as big an issue as recruiting in some occupations. 

Fixing dress regs costs us very little, and is something we should have been doing 20+ years ago.


----------



## Quirky

Furniture said:


> I'm aware it's not a high priority for people considering joining, but as I said, it is a dissatisfier for those already in. Retention is as big an issue as recruiting in some occupations.
> 
> Fixing dress regs costs us very little, and is something we should have been doing 20+ years ago.



And it's still taking months for a "final signature". Just implement the damn regulations. Now. CAF leadership isn't beholden to any timelines, but god forbid if this no-fail tasking doesn't meet the deadline. Hypocrites.


----------



## QV

Humphrey Bogart said:


> What they need to do is allow anyone who is capable of joining and fulfilling the requirements of their occupation and universality of service, the opportunity to do so.
> 
> The simple fact is, Military formations fight as units and not as individuals and the CAF approach of hyper-individualism and you can be whoever you wanna be is..... *counter-intuitive to forming cohesive fighting units*.
> 
> But* individualism should absolutely play no part in it and it's fundamentally contrary to how you build soldie*rs, which Militaries know how to do because they have been doing it for thousands of years.


It's almost like some people are purposely wrecking western militaries. Or are useful idiots at any rate...


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I have to say the skirt and bowler hat from the 80's were designed by someone that hated women. Actually having a dress uniform designed for a female body and to make them look sharp is what's need. Gender neutral is your Combats and Coveralls. Maybe have women trial and design what they want using input from across the CF and well known women fashion designers.


----------



## QV

If there are consultations for one gender, then there should be consultations for all the genders. I can't recall what we're up to now for that but pretty sure it's officially more than two.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Colin Parkinson said:


> I have to say the skirt and bowler hat from the 80's were designed by someone that hated women. Actually having a dress uniform designed for a female body and to make them look sharp is what's need. Gender neutral is your Combats and Coveralls. Maybe have women trial and design what they want using input from across the CF and well known women fashion designers.



Dude, we're a military that has publicly acknowledged that we can't even make a pair of boots that don't injure soldiers...


----------



## Brad Sallows

Maybe just dress like ancient Romans.


----------



## ueo

Furniture said:


> I'm aware it's not a high priority for people considering joining, but as I said, it is a dissatisfier for those already in. Retention is as big an issue as recruiting in some occupations.
> 
> Fixing dress regs costs us very little, and is something we should have been doing 20+ years ago.


We've fixed, refixed and rerefixed Dress stds since the late  60"s. Each mod cost a pretty penny I'd wager and none have had any great influence on recruiting or retention. They did allow a couple generations of CWO/RSM's a basis on which to make life difficult. Not an issue in my mind.


----------



## dimsum

Colin Parkinson said:


> Maybe have women trial and design what they want using input from across the CF and well known women fashion designers.


It doesn't even have to be female fashion designers.  Alfred Sung isn't a woman, but is known for women's clothing. 

I'm not young - nor a woman - so take it for what it's worth, but I'd skew the sample size to "women in the CAF who aren't retiring in the next 5 years".


----------



## Blackadder1916

Colin Parkinson said:


> Maybe have women trial and design what they want using input from across the CF and well known women fashion designers.



In-house service committee designed and trialed uniform with input from serving members.


----------



## YZT580

Blackadder1916 said:


> In-house service committee designed and trialed uniform with input from serving members.
> 
> View attachment 69682


pretty, but so what?  How often do dress uniforms even leave the closet?   People won't join the armed forces until the guidance and teaching community in high school present service as a viable option for a career and the press stop running down the military every chance they get.  There are 30 years of bad attitude on the part of educators to reverse and on top of that is the me culture.  Even Macdonald's is having trouble filling their rosters with students who actually work for their pay


----------



## dimsum

Blackadder1916 said:


> In-house service committee designed and trialed uniform with input from serving members.
> 
> View attachment 69682


And from Down Unda:







						Australian Defence Force dressed in wool by Farage
					

All female personnel in the Australian Defence Force (ADF) have an entitlement to wear a wool blend General Duty dress produced by Australian clothing brand and Woolmark licensee Farage.




					www.wool.com


----------



## Czech_pivo

YZT580 said:


> pretty, but so what?  How often do dress uniforms even leave the closet?   People won't join the armed forces until the guidance and teaching community in high school present service as a viable option for a career and the press stop running down the military every chance they get.  There are 30 years of bad attitude on the part of educators to reverse and on top of that is the me culture.  Even Macdonald's is having trouble filling their rosters with students who actually work for their pay


Just wait until the Libs and/or Socialists roll out 'basic life income' of 25-30k for everyone who wants it.


----------



## Quirky

Czech_pivo said:


> Just wait until the Libs and/or Socialists roll out 'basic life income' of 25-30k for everyone who wants it.


So everyone gets the basic life income, then a salary from employment income is extra right? Otherwise its just an excuse for people not to be employed.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Quirky said:


> So everyone gets the basic life income, then a salary from employment income is extra right? Otherwise its just an excuse for people not to be employed.


Please tell me that you're joking right? That is not how they envision it.


----------



## Czech_pivo

This article lays out nicely a number of the existing problems, virtually already known to everyone here.









						Subs, jets, sleeping bags with functioning zippers: Where Canada could put $16B in additional defence spending
					

Maybe to equip the Canadian Rangers with a rifle that isn’t 114 years old?




					nationalpost.com


----------



## daftandbarmy

Czech_pivo said:


> This article lays out nicely a number of the existing problems, virtually already known to everyone here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Subs, jets, sleeping bags with functioning zippers: Where Canada could put $16B in additional defence spending
> 
> 
> Maybe to equip the Canadian Rangers with a rifle that isn’t 114 years old?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nationalpost.com



Has Tristan Hopper been monitoring this site, I wonder?


----------



## dimsum

daftandbarmy said:


> Has Tristan Hopper been monitoring this site, I wonder?


and/or CAF Reddit.


----------



## Spencer100

Quirky said:


> So everyone gets the basic life income, then a salary from employment income is extra right? Otherwise its just an excuse for people not to be employed.


I don't think you understand the program they are cooking.  The basic idea is everyone gets a "basic" income. This whole thing is based on the idea the future is going to be so awesome because of the tech companies that there will not be enough jobs. So the government will pay you to do what you want.  The tech companies are are in love with this idea. Because secretly they know they will be receiving the bulk of the money as you sit and buy V-bucks, Meta Credits, Amazon prime, Spotify, etc.  Silicon valley is in love with this idea.  I don't blame them they will make not billions...but trillions.  COVID was the dry run and its was great! for them.  (this is not even tin foil hat stuff) 

The problem is Maggie was right.  You eventually run out of other people money.   

Too stop gravity they are working on the concept of New Monetary Theory and then digital currency.  

I can go farther but most don't want to hear.


----------



## Brad Sallows

Money is just a medium of exchange.  Wealth is what people do with their time.  Some uses of time are valued by others, and some are not.  The more of the latter, the less we all consume.  The less you can consume, the lower your standard of living.


----------



## Kirkhill

WW3 looms.  NATO asks for more and Army.ca is debating 2SLGBTQIA+ on the budget increase thread and uniforms on the Force 2025 thread.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Kirkhill said:


> WW3 looms.  NATO asks for more and Army.ca is debating 2SLGBTQIA+ on the budget increase thread and uniforms on the Force 2025 thread.



Traditions are to be adhered to old boy


----------



## dimsum

Kirkhill said:


> WW3 looms.  NATO asks for more and Army.ca is debating 2SLGBTQIA+ on the budget increase thread and uniforms on the Force 2025 thread.


Well, GC and DND isn't dictating policy based on our posts* so why not talk about other things?  We have plenty of threads talking about Ukraine, etc.


* or are they?!


----------



## Halifax Tar

Spencer100 said:


> I don't think you understand the program they are cooking.  The basic idea is everyone gets a "basic" income. This whole thing is based on the idea the future is going to be so awesome because of the tech companies that there will not be enough jobs. So the government will pay you to do what you want.  The tech companies are are in love with this idea. Because secretly they know they will be receiving the bulk of the money as you sit and buy V-bucks, Meta Credits, Amazon prime, Spotify, etc.  Silicon valley is in love with this idea.  I don't blame them they will make not billions...but trillions.  COVID was the dry run and its was great! for them.  (this is not even tin foil hat stuff)
> 
> The problem is Maggie was right.  You eventually run out of other people money.
> 
> Too stop gravity they are working on the concept of New Monetary Theory and then digital currency.
> 
> I can go farther but most don't want to hear.



No please, go on.  Seriously.


----------



## blacktriangle

Spencer100 said:


> I don't think you understand the program they are cooking.  The basic idea is everyone gets a "basic" income. This whole thing is based on the idea the future is going to be so awesome because of the tech companies that there will not be enough jobs. So the government will pay you to do what you want.  The tech companies are are in love with this idea. Because secretly they know they will be receiving the bulk of the money as you sit and buy V-bucks, Meta Credits, Amazon prime, Spotify, etc.  Silicon valley is in love with this idea.  I don't blame them they will make not billions...but trillions.  COVID was the dry run and its was great! for them.  (this is not even tin foil hat stuff)
> 
> The problem is Maggie was right.  You eventually run out of other people money.
> 
> Too stop gravity they are working on the concept of New Monetary Theory and then digital currency.
> 
> I can go farther but most don't want to hear.


In the meantime, those same tech companies have thousands of job vacancies. And they can't find enough qualified applicants in countries such as ours because our education system sucks and our citizenry lacks the motivation to do the work of yesterday and today, let alone the work of the future.


----------



## quadrapiper

Furniture said:


> Dress is a dissatisfier, and it costs us nothing to fix it.


Add an irritation bonus for it being so obviously cheap or free to fix the bulk of the issues with dress.


----------



## Dale Denton

Kirkhill said:


> WW3 looms.  NATO asks for more and Army.ca is debating 2SLGBTQIA+ on the budget increase thread and uniforms on the Force 2025 thread.


Perhaps there's a correlation?


----------



## Brad Sallows

What, you mean bullies attack when they think the victim is weak-willed and effete?


----------



## TacticalTea

Brad Sallows said:


> What, you mean bullies attack when they think the victim is weak-willed and effete?


Spicy


----------



## Brad Sallows

Sure.  But better to anticipate how bullies think, and avoid war by not projecting what they might interpret as weakness.  Avoid the unnecessary battle.


----------



## Spencer100

Halifax Tar said:


> No please, go on.  Seriously.


I'm sure you have heard the "great reset"  And You will own nothing and be happy. 

I have for the last few years and especially the last two been trying to use Hanlon's Razor as the reason for things that are happening....it is becoming harder and harder all the time.  

Question to ask yourself.


----------



## Brad Sallows

> You will own nothing and be happy.



Doubtful.   People will vote for whoever promises to try to change that.


----------



## Spencer100

Brad Sallows said:


> Doubtful.   People will vote for whoever promises to try to change that.


Will they?  I have my doubts that they will.

Plus this more than just voting for red/blue team.  Its mega corporations embracing ESB.  Universities' speech codes. Hollywood pushing agendas in entertainment.  CRT in schools.  Climate Change emergency so stop whatever activity they deem bad. etc etc etc.....

I do believe we (meaning people who believe in western values) have lost....

All though I read your post script "Despair is a Sin".....I thought you're right...keep fighting.


----------



## Brad Sallows

> Its mega corporations embracing ESB.



Buying opportunities.



> Universities' speech codes.



Real world fixes that.



> Hollywood pushing agendas in entertainment.



Plenty of old movies you probably haven't watched.



> CRT in schools.



Involved parents.



> Climate Change emergency so stop whatever activity they deem bad



Take the long view.  No-one is really acting like it's an emergency.


----------



## dimsum

Spencer100 said:


> Hollywood pushing agendas in entertainment


When did Hollywood _not_ push agendas via entertainment? 

It's like people getting mad now that Star Trek [insert show] is being "too liberal".  This is the same franchise that, in the 60s, had a multicultural crew with a Black woman in an important role, and had an episode deliberately and blatantly denouncing racism.


----------



## cyber_lass

dimsum said:


> When did Hollywood _not_ push agendas via entertainment?


No joke... Think of all the heteronormativity in Disney. Even child marriage is encouraged. To say Hollywood hasn't pushed an agenda, well you would have to be blind or someone who was apart of the agenda it was pushing, aka straight, and white. 


dimsum said:


> It's like people getting mad now that Star Trek [insert show] is being "too liberal".  This is the same franchise that, in the 60s, had a multicultural crew with a Black woman in an important role, and had an episode deliberately and blatantly denouncing racism.


Start trek and Mash as well.


----------



## KevinB

dimsum said:


> When did Hollywood _not_ push agendas via entertainment?
> 
> It's like people getting mad now that Star Trek [insert show] is being "too liberal".  This is the same franchise that, in the 60s, had a multicultural crew with a Black woman in an important role, and had an episode deliberately and blatantly denouncing racism.


Yeah plus I mean Kirk will screw anything with two legs and a vagina - if that’s not diversity…

Oh wait I may have downplayed the rampant sexism.


----------



## Haggis

KevinB said:


> Yeah plus I mean Kirk will screw anything with two legs and a vagina - if that’s not diversity…


Only two legs?  What happens in the Omicron Delta system stays in the Omicron Delta system.


----------



## Remius

Haggis said:


> Only two legs?  What happens in the Omicron Delta system stays in the Omicron Delta system.


 Not another COVID variant, please….


----------



## dimsum

KevinB said:


> Oh wait I may have downplayed the rampant sexism.


Hell, I felt uncomfortable watching Mad Men and there have been articles saying that it was downplayed from what it was like back then.


----------



## Underway

dimsum said:


> Meanwhile, NDP foreign affairs critic Heather McPherson said the issue of Canada’s declining military resourcing is both longstanding and nonpartisan.
> 
> “We have seen our military be decimated over [the] long-term. This is not something that has just happened. We have not provided the tools that our soldiers, our men and women in uniform, need to do the jobs that we're asking them to do safely,” she said.





dimsum said:


> This is not what I would have expected from the NDP:



Perhaps the NDP are reading their own socialist doctrine finally.  "The first duty of the state is to protect the state".

That's like Socialism 101.  Granted old school socialism but France still practices it.


----------



## daftandbarmy

dimsum said:


> Hell, I felt uncomfortable watching Mad Men and there have been articles saying that it was downplayed from* what it was like back then*.



Dude, you don't get out much, do you? 

In various sectors of the civilian work world it's still 'Mad Men', on steroids in some cases. Such as:

WHY IS SILICON VALLEY SO AWFUL TO WOMEN?​Tech companies are spending hundreds of millions of dollars to improve conditions for female employees. Here’s why not much has changed—and what might actually work.

Looking back, Wu is struck by “the countless times I’ve had to move a man’s hand from my thigh (or back or shoulder or hair or arm) during a meeting (or networking event or professional lunch or brainstorming session or pitch meeting) without seeming confrontational (or bitchy or rejecting or demanding or aggressive).” In a land of grand ideas and grander funding proposals, she found that the ability to neatly reject a man’s advances without injuring his ego is “a pretty important skill that I would bet most successful women in our industry have.”









						Why Is Silicon Valley So Awful to Women?
					

Tech companies are spending hundreds of millions of dollars to improve conditions for female employees. Here’s why not much has changed—and what might actually work.




					www.theatlantic.com


----------



## Czech_pivo

Underway said:


> Perhaps the NDP are reading their own socialist doctrine finally.  "The first duty of the state is to protect the state".
> 
> That's like Socialism 101.  Granted old school socialism but France still practices it.


Not so fast says Comrade Singh…..

NDP against Canada increasing defence spending to hit 'arbitrary' NATO target​





						NDP against Canada increasing defence spending to hit 'arbitrary' NATO target
					

NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh says his caucus would be against the federal government moving to increase its defence spending to hit NATO's target of two per cent of GDP, calling the request from the international military alliance 'arbitrary.'




					beta.ctvnews.ca
				




Wouldn’t want the NDP to go against the former Union of Soviet *Socialist* Republics now would we.


----------



## rmc_wannabe

Czech_pivo said:


> Not so fast says Comrade Singh…..
> 
> NDP against Canada increasing defence spending to hit 'arbitrary' NATO target​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NDP against Canada increasing defence spending to hit 'arbitrary' NATO target
> 
> 
> NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh says his caucus would be against the federal government moving to increase its defence spending to hit NATO's target of two per cent of GDP, calling the request from the international military alliance 'arbitrary.'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beta.ctvnews.ca
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wouldn’t want the NDP to go against the former Union of Soviet *Socialist* Republics now would we.


Cool... so what's their metric then? Seeing as we treaty bound to NATO and NORAD, I would love to see his indicators. More "punching above our weight" talk?


----------



## Good2Golf

‘Convening’ above our weight, you mean?


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

rmc_wannabe said:


> Cool... so what's their metric then? Seeing as we treaty bound to NATO and NORAD, I would love to see his indicators. More "punching above our weight" talk?


My guess is PMJT has secured Singh's support for two critical files:

New Fighter Jet
CSC

To go along with that, NDP won't give the Govt grief over implementing SSE.

Like I have said many times though, I don't foresee major increase in Defence expenditures from this Govt.


----------



## Quirky

I sort of agree with Comrade Singh. The CAF needs direction on what its purpose is, then we can figure out the budget. Dumping another $20b into the budget will just mean new office furniture every year rather than anything meaningful like new equipment.


----------



## rmc_wannabe

Quirky said:


> I sort of agree with Comrade Singh. The CAF needs direction on what its purpose is, then we can figure out the budget. Dumping another $20b into the budget will just mean new office furniture every year rather than anything meaningful like new equipment.


I agree totally with those points, however, we need an alternative metric.

If 2% GDP isn't the metric wanted, what is the plan? What capabilities do they want added? What are the timelines?  

SSE isn't worth the paper it's written on, so that can't possibly be a guide or point of reference


----------



## Jarnhamar

Kirkhill said:


> WW3 looms.  NATO asks for more and Army.ca is debating 2SLGBTQIA+ on the budget increase thread and uniforms on the Force 2025 thread.



Pragmatism.


----------



## ArmyRick

Czech_pivo said:


> Not so fast says Comrade Singh…..
> 
> NDP against Canada increasing defence spending to hit 'arbitrary' NATO target​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NDP against Canada increasing defence spending to hit 'arbitrary' NATO target
> 
> 
> NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh says his caucus would be against the federal government moving to increase its defence spending to hit NATO's target of two per cent of GDP, calling the request from the international military alliance 'arbitrary.'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beta.ctvnews.ca
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wouldn’t want the NDP to go against the former Union of Soviet *Socialist* Republics now would we.


Why is now Liberal back bencher saying anything? He gave it up to his master, Trudeau. Hopefully the PM reels him in.


----------



## Good2Golf

ArmyRick said:


> Why is now Liberal back bencher saying anything? He gave it up to his master, Trudeau. Hopefully the PM reels him in.


I bet you it’s a pre-agreed Good Cop - Bad Cop script…


----------



## daftandbarmy

Go Canada!

Nothing says 'we care about Russia destroying Ukraine' than a social media fundraiser.

Can a virtual bottle drive be far behind? I mean, tapping into skills honed over decades of fundraising for minor hockey, and a photgenic Prime Minister who likes to hang around with actors, shouldn't go to waste.... 

Canada, Europe to co-host social media fundraiser for displaced Ukrainians​
Canada and the European Commission will spearhead an international fundraising campaign to help people fleeing the war in Ukraine.

The fundraising effort, called "Stand Up For Ukraine," will engage politicians, artists and businesses, among others, and is to culminate with an April 9 pledging event to be hosted by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen.

They are partnering with the international advocacy organization Global Citizen to raise funds for the humanitarian crisis spawned by the worst fighting in Europe since the Second World War.

A statement from Trudeau's office says Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is inviting musicians, actors, athletes, business leaders, politicians and anybody else so inclined to take part in a large-scale social media rally.



			https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-europe-ukraine-refugee-fundraiser-1.6398756


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

I think the starting point for any decision on defence spending has to begin (and end?) with the informal bargain that was struck with the US at the start of WW2: (I am paraphrasing) By the US: We will not tolerate any invasion of the Canadian territory; By Canada: we will do all that is in our capacity so that Canadian terrritory will never be used to attack the US.

Basically, Canada needs to defend and secure its air and sea approaches to fulfill its end of the bargain.

To me, this means that we have to put defence money immediately here (and almost in that order):

(1) fighter replacement - NOW!
(2) North warning system upgrade  - with extensions to both other coasts;
(3) Ballistic missile defence;
(4) Nuclear attack submarines (entering the USAUS deal);
(5) Aircraft carriers (one per coast - West first, then East) Queen Elizabeth class;
(6) build the escorts required for the Carrier Battle Group.

Most this should be done in a hurry and nearly simultaneously.

Then, and only then, if there is room left in the 2%, a sea deployable capability to move Army equipemnt, strategic capability to move troops in large number and high end deployable equipement for the Army so we can quickly deploy battle groups in support of friendly countries up to and inclusive of  a full brigade on short notice, ramping up to a full division in six months.

This also means: (1) a rapid increase of full time personnel, probably to around 110k tarined pers; (2) a lowering of ops tempo and operations in the short term to provide for, (3) increased training capability to train up the various trades. 

Sorry Army, but you come last in the shoping list.

P.S. With a quick calculation, all of this is feasible on 2% GDP.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

rmc_wannabe said:


> I agree totally with those points, however, we need an alternative metric.
> 
> If 2% GDP isn't the metric wanted, what is the plan? What capabilities do they want added? What are the timelines?
> 
> SSE isn't worth the paper it's written on, so that can't possibly be a guide or point of reference


I do like how when SSE was first being produced, the big complaint was that the Canada First Defence Strategy that SSE replaced was criticized for being essentially a "shopping list" rather than a strategy.

SSE was then published and was the exact same shopping list, only this time, it had flashy numbers included and it was "costed" LOL.


----------



## Quirky

Oldgateboatdriver said:


> (1) fighter replacement - NOW!
> (2) North warning system upgrade - with extensions to both other coasts;
> (3) Ballistic missile defence;
> (4) Nuclear attack submarines (entering the USAUS deal);
> (5) Aircraft carriers (one per coast - West first, then East) Queen Elizabeth class;
> (6) build the escorts required for the Carrier Battle Group.



I think the first step is reducing the wait time for recruitment, waiting a year or more is not sustainable. Needs to be cut to 30-60 days max. We are severely short staffed in all areas so all that new equipment will just sit collecting dust.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Quirky said:


> I sort of agree with Comrade Singh. The CAF needs direction on what its purpose is, then we can figure out the budget. Dumping another $20b into the budget will just mean new office furniture every year rather than anything meaningful like new equipment.



The title of the article and the actual written article don't really match up.  And I agree your summation. 



Oldgateboatdriver said:


> I think the starting point for any decision on defence spending has to begin (and end?) with the informal bargain that was struck with the US at the start of WW2: (I am paraphrasing) By the US: We will not tolerate any invasion of the Canadian territory; By Canada: we will do all that is in our capacity so that Canadian terrritory will never be used to attack the US.
> 
> Basically, Canada needs to defend and secure its air and sea approaches to fulfill its end of the bargain.
> 
> To me, this means that we have to put defence money immediately here (and almost in that order):
> 
> (1) fighter replacement - NOW!
> (2) North warning system upgrade  - with extensions to both other coasts;
> (3) Ballistic missile defence;
> (4) Nuclear attack submarines (entering the USAUS deal);
> (5) Aircraft carriers (one per coast - West first, then East) Queen Elizabeth class;
> (6) build the escorts required for the Carrier Battle Group.
> 
> Most this should be done in a hurry and nearly simultaneously.
> 
> Then, and only then, if there is room left in the 2%, a sea deployable capability to move Army equipemnt, strategic capability to move troops in large number and high end deployable equipement for the Army so we can quickly deploy battle groups in support of friendly countries up to and inclusive of  a full brigade on short notice, ramping up to a full division in six months.
> 
> This also means: (1) a rapid increase of full time personnel, probably to around 110k tarined pers; (2) a lowering of ops tempo and operations in the short term to provide for, (3) increased training capability to train up the various trades.
> 
> Sorry Army, but you come last in the shoping list.
> 
> P.S. With a quick calculation, all of this is feasible on 2% GDP.



Where have I heard that before ? 

Remember this is Army.ca


----------



## TacticalTea

Quirky said:


> I think the first step is reducing the wait time for recruitment, waiting a year or more is not sustainable. Needs to be cut to 30-60 days max. We are severely short staffed in all areas so all that new equipment will just sit collecting dust.


Yep, this.

Also I don't agree with the notion that our only focus should be self-defense. We get basically no return out of it because, let's face it, no country other than the US would be capable of carrying out a north to south invasion of Canada.

The western approaches are protected geographically by the Alaskan peninsula, the Rockies, and thousands of miles between the coast and Ottawa, and militarily by the Puget Sound naval facilities.

The first three big ticket items are 1. Fix recruitment, as you said. 2. Fix whatever's broken (many, many buildings notably). 3. Fix procurement. Pork barreling is a fool's errand. The government would get more bang for its buck with efficient military spending and separate, but also more efficient economic development. That's not to say we can't consolidate defence production, such as for munitions and ships (NSS), but it needs to happen only where it makes sense.

Now, with that said, my procurement priorities would be pretty similar, given a few changes here and there. I think it's pretty clear to everyone what we're in need of, so as always, devil's in the details.


----------



## rmc_wannabe

Quirky said:


> I think the first step is reducing the wait time for recruitment, waiting a year or more is not sustainable. Needs to be cut to 30-60 days max. We are severely short staffed in all areas so all that new equipment will just sit collecting dust.


Agreed. We need to find the log jams and clear them. Starting with the "Write a CFAT and see if you're qualified" approach to recruiting. Unless absolutely required for technical trades, wave it. DEO and ROTP already have metrics to show capability. It just becomes another hurdle for no reason.


----------



## Grimey

TacticalTea said:


> 2. Fix whatever's broken (many, many buildings notably).


We should be looking at divesting ourselves of as many buildings as possible.  We shouldn’t be in the real estate business.  Maintain what’s essential, sell off the rest, lease as required.


----------



## dapaterson

CFAT is a valid, proven predictor of success.  The timeline and process to get to the point of writing the CFAT is the issue, not the test itself.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Grimey said:


> We should be looking at divesting ourselves of as many buildings as possible.  We shouldn’t be in the real estate business.  Maintain what’s essential, sell off the rest, lease as required.


The Feds divested many of their buildings here in Vancouver and then got hosed by the Real Estate companies that are twice as smart and cunning as PWGS, the Fed stopped divesting as the cost of maintaining the buildings was cheaper than getting nickled and dimed to death by the companies.


----------



## rmc_wannabe

dapaterson said:


> CFAT is a valid, proven predictor of success.  The timeline and process to get to the point of writing the CFAT is the issue, not the test itself.


Having worked in a technical trade most of my career, especially in a school environment, CFAT scores aren't a solid indicator of success. I still see folks come in at PRB for trg failures and it has little to do with aptitude, mainly performance deficiencies or improper instruction. 

Notice I said remove it in cases where it has no relevance: DEOs and ROTP already need to show educational achievement...why make them write another test to prove competency? I also don't see a reason someone coming in for an entry level, non-technical job should have one more hurdle in the way. Have those trades decide if that person is a good fit through assessing performance at the DP1 level. We cull the pool of applicants before they even finish the recruiting process. 

Finally, aptitude testing has been treated as quackery in most academic settings for at least 20 years. For us to use it as a metric for assessing employment suitability is a bit ridiculous.


----------



## MilEME09

Chris Selley: If Ukraine can overhaul its military in eight years, what's stopping Canada?
					

With Russia on the warpath, neither Canada's 'punching above our weight' myth nor the 'nation of peacekeepers' myth holds water




					nationalpost.com


----------



## dapaterson

rmc_wannabe said:


> Having worked in a technical trade most of my career, especially in a school environment, CFAT scores aren't a solid indicator of success. I still see folks come in at PRB for trg failures and it has little to do with aptitude, mainly performance deficiencies or improper instruction.
> 
> Notice I said remove it in cases where it has no relevance: DEOs and ROTP already need to show educational achievement...why make them write another test to prove competency? I also don't see a reason someone coming in for an entry level, non-technical job should have one more hurdle in the way. Have those trades decide if that person is a good fit through assessing performance at the DP1 level. We cull the pool of applicants before they even finish the recruiting process.
> 
> Finally, aptitude testing has been treated as quackery in most academic settings for at least 20 years. For us to use it as a metric for assessing employment suitability is a bit ridiculous.


Survivorship bias on your part; you only see individuals after selection; you don't see the population that's selected out.  That is in fact the point of selection - to increase potential for success by not offering marginal performers employment.  Letting in anyone and their dog is neither effective nor efficient use of limited resources.

And there's ample evidence that a degree, in and of itself, is not strongly correlated with some necessary abilities.


----------



## ArmyRick

dapaterson said:


> CFAT is a valid, proven predictor of success.  The timeline and process to get to the point of writing the CFAT is the issue, not the test itself.


Strongly disagree.


----------



## YZT580

Oldgateboatdriver said:


> I think the starting point for any decision on defence spending has to begin (and end?) with the informal bargain that was struck with the US at the start of WW2: (I am paraphrasing) By the US: We will not tolerate any invasion of the Canadian territory; By Canada: we will do all that is in our capacity so that Canadian terrritory will never be used to attack the US.
> 
> Basically, Canada needs to defend and secure its air and sea approaches to fulfill its end of the bargain.
> 
> To me, this means that we have to put defence money immediately here (and almost in that order):
> 
> (1) fighter replacement - NOW!
> (2) North warning system upgrade  - with extensions to both other coasts;
> (3) Ballistic missile defence;
> (4) Nuclear attack submarines (entering the USAUS deal);
> (5) Aircraft carriers (one per coast - West first, then East) Queen Elizabeth class;
> (6) build the escorts required for the Carrier Battle Group.
> 
> Most this should be done in a hurry and nearly simultaneously.
> 
> Then, and only then, if there is room left in the 2%, a sea deployable capability to move Army equipemnt, strategic capability to move troops in large number and high end deployable equipement for the Army so we can quickly deploy battle groups in support of friendly countries up to and inclusive of  a full brigade on short notice, ramping up to a full division in six months.
> 
> This also means: (1) a rapid increase of full time personnel, probably to around 110k tarined pers; (2) a lowering of ops tempo and operations in the short term to provide for, (3) increased training capability to train up the various trades.
> 
> Sorry Army, but you come last in the shoping list.
> 
> P.S. With a quick calculation, all of this is feasible on 2% GDP.


carriers are a very expensive nice to have means of force projection which we don't need.  As for the rest of your list, I would replace carriers with additional frigates and more aircraft.  The ones we have now and are projected to buy won't last long and getting replacements will be impossible in wartime.  Also, additional ice breakers so we are able to sail into our own waters in winter


----------



## Haggis

TacticalTea said:


> Also I don't agree with the notion that our only focus should be self-defense.


Self-defence is our reason for being now.  We are "conveners".


TacticalTea said:


> The first three big ticket items are 1. Fix recruitment, as you said.


It's not all on the CAF.  Often, the delays in recruitment are the fault of the applicant not being responsive to recruiters, not providing information in a timely fashion or providing incomplete information.  We're still far faster than many OGDs, like mine, which has a 2+ year long recruiting program.


TacticalTea said:


> *Pork barreling* is a fool's errand. The government would get more bang for its buck with efficient military spending and separate, but also more efficient economic development.


The catchphrase is "*regional economic benefits*".


----------



## MilEME09

Haggis said:


> The catchphrase is "*regional economic benefits*".


I think most of us hate this, if Canadian companies cannot deliver a quality product, at a competitive price, we should not force our selves to buy Canadian. It should be up to industry to win the contract through innovation, and good economics, not through simply bring Canadian.


----------



## GR66

Oldgateboatdriver said:


> I think the starting point for any decision on defence spending has to begin (and end?) with the informal bargain that was struck with the US at the start of WW2: (I am paraphrasing) By the US: We will not tolerate any invasion of the Canadian territory; By Canada: we will do all that is in our capacity so that Canadian terrritory will never be used to attack the US.
> 
> Basically, Canada needs to defend and secure its air and sea approaches to fulfill its end of the bargain.
> 
> To me, this means that we have to put defence money immediately here (and almost in that order):
> 
> (1) fighter replacement - NOW!
> (2) North warning system upgrade  - with extensions to both other coasts;
> (3) Ballistic missile defence;
> (4) Nuclear attack submarines (entering the USAUS deal);
> (5) Aircraft carriers (one per coast - West first, then East) Queen Elizabeth class;
> (6) build the escorts required for the Carrier Battle Group.
> 
> Most this should be done in a hurry and nearly simultaneously.
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> Then, and only then, if there is room left in the 2%, a sea deployable capability to move Army equipemnt, strategic capability to move troops in large number and high end deployable equipement for the Army so we can quickly deploy battle groups in support of friendly countries up to and inclusive of  a full brigade on short notice, ramping up to a full division in six months.
> 
> This also means: (1) a rapid increase of full time personnel, probably to around 110k tarined pers; (2) a lowering of ops tempo and operations in the short term to provide for, (3) increased training capability to train up the various trades.
> 
> Sorry Army, but you come last in the shoping list.
> 
> P.S. With a quick calculation, all of this is feasible on 2% GDP.


I get where you're coming from and in broad a broad sense agree with you, but where I disagree is with your apparent narrow focus on of defence of North America to the (more or less) complete exclusion of expeditionary land capability.  

What good does it do us if we draw back into a North American island and let the broader "West" fend for themselves?  If we are to truly prosper as a nation we need to engage with the rest of the world in not only the exchange of goods, but the exchange of people and ideas.  We are lessened as a society if we become insular and strictly inward looking and let out overseas friends and allies be threatened by forces opposed to our basic principles.   And sometimes that means we will need to stand side by side (literally) with our allies on the battlefield and pay the price in blood to defend our collective interests.

I am in total agreement with you that as essentially an island nation the bulk of our defense dollars and effort should be in the air and sea realms but I do think that an expeditionary land force is a vital political element of our defence strategy.  What form that takes an whether our current Army is fit for task is another story all together.


----------



## Brad Sallows

> Finally, aptitude testing has been treated as quackery in most academic settings for at least 20 years.



Is that because they've disproven the method, or they just don't like the results?


----------



## childs56

dapaterson said:


> Survivorship bias on your part; you only see individuals after selection; you don't see the population that's selected out.  That is in fact the point of selection - to increase potential for success by not offering marginal performers employment.  Letting in anyone and their dog is neither effective nor efficient use of limited resources.
> 
> And there's ample evidence that a degree, in and of itself, is not strongly correlated with some necessary abilities.


I have been involved in Recruiting at the Unit level. We lost many a good Soldier due to "marginal performers" on the recruiting process. I have seen some awfully smart people who shouldn't be near, in charge of or working alongside anything Military. 

Honestly the Recruiting Process needs a major overhaul. Taking more then 6 months to Join the Military is to long. Hiring for Basic Training should be straight forward, simple. Application filled out. 5 year work history, any past charges, have you resided elsewhere then Canada, are you willing to fight in Defense of Canada?  
Get hired go to basic training, security check on going. End of basic check completed. Preferred Trades training, if back ground check prohibits that then suitable job relating to security clearance. 
As for Officer selection, I disagree with the Education Requirements, if we look at the interesting show over the past couple decades we can see a us verses them mentality. It has led us down a bad path of Elites and servants. This is not the right way. 5 years service in the Junior Ranks Commission. Specialties such as Pilots, Engineers etc will be made. Officer corps should serve time in the ranks and with the ranks.  

As A Friend with the Royal Marines Said, the difference between their Officers before Iraq and Afghanistan and after the Wars was night and day difference in how they interacted and treated their Royal Marines.  Much better after they craped in the same toilet, ate the same food, took the same risks day in and day out and interacted with the Marines on a personal level.  We need this in our Officer Corps. We got a bit of in in the past. But to many of those high and mightiness are in HQ groups and run the show.


----------



## Brad Sallows

> to defend and secure its air and sea approaches



Land-based air will do.  An enemy large enough to mount a serious threat to our turf is large enough to turn one carrier group into a long list of names in Canadian newspapers if the group ventures out from under land-based air cover.


----------



## dapaterson

So, people without aptitude to pass a single, simple test are "good soldiers"?  That's not intuitive - good soldiers are able to grasp concepts, able to figure things out, able to work under pressure.  If a single test can defeat them...

You appear to be from an Army Reserve unit.  I'll respectfully suggest that if there's an "us vs them" or "elites and servants" mentality that that is a problem of your unit culture., and not of the CAF, CFAT or recruiting system.


----------



## rmc_wannabe

dapaterson said:


> Survivorship bias on your part; you only see individuals after selection; you don't see the population that's selected out.  That is in fact the point of selection - to increase potential for success by not offering marginal performers employment.  Letting in anyone and their dog is neither effective nor efficient use of limited resources.
> 
> And there's ample evidence that a degree, in and of itself, is not strongly correlated with some necessary abilities.


Fair. I can admit that I haven't seen how the sausage gets made outside of my own experience. 

If you're agreeing that a degree isn't an indicator of ability, why put such weight on a CFAT as well? Seems like a weird bar to set comparatively


Brad Sallows said:


> Is that because they've disproven the method, or they just don't like the results?


A little of both . Aptitude testing is limited in assessing retention, practical learning, and emotional intelligence. All are factors required for success in academia and the work place

In the end, like childs65 stated above, we don't see the fruits of someone's potential until long after they walk in the door of a CFRC.


----------



## GK .Dundas

Brad Sallows said:


> Land-based air will do.  An enemy large enough to mount a serious threat to our turf is large enough to turn one carrier group into a long list of names in Canadian newspapers if the group ventures out from under land-based air cover.


Really?
You do know that carriers provide their own air defence and strike capability ?
And historically relying on land based aircover has at best been farcical and it's worst suicidal .
Kuwait 1958 , Suez '56 Malaysia /Singapore post 73.. And that's only a small sample and only the British examples.
By the way staying with the Brits sometime in 73 - 74 the Brits started an ex to prove to the world that  the RAF  and the Army could reinforce Singapore by Air. At one point it was realised that there was no RAF fighters that would be available on the ground.
And the transport aircraft were sitting ducks as they approached Singapore.
The RAN was able.. barely able to provide HMAS Melbourne and limited air cover with her A 4 skyhawks.
 Since the British government of the day was trying to get rid of it's carrier fleet the exercise was'nt mentioned too much.


----------



## Remius

childs56 said:


> I have been involved in Recruiting at the Unit level. We lost many a good Soldier due to "marginal performers" on the recruiting process. I have seen some awfully smart people who shouldn't be near, in charge of or working alongside anything Military.
> 
> Honestly the Recruiting Process needs a major overhaul. Taking more then 6 months to Join the Military is to long. Hiring for Basic Training should be straight forward, simple. Application filled out. 5 year work history, any past charges, have you resided elsewhere then Canada, are you willing to fight in Defense of Canada?
> Get hired go to basic training, security check on going. End of basic check completed. Preferred Trades training, if back ground check prohibits that then suitable job relating to security clearance.
> As for Officer selection, I disagree with the Education Requirements, if we look at the interesting show over the past couple decades we can see a us verses them mentality. It has led us down a bad path of Elites and servants. This is not the right way. 5 years service in the Junior Ranks Commission. Specialties such as Pilots, Engineers etc will be made. Officer corps should serve time in the ranks and with the ranks.
> 
> As A Friend with the Royal Marines Said, the difference between their Officers before Iraq and Afghanistan and after the Wars was night and day difference in how they interacted and treated their Royal Marines.  Much better after they craped in the same toilet, ate the same food, took the same risks day in and day out and interacted with the Marines on a personal level.  We need this in our Officer Corps. We got a bit of in in the past. But to many of those high and mightiness are in HQ groups and run the show.


No one gets a gun until they tell us their names.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Oldgateboatdriver said:


> Sorry Army, but you come last in the shoping list.


That'd be fine since you'd need half the army in NCDs to sail all those ships


----------



## GK .Dundas

Oldgateboatdriver said:


> I think the starting point for any decision on defence spending has to begin (and end?) with the informal bargain that was struck with the US at the start of WW2: (I am paraphrasing) By the US: We will not tolerate any invasion of the Canadian territory; By Canada: we will do all that is in our capacity so that Canadian terrritory will never be used to attack the US.
> 
> Basically, Canada needs to defend and secure its air and sea approaches to fulfill its end of the bargain.
> 
> To me, this means that we have to put defence money immediately here (and almost in that order):
> 
> (1) fighter replacement - NOW!
> (2) North warning system upgrade  - with extensions to both other coasts;
> (3) Ballistic missile defence;
> (4) Nuclear attack submarines (entering the USAUS deal);
> (5) Aircraft carriers (one per coast - West first, then East) Queen Elizabeth class;
> (6) build the escorts required for the Carrier Battle Group.
> 
> Most this should be done in a hurry and nearly simultaneously.
> 
> Then, and only then, if there is room left in the 2%, a sea deployable capability to move Army equipemnt, strategic capability to move troops in large number and high end deployable equipement for the Army so we can quickly deploy battle groups in support of friendly countries up to and inclusive of  a full brigade on short notice, ramping up to a full division in six months.
> 
> This also means: (1) a rapid increase of full time personnel, probably to around 110k tarined pers; (2) a lowering of ops tempo and operations in the short term to provide for, (3) increased training capability to train up the various trades.
> 
> Sorry Army, but you come last in the shoping list.
> 
> P.S. With a quick calculation, all of this is feasible on 2% GDP.


you're looking at a navy of roughly 15,000 people .
Oh and as for carrier's go for COTL ,V/STOLhas too many issues not least of which involves capability
The other thing currently there are at least two ctol strike fighters being built and only one vstol and it's seems to be " up in the air "courtesy of American politicians.
Yes it is the one A/C the Canadian government has been trying avoid buying or least in it's ctol version the F 35.


----------



## TacticalTea

Haggis said:


> Self-defence is our reason for being now.  We are "conveners".


I know, and it makes very little sense to me. Scratch that. It makes sense from a partisan political perspective.

But we could do so much more with just a bit more spending and if we (the government) straightened up.



GR66 said:


> I get where you're coming from and in broad a broad sense agree with you, but where I disagree is with your apparent narrow focus on of defence of North America to the (more or less) complete exclusion of expeditionary land capability.
> 
> What good does it do us if we draw back into a North American island and let the broader "West" fend for themselves?  If we are to truly prosper as a nation we need to engage with the rest of the world in not only the exchange of goods, but the exchange of people and ideas.  We are lessened as a society if we become insular and strictly inward looking and let out overseas friends and allies be threatened by forces opposed to our basic principles.   And sometimes that means we will need to stand side by side (literally) with our allies on the battlefield and pay the price in blood to defend our collective interests.
> 
> I am in total agreement with you that as essentially an island nation the bulk of our defense dollars and effort should be in the air and sea realms but I do think that an expeditionary land force is a vital political element of our defence strategy.  What form that takes an whether our current Army is fit for task is another story all together.


This is pretty much my view as well. My procurement priorities: build up our strategic air and sealift, and ensure our Army is capable of fighting on a modern battlefield (SPGs, CAS, Tactical drones, GBAD, proper comms and logistical support).


----------



## Underway

Czech_pivo said:


> Not so fast says Comrade Singh…..
> 
> NDP against Canada increasing defence spending to hit 'arbitrary' NATO target​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NDP against Canada increasing defence spending to hit 'arbitrary' NATO target
> 
> 
> NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh says his caucus would be against the federal government moving to increase its defence spending to hit NATO's target of two per cent of GDP, calling the request from the international military alliance 'arbitrary.'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beta.ctvnews.ca
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wouldn’t want the NDP to go against the former Union of Soviet *Socialist* Republics now would we.


I know what you're getting at but you can't be using the word "Socialist" as a defining characteristic.  National _Socialists _are significantly different political philosophy from _Socialist Republics_.  And communists sure as hell aren't actually socialists either.

That's like saying everyone who called themselves a Peoples Democracy is actually a Democracy...


----------



## GR66

Oldgateboatdriver said:


> [snip]
> To me, this means that we have to put defence money immediately here (and almost in that order):
> 
> (1) fighter replacement - NOW!
> (2) North warning system upgrade  - with extensions to both other coasts;
> (3) Ballistic missile defence;
> (4) Nuclear attack submarines (entering the USAUS deal);
> (5) Aircraft carriers (one per coast - West first, then East) Queen Elizabeth class;
> (6) build the escorts required for the Carrier Battle Group.
> [snip]


(1), (2) & (3)  Agree 100% (and more fighters would be nice in my opinion in order to both maintain NORAD coverage as well as greater expeditionary capabilities.

(4)  Agree as well but accept that it would be a VERY tough sell politically.  8-10 AIP subs might have to be a compromise.  Capability-wise 8-10 non-nuclear subs might be better than 4 nuclear subs if that were the choice (due to the extensive extra infrastructure and support costs of adding a nuclear fleet).  We should also look at XLUUVs as part of our subsurface fleet.

(5)  A nice-to-have but very expensive capability.  Not sure the opportunity cost would be worth the other items on the list you may have to give up.  Possibly a better solution would be something more like a Mistral or Juan Carlos-type amphibious assault ship.  With Maritime Helicopters embarked could be an ASW task-force flagship.  Can be used to force project ground troops.  Useful in humanitarian missions.  If equipped with a ski-jump could embark RAF/US Marine F-35B's even if we don't have our own VTOL/STOL fighters.

(6)  More hulls are definitely needed to patrol a coastline the size of ours, to escort US forces deploying to Europe/Asia in case of a major conflict or to provide escorts for a Canadian/Allied task force.  Due to manning issues we should look various platform options beyond the CSC (Corvette-type vessels, USV's, arsenal ships, etc.)

Other important capabilities to be added/expanded in my mind (in no particular order) would be:

More airborne ISR capabilites (MPAs, UAVs, AEW&C, etc.)
Expanded MH fleet (to go along with the expanded surface fleet) - again look at UAVs as part of the mix.
More airlift and AAR assets (A330 MRTT as a solution for both?)
GBAD for both domestic defence and expeditionary use
Multiple enablers to make our expeditionary land forces survivable and useful in a peer conflict (GBAD, Anti-armour weapons, night vision gear, SP artillery, UAV's/loitering munitions, long-range precision fires, etc.)


----------



## MilEME09

GR66 said:


> (1), (2) & (3)  Agree 100% (and more fighters would be nice in my opinion in order to both maintain NORAD coverage as well as greater expeditionary capabilities.
> 
> (4)  Agree as well but accept that it would be a VERY tough sell politically.  8-10 AIP subs might have to be a compromise.  Capability-wise 8-10 non-nuclear subs might be better than 4 nuclear subs if that were the choice (due to the extensive extra infrastructure and support costs of adding a nuclear fleet).  We should also look at XLUUVs as part of our subsurface fleet.
> 
> (5)  A nice-to-have but very expensive capability.  Not sure the opportunity cost would be worth the other items on the list you may have to give up.  Possibly a better solution would be something more like a Mistral or Juan Carlos-type amphibious assault ship.  With Maritime Helicopters embarked could be an ASW task-force flagship.  Can be used to force project ground troops.  Useful in humanitarian missions.  If equipped with a ski-jump could embark RAF/US Marine F-35B's even if we don't have our own VTOL/STOL fighters.
> 
> (6)  More hulls are definitely needed to patrol a coastline the size of ours, to escort US forces deploying to Europe/Asia in case of a major conflict or to provide escorts for a Canadian/Allied task force.  Due to manning issues we should look various platform options beyond the CSC (Corvette-type vessels, USV's, arsenal ships, etc.)
> 
> Other important capabilities to be added/expanded in my mind (in no particular order) would be:
> 
> More airborne ISR capabilites (MPAs, UAVs, AEW&C, etc.)
> Expanded MH fleet (to go along with the expanded surface fleet) - again look at UAVs as part of the mix.
> More airlift and AAR assets (A330 MRTT as a solution for both?)
> GBAD for both domestic defence and expeditionary use
> Multiple enablers to make our expeditionary land forces survivable and useful in a peer conflict (GBAD, Anti-armour weapons, night vision gear, SP artillery, UAV's/loitering munitions, long-range precision fires, etc.)


Agreed, we don't have the navy for a full carrier, but a assault ship is doable, but would also require expansion of the navy. Personally I think our navy and airforce should double, and the army should have its authorized strength increase so that all existing units can be fully manned without the need for Class Bs, or other creative PY math.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Bob Rae:  expect to spend $, Canadians, because of the #NotAWar (including on defence) 








						Canadians must confront ‘very high’ cost of conflict with Russia: UN ambassador - National | Globalnews.ca
					

Russia's invasion of Ukraine is now in its second month, but has appeared to stall in many areas as Ukrainian defenders mount a fierce and determined resistance.




					globalnews.ca
				



We'll see ... 🍿


----------



## TacticalTea

GR66 said:


> (1), (2) & (3)  Agree 100% (and more fighters would be nice in my opinion in order to both maintain NORAD coverage as well as greater expeditionary capabilities.
> 
> (4)  Agree as well but accept that it would be a VERY tough sell politically.  8-10 AIP subs might have to be a compromise.  Capability-wise 8-10 non-nuclear subs might be better than 4 nuclear subs if that were the choice (due to the extensive extra infrastructure and support costs of adding a nuclear fleet).  We should also look at XLUUVs as part of our subsurface fleet.
> 
> (5)  A nice-to-have but very expensive capability.  Not sure the opportunity cost would be worth the other items on the list you may have to give up.  Possibly a better solution would be something more like a Mistral or Juan Carlos-type amphibious assault ship.  With Maritime Helicopters embarked could be an ASW task-force flagship.  Can be used to force project ground troops.  Useful in humanitarian missions.  If equipped with a ski-jump could embark RAF/US Marine F-35B's even if we don't have our own VTOL/STOL fighters.
> 
> (6)  More hulls are definitely needed to patrol a coastline the size of ours, to escort US forces deploying to Europe/Asia in case of a major conflict or to provide escorts for a Canadian/Allied task force.  Due to manning issues we should look various platform options beyond the CSC (Corvette-type vessels, USV's, arsenal ships, etc.)
> 
> Other important capabilities to be added/expanded in my mind (in no particular order) would be:
> 
> More airborne ISR capabilites (MPAs, UAVs, AEW&C, etc.)
> Expanded MH fleet (to go along with the expanded surface fleet) - again look at UAVs as part of the mix.
> More airlift and AAR assets (A330 MRTT as a solution for both?)
> GBAD for both domestic defence and expeditionary use
> Multiple enablers to make our expeditionary land forces survivable and useful in a peer conflict (GBAD, Anti-armour weapons, night vision gear, SP artillery, UAV's/loitering munitions, long-range precision fires, etc.)


Yeah, I'd rather get something like a few Mistrals, Americas or Canberras than SSNs. AIPs can do the job.


----------



## Underway

I thinks it's ok to specialize in one deployment method. 

I think personally (hard for a navy guy to say) but air expeditionary would be better.   Number of reasons for this:


Air expeditionary is much better for the double hat requirements in domestic response scenarios. 
We have no strategic need for naval expeditionary land forces in non-arctic environs. We have no pacific islands to invade/protect on our own nor Caribean assets.
We already have lots of experience with Air Ex and expanding that capacity would be much easier than standing up a 10-year process to create a navalized infantry situation.  It too the Aussies 10 years to get sorted out. It would take us at least as long.
We don't go to war alone, so we can slot into NATO as the reinforcements that come by air from across the ocean.  Perhaps with a similar situation to the US
Of course, I could be convinced of an LHD sort of situation, where we don't bother with a well-deck and just deploy troops from ships using helicopters.  When its not being used for LHD missions it's used to provide ASW and UAV AEW for the naval fleet.


----------



## Haggis

Remius said:


> Not another COVID variant, please….


It's the venereal variant.


----------



## quadrapiper

Grimey said:


> We should be looking at divesting ourselves of as many buildings as possible.  We shouldn’t be in the real estate business.  Maintain what’s essential, sell off the rest, lease as required.


_Buildings_ maybe. Land, never, not for any price, cause, or group, unless someone's offering a better-for-CAF-purposes patch as a straight, unencumbered trade and is game to pay for relocating/rebuilding. You'll never get it back, whether you need it for NRDs/armouries/Air Reserve, civil defence contingency storage, warehousing, training space, batteries or arrays of the next greatest thing, mobilization, whatever. Eat the PILT as an investment in long-term resilience.


----------



## rmc_wannabe

quadrapiper said:


> _Buildings_ maybe. Land, never, not for any price, cause, or group, unless someone's offering a better-for-CAF-purposes patch as a straight, unencumbered trade and is game to pay for relocating/rebuilding. You'll never get it back, whether you need it for NRDs/armouries/Air Reserve, civil defence contingency storage, warehousing, training space, batteries or arrays of the next greatest thing, mobilization, whatever. Eat the PILT as an investment in long-term resilience.


Agreed. Losing Kapyong, Currie, Griesbach, and Wosley were a small, short term profit with long term consequences for the CAF.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

dapaterson said:


> So, people without aptitude to pass a single, simple test are "good soldiers"?  That's not intuitive - good soldiers are able to grasp concepts, able to figure things out, able to work under pressure.  If a single test can defeat them...
> 
> You appear to be from an Army Reserve unit.  I'll respectfully suggest that if there's an "us vs them" or "elites and servants" mentality that that is a problem of your unit culture., and not of the CAF, CFAT or recruiting system.


The aptitude test is one of the few things the CAF does that actually makes sense LOL.



rmc_wannabe said:


> Fair. I can admit that I haven't seen how the sausage gets made outside of my own experience.
> 
> If you're agreeing that a degree isn't an indicator of ability, why put such weight on a CFAT as well? Seems like a weird bar to set comparatively
> 
> A little of both . Aptitude testing is limited in assessing retention, practical learning, and emotional intelligence. All are factors required for success in academia and the work place
> 
> In the end, like childs65 stated above, we don't see the fruits of someone's potential until long after they walk in the door of a CFRC.


I had to do an Aptitude Test for my new job.  It was based on the Wonderlic Test. 

The hiring process was fairly straight forward:

1.  Submit Resume/Cover Letter
2.  Get Selected, do Aptitude Test
3.  If successful, get contacted for interview.
4.  Do interview, if successful get contacted for background check + medical screening.
5.  Complete background check, medical screening, drug + alcohol testing, sign agreements.
6.  Receive offer

Entire process took me 4 weeks.  Super easy and entirely transparent throughout.


----------



## Underway

Let's move on from the CFAT @everyone please.  Other threads cover it much better.  I would like to hear all of your thoughts on the increased defence spending topic!


----------



## KevinB

rmc_wannabe said:


> I agree totally with those points, however, we need an alternative metric.
> 
> If 2% GDP isn't the metric wanted, what is the plan? What capabilities do they want added? What are the timelines?
> 
> SSE isn't worth the paper it's written on, so that can't possibly be a guide or point of reference


Arguably SSE allows the CAF to field a very robust force. 
  I’d argue it’s tunnel vision inside the CAF that is the biggest issue, or no one wanting to sacrifice their careers on that hill


----------



## rmc_wannabe

KevinB said:


> Arguably SSE allows the CAF to field a very robust force.
> I’d argue it’s tunnel vision inside the CAF that is the biggest issue, or no one wanting to sacrifice their careers on that hill


I think that's part of it. Another part that gets overlooked is that it is, in typical Canadian government fashion, open ended enough to promise everything and nothing in no concrete timelines.

Yes, it does give promises of gradual increases and new capital investment into capabilities... but it doesn't mesh with any concrete "effects" they want out of the CAF. 

"Protect us both at home and abroad." OK? In what capacity? 

"Provide for our commitments with NATO and NORAD." ... in the same half-assed manner we have been for 70 years or actually do something tangible?

We, as in the CAF, need to explain better and more realistixally what we need to fulfill those roles. We also need to provide an adequate costing of these effects, and stop throwing money into "project development." The solutions we need exist out there. We are not that unique of a military. We should be able to look across our allies and find SOMETHING that works, relatively affordible, and can be complete from "need>fielded" in 5-10 years.


----------



## Kirkhill

rmc_wannabe said:


> "Protect us both at home and abroad." OK? In what capacity?
> 
> "Provide for our commitments with NATO and NORAD." ... in the same half-assed manner we have been for 70 years or actually do something tangible?



At home - NORAD - RCAF (working with the USAF)
Abroad - NATO - RCN (high seas and convoys and working with the USN and the RN)

Do we want a NORAD Army or a NATO Army?  The Army itself, in my opinion, sees itself more as a NATO Army.  And has done since the Berlin Airlift and the Korean War.


----------



## GR66

Kirkhill said:


> At home - NORAD - RCAF (working with the USAF)
> Abroad - NATO - RCN (high seas and convoys and working with the USN and the RN)
> 
> Do we want a NORAD Army or a NATO Army?  The Army itself, in my opinion, sees itself more as a NATO Army.  And has done since the Berlin Airlift and the Korean War.


Realistically the conventional land-based military threats to Canada are minimal.  Our Army must be focused on being expeditionary (I'd include the far North of Canada in that), but there are a lot of options of how we could choose to be expeditionary.  The traditional, mechanized NATO vs Russia Cold War type role is only one possible option.


----------



## Brad Sallows

> Aptitude testing is limited in assessing retention, practical learning, and emotional intelligence.



Aptitude testing measures potential.  You're measuring it against things it's not meant to measure.  If the suite of tests administered is incomplete, it doesn't mean there's a problem with aptitude testing.  A bit like blaming the hammer if you try to fasten two boards together without a nail.


----------



## Brad Sallows

> You do know that carriers provide their own air defence and strike capability ?



Yes, but one CVBG is fuck-all.  An enemy coming to make a serious attempt on us is going to look like the combined US fleets present during the various Pacific operations in 1944-45.  One CVBG will be rolled over.



> the Brits started an ex to prove to the world that  the RAF  and the Army could reinforce Singapore by Air



We don't need to reinforce Canada by air.  We're already here.  Use examples that make sense, starting with the fact we own the ground.


----------



## dapaterson

My simple way to spend $1B annually: an infrastructure fund to permit remote, mostly northern communities to upgrade roads, bridges and especially airfields.

Channelling it through Defence means there can a some degree of filter to privilege locations that are militarily useful, or to expand beyond community needs (so for example getting Iqaluit an airfield that could support an A330), but using the military as a source of public works funding would be an easy win / win.


----------



## Underway

Brad Sallows said:


> Yes, but one CVBG is fuck-all.  An enemy coming to make a serious attempt on us is going to look like the combined US fleets present during the various Pacific operations in 1944-45.  One CVBG will be rolled over.



I agree but I think this is beside Aliens Invade when developing possible COA's over the next 20 years.  No one is going to challenge US security by way of Canada.


GK .Dundas said:


> You do know that carriers provide their own air defence and strike capability ?
> And historically relying on land based aircover has at best been farcical and it's worst suicidal .


For home security, if you really want to protect Canada then invest in submarines and land based aircraft not carriers.  Submarines and aircraft like the MPA's are far better in a defensive posture then a carrier.  

Carriers are for power projection away from home shores.  I've advocated for a small helicopter carrier or escort carrier in the past.  Helicopter carriers using both small UAVs and rotary wing to do AEW, Surface picture compilation, and our own 24/7 ASW presence.

Let the US and UK do the supercarrier thing.  We could watch their backs while they go to work.


----------



## Underway

dapaterson said:


> My simple way to spend $1B annually: an infrastructure fund to permit remote, mostly northern communities to upgrade roads, bridges and especially airfields.
> 
> Channelling it through Defence means there can a some degree of filter to privilege locations that's are militarily useful, or to expand beyond community needs (so for example getting Iqaluit an airfield that could support an A330, for example), but using the military as a source if public works funding would be an easy win / win.


US Army Corps of Engineers style.  I like this idea quite a bit.  Just go around improving airfields, ports, other infrastructure etc...


----------



## GR66

dapaterson said:


> My simple way to spend $1B annually: an infrastructure fund to permit remote, mostly northern communities to upgrade roads, bridges and especially airfields.
> 
> Channelling it through Defence means there can a some degree of filter to privilege locations that's are militarily useful, or to expand beyond community needs (so for example getting Iqaluit an airfield that could support an A330, for example), but using the military as a source if public works funding would be an easy win / win.


I get your point...get something useful done that isn't really purely military but ultimately ends up having some strategic value for the CF, but it sure is a stupid way to go about getting things done.  If something is needed and useful then it should be funded through the proper channels.  Not doing some accounting acrobatics to use up someone else's slice of the budget.


----------



## KevinB

rmc_wannabe said:


> I think that's part of it. Another part that gets overlooked is that it is, in typical Canadian government fashion, open ended enough to promise everything and nothing in no concrete timelines.
> 
> Yes, it does give promises of gradual increases and new capital investment into capabilities... but it doesn't mesh with any concrete "effects" they want out of the CAF.
> 
> "Protect us both at home and abroad." OK? In what capacity?
> 
> "Provide for our commitments with NATO and NORAD." ... in the same half-assed manner we have been for 70 years or actually do something tangible?
> 
> We, as in the CAF, need to explain better and more realistixally what we need to fulfill those roles. We also need to provide an adequate costing of these effects, and stop throwing money into "project development." The solutions we need exist out there. We are not that unique of a military. We should be able to look across our allies and find SOMETHING that works, relatively affordible, and can be complete from "need>fielded" in 5-10 years.


Canada needs a new white paper - a non partisan one that will be followed by governments for 20+ years.

SSE allows for the CAF to acquire pretty much anything they want.
 Full Spectrum from low to high intensity.

I don’t blame the Cdn Gov for the fact that the Army doesn’t have a variable ATGM
   I blame the Cdn Gov for the 1 million LAV Army - but no one in the Army ever stood up and said - that’s really stupid.
The RCAF wanted the Blackhawk years ago and MM boned them with the Griffon - yet no one resigned in disgust

Governments generally always Pork Barrel if allowed too, and rarely does anyone kick up a stink that the item doesn’t meet the specifications.
    Look at the LSVW standard got dropped repeatedly until it passed / no one resigned or leaked anything to the press.

While the GOFOs do have a duty to the Civilian leadership, they also have a duty to the CAF and the Canadian public at large not to let the government foist POS on them.


----------



## dapaterson

Iqaluit does not need, for its own use, an airfield that supports an A330.  The CAF, buying A330 MRTTs and transports, would benefit from Iqaluit having an A330 airfield.

Multiply that by thousands of locations across Canada, give DND a billion in vote 10 to support construction and ongoing operations, and voila.


----------



## daftandbarmy

KevinB said:


> Canada needs a new white paper - a non partisan one that will be followed by governments for 20+ years.
> 
> SSE allows for the CAF to acquire pretty much anything they want.
> Full Spectrum from low to high intensity.
> 
> I don’t blame the Cdn Gov for the fact that the Army doesn’t have a variable ATGM
> I blame the Cdn Gov for the 1 million LAV Army - but no one in the Army ever stood up and said - that’s really stupid.
> The RCAF wanted the Blackhawk years ago and MM boned them with the Griffon - yet no one resigned in disgust
> 
> Governments generally always Pork Barrel is allowed too, and rarely does anyone kick up a stink that the item doesn’t meet the specifications.
> Look at the LSVW standard got dropped repeatedly until it passed / no one resigned or leaked anything to the press.
> 
> While the GOFOs do have a duty to the Civilian leadership, they also have a duty to the CAF and the Canadian public at large not to let the government foist POS on them.



Even more importantly, the CAF needs the right kind of strategic leadership as opposed to a bunch of 'Yes Men and Women'.

Where everything has the same level of importance, and there are no clear goals that everyone is working towards, you're not being strategic. 

You're setting the organization up for failure.


----------



## YZT580

Underway said:


> US Army Corps of Engineers style.  I like this idea quite a bit.  Just go around improving airfields, ports, other infrastructure etc...


For what purpose if you have no military to go there.  There are plenty of departments in the government for roads and airstrips.  It has been said here before, first the major parties have to sit down behind closed doors with no press and no press releases and come to an agreement: defense is too important to permit politics.  Now the same group agree on an image of our armed forces and the personnel and equipment required and then just do it whatever it may be.  Don't invite any generals or experts.  Highest rank a colonel or an active commander.  Clean up the hiring process 'cause it doesn't work and get rid of at least two stages in the procurement process.  That is my 2 cents


----------



## MilEME09

Underway said:


> I agree but I think this is beside Aliens Invade when developing possible COA's over the next 20 years.  No one is going to challenge US security by way of Canada.
> 
> For home security, if you really want to protect Canada then invest in submarines and land based aircraft not carriers.  Submarines and aircraft like the MPA's are far better in a defensive posture then a carrier.
> 
> Carriers are for power projection away from home shores.  I've advocated for a small helicopter carrier or escort carrier in the past.  Helicopter carriers using both small UAVs and rotary wing to do AEW, Surface picture compilation, and our own 24/7 ASW presence.
> 
> Let the US and UK do the supercarrier thing.  We could watch their backs while they go to work.


Crazy idea but what about say an assault ship  online with the Australian loyal wingman unmanned fighter, and create a floating drone carrier?


----------



## Underway

MilEME09 said:


> Crazy idea but what about say an assault ship  online with the Australian loyal wingman unmanned fighter, and create a floating drone carrier?


I think that I love crazy ideas.  But if you build a drone carrier you are just really building a carrier and filling it with drones are you not?  Why limit the flexibility of a small flattop.

Frankly though I think we need to flesh out our capabilities along the lines of the Australians with the notable exception of amphibious forces.  They aren't necessary in our context like it is for them with all those island chokepoints etc... they need to secure in event of a war with a northern power.


----------



## MilEME09

Underway said:


> I think that I love crazy ideas.  But if you build a drone carrier you are just really building a carrier and filling it with drones are you not?  Why limit the flexibility of a small flattop.
> 
> Frankly though I think we need to flesh out our capabilities along the lines of the Australians with the notable exception of amphibious forces.  They aren't necessary in our context like it is for them with all those island chokepoints etc... they need to secure in event of a war with a northern power.


I was thinking of ways around our man power issues, so Essentially yes, but smaller in size, more endurance potentially.


----------



## Brad Sallows

> Iqaluit does not need, for its own use, an airfield that supports an A330.  The CAF, buying A330 MRTTs and transports, would benefit from Iqaluit having an A330 airfield.



The CAF would benefit from a lot of things.  Rank them and start at the top of the list instead of willy-nilly throwing money around.  Why bother reforming procurement if we're just going to find another rathole to pour money down?


----------



## dapaterson

Providing infra funds to communities where the CAF benefits lets the communities deal with contracting and maintenance, and avoids ADM IE / DCC and other sinkholes of inefficiency.


----------



## Haggis

Brad Sallows said:


> The CAF would benefit from a lot of things.  Rank them and start at the top of the list instead of willy-nilly throwing money around.  Why bother reforming procurement if we're just going to find another rathole to pour money down?


Nobody in government cares what the CAF would benefit from. They care about what the government needs to stay in power. Defense spending at the expense of other vote getting spending doesn't get you re-elected.


----------



## MilEME09

dapaterson said:


> Providing infra funds to communities where the CAF benefits lets the communities deal with contracting and maintenance, and avoids ADM IE / DCC and other sinkholes of inefficiency.


Or instead of being reactionary let's create 10 and 20 year strategic growth and infrastructure plans for bases, and other areas. Prioritize them and provide the funding


----------



## Haggis

dapaterson said:


> Providing infra funds to communities where the CAF benefits lets the communities deal with contracting and maintenance, and avoids ADM IE / DCC and other sinkholes of inefficiency.


Maybe each remote northern community airfield should come with a ROWPU delivered by that A330.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Underway said:


> I know what you're getting at but you can't be using the word "Socialist" as a defining characteristic.  National _Socialists _are significantly different political philosophy from _Socialist Republics_.  And communists sure as hell aren't actually socialists either.
> 
> That's like saying everyone who called themselves a Peoples Democracy is actually a Democracy...


I know it, I was just having a bit of propagandistic fun at the expense of Singh and gang. 
The USSR was never really ‘Communist’ anyways.


----------



## Grimey

KevinB said:


> Canada needs a new white paper - a non partisan one that will be followed by governments for 20+ years.


The Australians have their collective poop in a group on that.  There seems to be a broad consensus on Oz’s place in the world that supplants the bickering, pork barreling and procurement inertia that we can’t seem to solve.


----------



## TacticalTea

Grimey said:


> The Australians have their collective poop in a group on that.  There seems to be a broad consensus on Oz’s place in the world that supplants the bickering, pork barreling and procurement inertia that we can’t seem to solve.


Perhaps this may serve as a lead in unraveling this mystery:

Canadian PMs


Australian PMs


----------



## childs56

Remius said:


> No one gets a gun until they tell us their names.


Kinda the point that they fill out the application and provide a resume. We could even go as far as providing a criminal record check.


----------



## Remius

childs56 said:


> Kinda the point that they fill out the application and provide a resume. We could even go as far as providing a criminal record check.


You’ve obviously never seen the Simpson’s…


----------



## rmc_wannabe

Remius said:


> You’ve obviously never seen the Simpson’s…


----------



## dimsum

TacticalTea said:


> Australian PMs
> View attachment 69758


The one thing I'll note about that chart is that at least in the past 15 or so years, those changes of govt (especially the ones where the replacement is also from the same party) doesn't mean the Australians voted every time.

e.g. The Rudd-Gillard-Rudd flip was because Gillard effectively deposed Rudd, who came back to depose her, then called an election where Labor (read: Liberal) lost to Liberal (read: Conservative).

Also from Wiki:


> The last prime minister to serve out a full government term in the office was John Howard, who won the 2004 election and led his party to the 2007 election, but lost. Since then, the five subsequent prime ministers have been either voted out of the office mid-term by the caucuses of their own parties, assumed the office mid-term under such circumstances, or both.



Australian politics is actually really fun to watch because you never know when your own party will stab you in the back.

But yes, all major parties know that Oz is in an unfriendly neighbourhood so Defence isn't a football.  That doesn't mean pork-barrelling and Australianization leading to procurement issues isn't a thing - it totally is and I've shared links of their procurement screw-ups elsewhere in here.

Another factor is that their media just doesn't really make hay over it like ours does, and when it does, it's not international news so Canadians don't see it.  The last probable ADF international news was when one of their SAS platoons was accused of potential war crimes in Afghanistan.


----------



## IKnowNothing

KevinB said:


> Arguably SSE allows the CAF to field a very robust force.
> I’d argue it’s tunnel vision inside the CAF that is the biggest issue, or no one wanting to sacrifice their careers on that hill



I'd also argue (based on a little further digging on @Kirkhill 's Denmark comparison) that funding isn't the primary issue either.  We have 85-90% of the spend by GDP% and 50-60% of the pro-rated capability.   That's a ridiculous gap in value per dollar.

"Wait and see if the government takes this seriously and gives us more money" is an unacceptable response to a land war in Europe that we are grossly unprepared to play any meaningful role in should it get to an Article 5 situation.


If procurement/ bureaucracy is the problem, cut the gordian knot. 
"Urgent Operational Requirements (UORs) arise from the identification of previously unprovisioned and emerging capability gaps as a result of current or imminent operations or where deliveries under existing contracts for equipment or services require accelerating due to an increased urgency to bring the capability they provided into service. These capability shortfalls are addressed by the urgent procurement of either new or additional equipment, enhancing existing capability, within a time scale that cannot be met by the normal acquisition cycle"

I'd say that "active shooting war with NATO considering entering/ being pulled into" = urgent and a battlegroup stationed in Latvia = operational.

Time for leaders to lead.


----------



## Fabius

Lol so far the Army’s main response has been to cut this years ammo allocations by a massive margin. 
No idea why. 🤷‍♂️


----------



## daftandbarmy

IKnowNothing said:


> *Time for leaders to lead.*



In the current political environment this will be highly unlikely to happen.

I'm guessing it will be more like 'subordinate leaders will muddle through in the absence of clear direction from gun shy senior leaders'.

Which is how we got to where we are now, of course


----------



## TacticalTea

dimsum said:


> The one thing I'll note about that chart is that at least in the past 15 or so years, those changes of govt (especially the ones where the replacement is also from the same party) doesn't mean the Australians voted every time.
> 
> e.g. The Rudd-Gillard-Rudd flip was because Gillard effectively deposed Rudd, who came back to depose her, then called an election where Labor (read: Liberal) lost to Liberal (read: Conservative).
> 
> Also from Wiki:
> 
> 
> Australian politics is actually really fun to watch because you never know when your own party will stab you in the back.
> 
> But yes, all major parties know that Oz is in an unfriendly neighbourhood so Defence isn't a football.  That doesn't mean pork-barrelling and Australianization leading to procurement issues isn't a thing - it totally is and I've shared links of their procurement screw-ups elsewhere in here.
> 
> Another factor is that their media just doesn't really make hay over it like ours does, and when it does, it's not international news so Canadians don't see it.  The last probable ADF international news was when one of their SAS platoons was accused of potential war crimes in Afghanistan.


It's not so much of exactly who or what Australians vote for, but rather what they pay attention to, and thus, as you say, what their media report on and how.


IKnowNothing said:


> I'd also argue (based on a little further digging on @Kirkhill 's Denmark comparison) that funding isn't the primary issue either.  We have 85-90% of the spend by GDP% and 50-60% of the pro-rated capability.   That's a ridiculous gap in value per dollar.
> 
> "Wait and see if the government takes this seriously and gives us more money" is an unacceptable response to a land war in Europe that we are grossly unprepared to play any meaningful role in should it get to an Article 5 situation.
> 
> 
> If procurement/ bureaucracy is the problem, cut the gordian knot.
> "Urgent Operational Requirements (UORs) arise from the identification of previously unprovisioned and emerging capability gaps as a result of current or imminent operations or where deliveries under existing contracts for equipment or services require accelerating due to an increased urgency to bring the capability they provided into service. These capability shortfalls are addressed by the urgent procurement of either new or additional equipment, enhancing existing capability, within a time scale that cannot be met by the normal acquisition cycle"
> 
> I'd say that "active shooting war with NATO considering entering/ being pulled into" = urgent and a battlegroup stationed in Latvia = operational.
> 
> Time for leaders to lead.


Plenty justification, too, for an international emergency declaration as per the emergency measures act, which would allow the government/military to bypass procurement rules.


----------



## Brad Sallows

Should be able to manage procurement without another EA invocation.  Use ordinary processes first before jumping to extraordinary powers.


----------



## Remius

FMAS, emergency requirements and national security exceptions could all be used.  No need for the EA.


----------



## Maxman1

Remius said:


> No one gets a gun until they tell us their names.



I've had it up to here with your "rules"!


----------



## McG

dapaterson said:


> My simple way to spend $1B annually: an infrastructure fund to permit remote, mostly northern communities to upgrade roads, bridges and especially airfields.
> 
> Channelling it through Defence means there can a some degree of filter to privilege locations that are militarily useful, or to expand beyond community needs (so for example getting Iqaluit an airfield that could support an A330), but using the military as a source of public works funding would be an easy win / win.


In Canada’s north, communication and transportation infrastructure are dual use.  There are a lot of community airfields that are not accessible even to C17, which could be an impediment if we needed to surge a capability like ROWPU or radars.


----------



## TacticalTea

Army Fields First Anti-Aircraft Strykers In Just 3 Years - Breaking Defense
					

The threat of Russian drones, helicopters, and attack jets drove the first fielding to a unit in Germany, but the 8x8 Stryker variant may well find its way to the Pacific as well.




					breakingdefense.com
				




DoD managed to field mobile and armoured GBAD pretty fast last year. Any chance we could do the same with our LAVs? They're even working on fitting them with Directed Energy systems for C-RAM/anti-drone purposes. Something we ought to be doing with our upcoming class of frigates, btw...


----------



## TacticalTea

@FJAG   LET ME DREAM GOD DAMNIT


----------



## OldSolduer

McG said:


> In Canada’s north, communication and transportation infrastructure are dual use.  There are a lot of community airfields that are not accessible even to C17, which could be an impediment if we needed to surge a capability like ROWPU or radars.


I'm currently starting to work with the RCMP and northern FN doing suicide intervention training. Our first try at it was stymied by a water main break - and the repairman had left already. They are in a pickle and how does it get fixed now?


----------



## Good2Golf

OldSolduer said:


> I'm currently starting to work with the RCMP and northern FN doing suicide intervention training. Our first try at it was stymied by a water main break - and the repairman had left already. They are in a pickle and how does it get fixed now?


OS, the priority is Net-Zero by 2050, so I’m thinking it should be resolved some time after 2050… 😞


----------



## McG

Too bad that we are bad at arctic infrastructure:








						Long-delayed naval facility in the High Arctic now postponed to 2023
					

Department of National Defence said it will now be 2023 before the Nanisivik Naval Facility is operational – 16 years after it was first announced. It was originally supposed to be up and running by 2013




					www.theglobeandmail.com


----------



## Czech_pivo

McG said:


> Too bad that we are bad at arctic infrastructure:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Long-delayed naval facility in the High Arctic now postponed to 2023
> 
> 
> Department of National Defence said it will now be 2023 before the Nanisivik Naval Facility is operational – 16 years after it was first announced. It was originally supposed to be up and running by 2013
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theglobeandmail.com


Why am I not surprised.

It's the end of March and this facility is now completely inaccessible to us, has been for a number of months now due to the weather and it won't be accessible for a number of months into the future.  So, with this being the case, why is this article just coming out now?  
When they wrapped up work on the facility back in, say early-mid October of 2021 wouldn't they know right then and there that the facility was not finished?  They would have have a very good understanding of what needed to be completed and the timelines to complete the work because, I'm assuming, they had a project plan, with milestones, delivery dates, dependencies, risks, etc - it would have been known.

What a load of crap.  Cover up - and another push of funding not being spent in one fiscal year and pushed into another.


----------



## Underway

Its not a cover up.  I took the train to work with one of the DND projects engineers regularly.  We used to chat about once a week. His frustration with getting work done in the Arctic was palpable because of all the engineering challenges.  That was before COVID.

However, the lack of political will makes it much harder.

Also comparing to Russia is a terribly stupid comparison.  No first nations discussions needed, no environmental assessment required, no care about waste management, being able to drive to their bases is nice as their arctic isn't an archipelago etc...


----------



## Czech_pivo

Underway said:


> Its not a cover up.  I took the train to work with one of the DND projects engineers regularly.  We used to chat about once a week. His frustration with getting work done in the Arctic was palpable because of all the engineering challenges.  That was before COVID.
> 
> However, the lack of political will makes it much harder.
> 
> Also comparing to Russia is a terribly stupid comparison.  No first nations discussions needed, no environmental assessment required, no care about waste management, being able to drive to their bases is nice as their arctic isn't an archipelago etc...


Why is the story coming out now at the end of March and not the end of say October, when the latest work would have wrapped up?  

Was it the author of the article who sat on the story for the last 5 months? Or was it a gov't department who sat on it for the last 5 months before actually coming clean and informing their bosses that, whoops, we didn't complete the project plan and wrap up the project by our project end date of summer 2021 and we need net new funding that was not budgeted for this fiscal year? 

Either way it should have been obvious to all who worked on it that the work was not completed by 2021 and that more funding and money would be required for yet another building season. It would not take 5 months for this to be known.


----------



## KevinB

Underway said:


> Its not a cover up.  I took the train to work with one of the DND projects engineers regularly.  We used to chat about once a week. His frustration with getting work done in the Arctic was palpable because of all the engineering challenges.  That was before COVID.
> 
> However, the lack of political will makes it much harder.


Commitment challenge. 

    It isn’t an engineering challenge, it’s been done before and there is a lot of information out there on how design requirements differ, as such it is just a different environment that most are not used to working with.   I suspect most of the project staff where not exceptionally familiar with the the design requirements of buildings etc that far north, then toss in COVID and room temperature government support and you have a mess as it’s massively under resourced.


----------



## Halifax Tar

KevinB said:


> Commitment challenge.
> 
> It isn’t an engineering challenge, it’s been done before and there is a lot of information out there on how design requirements differ, as such it is just a different environment that most are not used to working with.   I suspect most of the project staff where not exceptionally familiar with the the design requirements of buildings etc that far north, then toss in COVID and room temperature government support and you have a mess as it’s massively under resourced.



I'm pretty sure this was a Harper project as well.  Have to wonder if that had an effect ?  

You know like a certain fighter plane replacement thing-a-ma-jig.


----------



## KevinB

Halifax Tar said:


> I'm pretty sure this was a Harper project as well.  Have to wonder if that had an effect ?
> 
> You know like a certain fighter plane replacement thing-a-ma-jig.


It was a Harperism, but I suspect he had already lost interest by the time JT took over.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Halifax Tar said:


> I'm pretty sure this was a Harper project as well.  Have to wonder if that had an effect ?
> 
> You know like a certain fighter plane replacement thing-a-ma-jig.


Is that why we'll keep Pearson breaking ice until its 60yrs old before Dief touches water?


----------



## FJAG

TacticalTea said:


> @FJAG   LET ME DREAM GOD DAMNIT


There's nothing wrong with the majority of your dream. It's this part that evoked the laughter.


TacticalTea said:


> pretty fast last year. Any chance we could do the same with our LAVs?


I think it would be very doable to have those systems on a Canadian LAV which is pretty much a Stryker in the first place. My guess we could use a TLAV for some of that as well. My guess is that the LAV will most likely be the GBAD vehicle chassis of choice.

It was the issue of whether there is any chance we could do it "fast" that was the kicker.

We've done things quickly through Unforecasted Operational Requirements during Afghanistan but there is currently no need for that and more importantly, a UOR does not create an in-service system, just a temporary system for a specific operational requirement. GBAD right now is targeted for inservice (as it should be) that means slow and deliberate. As far as I understand we have just been given approval for the definition stage. That means that there is a long road ahead before this gets done.

🍻


----------



## OldSolduer

Good2Golf said:


> OS, the priority is Net-Zero by 2050, so I’m thinking it should be resolved some time after 2050… 😞


Yes of course - the lives of FN people are still back burner like clean drinking water for all FN.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Czech_pivo said:


> Why am I not surprised.
> 
> It's the end of March and this facility is now completely inaccessible to us, has been for a number of months now due to the weather and it won't be accessible for a number of months into the future.  So, with this being the case, why is this article just coming out now?
> When they wrapped up work on the facility back in, say early-mid October of 2021 wouldn't they know right then and there that the facility was not finished?  They would have have a very good understanding of what needed to be completed and the timelines to complete the work because, I'm assuming, they had a project plan, with milestones, delivery dates, dependencies, risks, etc - it would have been known.
> 
> What a load of crap.  Cover up - and another push of funding not being spent in one fiscal year and pushed into another.



I'm still wondering why the base isn't planned to be built in Iqaluit, but I'm no sailor so....


----------



## KevinB

FJAG said:


> As far as I understand we have just been given approval for the definition stage.


How hard is it to look down South as say.
TTHAD 
MEADS
MSHORAD
STINGER

I mean I could have written a capability requirement and SOW for GBAD in about 2hrs from scratch.


----------



## TacticalTea

daftandbarmy said:


> I'm still wondering why the base isn't planned to be built in Iqaluit, but I'm no sailor so....


If I were to guess, I'd say because there's already a naval (civilian) infrastructure project in Iqaluit, and it's also close enough to Nuuk and Newfoundland that building the facility there wouldn't provide much added value.

Whereas Nanisivik is right in the middle of the Canadian Arctic.


----------



## Underway

FJAG said:


> There's nothing wrong with the majority of your dream. It's this part that evoked the laughter.
> 
> I think it would be very doable to have those systems on a Canadian LAV which is pretty much a Stryker in the first place. My guess we could use a TLAV for some of that as well. My guess is that the LAV will most likely be the GBAD vehicle chassis of choice.
> 
> It was the issue of whether there is any chance we could do it "fast" that was the kicker.
> 
> We've done things quickly through Unforecasted Operational Requirements during Afghanistan but there is currently no need for that and more importantly, a UOR does not create an in-service system, just a temporary system for a specific operational requirement. GBAD right now is targeted for inservice (as it should be) that means slow and deliberate. As far as I understand we have just been given approval for the definition stage. That means that there is a long road ahead before this gets done.
> 
> 🍻


I don't know much about GBAD but I used to work with one of the few surviving AD Artillery Sgt's years back. Those folks deploy far out from the formation in interlocking layers of coverage.  But that was in the days of ADAT's and I assume GBAD for the Stykers is a different animal.  The ADATs had a 10km range.  The Stinger is around 4-5km in range. 

A SHORAD LAV would likely be using the Reconfigurable Integrated Weapons platform and would provide tactical AD for the army, but something else is needed I think for the longer range punch.

I'll go with what I know and that's the Sky Sabre.  It's replacing the Sky Rapier in the UK inventory.  It uses the Giraffe AMB radar (a large amount of commonality to the SG-AMB on the frigates and JSS) and the CAMM which is selected as the CIAD missile for the CSC.  25km range with 100km range radar.

I don't think we need LRAD as a military, the Short and Medium RAD would go a long way to being able to do local protection of our own units.


----------



## McG

TacticalTea said:


> Whereas Nanisivik is right in the middle of the Canadian Arctic.


So are Resolute and Arctic Bay, and an infrastructure project in either of these locations could have dual-use benefits for the local communities.
I know Nanisivik and Arctic Bay look real close on a map, but they are substantially isolated from eachother through most of the year.


----------



## Underway

McG said:


> So are Resolute and Arctic Bay, and an infrastructure project in either of these locations could have dual-use benefits for the local communities.
> I know Nanisivik and Arctic Bay look real close on a map, but they are substantially isolated from eachother through most of the year.


Nanisivik is CCG and RCN only AFAIK.  There is an airfield nearby but it's public. Artic Bay is a short drive away from Nanisivik.


----------



## McG

Underway said:


> Nanisivik is CCG and RCN only AFAIK.


Right.  Not dual-use and no local benefits.



Underway said:


> There is an airfield nearby but it's public.


The Nanisivik airport does not exist any more.



Underway said:


> Artic Bay is a short drive away from Nanisivik


On a good day, but that is not an all season road and the article notes it is prone to wash-out.


----------



## QV

KevinB said:


> How hard is it to look down South as say.
> TTHAD
> MEADS
> MSHORAD
> STINGER
> 
> I mean I could have written a capability requirement and SOW for GBAD in about 2hrs from scratch.


Tsk tsk... that's not how the CAF does things. See pistol project for example and timelines.


----------



## FJAG

KevinB said:


> How hard is it to look down South as say.
> TTHAD
> MEADS
> MSHORAD
> STINGER
> 
> I mean I could have written a capability requirement and SOW for GBAD in about 2hrs from scratch.


Wouldn't it be fun if all one had to do was walk down the aisles of Destruction R Us and pick things off the shelves?

You could probably lay off about 5,000 civil servants.

😁


----------



## FJAG

Underway said:


> I don't know much about GBAD but I used to work with one of the few surviving AD Artillery Sgt's years back. Those folks deploy far out from the formation in interlocking layers of coverage.  But that was in the days of ADAT's and I assume GBAD for the Stykers is a different animal.  The ADATs had a 10km range.  The Stinger is around 4-5km in range.
> 
> A SHORAD LAV would likely be using the Reconfigurable Integrated Weapons platform and would provide tactical AD for the army, but something else is needed I think for the longer range punch.
> 
> I'll go with what I know and that's the Sky Sabre.  It's replacing the Sky Rapier in the UK inventory.  It uses the Giraffe AMB radar (a large amount of commonality to the SG-AMB on the frigates and JSS) and the CAMM which is selected as the CIAD missile for the CSC.  25km range with 100km range radar.
> 
> I don't think we need LRAD as a military, the Short and Medium RAD would go a long way to being able to do local protection of our own units.


The easiest way to picture air defence is small umbrellas under larger umbrellas under yet larger umbrellas and so on, all of which interlock under a common command and control system.

The SHOR in SHORAD stand for short range which makes it the smallest umbrella and very dependent on what the other systems are that work with it. For example our old Javelins worked within and expanded the capability of ADATS.

The big question, which I don't know the answer to, is how the GBAD project envisions their particular solution will operate vis a vis its own resources and our allies'. There needs to be a very clear doctrine of use that GBAD slots into. Because AD is always a system of systems, that requires a very high degree of integration and interoperability. We had that for 4 AD. the GBAD requirements statement is very broad and generic.

To me its a bit vague right now because of the wide mix of equipment across the "New" NATO. Latvia apparently has RBS-70, Stinger, Giraffe, Sentinel and AN/TPS-77 but I don't see any medium or long range missiles. Lithuania does have some NASAMs and some eFP countries could deploy medium and above range.

I presume, that the definition phase of this project will start setting out more concrete elements. In fact my guess is that they are already pretty far along with that process.

🍻


----------



## GR66

FJAG said:


> The easiest way to picture air defence is small umbrellas under larger umbrellas under yet larger umbrellas and so on, all of which interlock under a common command and control system.
> 
> The SHOR in SHORAD stand for short range which makes it the smallest umbrella and very dependent on what the other systems are that work with it. For example our old Javelins worked within and expanded the capability of ADATS.
> 
> The big question, which I don't know the answer to, is how the GBAD project envisions their particular solution will operate vis a vis its own resources and our allies'. There needs to be a very clear doctrine of use that GBAD slots into. Because AD is always a system of systems, that requires a very high degree of integration and interoperability. We had that for 4 AD. the GBAD requirements statement is very broad and generic.
> 
> To me its a bit vague right now because of the wide mix of equipment across the "New" NATO. Latvia apparently has RBS-70, Stinger, Giraffe, Sentinel and AN/TPS-77 but I don't see any medium or long range missiles. Lithuania does have some NASAMs and some eFP countries could deploy medium and above range.
> 
> I presume, that the definition phase of this project will start setting out more concrete elements. In fact my guess is that they are already pretty far along with that process.
> 
> 🍻


According to this article on The Drive, the British Sky Sabre (Land Ceptor CAMM Missiles - same missiles as being procured for the CSC) is already integrated into the US Systems:



> "Realistically, however, the British Army would be working closely with allies, primarily the United States, in most potential large-scale conflicts that would require extended air defense coverage. No doubt with this in mind, the CAMM became the first foreign missile to be integrated within the U.S. Army’s Integrated Air and Missile Defense Battle Command System (IAMD IBCS). This is the service’s new missile defense network, and the integration work was completed back in 2019 by MBDA and Northrop Grumman."


----------



## YZT580

FJAG said:


> The easiest way to picture air defence is small umbrellas under larger umbrellas under yet larger umbrellas and so on, all of which interlock under a common command and control system.
> 
> The SHOR in SHORAD stand for short range which makes it the smallest umbrella and very dependent on what the other systems are that work with it. For example our old Javelins worked within and expanded the capability of ADATS.
> 
> The big question, which I don't know the answer to, is how the GBAD project envisions their particular solution will operate vis a vis its own resources and our allies'. There needs to be a very clear doctrine of use that GBAD slots into. Because AD is always a system of systems, that requires a very high degree of integration and interoperability. We had that for 4 AD. the GBAD requirements statement is very broad and generic.
> 
> To me its a bit vague right now because of the wide mix of equipment across the "New" NATO. Latvia apparently has RBS-70, Stinger, Giraffe, Sentinel and AN/TPS-77 but I don't see any medium or long range missiles. Lithuania does have some NASAMs and some eFP countries could deploy medium and above range.
> 
> I presume, that the definition phase of this project will start setting out more concrete elements. In fact my guess is that they are already pretty far along with that process.
> 
> 🍻


appreciate the lesson, thanks


----------



## Blackadder1916

FJAG said:


> The easiest way to picture air defence is small umbrellas under larger umbrellas under yet larger umbrellas and so on, all of which interlock under a common command and control system.



Sorta like this.


----------



## FJAG

Or like this:







My guess is DAP will get the reference.

🍻


----------



## TacticalTea

FJAG said:


> Or like this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My guess is DAP will get the reference.
> 
> 🍻



I was thinking more like this. (disregard the labels, just look at the umbrellas)


----------



## GK .Dundas

FJAG said:


> Or like this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My guess is DAP will get the reference.
> 
> 🍻I am not a numbers ,I am  a free man !


----------



## McG

This starts discussing spending at the 17:10 mark:



			https://www.cbc.ca/radio/thehouse/cbc-the-house-april-2-1.6405292


----------



## BirdGunner96

Underway said:


> I don't know much about GBAD but I used to work with one of the few surviving AD Artillery Sgt's years back. Those folks deploy far out from the formation in interlocking layers of coverage.  But that was in the days of ADAT's and I assume GBAD for the Stykers is a different animal.  The ADATs had a 10km range.  The Stinger is around 4-5km in range.
> 
> A SHORAD LAV would likely be using the Reconfigurable Integrated Weapons platform and would provide tactical AD for the army, but something else is needed I think for the longer range punch.
> 
> I'll go with what I know and that's the Sky Sabre.  It's replacing the Sky Rapier in the UK inventory.  It uses the Giraffe AMB radar (a large amount of commonality to the SG-AMB on the frigates and JSS) and the CAMM which is selected as the CIAD missile for the CSC.  25km range with 100km range radar.
> 
> I don't think we need LRAD as a military, the Short and Medium RAD would go a long way to being able to do local protection of our own units.


Its all the same animal (GBAD), you are either conducting VP, Area or Route defence.  The size of your AD bubbles depends on your systems abilities and more importantly, the platforms used.  A layered Air Defence is required, but Canada will never see it.  We already own the EL/M-2084 which with much bullshit (probably) could be compatible with the CAMM, easy solution for medium range. VSHORAD is an even easier onion to peel , MANPADS are easy to acquire throughout NATO ( not Stinger, the Polish Piorun system is superior) and all that the units would require is a crapload of AD/AFV Recognition as well as a compound of Bv 206, COTS side by sides, TLAV's and some helicopter rappel training. A couple of RegF units trained first, then use the exact same weapons systems and vehicles to train the reserve units ( same can be said for anti-tank systems imo). Lol, rant over!


----------



## BirdGunner96

BirdGunner96 said:


> Its all the same animal (GBAD), you are either conducting VP, Area or Route defence.  The size of your AD bubbles depends on your systems abilities and more importantly, the platforms used.  A layered Air Defence is required, but Canada will never see it.  We already own the EL/M-2084 which with much bullshit (probably) could be compatible with the CAMM, easy solution for medium range. VSHORAD is an even easier onion to peel , MANPADS are easy to acquire throughout NATO ( not Stinger, the Polish Piorun system is superior) and all that the units would require is a crapload of AD/AFV Recognition as well as a compound of Bv 206, COTS side by sides, TLAV's and some helicopter rappel training. A couple of RegF units trained first, then use the exact same weapons systems and vehicles to train the reserve units ( same can be said for anti-tank systems imo). Lol, rant over!


Sorry, I forgot to add that we could use the oversized/useless/ annoying, always N/S TAPV's as targets. Win.Win.


----------



## MilEME09

BirdGunner96 said:


> Sorry, I forgot to add that we could use the oversized/useless/ annoying, always N/S TAPV's as targets. Win.Win.


Don't sell them short yet, every new system has issues, and the army already has new plans for them in the long term.


----------



## Good2Golf

MilEME09 said:


> Don't sell them short yet, every new system has issues, and the army already has new plans for them in the long term.


Like welding two together as a BTR trainer?


----------



## RedFive

MilEME09 said:


> Don't sell them short yet, every new system has issues, and the army already has new plans for them in the long term.


They're gonna have to stop them from catching fire on road moves, collapsing road shoulders, rolling over and find some spare parts for them before they can make any use of them whatsoever.

Once that's all sorted out, the fact that they're a badly designed armoured vehicle designed for airfield security and bastardized by the CAF to be MRAPs for the last war we found ourselves in will have to be reckoned with. Nobody asked for them, nobody wants them, and a handful of corps in the army have been made to make do with them because there's nothing else on offer. Eat your dinner or go hungry, mom and dad don't care.

I wish the them good luck in fixing those problems.


----------



## FJAG

MilEME09 said:


> Don't sell them short yet, every new system has issues, and the army already has new plans for them in the long term.


I can think of at least a dozen useful things that the TAPV could do. 

The negativity reminds me of the initial reaction to the Bison ... and then the RegF army snaffled them all up because they proved very useful.

🍻


----------



## KevinB

FJAG said:


> I can think of at least a dozen useful things that the TAPV could do.
> 
> The negativity reminds me of the initial reaction to the Bison ... and then the RegF army snaffled them all up because they proved very useful.
> 
> 🍻


It’s legit trash.


----------



## GK .Dundas

FJAG said:


> I can think of at least a dozen useful things that the TAPV could do.
> 
> The negativity reminds me of the initial reaction to the Bison ... and then the RegF army snaffled them all up because they proved very useful.
> 
> 🍻


Yes , but the difference was the reserves never even saw the Bison. With the TAPV ( Funny how after all this time it still doesn't have a name.?) When the programme began there was great excitement in the reserve force.
Because ,well because it's an armoured vehicle !
At this point and over the course of manufacture the Regular Force kept telling the Reserve Force  that they weren't entitled to any . And they wouldn't be able to operate them and several other reasons. Basically it would a cold day in hell before the Reserves saw one.
And after about a year or eighteen months I guess what ? Apparently hell froze over . And while at first they were delighted. And now after  couple of years of use . Most of the end user I have been talked to are less then delighted by them.
There's some who get the feeling that the reserves got them primarily because the regulars didn't want them.


----------



## McG

GK .Dundas said:


> There's some who get the feeling that the reserves got them primarily because the regulars didn't want them.


Yeah, that is exactly why the PRes got them, and the PRes got fewer in those divisions where Reg F units wanted more TAPV.


----------



## Navy_Pete

What I find weird in the announcements is that we still don't have people to buy normal spares with and everyone is focused on the capitol side of new equipment.

We have a backlog of requisitions out that is probably in the tens of millions just for the Navy side, but don't have the people to process the buys and walk them through buy&sell.

Shiny new equipment is cool, but how about basic widgets to keep our current stuff going? Some of it has a lead time meausured in years as well, so it's not like it will show up tomorrow, but without enough procurement staff really doesn't matter how many TSORs we pump out. 

Not really sexy, but 1000s of different items at lower dollar values adds up, and still has a high LOE even with the most basic procurement rules.


----------



## dimsum

Navy_Pete said:


> Not really sexy


I think you answered your own question.

Announcing new stuff is always sexier than announcing spares for current stuff.  The CAF is (rightly) being lambasted for having old equipment, so from a PR perspective I'd totally see why they'd want to focus on new procurement.


----------



## McG

Navy_Pete said:


> We have a backlog of requisitions out that is probably in the tens of millions just for the Navy side, but don't have the people to process the buys and walk them through buy&sell.


The supply managers and LCMMs are supposed to ensure this happens. These people exist.


----------



## Navy_Pete

McG said:


> The supply managers and LCMMs are supposed to ensure this happens. These people exist.


I'm working in the LCMM section; right now we are hurting for people on both sides, so routine things are only being looked at between daily crises and the supply managers only have capacity to buy HPRs. My subsection is at 1/3 manning trying to figure out the technical side, and SMs are even shorter for people.

A lot of people come in to the grinder, learn a bit, then jump to a different department where things aren't insanely short staffed so they don't get worked to burnout, so it's a vicious cycle.

We could easily keep another 20 supply managers busy for six months filling bins though just bringing empty shelves up to minimum stock levels, but because of the relative low dollar values of the items, doesn't get pushed up to PSPC to do the procurement for us.

And if someone wants to buy new equipment, still need project staff for it, so not really sure where they are coming from either. Has been a pretty significant retirement wave in the last decade without new people coming in, so huge amount of experience is just gone. Usually a posting cycle is just long enough to learn the processes and get good at them, and things take a lot longer when you don't have that experience, so even if we surged people things would be really slow for a while.

Having funding available is awesome, but we need a lot more people to use it effectively. HR is our number 1 risk risk now at the status quo, so already working beyond capacity to try and keep the wheels on. The BGHs can increase the demand all they want, but without bodies we're not really going to even catch up, let alone get ahead.


----------



## rmc_wannabe

Navy_Pete said:


> What I find weird in the announcements is that we still don't have people to buy normal spares with and everyone is focused on the capitol side of new equipment.
> 
> We have a backlog of requisitions out that is probably in the tens of millions just for the Navy side, but don't have the people to process the buys and walk them through buy&sell.
> 
> Shiny new equipment is cool, but how about basic widgets to keep our current stuff going? Some of it has a lead time meausured in years as well, so it's not like it will show up tomorrow, but without enough procurement staff really doesn't matter how many TSORs we pump out.
> 
> Not really sexy, but 1000s of different items at lower dollar values adds up, and still has a high LOE even with the most basic procurement rules.


 I would love to see the dollars and cents value of our current kind of procurement system and the way we fund projects.

I see the heart ache in the C&E world because the capabilities we field have a shelf life of 5 years before the vendor ends support to that equipment. If the project is receiving funding for a 20 year solution, more often than not, we fuck ourselves over. 

We are usually buying something close to EoL/EoS, expecting to not lifecycle the system for 20 years, but not being able to get repairs, spares, or replacements, let alone software or licensing upgrades.

Does it make sense to do these multi decade procurements, or should we switch to a 5 year "use the hell out of it and replace new" system? I would be interested to see how the money plays out.


----------



## McG

Navy_Pete said:


> We could easily keep another 20 supply managers busy for six months filling bins though just bringing empty shelves up to minimum stock levels,


Assuming SWE were approved for those 20 positions and you could start hiring on Monday, how long would be needed to absorb and train that many civilians? 

Filling staffing deficiencies is potentially an easy win that shows Canada is committed to meeting its defence obligations.


----------



## Kirkhill

rmc_wannabe said:


> I see the heart ache in the C&E world because the capabilities we field have a shelf life of 5 years before the vendor ends support to that equipment. If the project is receiving funding for a 20 year solution, more often than not, we fuck ourselves over.



Interesting that.  The F35 and the CSCs  both got stuck with multi-decade life-cycle costings in a world where, as you suggest, 5 years is a technological life-cycle.  

Perhaps a more realistic costing system on projects would reflect that reality and anticipate a 5 year life-cycle even on big ticket items.  For example, should the F-35 buy based on buying 88 Block 4s for 40 years or buying 40 Block 4s for 5 to 10 years, then 24 Block 5s, then another 24 Block 6s and then replace the entire fleet.  Likewise for the CSCs - not one 40 year project but 3 or 4 10 to 15 year projects.

It would keep the skills current at all levels, keep the fleets current AND reduce the sticker shock - not to mention turning procurement into a routine headline in the trade papers rather than headlines on the National.


----------



## GR66

Navy_Pete said:


> I'm working in the LCMM section; right now we are hurting for people on both sides, so routine things are only being looked at between daily crises and the supply managers only have capacity to buy HPRs. My subsection is at 1/3 manning trying to figure out the technical side, and SMs are even shorter for people.
> 
> A lot of people come in to the grinder, learn a bit, then jump to a different department where things aren't insanely short staffed so they don't get worked to burnout, so it's a vicious cycle.
> 
> We could easily keep another 20 supply managers busy for six months filling bins though just bringing empty shelves up to minimum stock levels, but because of the relative low dollar values of the items, doesn't get pushed up to PSPC to do the procurement for us.
> 
> And if someone wants to buy new equipment, still need project staff for it, so not really sure where they are coming from either. Has been a pretty significant retirement wave in the last decade without new people coming in, so huge amount of experience is just gone. Usually a posting cycle is just long enough to learn the processes and get good at them, and things take a lot longer when you don't have that experience, so even if we surged people things would be really slow for a while.
> 
> Having funding available is awesome, but we need a lot more people to use it effectively. HR is our number 1 risk risk now at the status quo, so already working beyond capacity to try and keep the wheels on. The BGHs can increase the demand all they want, but without bodies we're not really going to even catch up, let alone get ahead.


Makes me wonder why these are CF positions then rather than civilian DND positions where you won't get the same kind of turnover of staff and constant loss of experience?


----------



## McG

GR66 said:


> Makes me wonder why these are CF positions then rather than civilian DND positions where you won't get the same kind of turnover of staff and constant loss of experience?


Most PYs in ADM(Mat) should be converted to civilian positions. Some of those freed PYs should go to the requirements staffs in other L1 so we can do a better job of describing what we really need.


----------



## Navy_Pete

McG said:


> Assuming SWE were approved for those 20 positions and you could start hiring on Monday, how long would be needed to absorb and train that many civilians?
> 
> Filling staffing deficiencies is potentially an easy win that shows Canada is committed to meeting its defence obligations.


The LCMM apprenticeship program is 3 years, not sure what the SM equivalent is. Can take a few years to learn the basics though, and more complicated things contracts etc can take a decade to figure out what all the TB and other requirements are.

Taking a demand for an NSN and posting it on B&S is a lot more straightforward though and doesn't require any specialized knowledge, but still needs someone with time to do it.

The frustrating things is we can't pad a buy for an HPR of a part for 2 items with another 50 or whatever, unless there is a minimum quantity from the manufacturer. Recently processed several HPRs for small quantities of a common item for $250 total where the staff time costs more then the procurement, with a routine stock fill sitting in the pile for the last year or so to buy 100 of them (at roughly the same LOE as an HPR). Because procurements are being triaged by HPRs there isn't capacity to get to that routine buy, even though it's been manually pulled up to the top of the pile. Even then, we are behind on HPR procurements, so it's pretty grim.

On top of all that, the whole supply chain is still a mess; lots of companies are months behind so nothing is quick and some things they just can't get supplies to make things with.


----------



## dapaterson

GR66 said:


> Makes me wonder why these are CF positions then rather than civilian DND positions where you won't get the same kind of turnover of staff and constant loss of experience?


They are a mix of military and civilian, with a steady stream of retiring CAF members into the PS.

The current environment, where unimaginative DND/CAF "leadership" care more about bums in seats in the office than productivity, is seeing an increased exodus to other departments, especially PSPC, where more enlightened and supportive management care about productivity and support WFH / hybrid employment models.



McG said:


> Most PYs in ADM(Mat) should be converted to civilian positions. Some of those freed PYs should go to the requirements staffs in other L1 so we can do a better job of describing what we really need.


A decent review of CAF occupations should include a "percentage by rank in the NCR" metric to identify what could / should be civilianized.  I suspect the second order effect of that, dramatically reducing the number of positions in CAF "engineering" occupations (engineering in quotes since very few are actually P Eng) would drive reduced intake into RMC, and hence will never happen.


----------



## Navy_Pete

GR66 said:


> Makes me wonder why these are CF positions then rather than civilian DND positions where you won't get the same kind of turnover of staff and constant loss of experience?


Those are civilian positions; but if someone is working 60 hour weeks with no light at the end of the tunnel for improvement, and can transfer the same job to another department at the same (or better) classification, don't blame them. Lot of jobs in the NCR within different departments so there is a lot of pull from DND to CCG, TC and elsewhere.

Not having to use DRMIS doesn't hurt either.

@Kirkhill You can do that with an ISSC on top of the initial procurement, but depends on the equipment if you can go with the OEM, a 3rd party, or want some kind of mix with the CAF and ISSC. It does add a whack of extra work though, and TBS now requires we look at that for any replacement over a certain dollar value via the 'Sustainment Case Business Analysis', which can add a ballpark of 1-3 years to the options analysis phase. That's still a work in progress with us trying to figure out how to do it and where we can skip it, but is yet another approval gate to jump through.

Evaluation of the Sustainment Initiative - Canada.ca


----------



## Navy_Pete

dapaterson said:


> I suspect the second order effect of that, dramatically reducing the number of positions in CAF "engineering" occupations (engineering in quotes since very few are actually P Eng) would drive reduced intake into RMC, and hence will never happen.


P. Eng is a provincial designation, so doesn't actually apply to work we do, and we self regulate anyway so are exempt from provincial oversight (for the most part).

CAF doesn't pay for it for military members as well, so a lot of people don't bother with it, as it costs about $1k to do the testing and $300-$400 per year to maintain. DND will pay for civilians ENGs to get and maintain the designation, so that might be a cheap and easy way to help with retention. SWE impact of a military member doing the job is cheaper then the equivalent ENG billet by a fair bit, and there is no OT, AWSE etc.

P.Eng itself doesn't really mean much on it's own but the work we do in the CAF does qualify, and most provinces have a PLAR type process specifically to transfer CAF experience towards the credentials and the 5 year period required. No one is stamping anything though so it's really just a flag that you are part of the club, and handy to have if you jump over to private industry. Some trades give PER points for it though to encourage people, but for the most part it's just a few extra letters in a signature block.


----------



## Kirkhill

Navy_Pete said:


> Those are civilian positions; but if someone is working 60 hour weeks with no light at the end of the tunnel for improvement, and can transfer the same job to another department at the same (or better) classification, don't blame them. Lot of jobs in the NCR within different departments so there is a lot of pull from DND to CCG, TC and elsewhere.
> 
> Not having to use DRMIS doesn't hurt either.
> 
> @Kirkhill You can do that with an ISSC on top of the initial procurement, but depends on the equipment if you can go with the OEM, a 3rd party, or want some kind of mix with the CAF and ISSC. It does add a whack of extra work though, and TBS now requires we look at that for any replacement over a certain dollar value via the 'Sustainment Case Business Analysis', which can add a ballpark of 1-3 years to the options analysis phase. That's still a work in progress with us trying to figure out how to do it and where we can skip it, but is yet another approval gate to jump through.
> 
> Evaluation of the Sustainment Initiative - Canada.ca



God I do love bureaucrats, accountants and lawyers....


----------



## Brad Sallows

> Yes , but the difference was the reserves never even saw the Bison.



That's not true.  I saw one once, while I was still a reservist.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Kirkhill said:


> God I do love bureaucrats, accountants and lawyers....



The funny part is we've been doing the same kind of thing ad hoc for at least 10 years, but now have to get forced into the SBCA process, whether it makes sense or not. Also, there was no new people provided to support that, so they pulled a team together out of the existing LCMM/SM pool, but doesn't have bandwidth for everyone, so is now a chokepoint right at the start...

PSPC won't even talk to us until we get phase 1 or 2 done in the SBCA, so it's now an internal roadblock.

When you talk about buying something and sustaining a piece of kit for 10-20 years, really doesn't take much to hit the threshold either if it's widely used.

Personally stuff like that makes working as a contractor or going to a different department much more attactive, and at this point just a toss up if I try and stick around long enough to hit my immediate annuity or not.


----------



## Rick Goebel

Brad Sallows said:


> That's not true.  I saw one once, while I was still a reservist.


Actually, the Calgary Highlanders had eight of them.  I don't clearly recall how long we had them, but we did have them.


----------



## Kirkhill

McG said:


> Most PYs in ADM(Mat) should be converted to civilian positions. Some of those freed PYs should go to the requirements staffs in other L1 so we can do a better job of describing what we really need.



You might even give extra points for applicants with prior service?


----------



## Good2Golf

Kirkhill said:


> You might even give extra points for applicants with prior service?


The government said that, but I think it was/is patently untrue.


----------



## Underway

Good2Golf said:


> The government said that, but I think it was/is patently untrue.


Its extremely easy to transfer from a military Eng position to an Eng 4 position.  The experience translates quite well.  I don't know for other types of positions.


----------



## dapaterson

My experience on both sides of the equation is that many military personnel fail to adequately communicate their skills when applying for PS positions.  Jargon, unclear abbreviations... writing in clear, simple declarative English is apparently a lost skill


----------



## MilEME09

NATO wants Canada to double its military spending. Here’s what that would mean for our future
					

It’s the famous 2 per cent of GDP threshold that NATO countries have agreed to — but Canada has not come close to




					www.thestar.com


----------



## Halifax Tar

dapaterson said:


> My experience on both sides of the equation is that many military personnel fail to adequately communicate their skills when applying for PS positions.  Jargon, unclear abbreviations... writing in clear, simple declarative English is apparently a lost skill



Maybe it's just my trade but its more common than not for us to slide into PS positions where available upon retirement.


----------



## dapaterson

MMTs speak the same language as PGs.

Other occs, not always as much.

The process that brought me (a Log O) into the PS also brought a MARS O in.


----------



## Good2Golf

Underway said:


> Its extremely easy to transfer from a military Eng position to an Eng 4 position.  The experience translates quite well.  I don't know for other types of positions.



Clear equivalencies in the technical classifications are pretty solid, I agree.



dapaterson said:


> My experience on both sides of the equation is that many military personnel fail to adequately communicate their skills when applying for PS positions.  Jargon, unclear abbreviations... writing in clear, simple declarative English is apparently a lost skill


…but if someone, for instance had two ADMs provided advice and also reviewed the application to the EX-02 position before submission and said the PS’d equivalencies of the past Mil service were well-written and aligned very well with the advertised position, then received a single comm point of ‘thank you for your application’ and nothing else, then find out from a future neighbour (an EX-01 actually working for the previously advertised EX-02 position) that the DG for whom the ExDir position would work was glad that they were able to internally promote one of their team after they received “two other applications to cover us off for policy…”  Years later, my neighbour can’t stop telling me how he hates the guy they slid up into the position as well as the DG, and I thank my lucky stars that I didn’t get the job, and moved on to private industry.


----------



## tomydoom

Brad Sallows said:


> That's not true.  I saw one once, while I was still a reservist.


I saw one once in the drill shed in Ipperwash. It still had the new APC smell.


----------



## Navy_Pete

dapaterson said:


> My experience on both sides of the equation is that many military personnel fail to adequately communicate their skills when applying for PS positions.  Jargon, unclear abbreviations... writing in clear, simple declarative English is apparently a lost skill


The application process is a bit strange as well; you really need to directly use the 'mandatory requirements' and just explain how they are met to make sure you get through the electronic screening the GoC has.

There was an Eng 4 pool about 5 years ago with hundreds of applicants, and apparently that screened a lot of people out so they had to manually review a lot of the CVs.

It's almost like replying to an RFP; easiest way is to have a small table, but looks really strange.


----------



## Remius

Navy_Pete said:


> The application process is a bit strange as well; you really need to directly use the 'mandatory requirements' and just explain how they are met to make sure you get through the electronic screening the GoC has.
> 
> There was an Eng 4 pool about 5 years ago with hundreds of applicants, and apparently that screened a lot of people out so they had to manually review a lot of the CVs.
> 
> It's almost like replying to an RFP; easiest way is to have a small table, but looks really strange.


It’s more about processes and how you work and less about results at that stage. 

I know someone that was screened out for stating he used MS suite (outlook, word, excel) on a daily basis when they specifically asked for dates and to demonstrate how and when he used it.  

Military types tend to write like their MPRRs as opposed to what is required in PS competitions.


----------



## Weinie

Good2Golf said:


> Clear equivalencies in the technical classifications are pretty solid, I agree.
> 
> 
> …but if someone, for instance had two ADMs provided advice and also reviewed the application to the EX-02 position before submission and said the PS’d equivalencies of the past Mil service were well-written and aligned very well with the advertised position, then received a single comm point of ‘thank you for your application’ and nothing else, then find out from a future neighbour (an EX-01 actually working for the previously advertised EX-02 position) that the DG for whom the ExDir position would work was glad that they were able to internally promote one of their team after they received “two other applications to cover us off for policy…”  Years later, my neighbour can’t stop telling me how he hates the guy they slid up into the position as well as the DG, and I thank my lucky stars that I didn’t get the job, and moved on to private industry.


Had a similar experience about 10 years ago. Screened in,and then wrote the exam. Was told that my submission and exam results were head and shoulders above anyone else’s. Went to the interview, and thought I nailed it. Received an e-mail about a month later stating that “I had failed to demonstrate the requisite experience and comprehension” to be considered for the job. I was at first gobsmacked, and then furious. It was later explained to me that the competition was a sham, only conducted to meet the PS criteria, and that the outcome was pre-ordained to move up a favourite. The successful candidate is now a lousy, and detested EX-02, thankfully no longer with DND.


----------



## Good2Golf

Weinie said:


> Had a similar experience about 10 years ago. Screened in,and then wrote the exam. Was told that my submission and exam results were head and shoulders above anyone else’s. Went to the interview, and thought I nailed it. Received an e-mail about a month later stating that “I had failed to demonstrate the requisite experience and comprehension” to be considered for the job. I was at first gobsmacked, and then furious. It was later explained to me that the competition was a sham, only conducted to meet the PS criteria, and that the outcome was pre-ordained to move up a favourite. The successful candidate is now a lousy, and detested EX-02, thankfully no longer with DND.


Yup.  We’re not the only ones I know that’s happened to, Weinie.  I look at it as a sign that a senior minion life in the PS wasn’t for me.  Happier, had great experiences in “the real world” and now doing some exciting entrepreneurial stuff that I wouldn’t have even considered as an EX-02 drone trying to ‘Fleet
Up’ to DG…


----------



## Weinie

Good2Golf said:


> Yup.  We’re not the only ones I know that’s happened to, Weinie.  I look at it as a sign that a senior minion life in the PS wasn’t for me.  Happier, had great experiences in “the real world” and now doing some exciting entrepreneurial stuff that I wouldn’t have even considered as an EX-02 drone trying to ‘Fleet
> Up’ to DG…


G2G,

In hindsight you are right, and I have come to accept that this was not the best career path for me. But it was my first (and last) exposure to the shyte that passes for a credible PS HR system. I now look at every appointment with a somewhat jaundiced eye. Just look at my (soon to be former) Branch.


----------



## OldSolduer

Good2Golf said:


> Yup.  We’re not the only ones I know that’s happened to, Weinie.  I look at it as a sign that a senior minion life in the PS wasn’t for me.  Happier, had great experiences in “the real world” and now doing some exciting entrepreneurial stuff that I wouldn’t have even considered as an EX-02 drone trying to ‘Fleet
> Up’ to DG…


Yup happens here too. Nepotism is rampant.


----------



## Remius

I can’t speak to the EX level.  But the competitions I’ve helped run were all transparent and on the up and up.  I have seen some though that were definitely and obviously sketchy.


----------



## Weinie

OldSolduer said:


> Yup happens here too. Nepotism is normal.


FTFY


----------



## Halifax Tar

OldSolduer said:


> Yup happens here too. Nepotism is rampant.



I've worked in some units where last names proliferate staff rosters pretty heavy. 

And no I was never part of a Welsh unit lol.


----------



## Weinie

Halifax Tar said:


> I've worked in some units where last names proliferate staff rosters pretty heavy.
> 
> And no I was never part of a Welsh unit lol.


Because you didn’t have extra fingers or toes.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Good2Golf said:


> Yup.  We’re not the only ones I know that’s happened to, Weinie.  I look at it as a sign that a senior minion life in the PS wasn’t for me.  Happier, had great experiences in “the real world” and now doing some exciting entrepreneurial stuff that I wouldn’t have even considered as an EX-02 drone trying to ‘Fleet
> Up’ to DG…





Weinie said:


> G2G,
> 
> In hindsight you are right, and I have come to accept that this was not the best career path for me. But it was my first (and last) exposure to the shyte that passes for a credible PS HR system. I now look at every appointment with a somewhat jaundiced eye. Just look at my (soon to be former) Branch.



I've come to the realization that Public Service/Government is no longer for me.  It's not what I want in life and I have other ambitions.  

Perhaps 20-25 years from now, I might be drawn back to Politics after something #triggers me enough but I've got other plans in the mean time.


----------



## SupersonicMax

Weinie, G2G,

Not sure why they’d go to length for an internal advertised staffing process (and waste many people’s time) when it is entirely possible and acceptable to go the internal unadvertised route?


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

SupersonicMax said:


> Weinie, G2G,
> 
> Not sure why they’d go to length for an internal advertised staffing process (and waste many people’s time) when it is entirely possible and acceptable to go the internal unadvertised route?


Government and wasting time?

Never seen that before 😁


----------



## Good2Golf

SupersonicMax said:


> Weinie, G2G,
> 
> Not sure why they’d go to length for an internal advertised staffing process (and waste many people’s time) when it is entirely possible and acceptable to go the internal unadvertised route?


It is not, if the individual they want to promote internally into the new position hasn’t worked at the new position’s classification level previously.  If there isn’t an internally-qualified transfer (in this case laterally from another EX-02 to this one), they have to compete it internally, and by policy, to include CAF members in that internal competition before going to a truly external competitive recruitment.


----------



## Remius

Good2Golf said:


> It is not, if the individual they want to promote internally into the new position hasn’t worked at the new position’s classification level previously.  If there isn’t an internally-qualified transfer (in this case laterally from another EX-02 to this one), they have to compete it internally, and by policy, to include CAF members in that internal competition before going to a truly external competitive recruitment.




For a few years now, there is a lot more flexibility when it comes to non ads. Some people merely have to qualify in another pool (and not be at level at the time) and can be appointed without a competition as an example.  So someone might apply for a pool.  Qualify, not necessarily get picked up but another manager could just appoint them from that pool with no competition.   It’s annoying because you create a process, put in the work and people apply knowing damn well they will be picked up by someone else in a non ad appointment. The solution is to restrict the pool.  I know we’ve started doing that.  

At the end of the day, if someone wants a specific person they can make it happen.


----------



## GK .Dundas

OldSolduer said:


> Yup happens here too. Nepotism is rampant.


Two words Canada Customs.
To be fair it may have changed in the last 15 years.


----------



## Good2Golf

GK .Dundas said:


> Two words Canada Customs.
> To be fair it may have changed in the last 15 years.


😆 

Ahhhhh, CBSA….


(It wasn’t ‘changed’ as recently as 6 years, 2 months and 12 days ago… 😉 )


----------



## Weinie

SupersonicMax said:


> Weinie, G2G,
> 
> Not sure why they’d go to length for an internal advertised staffing process (and waste many people’s time) when it is entirely possible and acceptable to go the internal unadvertised route?


Yeah, one might think that.........................................................................oh..............wait a minute.


----------



## GK .Dundas

Good2Golf said:


> 😆
> 
> Ahhhhh, CBSA….
> 
> (It wasn’t ‘changed’ as recently as 6 years, 2 months and 12 days ago… 😉 )


I take it,you weren't related to anyone either ?


----------



## Good2Golf

GK .Dundas said:


> I take it,you weren't related to anyone either ?


Not in the least…clearly unsuitable material it would appear. 😆


----------



## GK .Dundas

Good2Golf said:


> Not in the least…clearly unsuitable material it would appear. 😆


So should we take that as an insult or a compliment ?...


----------



## Good2Golf

Knowing what I know now, definitely a complement! 😉


----------



## GK .Dundas

Good2Golf said:


> Knowing what I know now, definitely a complement! 😉


Oh yeah !😆


----------



## Czech_pivo

Anyone willing to give a WAG on what Thursday's budget may contain in terms of actual net new spending or direction? Will it all be smoke and mirrors or will it contain actual achievable items?


----------



## Weinie

Czech_pivo said:


> Anyone willing to give a WAG on what Thursday's budget may contain in terms of actual net new spending or direction? Will it all be smoke and mirrors or will it contain actual achievable items?


I’m betting NORAD folks will be happy, as the gov’t re/re/re-confirms their commitment to continental defence. Most others will be “meh”


----------



## Remius

Czech_pivo said:


> Anyone willing to give a WAG on what Thursday's budget may contain in terms of actual net new spending or direction? Will it all be smoke and mirrors or will it contain actual achievable items?


I want to be optimistic.  But I guess we’ll see. 

I think we’ll see some commitments to NORAD.  Maybe even some Arctic stuff.  And possibly an effort to fix the spending we currently have.  I’d like to see as many items we can fast track pushed forward. Small arms, STANO etc.


----------



## WLSC

Remius said:


> I want to be optimistic.  But I guess we’ll see.
> 
> I think we’ll see some commitments to NORAD.  Maybe even some Arctic stuff.  And possibly an effort to fix the spending we currently have.  I’d like to see as many items we can fast track pushed forward. Small arms, STANO etc.


I don’t think we are currently in a position to receive massive investment other than that but I would add money for the reconstitution/personnel.


----------



## Good2Golf

A couple of thoughts:

Defence funding isn’t just for the next fiscal year, it can (should) be for a methodical, demonstrable (ie. not virtue-signaling bagflegarb) increase in operational AND organizational capability/capacity over a significant period of time - at least 10-15 years, if not 20+ (Not just a ‘say words to get us to/past the next election’ effort).
It should be explicitly included in budgetary legislation that the Defence portion is non-partisan in nature and endorsed by all parties, not just a plurality, and protected from retraction in furniture years, except in a proportional degree that the whole of a budget may be contracted in future due to overall fiscal pressures.
That said, I think any plus up to Defence will have lots of loopholes in the wording, and when things are different in Ukraine, we’ll see commitments kicked further down the road, Chrystia Freeland’s ties to Ukraine notwithstanding.


----------



## FSTO

I'm not confident anything will change. 
We are not a serious country.


----------



## PPCLI Guy

They will commit to making a committent to announce an announcement to plan to make a plan....which they will then surreptitiously defund.  At least the Conservatives issued a plan before they surreptitiousy defunded it....


----------



## Retired AF Guy

Remius said:


> I want to be optimistic.  But I guess we’ll see.
> 
> I think we’ll see some commitments to NORAD.  Maybe even some Arctic stuff.  And possibly an effort to fix the spending we currently have.  I’d like to see as many items we can fast track pushed forward. Small arms, STANO etc.


NORAD for sure. The Americans have been pushing Canada to make a commitment and all they have been getting is silence.


----------



## Retired AF Guy

More details from Jean Charest on what he would do if elected PM:



> *Jean Charest says Canada 'unprepared' for conflict, pitches major investments in defence*
> 
> Former Quebec premier turned Conservative leadership candidate promises billions in new military spending
> 
> John Paul Tasker · CBC News · Posted: Apr 04, 2022 12:59 PM ET | Last Updated: April 4
> 
> Conservative leadership candidate Jean Charest said Monday a government led by him would spend much more money on Canada's armed forces and promised cash to buy new equipment and establish two new military bases in the Arctic.
> 
> Charest — who made the announcement while touring Nova Scotia, a province that is home to a large number of military personnel and veterans — said Canada has been underfunding the armed forces for too long and Russia's invasion of Ukraine has underscored just how "unprepared" the country really is.
> "[Prime Minister Justin] Trudeau's indifference and inaction in support of the Canadian Armed Forces has made it harder to retain qualified personnel, harder to recruit, tougher to train, and impossible for Canada to meet its obligations to its allies globally. Our allies have taken notice and are choosing to leave us out of important security arrangements," Charest said, referring to the AUKUS military pact signed by Australia, the U.S. and the United Kingdom last year.
> 
> To get Canada back in the mix, Charest said he'd boost military spending to 2 per cent of gross domestic product (GDP) as "quickly as it can be responsibly done." GDP is a metric used to measure the size of a country's entire economy.
> 
> Under the current Liberal government, military spending was about 1.36 per cent of GDP in 2021, according to NATO figures — well below what the country spent during the Cold War.
> 
> In the 1960s, Canada's military spending amounted to roughly 4 per cent of GDP. It was around 2 per cent in the 1980s before it dropped dramatically during a period of austerity and budget cuts in the 1990s.
> 
> All NATO members, including Canada, have committed to spending 2 per cent of national GDP on the military. But Canada, like some other countries, has done little to actually hit that target.
> 
> Minister of Finance Chrystia Freeland, left, and Minister of National Defence Anita Anand arrive at a press conference in Ottawa on Thursday, March 3, 2022. (Sean Kilpatrick/The Canadian Press)
> With the war in Ukraine raging, Defence Minister Anita Anand signalled recently Canada will commit more money to the military in this week's federal budget. To hit the NATO target, Canada's defence budget would have to increase from the planned $32 billion spending target to roughly $58 billion.
> 
> Charest said that, if he becomes prime minister, he'd direct some of the promised new spending to establishing two new military bases in the Arctic — including a deepwater port — and purchase two armed icebreakers to shore up Canada's presence in the region. He said he'd work with the U.S. to modernize NORAD defensive and early warning systems and "explore" the possibility of upgrading the submarine fleet to do a better job of defending all three of Canada's coasts.
> 
> The Liberal government restarted the fighter jet procurement process when it first assumed office in 2015, something Charest said was "irresponsible."
> 
> While Trudeau initially ran for office opposed to buying Lockheed Martin's F-35 fighter planes, the government now appears poised to sign a deal for those aircraft, which are already used by the U.S. and other NATO allies.
> 
> Charest said the seven-year-long process to buy these jets has been too slow. He said a government led by him would "streamline bureaucratic processes" and "speed up competitions" to accelerate future purchases and avoid costly delays.
> 
> In addition to ongoing procurement issues, the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) has also struggled to recruit new members in recent years.
> 
> There's money on the books to bring the fighting force up to 71,500 regular members and 30,000 reservists but the CAF is well off that mark. At last count, there were only about 65,000 regular force members.
> 
> Charest said he'd strive to make the CAF a more welcoming work environment by tackling the sexual misconduct that has plagued the military in recent years, dragging down efforts to recruit more women.
> 
> The former Quebec premier said Trudeau has overseen a "dysfunctional and unacceptable deterioration" in the CAF and the military has become a place where "female, minority and LGBTQ+ have experienced systemic and unfair obstacles while participating in what should be safe and merit-based environments."
> 
> He said he'd also try to woo back recently retired CAF members with unspecified incentives and force Canada's colleges and universities to allow military recruiters to set up recruitment centres on their campuses.
> 
> As for Canada's veterans, Charest promised a return to the pre-2006 Pension Act benefits that were available to disabled and injured veterans. The rollout of a new benefits and pensions regime has been an ongoing source of consternation for former CAF members injured on duty.
> 
> He also promised new benefits for veterans with a minimum of five years regular force service or reservists who were in the CAF for at least seven years. He said those benefits could include access to low-cost mortgages, loans for veterans who want to start or expand a business and education grants for those who want to study in another field.




Link


----------



## Navy_Pete

Weinie said:


> I’m betting NORAD folks will be happy, as the gov’t re/re/re-confirms their commitment to continental defence. Most others will be “meh”


Not new funding, but this year for a change we've had a bunch of NP funding released at the very start of the FY pretty much across the board. The last little while it's been hit or miss, and in some cases it was the summer before we got even a portion of the funds. I think right now the projects I'm running with had more funding 1 April then I had last fall, unless I went hat in hand to beg for it.

Managing NP funding for system support can be a high LOE task, so that was a nice change.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Retired AF Guy said:


> More details from Jean Charest on what he would do if elected PM:
> 
> 
> 
> Link


And once again the stupid two armed icebreakers that CPC promised in 2005 campaign. Many Conservatives are just as ignorant about defence/Coast Guard as Liberals, NDP. Sigh. All spin.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Remius

MarkOttawa said:


> And once again the stupid two armed icebreakers that CPC promised in 2005 campaign. Many Conservatives are just as ignorant about defence/Coast Guard as Liberals, NDP. Sigh. All spin.
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa


He’s not getting the leadership.  I’ll pay attention to Charest when he’s the leader.  And on that he would be my current choice but I know that isn’t happening.


----------



## dapaterson

Charest has promised to remove political interference from procurement, and also to ensure Canadian industry in supported through the CSPS, so it's a wash.


----------



## KevinB

dapaterson said:


> Charest has promised to remove political interference from procurement, and also to ensure Canadian industry in supported through the CSPS, so it's a wash.


He would remove interference from picking Canadian companies (or Canadian subsidiaries of multinational companies).


----------



## QV

I rescind my statement I could support a Charest CPC, based on his ties to Huawei. This is too close to the CCP. 









						Welcome to Jean Charest's world: the backstory on the Conservative Party's would-be messiah that he'd really rather you not know.
					

Providing services to Huawei's Meng Wanzhou. Guiding Xi Jinping's "national champion" telecom through Canada's national-security roadblocks. Supplying megaphone services for Beijing's disinfo ops. . .




					therealstory.substack.com


----------



## Brad Sallows

It'd be hard to find a leader without Chinese connections for any party if you go looking within what passes for the "eastern establishment".


----------



## QV

Then the slate needs to be wiped clean.


----------



## Remius

Scotiabank’s prediction on the budget has defence spending increase by 12 Bn. 





__





						A Primer Ahead of Canada’s Federal Budget: (More) Spending Ahead
					






					www.scotiabank.com


----------



## calculus

Remius said:


> Scotiabank’s prediction on the budget has defence spending increase by 12 Bn.
> 
> https://www.scotiabank.com/ca/en/ab...ian-federal-budget--march-23--2022-.html[/URL


I guess we will have to wait until tomorrow, but a "$12 bn defense top-up" can mean a lot of things. Is that an extra $12 bn a year, or an extra $12 bn out until 2027?


----------



## MilEME09

calculus said:


> I guess we will have to wait until tomorrow, but a "$12 bn defense top-up" can mean a lot of things. Is that an extra $12 bn a year, or an extra $12 bn out until 2027?


12B wouldn't get us to 2% but it's a damn good start, now if they let us spend it, we might be on the right path.


----------



## Remius

MilEME09 said:


> 12B wouldn't get us to 2% but it's a damn good start, now if they let us spend it, we might be on the right path.


I think it might be an accurate number.  I never thought we’d get to 2% but an increase like that should make some of our allies happy.

But yes.  The key is how we spend that and what we already have.


----------



## Kirkhill

12 BCAD?

Is that sustained?
Or one time?
Or spread over 5 years?

Wait out!.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Start of very good piece at Conference on Defence Associations Institute:

*Three ways to improve defence procurement in Canada*

_*Richard B. Fadden,* O.C. former National Security Advisor to the Prime Minister and Deputy Minister of National Defence

*LGen (ret) Guy Thibault, *former Vice Chief of the Defence Staff_

In National Defence, getting the money is the easiest part…

Given the deterioration of the international security situation, the Prime Minister has said he is open to additional defence spending. Assuming Mr. Trudeau meant what he said...




__





						Three ways to improve defence procurement in Canada | CDA Institute
					






					cdainstitute.ca
				




Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Czech_pivo

I wonder how much funding it would cost to just address the shortfall of 6,500 active members? I imagine that would cost somewhere around a cool billion, when all knock on factors are considered.  Salaries only would eat up more than 1/2 billion alone. 

I'd like them to address that shortfall and then add another 8-9k in full time headout, round out around 75-78k.


----------



## Remius

More on what they will spend.



			https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/defence-department-military-canada-norad-ukraine-nato-1.6410530?__vfz=medium%3Dsharebar
		


Looks like maybe 8 billion.  Plus a new defence policy which could be good news but we’ll see. So we’ll be at 1.5 percent if GDP.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

They are happy to give more money to the DND, because a good chunk will remain unspent, returned to TB and reallocated to more voter rich initiatives.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Remius said:


> More on what they will spend.
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/defence-department-military-canada-norad-ukraine-nato-1.6410530?__vfz=medium%3Dsharebar
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like maybe 8 billion.  Plus a new defence policy which could be good news but we’ll see. So we’ll be at 1.5 percent if GDP.


If we are currently at 1.39% and we move to 1.5%, is that truly a significant move?  It's no where near an 8$ billion increase in spending.  Based on the info in that article, I'm calling bullshit.


----------



## OldSolduer

This is the worst I have ever seen. I grew up in the CAF and have since retired but it seems GoC is determined to break the CAF and turn it into a shadow of what it was.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Anand already put the writing on the wall. There's 3 options;
Exceed the 2.0% GDP
Meet the 2.0@ GDP; and
Don't meet the 2.0% GDP.

Failure was worked into the COAs from the start


----------



## Haggis

Colin Parkinson said:


> They are happy to give more money to the DND, because a good chunk will remain unspent, returned to TB and reallocated to more voter rich initiatives.


It will be interesting to see what unfunded election promises - if any -  get tossed on the "next time" pile to fund this defence increase along with the NDP asks.  Singh didn't support any increases in defence.


----------



## OldSolduer

Jarnhamar said:


> Anand already put the writing on the wall. There's 3 options;
> Exceed the 2.0% GDP
> Meet the 2.0@ GDP; and
> Don't meet the 2.0% GDP.
> 
> Failure was worked into the COAs from the start


Admittedly I have not seen the MND much but she does project leadership traits - you know who the boss is when they enter the room.


----------



## OldSolduer

Haggis said:


> Singh didn't support any increases in defence.


Mr. Singh needs to be "de elected". He's a champagne socialist - like most of that ilk.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Haggis said:


> It will be interesting to see what unfunded election promises - if any -  get tossed on the "next time" pile to fund this defence increase along with the NDP asks.  Singh didn't support any increases in defence.


You mean something like Chretien saying that they'd scrap the GST and close to 30yrs later they haven't done it?


----------



## Haggis

Czech_pivo said:


> You mean something like Chretien saying that they'd scrap the GST and close to 30yrs later they haven't done it?


As I posted earlier in this thread, Trudeau has upwards of $50B in unfunded election promises already, before this grandiose proposal to turn us into a middle power again.


----------



## Fabius

My bet is $12 Billion CAD to upgrade NORAD infrastructure over the next 10 years.


----------



## Furniture

Fabius said:


> My bet is $12 Billion CAD to upgrade NORAD infrastructure over the next 10 years.


I was thinking 12 billion over the next 30 years, with 11.9 billion in the last year... 

I hope the extra money is for UORs like GBAD, ATGMs, as well as recruiting/retention, and infrastructure. 

If things get kinetic for NATO, Canada should have _some _GBAD, and ATGM capability, even if they aren't the "best". A Spike SR/Starstreak/Stinger/Panzerfaust 3 in the hand is better than a project to buy ATGM/MANPADS in the next 15 years.


----------



## Prairie canuck

Fabius said:


> My bet is $12 Billion CAD to upgrade NORAD infrastructure over the next 10 years.


Just curious but are the equipment requirements/specifications already determined? If so why take 10yrs?


----------



## Furniture

Prairie canuck said:


> Just curious but are the equipment requirements/specifications already determined? If so why take 10yrs?


Because the war in Ukraine will be over by then, or at the very least Canadians will go back to not caring about defence. Leaves more money to buy votes with...


----------



## Czech_pivo

Furniture said:


> Because the war in Ukraine will be over by then, or at the very least Canadians will go back to not caring about defence. Leaves more money to buy votes with...


The best statement I’ve read in years. About sums up my thoughts as well.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Fabius said:


> My bet is $12 Billion CAD to upgrade NORAD infrastructure over the next 10 years.


I sometimes wish that the US would just come right out and say, ‘Fuck you Canada for being such cheap bastards, you’re on your own now.’ And they lived happily ever after.


----------



## Prairie canuck

Furniture said:


> Because the war in Ukraine will be over by then, or at the very least Canadians will go back to not caring about defence. Leaves more money to buy votes with...


Canada is not alone on this project and if the senior partner says it needs to hurry up then can Canada have much of a choice? Would not doing so have consequences from not helping to ensure US continental defence?


----------



## Furniture

Prairie canuck said:


> Canada is not alone on this project and if the senior partner says it needs to hurry up then can Canada have much of a choice? Would not doing so have consequences from not helping to ensure US continental defence?


We've been pretty bad at holding up our end of the bargain for some time now, why change? 

Kidding aside, I suspect there will be big money for NORAD, simply because we have neglected it for so long we can no longer ignore it. Much like recruiting/retention, GBAD, etc.. 

We could likely spend billions just getting what we have up to speed, without even adding anything new or required. The CAF is dying because of, politics, bad management of our people, and byzantine procurement processes. It's a slow death, but it is inevitable at this stage without intervention.


----------



## Brad Sallows

I suppose the part of the money intended to buy weapons for Ukraine is not (relatively) large, but obviously munitions expended by Ukraine or bought to replace the ones already given over don't "add" anything.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Brad Sallows said:


> I suppose the part of the money intended to buy weapons for Ukraine is not (relatively) large, but obviously munitions expended by Ukraine or bought to replace the ones already given over don't "add" anything.


Maybe we can buy the Ukkies 10,000 pistols but only deliver 5,000 and keep the other 5,000 for testing/training purposes here.


----------



## Fabius

My guess on $12 Billion CAD over 10 years on NORAD is little more than an guess informed by years of watching Cdn defence spending decisions or lack there of. Its an item that is coming due no matter what but it is a convenient time to announce as it might play well domestically while not mattering internationally really but it can be played as such.
As to it actually solving any of the CAF problems, not really but oh well. Impacting NATO and the increased focus on the Russians not really relevant either but it still counts.  So overall win win for the government.


----------



## Czech_pivo

House calls for Canada to meet NATO defence spending target on eve of budget​The motion was carried 303 to 27, with the Conservatives, Liberals, and Bloc Quebecois all voting in favour of it. The NDP and the Green Party’s two MPs voted against it. NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh has long called the target “arbitrary.”









						House calls for Canada to meet NATO defence spending target on eve of budget
					

On the eve of the federal budget, the House of Commons passed a motion calling for the federal government to increase its national defence spending to 'at least' meet the NATO target of two per cent gross domestic product (GDP).




					www.ctvnews.ca
				




Warm, fuzzy, feel good story with no substance at all.  It does call out where the Socialists stand in all this.


----------



## OldSolduer

Haggis said:


> As I posted earlier in this thread, Trudeau has upwards of $50B in unfunded election promises already, before this grandiose proposal to turn us into a middle power again.  a socialist state where we all share the same misery except for JT and his apple polishers.


FTFY


----------



## Halifax Tar

Czech_pivo said:


> House calls for Canada to meet NATO defence spending target on eve of budget​The motion was carried 303 to 27, with the Conservatives, Liberals, and Bloc Quebecois all voting in favour of it. The NDP and the Green Party’s two MPs voted against it. NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh has long called the target “arbitrary.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> House calls for Canada to meet NATO defence spending target on eve of budget
> 
> 
> On the eve of the federal budget, the House of Commons passed a motion calling for the federal government to increase its national defence spending to 'at least' meet the NATO target of two per cent gross domestic product (GDP).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.ctvnews.ca
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Warm, fuzzy, feel good story with no substance at all.  It does call out where the Socialists stand in all this.



Is their irony that votes for equalled 303 ?


----------



## Weinie

Furniture said:


> We've been pretty bad at holding up our end of the bargain for some time now, why change?
> 
> *Kidding aside, I suspect there will be big money for NORAD,* simply because we have neglected it for so long we can no longer ignore it. Much like recruiting/retention, GBAD, etc..
> 
> We could likely spend billions just getting what we have up to speed, without even adding anything new or required. The CAF is dying because of, politics, bad management of our people, and byzantine procurement processes. It's a slow death, but it is inevitable at this stage without intervention.


It's not a question of how long we have ignored it, it is an easy hit. Not offensive in nature, not in anyones' backyard, not something that most Canadians think about. Win/Win/Win.


----------



## OldSolduer

Weinie said:


> It's not a question of how long we have ignored it, it is an easy hit. Not offensive in nature, not in anyones' backyard, not something that most Canadians think about. Win/Win/Win.


And that is the issue - Canada's existence has never been seriously threatened so defense matters don't matter to most Canadians.


----------



## Czech_pivo

OldSolduer said:


> And that is the issue - Canada's existence has never been seriously threatened so defense matters don't matter to most Canadians.


It’s a Colony mentality that we’ve never shed, rely on someone else.


----------



## Prairie canuck

Furniture said:


> We've been pretty bad at holding up our end of the bargain for some time now, why change?
> 
> Kidding aside, I suspect there will be big money for NORAD, simply because we have neglected it for so long we can no longer ignore it. Much like recruiting/retention, GBAD, etc..
> 
> We could likely spend billions just getting what we have up to speed, without even adding anything new or required. The CAF is dying because of, politics, bad management of our people, and byzantine procurement processes. It's a slow death, but it is inevitable at this stage without intervention.


If the Canadian public requires to be educated on why the CAF is so dilapidated, can't meet its NATO commitments, etc and why it should instead be a high priority why do we not see that in the media? (Just to be clear I am in the high priority camp) All these retired generals and all retired members should be making a forceful push for change at every opportunity through whatever media is available. It's the way it's done by any group pushing their agenda. (I mention retired members as I imagine current serving members are muzzled.) 
I know more about the plight of a seal pup, what it means to be "woke" or how I'm killing the planet with my gas powered tools because that's what is fed to me. I guess those groups have a better marketing department.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Prairie canuck said:


> If the Canadian public requires to be educated on why the CAF is so dilapidated, can't meet its NATO commitments, etc and why it should instead be a high priority why do we not see that in the media? (Just to be clear I am in the high priority camp) All these retired generals and all retired members should be making a forceful push for change at every opportunity through whatever media is available. It's the way it's done by any group pushing their agenda. (I mention retired members as I imagine current serving members are muzzled.)
> I know more about the plight of a seal pup, what it means to be "woke" or how I'm killing the planet with my gas powered tools because that's what is fed to me. I guess those groups have a better marketing department.


The media doesn’t care.
Current, serving military officers can’t (won’t?) openly speak about the current dire situation because they worry about the repercussions to their careers.
What the US should do is kick us to the curb and force us to shoulder our true burdens, this may wake up the public.


----------



## MilEME09

Czech_pivo said:


> The media doesn’t care.
> Current, serving military officers can’t (won’t?) openly speak about the current dire situation because they worry about the repercussions to their careers.
> What the US should do is kick us to the curb and force us to shoulder our true burdens, this may wake up the public.


How about the US just starts sending us the bill to cover the slack till we get our butts in gear


----------



## KevinB

MilEME09 said:


> How about the US just starts sending us the bill to cover the slack till we get our butts in gear


You owe us 1.5T 

There you go.


----------



## Weinie

Czech_pivo said:


> The media doesn’t care.
> Current, serving military officers can’t (won’t?) openly speak about the current dire situation because they worry about the repercussions to their careers.
> What the US should do is kick us to the curb and force us to shoulder our true burdens, this may wake up the public.


Serving military members cannot speak unless given approval to do so.(unless it is "your job, and your experiences.) Hence, why no serving member can talk about perceived failures of this gov't WRT funding or support. The last military person to do so resigned as he was speaking.

Vice-Admiral Charles Morris Winton Thomas, CMM, CD - Canada.ca


----------



## Good2Golf

KevinB said:


> You owe us 1.5T
> 
> There you go.


Something tells me that we were indeed told by Uncle Sam in no uncertain terms…just that unlike Canada, which can’t shut up about how influential in the world it thinks it is, Uncles Sam just calmly slid a list across the table of stuff Canada is going to buy, and like it…


----------



## KevinB

Good2Golf said:


> Something tells me that we were indeed told by Uncle Sam in no uncertain terms…just that unlike Canada, which can’t shut up about how influential in the world it thinks it is, Uncles Sam just calmly slid a list across the table of stuff Canada is going to buy, from the US and like it…


Minor edit


----------



## Good2Golf

KevinB said:


> Minor edit


You’re batting 100 so far! 😉


----------



## Halifax Tar

Weinie said:


> Serving military members cannot speak unless given approval to do so.(unless it is "your job, and your experiences.) Hence, why no serving member can talk about perceived failures of this gov't WRT funding or support. The last military person to do so resigned as he was speaking.
> 
> Vice-Admiral Charles Morris Winton Thomas, CMM, CD - Canada.ca



Adm Landymore is better example.  Guy fought to the end against unification.  Know what ?  He was right.






						William Landymore - Wikipedia
					






					en.m.wikipedia.org


----------



## KevinB

The Liberals had already channeled their intentions to execute on remaining election pledges (in the order of net new spending of $56 bn by FY27). The new pact—once netting out what the Liberals had planned to do anyway—likely adds another $15–20 bn over the life of the 3-year agreement and potentially $40 bn by FY27. Tack on another $12 bn (at least) for potential defense spending top-ups.
Using the Scotiabank article as a roadmap, I suspect you will see at least a 1 year immediate surge like Germany did and a commitment to 2% or higher for foreseeable years. (Or until attention is taken away from world events).    
Even if the CAF got an extra 12B this year it would not fill the holes it has in equipment, an extra 24 wouldn’t either.  I doubt it will be 12B additional, but for interest sake that would pop it to 2.24% (ish). 

2% is a Maintenance number, it’s not a growth number, so Canada would need more than 2% for several years.   4% for 5 years if used intelligently would mean 2% could keep the CAF in good shape for quite some time - unless it eats it up on salaries.


----------



## Czech_pivo

KevinB said:


> You owe us 1.5T
> 
> There you go.


USD or CAD?
I’ll convene a meeting to discuss.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Weinie said:


> Serving military members cannot speak unless given approval to do so.(unless it is "your job, and your experiences.) Hence, why no serving member can talk about perceived failures of this gov't WRT funding or support. The last military person to do so resigned as he was speaking.
> 
> Vice-Admiral Charles Morris Winton Thomas, CMM, CD - Canada.ca


Thank you for bringing clarity for me on this.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Good2Golf said:


> Something tells me that we were indeed told by Uncle Sam in no uncertain terms…just that unlike Canada, which can’t shut up about how influential in the world it thinks it is, Uncles Sam just calmly slid a list across the table of stuff Canada is going to buy, and like it…


I so f&*king hope so.


----------



## Prairie canuck

I don't mean to sound like Singh (I really really don't want to sound like Singh)  but 2% is arbitrary. The focus should be on identifying and obtaining needed capabilities and personnel. That may be 1.5% or it could be 3% or even 5%. The CAF and the government needs to decide what they need domestically first and then how it needs to contribute internationally . As I've seen in the Reece thread and others similar to it there's still lots of debate as to what that it is.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Prairie canuck said:


> I don't mean to sound like Singh (I really really don't want to sound like Singh)  but 2% is arbitrary. The focus should be on identifying and obtaining needed capabilities and personnel. That may be 1.5% or it could be 3% or even 5%. The CAF and the government needs to decide what they need domestically first and then how it needs to contribute internationally . As I've seen in the Reece thread and others similar to it there's still lots of debate as to what that it is.



I actually agree.  Throwing money at us with no plan or sustainment it's pissing into the wind.

Canada has to decide what it's wants to be in this world and then it need to tell us how we enact that militarily.


----------



## Quirky

Prairie canuck said:


> The focus should be on identifying and obtaining needed capabilities and personnel.


Good luck getting people through the door based on the “sexual crisis in the CAF” alone. A little bit of research on Reddit where young people hang out will expose all the other issues. The CAF is circling the drain, along with canada, and no amount of money will fix it.


----------



## KevinB

2% is the agree to NATO # It isn’t arbitrary and there is a lot of data (not open source) to back it up. 

The expectations are that you don’t piss it away.  

Singh is a moron, don’t be like Singh.


----------



## RangerRay

Remius said:


> More on what they will spend.
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/defence-department-military-canada-norad-ukraine-nato-1.6410530?__vfz=medium%3Dsharebar
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like maybe 8 billion.  Plus a new defence policy which could be good news but we’ll see. So we’ll be at 1.5 percent if GDP.


Anyone else surprised seeing the Bloq support increased funding for the Canadian military?


----------



## WLSC

RangerRay said:


> Anyone else surprised seeing the Bloq support increased funding for the Canadian military?


Not really, well a bit because we are not use to that.  They see this as a just cause.


----------



## FJAG

KevinB said:


> 2% is the agree to NATO # It isn’t arbitrary and there is a lot of data (not open source) to back it up.
> 
> The expectations are that you don’t piss it away.
> 
> Singh is a moron, but he like Singh.


Let's not forget that there is a second NATO target being expending 20% of overall defence spending on major equipment. For a long time we've spent half of that and although recent capital commitments have gone up, they still haven't bee up to 20% and more importantly we've underspent the budgeted amounts because of delays.

🍻


----------



## GK .Dundas

The Quebec separatists tend to cover the full political spectrum and most people tend not to realize that.


----------



## OldSolduer

KevinB said:


> Minor edit


I would actually prefer US equipment vice European.


----------



## Furniture

OldSolduer said:


> I would actually prefer US equipment vice European.


I'd prefer equipment... 

The USA pays a premium for the best kit out there, Canada has little appetite to pay that premium. I'd rather see Canadians armed with the 90% solution from Europe, than the 0% solution we currently have for many problems.


----------



## OldSolduer

Furniture said:


> I'd prefer equipment...
> 
> The USA pays a premium for the best kit out there, Canada has little appetite to pay that premium. I'd rather see Canadians armed with the 90% solution from Europe, than the 0% solution we currently have for many problems.


You make a good point but the US is just over the border while Europe is a very large nasty ocean away.


----------



## Furniture

OldSolduer said:


> You make a good point but the US is just over the border while Europe is a very large nasty ocean away.


On the other hand, we are more likely to fight there, so the systems could be a LPO...


----------



## TacticalTea

RangerRay said:


> Anyone else surprised seeing the Bloq support increased funding for the Canadian military?


Certainly a departure from Quebec's usual ''Screw anything that can be associated with British imperialism, to wit, the military, conscription, and overseas deployments''. The Bloc is generally a centrist party, though, and - just like Quebeccers at large - strongly values the right of peoples to self-determination. 

It is no surprise to me that Russia's violation of that right would elicit in them (us) a strong militarist attitude that is usually inexistant. 

It also follows logically (from their own self-determination) that they would favour Quebec's right to develop and manage dental/pharmacare, and thus would prefer the federal government to focus on national defence rather than what is seen here as interference in a field of provincial competence.


----------



## KevinB

Furniture said:


> On the other hand, we are more likely to fight there, so the systems could be a LPO...


Except a lot of European stuff is crap, and Europe never builds enough which is why most of Europe is starting to go American.


----------



## FJAG

Furniture said:


> On the other hand, we are more likely to fight there, so the systems could be a LPO...


My guess would be that if we're 'fighting there' then the only spare parts and maintenance we'll get there is the ones we brought with us and what we can do ourselves.

I'd prefer to be tied into the US logistics chain then be grafted on to the German and Swedish and French and Brit for different systems. And boy, do I ever hope we have something better than an NSE and the current logistics chain to work through. It was challenging enough in Afghanistan. I can't see it working in a high intensity conflict.

🍻


----------



## Furniture

KevinB said:


> Except a lot of European stuff is crap, and Europe never builds enough which is why most of Europe is starting to go American.


It seems to work against our enemy... Again, my idea is buy what we can get our hands on _now, _then launch the project to find the "best" we can afford. 

I'm not anti-American made kit, I'm anti-buy-what-America-has-just-because, as I would be if this was 1937 and you were saying we should buy British because everything else is crap.


----------



## GR66

Furniture said:


> It seems to work against our enemy... Again, my idea is buy what we can get our hands on _now, _then launch the project to find the "best" we can afford.
> 
> I'm not anti-American made kit, I'm anti-buy-what-America-has-just-because, as I would be if this was 1937 and you were saying we should buy British because everything else is crap.


Volume, supply chain and interoperability should be huge factors in most equipment/weapon purchases.  Wherever we go fight we are almost certain to be fighting alongside the Americans.  The French, Brits, Swedes or Germans may not be there.  Being able to tap into the Walmart of Militaries when you need replacements is not just a convenience in combat, it may mean the difference between mission success and mission failure.

I'm not saying we should blindly buy whatever the Americans are using without any thought, but the first thing we should do in most cases is look at what the Americans are using and then demonstrate why that item CAN'T work for us before we go looking at alternatives.


----------



## WLSC

TacticalTea said:


> Certainly a departure from Quebec's usual ''Screw anything that can be associated with British imperialism, to wit, the military, conscription, and overseas deployments''. The Bloc is generally a centrist party, though, and - just like Quebeccers at large - strongly values the right of peoples to self-determination.
> 
> It is no surprise to me that Russia's violation of that right would elicit in them (us) a strong militarist attitude that is usually inexistant.
> 
> It also follows logically (from their own self-determination) that they would favour Quebec's right to develop and manage dental/pharmacare, and thus would prefer the federal government to focus on national defence rather than what is seen here as interference in a field of provincial competence.


Bang on.  Qc at large don’t like federal insertion in provincial domaine.  That exactly why there’s never enough money for the CAF.  Sadly, it’s not the end of insertion.  The current GC would a find provincial gouv.  This were their priority are.


----------



## Remius

Furniture said:


> It seems to work against our enemy... Again, my idea is buy what we can get our hands on _now, _then launch the project to find the "best" we can afford.
> 
> I'm not anti-American made kit, I'm anti-buy-what-America-has-just-because, as I would be if this was 1937 and you were saying we should buy British because everything else is crap.


Totally get what you are saying.  But if our focus is going to be things like NORAD and the Arctic (ie fighting the Russians on our own front) then it makes sense to buy American.  From interoperability and supply points of view not to mention that they are our biggest and friendliest trading partner. 

Not saying we buy everything from there but a lot of things we could seem like no brainers.


----------



## calculus

CTV reporting $8Billion, but "it won’t be allocated all in one year". If correct, disappointing, to say the least, and tone deaf on the part of the Liberals.









						Federal budget to include $10B housing plan, $8B for defence
					

As Canadians face a cost of living crunch, tackling housing affordability is going to be a main feature of Thursday's federal budget, seeing the Liberals earmark $10 billion towards this aim. The 2022 federal budget will also include a defence spending increase over multiple years, but the...




					www.ctvnews.ca


----------



## markppcli

KevinB said:


> Except a lot of European stuff is crap, and Europe never builds enough which is why most of Europe is starting to go American.


Who’s going American ? I can’t think of any real major procurements beyond the F35?


----------



## Fishbone Jones

calculus said:


> CTV reporting $8Billion, but "it won’t be allocated all in one year". If correct, disappointing, to say the least, and tone deaf on the part of the Liberals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Federal budget to include $10B housing plan, $8B for defence
> 
> 
> As Canadians face a cost of living crunch, tackling housing affordability is going to be a main feature of Thursday's federal budget, seeing the Liberals earmark $10 billion towards this aim. The 2022 federal budget will also include a defence spending increase over multiple years, but the...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.ctvnews.ca


That should just about cover the cost for the new, mandatory, 'I'm OK, You're OK' type training


----------



## Underway

OldSolduer said:


> I would actually prefer US equipment vice European.



I certainly don't.  Plenty of things is better to buy Euro than from the US.  In particular, ITAR creates a massive problem for importation and usage.  Sweeden, UK, France, and Italy make some excellent naval items.



markppcli said:


> Who’s going American ? I can’t think of any real major procurements beyond the F35?


CSC has quite a lot of US parts in it.  The radars, missile systems (barring CAMM), comms, likey EW suite, Combat Management System (Aegis components) etc...  

CAF radios usually have two options that make sense, German or US.  Some German stuff isn't fully compatible with some US stuff.  Which may inhibit Cdn international comms rule #1 - be interoperable with the United States.  As such I expect the majority of communication upgrades to be using US equipment at some point along the line (subcontractor level at least).


----------



## markppcli

Underway said:


> I certainly don't.  Plenty of things is better to buy Euro than from the US.  In particular, ITAR creates a massive problem for importation and usage.  Sweeden, UK, France, and Italy make some excellent naval items.
> 
> 
> CSC has quite a lot of US parts in it.  The radars, missile systems (barring CAMM), comms, likey EW suite, Combat Management System (Aegis components) etc...
> 
> CAF radios usually have two options that make sense, German or US.  Some German stuff isn't fully compatible with some US stuff.  Which may inhibit Cdn international comms rule #1 - be interoperable with the United States.  As such I expect the majority of communication upgrades to be using US equipment at some point along the line (subcontractor level at least).


Yes but Kevin specifically mentioned Europe buying American equipment.


----------



## GR66

markppcli said:


> Yes but Kevin specifically mentioned Europe buying American equipment.


Poland just purchased 250 M1 Abrams tanks.  

Poland has also purchased Patriot and both Switzerland and Croatia have Patriot orders pending approval.  

The Czech Republic, Estonia, France, Ireland, Lithuania, Norway, Poland, Ukraine and the UK all have purchased Javelin.

Montenegro, Slovenia, Lithuania, Belgium, North Macedonia and Romania have purchased the JTLV (with Portugal and the UK considering)

Just four major systems off the top of my head.


----------



## markppcli

France bought Javelin as a stop gap, they’re producing their own system. On the rest I shall eat some humble pie.


----------



## Halifax Tar

We can debate who has better kit but the ability to utilize the US manufacturing and supply chain with commonality of parts is something the Euros can't even approach to being on par with.


----------



## Navy_Pete

For a while there ITAR requirements were so over the top we looked at having it as a disqualifying item on non-weapon system procurements. They are getting a bit better, but sometimes they catalogue insane things like fasteners and washers and can take years to get it removed from the list, when you can buy it at home depot. Just because it happens to be holding a radar or something in place doesn't make it protected military equipment, but once it's catalogued...

If you are buying a rifle, or some other standalone kit pretty awesome, but if you are bolting it on to existing equipment can be a really big headache for the initial buy and ongoing maintenance.


----------



## Booter

Czech_pivo said:


> The media doesn’t care.
> Current, serving military officers can’t (won’t?) openly speak about the current dire situation because they worry about the repercussions to their careers.
> What the US should do is kick us to the curb and force us to shoulder our true burdens, this may wake up the public.


I think this is a key. Canadians believe the constant shell game from politicians and military officers on TV touting our prowess and never honestly answering the question of how many for how long can we actually field- and what can we effectively field with no outside support. 

The opposite side of that is- there is also the immediate cries from people that you’re somehow disparaging the people in uniform when you criticize it’s effectiveness- because we allow people to conflate our personnel and their desire with the absolute disrepair the material and planning has been left in.


----------



## CBH99

calculus said:


> CTV reporting $8Billion, but "it won’t be allocated all in one year". If correct, disappointing, to say the least, and tone deaf on the part of the Liberals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Federal budget to include $10B housing plan, $8B for defence
> 
> 
> As Canadians face a cost of living crunch, tackling housing affordability is going to be a main feature of Thursday's federal budget, seeing the Liberals earmark $10 billion towards this aim. The 2022 federal budget will also include a defence spending increase over multiple years, but the...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.ctvnews.ca


It’s nice of them to react with an ‘increased budget’ due to the whole Russia/Ukraine thing.  Buuuttttt…

The devil is always in the details.  We should wait for the details to be known before giving the GoC any sort of praise.  


And we need to drastically tweak Public Works / Treasury Board involvement when it comes to procurement.  

I don’t mind them being involved as far as enduring taxpayer dollars are being spent responsibly, contracts are being written and signed ethically and legally, and fair competitions help ensure good value for taxpayer.  

But we have to pull them out from being so involved in procurement, we don’t end up procuring.  

Until we streamline some processes & have the synergies working together more efficiently, more money won’t help as much as everybody thinks it will.  


My 0.02


----------



## Czech_pivo

The 'Money Shot' is quickly approaching.  

Somehow I think no one is going to walk away even remotely satisfied from this encounter.


----------



## CBH99

Halifax Tar said:


> We can debate who has better kit but the ability to utilize the US manufacturing and supply chain with commonality of parts is something the Euros can't even approach to being on par with.


Even the US is producing some Euro kit under license because, objectively, there is some Euro kit that _is_ really impressive. 

(Naval Strike Missile is a good example.)


Agreed tho.  The US is our next door neighbour, closest friend & family member, and war is a full time gig of theirs.  Not taking advantage of their supply chains & manufacturing is just silly.


----------



## KevinB

So not even to 2% despite the passed motion in government- how the F does Canada even think they are a democratic national let alone relevant?


----------



## Czech_pivo

"While announcing the launch of a review of Canada’s defence policy, the budget promised _*$6.1-billion over five years*_ in direct new spending by the Defence Department to increase the capabilities of the Canadian Armed Forces, with an additional $1.4-billion in annual spending on the armed forces after that."

That works out to be 1.22$billion/yr or LESS than inflation - basically a 5%/yr increase - a giant F-you in other words.

Edit: I wish that the US and NATO calls us out on this and totally belittles and humiliates us for this.


----------



## KevinB

From 1.37 to ~1.445% 
   Fail


----------



## rmc_wannabe

This budget would have sunk this government if it weren't for the propping up from the NDP. This shit is disgraceful.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Czech_pivo said:


> "While announcing the launch of a review of Canada’s defence policy, the budget promised _*$6.1-billion over five years*_ in direct new spending by the Defence Department to increase the capabilities of the Canadian Armed Forces, with an additional $1.4-billion in annual spending on the armed forces after that."
> 
> That works out to be 1.22$billion/yr or LESS than inflation - basically a 5%/yr increase - a giant F-you in other words.
> 
> Edit: I wish that the US and NATO calls us out on this and totally belittles and humiliates us for this.


That 1.22$ billion/yr will most likely be the total all in cost to cover the daily expenses necessary to address the shortfall of 6,500 in personnel.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Czech_pivo said:


> "While announcing the launch of a review of Canada’s defence policy, the budget promised _*$6.1-billion over five years*_ in direct new spending by the Defence Department to increase the capabilities of the Canadian Armed Forces, with an additional $1.4-billion in annual spending on the armed forces after that."
> 
> That works out to be 1.22$billion/yr or LESS than inflation - basically a 5%/yr increase - a giant F-you in other words.
> 
> Edit: I wish that the US and NATO calls us out on this and totally belittles and humiliates us for this.



It really is time for them to insist up or out for us.


----------



## Halifax Tar

CBH99 said:


> Even the US is producing some Euro kit under license because, objectively, there is some Euro kit that _is_ really impressive.
> 
> (Naval Strike Missile is a good example.)
> 
> 
> Agreed tho.  The US is our next door neighbour, closest friend & family member, and war is a full time gig of theirs.  Not taking advantage of their supply chains & manufacturing is just silly.



Exactly.  Their manufacturing and supply chain is so good they are building other people's kit too, for themselves.

That right there is a war winning ability.


----------



## dapaterson

I strongly suspect that out year funding is going to be announced recurrently over the next year at times that are politically opportune.  This is Act one, Scene one.


----------



## Czech_pivo

dapaterson said:


> I strongly suspect that out year funding is going to be announced recurrently over the next year at times that are politically opportune.  This is Act one, Scene one.


Don't hold your breath or bet your life on that assumption.


----------



## Booter

You guys know better than I- it’s part of why I love reading on this forum.

Is this increase an actual increase or with the incremental cost of EVERYTHING going up- is it actually even a change?

If ten pairs of boots were a hundred bucks and now they are 130- if we can still only afford ten pairs…have we done anything?

I ran into this this year planning my money for the area I’m running. There were large increases across the board- to produce the same/similar service, not even beginning to improve.

Like substantial increases in some areas.


----------



## dapaterson

There are programmed inflationary increases.  This is growth beyond that.


----------



## SupersonicMax

KevinB said:


> So not even to 2% despite the passed motion in government- how the F does Canada even think they are a democratic national let alone relevant?


To be fair, I am not sure we have the capacity to spend even the modest increase we just received…


----------



## Kirkhill

A hint.... a modicum... un soupcon.


----------



## OldSolduer

KevinB said:


> So not even to 2% despite the passed motion in government- how the F does Canada even think they are a democratic national let alone relevant?


We are not democratic in the sense we all get a say. Toronto and Quebec get the big say and peasants like us west of Ontario can damn well stop complaining and be good Canadians.


----------



## rmc_wannabe

I think this just reaffirmed to NATO and the U.S. that we are not only a bad faith partner, but a no faith partner. In true Canadian fashion, we lined our own pockets at the expense of our friends and allies. 

Honestly, I would love to see us booted from NATO and NORAD just to prove a point. How quickly would we need to spend money to cover those shortfalls? Hell of a lot more than  20-25 Billion a year.


----------



## WLSC

rmc_wannabe said:


> I think this just reaffirmed to NATO and the U.S. that we are not only a bad faith partner, but a no faith partner. In true Canadian fashion, we lined our own pockets at the expense of our friends and allies.
> 
> Honestly, I would love to see us booted from NATO and NORAD just to prove a point. How quickly would we need to spend money to cover those shortfalls? Hell of a lot more than  20-25 Billion a year.


I would be ashame to be in front on any allied military right now.  That places Canada on borrowed time, that’s all.


----------



## OldSolduer

rmc_wannabe said:


> I think this just reaffirmed to NATO and the U.S. that we are not only a bad faith partner, but a no faith partner. In true Canadian fashion, we lined our own pockets at the expense of our friends and allies.
> 
> Honestly, I would love to see us booted from NATO and NORAD just to prove a point. How quickly would we need to spend money to cover those shortfalls? Hell of a lot more than  20-25 Billion a year.


I'd love it if Canada were called out very publicly by the US and major NATO nations - the UK, Germany etc. It would be worth the price of admission to see Justin scolded.


----------



## GR66

rmc_wannabe said:


> I think this just reaffirmed to NATO and the U.S. that we are not only a bad faith partner, but a no faith partner. In true Canadian fashion, we lined our own pockets at the expense of our friends and allies.
> 
> Honestly, I would love to see us booted from NATO and NORAD just to prove a point. How quickly would we need to spend money to cover those shortfalls? Hell of a lot more than  20-25 Billion a year.


I wish that were the case but in all honesty we probably wouldn't spend another penny.  We'd just trust that the US wouldn't allow anyone to touch our territory because it's a risk to them.


----------



## OldSolduer

GR66 said:


> I wish that were the case but in all honesty we probably wouldn't spend another penny.  We'd just trust that the US wouldn't allow anyone to touch our territory because it's a risk to them.


There is that pesky 4000 or so mile border to think about.


----------



## Remius

SupersonicMax said:


> To be fair, I am not sure we have the capacity to spend even the modest increase we just received…


Exactly.  I’d be fine if they had a plan to spend what we currently have efficiently


----------



## WLSC

GR66 said:


> I wish that were the case but in all honesty we probably wouldn't spend another penny.  We'd just trust that the US wouldn't allow anyone to touch our territory because it's a risk to them.


Would you do that?  I would close the border and let us alone for a while, I would let us be afraid a bit.


----------



## rmc_wannabe

GR66 said:


> I wish that were the case but in all honesty we probably wouldn't spend another penny.  We'd just trust that the US wouldn't allow anyone to touch our territory because it's a risk to them.


Are you kidding? We'd be 1938 Czechoslovakia if it kept the Russians and Chinese from pursuing a larger conflict. 

We have seen what happens to folks outside of the NATO umbrella when we have "guarantees" versus "treaty agreements"


----------



## WLSC

Remius said:


> Exactly.  I’d be fine if they had a plan to spend what we currently have efficiently


We have, PMO/TB won’t let us spend the money.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Halifax Tar said:


> It really is time for them to insist up or out for us.


What does that have to do with the budget increase?

I agree with @SupersonicMax; They could shovel all the money in the world at us, but unless we get more people, or the processes get cut (so requires less LOE to buy things with the people we already have) won't make a massive difference (unless we buy a lot of really expensive things, instead of all the items we actually need).

If we need 1000 parts and 1 million hours to fix stuff, giving us more money (on it's own) won't do anything, if we don't have the 1000 parts. If a widget is on the critical path, doesn't matter if it costs $0.50 or $50M, if we don't have it we won't have that capability.  🤷‍♂️ 

I think effective capability is really more important anyway, so really doesn't matter how much we spend if we do F-all with it. I'd be happy if we just did what we already do, except with ships that aren't carrying a huge amount of defects.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Navy_Pete said:


> What does that have to do with the budget increase?
> 
> I agree with @SupersonicMax; They could shovel all the money in the world at us, but unless we get more people, or the processes get cut (so requires less LOE to buy things with the people we already have) won't make a massive difference (unless we buy a lot of really expensive things, instead of all the items we actually need).
> 
> If we need 1000 parts and 1 million hours to fix stuff, giving us more money (on it's own) won't do anything, if we don't have the 1000 parts. If a widget is on the critical path, doesn't matter if it costs $0.50 or $50M, if we don't have it we won't have that capability.  🤷‍♂️
> 
> I think effective capability is really more important anyway, so really doesn't matter how much we spend if we do F-all with it. I'd be happy if we just did what we already do, except with ships that aren't carrying a huge amount of defects.



You're right of course level of funding is only part of the problem. 

The real issue is Canada needs to decide what it wants to be on the world stage.


----------



## rmc_wannabe

Halifax Tar said:


> You're right of course level of funding is only part of the problem.
> 
> The real issue is Canada needs to decide what it wants to be on the world stage.


We are Chorus Line Singer #8, but like to think the production would fail without us.


----------



## WLSC

Navy_Pete said:


> What does that have to do with the budget increase?
> 
> I agree with @SupersonicMax; They could shovel all the money in the world at us, but unless we get more people, or the processes get cut (so requires less LOE to buy things with the people we already have) won't make a massive difference (unless we buy a lot of really expensive things, instead of all the items we actually need).
> 
> If we need 1000 parts and 1 million hours to fix stuff, giving us more money (on it's own) won't do anything, if we don't have the 1000 parts. If a widget is on the critical path, doesn't matter if it costs $0.50 or $50M, if we don't have it we won't have that capability.  🤷‍♂️
> 
> I think effective capability is really more important anyway, so really doesn't matter how much we spend if we do F-all with it. I'd be happy if we just did what we already do, except with ships that aren't carrying a huge amount of defects.


I agree with you.  However if the money is not named for a specific program, it’s lost.  SoI would have like to see x amount for CAF reconstitution, x amount for NORAD or at least name generically what’s for.  Out of all the option MDN named on Global, I’m sure she’s short.


----------



## Czech_pivo

rmc_wannabe said:


> We are Chorus Line Singer #8, but like to think the production would fail without us.


That’s because we’ve got the nicest legs.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Nothing like a serious increase in budget--graph from p. 153 PDF here:


			https://www.budget.gc.ca/2022/pdf/budget-2022-en.pdf
		





 See also p. 132, 134 PDF.  Note this at latter--money for North, NORAD not new:  



> In Budget 2021, the government committed $252.2 million over five years
> to sustain existing continental and Arctic defence capabilities, and to lay
> the groundwork for NORAD’s future.



No there there.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Edward Campbell

*RUMINT*: DND (the MND's office) gave Freeland a fairly hefty proposal ~ several (something in excess of 60) Billion dollars ~ mostly for North American/Arctic defence ~ that was late coming in but that wasn't the problem. Very, very senior officials in Finance and TB and the PMO all agree that DND and Procurement and Supply cannot manage anything more than $6.1 Billion, and they are not sure they can even manage that. 

The consensus amongst the bureaucratic grownups is that DND, especially, is totally ph_cked in so far as being able to actually put some muscle on to the bare bones of a "plan" is concerned. Procurement and Supply is said to be _a)_ over-burdened, already; _b)_ hide-bound; and _c) _technologically challenged.

Finance, it is suggested, will be happy to provide more money for defence when/IF both the procurement system and DND's management (civil and military) are reformed.


----------



## Brad Sallows

Be much more helpful to see where money is going than how much it is increasing.


----------



## Brad Sallows

> Finance, it is suggested, will be happy to provide more money for defence when/IF both the procurement system and DND's management (civil and military) are reformed.



Trying to imagine...

"We held a competition, and this is what we picked."

"Offsets?"

"No."


----------



## McG

So, how much of that new money can be used to hire civilians as protect managers, supply managers, and contracting officers?


----------



## Edward Campbell

McG said:


> So, how much of that new money can be used to hire civilians as protect managers, supply managers, and contracting officers?


I wonder if that isn't on some minds. I remember, a few years ago, discussing with a then modestly senior civil servant what the old Department of Munitions and Supply looked like and how it established private and semi-private sector agencies got actually execute programmes.


----------



## MilEME09

McG said:


> So, how much of that new money can be used to hire civilians as protect managers, supply managers, and contracting officers?


Hopefully enough to get our procurement sorted out quickly


----------



## rmc_wannabe

Edward Campbell said:


> *RUMINT*: DND (the MND's office) gave Freeland a fairly hefty proposal ~ several (something in excess of 60) Billion dollars ~ mostly for North American/Arctic defence ~ that was late coming in but that wasn't the problem. Very, very senior officials in Finance and TB and the PMO all agree that DND and Procurement and Supply cannot manage anything more than $6.1 Billion, and they are not sure they can even manage that.
> 
> The consensus amongst the bureaucratic grownups is that DND, especially, is totally ph_cked in so far as being able to actually put some muscle on to the bare bones of a "plan" is concerned. Procurement and Supply is said to be _a)_ over-burdened, already; _b)_ hide-bound; and _c) _technologically challenged.
> 
> Finance, it is suggested, will be happy to provide more money for defence when/IF both the procurement system and DND's management (civil and military) are reformed.


"You'll get more money once you can staff a proper procurement."

"But we don't have the people or resources to do defence procurement like every other department. We need to have exemptions for defence procurement"

"Yes, but rules are rules..."


----------



## PuckChaser

Leslie doesn't pull any punches for his former party of choice..


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1512170692942475269


----------



## Edward Campbell

Maybe what's needed are slightly different rules for really big "nationally important" projects when validated operational requirements, politics, industrial strategies and big money all collide.

My _sense_ is that the first *validated* operational requirements is a HUGE problem. _I think_ that some senior officials in the centre (PMO, Finance and TB) think that our admirals and generals want to buy "toys for the boys" rather than what the country actually needs. My _sense_, again and it's just that, not a fact, is that Wayne Eyre and Frances Allen and all the rest are, simply, not trusted to act in a responsible, professional manner.


----------



## OldSolduer

Edward Campbell said:


> Maybe what's needed are slightly different rules for really big "nationally important" projects when validated operational requirements, politics, industrial strategies and big money all collide.
> 
> My _sense_ is that the first *validated* operational requirements is a HUGE problem. _I think_ that some senior officials in the centre (PMO, Finance and TB) think that our admirals and generals want to buy "toys for the boys" rather than what the country actually needs. My _sense_, again and it's just that, not a fact, is that Wayne Eyre and Frances Allen and all the rest are, simply, not trusted to act in a responsible, professional manner.


I don't know if this is a strictly Canadian issue - it seems the USA has very little difficulty in trusting Generals and Admirals - but politicians seem to not trust our senior uniformed people that actually know what is required.

Plus we all know the Liberal NDP coalition really don't like the CAF.


----------



## WLSC

Edward Campbell said:


> *RUMINT*: DND (the MND's office) gave Freeland a fairly hefty proposal ~ several (something in excess of 60) Billion dollars ~ mostly for North American/Arctic defence ~ that was late coming in but that wasn't the problem. Very, very senior officials in Finance and TB and the PMO all agree that DND and Procurement and Supply cannot manage anything more than $6.1 Billion, and they are not sure they can even manage that.
> 
> The consensus amongst the bureaucratic grownups is that DND, especially, is totally ph_cked in so far as being able to actually put some muscle on to the bare bones of a "plan" is concerned. Procurement and Supply is said to be _a)_ over-burdened, already; _b)_ hide-bound; and _c) _technologically challenged.
> 
> Finance, it is suggested, will be happy to provide more money for defence when/IF both the procurement system and DND's management (civil and military) are reformed.


So, we are asking that self liking ice-cream to reform itself?


----------



## Booter

McG said:


> So, how much of that new money can be used to hire civilians as protect managers, supply managers, and contracting officers?


So, I’m taking control of a 20 million dollar civilian project managed asset. It’s an absolute operational nightmare and has been working the year I’ve sat on the board. I’m not sure you’ll find them any better. 

As long as it’s bloat and just making jobs for Canadians I don’t see solutions. The shift needs to be towards being operationally successful. 

I’m certain the money isn’t the issue. It’s the attitude of bureaucrats and politicians directing what the operation should “present” like. 

Instead of being lean and deadly and ready to harvest souls- we have to look like some other soft function and a good career opportunity first and foremost!


----------



## WLSC

Edward Campbell said:


> Maybe what's needed are slightly different rules for really big "nationally important" projects when validated operational requirements, politics, industrial strategies and big money all collide.
> 
> My _sense_ is that the first *validated* operational requirements is a HUGE problem. _I think_ that some senior officials in the centre (PMO, Finance and TB) think that our admirals and generals want to buy "toys for the boys" rather than what the country actually needs. My _sense_, again and it's just that, not a fact, is that Wayne Eyre and Frances Allen and all the rest are, simply, not trusted to act in a responsible, professional manner.


It could be God himself as the CDS that PMO would not trust him.


----------



## Dale Denton

OldSolduer said:


> Plus we all know the Liberal NDP coalition really don't like the CAF.



I don't, please describe their 'dislike', and how it differs from the other parties.


----------



## Edward Campbell

OldSolduer said:


> I don't know if this is a strictly Canadian issue - it seems the USA has very little difficulty in trusting Generals and Admirals - but politicians seem to not trust our senior uniformed people that actually know what is required.
> 
> Plus we all know the Liberal NDP coalition really don't like the CAF.


Some (many?) senior civil servants do not believe that most admirals and generals actually understand or are well equipped to decide how the armed forces should be equipped for the next war. That's a basic trust issue ~ that this that we you they  are, usually, busy fighting the last war rather than planning for the next one.

Some of them go father and take the view that, except for some bits of technical advice of specific issues, military officers ought not to be involved in deciding how the  military is organized, armed, staffed or equipped. There is some (actually quite a lot of) constitutional validity in that view.

My _sense_ is that the first view is more common but the latter is held by a handful of really, really important people.


----------



## OldSolduer

Dale Denton said:


> I don't, please describe their 'dislike', and how it differs from the other parties.


the NDP is downright contemptuous, the Liberals only slightly less so.


----------



## WLSC

Edward Campbell said:


> Some (many?) senior civil servants do not believe that most admirals and generals actually understand or are well equipped to decide how the armed forces should be equipped for the next war. That's a basic trust issue ~ that this that we you they  are, usually, busy fighting the last war rather than planning for the next one.
> 
> Some of them go father and take the view that, except for some bits of technical advice of specific issues, military officers ought not to be involved in deciding how the  military is organized, armed, staffed or equipped. There is some (actually quite a lot of) constitutional validity in that view.
> 
> My _sense_ is that the first view is more common but the latter is held by a handful of really, really important people.


Well, let all those senior public servant put an FFO on and do the job.  If those influential people doesn’t trust us, why bother than?  Let just close the shop!  It will always be the same thing.


----------



## lenaitch

Dale Denton said:


> I don't, please describe their 'dislike', and how it differs from the other parties.


Well, the are the only party that actually internally debated whether the military should be abolished.  It failed, but is seems the existing party platform only sees its existence for domestic operations and peacekeeping, and ensuring that it buys Canadian-made stuff.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

FusMR said:


> Well, let all those senior public servant put an FFO on and do the job.  If those influential people doesn’t trust us, why bother than?  Let just close the shop!  It will always be the same thing.


Now you're reading my mind!

I put my name in the Supp Res, told them they can call me when they get serious again 😉


----------



## dapaterson

FusMR said:


> Well, let all those senior public servant put an FFO on and do the job.  If those influential people doesn’t trust us, why bother than?  Let just close the shop!  It will always be the same thing.



Explain to me how an infantry officer is trained to understand procurement.

When the CAF insists on inserting military personnel who are at best enthusiastic amateurs into procurement, results suffer.


----------



## WLSC

Humphrey Bogart said:


> Now you're reading my mind!
> 
> I put my name in the Supp Res, told them they can call me when they get serious again 😉


I can’t but since tonight even if I could, I wouldn’t 😏


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

dapaterson said:


> Explain to me how an infantry officer is trained to understand procurement.
> 
> When the CAF insists on inserting military personnel who are at best enthusiastic amateurs into procurement, results suffer.


Imagine if we had these things called aptitude tests and this other thing called, Tech Staff, which we didn't pay complete lip service to.  

Btw, I used to work for an Infantry Officer who was #1 in Mech Eng at UofT.  They also went to Tech Staff but then basically never used any of it because the Army felt no need to employ this individual in that capacity.

🤣🤣🤣


----------



## Czech_pivo

PuckChaser said:


> Leslie doesn't pull any punches for his former party of choice..
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1512170692942475269


Maybe he should consider running again for the Conservatives in the next election…


----------



## WLSC

dapaterson said:


> Explain to me how an infantry officer is trained to understand procurement.
> 
> When the CAF insists on inserting military personnel who are at best enthusiastic amateurs into procurement, results suffer.


It is a figure of speech.  Procurement is one thing on which I don’t know a lot expect that our system is so broken that we can’t buy nothing more than what, PPNS by ourself?

 That’s not the point.  The point is if all those influential people believe that we want kit just for fun and do not even bother to look out side our there office in other grownups/adult/serious countries to compare our demand well maybe they need to live the dream and do the job with what we don’t have (has in on paper we have javelin) for a reality check.

I know it won’t happen.  I just dream that those people need to listen to us, which I not sure they really care much.  Don’t get me wrong, I know that there is superb civi servant, just not at the level we need.


----------



## GR66

Edward Campbell said:


> Some (many?) senior civil servants do not believe that most admirals and generals actually understand or are well equipped to decide how the armed forces should be equipped for the next war. That's a basic trust issue ~ that this that we you they  are, usually, busy fighting the last war rather than planning for the next one.
> 
> Some of them go father and take the view that, except for some bits of technical advice of specific issues, military officers ought not to be involved in deciding how the  military is organized, armed, staffed or equipped. There is some (actually quite a lot of) constitutional validity in that view.
> 
> My _sense_ is that the first view is more common but the latter is held by a handful of really, really important people.


Maybe the civil servants think that because they read the "Force 2025" proposals?


----------



## Kirkhill

Humphrey Bogart said:


> Imagine if we had these things called aptitude tests and this other thing called, Tech Staff, which we didn't pay complete lip service to.
> 
> Btw, I used to work for an Infantry Officer who was #1 in Mech Eng at UofT.  They also went to Tech Staff but then basically never used any of it because the Army felt no need to employ this individual in that capacity.
> 
> 🤣🤣🤣



I'm way past chuckles.  I can't even get depressed.  I am just numb.


----------



## Czech_pivo

How 7 of our Allies are moving forward.









						Seven European nations have increased defense budgets in one month. Who will be next? - Breaking Defense
					

Germany, Belgium, Romania, Italy, Poland, Norway and Sweden have all pledged to increase defense spending since Russia's invasion of Ukraine.




					breakingdefense.com


----------



## WLSC

Humphrey Bogart said:


> Imagine if we had these things called aptitude tests and this other thing called, Tech Staff, which we didn't pay complete lip service to.
> 
> Btw, I used to work for an Infantry Officer who was #1 in Mech Eng at UofT.  They also went to Tech Staff but then basically never used any of it because the Army felt no need to employ this individual in that capacity.
> 
> 🤣🤣🤣


Where is that face palm emoji 🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️


----------



## Good2Golf

dapaterson said:


> Explain to me how an infantry officer is trained to understand procurement.
> 
> When the CAF insists on inserting military personnel who are at best enthusiastic amateurs into procurement, results suffer.


So other than some LPO, what ‘procurement’ is DND actually allowed to do?   I mean as opposed to what a 100% civilian staffed department that has….you know…the word ‘Procurement’ in its title…

If only the Government had come to know that major capital project related procurement is problematic before this week…


----------



## Good2Golf

Czech_pivo said:


> How 7 of our Allies are moving forward.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seven European nations have increased defense budgets in one month. Who will be next? - Breaking Defense
> 
> 
> Germany, Belgium, Romania, Italy, Poland, Norway and Sweden have all pledged to increase defense spending since Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> breakingdefense.com



That’s because they want to move forward.


----------



## MilEME09

Good2Golf said:


> So other than some LPO, what ‘procurement’ is DND actually allowed to do?   I mean as opposed to what a 100% civilian staffed department that has….you know…the word ‘Procurement’ in its title…
> 
> If only the Government had come to know that major capital project related procurement is problematic before this week…


maybe military procurement needs it's own department? no TB or anyone else. just one department to overlook it all, spend it all, etc


----------



## FJAG

Czech_pivo said:


> How 7 of our Allies are moving forward.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seven European nations have increased defense budgets in one month. Who will be next? - Breaking Defense
> 
> 
> Germany, Belgium, Romania, Italy, Poland, Norway and Sweden have all pledged to increase defense spending since Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> breakingdefense.com


At this rate they're gonna kick us out like the US, the UK and Australia have.


----------



## OldSolduer

MilEME09 said:


> maybe military procurement needs it's own department? no TB or anyone else. just one department to overlook it all, spend it all, etc


I think you still need competent oversight of some sort.


----------



## Jarnhamar

I'm going to suggest the government does something absolutely insane. 

Fix the procurement process.


----------



## KevinB

dapaterson said:


> Explain to me how an infantry officer is trained to understand procurement.
> 
> When the CAF insists on inserting military personnel who are at best enthusiastic amateurs into procurement, results suffer.


Down here there is a Combat Requirements course that both green suiters and GS Civilians can take.   
  It’s designed to make people understand how requirements are supposed to be written, and how to turn them into programs. 
   The USN and USAF have similar programs for big ticket items, the Army course deals with smaller things like small arms, STANO etc - generally items that are less than several hundred k each.  

Each service then prioritizes it’s list and funds them, asking congress for more money if they need it.   

Realistically it should be pretty easy for the CAF to ask each service to do the same.   
  The CAF seems risk adverse to go to the government and say we need 67B for these things.   Here are the priorities by service….

The government can say to the CAF pound sand you get 28B only sort it out.  

The CAF seems at times to relish being an underfunded stepchild.


----------



## Halifax Tar

dapaterson said:


> Explain to me how an infantry officer is trained to understand procurement.
> 
> When the CAF insists on inserting military personnel who are at best enthusiastic amateurs into procurement, results suffer.



Exactly.  

It's long been thought in my trade that procurement should be removed and made its own separate trade with its own officer's.  

Generally we do procurement on a much less grand scale.  But it would create the foundation for a competent, dedicated, professional procurement corps, if you will.  Or it should anyways, who knows what bastardized form we'd come up with.


----------



## McG

Humphrey Bogart said:


> Imagine if we had these things called aptitude tests and this other thing called, Tech Staff, which we didn't pay complete lip service to.
> 
> Btw, I used to work for an Infantry Officer who was #1 in Mech Eng at UofT.  They also went to Tech Staff but then basically never used any of it because the Army felt no need to employ this individual in that capacity.
> 
> 🤣🤣🤣


Engineering ≠ Procurement

The tech staff program prepares people to be requirements staff who are a little harder for corporate sales reps to snow. Graduates can still have no idea how to run a capital project.

The Army does need to do better at employing people in the role after the training. Most officer occupations seemed good at that, though the infantry had a tendency to always send someone to the school where they may or may not have been employed as a “tech Adjt.”  The WO & MWO for the most part went on to do anything but tech jobs.


----------



## Halifax Tar

McG said:


> Engineering ≠ Procurement
> 
> The tech staff program prepares people to be requirements staff who are a little harder for corporate sales reps to snow. Graduates can still have no idea how to run a capital project.



We have an issue with this.  Our SC and Procurement is littered with Engineers.


----------



## ArmyRick

So this budget still shows the Liberals do NOT take defence seriously. At all. Notta. 

Add in a dose of NDP and it becomes downright clownish.

I wonder how many average Canadians (especially Trudeau cult worshippers) realize Canada went from a respected nation globally to a laughing stock that most other countries say "whatever, Canada"


----------



## Edward Campbell

FusMR said:


> It could be God himself as the CDS that PMO would not trust him.


See this, please, which I wrote about 15 years ago: General versus Economist

As far as I can see, nothing has changed.

-----
P.S. I knew the general, but not well; I worked for the economist ~ once or twice directly, on projects he initiated.


----------



## WLSC

Edward Campbell said:


> See this, please, which I wrote about 15 years ago: General versus Economist
> 
> As far as I can see, nothing has changed.
> 
> -----
> P.S. I knew the general, but not well; I worked for the economist ~ once or twice directly, on projects he initiated.


I understand what you wrote however this is not M. Harper.  He vision of the federal government is not in line with what the founding fathers layed out.  The results is 5Eyes as become the 4Eyes and we are now a burden to our allies and he doesn’t care.  DND is a nuisance for is great goal.


----------



## calculus

The story circulating around the office is the Minister was presented with a number of options to get to 2%, but most of them represented _new capabilities_. They realized that they were hamstrung by their own bureaucratic processes in that they didn't have a vehicle to raise new projects against, that vehicle being a policy clearly outlining the need for these _new _capabilities. So, DND was sent packing with direction to get SSE updated, and to do it ASAP. Again, this is third hand, but what we were told is the government was quite willing to jack up defence spending, and in fact is _resigned to it_, but felt that without a policy to justify where the extra moneys would go, they could not commit any large amounts of additional funding _at this time._ This makes sense to me, having worked in government for many years at a level where budgets get set, so I feel there is still hope that we will see a good boost once SSE mk 2 gets approved.


----------



## Furniture

calculus said:


> The story circulating around the office is the Minister was presented with a number of options to get to 2%, but most of them represented _new capabilities_. They realized that they were hamstrung by their own bureaucratic processes in that they didn't have a vehicle to raise new projects against, that vehicle being a policy clearly outlining the need for these _new _capabilities. So, DND was sent packing with direction to get SSE updated, and to do it ASAP. Again, this is third hand, but what we were told is the government was quite willing to jack up defence spending, and in fact is _resigned to it_, but felt that without a policy to justify where the extra moneys would go, they could not commit any large amounts of additional funding _at this time._ This makes sense to me, having worked in government for many years at a level where budgets get set, so I feel there is still hope that we will see a good boost once SSE mk 2 gets approved.


To be clear, the current government won't spend more on defence, because the government doesn't have a policy that justifies the spending, when it was the current government that gave us our current policy? 

Sounds like Ottawa thinking... If SSE Mk II gets pushed back far enough, Canadians won't care about defence anymore, so more money for feel good projects.


----------



## WLSC

calculus said:


> The story circulating around the office is the Minister was presented with a number of options to get to 2%, but most of them represented _new capabilities_. They realized that they were hamstrung by their own bureaucratic processes in that they didn't have a vehicle to raise new projects against, that vehicle being a policy clearly outlining the need for these _new _capabilities. So, DND was sent packing with direction to get SSE updated, and to do it ASAP. Again, this is third hand, but what we were told is the government was quite willing to jack up defence spending, and in fact is _resigned to it_, but felt that without a policy to justify where the extra moneys would go, they could not commit any large amounts of additional funding _at this time._ This makes sense to me, having worked in government for many years at a level where budgets get set, so I feel there is still hope that we will see a good boost once SSE mk 2 gets approved.


And starting with SSE could not have been a good policy 🤓?


----------



## Good2Golf

calculus said:


> The story circulating around the office is the Minister was presented with a number of options to get to 2%, but most of them represented _new capabilities_. They realized that they were hamstrung by their own bureaucratic processes in that they didn't have a vehicle to raise new projects against, that vehicle being a policy clearly outlining the need for these _new _capabilities. So, DND was sent packing with direction to get SSE updated, and to do it ASAP.


That fits perfectly with the current Government’s policy of gaslighting its enemies…



calculus said:


> Again, this is third hand, but what we were told is the government was quite willing to jack up defence spending, and in fact is _resigned to it_, but felt that without a policy to justify where the extra moneys would go, they could not commit any large amounts of additional funding _at this time._



The word you’re looking for is “excuse.”



calculus said:


> This makes sense to me, having worked in government for many years at a level where budgets get set, so I feel there is still hope that we will see a good boost once SSE mk 2 gets approved.



Didn’t stop them buying a couple of Bombardier Challeneger 605s without paperwork…we’ll, Requisition through PWGSC aside. 

This government will do everything it can to not leak money from the vote-supportive social programs. 

Folks like to say it’s DNDs problem to solve, and most everyone conveniently un-remembers the many times that DND had set requirements and identified capabilities needed, then politics swung in and cancelled/redirected/etc. and when things invariably went to crap, pointed at DND as incompetent.  EH-101…Cormorant capped at $650M soma search helicopter wasn’t even fitted with a FLIR system, ILTIS, LSVW, ships delayed and delayed and delayed, Cyclone directed by government to save embarrassment of Chretien’s legacy, F-18 replacement debacle even though government initially described joining the JSF program as being a program logic, and get the aircraft the multinational program finally selects, pistol not yet replacement…there is a difference between civilian control of the military, which we should all agree is the correct thing, and politically-driven use of Defence as a cash distribution tool with op reqr a tertiary outcome. 

The latest (prove you can do things ‘properly’ before we give you more money) media-line just proves that the Government will do anything in its power to keep the foot on The neck of meaningful Defence investment.  

Kabuki Theatre at its best…


----------



## dimsum

Humphrey Bogart said:


> They also went to Tech Staff but then basically never used any of it because the Army felt no need to employ this individual in that capacity.


FFS.

I'm of the opinion that if someone goes to Army Tech Staff or the RCAF Aerospace Studies Program (or whatever the RCN equiv is), their next posting should be pre-set as a project SME.  They should know where they are going pretty much from the start of the course, if not the middle, so they can focus their research papers on that field.

Then, they should have the option to leave the operational world should they wish (change to 00000 Tech Staff or something like that) and focus on using their knowledge/skills.

I know of some ASP grads who also have never used any of it because the RCAF needed line drivers.  A waste both for the person who just spent a year learning some pretty important and interesting things, and the institution for footing the bill and losing said person for a year.


----------



## Underway

WLSC said:


> And starting with SSE could not have been a good policy 🤓?


I'll channel my inner Randy Carlile here "It's fine... just fine".  Certainly better than what we were working with the 10-12 years before it was released.  Despite the language used it spells out defense priorities with enough direction that the CAF could get to work.  It needs to be better though.  It needs enough juice to get us past just treading water.
__________________________________________________________

I was super pissed with the budget's military side.   I was more surprised at the cutback in the deficit and pleasantly surprised at that. This budget will not exacerbate inflation either which was a key concern of mine. Being a fiscal conservative and pro-military spender was forcing me to choose mom or dad's house in the divorce.  In my pain and confusion, I'll just lash out here at you folks!  

@Edward Campbell and @calculus I get exactly what you are saying regarding finance not being comfortable with DND's capacity to spend what would be a windfall of cash.   There is no way we could spend it over the next year.  That sort of increase needs to be planned out.

I would not be surprised if a number of projects on the books are pushed ahead faster this year. It can be done if the light and heat get put on.  Nor would I be surprised if the F35 deal gets pushed as the big-spending ticket this year.  The budget I don't think accounts for that specifically and we all know governments add lines through the year.

I also expect project offices to be stood up or fleshed out for some long-suffering thorns.  NORAD site refurb/replacement.  Submarines.  MCDV replacement. And a whole hockey sock of army items that are on the books drip torturing themselves through the procurement process (ATGM and Comms being top of the list) once SSE is updated... with a plan.

If Euro security is still a concern next budget the groundwork hopefully will have been laid.  My biggest concern is that we (Canada) may be numb to Ukraine by then and the moment may have passed to get the big payout.  Europe won't be though, this is their 9-11 movement when the entire world changed.


----------



## WLSC

Underway said:


> I'll channel my inner Randy Carlile here "It's fine... just fine".  Certainly better than what we were working with the 10-12 years before it was released.  Despite the language used it spells out defense priorities with enough direction that the CAF could get to work.  It needs to be better though.  It needs enough juice to get us past just treading water.
> __________________________________________________________
> 
> I was super pissed with the budget's military side.   I was more surprised at the cutback in the deficit and pleasantly surprised at that. This budget will not exacerbate inflation either which was a key concern of mine. Being a fiscal conservative and pro-military spender was forcing me to choose mom or dad's house in the divorce.  In my pain and confusion, I'll just lash out here at you folks!
> 
> @Edward Campbell and @calculus I get exactly what you are saying regarding finance not being comfortable with DND's capacity to spend what would be a windfall of cash.   There is no way we could spend it over the next year.  That sort of increase needs to be planned out.
> 
> I would not be surprised if a number of projects on the books are pushed ahead faster this year. It can be done if the light and heat get put on.  Nor would I be surprised if the F35 deal gets pushed as the big-spending ticket this year.  The budget I don't think accounts for that specifically and we all know governments add lines through the year.
> 
> I also expect project offices to be stood up or fleshed out for some long-suffering thorns.  NORAD site refurb/replacement.  Submarines.  MCDV replacement. And a whole hockey sock of army items that are on the books drip torturing themselves through the procurement process (ATGM and Comms being top of the list) once SSE is updated... with a plan.
> 
> If Euro security is still a concern next budget the groundwork hopefully will have been laid.  My biggest concern is that we (Canada) may be numb to Ukraine by then and the moment may have passed to get the big payout.  Europe won't be though, this is their 9-11 movement when the entire world changed.


Has long procurement is not align with capabilities, we’ll have nothing except reliving the Groundhog Day.  This mean a dedicated DND/CAF team.  The culture change on the leadership part is very much needed but I got the feeling it’s the unwritten conditions for us to have some influence over are own destiny.  

So the way I see it, no procurement reform until the change is done at the PMO taste.


----------



## ueo

OldSolduer said:


> I think you still need competent oversight of some sort.


Key word Competant.


----------



## Jarnhamar

calculus said:


> ,so I feel there is still hope that we will see a good boost once SSE mk 2 gets approved.



I think you mean SSE&I

That's a clever sounding rumor but the government knows exactly where the problem and has done nothing to fix it. 

15 years and 100 million dollars to buy a handgun. 

Lets call a spade a spade.


----------



## KevinB

I’ll argue SSE allows for whatever the CAF, DND and Cdn Government want. 

You could easily field a Heavy DIV, a Medium DIV, and a Light DIV under SSE and justify it with a straight face. The same goes for major RCAF and RCN expansion.   

Canada has promised a Bde to NATO - to relive that Bde and maintaining other contingency forces as required by SSE means you need at least three Bde, but you may not know what sort of force is needed, therefore you have Heavy, Medium, and Light. 

Let’s also not forget the massive holes in GBAD, Anti-Tank Weapons, Artillery, UAS, Logistics, Combat Support Enablers and Combat Service Support.  

That doesn’t even get past the CA, let alone the other elements.


----------



## WLSC

KevinB said:


> I’ll argue SSE allows for whatever the CAF, DND and Cdn Government want.
> 
> You could easily field a Heavy DIV, a Medium DIV, and a Light DIV under SSE and justify it with a straight face. The same goes for major RCAF and RCN expansion.
> 
> Canada has promised a Bde to NATO - to relive that Bde and maintaining other contingency forces as required by SSE means you need at least three Bde, but you may not know what sort of force is needed, therefore you have Heavy, Medium, and Light.
> 
> Let’s also not forget the massive holes in GBAD, Anti-Tank Weapons, Artillery, UAS, Logistics, Combat Support Enablers and Combat Service Support.
> 
> That doesn’t even get past the CA, let alone the other elements.


Exacly my thought.  It was there, they just wanted to shovel the snow forward.  I would have be happy with named commitment, timelines, CLEAR rushed procurement reform and money for CAF reconstitution.  With the current inflation, it's almost a nil growth.


----------



## Czech_pivo

WLSC said:


> Exacly my thought.  It was there, they just wanted to shovel the snow forward.  I would have be happy with named commitment, timelines, CLEAR rushed procurement reform and money for CAF reconstitution.  With the current inflation, it's almost a nil growth.


It is nil growth.


----------



## WLSC

Czech_pivo said:


> It is nil growth.


I'm bad in finance and I manage to figured that out...


----------



## Navy_Pete

Halifax Tar said:


> We have an issue with this.  Our SC and Procurement is littered with Engineers.


Sure, we're the ones that are responsible for both the technical requirements and project management. When things aren't in stock it's the LCMMs who get shitty grams from the units.

There is also a big impact from contract terms on the actual projects, so it's a big team effort. If not, things go sideways.

Lot of LCMMs are doing cross training on the supply side to make sure they understand that side of things (and to help train the new supply managers), but I'm not sure how you'd do procurement without the tech staff (aside from straight buys of existing NSNs).

It's not like we don't buy a lot of things; we pump through billions every year, and manage more contracts then any other department by far. It's just that the actual LOE is more then the capacity, and it takes years to get people trained up to be competent. Believe it or not, DND is much better at buying things than any other department.

The integrated project teams (IPTs) with embedded PSPC actually works pretty well but at the end of the day, if there are 40 hoops to jump through, doesn't really matter how good people are, it all takes time.

I'd like to fire TBS and FIN into the sun though; they are constantly moving the goal posts (or having black box processes) and like to criticize PMs for not reading their minds and anticipating that something that worked the last 10 times has changed. I'm all for competent, responsible oversight but they aren't it.


----------



## Czech_pivo

I understand why everyone is chattering on about fixing Procurement but what about addressing the shortfall of 6,500 personnel below stated levels?  
Should fixing both of these not be A level priorities?  How do you address shortfalls in GBAD, Anti-Tank Weapons, Artillery, UAS, Logistics, Combat Support Enablers and Combat Service Support, if you don't have the warm bodies to stand-up these new units/capabilities?


----------



## Underway

Navy_Pete said:


> Sure, we're the ones that are responsible for both the technical requirements and project management. When things aren't in stock it's the LCMMs who get shitty grams from the units.
> 
> There is also a big impact from contract terms on the actual projects, so it's a big team effort. If not, things go sideways.
> 
> Lot of LCMMs are doing cross training on the supply side to make sure they understand that side of things (and to help train the new supply managers), but I'm not sure how you'd do procurement without the tech staff (aside from straight buys of existing NSNs).
> 
> It's not like we don't buy a lot of things; we pump through billions every year, and manage more contracts then any other department by far. It's just that the actual LOE is more then the capacity, and it takes years to get people trained up to be competent. Believe it or not, DND is much better at buying things than any other department.
> 
> The integrated project teams (IPTs) with embedded PSPC actually works pretty well but at the end of the day, if there are 40 hoops to jump through, doesn't really matter how good people are, it all takes time.
> 
> I'd like to fire TBS and FIN into the sun though; they are constantly moving the goal posts (or having black box processes) and like to criticize PMs for not reading their minds and anticipating that something that worked the last 10 times has changed. I'm all for competent, responsible oversight but they aren't it.


I agree entirely with this.  

Engineers don't manage the contracts side and we certainly don't manage the supply side.  Or we are not supposed to do that.  Would be nice if the supply section actually had more than just one LCdr in it, had the two civis and supply Chief that is supposed to work there.  Engineers do Project Management but have to be trained in that, and frankly, that's in the career path for most of us.

Would be nice if the Engineers were not having to deal with ITAR, Security certificates, and other such administration and if we had people staffed to actually deal with that so we could focus on the technical approvals/reviews that we are required to do.

It would also be nice if the LCMM's were funded to a level where they could be proactive instead of reactive.


----------



## Underway

Czech_pivo said:


> I understand why everyone is chattering on about fixing Procurement but what about addressing the shortfall of 6,500 personnel below stated levels?
> Should fixing both of these not be A level priorities?  How do you address shortfalls in GBAD, Anti-Tank Weapons, Artillery, UAS, Logistics, Combat Support Enablers and Combat Service Support, if you don't have the warm bodies to stand-up these new units/capabilities?


I'm confident that if in many cases we had the equipment to do that job for some people (not all) the job becomes more attractive.  Failing that Penal Battalions, Conscription, Mercenaries, Contractors. (you can figure out the jokes from the actual ideas in there. )

But yah, priority A is people.  If we don't have people then it doesn't really matter.


----------



## FSTO

Underway said:


> I agree entirely with this.
> 
> Engineers don't manage the contracts side and we certainly don't manage the supply side.  Or we are not supposed to do that.  Would be nice if the supply section actually had more than just one LCdr in it, had the two civis and supply Chief that is supposed to work there.  Engineers do Project Management but have to be trained in that, and frankly, that's in the career path for most of us.
> 
> Would be nice if the Engineers were not having to deal with ITAR, Security certificates, and other such administration and if we had people staffed to actually deal with that so we could focus on the technical approvals/reviews that we are required to do.
> 
> It would also be nice if the LCMM's were funded to a level where they could be proactive instead of reactive.








Fixing the procurement, its their fault!


----------



## calculus

calculus said:


> The story circulating around the office is the Minister was presented with a number of options to get to 2%, but most of them represented _new capabilities_. They realized that they were hamstrung by their own bureaucratic processes in that they didn't have a vehicle to raise new projects against, that vehicle being a policy clearly outlining the need for these _new _capabilities. So, DND was sent packing with direction to get SSE updated, and to do it ASAP. Again, this is third hand, but what we were told is the government was quite willing to jack up defence spending, and in fact is _resigned to it_, but felt that without a policy to justify where the extra moneys would go, they could not commit any large amounts of additional funding _at this time._ This makes sense to me, having worked in government for many years at a level where budgets get set, so I feel there is still hope that we will see a good boost once SSE mk 2 gets approved.


Interesting: Canada's plan to boost military spending ‘falls flat’ amid high hopes

Also suggests a lot hinges on the defence policy review.


----------



## Haggis

Navy_Pete said:


> Believe it or not, DND is much better at buying things than any other department.


The RCMP have initiated their first attempt to buy new pistols while DND is on at least their third attempt.  Both contracts will be about the same size.   Let's see who gets new pistols first.


----------



## WLSC

Czech_pivo said:


> I understand why everyone is chattering on about fixing Procurement but what about addressing the shortfall of 6,500 personnel below stated levels?
> Should fixing both of these not be A level priorities?  How do you address shortfalls in GBAD, Anti-Tank Weapons, Artillery, UAS, Logistics, Combat Support Enablers and Combat Service Support, if you don't have the warm bodies to stand-up these new units/capabilities?


I need to be both in the same time.  You reconstitute while you purchase the kit and reorganized the current kit in line with the futur organisation.  Dont need to shop for long, production may take time.  We just have to look around what's good in the market (local benefit being a welcome bonus) and you buy.  By the time the troops arrives in the units, the current kit is reorganized and new kit should start arriving.  We do not have the luxury of the deliberate attack right now.  It need to go faster.  I thing we can walk and shew gum in the same time.  But that's just me.


----------



## Czech_pivo

calculus said:


> Interesting: Canada's plan to boost military spending ‘falls flat’ amid high hopes
> 
> Also suggests a lot hinges on the defence policy review.


It's only been 5yr since the last review.  

From a 'measurable' perspective - what stated goals/deliverables in the 2017 review have been met in the last 5yrs? 

Are we doing a new review policy because there is acknowledgement that the last one was a failure?   Did the last one in no way predict that Russia might go all in on Ukraine when the Crimea and Donbass issues were already 3yrs old?  Are we doing it as a way to 'look busy' or, that a serious attempt to right a listing ship is being attempted? 

How long is the stated timeline to stand up, define scope, assign tasks, responsibilities, deliverables and project end date? Is it 6 months? 1yr? 3yrs? Who is the 'Champion' for this project - the PMO, Finance, CDS, the Minister of Defence directly? 

Based on past deliverables, initiatives, attempts, I have little faith that a new policy review/deliverable will achieve much at all.


----------



## Navy_Pete

WLSC said:


> I need to be both in the same time.  You reconstitute while you purchase the kit and reorganized the current kit in line with the futur organisation.  Dont need to shop for long, production may take time.  We just have to look around what's good in the market (local benefit being a welcome bonus) and you buy.  By the time the troops arrives in the units, the current kit is reorganized and new kit should start arriving.  We do not have the luxury of the deliberate attack right now.  It need to go faster.  I thing we can walk and shew gum in the same time.  But that's just me.



How do you think procurement works? We put out a tender, bids come in, off you go only applies to existing catalogued items. If it hits a certain value, it goes to PSPC, otherwise we do it ourselves.

New capitol procurements have a big process with a whack of non-DND requirements. If you go past a certain value, it goes through PSPC, and when you hit other thresholds, about 10 other departments involved.

'Deliberate attack' isn't the plan, it's more like you show up as into a project, and there is a massive bureaucratic obstacle course to jump through, which you have to tackle one at a time. Some is internal DND, most of it is external. Some of the internal DND processes were mandated by TBS.

If we could just whip out a credit card, we would. But sure, tell us how it 'should' go.


----------



## Underway

FSTO said:


> Fixing the procurement, its their fault!


Don't give me that shit.  I know exactly where I can improve, but don't be going on blaming engineering for things that are very much outside our lane.  Engineering is understaffed as well, leading to delays.  And I've certainly made mistakes along the way I would have done better in hindsight.  There is more then enough blame to go around.


----------



## Good2Golf




----------



## FSTO

Underway said:


> Don't give me that shit.  I know exactly where I can improve, but don't be going on blaming engineering for things that are very much outside our lane.  Engineering is understaffed as well, leading to delays.  And I've certainly made mistakes along the way I would have done better in hindsight.  There is more then enough blame to go around.


Apologies, I meant (should have amplified more) the finger pointing throughout the Public Service/DND/CAF/PMO that is frustrating. When during the announcement of the F35 the minister of procurement basically stated the process is just fine I just about put my foot through the TV. Everyone knows what the issue is, nobody wants to take responsibility and the risk to actually fix the problem.


----------



## MilEME09

Czech_pivo said:


> It's only been 5yr since the last review.
> 
> From a 'measurable' perspective - what stated goals/deliverables in the 2017 review have been met in the last 5yrs?
> 
> Are we doing a new review policy because there is acknowledgement that the last one was a failure?   Did the last one in no way predict that Russia might go all in on Ukraine when the Crimea and Donbass issues were already 3yrs old?  Are we doing it as a way to 'look busy' or, that a serious attempt to right a listing ship is being attempted?
> 
> How long is the stated timeline to stand up, define scope, assign tasks, responsibilities, deliverables and project end date? Is it 6 months? 1yr? 3yrs? Who is the 'Champion' for this project - the PMO, Finance, CDS, the Minister of Defence directly?
> 
> Based on past deliverables, initiatives, attempts, I have little faith that a new policy review/deliverable will achieve much at all.


5 years yes but the past 2 months have thrown everything on its head, and we are about to walk into a very turbulent period in history. A weakened Russia will lead to more issues in Africa and else where. SSE was written about theoretical threats, not the emerging real ones.


----------



## Underway

FSTO said:


> Apologies, I meant (should have amplified more) the finger pointing throughout the Public Service/DND/CAF/PMO that is frustrating. When during the announcement of the F35 the minister of procurement basically stated the process is just fine I just about put my foot through the TV. Everyone knows what the issue is, nobody wants to take responsibility and the risk to actually fix the problem.


No worries.  I've done the exact thing more than once here.  

UK did something that was interesting to fix their procurement.  They put the Defence Minister directly responsible for procurement to Parlament.  Shocking I know that a Minister might be responsible for a portfolio instead of spreading it out through 3 different Ministries.


----------



## dimsum

Czech_pivo said:


> It's only been 5yr since the last review.


I'd be curious how often other allied nations do their reviews.  Things change quite a bit in 5 years.


----------



## GR66

dimsum said:


> I'd be curious how often other allied nations do their reviews.  Things change quite a bit in 5 years.


Another thing that our PM admires about Communist China....5 Year Plans


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

McG said:


> Engineering ≠ Procurement
> 
> The tech staff program prepares people to be requirements staff who are a little harder for corporate sales reps to snow. Graduates can still have no idea how to run a capital project.
> 
> The Army does need to do better at employing people in the role after the training. Most officer occupations seemed good at that, though the infantry had a tendency to always send someone to the school where they may or may not have been employed as a “tech Adjt.”  The WO & MWO for the most part went on to do anything but tech jobs.


Never said it did, being the top engineer in their program at the top University in Canada would probably indicate to anyone with any sense that we should probably put said persons brain to good use.

As for Tech Staff, the program is exactly what we've made it.  We've also watered it down over the years.



dapaterson said:


> Explain to me how an infantry officer is trained to understand procurement.
> 
> When the CAF insists on inserting military personnel who are at best enthusiastic amateurs into procurement, results suffer.



I mean we could also say that about the Civil Service.  The Federal Civil Service massively under delivers on ALL major capital investments. 

I can't think of one project the Federal Government has undertaken in recent memory that isn't a total dumpster fire:

Trans-mountain
Treated water for the Indigenous
Shipbuilding writ large
Etc...


----------



## dimsum

GR66 said:


> Another thing that our PM admires about Communist China....5 Year Plans


I mean, that's a stretch.

Having regular reviews of things that change isn't a bad idea.


----------



## JLB50

I realize that Freeland said that there’s really no money in the Treasury to speak of.  Yet, somehow, I think that if she or Anand had been Prime Minister the DND would have seen a lot more money for defence.  Trudeau always seems to find a reason to keep the CAF on life support.


----------



## Dale Denton

What would it take to get people to care? CAF needs the public to be aware of it as an institution and its shortcomings. This would all be in order to build civilian literacy and therefore securing the CAFs future.

I'd reckon that if you took a nice chunk of that new money and created an awareness/outreach program or just copy what Forces News (YT) or the RM have put out, you'd get some more bang for your buck. I'm no publicist, so i'm sure there's other avenues that i'm not thinking of.

In my eyes, fixing the CAFs image and raising awareness of its limitations would go further than a new project that'll deliver in 10-15 years.


----------



## Remius

Dale Denton said:


> What would it take to get people to care? CAF needs the public to be aware of it as an institution and its shortcomings. This would all be in order to build civilian literacy and therefore securing the CAFs future.
> 
> I'd reckon that if you took a nice chunk of that new money and created an awareness/outreach program or just copy what Forces News (YT) or the RM have put out, you'd get some more bang for your buck. I'm no publicist, so i'm sure there's other avenues that i'm not thinking of.
> 
> In my eyes, fixing the CAFs image and raising awareness of its limitations would go further than a new project that'll deliver in 10-15 years.


The best public awareness is for the CAF to outright say we can’t complete whatever mission is expected.  Like literally say we can’t do it.  

Hey fires in BC, call in the army.  Sorry but we just can’t provide what is required.  

COVID surge.  Call in the army.  Can’t do it, not enough pers or equipment. 

The CAF needs to start saying no.


----------



## WLSC

Navy_Pete said:


> How do you think procurement works? We put out a tender, bids come in, off you go only applies to existing catalogued items. If it hits a certain value, it goes to PSPC, otherwise we do it ourselves.
> 
> New capitol procurements have a big process with a whack of non-DND requirements. If you go past a certain value, it goes through PSPC, and when you hit other thresholds, about 10 other departments involved.
> 
> 'Deliberate attack' isn't the plan, it's more like you show up as into a project, and there is a massive bureaucratic obstacle course to jump through, which you have to tackle one at a time. Some is internal DND, most of it is external. Some of the internal DND processes were mandated by TBS.
> 
> If we could just whip out a credit card, we would. But sure, tell us how it 'should' go.


I have no clue. 

What I know is the receiving hand part which take way too much time for simple thing like a pistol, radios, etc.  How long did it take to go around Colt Canada for the pistol?  So let's talk about Fighter jets, ships, why does it take all those years?  Too many check in the box to make by other agencies. Those agencies dont have the same priority than the CAF (when they should because it comes from the top), so it's done when it's done, right? For what? 

Why absolutely the exquisite canadian solution?  Why not go of the shelve on specific item for a while?  There's process and process in the process to confirm the process is still the proper one before reviewing the processes. I understand that we cannot go as fast our allies (if we still have real one) because of numbers of poeple working on project are smaller.

At the level we are right now (like 1939 IMO), I think that yes,  we could cut some corner a bit and manage risk.  If something exist and is used by an allied, for a while and specific items, I think we should just go and buy.  Then when it's stabilised we can go back to mode deliberate planning.

PMO and TB know exacly where the problems are and how to fix it.  We are their creature/responsability, their created those processes.

Canada can do it.  The Afghan years proved it.  When there's a will, there's a mean.


----------



## dimsum

Remius said:


> The best public awareness is for the CAF to outright say we can’t complete whatever mission is expected.  Like literally say we can’t do it.
> 
> Hey fires in BC, call in the army.  Sorry but we just can’t provide what is required.
> 
> COVID surge.  Call in the army.  Can’t do it, not enough pers or equipment.
> 
> The CAF needs to start saying no.


Yep.  Remember when "call in the CAF medical folks" was being bandied about and there was at least one article where someone complained that only 8 or 10 CAF folks responded?  

The public honestly thinks that we have this big reserve of doctors, nurses, med techs, etc who are just twiddling their thumbs.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Dale Denton said:


> What would it take to get people to care? CAF needs the public to be aware of it as an institution and its shortcomings. This would all be in order to build civilian literacy and therefore securing the CAFs future.
> 
> I'd reckon that if you took a nice chunk of that new money and created an awareness/outreach program or just copy what Forces News (YT) or the RM have put out, you'd get some more bang for your buck. I'm no publicist, so i'm sure there's other avenues that i'm not thinking of.
> 
> In my eyes, fixing the CAFs image and raising awareness of its limitations would go further than a new project that'll deliver in 10-15 years.


The *truth* -

For the truth of the current state to be plainly laid out to the general public.  Provide concrete, relatable examples of how bad things are.  Tell the general public all that is being swept under the rug, suppressed. Tell them about the saga to replace WWII-era pistols, tell them that the base housing is X years old and un-liveable in some cases, lay out the timeline/costs of obtaining used Aussie F-18s and how many are usable today.

Will it change the opinion of all?  No, but so what, you'll never get 100% of the people on board, that is the nature of society, some people are just completely disengaged.  But if you can get 60-65% of the population engaged, real change has the potential to occur.

The public doesn't have a clue and the vast majority of the politicians what it that way.


----------



## WLSC

Czech_pivo said:


> The *truth* -
> 
> For the truth of the current state to be plainly laid out to the general public.  Provide concrete, relatable examples of how bad things are.  Tell the general public all that is being swept under the rug, suppressed. Tell them about the saga to replace WWII-era pistols, tell them that the base housing is X years old and un-liveable in some cases, lay out the timeline/costs of obtaining used Aussie F-18s and how many are usable today.
> 
> Will it change the opinion of all?  No, but so what, you'll never get 100% of the people on board, that is the nature of society, some people are just completely disengaged.  But if you can get 60-65% of the population engaged, real change has the potential to occur.
> 
> The public doesn't have a clue and the vast majority of the politicians what it that way.


That's why we have told to shut up.  So they would not be ask to many question.  Hillier (like him or hate him) was good at that and I think it help us.  They dont want that back.


----------



## Haggis

Czech_pivo said:


> The public doesn't have a clue and the vast majority of the politicians want it that way.


Indeed.  The illusion of success is easier to attain than success itself.  There are examples of this on social media millions of times a day.


----------



## Brad Sallows

> Explain to me how an infantry officer is trained to understand procurement.



That illustrates a very important question.  Why is military procurement not as demanding of special education and training and long-term dedicated employment (experience) as any military classification or occupation?

And if such a job ("military procurement") existed, would it be more appropriately done on the uniformed or non-uniformed side of the house?

And if there really are Big Suits who believe the uniformed senior members are not best suited to determine answers to the big questions, why haven't they already jumped at making procurement the playground of a solely non-uniformed career path?


----------



## Brad Sallows

> So, DND was sent packing with direction to get SSE updated, and to do it ASAP.



Suggests we don't have a standing think tank or some kind of general staff that spends every working day poring over the events of the day, discerning trends, updating policy, revising the foundational documents, distributing the new requirements to the Big Suits...


----------



## Weinie

Czech_pivo said:


> The *truth* -
> 
> For the truth of the current state to be plainly laid out to the general public.  Provide concrete, relatable examples of how bad things are.  Tell the general public all that is being swept under the rug, suppressed. Tell them about the saga to replace WWII-era pistols, tell them that the base housing is X years old and un-liveable in some cases, lay out the timeline/costs of obtaining used Aussie F-18s and how many are usable today.
> 
> Will it change the opinion of all?  No, but so what, you'll never get 100% of the people on board, that is the nature of society, some people are just completely disengaged.  But if you can get 60-65% of the population engaged, real change has the potential to occur.
> 
> The public doesn't have a clue and the vast majority of the politicians what it that way.


As a guy who has spent more than 25 years trying to get Canadians to care/invest/be interested in the CAF, let me offer some concise observations.

First, geography.

Secondly, outside of a few minor incidents, stability.

Thirdly, impact. Most world events have minimal impact on the vast majority of Canadians. 

Did any one of your parents/friends/yourself really get seized with a World event that had potential Strat impact for Canada?

Thank your lucky stars we have been in this position. Lamenting it is like bitching you won only half the lottery.

I join others on here who would like to see Canada be better prepared and walk softly and carry a big stick. But pragmatism caveats my optimism.


----------



## Czech_pivo

I’m finding solace about all of this by watching clips from the movie ‘The Death of Stalin’ and the decision making process that occurred after he had his stroke. Maybe there is hope for us.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Weinie said:


> As a guy who has spent more than 25 years trying to get Canadians to care/invest/be interested in the CAF, let me offer some concise observations.
> 
> First, geography. USA is our protector
> 
> Secondly, outside of a few minor incidents, stability.
> 
> Thirdly, impact. Most world events have minimal impact on the vast majority of Canadians, thanks to #1
> 
> Did any one of your parents/friends/yourself really get seized with a World event that had potential Strat impact for Canada?
> 
> Thank your lucky stars we have the US protecting our back.been in this position. Lamenting it is like bitching you won only half the lottery.
> 
> I join others on here who would like to see Canada be better prepared and walk softly and carry a big stick. But pragmatism caveats my optimism.


----------



## Navy_Pete

WLSC said:


> I have no clue.
> 
> What I know is the receiving hand part which take way too much time for simple thing like a pistol, radios, etc.  How long did it take to go around Colt Canada for the pistol?  So let's talk about Fighter jets, ships, why does it take all those years?  Too many check in the box to make by other agencies. Those agencies dont have the same priority than the CAF (when they should because it comes from the top), so it's done when it's done, right? For what?
> 
> Why absolutely the exquisite canadian solution?  Why not go of the shelve on specific item for a while?  There's process and process in the process to confirm the process is still the proper one before reviewing the processes. I understand that we cannot go as fast our allies (if we still have real one) because of numbers of poeple working on project are smaller.
> 
> At the level we are right now (like 1939 IMO), I think that yes,  we could cut some corner a bit and manage risk.  If something exist and is used by an allied, for a while and specific items, I think we should just go and buy.  Then when it's stabilised we can go back to mode deliberate planning.
> 
> PMO and TB know exacly where the problems are and how to fix it.  We are their creature/responsability, their created those processes.
> 
> Canada can do it.  The Afghan years proved it.  When there's a will, there's a mean.


So how do we get to this magical realm where Canadian laws around procurement, TBS policies, Cabinet direction, international treaty obligations (CITT) etc etc all don't apply and we can just 'go buy shit'. Even in Afghanistan a lot of big procurements still followed basic rules, and a lot of that equipment was a one time use until breakage.

Nothing personal, but pretty tired of people who have no idea of what's involve just say 'do better'. Sure, the current system sucks, but unless the PM, PMO and Cabinet basically burn the current system to the ground and do a complete, GoC wide reform we have to work within it. People working within that system are doing a lot of work to try and jump through all the bullshit and catch a lot of flak about the results, but you can't expect someone to put in Olympic qualifying times if you weight them down, tie their limbs together, and maybe shoot them a few times for good measure. And that's without even having political interference with big ticket items (like the F35).

There is also a lot of downsides to having a mix and match fleet, one off items, and corners cut in procurements to not provide basics like training, spares or repair lines, especially on ships where it has to be integrated into a few millions parts moving in the same general direction.


----------



## Weinie

#Czechpivo. All your responses in red is why I wrote concise.


----------



## WLSC

Navy_Pete said:


> So how do we get to this magical realm where Canadian laws around procurement, TBS policies, Cabinet direction, international treaty obligations (CITT) etc etc all don't apply and we can just 'go buy shit'. Even in Afghanistan a lot of big procurements still followed basic rules, and a lot of that equipment was a one time use until breakage.
> 
> Nothing personal, but pretty tired of people who have no idea of what's involve just say 'do better'. Sure, the current system sucks, but unless the PM, PMO and Cabinet basically burn the current system to the ground and do a complete, GoC wide reform we have to work within it. People working within that system are doing a lot of work to try and jump through all the bullshit and catch a lot of flak about the results, but you can't expect someone to put in Olympic qualifying times if you weight them down, tie their limbs together, and maybe shoot them a few times for good measure. And that's without even having political interference with big ticket items (like the F35).
> 
> There is also a lot of downsides to having a mix and match fleet, one off items, and corners cut in procurements to not provide basics like training, spares or repair lines, especially on ships where it has to be integrated into a few millions parts moving in the same general direction.


I really do understand how do you fell, really.  Nothing personnel also, the process is not good for us.  Surely it's good for someone but not for us.  Why then we are the only country (most probably) that re-did 3 competitions for the same result for a fighter and 10 years for a pistol?  Even the RCMP is faster.  I think they have the same boss.

It's simple, there is no political will to solve the issue.   Look at the big ticket items we got during Afghanistan.  Today, the process drive the show and we cant buy nothing.  Why are we slower than our partner?  How many time we had to got back to redo the work for the CFC? 

In all those treaties, I dont think there is a stop for something like ''National Security''.  We just dont do it.  Except the RG's (which overall did the job) which one of those emergency buy caused us trouble after wards?  I dont see one.  I'm pretty confident that our GOFO are brilliant enough to do that again IOT bring us back in a somewhat positive view in our partner eyes.   Where there's will, there's a mean.


----------



## Kirkhill

Navy_Pete said:


> So how do we get to this magical realm where Canadian laws around procurement, TBS policies, Cabinet direction, international treaty obligations (CITT) etc etc all don't apply and we can just 'go buy shit'. Even in Afghanistan a lot of big procurements still followed basic rules, and a lot of that equipment was a one time use until breakage.
> 
> Nothing personal, but pretty tired of people who have no idea of what's involve just say 'do better'. Sure, the current system sucks, but unless the PM, PMO and Cabinet basically burn the current system to the ground and do a complete, GoC wide reform we have to work within it. People working within that system are doing a lot of work to try and jump through all the bullshit and catch a lot of flak about the results, but you can't expect someone to put in Olympic qualifying times if you weight them down, tie their limbs together, and maybe shoot them a few times for good measure. And that's without even having political interference with big ticket items (like the F35).
> 
> There is also a lot of downsides to having a mix and match fleet, one off items, and corners cut in procurements to not provide basics like training, spares or repair lines, especially on ships where it has to be integrated into a few millions parts moving in the same general direction.



What rules is Ukraine following?  I know their circumstances are different than ours.  But that is the point surely.  We have created this situation.  We have it in our power to change the situation.  And still follow international rules.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Well well well, now we know where the exact 6.1$ billion over 5yrs for the CAF is coming from.

Ottawa’s tax on banks and life insurers to deliver $6.1-billion over five years,​








						Ottawa’s tax on banks and life insurers to deliver $6.1-billion over five years, 40 per cent less than Liberal campaign pledge
					

After months of uncertainty on Bay Street, the Liberals released the final details of these tax changes in their federal budget on Thursday, and the total blow is less severe than the initial pledge




					www.theglobeandmail.com


----------



## Brad Sallows

"Hi, we're the GoC and we're passing along some money to you (DND) that we got from pinching the employees and shareholders of banks and insurance companies.  Hopefully they'll be angry at us and not at you."


----------



## Good2Golf

Brad Sallows said:


> "Hi, we're the GoC and we're passing along some money to you (DND) that we got from pinching the employees and shareholders of banks and insurance companies.  Hopefully they'll be angry at us and not at you."


Indeed.  Already, the experts as gaslighting are setting up a false dichotomy.

Of course we know that taxes come into general revenue and expenditures come from the totality of the Main and Supplemental Estimates, so there is of course no such thing as the bank/insurance tax going to fund DND, but not beyond the Government to sow the seeds of discontent from one against another…


----------



## Czech_pivo

Good2Golf said:


> Indeed.  Already, the experts as gaslighting are setting up a false dichotomy.
> 
> Of course we know that taxes come into general revenue and expenditures come from the totality of the Main and Supplemental Estimates, so there is of course no such thing as the bank/insurance tax going to fund DND, but not beyond the Government to sow the seeds of discontent from one against another…


Now if they can only get the Bank's project management teams set up at DND..... says I tongue in cheek


----------



## Edward Campbell

Brad Sallows said:


> "Hi, we're the GoC and we're passing along some money to you (DND) that we got from pinching the employees and shareholders of banks and insurance companies.  Hopefully they'll be angry at us and not at you."


"Hi, we're the GoC and we're passing along some money to you (DND) that we got from pinching the employees and shareholders of banks and insurance companies.  Hopefully they'll be angry at us and not at you."

Those shareholders would be just about every flippin' pension plan in Canada.


----------



## OldSolduer

Edward Campbell said:


> "Hi, we're the GoC and we're passing along some money to you (DND) that we got from pinching the employees and shareholders of banks and insurance companies.  Hopefully they'll be angry at us and not at you."
> 
> Those shareholders would be just about every flippin' pension plan in Canada.


Correct and now I am in receipt of CPP and CFSA - plus RRSPs etc this is robbery. 

WHILE I am on the soapbox hit WalMart, Amazon, Pfizer, Loblaws etc and have them pay their fair share too. All these industries/businesses made obscene profits during the pandemic. Add more if you choose to.

The ones that aren't making out so good are small businesses.


----------



## Brad Sallows

> Those shareholders would be just about every flippin' pension plan in Canada.



You're singing my song.  To a corporation, taxes are just numbers on the liability side, along with wages and benefits, dividends, and other costs of whatever it is they do.  More of one squeezes the others.  Retarding wage/benefit and/or retirement savings growth isn't any kind of public good.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Edward Campbell said:


> "Hi, we're the GoC and we're passing along some money to you (DND) that we got from pinching the employees and shareholders of banks and insurance companies.  Hopefully they'll be angry at us and not at you."
> 
> Those shareholders would be just about every flippin' pension plan in Canada.


I don't believe this current Cabinet has a single member that has spent anytime working on Bay Street (or Montreal finance) in any manner whatsoever.  It would be interesting to see if this is the first time in Canadian history that this has occurred. 

To me, it does clearly state the direction/thought process of this current government.


----------



## Brad Sallows

> obscene profits



What part of profits are obscene?  The part paid out in wage/benefit gains?  Dividends? Reinvestment to increase productive output?  Paying down debt that paid for past investment?  Setting money aside for future contingencies?


----------



## OldSolduer

Brad Sallows said:


> What part of profits are obscene?  The part paid out in wage/benefit gains?  Dividends? Reinvestment to increase productive output?  Paying down debt that paid for past investment?  Setting money aside for future contingencies?


When XXX Corporation announces that they X billions in profits yet their employees are treated like dog crap. That is obscene. 

I have no issue with making money - but some of this needs to be looked at,


----------



## Brad Sallows

Deja vu.  (I've written what follows, before.)  Unless someone can point to some ill use of "profits", there's no criticism such as "too much was paid into (say) dividends (in many cases, retirement savings) and not enough into increased compensation".


----------



## dapaterson

The government has also put in a strategic program review.  Looking for $1B in 24/25, $2B in 25/26, and $3B recurring after that. (Budget chapter 9).

Not all from DND, (obviously), but it's good news that there is an intent to reduce spending.


----------



## Brad Sallows

Yes, now if only they can get the order of magnitude correct.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

The money is going to get largely eaten up by Inflation and cost increases.

It isn't going to even put a dent in the gaping holes.


----------



## Good2Golf

Humphrey Bogart said:


> The money is going to get largely eaten up by Inflation and cost increases.
> 
> It isn't going to even put a dent in the gaping holes.


Yup, inflation may even be more than this meager plus-up…


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Good2Golf said:


> Yup, inflation may even be more than this meager plus-up…



That's why it's pointless even talking about this.  From what I can see, there is no need to even rewrite SSE because this new funding we are receiving is simply status quo.


----------



## SupersonicMax

Humphrey Bogart said:


> That's why it's pointless even talking about this.  From what I can see, there is no need to even rewrite SSE because this new funding we are receiving is simply status quo.


Global Affairs first needs to articulates a national WoG strategy and decide where our areas of interest lie and how we’ll defend those interests. Only then can a military strategy can be devised.  Anything else is really just guess work.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Humphrey Bogart said:


> this new funding we are receiving


Reminds me of my RSM "promising" me a certain posting. Next conversation; "I've never met you before".


----------



## MilEME09

SupersonicMax said:


> Global Affairs first needs to articulates a national WoG strategy and decide where our areas of interest lie and how we’ll defend those interests. Only then can a military strategy can be devised.  Anything else is really just guess work.


Basically we blind and try to Swiss army knife the policy and be vague so it doesn't seem wrong


----------



## WLSC

Humphrey Bogart said:


> That's why it's pointless even talking about this.  From what I can see, there is no need to even rewrite SSE because this new funding we are receiving is simply status quo.


And as @KevinB said, the SSE is written in such a way that it can be expanded for what we need.


----------



## WLSC

SupersonicMax said:


> Global Affairs first needs to articulates a national WoG strategy and decide where our areas of interest lie and how we’ll defend those interests. Only then can a military strategy can be devised.  Anything else is really just guess work.


You they can do that in the next…6 months🤓?


----------



## Czech_pivo

Humphrey Bogart said:


> That's why it's pointless even talking about this.  From what I can see, there is no need to even rewrite SSE because this new funding we are receiving is simply status quo.


Spot on.


----------



## Haggis

dapaterson said:


> The government has also put in a strategic program review.  Looking for $1B in 24/25, $2B in 25/26, and $3B recurring after that. (Budget chapter 9).
> 
> Not all from DND, (obviously), but it's good news that there is an intent to reduce spending.


I could find him at least $1B right now and the end to some expensive court challenges, too. #scrapthegunban


----------



## Maxman1

Czech_pivo said:


> The *truth* -
> 
> lay out the timeline/costs of obtaining used Aussie F-18s and how many are usable today.



And the fact we were originally going to buy brand new Super Hornets, but that was cancelled out of spite after Boeing made a complaint against Bombardier for selling jets below cost, which is what lead to the used Hornet purchase in the first place.


----------



## Kirkhill

SupersonicMax said:


> Global Affairs first needs to articulates a national WoG strategy and decide where our areas of interest lie and how we’ll defend those interests. Only then can a military strategy can be devised.  Anything else is really just guess work.











						The Prime Minister announces changes in the senior ranks of the Public Service
					

The Prime Minister also congratulated the following individuals who have retired from the Public Service, and thanked them for their dedication and service to Canadians




					pm.gc.ca
				




If there is hope to be had I still find it in this January announcement - 6 weeks before the Russians went into Ukraine.  We are now 6 weeks past that.

To be fair to those office holders it will take a lot longer than  12 weeks to reorg Global Affairs, National Defence, Procurement, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness.  All necessary before we can start contemplating spending new money wisely.  I am also hopeful that Anand and Freeland can stay focused.

I guess we should wait another year and see what happens.


----------



## MilEME09

Kirkhill said:


> The Prime Minister announces changes in the senior ranks of the Public Service
> 
> 
> The Prime Minister also congratulated the following individuals who have retired from the Public Service, and thanked them for their dedication and service to Canadians
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pm.gc.ca
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If there is hope to be had I still find it in this January announcement - 6 weeks before the Russians went into Ukraine.  We are now 6 weeks past that.
> 
> To be fair to those office holders it will take a lot longer than  12 weeks to reorg Global Affairs, National Defence, Procurement, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness.  All necessary before we can start contemplating spending new money wisely.  I am also hopeful that Anand and Freeland can stay focused.
> 
> I guess we should wait another year and see what happens.


Gotta remember the whole CA is in a reconstitution phase as we implement Force 2025, now is the best possible time for us to get procurement fixed as well so that F2025 can be implemented smoothly regarding identified gaps in kit.


----------



## Kirkhill

MilEME09 said:


> Gotta remember the whole CA is in a reconstitution phase as we implement Force 2025, now is the best possible time for us to get procurement fixed as well so that F2025 can be implemented smoothly regarding identified gaps in kit.



I can see the time imperative but the problem is decades in the making. New people in new seats with a war intervening are not going to generate credible fixes in 12 weeks.


----------



## MilEME09

Kirkhill said:


> I can see the time imperative but the problem is decades in the making. New people in new seats with a war intervening are not going to generate credible fixes in 12 weeks.


Because these is still a lack of political will to do something rather then give the appearance of doing something


----------



## Kirkhill

Politico is not impressed









						Canada's plan to boost military spending ‘falls flat’ amid high hopes
					

The increase doesn't meet NATO's target for its members to spend at least 2 percent of their GDP on defense.




					www.politico.com


----------



## Booter

Kirkhill said:


> Politico is not impressed
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Canada's plan to boost military spending ‘falls flat’ amid high hopes
> 
> 
> The increase doesn't meet NATO's target for its members to spend at least 2 percent of their GDP on defense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.politico.com


So the feeling there is with inflation this has been a negligible increase. In this thread it was said inflation is built into the budget.

I detest the unclear way the Canadian government throws numbers around. What does it REALLY mean shouldn’t be so hard to see


----------



## Kirkhill

Another (local) area of interest for the CAF and the GoC/GAC.









						The Latin America Instability Matrix: Mapping Risks in the Region
					

The Latin America Instability Matrix provides an analytical framework for signs of possible instability at the country level and cross-cutting factors that can either attenuate or exacerbate these risks. Based on 23 indicators spanning across socio-economic, political, security, resilience...




					www.iiss.org
				




Opportunity to exploit the Kingston Jamaica Operational Support Hub.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Booter said:


> So the feeling there is with inflation this has been a negligible increase. In this thread it was said inflation is built into the budget.
> 
> I detest the unclear way the Canadian government throws numbers around. What does it REALLY mean shouldn’t be so hard to see


It’s their modus operandi - keep us like mushrooms.


----------



## dapaterson

Booter said:


> So the feeling there is with inflation this has been a negligible increase. In this thread it was said inflation is built into the budget.
> 
> I detest the unclear way the Canadian government throws numbers around. What does it REALLY mean shouldn’t be so hard to see


There is extant inflation built into GoC funding models.  There is real growth in this budget - not to 2%, but growth just the same .

Besides, the cynic on me notes that spending increase announcements can be too politically advantageous to waste in a budget, far better to spread them out over time.


----------



## Dale Denton

Kirkhill said:


> Another (local) area of interest for the CAF and the GoC/GAC.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Latin America Instability Matrix: Mapping Risks in the Region
> 
> 
> The Latin America Instability Matrix provides an analytical framework for signs of possible instability at the country level and cross-cutting factors that can either attenuate or exacerbate these risks. Based on 23 indicators spanning across socio-economic, political, security, resilience...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.iiss.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Opportunity to exploit the Kingston Jamaica Operational Support Hub.



If we cared to be an actual Middle Power (TM), we should work extensively in the Caribbean. It's much easier to for us to get to, and we've had strong ties to the Caribbean since before Confederation, as well as the large communities here comprising of Caribbeans. If the Dutch have the capability, so could we.

Lease a section for free to the UN, expand base Op Carib and Projection out of there, continue to work with the JDF and anyone else in the area.

Not to mention the posting opportunities...


----------



## MilEME09

__





						Federal budget 2022: More defence funding in wake of Canada's F-35 about-face
					





					theconversation.com


----------



## dimsum

MilEME09 said:


> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Federal budget 2022: More defence funding in wake of Canada's F-35 about-face
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theconversation.com


I had to check the date of the article.  Didn't the govt hint that there would be an upcoming defence policy review a couple of days prior to the budget?

I could be completely imagining it though.


----------



## MilEME09

dimsum said:


> I had to check the date of the article.  Didn't the govt hint that there would be an upcoming defence policy review a couple of days prior to the budget?
> 
> I could be completely imagining it though.


Well they are great at Convening


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Dale Denton said:


> If we cared to be an actual Middle Power (TM), we should work extensively in the Caribbean. It's much easier to for us to get to, and we've had strong ties to the Caribbean since before Confederation, as well as the large communities here comprising of Caribbeans. If the Dutch have the capability, so could we.
> 
> Lease a section for free to the UN, expand base Op Carib and Projection out of there, continue to work with the JDF and anyone else in the area.
> 
> Not to mention the posting opportunities...


I said the same thing 10 years ago when everyone was salivating over the Pivot to the Pacific. Nobody liked it because it would mean acknowledging some uneasy truths about ourselves.

Canada has actual interests in the Caribbean, it would actually make sense to focus efforts there and in Central South America.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Humphrey Bogart said:


> I said the same thing 10 years ago when everyone was salivating over the Pivot to the Pacific. Nobody liked it because it would mean acknowledging some uneasy truths about ourselves.
> 
> Canada has actual interests in the Caribbean, it would actually make sense to focus efforts there and in Central South America.



Agree.


----------



## Kirkhill

Humphrey Bogart said:


> I said the same thing 10 years ago when everyone was salivating over the Pivot to the Pacific. Nobody liked it because it would mean acknowledging some uneasy truths about ourselves.
> 
> Canada has actual interests in the Caribbean, it would actually make sense to focus efforts there and in Central South America.



It would also strengthen the Commonwealth and associations with the Brits and the Dutch.


----------



## JLB50

Kirkhill said:


> It would also strengthen the Commonwealth and associations with the Brits and the Dutch.


As much as I love the Caribbean, somehow this would seem like being relegated to the minor leagues…the not-quite-ready-for-prime-time players.


----------



## Kirkhill

I constantly forget about the French - Haiti is their problem.









						French West Indies - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## Booter

JLB50 said:


> As much as I love the Caribbean, somehow this would seem like being relegated to the minor leagues…the not-quite-ready-for-prime-time players.


…soooo Canada?


----------



## Kirkhill

JLB50 said:


> As much as I love the Caribbean, somehow this would seem like being relegated to the minor leagues…the not-quite-ready-for-prime-time players.



I think that is part of our problem.  There are lots of jobs that need to get done that we reject out of hand because we want to play in the big leagues.  But we don't put in our time in the minor leagues.  The Brits and the Yanks spend a lot of time and money doing routine stuff like anti-piracy and anti-poaching efforts and regularly deploy on humanitarian and constabulary missions, even fisheries patrols.

That is how they build skills and connections and rationales for new kit.  Not to mention justifying their existence when not engaged in war fighting.


----------



## Good2Golf

JLB50 said:


> As much as I love the Caribbean, somehow this would seem like being *relegated to the minor leagues*…the not-quite-ready-for-prime-time players.


Relegated generally means others placing someone somewhere. 

Canada has, through its own deliberate actions and body of work, positioned itself as…well, to be honest, the bat boy for the minor leagues.


----------



## JLB50

Caribbean’s better than nothing.  But there are more important places in the world for a G7 nation to be.  Ahhhh, if we only had more ships and more personnel.  Remember the old phrase, “Ride to the sound of the guns?”


----------



## dimsum

JLB50 said:


> Caribbean’s better than nothing. But there are more important places in the world for a G7 nation to be.


I'll play devil's advocate.

Being a G7 nation doesn't mean that we have to be involved in all areas of the world.  Japan is a G7 nation - how many military deployments do they do, now that they're allowed to have long-term foreign deployments?

We are, at best, a middle player at this point.  Maybe it's time to think "regional" rather than "global".


----------



## JLB50

dimsum said:


> I'll play devil's advocate.
> 
> Being a G7 nation doesn't mean that we have to be involved in all areas of the world.  Japan is a G7 nation - how many military deployments do they do, now that they're allowed to have long-term foreign deployments?
> 
> We are, at best, a middle player at this point.  Maybe it's time to think "regional" rather than "global".


I’m not disagreeing with you.  Mainly just howling at the moon.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Halifax Tar said:


> Agree.


So we’re going to fish in the Monroe Doctrine pond? Should be interesting. We finally did join the OAS 30 odd yrs ago.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Kirkhill said:


> It would also strengthen the Commonwealth and associations with the Brits and the Dutch.


Barbados ditched Her Majesty, Jamaica is up next. Won’t be much left of the Commonwealth over the next two decades.


----------



## Kirkhill

Czech_pivo said:


> Barbados ditched Her Majesty, Jamaica is up next. Won’t be much left of the Commonwealth over the next two decades.



All the more reason to bind in on whatever other grounds we can.  We are not short of Jamaicans and Bajians in Canada.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Think small, be small.
Think big, be big.

I’d much rather be a smaller fish swimming in a large lake than be a big fish in a small pond. 

This country could be so much more than an Australia if we only learned to have some self confidence, stop being so bloody cheap and constantly looking over our shoulder.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Kirkhill said:


> All the more reason to bind in on whatever other grounds we can.  We are not short of Jamaicans and Bajians in Canada.


We have a heck of a lot more Ukrainians, Poles, Italians, Indians, Chinese than we do of the other two.


----------



## JLB50

Czech_pivo said:


> Think small, be small.
> Think big, be big.
> 
> I’d much rather be a smaller fish swimming in a large lake than be a big fish in a small pond.
> 
> This country could be so much more than an Australia if we only learned to have some self confidence, stop being so bloody cheap and constantly looking over our shoulder.


You said it perfectly.


----------



## Kirkhill

Czech_pivo said:


> Think small, be small.
> Think big, be big.
> 
> I’d much rather be a smaller fish swimming in a large lake than be a big fish in a small pond.
> 
> This country could be so much more than an Australia if we only learned to have some self confidence, stop being so bloody cheap and constantly looking over our shoulder.



So why not offer another pole for the Caribbean to coalesce around.  This world is rapidly becoming a matter of who you can bring to the party with you.   Why not a Canadian coalition?


----------



## Dale Denton

Humphrey Bogart said:


> I said the same thing 10 years ago when everyone was salivating over the Pivot to the Pacific. Nobody liked it because it would mean acknowledging some uneasy truths about ourselves.
> 
> Canada has actual interests in the Caribbean, it would actually make sense to focus efforts there and in Central South America.



Made me think: If we were pragmatic and had a vision: couldn't we take additional responsibility in the Caribbean and South America from the hands of any of our friends?

RN resources in the area

My "doctrine" would be to shift focus to an area that we could alleviate some strain from our NATO buddies. Europe will be boltering up against Russia for at least the next 10 years, wouldn't it be great if its lazy Canadian friend got up and took over Europe's Caribbean responsibilities?

I'm sure the French, UK and Dutch would appreciate it if we took a leading role of HADR/training in their Caribbean territories, should the time come.

It would be much more sustainable for us. France, UK and Dutch may shut up about us not meeting 2% GDP if we took the load off their hands. It wouldn't require all that much money (although we'd find a way to waste it). On the higher-end, i'd see us making a meaningful difference in an area few are paying attention to.

Off the top of my head, as Supreme Emperor, i'd build a Karel Doorrman or Mistral for global HADR/TG capability, expand our AOR fleet, buy 2 more MCDV replacements and base them in CFB Jamrock (TM) with a Herc or 2, get some riverine CB90s for the RCN and Army. Feel free to add to this...


----------



## Remius

Dale Denton said:


> Made me think: If we were pragmatic and had a vision: couldn't we take additional responsibility in the Caribbean and South America from the hands of any of our friends?
> 
> RN resources in the area
> 
> My "doctrine" would be to shift focus to an area that we could alleviate some strain from our NATO buddies. Europe will be boltering up against Russia for at least the next 10 years, wouldn't it be great if its lazy Canadian friend got up and took over Europe's Caribbean responsibilities?
> 
> I'm sure the French, UK and Dutch would appreciate it if we took a leading role of HADR/training in their Caribbean territories, should the time come.
> 
> It would be much more sustainable for us. France, UK and Dutch may shut up about us not meeting 2% GDP if we took the load off their hands. It wouldn't require all that much money (although we'd find a way to waste it). On the higher-end, i'd see us making a meaningful difference in an area few are paying attention to.
> 
> Off the top of my head, as Supreme Emperor, i'd build a Karel Doorrman or Mistral for global HADR/TG capability, expand our AOR fleet, buy 2 more MCDV replacements and base them in CFB Jamrock (TM) with a Herc or 2, get some riverine CB90s for the RCN and Army. Feel free to add to this...


We literally have the Russians on our Northern border. Our NATO buddies would be happier if we could take care of our own backyard first. 

The Caribbean is a European creation. Let them take care of it.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Remius said:


> We literally have the Russians on our Northern border. Our NATO buddies would be happier if we could take care of our own backyard first.
> 
> The Caribbean is a European creation. Let them take care of it.


Scotia Group disagrees with your assessment:







We have interests in both regions, why not both?


----------



## FJAG

Czech_pivo said:


> Think small, be small.
> Think big, be big.
> 
> I’d much rather be a smaller fish swimming in a large lake than be a big fish in a small pond.
> 
> This country could be so much more than an Australia if we only learned to have some self confidence, stop being so bloody cheap and constantly looking over our shoulder.


Couldn't agree with you more.

We have a larger GDP than S Korea and Russia. That makes us number 9 in the world. We're roughly 15% ahead of Australia which is number 13.

It may be that our next door neighbour (who is #1 and has 11 times the GDP) gives us an inferiority complex. Or maybe we're led by a government that has tremendous risk aversion and lives in a Pearsonian 1957s fairyland  that we are the world's peacekeepers. We played with that role a half century ago and it has become such a strong part of our mythology that it has completely blotted out our actual warfighting history of the War of 1812-4, the Fenian affair, the 1st and 2nd World Wars and Korea and the fact that that role no longer carries any water.

Whatever it is, its resulted in a government that won't do anything but pay lip service to defence and a defence bureaucracy that is more concerned about administrating itself than creating credible defence capabilities.

If we want to carry weight to the table we not only need an effective military but be seen on the world stage (and at the very least by our allies) to be dependable and capable. Sure we play a role in Latvia, but there are NATO countries much smaller than us and with a tiny fraction of our GDP who are doing just as much.

We are seen as cheapskates and dilletants by our allies. What really hurts though is that what we are being seen as is exactly what we are.

🍻


----------



## Retired AF Guy

Czech_pivo said:


> Barbados ditched Her Majesty, Jamaica is up next. Won’t be much left of the Commonwealth over the next two decades.


Barbados could still remain a member of Commonwealth of Nations (members of the Commonwealth who no longer have QEII as head of state).


----------



## Kirkhill

Remius said:


> We literally have the Russians on our Northern border. Our NATO buddies would be happier if we could take care of our own backyard first.
> 
> The Caribbean is a European creation. Let them take care of it.



So what you are saying is that there is enough work for us in our home hemisphere we don't have to go looking for trouble in Europe and Asia?


----------



## JLB50

FJAG said:


> Couldn't agree with you more.
> 
> We have a larger GDP than S Korea and Russia. That makes us number 9 in the world. We're roughly 15% ahead of Australia which is number 13.
> 
> It may be that our next door neighbour (who is #1 and has 11 times the GDP) gives us an inferiority complex. Or maybe we're led by a government that has tremendous risk aversion and lives in a Pearsonian 1957s fairyland  that we are the world's peacekeepers. We played with that role a half century ago and it has become such a strong part of our mythology that it has completely blotted out our actual warfighting history of the War of 1812-4, the Fenian affair, the 1st and 2nd World Wars and Korea and the fact that that role no longer carries any water.
> 
> Whatever it is, its resulted in a government that won't do anything but pay lip service to defence and a defence bureaucracy that is more concerned about administrating itself than creating credible defence capabilities.
> 
> If we want to carry weight to the table we not only need an effective military but be seen on the world stage (and at the very least by our allies) to be dependable and capable. Sure we play a role in Latvia, but there are NATO countries much smaller than us and with a tiny fraction of our GDP who are doing just as much.
> 
> We are seen as cheapskates and dilletants by our allies. What really hurts though is that what we are being seen as is exactly what we are.
> 
> 🍻


For quite a number of years now, Pearson’s peacekeeping role for Canada has been as out-of-date as the U.N. itself.  With our GDP we should be able to afford a much larger, better equipped army, navy and air force. I love my wife dearly, but even she is still in the mindset of Canada taking on a peacekeeper role.  

One problem is that the people in DND as well as leading generals and admirals never really complain too much.  Yes, they say we need more people and equipment but in the end roll over and say we’ll accept whatever crumbs you throw our way.  I just hope that the situation in Ukraine convinces a growing number of Canadians that a strong military is more important in our lives than it has been in decades.

Finally, I may be both older and somewhat naïve but I still believe that it can make a difference for Canadians to not only vote but also write letters to their politicians to express their views.  I have regularly sent emails to the prime minister, deputy prime minister, local MP and others in recent months.  Some of my thoughts were also quoted in Strong Secure Engaged.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Kirkhill said:


> So why not offer another pole for the Caribbean to coalesce around.  This world is rapidly becoming a matter of who you can bring to the party with you.   Why not a Canadian coalition?


It’s an interesting thought, but we’d be potentially kicking a bit of sand on Uncle Sam, do we really need to be doing that right now?
I mean, maybe if we upped the CAF to around 80-82k FT and say another 30-35k in actual deployable reserves, coupled with a 1.9-2.0% defence spending and a full ante on NORAD they’d tolerate us fishing in the Carib. 
Until then, we need to get our kit squared away before we start talking about anything else.


----------



## Kirkhill

Czech_pivo said:


> It’s an interesting thought, but we’d be potentially kicking a bit of sand on Uncle Sam, do we really need to be doing that right now?
> I mean, maybe if we upped the CAF to around 80-82k FT and say another 30-35k in actual deployable reserves, coupled with a 1.9-2.0% defence spending and a full ante on NORAD they’d tolerate us fishing in the Carib.
> Until then, we need to get our kit squared away before we start talking about anything else.



No, not kicking sand in Uncle Sam's face.  Working with him the same way we are already working with Norad, Northcom and in Op Caribe.  Perhaps there is a more local sale that can be made to the Canadian taxpayer.


----------



## MilEME09

Kirkhill said:


> No, not kicking sand in Uncle Sam's face.  Working with him the same way we are already working with Norad, Northcom and in Op Caribe.  Perhaps there is a more local sale that can be made to the Canadian taxpayer.


Convince the Turks and Caicos to become the 11th province? People might care then, air force and many would complain less come posting season too


----------



## OldSolduer

MilEME09 said:


> Convince the Turks and Caicos to become the 11th province? People might care then, air force and many would complain less come posting season too


Grenada or some other place put that forward about 30 some odd years ago


----------



## Good2Golf

MilEME09 said:


> Convince the Turks and Caicos to become the 11th province? People might care then, air force and many would complain less come posting season too


It was the other way around…T&C lobbied us to take them in as a protectorate and Canada said no formally in 2014 and nothing formal since then, as far as I can tell. 

Pity.


----------



## MilEME09

Good2Golf said:


> It was the other way around…T&C lobbied us to take them in as a protectorate and Canada said no formally in 2014 and nothing formal since then, as far as I can tell.
> 
> Pity.


You'd think we would of gone for it to give the PM a new vacation home


----------



## Prairie canuck

I think Canada desperately needs to take care of our northern approaches first before we continue to boast and half commit as we have done in the last month. If you need to get to 2% GDP then 3 or 4 bases complete with naval and air capabilities will chew through billions pretty quick. However once established our southern neighbours shouldn't have to cover our asses. Developing northern warfare equipment and capabilities would place us in the niche where we should be. Right now we can't even be counted on to help fight or train in an arctic environment. I don't think Canada was invited to the land portion of NATO winter/arctic exercise in Norway. a winter exercise without Caanada!!!


----------



## PPCLI Guy

FJAG said:


> At this rate they're gonna kick us out like the US, the UK and Australia have.


Gonna?


----------



## Good2Golf

PPCLI Guy said:


> Gonna?


Yup.  

To be ‘kicked out’ you have to be ‘in’ to begin with.  Canada is a long way away from being invited to join 3EY…


----------



## FJAG

Good2Golf said:


> Yup.
> 
> To be ‘kicked out’ you have to be ‘in’ to begin with.  Canada is a long way away from being invited to join 3EY…


And we probably won't be until we cut the psychological cord with China.


----------



## PPCLI Guy

Financial, intellectual, political, familial, criminal, financial.....


----------



## ballz

Misfire...


----------



## Good2Golf

ballz said:


> Misfire...


Whipping out huge….blanks…


----------



## ballz

Edward Campbell said:


> *RUMINT*: DND (the MND's office) gave Freeland a fairly hefty proposal ~ several (something in excess of 60) Billion dollars ~ mostly for North American/Arctic defence ~ that was late coming in but that wasn't the problem. Very, very senior officials in Finance and TB and the PMO all agree that DND and Procurement and Supply cannot manage anything more than $6.1 Billion, and they are not sure they can even manage that.
> 
> The consensus amongst the bureaucratic grownups is that DND, especially, is totally ph_cked in so far as being able to actually put some muscle on to the bare bones of a "plan" is concerned. Procurement and Supply is said to be _a)_ over-burdened, already; _b)_ hide-bound; and _c) _technologically challenged.
> 
> Finance, it is suggested, will be happy to provide more money for defence when/IF both the procurement system and DND's management (civil and military) are reformed.



That's the smartest observation I've heard come out of the PMO in a long time.



PuckChaser said:


> Leslie doesn't pull any punches for his former party of choice..
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1512170692942475269



I'm not sure that criticism is solely aimed at the LPC... the DND has turned in billions of dollars they were given because of it's incompetence.



Edward Campbell said:


> Maybe what's needed are slightly different rules for really big "nationally important" projects when validated operational requirements, politics, industrial strategies and big money all collide.



We certainly do... one would think GOFOs would have been lobbying for this and putting an easy political win in the ears of our overlords. They aren't up to that level of thinking. We promote transactional leaders, not transformational leaders. This is a problem with most big organizations but likely none more than the CAF.... because other organizations stop growing, shrink, or cease to exist when they fail to get creative thinkers to the top.



Edward Campbell said:


> My _sense_ is that the first *validated* operational requirements is a HUGE problem. _I think_ that some senior officials in the centre (PMO, Finance and TB) think that our admirals and generals want to buy "toys for the boys" rather than what the country actually needs. My _sense_, again and it's just that, not a fact, is that Wayne Eyre and Frances Allen and all the rest are, simply, not trusted to act in a responsible, professional manner.



I have a generally positive view of Eyre (despite his stupid remarks about people "retreating into retirement" which make me question just how out of touch he is) and know nothing of Allen so I have a neutral opinion of her.

But whether he likes it or not, his predecessors, and his former peers, made this bed for him and now he's got to lie in.

If he feels like he isn't trusted, perhaps he could look inwardly at that and ask why fully trained and experienced MM Techs (formerly known as Sup Techs) in the Canadian Army aren't trusted to let out more than a $5000 competitive contract. Everyone talking about how we don't have enough people/capacity? Well guess what, we're doing it to ourselves when we've got a trade for this and we won't let them do what we trained them to do because we don't trust them.... because some idiots in Division and Army HQs think that a "contracting irregularity" is some huge institutional risk (it's not) and so we should just hamstring ourselves so we don't have to staff a fucking form to get signed.

And I know everyone thinks I've got a one-track mind about money, but a lot of all the problems everyone is complaining about comes back to the obscene state of the Finance trade and no one wants to get serious about it, so have fun with that.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

ballz said:


> If he feels like he isn't trusted, perhaps he could look inwardly at that and ask why fully trained and experienced MM Techs (formerly known as Sup Techs) in the Canadian Army aren't trusted to let out more than a $5000 competitive contract. Everyone talking about how we don't have enough people/capacity? Well guess what, we're doing it to ourselves when we've got a trade for this and we won't let them do what we trained them to do because we don't trust them.... because some idiots in Division and Army HQs think that a "contracting irregularity" is some huge institutional risk (it's not) and so we should just hamstring ourselves so we don't have to staff a fucking form to get signed.
> 
> And I know everyone thinks I've got a one-track mind about money, but a lot of all the problems everyone is complaining about comes back to the obscene state of the Finance trade and no one wants to get serious about it, so have fun with that.


You know what's funny about this, my wife works for a Bank and her signing authority is now unlimited.  

It was originally $1000.00 when she first started, then it gradually increased as she became more trusted.

It was $200,000 up until this past year and now it's unlimited.  She doesn't even have a formal education in finance LOL other than through experience she has gained at work.  

We make no sense 😁


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Good2Golf said:


> Whipping out huge….blanks…


Bolt fully forward! Unseated Magazine!


----------



## MilEME09

ballz said:


> That's the smartest observation I've heard come out of the PMO in a long time.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure that criticism is solely aimed at the LPC... the DND has turned in billions of dollars they were given because of it's incompetence.
> 
> 
> 
> We certainly do... one would think GOFOs would have been lobbying for this and putting an easy political win in the ears of our overlords. They aren't up to that level of thinking. We promote transactional leaders, not transformational leaders. This is a problem with most big organizations but likely none more than the CAF.... because other organizations stop growing, shrink, or cease to exist when they fail to get creative thinkers to the top.
> 
> 
> 
> I have a generally positive view of Eyre (despite his stupid remarks about people "retreating into retirement" which make me question just how out of touch he is) and know nothing of Allen so I have a neutral opinion of her.
> 
> But whether he likes it or not, his predecessors, and his former peers, made this bed for him and now he's got to lie in.
> 
> If he feels like he isn't trusted, perhaps he could look inwardly at that and ask why fully trained and experienced MM Techs (formerly known as Sup Techs) in the Canadian Army aren't trusted to let out more than a $5000 competitive contract. Everyone talking about how we don't have enough people/capacity? Well guess what, we're doing it to ourselves when we've got a trade for this and we won't let them do what we trained them to do because we don't trust them.... because some idiots in Division and Army HQs think that a "contracting irregularity" is some huge institutional risk (it's not) and so we should just hamstring ourselves so we don't have to staff a fucking form to get signed.
> 
> And I know everyone thinks I've got a one-track mind about money, but a lot of all the problems everyone is complaining about comes back to the obscene state of the Finance trade and no one wants to get serious about it, so have fun with that.


Just to add to this, it may be $5000 but that us the account limit, any single transaction over $1000 has to go to brigade for authorization. 

We very much do this to our selves, I would also argue our supply management system is outdated and control is too centralized. Perhaps we should ask the private sector to audit us and see where we can fund improvements?


----------



## Halifax Tar

MilEME09 said:


> Just to add to this, it may be $5000 but that us the account limit, *(1) any single transaction over $1000 has to go to brigade for authorization.
> 
> (*_*2) We very much do this to our selves, I would also argue our supply management system is outdated and control is too centralized. Perhaps we should ask the private sector to audit us and see where we can fund improvements?*_



(1) That must be a local condition set by your Fin folks, we don't have to do that out here. 

(2) There is nothing wrong with DRMIS, although I will say its way to complicated for what we need.  Material Management is not rocket science. Back to DRMIS its only has accurate and useful as the user who's inputting data and doing the transactions. 

The big change is that now commands need to understand is that we have 24/7 connectivity using deployed DRMIS.  So Supply sections have to be let to do their work now while underway.  Which is much different from days gone by.


----------



## Halifax Tar

ballz said:


> If he feels like he isn't trusted, perhaps he could look inwardly at that and ask why fully trained and experienced MM Techs (formerly known as Sup Techs) in the Canadian Army aren't trusted to let out more than a $5000 competitive contract. Everyone talking about how we don't have enough people/capacity? Well guess what, we're doing it to ourselves when we've got a trade for this and we won't let them do what we trained them to do because we don't trust them.... because some idiots in Division and Army HQs think that a "contracting irregularity" is some huge institutional risk (it's not) and so we should just hamstring ourselves so we don't have to staff a fucking form to get signed.



I think it might be worth creating either a new trade for procurement or a sub occupation specialty in Supply; perhaps a duel stream for FSAs and MMTs ?  The procurement world is big and complicated, we might do better with dedicated folks.


----------



## MilEME09

Halifax Tar said:


> I think it might be worth creating either a new trade for procurement or a sub occupation specialty in Supply; perhaps a duel stream for FSAs and MMTs ?  The procurement world is big and complicated, we might do better with dedicated folks.


Or perhaps procurement needs it's own trade?


----------



## SeaKingTacco

MilEME09 said:


> Or perhaps procurement needs it's own trade?


Why does it need to be a uniformed, CAF occupation?


----------



## Halifax Tar

MilEME09 said:


> Or perhaps procurement needs it's own trade?



That's what I said.  Or a sub occ. 



SeaKingTacco said:


> Why does it need to be a uniformed, CAF occupation?



Because we do procurement and contracting while deployed.


----------



## Kirkhill

MilEME09 said:


> Or perhaps procurement needs it's own trade?



Is that a FIN trade or a Supply Trade?

Does it start with the Bn Pay Clerk or the CQ?  I think there is an argument that the CQ's shop is the one that should be taking the lead in "procurement".  That job is to procure those things that the sub-unit needs to do its job. Does the CQ have a cash budget to make good shortfalls from the local economy if the official supply chain is found wanting?


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Halifax Tar said:


> That's what I said.  Or a sub occ.
> 
> 
> 
> Because we do procurement and contracting while deployed.


Pretty big deal on Ship.  So many Parts!


----------



## Halifax Tar

Kirkhill said:


> Is that a FIN trade or a Supply Trade?
> 
> Does it start with the Bn Pay Clerk or the CQ?  I think there is an argument that the CQ's shop is the one that should be taking the lead in "procurement".  That job is to procure those things that the sub-unit needs to do its job. Does the CQ have a cash budget to make good shortfalls from the local economy if the official supply chain is found wanting?





Halifax Tar said:


> I think it might be worth creating either a new trade for procurement or a sub occupation specialty in Supply; perhaps a duel stream for FSAs and MMTs ?  The procurement world is big and complicated, we might do better with dedicated folks.


----------



## MilEME09

Kirkhill said:


> Is that a FIN trade or a Supply Trade?
> 
> Does it start with the Bn Pay Clerk or the CQ?  I think there is an argument that the CQ's shop is the one that should be taking the lead in "procurement".  That job is to procure those things that the sub-unit needs to do its job. Does the CQ have a cash budget to make good shortfalls from the local economy if the official supply chain is found wanting?


Depends on SOAs, certain items the CAF has contracts for to use certain suppliers. If something is not in a SOA for a supplier, you can local purchase where ever you want.

It would need to be a hybrid of fin and supply.


----------



## Halifax Tar

MilEME09 said:


> Depends on SOAs, certain items the CAF has contracts for to use certain suppliers. If something is not in a SOA for a supplier, you can local purchase where ever you want.
> 
> It would need to be a hybrid of fin and supply.



Do you have experience in CAF contracting ?  You're wildly inaccurate.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Humphrey Bogart said:


> Pretty big deal on Ship.  So many Parts!



Not parts.  Units are not funded to buy their own spare parts.  That is one of the the jobs of ADM(MAT), the CFSS is theirs to keep stocked.


----------



## MilEME09

Halifax Tar said:


> Do you have experience in CAF contracting ?  You're wildly inaccurate.


Working directly our LPO on several occasions for both purchasing for courses, and maintenance. This is how it was explained to me, so if my information is incorrect, my apologies


----------



## Halifax Tar

MilEME09 said:


> Working directly our LPO on several occasions for both purchasing for courses, and maintenance. This is how it was explained to me, so if my information is incorrect, my apologies



Non needed.  Just a friendly conversation. 



MilEME09 said:


> Depends on SOAs, certain items the CAF has contracts for to use certain suppliers. *If something is not in a SOA for a supplier, you can local purchase where ever you want.*
> 
> It would need to be a hybrid of fin and supply.



An SOA is only a preestablished agreement with a supplier for specific material or types of material. 

A piece of material not being on an SOA does not equate it to buy where every you want.  The only things that should be procured locally are consumable items, that wont have become a  reoccurring contract and that aren't already supplied through the CFSS.


----------



## McG

Halifax Tar said:


> I think it might be worth creating either a new trade for procurement or a sub occupation specialty in Supply; perhaps a duel stream for FSAs and MMTs ? The procurement world is big and complicated, we might do better with dedicated folks.





MilEME09 said:


> Or perhaps procurement needs it's own trade?





SeaKingTacco said:


> Why does it need to be a uniformed, CAF occupation?


We also send DCC into deployed theatres to do infrastructure planning and contracting. If the environment is stable enough that the local economy is a substantial source for our sustainment but causes a requirement for specialist procurement officers, then the environment is probably safe enough for us to send civilians.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

I think we should just outsource our entire Military to Halliburton and Kellogg Brown & Root.  It would probably be more cost effective 🤣


----------



## Halifax Tar

McG said:


> We also send DCC into deployed theatres to do infrastructure planning and contracting. If the environment is stable enough that the local economy is a substantial source for our sustainment but causes a requirement for specialist procurement officers, then the environment is probably safe enough for us to send civilians.



I dunno.  I suppose, if that's what you think.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Halifax Tar said:


> I dunno.  I suppose, if that's what you think.


I like how the main suggestion is that we should do the same thing over again:

Outsource to civilian positions

When it is that exact thing which has made DND such an epic soup sandwich.

Clearly we need to keep doing that.  I think we should make every single position a civilian, that will surely improve our combat performance 😁


----------



## Halifax Tar

Humphrey Bogart said:


> I like how the main suggestion is that we should do the same thing over again:
> 
> Outsource to civilian positions
> 
> When it is that exact thing which has made DND such an epic soup sandwich.
> 
> Clearly we need to keep doing that.  I think we should make every single position a civilian, that will surely improve our combat performance 😁



I agree, just not a position I'm interested in debating.


----------



## McG

There is a point between the extremes of everyone is civilian and “we need combat shoppers.”


----------



## Underway

PPCLI Guy said:


> Financial, intellectual, political, familial, criminal, financial.....


Australia is still way more in bed with China still than we ever will be.  I used to live there.  It dominates everything they do and their immigration as well.

Australia's Defence Policy Explained...


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Underway said:


> Australia is still way more in bed with China still than we ever will be.  I used to live there.  It dominates everything they do and their immigration as well.
> 
> Australia's Defence Policy Explained...


China doesn't have to fight Australia, they are simply going to buy the place.


----------



## Halifax Tar

McG said:


> There is a point between the extremes of everyone is civilian and “we need combat shoppers.”



So you do think we need _some_ uniformed people in procurement ?


----------



## dimsum

Humphrey Bogart said:


> China doesn't have to fight Australia, they are simply going to buy buying the place.











						Australia to build new Darwin port after Chinese lease
					

It’s unclear if the new port would be for industrial use or also for visiting naval ships from the US and UK; China’s Landbridge Group secured a 99-year lease for Port of Darwin’s commercial operations in 2015.




					www.scmp.com


----------



## ballz

Halifax Tar said:


> I think it might be worth creating either a new trade for procurement or a sub occupation specialty in Supply; perhaps a duel stream for FSAs and MMTs ?  The procurement world is big and complicated, we might do better with dedicated folks.



I can't speak to procurement itself but the FSAs should not be involved in the actual procurement process. FSAs are the CAF's accountants, whether anyone in the CAF realizes that or not. Accountants should not be involved in procurement, that's 100% a supply/warehouse function.

FSAs _should_ be doing all of the Accounts Payable (A/P) for the procurement. Accounts payable is 100% a finance function, however, since they did away with the old Finance trade (who did the A/P) it left a vacuum and Supply ended up getting sucked into it.... now everyone is convinced it belongs to supply because "that's the way it's always been" as far as they can remember. If the finance trade had any cents (pun intended) they'd know 1) A/P is a finance function 2) poorly executed A/P leads to very poor fin mgmt, as seen every year in the CAF when we hold all the money back and then try to blow in the last 4 months of the year, after procurement deadlines have been passed, because we're not capable of tracking our expenses.


If finance got a grip on A/P, then we wouldn't need to wait 6 months after an exercise to know how much money we spent, we'd know as soon as the deployment was over how much it cost. Which means we would be able to actually provide proper financial information to Commanders, who can then properly manage their budget supported by useful information (not someone staring at "commitments" in DRMIS and trying to guess how much will slip) and we wouldn't end up in a situation where the department realizes it has too much money in November and finally starts giving it out.... after the procurement deadlines for anything over $25k have already been passed.

Furthermore, finance is supposed to be the experts on controls. So when the G4 types start telling Commanders they shouldn't delegate more contracting authority despite the obvious benefits* because of "contracting irregularities" being some big huge institution risk, a competent financial controller can put them in their place and articulate what the risk actually is. The _actual _risk is someone starts abusing their procurement authorities for personal gain, by say, awarding contracts to people/businesses they know, who might be taking them out to an Oilers game and a fancy dinner, or to themselves, etc. The contracting irregularity process is there to investigate that, to determine _if it's just an honest mistake_ or if it's something nefarious. The wholly incompetent people I've seen "advising" on this treat both those instances the same because they think it's  the contracting irregularity in and of itself that is the issue, and the Finance people who are supposed to know better simply don't.

A competent finance person might actually point out that the bigger risk of nefarious procurement activity like that is actually having one person in the same chair too long, and everyone becoming fully reliant on that person, i.e. the DND public servants who get hired on a base and become the only people allowed to contract anything over $5,000. This is not exactly a risk with a MM Tech Corporal who is only in the chair for 2 years! So here they are jumping up and down about the "risk" of having more contracting irregularities if Supply Techs are given more authority, and meanwhile creating an environment that introduces the real risk (which flies right over their head).

A competent finance officer might even realize that a many individual MM Techs currently have the ability to both procure and pay for a purchase order in DRMIS, which is a huge institutional risk and it's literally internal controls for dummies and yet that's exactly what the CAF has set up right now _because those who are supposed to know how these systems work and when an internal control deficiency is occurring (finance) don't!_

In short, Finance actually doing it's job and controlling A/P:
a) would allow us to track our expenses properly so we could stop being so shitty at financial management and give out the money for big expenditures in April so that it can actually be procured.
b) Frees up MM Techs/Public Servants who are supposed to be doing procurement so they can actually focus on that, expanding our procurement capabilities.
b) Reduces risk overall (final check and balance on the entire expenditure management process before any money goes out the door would be finance, the ones who _on paper_ are the DND's SMEs on the expenditure management process), but in particular, reduces the risk of nefarious activity in procurement, which in turn further enables greater contracting authorities for those doing contracting, further maximizing capacity of our human resources that we spent so much money on but won't let them do their jobs.

An enthusiastic finance officer may have spent 4 years pestering every possible avenue (Command net, G4 net, G8 net, CDAO net, and even directly to ADM(Fin) who has an SOP that is supposed to be department wide that says Finance owns A/P) with countless briefing notes, hoping one of them would stick to the wall eventually so the CAF could stop being so shitty..... that person (me, if the reader hasn't figured it out) now works in the private sector for a very large accounting firm auditing very large private and publicly traded corporations and is much happier for it.


----------



## ballz

Kirkhill said:


> Does it start with the Bn Pay Clerk or the CQ?  I think there is an argument that the CQ's shop is the one that should be taking the lead in "procurement".  That job is to procure those things that the sub-unit needs to do its job. Does the CQ have a cash budget to make good shortfalls from the local economy if the official supply chain is found wanting?



Pay/Compensation/benefits is actually an HRA function... don't even get me started on that.

No, CQs don't have a budget... in two of three Reg Force Brigades I was in, I've never been able to find a unit that is willing to delegate any budget and requisite financial authorities

Many will say each sub-unit has a budget because they have a line on their budget that says "A Coy, $10,000," but no one even knows about it nor has a DOA to do anything with it if they did.... sorry buds but if you gotta go get the cash out of mommy and daddy's wallet, and their approval to buy what you wanna buy before you can have the cash, you don't actually have an allowance.

Which is exactly why some maintainer got POL in their eyes because the Maint Pl didn't have safety goggles "because there's no money" meanwhile their unit was swimming in cash, blowing it on a $600 Keurig for the CO's office and customized Xmas cards that he could send out to all his friends.

Anyway, I'm gonna go take a valium 😵‍💫


----------



## Halifax Tar

ballz said:


> I can't speak to procurement itself but the FSAs should not be involved in the actual procurement process. FSAs are the CAF's accountants, whether anyone in the CAF realizes that or not. Accountants should not be involved in procurement, that's 100% a supply/warehouse function.
> 
> FSAs _should_ be doing all of the Accounts Payable (A/P) for the procurement. Accounts payable is 100% a finance function, however, since they did away with the old Finance trade (who did the A/P) it left a vacuum and Supply ended up getting sucked into it.... now everyone is convinced it belongs to supply because "that's the way it's always been" as far as they can remember. If the finance trade had any cents (pun intended) they'd know 1) A/P is a finance function 2) poorly executed A/P leads to very poor fin mgmt, as seen every year in the CAF when we hold all the money back and then try to blow in the last 4 months of the year, after procurement deadlines have been passed, because we're not capable of tracking our expenses.
> 
> 
> If finance got a grip on A/P, then we wouldn't need to wait 6 months after an exercise to know how much money we spent, we'd know as soon as the deployment was over how much it cost. Which means we would be able to actually provide proper financial information to Commanders, who can then properly manage their budget supported by useful information (not someone staring at "commitments" in DRMIS and trying to guess how much will slip) and we wouldn't end up in a situation where the department realizes it has too much money in November and finally starts giving it out.... after the procurement deadlines for anything over $25k have already been passed.
> 
> Furthermore, finance is supposed to be the experts on controls. So when the G4 types start telling Commanders they shouldn't delegate more contracting authority despite the obvious benefits* because of "contracting irregularities" being some big huge institution risk, a competent financial controller can put them in their place and articulate what the risk actually is. The _actual _risk is someone starts abusing their procurement authorities for personal gain, by say, awarding contracts to people/businesses they know, who might be taking them out to an Oilers game and a fancy dinner, or to themselves, etc. The contracting irregularity process is there to investigate that, to determine _if it's just an honest mistake_ or if it's something nefarious. The wholly incompetent people I've seen "advising" on this treat both those instances the same because they think it's  the contracting irregularity in and of itself that is the issue, and the Finance people who are supposed to know better simply don't.
> 
> A competent finance person might actually point out that the bigger risk of nefarious procurement activity like that is actually having one person in the same chair too long, and everyone becoming fully reliant on that person, i.e. the DND public servants who get hired on a base and become the only people allowed to contract anything over $5,000. This is not exactly a risk with a MM Tech Corporal who is only in the chair for 2 years! So here they are jumping up and down about the "risk" of having more contracting irregularities if Supply Techs are given more authority, and meanwhile creating an environment that introduces the real risk (which flies right over their head).
> 
> A competent finance officer might even realize that a many individual MM Techs currently have the ability to both procure and pay for a purchase order in DRMIS, which is a huge institutional risk and it's literally internal controls for dummies and yet that's exactly what the CAF has set up right now _because those who are supposed to know how these systems work and when an internal control deficiency is occurring (finance) don't!_
> 
> In short, Finance actually doing it's job and controlling A/P:
> a) would allow us to track our expenses properly so we could stop being so shitty at financial management and give out the money for big expenditures in April so that it can actually be procured.
> b) Frees up MM Techs/Public Servants who are supposed to be doing procurement so they can actually focus on that, expanding our procurement capabilities.
> b) Reduces risk overall (final check and balance on the entire expenditure management process before any money goes out the door would be finance, the ones who _on paper_ are the DND's SMEs on the expenditure management process), but in particular, reduces the risk of nefarious activity in procurement, which in turn further enables greater contracting authorities for those doing contracting, further maximizing capacity of our human resources that we spent so much money on but won't let them do their jobs.
> 
> An enthusiastic finance officer may have spent 4 years pestering every possible avenue (Command net, G4 net, G8 net, CDAO net, and even directly to ADM(Fin) who has an SOP that is supposed to be department wide that says Finance owns A/P) with countless briefing notes, hoping one of them would stick to the wall eventually so the CAF could stop being so shitty..... that person (me, if the reader hasn't figured it out) now works in the private sector for a very large accounting firm auditing very large private and publicly traded corporations and is much happier for it.



Fair enough.  I am coming from a procurement background and figured they may have something to being too it, but I am no SME on the FSA world.


----------



## OldSolduer

PPCLI Guy said:


> Financial, intellectual, political, familial, criminal, financial.....


Just say no to Huawei


----------



## Good2Golf

OldSolduer said:


> Just say no to Huawei


I don’t have any faith that will actually happen, OS.  Le Dauphin is beholden to the dictatorial bent of Xi et Cie.


----------



## OldSolduer

Humphrey Bogart said:


> China doesn't have to fight Australia, they are simply going to buy the place.


A similar pattern to the Romans et al. Why fight when you can buy?


----------



## Good2Golf

OldSolduer said:


> A similar pattern to the Romans et al. Why fight when you can buy?


Or lease…






						Scott Morrison says the government had no authority to reject or approve the leasing of the Port of Darwin to a Chinese company. Is that correct? - ABC News
					






					amp.abc.net.au


----------



## KevinB

Procurement =/= Acquisition =/= Supply 

Everything in the system for combat function should be under Supply with the various LCMM and G4 shops supplying those systems. 
  With BPA’s (blanket purchase agreements) in place to support and LPO authorization to get items that can’t be immediately delivered through the system.  Obviously some items won’t be LPO’able and local spares on too of what is expected for PM need to be available. 

Down here folks have 10k impac cards and the ‘rules’ for their usage. 


			Defense Finance and Accounting Service  > contractorsvendors > govtpurcard
		


We also have TLS Prime Vendors, DLA and GSA 








						Contracts for January 5, 2021
					

Today's Defense Department contracts valued at $7.5 million or more are now live on Defense.gov.



					www.defense.gov
				





			The Nation's Combat Logistics Support Agency
		









						Home
					

Front Page for the GSA.gov website




					www.gsa.gov
				




That is just to support fielded systems (in theory no new items can be acquired, but folks get creative all the time). 

It is horribly inefficient, and wasteful.  But it does a good job of ensuring items are available (often too many and poor accounting etc - but it is what it is).


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

ballz said:


> I can't speak to procurement itself but the FSAs should not be involved in the actual procurement process. FSAs are the CAF's accountants, whether anyone in the CAF realizes that or not. Accountants should not be involved in procurement, that's 100% a supply/warehouse function.
> 
> FSAs _should_ be doing all of the Accounts Payable (A/P) for the procurement. Accounts payable is 100% a finance function, however, since they did away with the old Finance trade (who did the A/P) it left a vacuum and Supply ended up getting sucked into it.... now everyone is convinced it belongs to supply because "that's the way it's always been" as far as they can remember. If the finance trade had any cents (pun intended) they'd know 1) A/P is a finance function 2) poorly executed A/P leads to very poor fin mgmt, as seen every year in the CAF when we hold all the money back and then try to blow in the last 4 months of the year, after procurement deadlines have been passed, because we're not capable of tracking our expenses.
> 
> 
> If finance got a grip on A/P, then we wouldn't need to wait 6 months after an exercise to know how much money we spent, we'd know as soon as the deployment was over how much it cost. Which means we would be able to actually provide proper financial information to Commanders, who can then properly manage their budget supported by useful information (not someone staring at "commitments" in DRMIS and trying to guess how much will slip) and we wouldn't end up in a situation where the department realizes it has too much money in November and finally starts giving it out.... after the procurement deadlines for anything over $25k have already been passed.
> 
> Furthermore, finance is supposed to be the experts on controls. So when the G4 types start telling Commanders they shouldn't delegate more contracting authority despite the obvious benefits* because of "contracting irregularities" being some big huge institution risk, a competent financial controller can put them in their place and articulate what the risk actually is. The _actual _risk is someone starts abusing their procurement authorities for personal gain, by say, awarding contracts to people/businesses they know, who might be taking them out to an Oilers game and a fancy dinner, or to themselves, etc. The contracting irregularity process is there to investigate that, to determine _if it's just an honest mistake_ or if it's something nefarious. The wholly incompetent people I've seen "advising" on this treat both those instances the same because they think it's  the contracting irregularity in and of itself that is the issue, and the Finance people who are supposed to know better simply don't.
> 
> A competent finance person might actually point out that the bigger risk of nefarious procurement activity like that is actually having one person in the same chair too long, and everyone becoming fully reliant on that person, i.e. the DND public servants who get hired on a base and become the only people allowed to contract anything over $5,000. This is not exactly a risk with a MM Tech Corporal who is only in the chair for 2 years! So here they are jumping up and down about the "risk" of having more contracting irregularities if Supply Techs are given more authority, and meanwhile creating an environment that introduces the real risk (which flies right over their head).
> 
> A competent finance officer might even realize that a many individual MM Techs currently have the ability to both procure and pay for a purchase order in DRMIS, which is a huge institutional risk and it's literally internal controls for dummies and yet that's exactly what the CAF has set up right now _because those who are supposed to know how these systems work and when an internal control deficiency is occurring (finance) don't!_
> 
> In short, Finance actually doing it's job and controlling A/P:
> a) would allow us to track our expenses properly so we could stop being so shitty at financial management and give out the money for big expenditures in April so that it can actually be procured.
> b) Frees up MM Techs/Public Servants who are supposed to be doing procurement so they can actually focus on that, expanding our procurement capabilities.
> b) Reduces risk overall (final check and balance on the entire expenditure management process before any money goes out the door would be finance, the ones who _on paper_ are the DND's SMEs on the expenditure management process), but in particular, reduces the risk of nefarious activity in procurement, which in turn further enables greater contracting authorities for those doing contracting, further maximizing capacity of our human resources that we spent so much money on but won't let them do their jobs.
> 
> An enthusiastic finance officer may have spent 4 years pestering every possible avenue (Command net, G4 net, G8 net, CDAO net, and even directly to ADM(Fin) who has an SOP that is supposed to be department wide that says Finance owns A/P) with countless briefing notes, hoping one of them would stick to the wall eventually so the CAF could stop being so shitty..... that person (me, if the reader hasn't figured it out) now works in the private sector for a very large accounting firm auditing very large private and publicly traded corporations and is much happier for it.


It's almost like you're a chartered professional accountant or something 😁

I'm sure you can get hired for $200.00 an hour as a consultant to advise them on the way forward.  

They won't take your advice and will discard the report as soon as it's produced.  Such is life in the GoC 😁


----------



## CountDC

some clump the finance, supply and contracting all together as they are close together in doing the same thing aren't they?!?!? 

I remember when in AP my involvement with supply and contracts was making sure there was a valid contract and all the authorities were in place before paying the invoice.   These days I may have to approve the purchase for the supply person that should be able to do it himself.  Ballz has nailed it - FSA is still highly misunderstood and misused while supply is not given the room they should have.  

but hey, anyone can do procurement - always go with the lowest bidder and ignore all the other points that are supposed to be considered.  At least that is what I always see happening.


----------



## Czech_pivo

I'm sure that some of you have already read this info









						Canada’s defence spending ‘likely wasn’t enough’ for America’s liking
					

Joe Biden’s ambassador to Canada told the Star the defence spending in the budget likely isn’t enough to satisfy the U.S. government.




					www.thestar.com
				




Canada’s defence spending ‘likely wasn’t enough’ for America’s liking​


----------



## Good2Golf

Czech_pivo said:


> I'm sure that some of you have already read this info
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Canada’s defence spending ‘likely wasn’t enough’ for America’s liking
> 
> 
> Joe Biden’s ambassador to Canada told the Star the defence spending in the budget likely isn’t enough to satisfy the U.S. government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.thestar.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Canada’s defence spending ‘likely wasn’t enough’ for America’s liking​


----------



## Haggis

Czech_pivo said:


> I'm sure that some of you have already read this info
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Canada’s defence spending ‘likely wasn’t enough’ for America’s liking
> 
> 
> Joe Biden’s ambassador to Canada told the Star the defence spending in the budget likely isn’t enough to satisfy the U.S. government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.thestar.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Canada’s defence spending ‘likely wasn’t enough’ for America’s liking​


Nobody in the US Government votes in Canadian elections, so does this matter to the Liberals?  No.

Similarly, although Trudeau is still getting bashed in the EU following his speech last month, the Liberals don't care as no members of the EU parliament vote in Canadian elections, either.


----------



## OldSolduer

Haggis said:


> Nobody in the US Government votes in Canadian elections, so does this matter to the Liberals?  No.
> 
> Similarly, although Trudeau is still getting bashed in the EU following his speech last month, the Liberals don't care as no members of the EU parliament vote in Canadian elections, either.


We all know who he cares about - he cares about Trudeau.


----------



## rmc_wannabe

Haggis said:


> Nobody in the US Government votes in Canadian elections, so does this matter to the Liberals?  No.
> 
> Similarly, although Trudeau is still getting bashed in the EU following his speech last month, the Liberals don't care as no members of the EU parliament vote in Canadian elections, either.


Holding and maintaining power domestically at all costs is a bad look on the world stage....


----------



## OldSolduer

rmc_wannabe said:


> Holding and maintaining power domestically at all costs is a bad look on the world stage....


And this won't hit home to most Canadians who will wonder why we're going to be shut out of various international working groups.

I can hear the whining "but we're peacekeepers!!" and other such nonsense.


----------



## Good2Golf

rmc_wannabe said:


> Holding and maintaining power domestically at all costs is a bad look on the world stage....


But not a bad look here…


----------



## OldSolduer

Good2Golf said:


> But not a bad look here…
> View attachment 70023


Given the choice between a part time substitute drama teacher and a comedian as PM I'd take the comedian.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Haggis said:


> Nobody in the US Government votes in Canadian elections, so does this matter to the Liberals?  No.
> 
> Similarly, although Trudeau is still getting bashed in the EU following his speech last month, the Liberals don't care as no members of the EU parliament vote in Canadian elections, either.


True statements.

Here's to hoping the the US, the UK, Germans, Dutch, Danes, Poles and anyone/everyone else calls us out during the June NATO meeting and seats us with Albania, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Hungary, Luxembourg, Iceland and Greece during the discussions and photo ops.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Czech_pivo said:


> I'm sure that some of you have already read this info
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Canada’s defence spending ‘likely wasn’t enough’ for America’s liking
> 
> 
> Joe Biden’s ambassador to Canada told the Star the defence spending in the budget likely isn’t enough to satisfy the U.S. government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.thestar.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Canada’s defence spending ‘likely wasn’t enough’ for America’s liking​


Still just RUMINT, but:

1. The amount that the MND/DM put forward was something like 10 to 15 times what the Finance Minister promised in the budget and that ($60-$90B) is what the Americans guess we should be investing in North American defence.

2. It's not all just for NORAD. Despite the fact that the Americans don't accept all of our clams to all of our Arctic waterways they believe that we ~ not they ~ should have bases, ships and so on up there, doing the job as part of a coordinated (*combined*) continental defence system.

3. The Americans would welcome us into their continental ballistic missile defence system ... at what amount to being fire-sale prices because the system will work better if our airspace is part of it. *But* even they understand that _*combined*_ systems ~ like NORAD, like BMD ~ erode our sovereignty because Canada will never be a fully equal partner; we will always be the junior partner. They understand that and they understand that Canadian nationalists don't like that. *But*, when push comes to shove, they will not hesitate  to invoke the diplomatic/strategic equivalent of _force majeure._


----------



## Kirkhill

Edward Campbell said:


> Still just RUMINT, but:
> 
> 1. The amount that the MND/DM put forward was something like 10 to 15 times what the Finance Minister promised in the budget and that ($60-$90B) is what the Americans guess we should be investing in North American defence.
> 
> 2. It's not all just for NORAD. Despite the fact that the Americans don't accept all of our clams to all of our Arctic waterways they believe that we ~ not they ~ should have bases, ships and so on up there, doing the job as part of a coordinated (*combined*) continental defence system.
> 
> 3. The Americans would welcome us into their continental ballistic missile defence system ... at what amount to being fire-sale prices because the system will work better if our airspace is part of it. *But* even they understand that _*combined*_ systems ~ like NORAD, like BMD ~ erode our sovereignty because Canada will never be a fully equal partner; we will always be the junior partner. They understand that and they understand that Canadian nationalists don't like that. *But*, when push comes to shove, they will not hesitate  to invoke the diplomatic/strategic equivalent of _force majeure._





> when push comes to shove, they will not hesitate  to invoke the diplomatic/strategic equivalent of _force majeure._



See Also - Prince Rupert, AlCan Highway, Argentia, Goose Bay, Iqaluit, Eureka, Alert, Pine Tree, DEW and North Warning,


----------



## Czech_pivo

Edward Campbell said:


> Still just RUMINT, but:
> 
> 1. The amount that the MND/DM put forward was something like 10 to 15 times what the Finance Minister promised in the budget and that ($60-$90B) is what the Americans guess we should be investing in North American defence.
> 
> 2. It's not all just for NORAD. Despite the fact that the Americans don't accept all of our clams to all of our Arctic waterways they believe that we ~ not they ~ should have bases, ships and so on up there, doing the job as part of a coordinated (*combined*) continental defence system.
> 
> 3. The Americans would welcome us into their continental ballistic missile defence system ... at what amount to being fire-sale prices because the system will work better if our airspace is part of it. *But* even they understand that _*combined*_ systems ~ like NORAD, like BMD ~ erode our sovereignty because Canada will never be a fully equal partner; we will always be the junior partner. They understand that and they understand that Canadian nationalists don't like that. *But*, when push comes to shove, they will not hesitate  to invoke the diplomatic/strategic equivalent of _force majeure._


1) The DM said that she was putting forward 3 funding proposals, what I would label, the _'Porridge'_ approach.  The first being _'too hot'_,  the second being_ 'just right'_ and the last being_ 'too cold'._  I have zero way of knowing this, but I suspect you're RUMINT under your #1 is the _'too hot'_ approach.  Put out some WAG for all those hawks that exist here in Canada and say, 'look, this is how much we were looking to spend and to try to make us an actual player once again, but XXXX wouldn't let us.' 

2) If we had real assets on the ground (or Mukluks in the snow) throughout the Arctic 12 months of the year, it would gain credence and some respect from the US (and UK/Danes/Norwegians - the recent offer by the UK to 'help' us defend/patrol the Arctic is a perfect example). Stationing SAR bases/resources allocated for covering NWT/NT/Yukon thousands of KM in the south doesn't really say that we take that area seriously. And its not just the Far North that these lack of resources hold true or, the over-relying on the US.  When I was growing up back in Windsor and would be out fishing/boating/sailing on Lake St. Clair, the Detroit River or the western basin of the Lake Erie, I knew, as did everyone else on those waters, that if help/rescue was needed that 9/10 times it would come from the USCG helo's or Cutters coming from Belle Isle, Toledo, St Clair Shores or Selfridges ANG, it wouldn't be the CCG coming over the horizon or a Griffon coming from Trenton.

3) When have we ever been an equal partner to anyone?  It's never occurred.  
In the past it was due to tiny population and being significantly poorer than our Allies, while currently it's still a small population (when compared to US/UK/France/Germany/Spain/Italy) and less testicular fortitude to pony up on the costs related to actually being a legitimate 'middle power'. It doesn't help our cause with the Americans when it seems to be fair game for the Federal Liberal party to throw stones at the US's house glass house every single time they get the chance. The exact same can be said about our media. It's a national past time to beat our chests and say how much better we are then them.  This totally comes from an inferiority complex that a significant portion of Canadians have  had since just after the days of Confederation when the US well and truly started to massively outperform us economically. 

Do I have the answers?  No, not even close.  But reconstituting the CAF, through greater involvement politically, economically and asset backing in NORAD and NATO can only help our case.  Its close, very close to the point that continuing to do what we do will be the end of this country's world standing.  

My Grandfather used to say to me when I was a small boy, 'It's easy to destroy something, but to try and rebuild it, that takes years and years and in the end, it may never happen.'


----------



## Good2Golf

Czech_pivo said:


> My Grandfather used to say to me when I was a small boy, 'It's easy to destroy something, but to try and rebuild it, that takes years and years and in the end, it may never happen.'


This may be where we are reputationally…I fear we are at a point where Canada won’t ever be taken as seriously again as we were in the past when we were a true middle power…up until…oh….say 1968….


----------



## Brad Sallows

Thing is: US doesn't need us to contribute more than political spine to missions overseas.  We could be a better partner just by doing (spending) more at home.


----------



## WLSC

You guys think that IF one day our PM had no choice but to give is apology to us, he’ll cry, a bit, just a tiny tiny bit 😏?


----------



## KevinB

Edward Campbell said:


> Still just RUMINT, but:
> 
> 1. The amount that the MND/DM put forward was something like 10 to 15 times what the Finance Minister promised in the budget and that ($60-$90B) is what the Americans guess we should be investing in North American defence.
> 
> 2. It's not all just for NORAD. Despite the fact that the Americans don't accept all of our clams to all of our Arctic waterways they believe that we ~ not they ~ should have bases, ships and so on up there, doing the job as part of a coordinated (*combined*) continental defence system.
> 
> 3. The Americans would welcome us into their continental ballistic missile defence system ... at what amount to being fire-sale prices because the system will work better if our airspace is part of it. *But* even they understand that _*combined*_ systems ~ like NORAD, like BMD ~ erode our sovereignty because Canada will never be a fully equal partner; we will always be the junior partner. They understand that and they understand that Canadian nationalists don't like that. *But*, when push comes to shove, they will not hesitate  to invoke the diplomatic/strategic equivalent of _force majeure._


Partner (junior) or slave -- pick one...


----------



## Kirkhill

Kirkhill said:


> See Also - Prince Rupert, AlCan Highway, Argentia, Goose Bay, Iqaluit, Eureka, Alert, Pine Tree, DEW and North Warning,


Forgot one...

Kuujjuaq - another WW2 development by the US.  A weather station.


----------



## Kirkhill

The HBC factories and forts for 300 years.  The Norwegians and Danes around 1900.  The USAF from the 1940s to 1980s.

Have the southern settlers ever shown any interest in the Arctic?


----------



## ballz

Humphrey Bogart said:


> It's almost like you're a chartered professional accountant or something 😁
> 
> I'm sure you can get hired for $200.00 an hour as a consultant to advise them on the way forward.
> 
> They won't take your advice and will discard the report as soon as it's produced.  Such is life in the GoC 😁



Kinda like they already ignore it even though it's departmental direction? $400/hr is the going rate, minimum charge of $1000. Ironically I'd be telling them exactly what's already written in the FAM on S.34 where it clearly shows finance staff are supposed to manage payables.............. see attachment, 5th column.



CountDC said:


> I remember when in AP my involvement with supply and contracts was making sure there was a valid contract and all the authorities were in place before paying the invoice.



That's part of it... ensure EIA/S.32 is on the file, ensure a valid contract is in place*, confirm receipt of goods/services is there, and then do the account verification, sign S.34, and pay it. Amongst that is verifying that segregation of duties was exercised.... like I had said, the person doing this should be the SME on the expenditure management process (not contracting itself). That's really it for 99% of transactions.

*This just means checking to see that the person who authorized the contract (signed the contract) has a valid DOA to do so. Not deep diving into the contract file checking for quotes and all that jazz..... that's the G4's job.... although there is arguably a place for a G8-type to do so, it's definitely not for an A/P clerk to do.

I was actually surprised to see in our doctrine that in the Brigade's Fin Pl which owns all the FSAs (oh yeah, where's that at? Instead we farmed out 3x FSAs per unit like the donkeys we are) there is a contracting section and technical oversight of contracting was a task for the Fin Pl. Not really sure what that means or if I agree with it, but I suppose it doesn't matter since we don't have any Finance Pls.


----------



## KevinB

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1513675033436164101


----------



## WLSC

KevinB said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1513675033436164101


That would have been awesome if the sentence was completed with; _and Canada_


----------



## ballz

Well Canada only has about 8 tanks that aren't on the VOR at any point in time, so it would be pretty accurate...


----------



## JLB50

I wonder if the Abrams or other NATO tanks, with or without their reactive armour, would have fared much better than their Russian counterparts.  Are they like the battleships today?  Sitting ducks for the Russian or Chinese equivalent of an NLAW or Stinger?


----------



## Czech_pivo

KevinB said:


> Partner (junior) or slave -- pick one...


Junior mints for me.


----------



## markppcli

JLB50 said:


> I wonder if the Abrams or other NATO tanks, with or without their reactive armour, would have fared much better than their Russian counterparts.  Are they like the battleships today?  Sitting ducks for the Russian or Chinese equivalent of an NLAW or Stinger?


Tough question to answer. There’s design features of T72 and T80 that seem to be making k kills more likely, but there’s also some horrific tactical decisions being made that play into the hands of the Ukranians.


----------



## KevinB

Easy question to answer. 
  NATO tanks (Abrams, Leo and Challenger current variants) have 1) better armor (composite and extremely dense materials), 2) Insensitivity munitions, so with a significant impact they don’t detonate (unlike the T series turret launching munitions) 3) Have venting ammo storage so even a ammo detonation of the ammo rack won’t K kill the tank 
4) Better VAS and FCS to allow targets to be viewed and selected at longer ranges.


----------



## MilEME09

markppcli said:


> Tough question to answer. There’s design features of T72 and T80 that seem to be making k kills more likely, but there’s also some horrific tactical decisions being made that play into the hands of the Ukranians.


Talking to a few people, it seems the Russian Active protection systems cannot recognize a top attack munition as a threat so they aren't engaging. Meaning weapons like Javelin are scoring kills left, right and center.

Weather also is a big factor, it's still muddy as heck in Ukraine so they are limited to roads, easy pickings for Ukraine.

Third factor is piss poor training, recent videos show when hit by artillery, they are abandoning their vehicles and scattering, and Ukrainian forces are all to happy to make sure there is no vehicle to return to.


----------



## Kirkhill

Amid all the videos of Russian tanks being destroyed and talk of Bayraktars, Javelins and NLAWs there has been occasional reference to Ukrainian artillery and its role in eliminating columns of vehicles.  But when looking at the videos and images it has been remarkable to me how little evidence there is of "misses" by the artillery, how few shell holes there are in the engagement area.  

Apparently the Ukrainians have their own indigenous laser guided 152mm artillery shells.  And may have 122mm shells as well.  Laser designators are available for ground units and UAVs.









						One Shot, One Kill: Ukrainian Gunners Fire Laser-Guided Shells At Russian Vehicles
					

It’s not hard to find dramatic videos depicting direct hits by Ukrainian artillery on Russian vehicles. They hint at Ukraine’s integration and deployment of two key technologies—laser-guided artillery shells and laser-equipped drones.




					www.forbes.com


----------



## Good2Golf

And probably cost significantly less than an Excalibur round…


----------



## KevinB

MilEME09 said:


> Talking to a few people, it seems the Russian Active protection systems cannot recognize a top attack munition as a threat so they aren't engaging. Meaning weapons like Javelin are scoring kills left, right and center.


APS is a misnomer for Russian tanks.  It is active in terms of a dazzler type emitter, but all it does is attempt to confuse a seeker head.   
   So they can confuse a direct laser guided munition, but that’s it. 
  Javelin isn’t that type of munition… 
The Russian APS is effectively two generations behind the threat.  



MilEME09 said:


> Weather also is a big factor, it's still muddy as heck in Ukraine so they are limited to roads, easy pickings for Ukraine.


Agreed 


MilEME09 said:


> Third factor is piss poor training, recent videos show when hit by artillery, they are abandoning their vehicles and scattering, and Ukrainian forces are all to happy to make sure there is no vehicle to return to.


----------



## Kirkhill

Ukroboronprom
					

Strategic partner for manufacturing weaponry and military hardware




					ukroboronprom.com.ua
				




 
Kvitnik-E
Guided artillery shell
The Kvitnik guided artillery projectile is a high-precision high-precision fragmentation munition with a laser semi-active homing head (type 9E421)


Karasuk
Guided artillery shell
High-precision artillery shell with laser semi-active homing 122 mm caliber "Karasuk" is a sample of "smart weapon", which provides the maximum probability of destruction of the target with the first shot at a range of up to 12 km


Other indigenous Ukrainian PGMs





						Precision guided weapons, missile and artillery systems
					

Precision guided weapons




					spetstechnoexport.com
				




Betting that Ukrain is looking for NATO weapons because the have eaten up their stocks and the Russians have destroyed their production facilities.


----------



## Kirkhill

KevinB said:


> APS is a misnomer for Russian tanks.  It is active in terms of a dazzler type emitter, but all it does is attempt to confuse a seeker head.
> So they can confuse a direct laser guided munition, but that’s it.



So that would explain the occasional "miss" by Ukraine's LGMs.  The Russian dazzlers work sometimes.


----------



## KevinB

Kirkhill said:


> So that would explain the occasional "miss" by Ukraine's LGMs.  The Russian dazzlers work sometimes.


I’m not really familiar with those, but anything using a Direct ‘In Band’ TDL would be affected, as well as some LRF’s.  
   I’d love to do a deep dive into the how and why if things, but aspects of that are still classified.  

What isn’t classified is that Javelin is effectively a smaller version of the MMW Hellfire and Maverick and isn’t bothered one lick by laser dazzling spam.  If you lock it, it dies.


----------



## Kirkhill

Speaking of MMW munitions - an idea ahead of its time killed on account of expense and the fall of the USSR (Peace Dividend).


81mm.   Same HEAT band as the CG84 and the AT4 but top attack.  Similar to the larger 120mm Strix.




> Anti-tank with mortar, British Merlin 81mm anti-tank mortar shell​2022-04-12 23:31 HKT
> 
> In the 1980s, Europe was shrouded by war clouds. In the face of the huge Soviet steel torrent, NATO worked hard to develop anti-tank equipment and corresponding tactics, but it seemed impossible to be foolproof in the face of numbers. How about it without using nuclear weapons? Can the anti-tank capabilities of combat units at all levels be cheaply improved? The British thought of a good way to use cheap mortars to perform anti-tank operations. For this purpose, they deliberately developed 81mm Merlin precision-guided anti-tank mortar shells.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Merlin shells are equipment used with the L-16 81mm mortar. The L-16 is a British equipment developed in the 1960s. It replaces the old 3-inch mortar and is widely used in grassroots land combat units. As a fire support weapon, each battalion is generally equipped with 6 to 8 guns, and each mortar has a three-man artillery group. The artillery weighs 35.6 kg and has a maximum range of 5650 meters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In terms of the density of L-16 equipment, if it is given a reliable anti-tank capability, it will bring a qualitative improvement to the combat capability of the entire army. It is actually very easy to simply install the armor-piercing warhead for the ammunition. The difficult part is how to make the shells hit the moving tank. Fortunately, advances in electronic technology at that time made it possible to miniaturize many precision equipment.
> The development of Merlin shells was from 1981 to 1989. Although we already have a variety of similar guided shells in service today, they were still new in that era and it was not easy to develop them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Merlin shell is 900 mm long, which is much longer than ordinary 81 mm shells. It looks like a small missile with a range of 1.5 to 4 kilometers. The armor-piercing warhead can penetrate 360 mm homogeneous steel armor. The weak top armor is sufficient.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The shell has a miniature millimeter-wave radar, which is activated when the shell enters the stage of diving and falling. At first it searches a range of 300×300 meters. At this stage, it searches for a moving target. If it is not found, it will switch to the second scene mode. When the shells fall further, the radar will search an area of 100×100 meters and analyze possible stationary targets.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No matter at which stage the target is found, the projectile can simply adjust its trajectory by adjusting the aerodynamic control surface that pops up after launch. It is unrealistic to kill a tank with one projectile. The designer said that it takes 2 to destroy a tank. ~3 shells. Not only that, because Merlin ammunition has unique ballistic characteristics and different combat needs, the gun crew will be equipped with a portable computer to calculate shooting data, so that the shells fly to the tank at the best angle.
> 
> The development direction of the Merlin precision-guided anti-tank mortar shell is undoubtedly correct. The service of many types of shells of this type can prove it, but the relevant equipment must be reduced and integrated into an 81mm shell even today. For this technical challenge, everyone still prefers larger 120mm projectiles, such as Sweden's 120mm guided projectiles.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is said that the British officially entered service with the Merlin shells in 1993. In addition, Australia also has a strong interest in this shell. However, the number of Merlin shells seems to be very small. On the one hand, it is because the Soviet army, the biggest opponent, disappeared. On the other hand, this type of shell is too expensive and economically uneconomical. Later, Britain planned to expand the Merlin shell to 120 mm caliber.


----------



## Kirkhill

Rumours and rumours and rumours.....









						Nato weakness has left the gates open for a chemical attack
					

If the West no longer has the courage to police the rules-based order, war in Ukraine will mark a terrible turning point




					www.telegraph.co.uk
				




But if the attack is genuine and there is no response to yet another red line crossed then the future is back to the past.  Alliances are degraded and are only as good as your own defences.  Defence, like charity, begins at home.  You can't rely on others to do what you won't do yourself.


----------



## AmmoTech90

KevinB said:


> APS is a misnomer for Russian tanks.  It is active in terms of a dazzler type emitter, but all it does is attempt to confuse a seeker head.
> So they can confuse a direct laser guided munition, but that’s it.
> Javelin isn’t that type of munition…
> The Russian APS is effectively two generations behind the threat.
> 
> 
> Agreed


Shtora is also designed to spoof the firing post 9f SACLOS missiles by providing alternative missile beacons.  Of course your beacon has to emit in the same frequency at the same rate as Shtora for your firing post care.  There are relatively few LBR ATGMs made by the west kicking around; SKIF, older Hellfire, Maverick- add in Starstreak. The Russians like them, Kornet, Chrysanthemum, some of air launched stuff- oh, and Shershen from Belarus.
As Kevin said radar, radio, eo/ir homing doesn't care about things like Shtora.  A lot don't care about flares.  A DIRCM might mess with an EO/IR, but they seem to be restricted to AC (for now).  The other thing about systems like Shtora is they take control from the humans on the turret to bring the CM on its target.  I wonder if a lot of crews turn it off because they don't want their turrets slewing all over the place.


----------



## McG

Kirkhill said:


> Ukroboronprom
> 
> 
> Strategic partner for manufacturing weaponry and military hardware
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ukroboronprom.com.ua
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 70036
> Kvitnik-E
> Guided artillery shell
> The Kvitnik guided artillery projectile is a high-precision high-precision fragmentation munition with a laser semi-active homing head (type 9E421)
> 
> View attachment 70037
> Karasuk
> Guided artillery shell
> High-precision artillery shell with laser semi-active homing 122 mm caliber "Karasuk" is a sample of "smart weapon", which provides the maximum probability of destruction of the target with the first shot at a range of up to 12 km
> 
> 
> Other indigenous Ukrainian PGMs
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Precision guided weapons, missile and artillery systems
> 
> 
> Precision guided weapons
> 
> 
> 
> 
> spetstechnoexport.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Betting that Ukrain is looking for NATO weapons because the have eaten up their stocks and the Russians have destroyed their production facilities.


So they are M712 Copperhead for soviet caliber howitzers?


----------



## Kirkhill

McG said:


> So they are M712 Copperhead for soviet caliber howitzers?



Seems to be something like that.


----------



## Quirky

Kirkhill said:


> But if the attack is genuine and there is no response to yet another red line crossed then the future is back to the past. Alliances are degraded and are only as good as your own defences. Defence, like charity, begins at home. You can't rely on others to do what you won't do yourself.



This is why virtue signaling and convening Level 10 experts in Canada need a serious ass whopping for a wake up call.


----------



## MilEME09

Quirky said:


> This is why virtue signaling and convening Level 10 experts in Canada need a serious ass whopping for a wake up call.


I'm starting to wonder what if anything would make our leaders wake up. We haven't seen any serious sanctions in over a week


----------



## markppcli

MilEME09 said:


> Talking to a few people, it seems the Russian Active protection systems cannot recognize a top attack munition as a threat so they aren't engaging. Meaning weapons like Javelin are scoring kills left, right and center.
> 
> Weather also is a big factor, it's still muddy as heck in Ukraine so they are limited to roads, easy pickings for Ukraine.
> 
> Third factor is piss poor training, recent videos show when hit by artillery, they are abandoning their vehicles and scattering, and Ukrainian forces are all to happy to make sure there is no vehicle to return to.


Seems more likely the APS isn’t fitted


----------



## OldSolduer

MilEME09 said:


> I'm starting to wonder what if anything would make our leaders wake up. We haven't seen any serious sanctions in over a week


North America and in particular Canada has never experienced an enemy threat that could wipe us out. That is what it will take. Our reliance on the USA must be getting old with the Yanks


----------



## suffolkowner

KevinB said:


> Easy question to answer.
> NATO tanks (Abrams, Leo and Challenger current variants) have 1) better armor (composite and extremely dense materials), 2) Insensitivity munitions, so with a significant impact they don’t detonate (unlike the T series turret launching munitions) 3) Have venting ammo storage so even a ammo detonation of the ammo rack won’t K kill the tank
> 4) Better VAS and FCS to allow targets to be viewed and selected at longer ranges.


Is not Trophy really good? Wikipedia says so lol


AmmoTech90 said:


> The other thing about systems like Shtora is they take control from the humans on the turret to bring the CM on its target.  I wonder if a lot of crews turn it off because they don't want their turrets slewing all over the place.


Thats what I thought too but again that would only be true for laser designated?


----------



## AmmoTech90

suffolkowner said:


> Is not Trophy really good? Wikipedia says so lol
> 
> Thats what I thought too but again that would only be true for laser designated?


Trophy is an hard kill APS so not comparable to Shtora, more equivalent to Arena (very limited use), Drozd (obsolete), and Afghanit (T14 only).

Yeah, you need something to cue the system to react and that's normally a laser hitting the target.  You can see some videos where the SKIF gunner is aiming off the target until the last minute, probably to avoid activating a LWS.


----------



## Kirkhill

Rob Huebert on Chrystia Freeland's budget speech









						Rob Huebert: Did Chrystia Freeland just commit Canada to Russian regime change?
					

The Deputy Prime Minister says Vladimir Putin must be 'vanquished'




					nationalpost.com
				






> The entire final section of her speech — pages 5-6 if you are old school and print it out — is dedicated to the impact of the Russian attack on Ukraine. She begins with the observation that “The world we woke up to on February 24 was different from the one that had existed when we turned off the lights the night before.” Then she goes on to to her most powerful statement of the speech:
> 
> “Putin’s assault has been so vicious that we all now understand that the world’s democracies — including our own — can be safe _only once_ _the Russian tyrant and his armies are entirely vanquished.”_
> 
> We need to put this in context. This is an official statement of the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance in an official speech to Parliament outlining the core policy and spendings of the government. This is not some innocuous musing of a government official responding to the terrible death and destruction that has been unleashed on the Ukrainian people. This is the second-most powerful person in the Canadian government very publicly calling for the _vanquishing_ of Russian President Vladimir Putin a.k.a. “the Russian tyrant.”



When does Chrystia kick Justin upstairs?


----------



## Good2Golf

…and yet the budget bump to DND won’t likely even cover Inflation…


----------



## Booter

A tyrant that needs vanquishing! 

We’ll hold the coats!


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Good2Golf said:


> …and yet the budget bump to DND won’t likely even cover Inflation…
> 
> View attachment 70058


More like "Someone should really look after that Putin guy, right?  Just not me because I don't wanna pay!" 

Current Government all about that free lunch 🤣


----------



## JLB50

Kirkhill said:


> Rob Huebert on Chrystia Freeland's budget speech
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rob Huebert: Did Chrystia Freeland just commit Canada to Russian regime change?
> 
> 
> The Deputy Prime Minister says Vladimir Putin must be 'vanquished'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nationalpost.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When does Chrystia kick Justin upstairs?


Chrystia has the balls to be a Prime Minister.  Justin should resign and perhaps consider developing an e-commerce site selling fancy socks for men.


----------



## Brad Sallows

> A tyrant that needs vanquishing!



Expect continuing passive expressions of this idea.


----------



## Good2Golf

JLB50 said:


> Chrystia has the balls to be a Prime Minister.  Justin should resign and perhaps consider developing an e-commerce site selling fancy socks for men.


Meh…just words…she’s just as virtuously hollow as he is…


----------



## Haggis

JLB50 said:


> Chrystia has the balls to be a Prime Minister.  Justin should resign and perhaps consider developing an e-commerce site selling fancy socks for men.


Be careful what you wish for.


----------



## WLSC

Haggis said:


> Be careful what you wish for.


Who’s coming from and push the idea of a mission with 50% of women?  Stretching everything to make a point.


----------



## Weinie

Good2Golf said:


> Meh…just words…she’s just as virtuously hollow as s/he is…


FTFY


----------



## Furniture

JLB50 said:


> Chrystia has the balls to be a Prime Minister.  Justin should resign and perhaps consider developing an e-commerce site selling fancy socks for men.


I won't lie, I'd buy the socks... His people dress him well when he isn't in foreign costume.


----------



## OldSolduer

Haggis said:


> Be careful what you wish for.


Sometimes it’s better the devil you know….😈


----------



## FJAG

When Germans start talking about the Arctic, maybe we should listen. A recent article from Stern Magazine (translated by Google)

The original is here:


> Russland und die Nato: Warum die Arktis zu "einer Arena des Großmachtwettbewerbs" werden könnte
> 
> 
> Die Fronten zwischen Russland und der Nato sind wegen des Ukraine-Krieges vor allem im Osten Europas verhärtet. Doch auch in der Arktis bahnt sich ein schwelender Konflikt zwischen den beiden an.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.stern.de





> CONFLICT BETWEEN WEST AND EAST Russia and NATO: Why the Arctic could become "an arena of great power competition".​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A US soldier takes part in the international military exercise Cold Response 22 in Sandy Beach, north of Norway
> © Jonathan NACKSTRAND / AFP
> 
> 
> 
> 
> by Rune Weichert
> 04/14/2022, 06:09 am6 min reading time
> At the moment, the fronts between Russia and NATO are harder than they have been for a long time because of the Ukraine war, especially in Eastern Europe. Another conflict between Russia and the West is smoldering in the icy north – with implications for climate research.
> " Russia 's war against Ukraine is a turning point. It's a new normal for European security. And Arctic security, too." That's what NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said on March 25 during a press conference . The Ukraine war had already shaken security in Europe at this point.
> 
> In the freezing Arctic, far from the horrors and horrors of Ukraine, the conflict between Russia and NATO could find a new arena.
> NATO is also an Arctic alliance, according to Stoltenberg, four out of five countries bordering the Arctic are NATO states: the USA, Canada, Greenland (administered by Denmark) and Norway. "It is a region of strategic importance for the security of the entire Euro-Atlantic area," said the NATO Secretary General. "And crucial for communications links between North America and Europe. It's also a region of growing strategic competition. In recent years we've seen a significant increase in Russian military activity here."
> 
> Russia is expanding its military in the Arctic​Russia has rebuilt Soviet-era Arctic bases, says Stoltenberg . The region is a testing ground for many of the country's new weapon systems. And it is home to Russia's strategic submarine fleet.
> 
> "Russia's military build-up is the most serious challenge to the stability and security of the Allies in the far north," Stoltenberg is certain.
> The Ukrainian President Zelenskyj also issued a warning to the country during a speech in the Norwegian parliament. "I think you feel new risks on your borders with Russia in the Arctic ," he said at the end of March , stressing that Russia has made a significant upgrade of its Arctic forces in recent years. "They [Russia] have built such a large army up there [in the Arctic] that no common sense can explain it," Zelenskyy said. "Who is she against? And why are you doing this?"
> In fact, the geopolitical role of the Arctic is coming back onto the agenda with the war in Ukraine. Because the "widespread military build-up since 2007 increases the potential for a conflict between Russia and NATO-allied states to spill over into the region," analyzes the specialist magazine "Foreign Policy" .
> https://www.stern.de/reise/europa/l...se-bluie-east-two-auf-groenland-31479574.html
> 
> The Arctic harbors many resources​The Arctic is of great interest to many of the riparian states for a number of reasons. On the one hand there are the natural resources such as gas and oil, which are mainly found in the Russian part of the Arctic. Even if Europe wants to detach itself from fossil fuels from Russia, the continent is still dependent on it.
> But it's not just about gas and oil. Minerals, fish stocks, shorter shipping routes between Asia and Europe - all this makes the Arctic interesting for many countries. Climate change and melting ice have uncovered the resources - or will do so in the coming years. Russian President Vladimir Putin could also use Russian resources to further expand his ties with China, which is also eyeing the Arctic region. China, although closer to the equator than the Arctic Circle, has defined itself as a "Near Arctic State" and wants to establish a presence there, Stoltenberg said.
> The military build-up at the North Pole poses a danger, writes "Foreign Policy" : "The increasing military activity in the region continues to increase the risk of a misunderstanding or of a conflict spreading to the Arctic from outside, especially in the absence of an official security authority for national actors , through which regional defense issues could be addressed."
> 
> 
> 
> Video abspielen
> 
> The USA and Canada are arming the "Northern Flank".​Militarily, Russia's extensive defense build-up and alternating military exercises by both Russia and NATO actors have created a potentially unstable region. Against the background of growing tensions between the USA and Russia and the increasing decoupling of the US and Chinese economies, the Arctic is developing into "an arena of great power competition".
> The US is already responding. The military and Homeland Security have published reports with titles such as "Regaining Arctic Dominance" , "Arctic Strategy" or "A Blue Arctic" . Exercises in the polar region and reinforcement of the military on site are also intended to set an example. A sign that is also addressed to Russia. The NATO exercise "Cold Response" was held in Norway in March, in which 27 member states and partners took part.
> Neighboring Canada also wants to strengthen NATO's "northern flank". Canada's chief of defense, General Wayne Eyre, warns that "much more effort" is needed to strengthen internal security with a strong "focus on the north," as reported by broadcaster France 24 . The Arctic is a region with a particular security policy focus.
> Like NATO Secretary General Stoltenberg, Eyre also notes that Russia has reoccupied former Cold War bases over the past decade. "It is not inconceivable that our sovereignty could be called into question." But experts like Michael Byers of the University of British Columbia consider a Russian invasion of Canada to be "completely irrational for Russia." NATO should be more concerned about the military presence in Russia's north-west, such as the nuclear-powered ballistic-missile submarines stationed in Murmansk. However, Russia also has missiles that could reach Canada and the US.
> 
> 
> The Arctic Council boycotts Russia​One problem in the Arctic is that there is no proper management system. Nothing resembling the European Union or the UN. There is an Arctic Council that was founded in 1996. The aim of the council is cooperation and coordination between the eight riparian states and indigenous peoples in the region. National, regional and international agreements are implemented. But the work of the Arctic Council is currently on hold.
> Seven of the eight members of the Arctic Council condemn Russia's war of aggression. The eighth member is Russia itself. No other member (i.e. Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden and the US) wants to travel to Russia for meetings of the Council, which currently holds the presidency, according to a joint statement by the means seven states.
> But that shot could backfire. Limited dialogue and transparency on military issues, limited ability to implement governance agreements, and tensions among Arctic states could present an opportunity or motivation for states to resolve conflicts in ways other than through regional cooperation, including military ones, states in a report by the think tank Rand Corp. from 2021. One solution would be to resume dialogue, improve transparency on military issues and "allow for more inclusivity in Arctic-related decisions without challenging the sovereignty of Arctic states."
> 
> Arctic climate research on hiatus​The tensions in the Arctic also raise concerns about research, especially climate research, but also about the climate itself. Russia occupies around 53 percent of the Arctic coastline. A boycott by the Arctic partner therefore has a significant impact on research in the region. According to Scientific American magazine, this is suspending the Council's efforts on everything from climate change to oil drilling . This is an important problem because temperatures in the Arctic are rising three times faster than the global average. The issue of forest fires in the Arctic has also been addressed by the Council in the past; the problem of thawing permafrost is just as important.
> 
> A prolonged hiatus in the Arctic Council's activities could significantly hamper those efforts, Michael Sfraga, chair of the Polar Institute at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars and chair of the US Arctic Research Commission, told Scientific American. It could also delay the release of reports summarizing scientific evidence and making recommendations for future action.
> And how will NATO react? With an increase in the military presence in the Arctic, as Stoltenberg explained on March 25. More will be needed in the future. "We cannot afford a security vacuum in the far north. It could fuel Russian ambitions that expose NATO and risk misjudgments and misunderstandings." The presence of NATO is not a provocation. Rather, it should avoid conflict and keep the peace. Nevertheless, the tensions in the region are more likely to increase than decrease.



🍻


----------



## KevinB

FJAG said:


> When Germans start talking about the Arctic, maybe we should listen. A recent article from Stern Magazine (translated by Google)
> 
> The original is here:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 🍻


_Neighboring Canada also wants to strengthen NATO's "northern flank". Canada's chief of defense, General Wayne Eyre, warns that "much more effort" is needed to strengthen internal security with a strong "focus on the north," as reported by broadcaster France 24 . The Arctic is a region with a particular security policy focus._


Canada apparently wants to do many things...


----------



## Maxman1

Kirkhill said:


> So that would explain the occasional "miss" by Ukraine's LGMs.  The Russian dazzlers work sometimes.


----------



## rmc_wannabe

KevinB said:


> _Neighboring Canada also wants to strengthen NATO's "northern flank". Canada's chief of defense, General Wayne Eyre, warns that "much more effort" is needed to strengthen internal security with a strong "focus on the north," as reported by broadcaster France 24 . The Arctic is a region with a particular security policy focus._
> 
> 
> Canada apparently wants to do many things...


Wanting to do things and actually putting the treasure and effort into them are completely separate things.

We talk a good game, but won't actually strap the skates on and play.


----------



## Weinie

KevinB said:


> _Neighboring Canada also wants to strengthen NATO's "northern flank". Canada's chief of defense, General Wayne Eyre, warns that "much more effort" is needed to strengthen internal security with a strong "focus on the north," as reported by broadcaster France 24 . The Arctic is a region with a particular security policy focus._
> 
> 
> Canada needs to do many things...


Slightly(massively) amended your comment


----------



## McG

Canada, take note.








						Why Russian radios in Ukraine are getting spammed with heavy metal
					

Ukrainians are eavesdropping on the invaders and broadcasting on their frequencies




					www.economist.com


----------



## Brad Sallows

Buy more Iron Maiden albums?

[Add: if I'd known EW against the Soviet hordes would mean sitting in the box of a heated truck and spinning 30% of a CFOX playlist, I would've transferred into Comm Res in 1983...]


----------



## McG

Get reliable radios with frequency hopping & crypto capabilities compatible with allies.


----------



## rmc_wannabe

McG said:


> Get reliable radios with frequency hopping & crypto capabilities compatible with allies.


Without getting too in the weeds, we have both. 

The issue at hand is user training and integration. The 6 section as a Support funtion and not as an Operations/Planning function means we don't factor C2IS in the OPP, even when developing requirements for different platforms.

I am convinced that no one with a Jimmy badge was consulted when they built the LAV 6 or TAPV, because they are both horrible to do maintenance on as a Sig.


----------



## Weinie

rmc_wannabe said:


> Without getting too in the weeds, we have both.
> 
> The issue at hand is user training and integration. The 6 section as a Support funtion and not as an Operations/Planning function means we don't factor C2IS in the OPP, even when developing requirements for different platforms.
> 
> I am convinced that no one with a Jimmy badge was consulted when they built the LAV 6 or TAPV, because they are both horrible to do maintenance on. as a Sig.


FTFY.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

rmc_wannabe said:


> I am convinced that no one with a Jimmy badge was consulted when they built the LAV 6 or TAPV, because they are both horrible to do maintenance on as a Sig.


Have you tried working on a modern car lately? It's not just a military issue.


----------



## rmc_wannabe

Colin Parkinson said:


> Have you tried working on a modern car lately? It's not just a military issue.


I agree wholeheartedly. Right to repair is a huge problem, especially when stuff like ITAR  and IP factor in.

Unfortunately, when something breaks in the field of battle, I can't send it back to GDLS for warranty repair. If anything, it's getting turfed on the side of the road for a local farmer to salvage.


----------



## Haggis

We all know that polls are useless, especially the online variety.  The latest Leger poll shows that 48% of Canadian think we are spending enough on defence and 18% think too much.  However, we also know that the Liberals govern based on polling results and this whole Ukraine thing will blow over soon....


----------



## YZT580

Haggis said:


> We all know that polls are useless, especially the online variety.  The latest Leger poll shows that 48% of Canadian think we are spending enough on defence and 18% think too much.  However, we also know that the Liberals govern based on polling results and this whole Ukraine thing will blow over soon....


BECAUSE no one tells them anything different.  The Star and Globe talk as if the increase is great, the public hears about the new planes, the ship construction and think that everything is roses.  What is needed is a commanding officer to fall on his sword and tell the truth and we all know that won't happen


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

YZT580 said:


> BECAUSE no one tells them anything different.  The Star and Globe talk as if the increase is great, the public hears about the new planes, the ship construction and think that everything is roses.  What is needed is a commanding officer to fall on his sword and tell the truth and we all know that won't happen


That would be news for about 6 to 8 seconds and then forgotten...

You'd need a collection of CO's  and even that could be swept away with more "free" things.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Bruce Monkhouse said:


> That would be news for about 6 to 8 seconds and then forgotten...
> 
> You'd need a collection of CO's  and even that could be swept away with more "free" things.



That may be considered a mutiny


----------



## daftandbarmy

Halifax Tar said:


> That may be considered a mutiny



Or a political statement, viz:

Top generals planned to resign en masse if Trump refused to leave office: reports​
The Pentagon’s most senior officer feared President Donald Trump would attempt a coup earlier this year, according to excerpts released Wednesday from a forthcoming book.

Army Gen. Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told his staff that he would take steps to block Trump from using the military to enforce his rejection of the 2020 election results.









						Top generals planned to resign en masse if Trump refused to leave office: reports
					

The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff compared President Donald Trump to Hitler, and his administration to the birth of the Nazi party.




					www.militarytimes.com


----------



## Halifax Tar

daftandbarmy said:


> Or a political statement, viz:
> 
> Top generals planned to resign en masse if Trump refused to leave office: reports​
> The Pentagon’s most senior officer feared President Donald Trump would attempt a coup earlier this year, according to excerpts released Wednesday from a forthcoming book.
> 
> Army Gen. Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told his staff that he would take steps to block Trump from using the military to enforce his rejection of the 2020 election results.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Top generals planned to resign en masse if Trump refused to leave office: reports
> 
> 
> The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff compared President Donald Trump to Hitler, and his administration to the birth of the Nazi party.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.militarytimes.com



One mans terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, eh ?


----------



## OldSolduer

Halifax Tar said:


> That may be considered a mutiny


I'm not sure of that. The US Oath IIRC swears allegiance to the Constitution of the US, not the President.



			https://live.staticflickr.com/26/98526533_42857d373f_b.jpg


----------



## Halifax Tar

OldSolduer said:


> I'm not sure of that. The US Oath IIRC swears allegiance to the Constitution of the US, not the President.
> 
> 
> 
> https://live.staticflickr.com/26/98526533_42857d373f_b.jpg



I was referring to @Bruce Monkhouse post


----------



## OldSolduer

Halifax Tar said:


> I was referring to @Bruce Monkhouse post


Gotcha - sorry


----------



## Edward Campbell

Bruce Monkhouse said:


> That would be news for about 6 to 8 seconds and then forgotten...



Oh, you remember VAdm Chuck Thomas' resignation, too, do you? Almost no one else does because no one in the media even noticed.


----------



## FSTO

Bruce Monkhouse said:


> That would be news for about 6 to 8 seconds and then forgotten...
> 
> You'd need a collection of CO's  and even that could be swept away with more "free" things.


RCN 1966-67 enters the chat.


----------



## Good2Golf

FSTO said:


> RCN 1966-67 enters the chat.


A classic regular people walking down the hallway stepping over dead Admirals with swords sticking into their stomachs “wonder what that was all about?” moment.


----------



## Halifax Tar

FSTO said:


> RCN 1966-67 enters the chat.



And from what Ive read, sadly, the country paid little attention.


----------



## FSTO

Halifax Tar said:


> And from what Ive read, sadly, the country paid little attention.


There was a short little story in Maclean's about the admirals revolt. But no, the country was swept up in the Flag debate and preparations for the Centennial Celebrations. Also there was the move to remove many of the trappings of being a colony, with Hellyer leading the Colonel Blimps into the brave new world.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

FSTO said:


> There was a short little story in Maclean's about the admirals revolt. But no, the country was swept up in the Flag debate and preparations for the Centennial Celebrations. Also there was the move to remove many of the trappings of being a colony, with Hellyer leading the Colonel Blimps into the brave new world.


Just like today, there would be an Armada of more junior personnel salivating at the chance for an early promotion.


----------



## FSTO

Humphrey Bogart said:


> Just like today, there would be an Armada of more junior personnel salivating at the chance for an early promotion.


Self interest always trumps the institution, right Jonathan?


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

FSTO said:


> Self interest always trumps the institution, right Jonathan?


Bingo and it's our fault for breeding them all that way.


----------



## Halifax Tar

FSTO said:


> There was a short little story in Maclean's about the admirals revolt. But no, the country was swept up in the Flag debate and preparations for the Centennial Celebrations. Also there was the move to remove many of the trappings of being a colony, with Hellyer leading the Colonel Blimps into the brave new world.



I found VAdm (R) Brock's book _"The Thunder and the Sunshine Memoires of a Sailor"_ to have some good insight into the unification era and the resistance.  Its been a while since I have read them but if memory serves me he is firm in his position the the RCAF were onside with it, the Army was ok with and it was the RCN who was the most in resistance.



			https://www.ainsworthbooks.com/products/author/Brock,%20Jeffry%20V.
		




Humphrey Bogart said:


> Just like today, there would be an Armada of more junior personnel salivating at the chance for an early promotion.



Again, in the reading I have done that sense didn't seem to be dominant in RCN 1.0, but I am sure it existed to some extent.  But I wasn't there...

HMC Dockyard in Halifax was lined with Civis and Sailor alike to wish Landymore fair seas when he was finally subdued.


----------



## FSTO

Halifax Tar said:


> I found VAdm (R) Brock's book _"The Thunder and the Sunshine Memoires of a Sailor"_ to have some good insight into the unification era and the resistance.  Its been a while since I have read them but if memory serves me he is firm in his position the the *RCAF were onside with it, the Army was ok with and it was the RCN who was the most in resistance.*
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.ainsworthbooks.com/products/author/Brock,%20Jeffry%20V.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, in the reading I have done that sense didn't seem to be dominant in RCN 1.0, but I am sure it existed to some extent.  But I wasn't there...
> 
> HMC Dockyard in Halifax was lined with Civis and Sailor alike to wish Landymore fair seas when he was finally subdued.


Likely the Army and AF thought they'd be the big winners in this amalgamation. I think the RCN, as always being the smallest of the three, felt that the loss of it's unique identity would have the most impact on its future.


----------



## Good2Golf

Not sure ‘OP HARRUMPH’ did much for the RCN’s cause.  Sailors love to bemoan the ‘slight’ in disproportionately low number of Naval CDS…perhaps they brought it on themselves?    Adms Hillborn-Falls (77-80), Anderson (12mos in 93) and McDonald (6wks in 2021) and VAdm Murray (Acting - 11 months 96/97)…so a command duty cycle of 11% (6/54yrs) since integration…is it because they ‘stood by their principles’ or because the Navy thinks it gets it, but doesn’t.  McDonald and Baines probably won’t help that RCN-CDS duty-cycle for the next decade or so…


----------



## Edward Campbell

FSTO said:


> There was a short little story in Maclean's about the admirals revolt. But no, the country was swept up in the Flag debate and preparations for the Centennial Celebrations. Also there was the move to remove many of the trappings of being a colony, with Hellyer leading the Colonel Blimps into the brave new world.


A 100% clear, concise and accurate summary of the era ... and yeah, I was there, on regimental duty in Canada and then in Germany.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Good2Golf said:


> Not sure ‘OP HARRUMPH’ did much for the RCN’s cause.  Sailors love to bemoan the ‘slight’ in disproportionately low number of Naval CDS…perhaps they brought it on themselves?    Adms Hillborn-Falls (77-80), Anderson (12mos in 93) and McDonald (6wks in 2021) and VAdm Murray (Acting - 11 months 96/97)…so a command duty cycle of 11% (6/54yrs) since integration…is it because they ‘stood by their principles’ or because the Navy thinks it gets it, but doesn’t.  McDonald and Baines probably won’t help that RCN-CDS duty-cycle for the next decade or so…



I'm not sure that has much to do with anything.  Personally I don't know anyone who bemoans not having Naval CDS's.  Honestly the CDS is rarely mentioned in conversation; but CRCN and RCN CPO, all the time. 



Edward Campbell said:


> A 100% clear, concise and accurate summary of the era ... and yeah, I was there, on regimental duty in Canada and then in Germany.



Was the Army and RCAF as compliant as Brock, and others, made them out to be ?  

Id be interested to know your opinions and observations as you were in during that time.  Admittedly that period in our history fascinates me.


----------



## FSTO

Good2Golf said:


> Not sure ‘OP HARRUMPH’ did much for the RCN’s cause.  Sailors love to bemoan the ‘slight’ in disproportionately low number of Naval CDS…perhaps they brought it on themselves?    Adms Hillborn-Falls (77-80), Anderson (12mos in 93) and McDonald (6wks in 2021) and VAdm Murray (Acting - 11 months 96/97)…so a command duty cycle of 11% (6/54yrs) since integration…is it because they ‘stood by their principles’ or because the Navy thinks it gets it, but doesn’t.  McDonald and Baines probably won’t help that RCN-CDS duty-cycle for the next decade or so…


Well the stink of being CDS (or not being CDS) hasn't been exclusively draped on the RCN has it? There is enough has-beens, near do wells, and boot lickers from all parts of the CAF to stink up all of Canada. In the end, what CDS has really moved the ball towards anything? We are hostages to the whims of the PMO and always will be.


----------



## GK .Dundas

Brock memoirs are by and large self serving ahh looking for a polite word .... Nope can't find one .
Let's just say you should take anything he says on almost any subject , especially if it concerns umm just about anything with a grain of salt.
It doesn't mean the two volumes aren't a great read they are. He had a marvelous grasp of the English language. Let's just say he may remember something's differently then some others.


----------



## FSTO

Edward Campbell said:


> A 100% clear, concise and accurate summary of the era ... and yeah, I was there, on regimental duty in Canada and then in Germany.


I was but a tyke waving my tiny Centennial Flag during the Dominion Day parade being led by the pied piper Bobby Jimbee (sic) during that time. But I had an inkling of what was happening. I vaguely remember watching the RCN gun run in Brandon, or could it just be figment of my imagination.
But you would of had a front row seat on the shenanigan's for sure!


----------



## Edward Campbell

Halifax Tar said:


> I found VAdm (R) Brock's book _"The Thunder and the Sunshine Memoires of a Sailor"_ to have some good insight into the unification era and the resistance.  Its been a while since I have read them but if memory serves me he is firm in his position the the RCAF were onside with it, the Army was ok with and it was the RCN who was the most in resistance.
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.ainsworthbooks.com/products/author/Brock,%20Jeffry%20V.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, in the reading I have done that sense didn't seem to be dominant in RCN 1.0, but I am sure it existed to some extent.  But I wasn't there...
> 
> HMC Dockyard in Halifax was lined with Civis and Sailor alike to wish Landymore fair seas when he was finally subdued.


The perception was, in many places ~ especially where I was serving ~ that we were adopting the RCAF's organization and management principles. There was considerable angst in the Army about the centralization of many support functions into bases. The fear, which proved to be at least partially true, was that it would weaken unit cohesion.

The unified command structure ~ Mobile Command for me and most of my friends ~ was popular with the Army. We, officers and soldiers on regimental duty, liked the idea of organic aviation ~ including "our own" fighters ... OK, they were only CF-5s. but they were "our own" organic, close air support. 

Some Air Force noses were out of joint because Air Transport Command and Air Defence Command were "lesser" in command ranks and status than were Maritime and Mobile Commands.

I guess I understood the Navy's feelings about the "jolly green jumper," I cannot recall any of my friends who actually liked Mr Hellyer's new uniform, but most of us didn't;'t understand all of the Navy's objections and I, at least, thought that Maritime Command was, like Mobile Command, a step in the right direction.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Good2Golf said:


> Not sure ‘OP HARRUMPH’ did much for the RCN’s cause.  Sailors love to bemoan the ‘slight’ in disproportionately low number of Naval CDS…perhaps they brought it on themselves?    Adms Hillborn-Falls (77-80), Anderson (12mos in 93) and McDonald (6wks in 2021) and VAdm Murray (Acting - 11 months 96/97)…so a command duty cycle of 11% (6/54yrs) since integration…is it because they ‘stood by their principles’ or because the Navy thinks it gets it, but doesn’t.  McDonald and Baines probably won’t help that RCN-CDS duty-cycle for the next decade or so…


McDonald-Baines-Edmundson

The Axis of Weasels?  😀


----------



## Halifax Tar

GK .Dundas said:


> Brock memoirs are by and large self serving ahh looking for a polite word .... Nope can't find one .
> Let's just say you should take anything he says on almost any subject , especially if it concerns umm just about anything with a grain of salt.
> It doesn't mean the two volumes aren't a great read they are. He had a marvelous grasp of the English language. Let's just say he may remember something's differently then some others.



Interesting.  What draws you to these conclusions ?


----------



## Halifax Tar

Edward Campbell said:


> The perception was, in many places ~ especially where I was serving ~ that we were adopting the RCAF's organization and management principles. There was considerable angst in the Army about the centralization of many support functions into bases. The fear, which proved to be at least partially true, was that it would weaken unit cohesion.
> 
> The unified command structure ~ Mobile Command for me and most of my friends ~ was popular with the Army. We, officers and soldiers on regimental duty, liked the idea of organic aviation ~ including "our own" fighters ... OK, they were only CF-5s. but they were "our own" organic, close air support.
> 
> Some Air Force noses were out of joint because Air Transport Command and Air Defence Command were "lesser" in command ranks and status than were Maritime and Mobile Commands.
> 
> I guess I understood the Navy's feelings about the "jolly green jumper," I cannot recall any of my friends who actually liked Mr Hellyer's new uniform, but most of us didn't;'t understand all of the Navy's objections and I, at least, thought that Maritime Command was, like Mobile Command, a step in the right direction.



Thanks for the info.  

Looking back on it, do you maintain the same opinions and positions ?  If not how have the changed and why ?


----------



## FSTO

Edward Campbell said:


> The perception was, in many places ~ especially where I was serving ~ that we were adopting the RCAF's organization and management principles. There was considerable angst in the Army about the centralization of many support functions into bases. The fear, which proved to be at least partially true, was that it would weaken unit cohesion.
> 
> The unified command structure ~ Mobile Command for me and most of my friends ~ was popular with the Army. We, officers and soldiers on regimental duty, liked the idea of organic aviation ~ including "our own" fighters ... OK, they were only CF-5s. but they were "our own" organic, close air support.
> 
> Some Air Force noses were out of joint because Air Transport Command and Air Defence Command were "lesser" in command ranks and status than were Maritime and Mobile Commands.
> 
> *I guess I understood the Navy's feelings about the "jolly green jumper," I cannot recall any of my friends who actually liked Mr Hellyer's new uniform, but most of us didn't;'t understand all of the Navy's objections and I, at least, thought that Maritime Command was, like Mobile Command, a step in the right direction.*


The East Coast Admiral (who was in charge of Maritime Command) was ecstatic that he was getting control of Greenwood. I guess there was a plethora of Flight Lieutenants (Capts) who weren't doing much and he went in there with a scythe and cut a lot of the deadwood. According to the publications I've read at least.


----------



## FSTO

The initial iteration of Maritime Command would have been great, the Navy had been advocating for control of the MPA community for years. But as per all the other maneuvering and backstabbing post Hellyer, the Air Force mafia was able to wrest control of all the flying communities from the Army and Navy.

In the end, a whole lot of churn and burn for not much return.


----------



## GK .Dundas

I read them and did a wee bit of digging . I enjoyed them immensely to be honest . Like I said he's a great writer.
His biggest problems seems to be  his ego  tended to get in the way and the venom directed at all and sundry at those who opposed him 
Well I guess that's what memoirs are for .


----------



## Edward Campbell

Halifax Tar said:


> Thanks for the info.
> 
> Looking back on it, do you maintain the same opinions and positions ?  If not how have the changed and why ?



I still remain 100% convinced that Mr Hellyer's unified (joint) commands are much, Much, MUCH better than anything that has come since.

I thought the formation of Air Command in 1975 was an act of policy vandalism perpetrated by a bunch of short-sighted, vainglorious military wannabes which was allowed to succeed only because the commanders of Maritime and Mobile Command (Turcot, Milroy and Waters) were weak, narrow-minded old men who never put their organic Army and Navy Aviation arms on an equal footing with their ships and guns and tanks. 

Mr Hellyer was wrong about several things, but his organizational model, of "functional" (his word) unified commands was better than anything we've had before or since.


----------



## GK .Dundas

Brock is also now that I think of it ,the inventor of the heliporter.


----------



## Halifax Tar

GK .Dundas said:


> I read them and did a wee bit of digging . I enjoyed them immensely to be honest . Like I said he's a great writer.
> His biggest problems seems to be  his ego  tended to get in the way and the venom directed at all and sundry at those who opposed him
> Well I guess that's what memoirs are for .



How so though ?  He defiantly help no punches in his distain for the politicians and officers who pushed the unification program.  Feel free to PM is if you wish.  The period of unification fascinates me so I tend to pick that subject when I get the chance.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Edward Campbell said:


> I still remain 100% convinced that Mr Hellyer's unified (joint) commands are much, Much, MUCH better than anything that has come since.
> 
> I thought the formation of Air Command in 1975 was an act of policy vandalism perpetrated by a bunch of short-sighted, vainglorious military wannabes which was allowed to succeed only because the commanders of Maritime and Mobile Command (Turcot, Milroy and Waters) were weak, narrow-minded old men who never put their organic Army and Navy Aviation arms on an equal footing with their ships and guns and tanks.
> 
> Mr Hellyer was wrong about several things, but his organizational model, of "functional" (his word) unified commands was better than anything we've had before or since.



Would that have more to do with HQ bloat ?


----------



## Halifax Tar

GK .Dundas said:


> Brock is also now that I think of it ,the inventor of the heliporter.



Lol I had google heliporter


----------



## FSTO

Edward Campbell said:


> I still remain 100% convinced that Mr Hellyer's unified (joint) commands are much, Much, MUCH better than anything that has come since.


Similar to the USN? Even though the Marines are a "separate" service, they are so integrated with the Navy that their operations are seemless.


----------



## Halifax Tar

FSTO said:


> Similar to the USN? Even though the Marines are a "separate" service, they are so integrated with the Navy that their operations are seemless.



I have it in my head that Hellyer wanted us to be an organization similar to the USMC.  Truth ?  Or did I fabricate that ?


----------



## Good2Golf

FSTO said:


> Well the stink of being CDS (or not being CDS) hasn't been exclusively draped on the RCN has it? There is enough has-beens, near do wells, and boot lickers from all parts of the CAF to stink up all of Canada. In the end, what CDS has really moved the ball towards anything? We are hostages to the whims of the PMO and always will be.



Don’t get me wrong; I don’t think that being CDS is by any means the be all to end all. Some have been complete bootlicks, others unimpressive, some influential.



Humphrey Bogart said:


> McDonald-Baines-Edmundson
> 
> The Axis of Weasels?  😀



Ah yes, forgot the third horseman of the RCN Apocalypse… 😆 Shame on me. 



FSTO said:


> The initial iteration of Maritime Command would have been great, the Navy had been advocating for control of the MPA community for years. But as per all the other maneuvering and backstabbing post Hellyer, the Air Force mafia was able to wrest control of all the flying communities from the Army and Navy.


I don’t have any real insight/experience on a would-be post-integration Fleet Air Arm, but will say that from the green side, there is (or more accurately was) much visible bemoaning by FMC about the poor state of support by Air Command, and yet for the actual “Deeds, Not Words” bit, FMC threw aviation under the bus several tomes; first ‘giving’ the green CF-5s to Air Command (no meaningful pushback when AIRCOM stated they’d be transferring the CF-5s from 10 TAG to FG), then deciding to not fund the CH-147’s upgrade from C to D-models, which was followed with FMCS decision (it funded aviation at the time) to let the Chinook be decommissioned; then the infamous CH-146 purchase in 1992 (again, FMC still had the funding means and decision for tactical aviation).

So, while many will romanticize the “parent service as proponent for component aviation”, the reality (at least in the green side) was that environmental aviation is just one more card in the deck and doesn’t always (often) make the cut compared to core environmental capabilities.


----------



## FSTO

Halifax Tar said:


> I have it in my head that Hellyer wanted us to be an organization similar to the USMC.  Truth ?  Or did I fabricate that ?


That is my initial assesment as well. Except he forgot that the Marines need the Navy to get to the fight.


----------



## FSTO

Good2Golf said:


> Don’t get me wrong; I don’t think that being CDS is by any means the be all to end all. Some have been complete bootlicks, others unimpressive, some influential.
> 
> 
> 
> Ah yes, forgot the third horseman of the RCN Apocalypse… 😆 Shame on me.
> 
> 
> I don’t have any real insight/experience on a would-be post-integration Fleet Air Arm, but will say that from the green side, there is (or more accurately was) much visible bemoaning by FMC about the poor state of support by Air Command, and yet for the actual “Deeds, Not Words” bit, FMC threw aviation under the bus several tomes; first ‘giving’ the green CF-5s to Air Command (no meaningful pushback when AIRCOM stated they’d be transferring the CF-5s from 10 TAG to FG), then deciding to not fund the CH-147’s upgrade from C to D-models, which was followed with FMCS decision (it funded aviation at the time) to let the Chinook be decommissioned; then the infamous CH-146 purchase in 1992 (again, FMC still had the funding means and decision for tactical aviation).
> 
> So, while many will romanticize the “parent service as proponent for component aviation”, the reality (at least in the green side) was that environmental aviation is just one more card in the deck and doesn’t always (often) make the cut compared to core environmental capabilities.


Same within the RCN. There was always a fight between the Airdales and the Line Officers with the dasterdly submariners wanting a piece as well. Usually the Line Officers won, but as mentioned above their views were short-sighted as well.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Halifax Tar said:


> Would that have more to do with HQ bloat ?


HQ bloat came, it seems to me, with the 2000s ... I watched, in absolute horror, as commanders were downgraded (and reduced in rank) and staff officers were promoted and given absolutely unnecessary and inappropriate authority.

The staff has two functions, and only two:

1. To *assist *the commander in the function of command by relieving her/him of detail; and
2. To *assist* subordinate formations, units and elements in carrying out their tasks by coordinating activities and, on the commander's behalf, reallocating resources, including time, as necessary.

If you're not actually engaged in combat or support operations then you ought to be doing those two things, well ... otherwise you don't belong in the Army.

Everything else is busywork.


----------



## Kirkhill

Good2Golf said:


> Don’t get me wrong; I don’t think that being CDS is by any means the be all to end all. Some have been complete bootlicks, others unimpressive, some influential.
> 
> 
> 
> Ah yes, forgot the third horseman of the RCN Apocalypse… 😆 Shame on me.
> 
> 
> I don’t have any real insight/experience on a would-be post-integration Fleet Air Arm, but will say that from the green side, there is (or more accurately was) much visible bemoaning by FMC about the poor state of support by Air Command, and yet for the actual “Deeds, Not Words” bit, FMC threw aviation under the bus several tomes; first ‘giving’ the green CF-5s to Air Command (no meaningful pushback when AIRCOM stated they’d be transferring the CF-5s from 10 TAG to FG), then deciding to not fund the CH-147’s upgrade from C to D-models, which was followed with FMCS decision (it funded aviation at the time) to let the Chinook be decommissioned; then the infamous CH-146 purchase in 1992 (again, FMC still had the funding means and decision for tactical aviation).
> 
> So, while many will romanticize the “parent service as proponent for component aviation”, the reality (at least in the green side) was that environmental aviation is just one more card in the deck and doesn’t always (often) make the cut compared to core environmental capabilities.



All that had to happen was putting wings on a Leopard.  Problem solved.


----------



## Kirkhill

FSTO said:


> That is my initial assesment as well. Except he forgot that the Marines need the Navy to get to the fight.



They still do.  But the USN buys the Marines ships that will take them to the fight.


----------



## GK .Dundas

FSTO said:


> Same within the RCN. There was always a fight between the Airdales and the Line Officers with the dasterdly submariners wanting a piece as well. Usually the Line Officers won, but as mentioned above their views were short-sighted as well.


There is a story floating around that the reason the Airforce was given NavAir was the result of a study.
Wait for it ......it wasn't a sturdy of how to make the most effective use of Maritime air .
It was a study that showed that  a higher percentage of Naval Aviators were getting more ship commands  then surface warfare types. And it looked like it would continue into the future.
Ouch?


----------



## FSTO

GK .Dundas said:


> There is a story floating around that the reason the Airforce was given NavAir was the result of a study.
> Wait for it ......it wasn't a sturdy of how to make the most effective use of Maritime air .
> It was a study that showed that  a higher percentage of Naval Aviators were getting ship commands  then surface warfare types. And it looked like it would continue into the future.
> Ouch?


True, and many submariners (since command of a sub was LCdr position) became very effective surface ship commanders (a Cdr position).
So yes, it was all about egos and short sightedness.


----------



## FSTO

Kirkhill said:


> They still do.  But the USN buys the Marines ships that will take them to the fight.


Gator Navy is still run by the Navy, the Marines get to ride in them.

I think we're saying the same thing.


----------



## GK .Dundas

FSTO said:


> Gator Navy is still run by the Navy, the Marines get to ride in them.
> 
> I think we're saying the same thing.


Isn't Marine an acronym for My Ass Rides In Navy Equipment?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Halifax Tar said:


> Lol I had google heliporter


Just woke up and I am thinking General Brock invented the Helicopter in 1812? Must have more coffee....


----------



## Kirkhill

FSTO said:


> Gator Navy is still run by the Navy, the Marines get to ride in them.
> 
> I think we're saying the same thing.


We is.

Although I was thinking more about Canadian Admirals and Big Honking Ships.

In an Expeditionary Force the Navy transports the Army and the Air Force that supports the Army while providing cover to the Navy.

In a Canadian Domestic Force the Police are supported by the Army which is co-located with the Police or transported by the Air Force which supplies support and cover to the Police and the Army.

The Expeditionary Force is a tool of Global Affairs.
The Domestic Force is a tool of Public Safety.


----------



## OldSolduer

Kirkhill said:


> Global Affairs.


Does that include Members of Parliament having affairs with foreign nationals.....


----------



## dimsum

GK .Dundas said:


> There is a story floating around that the reason the Airforce was given NavAir was the result of a study.
> Wait for it ......it wasn't a sturdy of how to make the most effective use of Maritime air .
> It was a study that showed that  a higher percentage of Naval Aviators were getting more ship commands  then surface warfare types. And it looked like it would continue into the future.
> Ouch?


That sounds like the most MARS/NWO thing I've heard in a while.  

I'd 100% believe that to be true.


----------



## FSTO

dimsum said:


> That sounds like the most MARS/NWO thing I've heard in a while.
> 
> I'd 100% believe that to be true.


Snide remarks aside. We as a force suffer so much because of egos and agendas. Like the unwritten rule that you have to a ring knocker to be CDS.


----------



## KevinB

FSTO said:


> Snide remarks aside. We as a force suffer so much because of egos and agendas. Like the unwritten rule that you have to a ring knocker to be CDS.


I always assumed that was MAD related.  If you tried to be a strong CDS and restructure the CAF that one of your classmates would burn you out with tales from one’s history at school.


----------



## Brad Sallows

Like the guy in Four Weddings and a Funeral?

"I was at school with his brother Bufty. Tremendous bloke. He was head of my house. Buggered me senseless. Taught me things about life."


----------



## WLSC

KevinB said:


> I always assumed that was MAD related.  If you tried to be a strong CDS and restructure the CAF that one of your classmates would burn you out with tales from one’s history at school.


I heard the words _Incestuous self liking ice-cream _about those fine institutions 😏


----------



## daftandbarmy

FSTO said:


> Snide remarks aside. We as a force suffer so much because of egos and agendas. Like the unwritten rule that you have to a ring knocker to be CDS.



Are you sure it's unwritten? The increase in the % of Officers trained through RMC was a stated 'culture change' policy post-Somalia, even though it was more expensive and, paradoxically, perhaps resulting in more sexual assault issues in recent times:

*Developing Strategic Lieutenants in the Canadian Army *

The office of the auditor general reviewed the Royal Military College to ensure the insitution’s value for money and compliance with federal legislation, and concluded in 2017 that the college was an expensive way to produce officers.

Focusing on efficiencies and costs, however, obscures the college’s role as an engine of reform for the officer corps and fails to realize the value of institutions that foster officership.

The recommendations of the various reports provide a checklist to measure progress over time. In 2005, Cowan noted the connections between the Canadian Armed Forces and the Royal Military College had strengthened, the CDS and service leaders frequently visited the college, and college leaders realized the desirability of increased utility to the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces.

Thus, some of the recommended reforms were being implemented at that time. Nonetheless, the idea of using the RMC as the engine of reform for the Canadian officer corps was never fully realized. Cowan stated this effort was . . . the one that got away. It was to go from 25% of officer intake to approximately 35-40%. 

While events in Saint Jean help take some of the pressure off, ultimately, what we need to understand is the original reasoning. This was essentially cultural. There are 110 universities in Canada, but we only control the culture in one of them. If you want to evolve the culture of the officer corps through an institution at the input end of the spectrum, you need to broaden the flow through that institution.

While the percentage grew to approximately 28 to 29 percent of the officer intake in 2005, it remained short of the target. The SSAV noted the percentage in 2012–13 was approximately 25 to 27 percent of intake, with RMC graduates comprising 55 to 57 percent of the general and flag officers in the Canadian Armed Forces. 

This number should not be interpreted as a sign the core curriculum was producing generals. In 2012–13, the majority of the general and flag officers had over 25 years of service, which meant they were commissioned in the mid- to late-1980s. *Royal Military College graduates were retained longer or progressed faster than peers commissioned by other means. Exactly why this phenomena occurred is not easily determined.*



			https://press.armywarcollege.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3134&context=parameters


----------



## Brad Sallows

> If you want to evolve the culture of the officer corps through an institution at the input end of the spectrum, you need to broaden the flow through that institution.



Works great, if the culture doesn't go sideways.


----------



## dapaterson

Post-Somalia culture change for the CAF was the introduction of the Degreed Officer Corps (recommendation #10 of the report to the PM on the Management and Leadership of the CAF from Feb 1997); there was no explicit direction that it should be delivered via ROTP-MilCol.

That said, Ramsey Withers and others saw that recommendation coming, and did their best to situate RMC as a preferred delivery method for the degreed officer corps.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

dapaterson said:


> Post-Somalia culture change for the CAF was the introduction of the Degreed Officer Corps (recommendation #10 of the report to the PM on the Management and Leadership of the CAF from Feb 1997); there was no explicit direction that it should be delivered via ROTP-MilCol.
> 
> That said, Ramsey Withers and others saw that recommendation coming, and did their best to situate RMC as a preferred delivery method for the degreed officer corps.


And the Withers Report, like all others, has magically disappeared 🤣


----------



## dapaterson

Humphrey Bogart said:


> And the Withers Report, like all others, has magically disappeared 🤣








						Report of the RMC Board of Governors By the Withers' Study Group
					

Balanced Excellence Leading Canada's Armed Forces In The New Millenium 4500-240 (ADM (HR-Mil)) 24 September 1998 Distribution List Officer Education and Training - Planning for the Future - Lieutenant-General Dallaire References: A. Report to the Prime Minister on the Leadership and Management...




					www.rmc-cmr.ca


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

dapaterson said:


> Report of the RMC Board of Governors By the Withers' Study Group
> 
> 
> Balanced Excellence Leading Canada's Armed Forces In The New Millenium 4500-240 (ADM (HR-Mil)) 24 September 1998 Distribution List Officer Education and Training - Planning for the Future - Lieutenant-General Dallaire References: A. Report to the Prime Minister on the Leadership and Management...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.rmc-cmr.ca


I take it back, it used to be available on the main page.


----------



## PPCLI Guy

FSTO said:


> Well the stink of being CDS (or not being CDS) hasn't been exclusively draped on the RCN has it? There is enough has-beens, near do wells, and boot lickers from all parts of the CAF to stink up all of Canada. In the end, what CDS has really moved the ball towards anything? We are hostages to the whims of the PMO and always will be.


They have less than 20% of the force, but claim 1/3 of the top billets.  Talent dilution is a real thing here.  Plus.....RCN is way better at command than at leadership......


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

PPCLI Guy said:


> They have less than 20% of the force, but claim 1/3 of the top billets.  Talent dilution is a real thing here.  Plus.....RCN is way better at command than at leadership......


It's because leadership, as it's taught in the Army and what is expected of an Officer in, let's say a Regiment, isn't really a thing in the RCN.


----------



## PPCLI Guy

As I have been prone to say - often to senior RCN "leaders" - it is not hard to "lead" when every one is locked in a tin can and you have sole and uncontested authority to force all the souls in that tin can to go wherever you want.  No Navy guy or gal (less boarding) has ever said those immortal words that personify in-person leadership: "you three go that way - the rest of you follow me"!


----------



## Halifax Tar

PPCLI Guy said:


> As I have been prone to say - often to senior RCN "leaders" - it is not hard to "lead" when every one is locked in a tin can and you have sole and uncontested authority to force all the souls in that tin can to go wherever you want.  No Navy guy or gal (less boarding) has ever said those immortal words that personify in-person leadership: "you three go that way - the rest of you follow me"!



I've served in both worlds.  Neither holds preeminence on leadership or the creation of leaders.  And both could learn from each other.


----------



## WLSC

Halifax Tar said:


> I've served in both worlds.  Neither holds preeminence on leadership or the creation of leaders.  And both could learn from each other.


I agree with you, there's no colour in leadership.  The basic skill set are the same, the environment differ.  No, the navy wont have to take certain call as the army leader do however, no arny unit would have to fight a fire onboard a ship while still having to fight.

Different leadership challenge, same basic skill.


----------



## FSTO

PPCLI Guy said:


> As I have been prone to say - often to senior RCN "leaders" - it is not hard to "lead" when every one is locked in a tin can and you have sole and uncontested authority to force all the souls in that tin can to go wherever you want.  No Navy guy or gal (less boarding) has ever said those immortal words that personify in-person leadership: "you three go that way - the rest of you follow me"!


An army officer has to convince their team to take that hill, the naval officer (if they are the ship's Captain) says to their sailors "you're coming with me no matter what", while the air force support team waves good-bye to the officer as the plane takes off. Different environments, different leadership styles.


----------



## dimsum

FSTO said:


> Snide remarks aside. We as a force suffer so much because of egos and agendas. Like the unwritten rule that you have to a ring knocker to be CDS.


Uh...









						Rick Hillier - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## KevinB

dimsum said:


> Uh...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rick Hillier - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org


The exception to the rule, and an example perhaps of why the rule kind of sucks


----------



## PPCLI Guy

FSTO said:


> An army officer has to convince their team to take that hill, the naval officer (if they are the ship's Captain) says to their sailors "you're coming with me no matter what", while the air force support team waves good-bye to the officer as the plane takes off. Different environments, different leadership styles.


Except the context of the original discussion was institutional leadership - vis CDS et al.  I think that not all "styles" best prepare someone for the strategic roles that we ask people to assume....or that some chase to their detriment...and the institution's.


----------



## FSTO

dimsum said:


> Uh...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rick Hillier - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org


Yea, I knew I’d be called out. Figures.


----------



## Halifax Tar

dimsum said:


> Uh...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rick Hillier - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org



Big Rick had his faults too.  His obsession with the COMs and HQ bloat was bemoaned on here ad nauseam.


----------



## Halifax Tar

PPCLI Guy said:


> Except the context of the original discussion was institutional leadership - vis CDS et al.  I think that not all "styles" best prepare someone for the strategic roles that we ask people to assume....or that some chase to their detriment...and the institution's.



Like Vance or Russell Williams ?


----------



## Edward Campbell

It seems to me that the CF's recent experiences suggest that none of our command "styles" produce a consistent stream of competent, ethical leaders.

Maybe the fault is, at least in some (large?) part, in the nature of the "charm school" (RMC/CMR); I doubt that university degrees, themselves, make people morally weak. But one might wonder if people with science/applied science degrees "fail," ethically, at the same rate as their brethren with degrees in e.g. strategic studies (Vance) and political science (Williams); do all those well publicized crude, but rarely criminal, undergraduate shenanigans for which the "gears" are justifiably infamous make them better adults? Does too much Machiavelli and Clausewitz (and not enough Terman) make one ethically suspect?

One of the recommendations of the Withers Report was to put more stress on the *M* in RMC. Maybe we have, since the 1970s, when the pressure to have a degreed officer corps began in earnest, put too much emphasis on formal education and not enough on the military ethos.

I served under a few admirals, at least two of whom were qualitatively better "leaders" than the overwhelming majority of Army and Air Force officers who surrouned them. I lived through the Boyle/Labbé era when selected officers were "anointed" by a shadowy civil-military elite, while others were pushed aside, regardless of their superior talent and skill. That was,* in my opinion*, the command "style" that allowed e.g. Vance, Edmunson et al to thrive.


----------



## rmc_wannabe

Edward Campbell said:


> It seems to me that the CF's recent experiences suggest that none of our command "styles" produce a consistent stream of competent, ethical leaders.
> 
> Maybe the fault is, at least in some (large?) part, in the nature of the "charm school" (RMC/CMR); I doubt that university degrees, themselves, make people morally weak. But one might wonder if people with science/applied science degrees "fail," ethically, at the same rate as their brethren with degrees in e.g. strategic studies (Vance) and political science (Williams); do all those well publicized crude, but rarely criminal, undergraduate shenanigans for which the "gears" are justifiably infamous make them better adults? Does too much Machiavelli and Clausewitz (and not enough Terman) make one ethically suspect?


I think the problem stems from trying to use education and credentials as a substitute for character and ethical behaviour. You can require students read as much Nietzsche or Hippocrates as one needs to get a check in the box; has no bearing on if that person is a prick to work for or not. Education is not a panacea for the disease of ignorance; it helps, but its not the be all end all solution. 



Edward Campbell said:


> One of the recommendations of the Withers Report was to put more stress on the *M* in RMC. Maybe we have, since the 1970s, when the pressure to have a degreed officer corps began in earnest, put too much emphasis on formal education and not enough on the military ethos.


I was a high-school student in the early 2000s. RMC was always sold separately, and to separate groups of people, by the CFRC Staff as an Educational opportunity more than a military career. The unwashed masses of us who weren't stellar at the field of academia received the "cool Army" version of the brief, geared towards NCM professions, as we were expected not to be interested in educational opportunities. 

I find it is reflective of a lot of what is wrong within our organization. Academia is very much a personal endeavor and success is weighted heavily on individual factors, choices, and abelites. We use this as the metric for people we want most to be leading team efforts; where the team's success requires everyone doing their very best and helping bring other's up when needed.  It a very weird dichotomy to have in an organization that basically builds teams of varying sizes to play the world's toughest contact sport.



Edward Campbell said:


> I served under a few admirals, at least two of whom were qualitatively better "leaders" than the overwhelming majority of Army and Air Force officers who surrouned them. I lived through the Boyle/Labbé era when selected officers were "anointed" by a shadowy civil-military elite, while others were pushed aside, regardless of their superior talent and skill. That was,* in my opinion*, the command "style" that allowed e.g. Vance, Edmunson et al to thrive.


Once again, we create an environment where credentialism, and in some cases nepotism, trumps character and ability. It doesn't surprise me one bit.


----------



## Remius

I was in recruiting around that time.  RMC a was really pushing the university experience and less the military experience.  We did a joint presentation at a student fair with an RMC rep.  I then requested never to have to do that ever again.  They blantantly stated that the military stuff wasn’t a pillar they put a lot of priority on since they could get all of that after.  And don’t get me started on varsity sports…


----------



## WLSC

There’s a lot of « senior leaders » in the forces that never really tried to understand _Duty with honour _or just don’t care.  They do not see the positive impact on the daily operations.  I often heard something like « L0/L1 pay lip service to it because it please the GC but it is not really for application » and other variations of that in the last 10 years.  Those comment where mostly done from people from the Colleges of influence by them.  When you come to believe that you are bigger than the institution you serve/command, it’s only trouble in the making.

Talib, Viêt-cong and all the like believes in their cause and they are successful.  If we do not take the time to make sure our troupe believe and live in a professional institution, we are doom to see that « culture change » again and again.


----------



## Navy_Pete

I personally think a lot of the personal ethics gets locked in a lot earlier than joining, so you will get the normal cross section of beliefs when people join.  People that already have a strong ethical belief can adapt to the CAF application fairly easily (and will probably do it regardless of what CAF culture is), so it's really more of having guidelines for the majority of 'goodish' people that need some direction/support, and strong, *consistently applied* penalties to deter the sociopaths or generally greasy characters.

Similarly, I tend to think in terms of "I'm responsible for x number of people" vice 'x number of people work for me', and that was something I learned from my dad early on. Probably contributes to a lot of sleepless nights, but that really influences a lot of things I do as it creates a lot of internal personal accountability. I'm not really sure how you would train something like that institutionally, but try and pass that on to trainees when I can.

I think the days of believing in the institution are probably waning (thanks to the behaviour of the institution) but the idea of serving others (ie being responsible for subordinates) is probably something people can still support, and frankly looking out for other sailors/soldiers/aviators is probably the thing keeping a lot of people from going elsewhere.


----------



## WLSC

Navy_Pete said:


> I personally think a lot of the personal ethics gets locked in a lot earlier than joining, so you will get the normal cross section of beliefs when people join.  People that already have a strong ethical belief can adapt to the CAF application fairly easily (and will probably do it regardless of what CAF culture is), so it's really more of having guidelines for the majority of 'goodish' people that need some direction/support, and strong, *consistently applied* penalties to deter the sociopaths or generally greasy characters.
> 
> Similarly, I tend to think in terms of "I'm responsible for x number of people" vice 'x number of people work for me', and that was something I learned from my dad early on. Probably contributes to a lot of sleepless nights, but that really influences a lot of things I do as it creates a lot of internal personal accountability. I'm not really sure how you would train something like that institutionally, but try and pass that on to trainees when I can.
> 
> I think the days of believing in the institution are probably waning (thanks to the behaviour of the institution) but the idea of serving others (ie being responsible for subordinates) is probably something people can still support, and frankly looking out for other sailors/soldiers/aviators is probably the thing keeping a lot of people from going elsewhere.


One values are shown and explained, it can take up to 8 years to becomes yours (internalised).  Better tout unit is applying those values, faster and deapper internalisation is done.  8 years is sgt/mcpl and Capt/lt.

This is why the colleges have some rethinking to do about our leadership values.


----------



## Brad Sallows

Unmoderated teenage boys and young men can be prone to cruelty, indifference, acting out, recklessness, purposeless violence, self-indulgence etc.  In some frames, they can also be prone to group loyalty, self-sacrifice, and other cohesive behaviours.

Groups left to their own will form their own values; under stress, their values will evolve to favour their own interests no matter what has been taught, unless someone is present exerting positive control to maintain institutional values.

Age < 25 or so is the window of opportunity to iron things out.

Credentialism is a lamentable consequence of the unreliability of subjective assessment, unless assessments are strictly controlled and normalized and the sample size of assessments for each individual is large and is recorded.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Canada's top soldier says the military is on the 'cusp' of rapid change​
Question - can the words 'rapid' and 'change' be in the same sentence together when talking about the CAF in its present form?

In a speech delivered to one of Ottawa's "Mayor's Breakfast" networking events, Eyre said the military will need to adapt swiftly to changes in technology, geopolitics and culture to be effective.
"We are on the cusp of so much change that has to come."
Eyre said the military needs to focus on improving its capabilities in new technologies like artificial intelligence, robotics, quantum computing and hypersonic weapons.
He said the "skyrocketing" cost of housing is affecting the military and the armed forces is short of between 4,000 and 6,000 housing units on bases across the country.
Eyre said the armed forces faces a recruiting shortfall as well. The pandemic has undermined the CAF's ability to recruit and train, he said. "Our numbers are not where we'd like them to be, and they've gone down since the pandemic began," he said. we're going to become irrelevant as an institution." The military recently reported that it's around 7,600 members short of full strength. Currently, the CAF has roughly 65,000 regular members.




			https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/wayne-eyre-military-challenges-future-1.6419663


----------



## Booter

I believe the translated political talk from “rapid change” is to “collapse”


----------



## Underway

Booter said:


> I believe the translated political talk from “rapid change” is to “collapse”


I believe the traditional toast for Thursday is in order.

Cdr in record time here I come!


----------



## KevinB

Underway said:


> I believe the traditional toast for Thursday is in order.
> 
> Cdr in record time here I come!


Silver linings and all that


----------



## Underway

Brad Sallows said:


> Unmoderated teenage boys and young men can be prone to cruelty, indifference, acting out, recklessness, purposeless violence, self-indulgence etc.  In some frames, they can also be prone to group loyalty, self-sacrifice, and other cohesive behaviours.
> 
> Groups left to their own will form their own values; under stress, their values will evolve to favour their own interests no matter what has been taught, unless someone is present exerting positive control to maintain institutional values.
> 
> Age < 25 or so is the window of opportunity to iron things out.
> 
> Credentialism is a lamentable consequence of the unreliability of subjective assessment, unless assessments are strictly controlled and normalized and the sample size of assessments for each individual is large and is recorded.



Moral courage is lacking across the CAF.  It's not rewarded because it points out problems.  But then again it's not rewarded anywhere that I can think of.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Booter said:


> I believe the translated political talk from “rapid change” is to “collapse”


The numbers I've heard of people enrolled per month vs people leaving per month is pretty staggering.

Collapse would be an appropriate word.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Czech_pivo said:


> Canada's top soldier says the military is on the 'cusp' of rapid change​
> Question - can the words 'rapid' and 'change' be in the same sentence together when talking about the CAF in its present form?
> 
> In a speech delivered to one of Ottawa's "Mayor's Breakfast" networking events, Eyre said the military will need to adapt swiftly to changes in technology, geopolitics and culture to be effective.
> "We are on the cusp of so much change that has to come."
> Eyre said the military needs to focus on improving its capabilities in new technologies like artificial intelligence, robotics, quantum computing and hypersonic weapons.
> He said the "skyrocketing" cost of housing is affecting the military and the armed forces is short of between 4,000 and 6,000 housing units on bases across the country.
> Eyre said the armed forces faces a recruiting shortfall as well. The pandemic has undermined the CAF's ability to recruit and train, he said. "Our numbers are not where we'd like them to be, and they've gone down since the pandemic began," he said. we're going to become irrelevant as an institution." The military recently reported that it's around 7,600 members short of full strength. Currently, the CAF has roughly 65,000 regular members.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/wayne-eyre-military-challenges-future-1.6419663



That's a dinner bell for all the big consulting firms.


Just sayin'


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

daftandbarmy said:


> That's a dinner bell for all the big consulting firms.
> 
> 
> Just sayin'


You placing a bid? Or is it just considered bad for the brand at this point?


----------



## daftandbarmy

Humphrey Bogart said:


> You placing a bid? Or is it just considered bad for the brand at this point?



Our valued clients know that we are always available to help them pick up the pieces after the first wave of 'transformational change management' programs, usually launched in a feverish rush to get everything done all at once, stall out


----------



## Brad Sallows

> Moral courage is lacking across the CAF.



Sometimes, being the humourless SOB in the room is its own reward.


----------



## Czech_pivo

daftandbarmy said:


> That's a dinner bell for all the big consulting firms.
> 
> 
> Just sayin'


And then out comes the 'blame the Consultants' chant when it all turns into ash.

EDIT: As someone who's been a Consultant in the banking/insurance sector for the last 16.5yrs, I'm well aware of this mantra and have the wounds to prove it.


----------



## FJAG

> Overall, the armed forces that we have today is not the armed forces we need for the future



What does that say about yesterday's leadership?


----------



## MilEME09

FJAG said:


> What does that say about yesterday's leadership?


That they were unimaginative? Follow tradition of having us ready for yesterday's war tomorrow? Concerned about the status quo? 

They don't have crystal balls, but we have been hemorrhaging people since before covid started, and the only major announcement I have seen is the new dress regs. Our leaders need to start solving the CAFs problems while we still have an organization to save.


----------



## Brad Sallows

> What does that say about yesterday's leadership?



That they were creatures of their time.  Most of my working life has been made more difficult by people carrying some variation of the "embrace change" flag.


----------



## WLSC

Humphrey Bogart said:


> The numbers I've heard of people enrolled per month vs people leaving per month is pretty staggering.
> 
> Collapse would be an appropriate word.


The attraction part is good and enough to compensate.  Then, there a little thing call enrolment process.  How long it is now from on line application to BMQ?  This is where it hurts and again, we are asking the problem to fix itself…


----------



## WLSC

MilEME09 said:


> That they were unimaginative? Follow tradition of having us ready for yesterday's war tomorrow? Concerned about the status quo?
> 
> They don't have crystal balls, but we have been hemorrhaging people since before covid started, and the only major announcement I have seen is the new dress regs. Our leaders need to start solving the CAFs problems while we still have an organization to save.


To busy doing their 3rd Master degree.  They don’t have the time to take care of the house.


----------



## daftandbarmy

WLSC said:


> The attraction part is good and enough to compensate.  Then, there a little thing call enrolment process.  How long it is now from on line application to BMQ?  This is where it hurts and again, we are asking the problem to fix itself…



The OAG reported on this issue, and others, a few years ago. It seems that these issues persist:

Report 5—Canadian Armed Forces Recruitment and Retention—National Defence​
Overall message​5.11Overall, we found that the total number of Regular Force members had decreased, and that there had been a growing gap between the number of members needed and those who were fully trained. In our opinion, it is unlikely that the Regular Force will be able to reach the desired number of members by the 2018–19 fiscal year as planned. We also found that although the Canadian Armed Forces had established a goal of 25 percent for the representation of women, it did not set specific targets by occupation, nor did it have a strategy to achieve this goal.

5.12We found that although the Regular Force had mechanisms in place to define its recruiting needs, those needs were not reflected in recruitment plans and targets. Instead, recruitment targets were based on National Defence’s capacity to process applications and enrol and train new members. Furthermore, we found that the total recruitment targets had been met by enrolling more members than had been set as targets in some occupations, leaving other occupations significantly below the required number of personnel.

5.13This is important because the Canadian Armed Forces needs a sufficient number of trained members in the right balance of occupations to maintain its military capability and accomplish the missions set out in the _Canada First_ Defence Strategy.



			Report 5—Canadian Armed Forces Recruitment and Retention—National Defence


----------



## Furniture

WLSC said:


> To busy doing their 3rd Master degree.  They don’t have the time to take care of the house.


I was going to bring this up earlier... 

I was recently told that to be competitive as a PO1 I should be working on getting a degree. Not because after 21 years as a Met Tech a degree would make me a better leader, or better forecaster/inspector, but because it's extra points on the scrit. 

Leaders can't/don't actually focus on their jobs, because the CAF is too busy encouraging them to do the "extras" required to advance.


----------



## MilEME09

Furniture said:


> I was going to bring this up earlier...
> 
> I was recently told that to be competitive as a PO1 I should be working on getting a degree. Not because after 21 years as a Met Tech a degree would make me a better leader, or better forecaster/inspector, but because it's extra points on the scrit.
> 
> Leaders can't/don't actually focus on their jobs, because the CAF is too busy encouraging them to do the "extras" required to advance.


And extras shouldn't be requirements...


----------



## Furniture

MilEME09 said:


> And extras should be requirements...


----------



## kev994

Furniture said:


> I was going to bring this up earlier...
> 
> I was recently told that to be competitive as a PO1 I should be working on getting a degree. Not because after 21 years as a Met Tech a degree would make me a better leader, or better forecaster/inspector, but because it's extra points on the scrit.
> 
> Leaders can't/don't actually focus on their jobs, because the CAF is too busy encouraging them to do the "extras" required to advance.


It’s not about whether you can lead troops in battle, but whether you can organize the base commander’s golf tournament.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Furniture said:


> I was going to bring this up earlier...
> 
> I was recently told that to be competitive as a PO1 I should be working on getting a degree. Not because after 21 years as a Met Tech a degree would make me a better leader, or better forecaster/inspector, but because it's extra points on the scrit.
> 
> Leaders can't/don't actually focus on their jobs, because the CAF is too busy encouraging them to do the "extras" required to advance.



Preach Mon Ami!


----------



## Halifax Tar

kev994 said:


> It’s not about whether you can lead troops in battle, but whether you can organize the base commander’s golf tournament.



That's beautiful!  Mind if I steal that ?  Would look great in my email sig


----------



## Navy_Pete

Czech_pivo said:


> Canada's top soldier says the military is on the 'cusp' of rapid change​
> Question - can the words 'rapid' and 'change' be in the same sentence together when talking about the CAF in its present form?
> 
> In a speech delivered to one of Ottawa's "Mayor's Breakfast" networking events, Eyre said the military will need to adapt swiftly to changes in technology, geopolitics and culture to be effective.
> "We are on the cusp of so much change that has to come."
> Eyre said the military needs to focus on improving its capabilities in new technologies like artificial intelligence, robotics, quantum computing and hypersonic weapons.
> He said the "skyrocketing" cost of housing is affecting the military and the armed forces is short of between 4,000 and 6,000 housing units on bases across the country.
> Eyre said the armed forces faces a recruiting shortfall as well. The pandemic has undermined the CAF's ability to recruit and train, he said. "Our numbers are not where we'd like them to be, and they've gone down since the pandemic began," he said. we're going to become irrelevant as an institution." The military recently reported that it's around 7,600 members short of full strength. Currently, the CAF has roughly 65,000 regular members.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/wayne-eyre-military-challenges-future-1.6419663


I absolutely hate the innovation stuff.  Not because it's not necessary, but because it gets the spotlight, resources and efforts whiile we are still struggling to implement things from 10-15 years ago.

I can't buy off the shelf items for basic safety equipment and get them sent to units because we lack bodies to process the demands and each time we get close more hoops get added on, but some assclown has 'dashboards' and all sorts of other flashy nonsense.

Maybe we can innovate by not adding additional layers onto existing processes. Maybe we can innovate by listening to our internal expertise the first time, instead of paying consultants to look at a problem and identify the same solution 2-3 years later (with a fancy dashboard report). Maybe we can innovate by having our big giant heads as external organs.

Or maybe I'm just bitter, I don't know.


----------



## OldSolduer

The CAF suffers from IEADHD.

You all like those acronyms - Institutionally Enforced Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. 

Something new and shiny  -or old and rotten - seems to derail the CAF all the time


----------



## rmc_wannabe

I think we have misconstrued "Innovation for the sake of appearing innovative" with genuine innovation.

A lot of the new policies and directions we are heading are kind of a rehash of what we already have been doing/other forces have done previously. Its the "iPhone 12 is new (compared to iPhone 11)" but is functionally just catching up to a Samsung Galaxy. No new capabilities, functionality, or improvements; just new ad campaigns and a sleek new appearance.

New dress regs/culture shift look good for a fleeting moment, especially in the sea of bad headlines about Sexual Misconduct et al; the problem is it doesn't address a lot more of the issues that cause organizational problems. Those cost a lot more time and money to fix, plus a lot of personal capital to be expended by Senior Officers and DMs. 

If we want to become a new fighting force for the 21st century, it's going to take a lot of people planting seeds in a garden they won't ever see bear fruit. That, unfortunately, doesn't yield immediate gratification for politicians or people looking for a quite place in NDHQ to be put out to pasture.


----------



## WLSC

rmc_wannabe said:


> New dress regs/culture shift look good for a fleeting moment, especially in the sea of bad headlines about Sexual Misconduct et al; the problem is it doesn't address a lot more of the issues that cause organizational problems. Those cost a lot more time and money to fix, plus a lot of personal capital to be expended by Senior Officers and DMs.


This has been a ''hot topic'' for at least 5-6 years.  It will get that shinny subject of the way like it did for the boots and beard.  Granted, it still need to be enforce and this where we are having a hard time because, being a cool and popular leader is so nice...

Culture will always be there, it's part of the change (a real change, not an artificial one for PER points).  I was in the ''Pepsi generation'', then after that the ''Nintendo'' etc.   We had the integration of woman in combat arms, SHARPE, OP HONOUR, and I'm missing some.  The young leaders will need to adapt quickly and not fight it so they don't go thru an other culture change each 10 years.

The time we spend trying to get it right each time, is time lost to train the troop.


----------



## Furniture

rmc_wannabe said:


> I think we have misconstrued "Innovation for the sake of appearing innovative" with genuine innovation.
> 
> A lot of the new policies and directions we are heading are kind of a rehash of what we already have been doing/other forces have done previously. Its the "iPhone 12 is new (compared to iPhone 11)" but is functionally just catching up to a Samsung Galaxy. No new capabilities, functionality, or improvements; just new ad campaigns and a sleek new appearance.
> 
> New dress regs/culture shift look good for a fleeting moment, especially in the sea of bad headlines about Sexual Misconduct et al; the problem is it doesn't address a lot more of the issues that cause organizational problems. Those cost a lot more time and money to fix, plus a lot of personal capital to be expended by Senior Officers and DMs.
> 
> *If we want to become a new fighting force for the 21st century, it's going to take a lot of people planting seeds in a garden they won't ever see bear fruit. That, unfortunately, doesn't yield immediate gratification for politicians or people looking for a quite place in NDHQ to be put out to pasture.*


I'm working on a job that should have been initiated by people in my current position 22 years ago. It should have been resolved before I put up my first chevron, but the people who got into the job wanted to relax for their last few years in Winnipeg/Ottawa. 

Not all of the problem is the people in the HQs, some of it is the processes that have been developed over the years because we as an organization are terrified of risk. There is kit in use by Nav Canada, and ECCC that we can't get approved for use because it hasn't been tested by the CAF. The CAF will fly to those airfields using their weather data, but we can't use the same kit for our own airfields.

If I was Emperor of Canada I'd be spending some of the new defence budget on buying the Nav Canada HWOS (automated/staffed weather station) for all of our airfields, and sending our Met Techs to Cornwall to learn how to use it.  It would free up pers to be used in more operationally impactful jobs, and free up bandwidth at the HQ levels for finding better kit for deployed operations/support.


----------



## KevinB

WLSC said:


> This has been a ''hot topic'' for at least 5-6 years.  It will get that shinny subject of the way like it did for the boots and beard.  Granted, it still need to be enforce and this where we are having a hard time because, being a cool and popular leader is so nice...


There have always been "Hot Topic" issues for the CAF - that tend to detract from the actual job of the CAF...


WLSC said:


> Culture will always be there, it's part of the change (a real change, not an artificial one for PER points).  I was in the ''Pepsi generation'', then after that the ''Nintendo'' etc.   We had the integration of woman in combat arms, SHARPE, OP HONOUR, and I'm missing some.  The young leaders will need to adapt quickly and not fight it so they don't go thru an other culture change each 10 years.


Change is normal - having suffered through many CAF changes from 1987 to 1994 I know the CAF wasted a slew of time in make work projects that sounds like a good briefing point - and could have been implemented much easier but was made increasingly stupider and more worthless as they went on.



WLSC said:


> The time we spend trying to  make it LOOK RIGHT each time, is time lost to train the troop.


Fixed it.
   The CAF spends an incredible amount of time on very simple concepts that if actually enforced would be over and done with.
But the desire to make it look more like something is being done usually interferes with something actually being done.
 It really isn't hard to make directives, and enforce them.
1) Don't torture prisoners 
2) Don't be a racist 
3) Don't be a sleazy douchebag
4) Don't accept the above in your units 

But no all sort of training is made uo to appear to be doing something.   Commands are added and more PY and budget is taken away from the coalface.
   Bored troops cause issues, well equipped troops who are conducting useful training or deployed with a clear mission are not.


----------



## WLSC

KevinB said:


> There have always been "Hot Topic" issues for the CAF - that tend to detract from the actual job of the CAF...
> 
> Change is normal - having suffered through many CAF changes from 1987 to 1994 I know the CAF wasted a slew of time in make work projects that sounds like a good briefing point - and could have been implemented much easier but was made increasingly stupider and more worthless as they went on.
> 
> 
> Fixed it.
> The CAF spends an incredible amount of time on very simple concepts that if actually enforced would be over and done with.
> But the desire to make it look more like something is being done usually interferes with something actually being done.
> It really isn't hard to make directives, and enforce them.
> 1) Don't torture prisoners
> 2) Don't be a racist
> 3) Don't be a sleazy douchebag
> 4) Don't accept the above in your units
> 
> But no all sort of training is made uo to appear to be doing something.   Commands are added and more PY and budget is taken away from the coalface.
> Bored troops cause issues, well equipped troops who are conducting useful training or deployed with a clear mission are not.


Absolutely bang on.  

Everything is cosmetic when you know, the Master degree take son much time.  So many intelligent people and yet so blind.  

Ops is everything but a to big portion forget that the main reasons ops will derail is people.  It will derail not because of tactical error but because of event like you said.  It's generating the never ending circle.  Simple notion like ''lead by exemple'' and drinking/living by the Cool-Aid of the POA should mitigate the risk of a culture change every 10 years.


----------



## McG

The case that 2% of GDP is in fact not enough for the CAF right now (spoiler: it is for rust-out and not because of Putin’s war).








						Richard Shimooka: Canada's defence budget fails to address serious gaps
					

Opinion: Naïveté surrounding how much it costs to field an effective military presents a threat to our troops and to our preparedness as a country.




					vancouversun.com
				



Of course, while this may be true, DND lacks the capacity to spend the money that it has let alone additional money that is still needs.


----------



## WestIsle

Does anyone have the actual


McG said:


> The case that 2% of GDP is in fact not enough for the CAF right now (spoiler: it is for rust-out and not because of Putin’s war).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Richard Shimooka: Canada's defence budget fails to address serious gaps
> 
> 
> Opinion: Naïveté surrounding how much it costs to field an effective military presents a threat to our troops and to our preparedness as a country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> vancouversun.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, while this may be true, DND lacks the capacity to spend the money that it has let alone additional money that is still needs.


I feel like much of this is not an honest argument that is made. There is a lack of ammo, support positions with no money to fill them, most of the gochi goes don't happen anymore, field pay hasn't changed much at all, and everyone is still getting the whole "stop spending money" message at the start of the year from DND. That is also to say nothing of the ancient infrastructure, disgustingly bad PPE, and other minor capital projects that could be done with a change of lines but cant apparently. We cant spend money that they don't let us. Its more an issue that no one at NDHQ has gone and fallen on their sword in public to speak out about what has been happening to the CAF or how the "new spending" really isn't defense spending or how the 1.4% the government says we spend on defense is more like 0.9% as the actual budget for the CAF hasn't seemingly grown despite the "accounting" going on. Generals and the like used to do this back in the day but now no one has the spine to it seems


----------



## suffolkowner

WestIsle said:


> Does anyone have the actual
> 
> I feel like much of this is not an honest argument that is made. There is a lack of ammo, support positions with no money to fill them, most of the gochi goes don't happen anymore, field pay hasn't changed much at all, and everyone is still getting the whole "stop spending money" message at the start of the year from DND. That is also to say nothing of the ancient infrastructure, disgustingly bad PPE, and other minor capital projects that could be done with a change of lines but cant apparently. We cant spend money that they don't let us. Its more an issue that no one at NDHQ has gone and fallen on their sword in public to speak out about what has been happening to the CAF or how the "new spending" really isn't defense spending or how the 1.4% the government says we spend on defense is more like 0.9% as the actual budget for the CAF hasn't seemingly grown despite the "accounting" going on. Generals and the like used to do this back in the day but now no one has the spine to it seems


There's been lots of growth at NDHQ under Vance and somehow they can sit there and think that was an appropiate use of limited funds. I know Finance/Treasury limits much but when countries with a third or a quarter of our population can give more to Ukraine than us, that cant be hidden


----------



## Czech_pivo

suffolkowner said:


> There's been lots of growth at NDHQ under Vance and somehow they can sit there and think that was an appropiate use of limited funds. I know Finance/Treasury limits much but when countries with a third or a quarter of our population can give more to Ukraine than us, that cant be hidden


Please don’t underestimate the power of ‘warm thoughts/feelings’ and the solid ability to convene meetings and agendas. A lot of our NATO partners are unable to perform these difficult tasks.


----------



## OldSolduer

Czech_pivo said:


> Please don’t underestimate the power of ‘warm thoughts/feelings’ and the solid ability to convene meetings and agendas. A lot of our NATO partners are unable to perform these difficult tasks.



Sox. They need fancy sox to teach those nasty Russians a lesson. 

He is an intellectual lightweight with the sense of a flea.


----------



## daftandbarmy

OldSolduer said:


> Sox. They need fancy sox to teach those nasty Russians a lesson.
> 
> He is an intellectual lightweight with the sense of a flea.



This is not a new experience, it would seem:


----------



## CypressSplit

Fiscal watchdog raises concern about $15-billion in unexplained military spending in 2022 federal budget
					

Parliament’s fiscal watchdog is raising concerns about nearly $15-billion of unexplained military spending buried in the 2022 federal budget – money in excess of what’s spelled out in the Department of National Defence’s spending plan




					www.theglobeandmail.com
				






> Parliament’s fiscal watchdog is raising concerns about nearly $15-billion of unexplained military spending buried in the 2022 federal budget – money in excess of what’s spelled out in the Department of National Defence’s spending plan released earlier this year.





> Mr. Drummond said it’s possible some of the $15-billion is money being set aside to pay for extra spending pending the outcome of this defence review. It could also reflect increased cost projections for existing hardware purchases owing to inflation, he said.


----------



## Good2Golf

CypressSplit said:


> Fiscal watchdog raises concern about $15-billion in unexplained military spending in 2022 federal budget
> 
> 
> Parliament’s fiscal watchdog is raising concerns about nearly $15-billion of unexplained military spending buried in the 2022 federal budget – money in excess of what’s spelled out in the Department of National Defence’s spending plan
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theglobeandmail.com


Some may call it a ‘steaming turd false flag’ operation.  I’ll be totally not shocked if the GoC ‘adjusts’ the budget forwards to address PBO’s perspective…well-played, Team Red, well-played!


----------



## daftandbarmy

Go North, young people...


The DEW Line at 65: Future unclear for the North's aging radar sites​'The fact of the matter is that we have not modernized it or done anything with it since 1985'​
Heubert agrees that NORAD needs a major update, and the North Warning System is no longer adequate.

"Just looking across the northern coastline doesn't cut it. You need to be able to look right across the entire entity of North America," Huebert said.

Lajeunesse also refers to a "broader set of dangers" and says a string of radar stations in the Arctic may no longer be top priority.

"The next NORAD isn't just going to be a big building with a dome. It's going to be a very complex set of sensors tied into a broader network to watch everything from hypersonic cruise missiles to Chinese fishing fleets," Lejeunesse said.

"The future of the North Warning System can be very different from the past of the North Warning System."



			https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/dew-line-65-years-norad-1.6446875?cmp=newsletter_CBC%20News%20Top%20Headlines%20%20%E2%80%93%20Morning_1613_544617


----------



## Good2Golf

The fact that they never replaced the PIN-3/Lady Franklin Point radar after the Russians disembarked from an SSN and set it on fire it caught fire and burned to the ground should tell you something…


----------



## daftandbarmy

Good2Golf said:


> The fact that they never replaced the PIN-3/Lady Franklin Point radar after the Russians disembarked from an SSN and set it on fire it caught fire and burned to the ground should tell you something…



I had to look that up. Fascinating Site: PIN-3 | The DEWLine

When I was up there a few years ago I met quite a few people, mainly Newfies, who were working hard to decommission some of the old DEW line sites. They were basically stripping out all the 'valuables' and then burying everything in place in large, plastic barrier lined, pits. So the PCBs wouldn't leak into the eco-system (yeah, right ).

I wondered if that was 'evironmentally correct' and they said that the costs of extracting everything from the North would be astronomical.


----------



## MilEME09

Good2Golf said:


> Some may call it a ‘steaming turd false flag’ operation.  I’ll be totally not shocked if the GoC ‘adjusts’ the budget forwards to address PBO’s perspective…well-played, Team Red, well-played!


Creative accounting is all, if procurement was working well we wouldn't need it


----------



## Underway

daftandbarmy said:


> I had to look that up. Fascinating Site: PIN-3 | The DEWLine
> 
> When I was up there a few years ago I met quite a few people, mainly Newfies, who were working hard to decommission some of the old DEW line sites. They were basically stripping out all the 'valuables' and then burying everything in place in large, plastic barrier lined, pits. So the PCBs wouldn't leak into the eco-system (yeah, right ).
> 
> I wondered if that was 'evironmentally correct' and they said that the costs of extracting everything from the North would be astronomical.


My brother-in-law worked on the project as an environmental engineer.  All of these sites were already terribly contaminated.  Oil barrels were just thrown into ditches, PCB and heavy metals soil contamination etc... Decades of no environmental rules and oblivious operating staff.  They just dump crap anywhere it made sense at the time, as we all did in the 1950-80's.

The clean-up crews applied best practices as best they could but those old sites would need all the soil stripped down to the permafrost and deeper in some cases, shipping tonnes of soil out to a disposal facility in Ontario somewhere likely.  Then mitigation measures put in place.  It was just to much work overall.  So bury it all was the best option.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

daftandbarmy said:


> Go North, young people...
> 
> 
> The DEW Line at 65: Future unclear for the North's aging radar sites​'The fact of the matter is that we have not modernized it or done anything with it since 1985'​
> Heubert agrees that NORAD needs a major update, and the North Warning System is no longer adequate.
> 
> "Just looking across the northern coastline doesn't cut it. You need to be able to look right across the entire entity of North America," Huebert said.
> 
> Lajeunesse also refers to a "broader set of dangers" and says a string of radar stations in the Arctic may no longer be top priority.
> 
> "The next NORAD isn't just going to be a big building with a dome. It's going to be a very complex set of sensors tied into a broader network to watch everything from hypersonic cruise missiles to Chinese fishing fleets," Lejeunesse said.
> 
> "The future of the North Warning System can be very different from the past of the North Warning System."
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/dew-line-65-years-norad-1.6446875?cmp=newsletter_CBC%20News%20Top%20Headlines%20%20%E2%80%93%20Morning_1613_544617


That sound like a long term study to ensure we buy the right thing eventually, perhaps in a decade or so.


----------



## Good2Golf

Underway said:


> Then mitigation measures put in place. It was just to much work overall. So bury it all was the best option.


Other than some suggestions to blend the PCB’s into the generators’ diesel fuel and presto, but maybe buried ‘safely forever’ briefed better? 😉


----------



## FJAG

Germany looks at the realities of increasing its defence budget to 2%



> The Hundred Billion Euro Man: Olaf Scholz and Germany’s Defence Quagmire
> 
> 
> Much has been made of the political shift in Germany on defence in the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. In reality, the bold rhetoric is now being confronted with significant practical obstacles.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rusi.org



🍻


----------



## Prairie canuck

Good2Golf said:


> Other than some suggestions to blend the PCB’s into the generators’ diesel fuel and presto, but maybe buried ‘safely forever’ briefed better? 😉


Burning at low temps produces carcinogens. it has to be incinerated at 870 C to 1200 C to transform the chemicals to something non toxic. More Cliff Clavin info ...


----------



## Good2Golf

Prairie canuck said:


> Burning at low temps produces carcinogens. it has to be incinerated at 870 C to 1200 C to transform the chemicals to something non toxic. More Cliff Clavin info ...


Which is a good point, I crossed up my °Cs and °Fs and figured running them through a large diesel generator with the DPF on permanent regen (1000-1100°F…yeah, only 600-650°C).

Interestingly, I read a report years ago that Ontario Hydro was experimenting in the late-70s/early-80s with portable high-temp combustion of PCBs using a hydrogen and/or NG-powered MHD electric generator, and feeding in the PCBs at a fairly decent rate (above 1000ppm IIRC).  The peak temp was 3200°C for Hydrogen-Oxygen and as low as 2500°C for NG-O2.  There was no trace of any PCB left after combustion.


----------



## Prairie canuck

There was (still is?) a process in which the PCBs were separated from the oil and then sent to a disposal facility in Alberta to be incinerated. The refined oil would then be good to be reused as needed. Solid objects such as poles, soil, concrete, shingles, etc were buried in lined pits which had a drain to recover any leaching. Suspected and known health effects are another subject which is available online and they tend to get off the rails when discussed so I will not. 🙄


----------



## GK .Dundas

FJAG said:


> Germany looks at the realities of increasing its defence budget to 2%
> 
> 
> 
> 🍻


At a certain point the question becomes not should  you increase defence spending but can you?
With Canada I suspect that if we were to go to a 2% or 2%+ GDP the very bureaucratic machinery that handles the financial side of DND might very well collapse. 
Remind me again didn't we fight two World Wars ?......somehow.


----------



## Edward Campbell

GK .Dundas said:


> At a certain point the question becomes not should  you increase defence spending but can you?
> With Canada I suspect that if we were to go to a 2% or 2%+ GDP the very bureaucratic machinery that handles the financial side of DND might very well collapse.
> Remind me again _didn't we fight two World Wars ?_......somehow.


We did ... but we fought them, at the national level, quite differently.

In 1914-18 Canada was, for the most part, "all in" ... until 1917 when the first Conscription Crisis emerged.

In 1939-45 Canada, it has always _seemed to me_, feared Churchill more than Hitler. Mackenzie King was and arch-appeaser in the 1930s and he was terrified of Churchill's vision of a total war that could end only when Germany was defeated. He, King, feared that Churchill would provoke another, even worse Conscription Crisis. King knew - his own cabinet told him - that Québec, under the influence of scholar-politicians like l'Abbé Lionel Groulx (who wielded a HUGE influence over a young Pierre Trudeau) very much favoured Vichy France and opposed the war against Hitler - some calling it England's war for _les sales juifs_.

King mindful of 1917, wanted to minimize the army's role and emphasize those of the RCN and the RCAF. He didn't understand, at first, that air crew casualty rates were going to be very, very high but even punishably high Bomber Command casualties were far preferable to being forced to conscript unwilling Québécois. King was, I have read, furious when Vincent Massey and Georges Vanier, both diplomats in London, actively lobbied his own ministers to send the 1st Canadian Decision to Sicily in 1943; King favoured General Andrew McNaughton's plan for keeping the Canadians together, in Britain, under his command, until the invasion of France was ready. 

King's concerns about national unity were not unique. When Louis St Laurent (in 1947, in his Gray Lecture to the University of Toronto to) proposed the only clear, coherent, productive grand strategy that Canada has ever had,* he made the preservation. of national unity his first priority for Canada's engagement as a leading, global, missile power. What was different was that St Laurent believed that he could lead the nation on a productive path wheel King feared that Québec could not be led, only appeased.

-----
* I would argue that Pierre Trudeau had a grand strategy but I believe that it was unclear (because he feared a cabinet revolt, for worse), incoherent (because it ignored reality) and counter-productive in the extreme.


----------



## FJAG

The text of Louis St Laurent's speech is here:



> The Foundations of Canadian Policy in World Affairs



🍻


----------



## rmc_wannabe

The problem I have seen with our defense and foreign policy over our 155 year history is that the world (Britain, the Allies, the U.S., The U.N., NATO) has expected Canada to step up at times of crisis; and we usually do, but not without a lot of kicking and screaming coming from la Belle Provence.

Our contributions to these world crises, from the Boer War to Afghanistan, have seen more political consideration about "what will Quebec think?" rather than that of our allies and enemies alike.

I often wonder if we ever move away from FPTP to a more proportional model how much of that influence will disappear. If minority governments become the norm, and one doesn't need to win Quebec or Ontario, how much will their isolationist voice matter in foreign or defence matters?


----------



## The Bread Guy

rmc_wannabe said:


> ... I often wonder if we ever move away from FPTP to a more proportional model how much of that influence will disappear. If minority governments become the norm, and one doesn't need to win Quebec or Ontario, how much will their isolationist voice matter in foreign or defence matters?


I wouldn't mind more of a proportional model myself, but there's also risks there, too.  

Look at coalition governments around the world to see how often you get governments doing pretty extreme things (based on the ruling party's platform) to appease small, even 2-4 member parties, just to keep them onside and the ringleaders in government.   

Where "Quebec", read "whatever group we can pull in to keep us in power."


----------



## rmc_wannabe

The Bread Guy said:


> I wouldn't mind more of a proportional model myself, but there's also risks there, too.
> 
> Look at coalition governments around the world to see how often you get governments doing pretty extreme things (based on the ruling party's platform) to appease small, even 2-4 member parties, just to keep them onside and the ringleaders in government.
> 
> Where "Quebec", read "whatever group we can pull in to keep us in power."


That's always the risk. At least in the latter case, there will be other voices heard with different view points.

 The status quo has seen Energy East and other national initiatives go dead in the water because of "regional pressures." If those regional pressures were coming g from Alberta or Saskatchewan, under our current system, no one cares; if they became the linchpin to maintaining power, how quickly would you see a pipeline spanning the country within 2 years? 

As for defence, unless you're directly involved in the Defence Industry or DND, your average Canadian doesn't care. If under PR a party was able to make it a wedge issue or a stipulation for support.. perhaps we wouldn't see the same kind of apathy from governments, politicians parties, and voters alike.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

FJAG said:


> Germany looks at the realities of increasing its defence budget to 2%
> 
> 
> 
> 🍻


On another forum, a couple of Germans were saying the SPD is full of Russian sympathisers and pacifist who will say all the right things in public and do nothing where it counts


----------



## FJAG

Colin Parkinson said:


> On another forum, a couple of Germans were saying the SPD is full of Russian sympathisers and pacifist who will say all the right things in public and do nothing where it counts


That's what happens when a 1/5th of your population comes from a former die-hard communist country. And even before the union, many West German had strong socialist leanings.

Not sure if that's the reason or _angst_ from its hydrocarbon dependencies on Russia.

🍻


----------



## rmc_wannabe

FJAG said:


> That's what happens when a 1/5th of your population comes from a former die-hard communist country. And even before the union, many West German had strong socialist leanings.
> 
> Not sure if that's the reason or _angst_ from its hydrocarbon dependencies on Russia.
> 
> 🍻


The West Germans also enjoyed 50 years of someone else covering off on their defense. Much like Canada with NORAD, it's easy to become a democratic socialist utopia when someone else is footing the bill for protecting it.


----------



## Remius

rmc_wannabe said:


> The West Germans also enjoyed 50 years of someone else covering off on their defense. Much like Canada with NORAD, it's easy to become a democratic socialist utopia when someone else is footing the bill for protecting it.


Unlike Canada though, the Germans had someone else footing the bill by imposition and not by choice.


----------



## Edward Campbell

rmc_wannabe said:


> The West Germans also enjoyed 50 years of someone else covering off on their defense. Much like Canada with NORAD, it's easy to become a democratic socialist utopia when someone else is footing the bill for protecting it.


For many of thaw years, 30, for sure, the Germans did a fair share. The three German corps were credible fighting forces. Meanwhile, we, NATO, had agreed, amongst ourselves, to pretend  that Belgium and the Netherlands actually had a corps each and that Vth and VIIth US Corps might actually leave their barracks and be able to fight.


----------



## FJAG

Edward Campbell said:


> NATO, had agreed, amongst ourselves, to pretend that ...  Vth and VIIth US Corps might actually leave their barracks and be able to fight.


Yup.  The Vietnam and post-Vietnam era US Army was a different kettle of fish.

We could all see it well before Gabriel and Savage's "Crisis in Command" came out. Wonder if its still on the Army's reading list?

🍻


----------



## lenaitch

rmc_wannabe said:


> As for defence, unless you're directly involved in the Defence Industry or DND, your average Canadian doesn't care. If under PR a party was able to make it a wedge issue or a stipulation for support.. perhaps we wouldn't see the same kind of apathy from governments, politicians parties, and voters alike.


The exact opposite is also possible; a small party or two forcing the government to reduce funding in turn for their support to keep the government in power.


----------



## MilEME09

lenaitch said:


> The exact opposite is also possible; a small party or two forcing the government to reduce funding in turn for their support to keep the government in power.


Which would be a very bad move, we have entered the most volatile state of world affairs in decades. This isn't just about the war in Ukraine, the geo political fall out in Africa, Europe and the Middle East, and beyond will keep the CaF and others very busy


----------



## The Bread Guy

rmc_wannabe said:


> ... As for defence, unless you're directly involved in the Defence Industry or DND, your average Canadian doesn't care. If under PR a party was able to make it a wedge issue or a stipulation for support.. perhaps we wouldn't see the same kind of apathy from governments, politicians parties, and voters alike.


As long as we're all OK that all sorts of _other_ issues could also be wedged the same way, regardless of how much general public support there may be for said issues.  One person's "finally getting the attention we deserve" can be another's "pandering to a splinter special interest just to keep all their snouts in the trough longer."


----------



## Good2Golf

The Bread Guy said:


> As long as we're all OK that all sorts of _other_ issues could also be wedged the same way, regardless of how much general public support there may be for said issues.  One person's "finally getting the attention we deserve" can be another's "pandering to a splinter special interest just to keep all their snouts in the trough longer."


Universal Child Care and Dental coverage agree with you, Bread Guy… 👍🏼


----------



## dimsum

Good2Golf said:


> Universal Child Care and Dental coverage agree with you, Bread Guy… 👍🏼


I don't understand why those are controversial issues.

I don't have kids but I can see why child care is a benefit to society writ large.

Everyone has teeth...well, those that don't, would if there was dental coverage.

Same with pharma and mental health.


----------



## Good2Golf

dimsum said:


> I don't understand why those are controversial issues.
> 
> I don't have kids but I can see why child care is a benefit to society writ large.
> 
> Everyone has teeth...well, those that don't, would if there was dental coverage.
> 
> Same with pharma and mental health.


They’re not.  That’s why a view of ‘Defence needs more’ has to be tempered in Canada.


----------



## KevinB

Guns or Butter…
  But most forget that since I have guns, I can take your butter.


----------



## daftandbarmy

dimsum said:


> I don't understand why those are controversial issues.
> 
> I don't have kids but I can see why child care is a benefit to society writ large.
> 
> Everyone has teeth...well, those that don't, would if there was dental coverage.
> 
> Same with pharma and mental health.



I know a few dentists.

They know how the UK system of national dental care works and it really doesn't (anyone seen any high quality British teeth lately?) which is why it's collapsing.

This is mainly an effort by the NDP to stay relevant to their base after selling out to the Liberals to stay alive on the political scene. 

Standing up a national dental plan will be so expensive, and meet so much resistance, that there will be two or three governments passing by before anything meaningful could be implemented like, you know, the national child care boondoggle.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Good2Golf said:


> Universal Child Care and Dental coverage agree with you, Bread Guy… 👍🏼


Among others, for sure ....


----------



## Brad Sallows

> I don't understand why those are controversial issues.



Demands for government spending always exceed funds.  I will (again) stipulate that every dollar government spends does some good for someone, somewhere.  The question is whether the dollar would be better spent elsewhere.

It's also easy to predict that because government "solutions" are demand-side stimulants, and few measures are undertaken which might be reasonably expected to increase supply, shortages will result.  Public dental insurance without more dentists means some people who currently enjoy easy access to their dentists are going to find it harder.

Is there an "elsewhere" for top-of-the-list spending priority?  Yes.  Health care (not insurance), particularly the front end.  For all the talk of "people might die!" that accompanies most efforts to promote someone's spending agenda, health care delayed might as well be health care denied, and people really do die.


----------



## MarkOttawa

USAF professional head was in Ottawa with RCAF while Trudeau and Anand were at NORAD--laying down the law? Strange no mention I can see from our government:




> Readout of Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. CQ Brown, Jr.’s travel to Canada​


 


> Published June 10, 2022
> 
> Secretary of the Air Force Public Affairs
> 
> *OTTAWA, Ontario (AFNS) -- *U.S. Air Force Chief of Staff *Gen. CQ Brown, Jr.* traveled to Canada June 8-9 to further strengthen the close and longstanding relationship between the U.S. Air Force and *Royal Canadian Air Force*.
> 
> During the visit, Brown engaged in staff talks led by RCAF Commander *Lt. Gen. Al Meinzinger* and RCAF Chief of Fighter Capability Maj. Gen. Sylvain Ménard, at National Defence Headquarters, and participated in a wreath-laying ceremony at the *National War Memorial*.
> 
> In staff talks, the leaders discussed steps taken to implement *North American Aerospace Defense Command* modernization and the significant value of combined planning to provide continuous monitoring and surveillance capability.
> 
> The RCAF discussed the importance of the Arctic, emphasizing how Canada’s insights have been vital to identifying new opportunities for cooperation.
> 
> “We are committed to working with the Royal Canadian Air Force on modernizing NORAD and on Arctic security to meet modern challenges in defense of North America,” Brown said. “Our continued collaboration is helping better prepare us to meet future challenges in the region together. I’m grateful for our partnership and look forward to building on our productive talks.”
> 
> Brown further welcomed Canada’s decision to select the *F-35 Lightning II* as its future fighter and noted that the increased capabilities and interoperability afforded by a common platform would bolster the continental defense partnership.
> 
> The leaders exchanged ideas on ways to increase retention in their respective air forces and agreed upon the fundamental importance of diverse backgrounds, demographics, and perspectives to readiness and mission success [guess who wanted that in].
> 
> Brown also expressed condolences for the deaths of four Royal Military College of Canada cadets in an automobile accident April 29.
> 
> Ahead of his engagements with the RCAF, Brown met with U.S. Ambassador *David Cohen* at U.S. Embassy Ottawa.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Readout of Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. CQ Brown, Jr.’s travel to Canada
> 
> 
> During the visit, Brown engaged in staff talks with Royal Canadian Air Force senior leaders, and participated in a wreath-laying ceremony at the National War Memorial.
> 
> 
> 
> www.af.mil



 Starting to feel like a full-court press from Biden admin. on NORAD etc.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## KevinB

The landlord came to discuss the delinquent rent…


----------



## MilEME09

KevinB said:


> The landlord came to discuss the delinquent rent…


Pretty sure until they start publicly calling us out for not coming through on what we promise nothing will change


----------



## KevinB

MilEME09 said:


> Pretty sure until they start publicly calling us out for not coming through on what we promise nothing will change


We have started. More importantly we have started to discuss the ramifications of failure to abide by the requests (demands) to NORAD and NATO support.


----------



## rmc_wannabe

MilEME09 said:


> Pretty sure until they start publicly calling us out for not coming through on what we promise nothing will change


I don't think they would ever publicly call us out on anything. 

I just see the U.S. hitting us where it will hurt us the most: technology and trade. 

I think the only way the U.S. will make us actually do something about defense is to make everything else hinge on pulling our weight within NORAD and NATO.


----------



## Good2Golf

KevinB said:


> We have started. More importantly we have started to discuss the ramifications of failure to abide by the requests (demands) to NORAD and NATO support.





rmc_wannabe said:


> I don't think they would ever publicly call us out on anything.
> 
> I just see the U.S. hitting us where it will hurt us the most: technology and trade.
> 
> I think the only way the U.S. will make us actually do something about defense is to make everything else hinge on pulling our weight within NORAD and NATO.



Yup, any public call out will be a polite jab that it at least an order of magnitude less than what’s going on behind the scenes. 🔨


----------



## Kirkhill

Good2Golf said:


> Yup, any public call out will be a polite jab that it at least an order of magnitude less than what’s going on behind the scenes. 🔨



Nice Free Trade Agreement you have there.  Be a shame if anything happened to it.

???


----------



## Good2Golf

Kirkhill said:


> Nice Free Trade Agreement you have there.  Be a shame if anything happened to it.
> 
> ???


Far more than that, Kirkhill.  Mostly focused at the moment on investing in things that put money into the US industrial defense structure…


----------



## Kirkhill

Good2Golf said:


> Far more than that, Kirkhill.  Mostly focused at the moment on investing in things that put money into the US industrial defense structure…


Gotcha.

So they want cash for aircraft, missiles and radars. 

But is that new?

They wanted cash for Sabres, Bomarcs, F5s, F104s, M113s, Hercs, Radars, M101s, F18s, even helmets.

I continue to believe that the Quid pro Quo was trade deals. In the era of Hellyer's M113s and Hercs it was the Autopact.  In Mulroney's Era it was the Can US FTA for the arctic and the North Warning System.

Currently the Autopact is dead - there goes Southern Ontario.  The oil industry is under threat -  Venezuela and Saudi Arabia get better consideration.  And the FTA, honoured in the breach more often than not. 

They want cash.  We need their business.  We will buy their weapons. We get to keep doing business.

Oh, and we should forget about all that Trudeau Sr silliness about non-alignment and playing footsie with China.  France and Germany are not our friends.

I think that Kevin isn't far off the mark with the 5 Eyes commentary.  Canada and New Zealand have both been drifting into the Franco-German orbit.

And Ukraine has put the cat among the pigeons.

My sense of the situation is that the UK is taking advantage of the situation to generate a new alliance within the OECD/NATO/EU system.  One that diverges from Carolingian Europe and restores Varangian Europe.  And one that delivers customers to US defence industries.

BAE among them.

UK - Denmark - Iceland - Norway - Sweden - Finland - Estonia - Latvia - Lithuania - Poland - Ukraine - Slovakia - Czechia - Slovenia.

And perhaps a good portion of the fence-sitters in the Balkans.

The UK also maintains good relations with Turkey.

Another country that finds itself in the same position as Canada and New Zealand, torn between the 5 Eyes alliance and the Franco-German EU, is the Netherlands.  It is a member of the UK led Joint Expeditionary Force, the Dutch-German Brigade and co-operates closely with the UK Royal Marines.

I agree that the effort is "mostly focused at the moment on investing in things that put money into the US industrial defense structure".  But as you say, that is a matter of the moment.

I think long term alliances and trade are bigger things. 

And I think we are being told to get business done or get off the pot.


----------



## Good2Golf

Kirkhill, yes cash to some degree, but the greater value is committing to a long-term industrial reparté.


----------



## Kirkhill

Good2Golf said:


> Kirkhill, yes cash to some degree, but the greater value is committing to a long-term industrial reparté.



Agree - Long term commitment,  and a demonstration of intent to pay membership dues.  (And be an upstanding, supportive, member of the community).


----------



## Underway

US won't do anything but proceed without us as a partner.  They may bitch a little but they don't link issues (aka trade + defence) usually despite what many may think as that has a tendency to spiral.  Linking issues in foreign policy is rarely in anyone's favour.  It's like arguing with a family member who then brings up historical grievances that are completely not related to the issue you are discussing.  You end up getting nowhere because instead of talking about NORAD you end up arguing about trade, softwood lumber, water issues, immigration, law enforcement, fisheries  instead. 

The US proceeding without us as a partner is enough of a stick/carrot on its own.  I'm confident NORAD will be modernized can Canada will be involved.


----------



## KevinB

@Underway Canada will be a partner, the question is how much duress has to be applied.


----------



## Underway

KevinB said:


> @Underway Canada will be a partner, the question is how much duress has to be applied.


Honestly right now I don't see too much anymore.  The Defence Minister has in multiple speeches now referred to modernizing NORAD, including at CANSEC.  I think that we'll see funding to do that.  I expect that there are a number of backroom meetings going on right now with regards to how to best go about it.

For other spending that isn't NORAD related, its probably back to pulling teeth .


----------



## dapaterson

Remember that any announcement is preceded by months of staff work to identify, estimate costs, and explain to central agencies and cabinet what options are and what should be done.


----------



## KevinB

dapaterson said:


> Remember that any announcement is preceded by months of staff work to identify, estimate costs, and explain to central agencies and cabinet what options are and what should be done.


Or a scramble after a short face to face explaining what needs to be done


----------



## Kirkhill

Underway said:


> Honestly right now I don't see too much anymore.  The Defence Minister has in multiple speeches now referred to modernizing NORAD, including at CANSEC.  I think that we'll see funding to do that.  I expect that there are a number of backroom meetings going on right now with regards to how to best go about it.
> 
> For other spending that isn't NORAD related, its probably back to pulling teeth .



Are we talking about NORAD?

Or NORTHCOM?



			North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD)
		




> Problem Statement​Over the last three decades, our nations’ competitors and potential adversaries have watched Canada and the United States and our way of deterring, competing, and conducting war. They have adapted and developed advanced capabilities in all domains challenging us at home and across the competition continuum, and holding at risk our people, our critical infrastructure, and our power projection capabilities.





> *NORAD *conducts aerospace warning, aerospace control, and maritime warning in the defense of North America. ----





> *USNORTHCOM* defends our homeland - deters, detects, denies, and defeats threats to the United States, conducts security cooperation activities with allies and partners, and supports civil authorities.





> Enduring Condition #1​Homelands  (Note the Plural) defended from threats and adversary influence countered.​
> NORAD's and USNORTHCOM's primary missions are to defend the United States and Canada against aggression. To be successful, we continue to globally integrate our defense with supporting CCMDs, CJOC, allies, and mission partners across all domains throughout competition and into crisis. A central aspect of our capable defense is a ready, credible deterrence to dissuade adversaries from threatening North America. NORAD's and USNORTHCOM's combined deterrence posture is part of a globally integrated approach, incorporating deterrence by denial at home, deterrence by punishment coordinated with our partners, and strategic application of all instruments of multi-national power through our governments.
> Compete and deter aggression.​
> Our primary role in the globally integrated layered defense is deterrence by denial. Our competitors know that we are always prepared to defend our nations. The central effect in our deterrence by denial strategy is to make our potential adversaries understand that the advancing capabilities of the United States and Canada will deny their ability to achieve their objectives.
> If deterrence fails, detect, then deny and defeat threats.​
> We must defend our nations should deterrence fail and our adversaries attack. Our surest path is through a globally integrated and resilient all-domain awareness infrastructure that is processed, synchronized, and presented to create information dominance, resulting in decision superiority over adversaries. Embracing these strategic principles requires a fundamental change of culture for NORAD and USNORTHCOM and our mission partners.
> Enhance National resiliency.​
> Equally as important as defeating threats is the hardening of critical infrastructure and promoting domestic resilience in order to mitigate the consequences of attacks, both kinetic and non-kinetic. Our demonstrated ability to respond to diverse attacks with a whole-of-government response is a strong deterrent to our adversaries. Protecting our nations is a prerequisite to projecting power abroad.



There is much more at the link.

This is no longer just about monitoring the skies for incoming ICBMs and ancient bombers.  All Domain.  And I have a feeling the 11th Airborne Division, and Arctic Patrol ships pay key roles.


----------



## SupersonicMax

We’re not part of NORTHCOM, just NORAD.


----------



## FJAG

Kirkhill said:


> Are we talking about NORAD?
> 
> Or NORTHCOM?


As stated above, they are separate, but the commander of USNORTHCOM is the same person (General VanHerck) as the commander of NORAD and the two commands share a headquarters at Peterson Space Force Base near Colorado Springs.

🍻


----------



## rmc_wannabe

SupersonicMax said:


> We’re not part of NORTHCOM, just NORAD.


Regardless of if we're part of it or not, I think the Americans know how little they can depend on Canada to do SFA outside a token commitment to NORAD in defense of our own territory. The language they use above is indicative of that belief. 

If we want more of a say in our own defense, we need to be able to demonstrate that independence by ponying up when the time comes.


----------



## Good2Golf

SupersonicMax said:


> We’re not part of NORTHCOM, just NORAD.


And Burkino Faso isn’t PART of AFRICOM, but it is in AFRICOM’s AOR.

For your NORTHCOM non-analogy, we have LOs  in NORTHCOM, so at least technically there are some CAF members seconded to NORTHCOM, and thus, some of Canada is “part of” NORTHCOM.


----------



## Kirkhill

SupersonicMax said:


> We’re not part of NORTHCOM, just NORAD.



My perception is that while we may just be a part of NORAD, and the NORAD commander has a duty to the PM of Canada, the NORAD commander is also the USNORTHCOM commander.

The USNORTHCOM commander is an American charged with defending America by Commander-in-Chief of the Americans.   He is a Joint commander.



> *United States Northern Command* (*USNORTHCOM*)[7] is one of eleven unified combatant commands of the United States Department of Defense. The command is tasked with providing military support for non-military authorities in the U.S., and protecting the territory and national interests of the United States within the continental United States, Puerto Rico, Canada, Mexico, The Bahamas, and the air, land and sea approaches to these areas. It is the U.S. military command which, if applicable, would be the primary defender against an invasion of the U.S.



From my perspective NORAD is one tool available to the commander to accomplish his primary mission - the defence of the American Homeland.

He has his marching orders from the POTUS.  He has clearly stated them in public.  He has invited Canada to get on board under the terms stated.

An additional 50 million a year is not going to meet his objectives.  That is half an F35.  He is looking for something like a 0.5% of GDP commitment to the defence of North America.   If we are at 21 BCAD now to achieve 1.5% of GDP he is looking at something closer to an increase of 7 BCAD, or 5 BUSD, as an ongoing annual commitment to the mutual defence of North America.

Otherwise I could anticipate a 5-10 BUSD tariff to magically appear on Canadian milk, gas, grain and lumber.


----------



## rmc_wannabe

Kirkhill said:


> An additional 50 million a year is not going to meet his objectives.  That is half an F35.  He is looking for something like a 0.5% of GDP commitment to the defence of North America.   If we are at 21 BCAD now to achieve 1.5% of GDP he is looking at something closer to an increase of 7 BCAD, or 5 BUSD, as an ongoing annual commitment to the mutual defence of North America.
> 
> Otherwise I could anticipate a 5-10 BUSD tariff to magically appear on Canadian milk, gas, grain and lumber.


Or conversely, increasing the cost on anything and everything crossing the border Northward. 

Like I said, we can pay to be our own masters within defense, or we can pay the U.S. to do it for us (one way or another); there's no free lunch.


----------



## Kirkhill

In relation to the development of Force 2025/2030, Northcom, NORAD and Canada's Defence Budget - the importance of the Gray Zone and, among other responses, the military response.   And the Gray Zone extends into both Canada and the US.



			https://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2022/06/13/the_future_of_us_security_depends_on_owning_the_gray_zone_biden_must_get_it_right_836998.html


----------



## Spencer100

Kirkhill said:


> My perception is that while we may just be a part of NORAD, and the NORAD commander has a duty to the PM of Canada, the NORAD commander is also the USNORTHCOM commander.
> 
> The USNORTHCOM commander is an American charged with defending America by Commander-in-Chief of the Americans.   He is a Joint commander.
> 
> 
> 
> From my perspective NORAD is one tool available to the commander to accomplish his primary mission - the defence of the American Homeland.
> 
> He has his marching orders from the POTUS.  He has clearly stated them in public.  He has invited Canada to get on board under the terms stated.
> 
> An additional 50 million a year is not going to meet his objectives.  That is half an F35.  He is looking for something like a 0.5% of GDP commitment to the defence of North America.   If we are at 21 BCAD now to achieve 1.5% of GDP he is looking at something closer to an increase of 7 BCAD, or 5 BUSD, as an ongoing annual commitment to the mutual defence of North America.
> 
> Otherwise I could anticipate a 5-10 BUSD tariff to magically appear on Canadian milk, gas, grain and lumber.


Most Canadians would gladly have businesses have to pay more in US tariffs.  It won't directly affect them and most importantly it can all be blamed on the "evil" Americans.  Do not underestimate the power of Canadians to feel smug.  Canadian's smug and "better" than Americans feelings is probably the largest national ethos we have as a country.  The Liberals have built their party around it.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Spencer100 said:


> Most Canadians would gladly have businesses *have to pay more in US tariffs. * It won't directly affect them and most importantly it can all be blamed on the "evil" Americans.  Do not underestimate the power of Canadians to feel smug.  Canadian's smug and "better" than Americans feelings is probably the largest national ethos we have as a country.  The Liberals have built their party around it.



Not when the businesses pass on the costs to them.


----------



## Kirkhill

> Exports to the United States represented 71.8% of Canada's exports to the world in 2020, down from 74.6% in 2019





> Canada was the United States' 3rd largest supplier of goods imports in 2019.
> U.S. goods imports from Canada totaled $319.4 billion in 2019, up 0.3% ($906 million) from 2018, and up 41.2% from 2009. U.S. imports from Canada are up 187% from 1993 (pre-NAFTA). U.S. imports from Canada account for 12.8% of overall U.S. imports in 2019.





> Canada was the United States' largest goods export market in 2019.
> U.S. goods exports to Canada in 2019 were $292.7 billion, down 2.4% ($7.1 billion) from 2018 but up 43.0% from 2009. U.S. exports to Canada are up 191% from 1993 (pre-NAFTA). U.S. exports to Canada account for 18% of overall U.S. exports in 2019.








						Canada
					

U.S.-Canada Trade Facts U.S. goods and private services trade with Canada totaled $707 billion in 2012 (latest data available). Exports totaled $354 billion; Imports totaled $354 billion. The U.S. goods and services trade surplus with Canada was $40 million in 2012.




					ustr.gov
				





The US market is worth 319 BUSD to us each year or about 20% of our 1643 BUSD GDP
That market represents 72% of our total market.
We turn a profit on that trade of 25 BUSD each year or about 1.5% of our GDP

Or our entire defence Budget,
half of which goes to hire Canadians to defend Canada.

To ensure access to that market the US is asking that Canada add 0.5% of GDP to the defence budget and make the Americans feel that they are more secure in their own homes.

That equates to a 30% tax on our profits from trade with the US

Or

That equates to a 2.5% tariff on all the exports we supply to the US.


We can spend the money and preserve a modicum of our self-worth as a sovereign state.

Or

The US will do what it feels it needs to do and send us the bill.


----------



## Spencer100

daftandbarmy said:


> Not when the businesses pass on the costs to them.


Not really.  The public doesn't put the two together.  Are high fuel prices hurting the Liberals and Trudeau?  I would say no.  There is very little call to lower the gas taxes.  Just in some quarters.  

Use the Dairy industry in this country.  Canadians ware high priced dairy as a badge of honour.  Look at the last trade talks the US was in doing the average Canadian a favour but trying to get the supply management system dismantled.  But how many times did you see we have to save the Canadian Dairy?


----------



## SupersonicMax

Good2Golf said:


> And Burkino Faso isn’t PART of AFRICOM, but it is in AFRICOM’s AOR.
> 
> For your NORTHCOM non-analogy, we have LOs  in NORTHCOM, so at least technically there are some CAF members seconded to NORTHCOM, and thus, some of Canada is “part of” NORTHCOM.


That distinction between NORTHCOM and NORAD is important. We may have LOs embedded but we’re not part of NORTHCOM. For example, the ABM program resides within NORTHCOM and not NORAD precisely because we’re not part of NORTHCOM.

We have an exchange at VFA-125. It doesn’t make us (the greater CAF) part of VFA-125.


----------



## Kirkhill

Spencer100 said:


> Not really.  The public doesn't put the two together.  Are high fuel prices hurting the Liberals and Trudeau?  I would say no.  There is very little call to lower the gas taxes.  Just in some quarters.
> 
> Use the Dairy industry in this country.  Canadians ware high priced dairy as a badge of honour.  Look at the last trade talks the US was in doing the average Canadian a favour but trying to get the supply management system dismantled.  But how many times did you see we have to save the Canadian Dairy?



And when you consider that the debate is over a 30% increase in the Defence Budget or a 2.5% increase in tariffs on exports to the US I fear that Spencer is right.

2.5% on 20% of GDP is a marginal cost.

30% of the Defence Budget is somebody's teeth, drugs and child care.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Spencer100 said:


> Not really.  The public doesn't put the two together.  Are high fuel prices hurting the Liberals and Trudeau?  I would say no.  There is very little call to lower the gas taxes.  Just in some quarters.
> 
> Use the Dairy industry in this country.  Canadians ware high priced dairy as a badge of honour.  Look at the last trade talks the US was in doing the average Canadian a favour but trying to get the supply management system dismantled.  But how many times did you see we have to save the Canadian Dairy?



Stats Canada survey results seem to suggest otherwise:

Rising prices are affecting the ability to meet day-to-day expenses for most Canadians​
Over the past year, consumer inflation has steadily increased, reaching a year-over-year increase of 6.8% in April 2022. Heightened consumer demand and challenges to the supply chain are some of the main factors contributing to higher prices.

To understand how rising prices are contributing to financial concerns or influencing the financial decisions of Canadians, Statistics Canada conducted the Portrait of Canadian Society survey from April 19 to May 1, 2022.

It found that nearly three in four Canadians reported that rising prices are affecting their ability to meet day-to-day expenses such as transportation, housing, food, and clothing. As a result, many Canadians are adjusting their behaviour to adapt to this new reality, including adjusting their spending habits and delaying the purchase of a home or moving to a new rental.

Regionally, there was little variation between provinces—most Canadians are feeling the impacts of inflation. Those in lower income quintiles, however, are more concerned about and affected by rising prices.






						The Daily — Rising prices are affecting the ability to meet day-to-day expenses for most Canadians
					

To understand how rising prices are contributing to financial concerns or influencing the financial decisions of Canadians, Statistics Canada conducted the Portrait of Canadian Society survey from April 19 to May 1, 2022.




					www150.statcan.gc.ca


----------



## Kirkhill

SupersonicMax said:


> That distinction between NORTHCOM and NORAD is important. We may have LOs embedded but we’re not part of NORTHCOM. For example, the ABM program resides within NORTHCOM and not NORAD precisely because we’re not part of NORTHCOM.
> 
> We have an exchange at VFA-125. It doesn’t make us (the greater CAF) part of VFA-125.



It is important.  I agree.

But it doesn't negate the power difference between Canada and the USA and the USA's self-interests.


----------



## Kirkhill

daftandbarmy said:


> Stats Canada survey results seem to suggest otherwise:
> 
> Rising prices are affecting the ability to meet day-to-day expenses for most Canadians​
> Over the past year, consumer inflation has steadily increased, reaching a year-over-year increase of 6.8% in April 2022. Heightened consumer demand and challenges to the supply chain are some of the main factors contributing to higher prices.
> 
> To understand how rising prices are contributing to financial concerns or influencing the financial decisions of Canadians, Statistics Canada conducted the Portrait of Canadian Society survey from April 19 to May 1, 2022.
> 
> It found that nearly three in four Canadians reported that rising prices are affecting their ability to meet day-to-day expenses such as transportation, housing, food, and clothing. As a result, many Canadians are adjusting their behaviour to adapt to this new reality, including adjusting their spending habits and delaying the purchase of a home or moving to a new rental.
> 
> Regionally, there was little variation between provinces—most Canadians are feeling the impacts of inflation. Those in lower income quintiles, however, are more concerned about and affected by rising prices.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Daily — Rising prices are affecting the ability to meet day-to-day expenses for most Canadians
> 
> 
> To understand how rising prices are contributing to financial concerns or influencing the financial decisions of Canadians, Statistics Canada conducted the Portrait of Canadian Society survey from April 19 to May 1, 2022.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www150.statcan.gc.ca



But wouldn't the Government of Canada just take that as an opportunity to blame the paranoid Americans for raising prices and reducing jobs in Canada?


----------



## KevinB

SupersonicMax said:


> That distinction between NORTHCOM and NORAD is important. We may have LOs embedded but we’re not part of NORTHCOM. For example, the ABM program resides within NORTHCOM and not NORAD precisely because we’re not part of NORTHCOM.
> 
> We have an exchange at VFA-125. It doesn’t make us (the greater CAF) part of VFA-125.


The ONLY reason NORTHCOM exists separate from NORAD is the initial reluctance from Canada to sign onto ABM, and upgrade it's NORAD contributions.
  Because without Canada as part of the ABM/BMS - we need to use part of Canada as the impact area for interception of inbound missiles.

   Assuming Canada signs on to ABM, and continues modernization of NORAD installations and the F-35 goes forward, there will be no real barriers between NORTHCOM and NORAD.   THAAD etc can then shoot down missiles further out -- either in the oceans or in non inhabited areas.


----------



## Brad Sallows

Tariffs applied by the US on goods going into the US are ultimately paid by US consumers, not Canadians.

What impacts Canadians (exporters) is the accompanying reduction in demand for Canadian goods.


----------



## SupersonicMax

NORTHCOM is much more than NORAD.  I would say that ABM is only part of NORTHCOM because of our decision not to get into ABM.

NORTHCOM conducts many activities that are well beyond the scope of NORAD (domestic disaster relief, consequence management of domestic terrorist WMD usage, etc)


----------



## Good2Golf

SupersonicMax said:


> That distinction between NORTHCOM and NORAD is important. We may have LOs embedded but we’re not part of NORTHCOM. For example, the ABM program resides within NORTHCOM and not NORAD precisely because we’re not part of NORTHCOM.
> 
> We have an exchange at VFA-125. It doesn’t make us (the greater CAF) part of VFA-125.


No, the ABM program was nested within NORTHCOM because Canada said no to BMD in 2005, so that ruled out putting it in NORAD, which is where it would have gone if Canada had agreed to BMD.


----------



## KevinB

SupersonicMax said:


> NORTHCOM is much more than NORAD.  I would say that ABM is only part of NORTHCOM because of our decision not to get into ABM.
> 
> NORTHCOM conducts many activities that are well beyond the scope of NORAD (domestic disaster relief, consequence management of domestic terrorist WMD usage, etc) NORTHCOM existed before we declined being part of ABM.





			https://www.northcom.mil/Portals/28/Documents/A%20Short%20History%20of%20USNORTHCOM%20(current%20as%20of%20March%202014).pdf
		


  NORTHCOM was a 9/11 knee jerk.   However it changed significantly with some of the disasters down here (Fires and Floods) - but the most significant aspect to the main separation is ABM.
  - Domestic Response is 99% the National Guard, the fact the CG is the same and the staff nearly the same should shine a pretty big light that it exists simply due to concern with Canada's willingness to contribute to collective defense of NA.


----------



## SupersonicMax

Good2Golf said:


> No, the ABM program was nested within NORTHCOM because Canada said no to BMD in 2005, so that ruled out putting it in NORAD, which is where it would have gone if Canada had agreed to BMD.


Precisely my point.  It can’t be within NORAD because we don’t (didn’t?) want anything to do with it. It needed an organization that wasn’t a bilateral command.


----------



## YZT580

Kirkhill said:


> But wouldn't the Government of Canada just take that as an opportunity to blame the paranoid Americans for raising prices and reducing jobs in Canada?


Would depend entirely (or almost) upon the attitude reflected in the press in all its forms.  Trudeau and co. cannot get their version of events through to the public unless the press cooperates and prints or broadcasts that version.  If they put events and results in front of the people and keep them their for longer than 48 hours you just might see change but it does require constant and consistent messaging.


----------



## CBH99

Kirkhill said:


> But wouldn't the Government of Canada just take that as an opportunity to blame the paranoid Americans for raising prices and reducing jobs in Canada?


If their other CoA is to take ownership of some pretty stupid monetary policies that are contributing to everything getting more expensive… if they can paint someone else as the bad guy, they’ll probably go that route.

When I say GoC going that route, I really do mean Trudeau.  Nothing personal (albeit I dislike him intensely) but he is the face & voice of the government, and he doesn’t seem to own much if it’s negative.


----------



## FJAG

> Canada spending almost $5B to upgrade continental defence, Anand says​NORAD overhaul will replace aging radar stations in Far North​
> Murray Brewster · CBC News · Posted: Jun 20, 2022 12:09 PM ET
> 
> Canada will spend $4.9 billion over the next six years to modernize continental defence, Defence Minister Anita Anand said Monday.
> Anand delivered the long-awaited announcement on the NORAD upgrade at the Canadian military's principal air base at Trenton, Ont.
> "NORAD has continually adapted and evolved in response to new threats. Today, we turn another page and begin NORAD's next chapter," the minister said in front a backdrop of flags and an aging CF-18 jet fighter.
> 
> The figure represents Canada's share of the cost of overhauling the decades-old joint bi-national air defence command, originally designed to watch out for Soviet bombers. The project was not part of the Liberal government's 2017 defence policy document.
> 
> The United States covers about 60 per cent of the bill for NORAD.
> The cash is expected to come out of the latest federal budget, which set aside up to $8 billion in new funding beyond increases in defence appropriations to which the Liberal government already had agreed. Up to $6 billion of that money was earmarked for a variety of commitments, including NORAD modernization.
> Anand said the government's overall investment in continental and northern defence will exceed $40 billion over the next two decades. She did not provide a breakdown of that spending and the Department of National Defence did not release a backgrounder explaining the proposed expenditure.  ....



See rest of article here


> https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/anand-norad-radar-continental-defence-1.6494658



🍻


----------



## Underway

Highlights of stuff we care about (missed a few french points):

All the money announced is new money 4.9 billion over 6 years and 40billion over 20 years (funded...), on top of what was in the budget.

1. Investment in new capabilities to detect threats to NA with brand new Northern Approaches Surveillance System

Arctic Over the Horizon Radar System - Canada/US border to Arctic Circle
Polar Over the Horizon Radar System - over an beyond the northern most approaches to NA including Canadian Arctic Archipelago
Crossbow (new system) - network of sensors with classified capabilities distributed across northern Canada as further layer of detection.
Commitments for space-based surveillance sats owned and launched by Canada
2. Investment in new technology to enable decision-making.

modernizing C2I systems
expanding Canada's contribution to NORAD Pathfinder Initiative (cloud computing and machine learning)
Modernizing Canadian Combined Air Operations center with focus on navigation capabilities in the north
renewing CAF high and low freq sat comms in arctic
procure and install new digital radios and network equipment
new AA missiles for the F-35
88 F-35
3. New infrastructure investments

new Air Refueling aircraft
northern basing and infrastructure (at four locations in the north)
upgrading NORAD quick reaction alert capabilities and infrastructure
modernize air operational infrastructure
Upcoming defence policy update, eye to changing situations around the world.
BMD is moving into an Integrated Air and Missile Defence system direction with multiple effectors. Kind of dodged the question a bit.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Underway said:


> Highlights of stuff we care about (missed a few french points):
> 
> All the money announced is new money 4.9 billion over 6 years and 40billion over 20 years (funded...), on top of what was in the budget.
> 
> 1. Investment in new capabilities to detect threats to NA with brand new Northern Approaches Surveillance System
> 
> Arctic Over the Horizon Radar System - Canada/US border to Arctic Circle
> Polar Over the Horizon Radar System - over an beyond the northern most approaches to NA including Canadian Arctic Archipelago
> Crossbow (new system) - network of sensors with classified capabilities distributed across northern Canada as further layer of detection.
> Commitments for space-based surveillance sats owned and launched by Canada
> 2. Investment in new technology to enable decision-making.
> 
> modernizing C2I systems
> expanding Canada's contribution to NORAD Pathfinder Initiative (cloud computing and machine learning)
> Modernizing Canadian Combined Air Operations center with focus on navigation capabilities in the north
> renewing CAF high and low freq sat comms in arctic
> procure and install new digital radios and network equipment
> new AA missiles for the F-35
> 88 F-35
> 3. New infrastructure investments
> 
> new Air Refueling aircraft
> northern basing and infrastructure (at four locations in the north)
> upgrading NORAD quick reaction alert capabilities and infrastructure
> modernize air operational infrastructure
> Upcoming defence policy update, eye to changing situations around the world.
> BMD is moving into an Integrated Air and Missile Defence system direction with multiple effectors. Kind of dodged the question a bit.



RCAF be like...


----------



## Quirky

daftandbarmy said:


> RCAF be like...



Still nothing to address the retention issues, housing and cost of living. RCAF manning is falling apart and some trades are not recoverable, but hey, we will have new buildings and shiny things that will just sit there collecting dust.


----------



## Baloo

Underway said:


> All the money announced is new money 4.9 billion over 6 years and 40billion over 20 years (funded...), on top of what was in the budget.


The Department issued a clarification after the Minister spoke. It is not new money, and is in fact part of the previously-announced increase to the defence budget.

EDIT. The Minister's Office sent the correction, not DND.


----------



## rmc_wannabe

daftandbarmy said:


> RCAF be like...


All glory is fleeting. Beware the Ides of Budget 2023.....


----------



## Underway

Baloo said:


> The Department issued a clarification after the Minister spoke. It is not new money, and is in fact part of the previously-announced increase to the defence budget.
> 
> EDIT. The Minister's Office sent the correction, not DND.


Looking for the facepalm emoji...


----------



## TCM621

Quirky said:


> Still nothing to address the retention issues, housing and cost of living. RCAF manning is falling apart and some trades are not recoverable, but hey, we will have new buildings and shiny things that will just sit there collecting dust.


The AWS trade is basically dead at this point. Because we are so short on the bottom, they are capping promotions at the same time an entire generation of members are becoming pensionable. People are getting out because they don't see any growth individually or as a trade. Last I checked the trade were barely above 80% TES and that includes a bunch of apprentices who can't actually do work yet. 

The RCAF is basically pinning all its retention efforts on a pay review that may or may not result in better pay sometime in the next few years, hopefully. That and Tshirts.


----------



## Spencer100

Quirky said:


> Still nothing to address the retention issues, housing and cost of living. RCAF manning is falling apart and some trades are not recoverable, but hey, we will have new buildings and shiny things that will just sit there collecting dust.


In fairness to the Gov. (I even hate saying this)  Although those are very important issues and will speak to the long term effectiveness of the plan.  I would not have announced those things at this press release.   This press release was not aimed at the 99% of the Canadian electorate.  It was to signal to our allies (just one really) we are onboard.   It was an investment in the single most important reason d'etre of the whole Defence Dept.  The defence against "help".


----------



## Spencer100

daftandbarmy said:


> RCAF be like...


RCN......"maybe we need to figure out how to get those extra VLS back in the new ships and just how much are SM-6's?"


----------



## Underway

Spencer100 said:


> RCN......"maybe we need to figure out how to get those extra VLS back in the new ships and just how much are SM-6's?"


They've figured it out. Just deciding if the non-financial impacts are worth it.


----------



## Spencer100

Underway said:


> They've figured it out. Just deciding if the non-financial impacts are worth it.


Cool.  My evil side if I was an RCN head would be Hey Minister my team, organization and equipment are a base we can grow this NORAD and BMD (sorry integrated system).  we are building the ships and systems now.....just a little bit more and we can do this much more of the continental defense.  We just need some more MK41 VLS tubes and couple of missile. Oh and some people.  And give them raise.   Those RCAF guys way more expensive. 

(just having fun with this)


----------



## Underway

Spencer100 said:


> Cool.  My evil side if I was an RCN head would be Hey Minister my team, organization and equipment are a base we can grow this NORAD and BMD (sorry integrated system).  we are building the ships and systems now.....just a little bit more and we can do this much more of the continental defense.  We just need some more MK41 VLS tubes and couple of missile. Oh and some people.  And give them raise.   Those RCAF guys way more expensive.
> 
> (just having fun with this)


So I don't know for sure what they are doing, but I think I brought this up on the CSC thread. Remove 127mm, install 57mm and another row of VLS (bringing the ship to 40-48 Mk 41VLS).  The other option is to extend the ship's length by 2m or so to get in 32VLS but that adds at least 1000 tons to the design, which threatens top speed and other hull design considerations.


----------



## Skysix

YZT580 said:


> has anyone really examined the toll in hardware in Ukraine?  Our entire purchase order of new aircraft would now be so much scrap metal if we were engaged in any kind of peer war.  To this civilian, you need at least a third more aircraft even if the numbers beyond 88 are sitting in a hangar.  When the shooting starts you can't order anymore; you go with what you have.  It would probably be wise to shop for a second aircraft i.e. F16 for pure airborne intercept and keep your F35 types for battlefield control.  You definitely need some kind of ground/air system, hopefully combining high altitude/long range and manpads.  Decent anti-armour weapons.  If you don't, you might as well stay home and hoist your flag in the inverted position.


F15EX - can be a missile truck for the F35 or a CAP fighter or ground attack via JDAMS. F16 cheaper but not as versatile with less payload. It was after all designed to be an air combat bird.









						Boyd
					

John Boyd may be the most remarkable unsung hero in all of American military history. Some remember him as the greatest U.S. fighter pilo...



					www.goodreads.com


----------



## CBH99

Baloo said:


> The Department issued a clarification after the Minister spoke. It is not new money, and is in fact part of the previously-announced increase to the defence budget.
> 
> EDIT. The Minister's Office sent the correction, not DND.


So wait… they announced additional funding when in fact that money is already funded as part of the defence budget increase?  

No wonder they needed to clarify things after.  Bloody hell I'm still somewhat confused…


----------



## Brad Sallows

Re-announcing spending is a favoured trick to impress voters.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Brad Sallows said:


> Re-announcing spending is a favoured trick to impress voters.


or to make noise to be seen doing something, while actually not having to doing anything new or even at all.


----------



## Kirkhill

Skysix said:


> F15EX - can be a missile truck for the F35 or a CAP fighter or ground attack via JDAMS. F16 cheaper but not as versatile with less payload. It was after all designed to be an air combat bird.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boyd
> 
> 
> John Boyd may be the most remarkable unsung hero in all of American military history. Some remember him as the greatest U.S. fighter pilo...
> 
> 
> 
> www.goodreads.com




I think that's what these things are supposed to do. 



A lot cheaper than either the F16 or the F15. 

F15EX - 110 MUSD
F16 - 12 to 80 MUSD
Hawk - 20 MUSD
XQ-58A - 2 MUSD.

Essentially these are unmanned boosters that can carry missiles like the LRASM in the Theater adding another 3900 km to  the 500 km LRASM or perhaps even to the 1500 km Tomahawk.

Turkey's Bayraktar and Ukraine have already teamed up on their own version - a Turkish airframe with a Ukrainian Jet Engine.









						Bayraktar powered by Ukrainian engine to be more efficient than fifth-generation fighters
					

Thanks to unmanned control, the new Kızılelma UAV by Baykar Makina will be able to perform more difficult tasks in combat due to no risk of losing a pilot. — Ukrinform.




					www.ukrinform.net


----------



## CBH99

That’s literally like saying “We will give DND $20B this year, to keep Canadians safe and blah blah blah…”

And someone asking after “So is this a one time boost of $20B so the military can top up on what they need, or $20B extra on top of the current budget?”

And the answer being… “Well, we’re actually just giving them their budget for the year, which we already announced…”



My goodness gracious 😅🤦🏼‍♂️ there just isn’t any sort of attempt at redemption, is there?

If I had trucker convoys converging on my town from all over the country, united in their common belief that I am a totally incompetent douchebag — i’d like to think I would take some time to look at myself in the mirror, do some deep thinking, and unf**k myself.


----------



## MilEME09

CBH99 said:


> That’s literally like saying “We will give DND $20B this year, to keep Canadians safe and blah blah blah…”
> 
> And someone asking after “So is this a one time boost of $20B so the military can top up on what they need, or $20B extra on top of the current budget?”
> 
> And the answer being… “Well, we’re actually just giving them their budget for the year, which we already announced…”
> 
> 
> 
> My goodness gracious 😅🤦🏼‍♂️ there just isn’t any sort of attempt at redemption, is there?
> 
> If I had trucker convoys converging on my town from all over the country, united in their common belief that I am a totally incompetent douchebag — i’d like to think I would take some time to look at myself in the mirror, do some deep thinking, and unf**k myself.


Na, status quo is easier


----------



## Fishbone Jones

So 82 pages in. Does someone want to tabulate it all and see what he has really given us.

Perhaps we aught figure in everything he's given away to Ukraine. LAVs ain't cheap, nor the unreplaced War Stock given away. Speaking of, what IS the plan to replace it? Is there one?

Did we at least break even or are we better/worse off?

Mind, if we can't replace the people leaving, we won't have a military to use the stuff anyway.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

So nothing but some virtue signalling and more lies?


----------



## CBH99

Fishbone Jones said:


> So nothing but some virtue signalling and more lies?


Were you _really_ expecting much else?  

To be fair, he DID say it would be a priority to replace the war stock the government donated to Ukraine… (I think that probably will fall under what you said though.)

How much of a priority?  I’m guessing it won’t be replaced until the system’s planned replacement anyway, or until he promises troops to Country Y & is reminded we no longer have the supplies to do what he said.  


Kind of like how replacing the CF-18 was a priority, and heck - while we’re at it - let’s do 88 aircraft because 65 just isn’t sufficient enough.  We need to let the Americans know we are reliable, capable, and renewed.  

It’s _that big_ of a priority!


----------



## Spencer100

CBH99 said:


> Were you _really_ expecting much else?
> 
> To be fair, he DID say it would be a priority to replace the war stock the government donated to Ukraine… (I think that probably will fall under what you said though.)
> 
> How much of a priority?  I’m guessing it won’t be replaced until the system’s planned replacement anyway, or until he promises troops to Country Y & is reminded we no longer have the supplies to do what he said.
> 
> 
> Kind of like how replacing the CF-18 was a priority, and heck - while we’re at it - let’s do 88 aircraft because 65 just isn’t sufficient enough.  We need to let the Americans know we are reliable, capable, and renewed.
> 
> It’s _that big_ of a priority!


I don't understand that people don't see what is happening.  

Trudeau is following his plan.  Everything else can be left.


----------



## Jarnhamar

1 RCR is finding creative ways to make due with budget cuts and gas prices.


----------



## OldSolduer

Jarnhamar said:


> 1 RCR is finding creative ways to make due with budget cuts and gas prices.


We had a guy rob a 7-11 - twice. His undoing?

Wearing his combat jacket OD with his name tag. A master criminal he was not.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Jarnhamar said:


> 1 RCR is finding creative ways to make due with budget cuts and gas prices.



He looks pretty fat, could be an RCD in disguise ?


----------



## Retired AF Guy

Spencer100 said:


> I don't understand that people don't see what is happening.
> 
> Trudeau is following his  Beijing's plan.  Everything else can be left.


There! Fixed that for you! 😁


----------



## MarkOttawa

No new funding for first six years covered by earlier announcement:



> Fact sheet: Funding for Continental Defence and NORAD Modernization​Introduction​
> In June 2022, the Minister of National Defence announced funding for Canada's continental defence capabilities, including to modernize the North American Aerospace Defence Command (NORAD). This represents the most significant upgrade to Canada's NORAD capabilities in almost four decades.
> 
> 
> NORAD modernization is a long term project and these funds will support NORAD and the Canadian Armed Forces' ability to protect Canadians against new and emerging military threats to Canada and North America more broadly. In so doing, they will also help support the Canadian Armed Forces' engagement abroad, while reinforcing NATO's Western flank at a time when autocratic regimes are threatening the rules-based international order.
> 
> 
> *The minister announced $4.9B on a cash basis for the first six years, and $38.6B over twenty years on an accrual basis.*
> 
> 
> 
> The incremental funding for the first six years of NORAD modernization comes from existing, previously announced funding. Planning for NORAD modernization has been underway for several years, and the Government of Canada previously announced funding for elements of continental defence and NORAD modernization in Budget 2022, as well as defence funding in Fall Economic Statement 2020.
> The most recent NORAD modernization announcement provides new funding beginning after year six (in year seven).
> 
> Specific investments will include, among other initiatives, new radar stations, command and control upgrades, additional air-to-air refueling aircraft, advanced air-to-air missiles for fighter jets, upgrades to Canadian Armed Forces’ infrastructure in the North, and additional funding to complete and augment key space projects.
> 
> 
> The funding for continental defence and NORAD modernization is broken down into five inter-related areas of investment, detailed below.
> 
> 
> In Detail: New Investments in Continental Defence and NORAD Modernization​
> This $38.6 billion on an accrual basis of funding for continental defence and NORAD modernization is broken down into five inter-related areas of investment:
> 
> 
> 
> Bolstering our ability to detect threats earlier and more precisely by modernizing our surveillance systems.
> Improving our ability to understand and communicate threats to decision-makers in a timely manner through investments in modern technology.
> Strengthening our ability to deter and defeat aerospace threats by modernizing our air weapons systems.
> Ensuring the Canadian Armed Forces can sustain a strong military presence across the country, including in Canada’s North, through investments in new infrastructure and support capabilities.
> Future-proofing our capabilities to defend North America through investments in science and technology.
> 
> 
> Areas of investmentInvestments1. Bolstering our ability to detect threats earlier and more precisely by modernizing our surveillance systems.
> *$6.96B* from fiscal year 22/23 – 41/42
> We will establish a new Northern Approaches Surveillance system to significantly expand NORAD and Canadian Armed Forces situational awareness of objects entering Canadian airspace from the North. This will represent a dramatic improvement over Canada’s existing 30-year old North Warning System, which was not designed to detect modern weapons and delivery systems, such as long-range cruise and hypersonic missiles.
> It will include:
> An Arctic Over-the-Horizon Radar system to provide early warning radar coverage and threat tracking from the Canada-United States border to the Arctic circle;
> A Polar Over-the-Horizon Radar system to provide early warning radar coverage over and beyond the northernmost approaches to North America, including the Canadian Arctic archipelago; and
> National Defence will also work with the United States to develop a complementary network of sensors with classified capabilities, distributed across Northern Canada, as another layer of detection.
> 
> We will also strengthen the Canadian Armed Forces’ space-based surveillance abilities, including of Canadian territory and maritime approaches, by investing additional funds to complete and augment the new state-of-the-art, space-based surveillance project announced in Canada’s 2017 defence policy, Strong, Secure, Engaged (SSE).
> 2. Improving our ability to understand and communicate threats to decision-makers in a timely manner through investments in modern technology.
> *$4.13B* from fiscal year 22/23 – 41/42
> We will modernize key Canadian Armed Forces’ command, control and communications capabilities and systems.
> We will modernize the Canadian Combined Air Operations Centre.
> We will renew the Canadian Armed Forces’ high and low-frequency radio capability.
> We will enhance satellite communications in the Arctic through additional funding to complete and augment the polar communications project announced in SSE.
> We will procure and install new digital radios and network equipment.
> We will also work with the United States to expand support for the NORAD Pathfinder initiative. This project will take advantage of cloud-based computing and machine learning to ensure that NORAD commanders can make informed, rapid decisions. We will also advance work on a new Positioning, Navigation, and Timing capability to assist with air navigation in remote areas.
> 3. Strengthening our ability to deter and defeat aerospace threats by modernizing our air weapons systems.
> *$6.38B* from fiscal year 22/23 – 41/42
> We will procure new, advanced air-to-air missiles with the capability to engage threats from short, medium and long-ranges.
> 4. Ensuring our Canadian Armed Forces can launch and sustain a strong military presence across the country, including in Canada’s North, through investments in new infrastructure and support capabilities.
> *$15.68B* from fiscal year 22/23 – 41/42
> We will acquire additional air-to-air refueling aircraft.
> We will upgrade Canadian Armed Forces’ infrastructure at four locations in Canada’s North.
> We will upgrade fighter infrastructure and NORAD Quick Reaction Alert capabilities at bases across Canada.
> We will modernize the Canadian Armed Forces’ air operational training infrastructure.
> 5. Future-proofing our capabilities to defend North America through investments in science and technology.
> *$4.23B* from fiscal year 22/23 – 41/42
> We will fund Defence Research and Development Canada to create a science and technology program that will assess new and emerging threats, accessing and co-developing technological solutions with the United States.
> 
> 
> The $38.6 billion investment also includes $1.18 billion for internal services.
> 
> 
> *Note:* Figures may not add due to rounding.
> 
> 
> Definitions​Accrual basis of accounting Under the accrual basis of accounting, the cost of acquiring an asset is recorded when the asset is put into service and spread over its useful life, rather than being recorded at the time the bills are paid. The portion of DND's accrual budget records the forecasted depreciation expense of capital assets, like equipment and infrastructure. Cash basis of accounting Under the cash basis of accounting, payments related to capital assets and operational funding are recorded in the year during which payments are made. Each year, DND receives a cash appropriation from Parliament and these funds are used to cover salaries, operating and maintenance costs, grants and contributions, purchase of capital equipment, and the construction of real property infrastructure. The cash budget is approved through the Main Estimates and can be revised up to three times per year through Supplementary Estimates.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fact sheet: Funding for Continental Defence and NORAD Modernization - Canada.ca
> 
> 
> NORAD modernization is a long term project and these funds will support NORAD and the Canadian Armed Forces’ ability to protect Canadians against new and emerging military threats to Canada and North America more broadly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.canada.ca



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## kev994

MarkOttawa said:


> No new funding for first six years covered by earlier announcement:
> 
> 
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa


Oh good, more funding later, after the next election. Is it just me or does that funding never materialize?


----------



## rmc_wannabe

kev994 said:


> Oh good, more funding later, after the next election. Is it just me or does that funding never materialize?


By design it never will. 

It's like Charlie Brown and Lucy with the football.


----------



## daftandbarmy

rmc_wannabe said:


> By design it never will.
> 
> It's like Charlie Brown and Lucy with the football.



I had to find the meme...


----------



## YZT580

rmc_wannabe said:


> By design it never will.
> 
> It's like Charlie Brown and Lucy with the football.


They are only fooling themselves.  Our allies haven't taken anything we promise as truth for a long long time.


----------



## suffolkowner

Polands little shopping spree

500 HIMARS MLRS,
32 F-35 fighters,
250 M1A2 SEPv3 tanks, + 116 M1A1
8 Patriot batteries
1000 K2PL MBTs
672 K9 self-propelled howitzers
Up to 1400 Borsuk IFVs
48 FA50 fighter jets

a more in depth breakdown of the plan


			KoreaÅ„skie zamÃ³wienia â€“ Agencja Uzbrojenia ujawnia szczegÃ³Å‚y - DziennikZbrojny.pl
		


meanwhile we talk and talk and talk


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Maybe we can get Russia to attack the French Islands in the St Lawrence, that might stir them in Ottawa. Or seize Haida Gwaii


----------



## rmc_wannabe

Colin Parkinson said:


> Maybe we can get Russia to attack the French Islands in the St Lawrence, that might stir them in Ottawa. Or seize Haida Gwaii


Pfft there aren't enough votes in either of those places to justify a Polish like buying frenzy. They'd probably be Bloc or NDP voters anyway. 

We'd need the Russians invading Ahuntsic-Cartierville or University—Rosedale to see anyone in government turn their head to notice. 
​


----------



## OldSolduer

Colin Parkinson said:


> Maybe we can get Russia to attack the French Islands in the St Lawrence, that might stir them in Ottawa. Or seize Haida Gwaii


Justin would cede them to his new Russian friend.


----------



## MilEME09

OldSolduer said:


> Justin would cede them to his new Russian friend.


Can we give them down town Toronto instead?


----------



## MilEME09

Anyone surprised?








						Liberals give themselves more time to meet five-year-old peacekeeping pledge
					

The federal Liberal government has quietly given itself more time to provide a 200-soldier force for peacekeeping, which Prime Minister Justin Trudeau first pledged to the United Nations nearly five years ago.




					www.ctvnews.ca


----------



## CBH99

MilEME09 said:


> Anyone surprised?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals give themselves more time to meet five-year-old peacekeeping pledge
> 
> 
> The federal Liberal government has quietly given itself more time to provide a 200-soldier force for peacekeeping, which Prime Minister Justin Trudeau first pledged to the United Nations nearly five years ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.ctvnews.ca


 Not surprised at all...  It's funny how even the prof at the end suggests it might just be optics, with no intention of fulfilling the pledge.

But on the other hand...

a) that pledge was made when JT wanted a seat at the Security Council.

Since dad has now come and gone, I can't imagine his motivation to provide said force will be very high.


b) Send them where?  To Mali?  South Sudan?  Haiti?

A QRF is only quick if it's nearby, aware you are operating in an area, and are prepped to deploy & equipped to give the bad guys a black eye & help keep things secure.

If the UN really wanted it, they would say "We need a QRF here at location X, to rapidly deploy & assist UN forces doing Y."

______

This would actually be a great mission to task the reserve forces with.  

Easy to prep for, not equipment heavy, not manpower intensive, fairly low risk, etc - that would help recruiting, make Canada look good, and be a doable/cool mission for the folks that are in right now.  

But until the UN requests something specific, I don't see why we should proactively run after _that_ pledge...


----------



## Skysix

YZT580 said:


> They are only fooling themselves.  Our allies haven't taken anything we promise as truth for a long long time.


And apparently fooling our media and many of us.


----------



## Brad Sallows

I don't see the problem.  I often give myself more time to finish things undone because I was skiving off on something else I'd rather do.


----------



## Good2Golf

Brad Sallows said:


> I don't see the problem.  I often give myself more time to finish things undone because I was skiving off on something else I'd rather do.


Brad, you wouldn’t happen to love surfing in Tofino, would you? 😉


----------



## Czech_pivo

kev994 said:


> Oh good, more funding later, after the next election. Is it just me or does that funding never materialize?


It's kind of like that sign you see in certain bars/pubs - 'Free beer tomorrow'........


----------



## OldSolduer

I hear the PM is off on vacation in Costa Rica. Hmmmm

When our Premier - a Conservative - went there (he owns property there) he was raked over the coals as people thought he should vacation in Manitoba.


----------



## GK .Dundas

That and the fact that he had no coms during a crisis back home and couldn't figure out why people were upset. 
Palliser was utterly tone deaf.
I came to the conclusion not long after he took as Premier that he hadn't a clue how Government worked and lacked the mental agility to change.
He didn't seem to understand that it wasn't like running his own company.


----------



## RangerRay

OldSolduer said:


> I hear the PM is off on vacation in Costa Rica. Hmmmm
> 
> When our Premier - a Conservative - went there (he owns property there) he was raked over the coals as people thought he should vacation in Manitoba.


I think part of it was he wasn’t gone for a couple of weeks but a month or so. 

But part of it was also class envy.


----------



## OldSolduer

RangerRay said:


> I think part of it was he wasn’t gone for a couple of weeks but a month or so.
> 
> But part of it was also class envy.


I think you might be right on the first point and definitely right on the second.

There is a strong Communist streak in this province that speaks "if you are rich you stole the money from the poor".


----------



## OldSolduer

GK .Dundas said:


> That and the fact that he had no coms during a crisis back home and couldn't figure out why people were upset.
> Palliser was utterly tone deaf.
> I came to the conclusion not long after he took as Premier that he hadn't a clue how Government worked and lacked the mental agility to change.
> He didn't seem to understand that it wasn't like running his own company.


I'll concede those points. Pallister I never liked and his successor less so.


----------



## kev994

OldSolduer said:


> When our Premier - a Conservative - went there (he owns property there) he was raked over the coals as people thought he should vacation in Manitoba.


He was there for 2 months at a time and didn’t take a phone with him.


----------



## Kirkhill

Melanie Joly - apparently Sabrina Maddeaux is not a fan.









						Sabrina Maddeaux: The incredibly incompetent Mélanie Joly
					

Foreign affairs is too important a cabinet position to be handled so carelessly




					nationalpost.com
				






> Sabrina Maddeaux: The incredibly incompetent Mélanie Joly​Foreign affairs is too important a cabinet position to be handled so carelessly
> 
> Author of the article:
> Sabrina Maddeaux
> Publishing date:
> Aug 05, 2022  •  4 hours ago  •  3 minute read  •   409 Comments
> 
> 
> Something is seriously wrong at Global Affairs Canada — and it’s getting harder not to conclude a change must occur at the very top.
> 
> Not all cabinet positions are created equal, and Foreign Affairs Minister Mélanie Joly’s is one that literally deals with life and death on a daily basis. There’s little room for error, let alone the displays of gross incompetence, dysfunction and/or bad judgment we’ve seen as of late. The job is simply too important. The stakes are too high.
> 
> In June, we learned a foreign affairs staffer was sent to attend a garden party at Russia’s embassy in Ottawa. What followed was a chaotic flurry of finger-pointing between Joly’s office and Global Affairs staffers about who knew what and when. The public never did get a satisfactory answer.
> 
> Now we have another round of “did she know or didn’t she”— this time with lives on the line. The Globe and Mail reports that, in the weeks leading up to the Russian invasion, Canada abandoned its Ukrainian embassy staff as Canadians rushed to evacuate themselves and their pets. Even more appalling, diplomats had seen intelligence reports that Ukrainian staffers were likely on Russian kill lists.
> 
> This decision to desert roughly 50 loyal employees, to leave them for death, detention or worse given Russian troops’ well-documented predilection for rape and torture, reportedly came from the top.
> 
> According to Globe and Mail sources, Ottawa clearly instructed Canadian diplomats to not tell Ukrainian staff about the impending invasion or the target on their backs. They had to learn about both through the grapevine via U.S. embassy employees, who were warned of the danger.
> 
> Remember, this choice was made at a time when it was widely believed Putin’s troops would overwhelm Ukraine and capture Kyiv within weeks, if not days.
> 
> Local staffers were even denied requests to work remotely farther from the battlefront in Lviv or neighbouring Poland. This while Canadian MPs, not in a war zone, still can’t bring themselves to physically attend question period or even the recent Hockey Canada hearings.
> 
> Many Ukrainian staffers eventually found ways to evacuate themselves, helped by $90,000 they raised mostly from Canadians who’d worked in the country. This bears repeating: Canada’s Ukrainian employees had to crowdfund their evacuation so they wouldn’t face likely detention, torture or death. With allies like us, who even needs enemies?
> 
> As for Joly, she again claims ignorance. She says she didn’t know about Five Eyes intelligence reports that warned Ukrainian embassy staff were likely on Russian hit lists.
> 
> This boggles the mind on many levels. Let’s presume for a minute Joly is telling the truth — a presumption that admittedly requires quite the suspension of disbelief.
> 
> This would mean senior Global Affairs staff are routinely failing to inform the minister about critical information.
> 
> It would also mean Joly somehow managed to miss headline reports in the world’s largest media outlets that Russia was preparing kill lists.
> 
> Then she would have to be so naive, so terribly uninformed about world history and global affairs that she didn’t perceive a risk to Ukrainian staffers that a first-year poli sci student could’ve predicted.
> 
> And this is only the Ukraine file. Where’s the China policy that was promised back in 2019? Sources tell the Globe and Mail it’s in the works, but as an Indo-Pacific strategy that looks like it won’t mention … wait for it …  China. Meanwhile, the ambassador to China role has been empty for six months.
> 
> Despite deciding in 2017 a “focused effort” was needed to deal with what the U.N. calls ethnic cleansing of Rohingya Muslims in Myanmar and their further suffering in Bangladesh refugee camps, Canada still isn’t doing much beyond naming special envoys.
> 
> Joly says Global Affairs is undertaking an internal process to sort out the Ukraine fiasco among other problems. But the time for vague and never-ending processes, reviews and committee groupthink is over. It’s time for decisive action.
> 
> There really should be no scenario in which Joly can in good conscience keep her job.
> 
> Ideally, she should step down so someone more capable can lead the way. But if she won’t, keeping Joly in the post would fit the definition of insanity and would inevitably put more lives in danger. Repeated, easily preventable failures of this magnitude aren’t a learning curve, they’re red lights flashing over the eject minister button.
> 
> National Post


----------



## RangerRay

Her incompetence has been on full display since elevated to the “C” Team of cabinet a few years ago. Warren Kinsella has been talking about her incompetence well before her elevation to the “A” Team. She must have something on someone!


----------



## Kirkhill

And Ukraine's artillery is shy 100,000 rounds of 155mm while Canada tries to negotiate a deal with South Korea for the ammunition.  Presumably Canada is trying to negotiate offsets for a Quebec papermill or some such.

Meanwhile S. Korea is probably thinking it may have a lot of local targets for that ammunition if Nancy Pelosi hangs around much longer.









						Status of Canadian deal to buy artillery shells for Ukraine is uncertain
					

Talks are underway to make a purchase from South Korea, but Defence Minister Anita Anand refused to say whether it would go ahead




					nationalpost.com


----------



## MilEME09

Kirkhill said:


> And Ukraine's artillery is shy 100,000 rounds of 155mm while Canada tries to negotiate a deal with South Korea for the ammunition.  Presumably Canada is trying to negotiate offsets for a Quebec papermill or some such.
> 
> Meanwhile S. Korea is probably thinking it may have a lot of local targets for that ammunition if Nancy Pelosi hangs around much longer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Status of Canadian deal to buy artillery shells for Ukraine is uncertain
> 
> 
> Talks are underway to make a purchase from South Korea, but Defence Minister Anita Anand refused to say whether it would go ahead
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nationalpost.com


Do we have any domestic 155 production we can ramp up?


----------



## daftandbarmy

RangerRay said:


> Her incompetence has been on full display since elevated to the “C” Team of cabinet a few years ago. Warren Kinsella has been talking about her incompetence well before her elevation to the “A” Team. She must have something on someone!



But, like her boss, she's a good looking Franco female


----------



## Good2Golf

RangerRay said:


> She must have something on someone!


Reverse cowgirl?  🤔


----------



## Prairie canuck

kev994 said:


> He was there for 2 months at a time and didn’t take a phone with him.


Is that statement taken from the Manitoba NDP propaganda book?


----------



## GK .Dundas

No , he admitted it himself . 
His defense was that when he went down there it was to get away from it all.
As I recall it wasn't too long after he had been elected as Premier.


----------



## YZT580

RangerRay said:


> Her incompetence has been on full display since elevated to the “C” Team of cabinet a few years ago. Warren Kinsella has been talking about her incompetence well before her elevation to the “A” Team. She must have something on someone!


I have to say this carefully to avoid or at least deflect in-coming but at least two of the reasons deal with sex and Quebec.  She represents an important riding and her credentials are great academically.  According to her biography though she has never had a real job for any length of time but has been involved in politics.  She became a cabinet minister almost as soon as she was first elected.  Perhaps her boss is the one who should be replaced first as his judgement of people and their skills is definitely questionable


RangerRay said:


> Her incompetence has been on full display since elevated to the “C” Team of cabinet a few years ago. Warren Kinsella has been talking about her incompetence well before her elevation to the “A” Team. She must have something on someone!


Two


----------



## Spencer100

RangerRay said:


> Her incompetence has been on full display since elevated to the “C” Team of cabinet a few years ago. Warren Kinsella has been talking about her incompetence well before her elevation to the “A” Team. She must have something on someone!


She's just the right 50% of peoplekind that is all.


----------



## Spencer100

Kirkhill said:


> And Ukraine's artillery is shy 100,000 rounds of 155mm while Canada tries to negotiate a deal with South Korea for the ammunition.  Presumably Canada is trying to negotiate offsets for a Quebec papermill or some such.
> 
> Meanwhile S. Korea is probably thinking it may have a lot of local targets for that ammunition if Nancy Pelosi hangs around much longer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Status of Canadian deal to buy artillery shells for Ukraine is uncertain
> 
> 
> Talks are underway to make a purchase from South Korea, but Defence Minister Anita Anand refused to say whether it would go ahead
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nationalpost.com


South Korea will be the big winner in all of this. Their defense industries will be running full out for years.  Tanks, planes, ships and ammo.


----------



## OldSolduer

Good2Golf said:


> Reverse cowgirl?  🤔


That's a good one. 

Seriously we - Canada - have abandoned faithful allies twice in the last 12 months. Our incompetent - and uncaring - Liberal Party of Canada is concerned about ONE  thing - that the Liberal Party of Canada remain in power no matter what the cost.

I am afraid the cost will be Canadian lives and the lives of some of our allies - if we have any left.


----------



## Prairie canuck

GK .Dundas said:


> No , he admitted it himself .
> His defense was that when he went down there it was to get away from it all.
> As I recall it wasn't too long after he had been elected as Premier.


He had all the means and devices to stay in touch to deal with priority communications.   He had plenty of staff and a government bureaucracy in Manitoba to *do their jobs* and take care of everything else. But lets not let the truth stand in the way of a manufactured for the media NDP crisis.
Democratic governments of any stripe do not rely and only act on the rule of 1 leader regardless of who is elected. 

footnote* He was first elected in 1992 and served in both federal and provincial politics until his resignation. 29 years is a good indication that he knew how government worked.

Sorry, took a hard left and had to bring it back to the right, back to Trudeau's promises now....


----------



## McG

MilEME09 said:


> Do we have any domestic 155 production we can ramp up?


The old IVI facility (today GD-OTS Canada) should be more than capable of doing 155 mm.


----------



## GR66

McG said:


> The old IVI facility (today GD-OTS Canada) should be more than capable of doing 155 mm.


And you would be correct.

GD-OTS Canada


----------



## Kirkhill

GR66 said:


> And you would be correct.
> 
> GD-OTS Canada


According to their site

M107 HE
M485 Ill

Presumably the M107 might come in handy but haven't the Yanks move on from that?

M795?


----------



## MilEME09

Kirkhill said:


> According to their site
> 
> M107 HE
> M485 Ill
> 
> Presumably the M107 might come in handy but haven't the Yanks move on from that?
> 
> M795?


M107 rounds have been spotted in Ukraine, if we can deliver, I'd say ramp up production ASAP.


----------



## brihard

MilEME09 said:


> M107 rounds have been spotted in Ukraine, if we can deliver, I'd say ramp up production ASAP.


I suspect Ukraine’s fire support requirements are such that pretty much any compatible and serviceable ammunition will be welcomed. Not everything needs the high end warheads; sometimes you just need to make a BTG’s life suck as it tries to close with and destroy your friends, and you just gotta pump out rounds.


----------



## Fabius

Canada’s artillery production capabilities are largely extinct. The lines have not been used in over 20 years and tech both shell and production line have moved on as have the needed ancillary industrial capabilities. 
Bottom line is we can’t start new or old shell design manufacturing inside of a 5 year timeframe and for the newest shells we would need the US etc to allow for production licenses. 
This is a large issue for the RCA that has largely been ignored or kept relatively quiet.


----------



## McG

Fabius said:


> Canada’s artillery production capabilities are largely extinct. The lines have not been used in over 20 years and …


It hasn’t been more than 15 years since I visited the GD-OTS facility, and they were doing artillery then.


----------



## Fabius

Interesting then. Perhaps I miss read something or maybe it was fuzes. 🤷‍♂️


----------



## dapaterson

Unfortunately, too often the cost of maintaining a capability today is deemed excessive, only to discover later that the cost of not maintaining it is even greater.

Militaries require effectiveness, which frequently runs counter to efficiency.


----------



## rmc_wannabe

dapaterson said:


> Unfortunately, too often the cost of maintaining a capability today is deemed excessive, only to discover later that the cost of not maintaining it is even greater.
> 
> Militaries require effectiveness, which frequently runs counter to efficiency.


Let alone the cost of divesting a capability only to realise how much more it costs to replace it down the road.

It was depressing doing a CAFJOD on Joint Operations and reading that future conflicts are "most likely going to occur between non state actors in a proxy/COIN environment" while watching a peer force-on-force conflict occur in real time. 

COIN and PSO certainly are light on the hardware requirements; but it's hard as hell to get back what you got rid of.


----------



## FJAG

rmc_wannabe said:


> Let alone the cost of divesting a capability only to realise how much more it costs to replace it down the road.
> 
> It was depressing doing a CAFJOD on Joint Operations and reading that future conflicts are "most likely going to occur between non state actors in a proxy/COIN environment" while watching a peer force-on-force conflict occur in real time.
> 
> COIN and PSO certainly are light on the hardware requirements; but it's hard as hell to get back what you got rid of.


I've always thought that our military approach to proxy/COIN operations used the least developed and armed force in the world as the model to base on thus divesting ourselves of most modern weapon systems that would remain relevant and necessary for even a modestly armed country. 

It did not raise a lot of confidence that even there we had to develop our equipment holdings reactively to what our opponents brought to the table and that some of the really useful equipment (Predator, CAS, helicopters, road clearance packages etc) had to be supplied by our allies.

🍻


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

dapaterson said:


> Unfortunately, too often the cost of maintaining a capability today is deemed excessive, only to discover later that the cost of not maintaining it is even greater.
> 
> Militaries require effectiveness, which frequently runs counter to efficiency.



Some time in the 70-80's, the First Sea Lord and C.N.S. (either Adm Sir Leach, Fieldhouse or Staveley - but IIRC it was Staveley) gave an interview (in an episode of the TV documentary series _Sea Power: A Global Journey_) where he said, and I quote: "Navies are expensive, but a damn sight cheaper than not having them".

You may recall it was the era the U.K. wanted to divest itself of aircraft carriers rather than replace the INVINCIBLE  class, just to be suddenly faced with the invasion of the Falklands. Decision reversed in a hurry!


----------



## MilEME09

Oldgateboatdriver said:


> Some time in the 70-80's, the First Sea Lord and C.N.S. (either Adm Sir Leach, Fieldhouse or Staveley - but IIRC it was Staveley) gave an interview (in an episode of the TV documentary series _Sea Power: A Global Journey_) where he said, and I quote: "Navies are expensive, but a damn sight cheaper than not having them".
> 
> You may recall it was the era the U.K. wanted to divest itself of aircraft carriers rather than replace the INVINCIBLE  class, just to be suddenly faced with the invasion of the Falklands. Decision reversed in a hurry!


Conflict causes priorities to change, our own Force 2025 shift has been changed because of the war in Ukraine


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

dapaterson said:


> Unfortunately, too often the cost of maintaining a capability today is deemed excessive, only to discover later that the cost of not maintaining it is even greater.
> 
> Militaries require effectiveness, which frequently runs counter to efficiency.


It's almost like Industrial Capacity is important 😁


----------



## MilEME09

Humphrey Bogart said:


> It's almost like Industrial Capacity is important 😁


You mean we should always be producing munitions, put them into war stocks and slowly release the older stuff for use by user units? No way


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

MilEME09 said:


> You mean we should always be producing munitions, put them into war stocks and slowly release the older stuff for use by user units? No way


The real issue the entire Russia-Ukraine conflict has exposed is how the "Arsenal of Democracy" isn't as much of an arsenal as it used to be.


----------



## MilEME09

Humphrey Bogart said:


> The real issue the entire Russia-Ukraine conflict has exposed is how the "Arsenal of Democracy" isn't as much of an arsenal as it used to be.


It's more a reserve armoury


----------



## Fabius

Its interesting that we maintain some recognition that industrial capacity is important, I mean we still have a Munition Supply Program, that on the surface seems to be maintained ie. we can manufacture ammo. Then you dig into the details and realize its a disaster of mismanagement and lack of understanding.
I don't think you can describe the maintenance of  national industrial capacity as a success if you can only make two out of the three components of an artillery muntion ( ie. Shell and Charge but no fuzes of any type for either 105 or 155) and you can't manufacture any of the latest rounds introduced in the last 30 years as your production line technology can't do it, meaning that while Wikipedia may say your Artillery's range is 40km with the muntions you can produce its barely 15km.
Nor can you manufacture anything but basic HE, no smoke, no illum, no SMART/BONUS etc. 

That doesn't seem like any sort of competent well put together planning.


----------



## rmc_wannabe

Fabius said:


> That doesn't seem like any sort of competent well put together planning.


Remember that we don't _plan _, we _react. _This has been a Canadian military tradition since the first boat crossed the Niagara in 1812. 

Most of our "new kit" from the Afghan War was bought in a panic because we were underequipped for the job being asked. We almost ran our of ammunition in 2006 because we grossly underestimated both what a combat load is and also how many rounds are used in a fire fight. 

The second we have a ramp ceremony in the next conflict is the second we see the purse strings loosen; a day late and a dollar short.

As is tradition.


----------



## McG

rmc_wannabe said:


> The second we have a ramp ceremony in the next conflict is the second we see the purse strings loosen; a day late and a dollar short


If NATO finds itself in a shooting war with Russia, Canada won’t have the luxury of doing ramp ceremonies.


----------



## rmc_wannabe

McG said:


> If NATO finds itself in a shooting war with Russia, Canada won’t have the luxury of doing ramp ceremonies.


Obviously. 

I was merely stating the risk of casualties isn't even enough of a political incentive to properly equip or maintain readiness within the CAF.  It's only when casualties happen and voters get upset that we see a proper response on Defense and Foreign policy matters.


----------



## CBH99

rmc_wannabe said:


> Remember that we don't _plan _, we _react. _This has been a Canadian military tradition since the first boat crossed the Niagara in 1812.
> 
> Most of our "new kit" from the Afghan War was bought in a panic because we were underequipped for the job being asked. We almost ran our of ammunition in 2006 because we grossly underestimated both what a combat load is and also how many rounds are used in a fire fight.
> 
> The second we have a ramp ceremony in the next conflict is the second we see the purse strings loosen; a day late and a dollar short.
> 
> As is tradition.


As someone who deployed in 2006, I’ll just say this - General Fraser was _NOT_ the right guy for the job.  

He’d genuinely have been better employed a few ranks lower, where he could still heavily influence policy for the Task Force Commander.   

But he should not have been the TFC, in my humble opinion.  The ammo issues experienced at the beginning of Medusa was just sheer incompetence on _his_ behalf.  

Regardless of his personal decisions in his own affairs, Gen. Vance was a much better boss sort of speak.  



The CAF is absolutely a reactive organization.  No doubt about it.  

On the one hand, ideally, we’d be equipped to be able to deploy quickly, smash some bad guys, and sustain ourselves sufficiently in an allied environment where other countries are doing the same.  

On the other, preparing for future conflicts is inherently risky, as you may be preparing for the wrong type of operations.  Having well trained, general purpose forces helps one to mitigate those risks.  (

(We had just finished designing a new combat uniform & associated kit for operations in low threat environments like Bosnia & Kosovo when all of a sudden we found ourselves conducting offensive operations in the Afghan desert.  Wait, wtf?)



Sometimes I feel like our attitude of “Let’s first see what kicks off and where, and against who…then go buy a bunch of stuff we need for that specific theatre!” isn’t just an attitude, it’s an unofficial policy


----------



## Fabius

All while trumpeting the mantra of readiness that the General officers have favoured for the last 5 or so years, yet failed to define outside of do your DAG and have a family care plan.


----------



## FSTO

rmc_wannabe said:


> Obviously.
> 
> I was merely stating the risk of casualties isn't even enough of a political incentive to properly equip or maintain readiness within the CAF.  It's only when casualties happen and voters get upset that we see a proper response on Defense and Foreign policy matters.


This is focused on the maritime interests of Canada, but can be expanded to everything defence related in this country.

Canadian Prime Ministers and their governments have been able to maintain their saltwater blindness because they are secure in the knowledge that the Americans will ultimately do what is necessary for the protection of North America. The knowledge that the Americans have had the world's most sophisticated and powerful submarine forces since the end of the Second World War has protected Canadian leaders from having to make serious decisions about the protection of Canada's undersea maritime regions. 2 This willful neglect is further facilitated by the lack of any meaningful political constituency within Canada that would compel Canadian political leaders to understand the need for the protection of Canada's maritime regions. 



			https://www.navalassoc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Starshell-Summer-2022-LR.pdf


----------



## ueo

rmc_wannabe said:


> Obviously.
> 
> I was merely stating the risk of casualties isn't even enough of a political incentive to properly equip or maintain readiness within the CAF.  It's only when casualties happen and voters get upset that we see a proper response on Defense and Foreign policy matters.


Verrrry true that!


----------



## OldSolduer

rmc_wannabe said:


> Obviously.
> 
> I was merely stating the risk of casualties isn't even enough of a political incentive to properly equip or maintain readiness within the CAF.  It's only when casualties happen and voters get upset that we see a proper response on Defense and Foreign policy matters.


I might have to sit back and not participate in this conversation for a while. In my mind the GoC treats the CAF as the unwanted illegitimate child who serves no real purpose and eats the food others could have. But when there’s danger the illegitimate one gets the task to sort it out.

I’m angry 😡 please forgive me


----------



## OldSolduer

OldSolduer said:


> I might have to sit back and not participate in this conversation for a while. In my mind the GoC treats the CAF as the unwanted illegitimate child who serves no real purpose and eats the food others could have. But when there’s danger the illegitimate one gets the task to sort it out.
> 
> I’m angry 😡 please forgive me


The illegitimate child being Jon Snow. Yes I know I know - having the right to STFU I have not the ability 🤦‍♂️


----------



## The Bread Guy

OldSolduer said:


> ... the GoC treats the CAF as the unwanted illegitimate child who serves no real purpose and eats the food others could have. But when there’s danger the illegitimate one gets the task to sort it out ...


Or, put another way ...


----------



## Czech_pivo

RangerRay said:


> Her incompetence has been on full display since elevated to the “C” Team of cabinet a few years ago. Warren Kinsella has been talking about her incompetence well before her elevation to the “A” Team. She must have something on someone!


Maybe its a certain skill set that she possessions that is in high demand?


----------



## OldSolduer

Czech_pivo said:


> Maybe its a certain skill set that she possessions that is in high demand?


hmmmm what could that be?


----------



## Czech_pivo

OldSolduer said:


> hmmmm what could that be?


No comment.


----------



## Quirky

Czech_pivo said:


> Maybe its a certain skill set that she possessions that is in high demand?



This is what happens when the left put in diversity, gender and race requirements on job applications. 

 CAF has prioritized recruiting in these three areas to great failure.


----------



## Spencer100

Quirky said:


> This is what happens when the left put in diversity, gender and race requirements on job applications.
> 
> CAF has prioritized recruiting in these three areas to great failure.


hmmm its like it was the plan along.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

86 pages in.  What has he done on military spending? Besides wasting millions on virtue signalling.


----------



## QV

Fishbone Jones said:


> 86 pages in.  What has he done on military spending? Besides wasting millions on virtue signalling.


Military folks will still vote for him too.


----------



## Remius

It’s a wash. Both federal parties have done nothing in the long run.  I no longer vote based on military policies.


----------



## YZT580

Czech_pivo said:


> No comment.


very wise


----------



## rmc_wannabe

Remius said:


> It’s a wash. Both federal parties have done nothing in the long run.  I no longer vote based on military policies.


Absolute truth. 

We are a civilian led military, as we should be in a democratic country. It just sucks that the civilians leading it have zero understanding nor desire to gain understanding on military or foreign policy matters. 

Our politicians are happy to spend money on things that get them elected and our populace is more than happy to shove their heads in the sand when things get bleak. 

Alas.... Vigilamus Pro Te.... emphasis on "Pro Te"


----------



## Spencer100

Remius said:


> It’s a wash. Both federal parties have done nothing in the long run.  I no longer vote based on military policies.


Not true.  The last CPC did more for the CAF than any other in my many decades here.  Did they do enough no.  But better than anyone else.  I hate the they are all the same line.  It's just used  down grade conservatives.  False equivalent.


----------



## OldSolduer

rmc_wannabe said:


> It just sucks that the civilians leading it have zero understanding nor desire to gain understanding on military or foreign policy matters.
> 
> Our politicians are happy to spend money on things that get them elected and our populace is more than happy to shove their heads in the sand when things get bleak.


This.

When I was a youngster at least Lester B Pearson - the PM at the time - at one time was in the military - in WWI as  medical orderly then joined the Royal Flying Corps. As far as I can tell very few other politicians in Canada had military or defense experience.

As to your second statement I think you hit the nail on the head.


----------



## Remius

Spencer100 said:


> Not true.  The last CPC did more for the CAF than any other in my many decades here.  Did they do enough no.  But better than anyone else.  I hate the they are all the same line.  It's just used  down grade conservatives.  False equivalent.


Not really.  They made empty promises just like all of them do every time.  Paul Martin also did a lot to get the ball rolling.  Both parties failed us.  

I fell for it once with Harper.  Like I said I don’t vote based on military policies that either party promises. 

It leads to disappointment


----------



## Fishbone Jones

OldSolduer said:


> As far as I can tell very few other politicians in Canada had military or defense experience.



PET
🤣


----------



## DBNSG

Remius said:


> Not really.  They made empty promises just like all of them do every time.  Paul Martin also did a lot to get the ball rolling.  Both parties failed us.
> 
> I fell for it once with Harper.  Like I said I don’t vote based on military policies that either party promises.
> 
> It leads to disappointment


I would agree that Politicians are well Politicians but Harper did leave the Forces capabilities in better shape than any Liberal ever has since at least St Laurent. 
The Leopards, TAPV's, LAV 6's, Mack Trucks and Navistar trucks were all under Harpers government. He also added 25 M-777 guns to Martins purchase. Then the RCAF additions of 15 Chinooks, the final Cyclone contract, C- 17's and of course the Hercs.,

 The present Trudeau just does not have anything resembling the few items I have listed.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Before we can figure out what the military _needs_, there has to be a clear, _everyone_-on-board vision on what it's supposed to _do_.

Anyone have a decent summary of any recent government that's come up with such a thing?  

And how many such documents have been generated only to become dust collectors when the "new & improved" team comes in?

Yeah, weak DefMins play a role, but usually as part of an overall weak process of defining Canada's goals in a clear, concise and agreed-to way.


----------



## Quirky

The Bread Guy said:


> Before we can figure out what the military _needs_, there has to be a clear, _everyone_-on-board vision on what it's supposed to _do_.


Whoa whoa whoa, lets not put the cart before the horse, that type of talk will get you elected into parliament.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Quirky said:


> Whoa whoa whoa, lets not put the cart before the horse, that type of talk will get you elected into parliament.


I know, dare to dream, right?


----------



## FSTO

OldSolduer said:


> This.
> 
> When I was a youngster at least Lester B Pearson - the PM at the time - at one time was in the military - in WWI as  medical orderly then joined the Royal Flying Corps. As far as I can tell very few other politicians in Canada had military or defense experience.
> 
> As to your second statement I think you hit the nail on the head.


Dief had some military experience as well. But it was Louis St Laurent who led a government that had both a coherent and useful foreign and defence policy (although they let the RCAF run wild with the Arrow) which suited our place in the world order at the time. The 60's was the transition to fairy dust land. Rising costs of military equipment coupled with a desire to have a world class social safety net begat the likes of Hellyer and Trudeau (Pere) who promised everything and delivered nothing (defence) or increasingly unsustainable (our social safety net). Everyone since has been found wanting and the quality of political leadership is being ever more and more diluted.


----------



## FSTO

The Bread Guy said:


> Before we can figure out what the military _needs_, there has to be a clear, _everyone_-on-board vision on what it's supposed to _do_.
> 
> Anyone have a decent summary of any recent government that's come up with such a thing?
> 
> And how many such documents have been generated only to become dust collectors when the "new & improved" team comes in?
> 
> Yeah, weak DefMins play a role, but usually as part of an overall weak process of defining Canada's goals in a clear, concise and agreed-to way.


Canadian Prime Ministers and their governments have been able to maintain their saltwater real world blindness because they are secure in the knowledge that the Americans will ultimately do what is necessary for the protection of North America. The knowledge that the Americans have had the world's most sophisticated and powerful submarine military forces since the end of the Second World War has protected Canadian leaders from having to make serious decisions about the protection of Canada's undersea maritime regions territories and national interests. This willful neglect is further facilitated by the lack of any meaningful political constituency within Canada that would compel Canadian political leaders to understand the need for the protection of Canada's maritime regions Canada.


----------



## Halifax Tar

FSTO said:


> Hellyer



Careful say that name 3 times and he will reappear with aliens.


----------



## FSTO

Anyone worried that the ongoing water crisis in the US SW will have very powerful people in the US casting envious eyes towards all that fresh water being "wasted" going into Hudson's Bay and the Beaufort Sea? Plus the draining of the Ogallala Aquifer is another concern as well. 








						The Current State of the Ogallala Aquifer
					

The Ogallala Aquifer provides water to many in the High Plains Region, but it's rapidly decreasing water levels have many worried about the future.




					www.talonlpe.com
				




Is anyone at Minister Joly's office thinking of this? 


Of course not, they are too busy being keyboard toughies to the Russians. We are fubard!


----------



## GK .Dundas

FSTO said:


> Anyone worried that the ongoing water crisis in the US SW will have very powerful people in the US casting envious eyes towards all that fresh water being "wasted" going into Hudson's Bay and the Beaufort Sea? Plus the draining of the Ogallala Aquifer is another concern as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Current State of the Ogallala Aquifer
> 
> 
> The Ogallala Aquifer provides water to many in the High Plains Region, but it's rapidly decreasing water levels have many worried about the future.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.talonlpe.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is anyone at Minister Joly's office thinking of this?
> 
> 
> Of course not, they are too busy being keyboard toughies to the Russians. We are fubard!


I suspect that the Minister's office assumes that the Americans will protect us from any aggressor up to and including themselves.
 Canadian political logic ....


----------



## ueo

FSTO said:


> Anyone worried that the ongoing water crisis in the US SW will have very powerful people in the US casting envious eyes towards all that fresh water being "wasted" going into Hudson's Bay and the Beaufort Sea? Plus the draining of the Ogallala Aquifer is another concern as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Current State of the Ogallala Aquifer
> 
> 
> The Ogallala Aquifer provides water to many in the High Plains Region, but it's rapidly decreasing water levels have many worried about the future.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.talonlpe.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is anyone at Minister Joly's office thinking of this?
> 
> 
> Of course not, they are too busy being keyboard toughies to the Russians. We are fubard!


Is anyone in her office thinking?


----------



## GK .Dundas

ueo said:


> Is anyone in her office thinking?


Yes , not particularly well but they are thinking.
After all this is Canada and everybody loves Canada  .
Thus relieving us of having to deal with such unpleasantness as conflicts.


----------



## McG

Spencer100 said:


> Not true. The last CPC did more for the CAF than any other in my many decades here.


They did what they had to do to get us through Kandahar (and that spending trend actually started under Martin) and, as soon as they announced CAF was leaving the province, they dialed CAF right back to the level of investment as where they had inherited it.  Don’t give too much credit there.






						Election Issues 2015: A Maclean's primer on defence spending - Macleans.ca
					

Maclean's is your destination for the 2015 election. Start with our in-depth primers on the big issues, including defence spending




					www.macleans.ca


----------



## dapaterson

Keep in mind also that delivery date is a poor metric.  The MSVS project, fir example, delivered over more than a decade, with planning and procurement beginning well before that.


----------



## McG

It was under a Liberal government that the first contracts were signed for M777 and RG-31 that arrived for the first mechanized Canadian battlegroup to go into Kandahar.


----------



## FJAG

McG said:


> It was under a Liberal government that the first contracts were signed for M777 and RG-31 that arrived for the first mechanized Canadian battlegroup to go into Kandahar.


While correct vis a vis the M777, do not forget that it was under the Liberal government that the main artillery capability (the M109) was shelved and planned for divestment without there being any plan or funding in place for its replacement. Essentially under the Liberals the Army's plan was to leave its indirect fire support capability in the form of 81mm mortars and LG1 and C3 105mm howitzers. The M777 was acquired in very limited numbers pursuant to an Unforecasted Operational Requirement - essentially Canada had no plan and was pushed into it by circumstances of committing it's troops to a potential combat situation. This is not the way to run an Army regardless of political party.

🍻


----------



## FJAG

FSTO said:


> Anyone worried that the ongoing water crisis in the US SW will have very powerful people in the US casting envious eyes towards all that fresh water being "wasted" going into Hudson's Bay and the Beaufort Sea? Plus the draining of the Ogallala Aquifer is another concern as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Current State of the Ogallala Aquifer
> 
> 
> The Ogallala Aquifer provides water to many in the High Plains Region, but it's rapidly decreasing water levels have many worried about the future.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.talonlpe.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is anyone at Minister Joly's office thinking of this?
> 
> 
> Of course not, they are too busy being keyboard toughies to the Russians. We are fubard!


One doesn't even need to look at it from a threat point of view. It should be looked at as an economic opportunity. Some of our northern water resources are not only viable sources of long-term cheap and ecologically sound hydro electric energy but also a supply of fresh water that is largely going to waste. 2,300 years ago the Romans spanned much of Europe (same, same the Incas) with basic aqueduct systems to supply cities and farms. Where is our initiative?

🤷‍♂️


----------



## rmc_wannabe

The problem has and always been the fraudulent belief we can ramp up our capabilities at the drop of a hat, or failing that, someone else (Brits or Americans) will come to save the day.

Ofcourse when push comes to shove, if we don't have the capabilities; or more importantly, the will to defend our territory, we will be subjugated either implicitly or subliminally by the 8nvading force or those who spilt the blood and treasure we chose not to.

I personally would rather defend the country on our own than wait for someone else (friend or foe) to set the terms


----------



## FSTO

FJAG said:


> One doesn't even need to look at it from a threat point of view. It should be looked at as an economic opportunity. Some of our northern water resources are not only viable sources of long-term cheap and ecologically sound hydro electric energy but also a supply of fresh water that is largely going to waste. 2,300 years ago the Romans spanned much of Europe (same, same the Incas) with basic aqueduct systems to supply cities and farms. Where is our initiative?
> 
> 🤷‍♂️


Hmmm, why should we encourage the living in unsustainable in inhospitable regions. The ability to move water and introduction of A/C to the desert allowed the cities of Vegas, Phoenix, and LA to flourish. Why should we reward bad behavior by draining rivers and aquafers? 

It's this sort of thinking that got us in this pickle in the first place.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Quirky said:


> This is what happens when the left put in diversity, gender and race requirements on job applications.
> 
> CAF has prioritized recruiting in these three areas to great failure.





FSTO said:


> Anyone worried that the ongoing water crisis in the US SW will have very powerful people in the US casting envious eyes towards all that fresh water being "wasted" going into Hudson's Bay and the Beaufort Sea? Plus the draining of the Ogallala Aquifer is another concern as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Current State of the Ogallala Aquifer
> 
> 
> The Ogallala Aquifer provides water to many in the High Plains Region, but it's rapidly decreasing water levels have many worried about the future.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.talonlpe.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is anyone at Minister Joly's office thinking of this?
> 
> 
> Of course not, they are too busy being keyboard toughies to the Russians. We are fubard!


I can guarantee you that no one in her office or pretty much any other Federal Office is thinking of this.  Only those on the IJC will be thinking of this and there are no 'heavy hitters' on the IJC today.


----------



## The Bread Guy

McG said:


> They did what they had to do to get us through Kandahar (and that spending trend actually started under Martin) and, as soon as they announced CAF was leaving the province, they dialed CAF right back to the level of investment as where they had inherited it.  Don’t give too much credit there.
> View attachment 72440
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Election Issues 2015: A Maclean's primer on defence spending - Macleans.ca
> 
> 
> Maclean's is your destination for the 2015 election. Start with our in-depth primers on the big issues, including defence spending
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.macleans.ca


So, like VAC pensions, all teams had a chance at bat and didn't do as well as they could have


----------



## FJAG

FSTO said:


> Hmmm, why should we encourage the living in unsustainable in inhospitable regions. The ability to move water and introduction of A/C to the desert allowed the cities of Vegas, Phoenix, and LA to flourish. Why should we reward bad behavior by draining rivers and aquafers?
> 
> It's this sort of thinking that got us in this pickle in the first place.


Well ... there's financial gain for one.

But, the Earth has limited areas where agriculture can happen naturally without any assistance and our population has, to a large extent, outstripped that. There are still massive regions of arable land where, with a bit of a boost, you can produce crops (which coincidentally create oxygen and burn up carbon dioxide) Moving fresh water to those regions when all it would otherwise do is flow to the sea and turn into salty water is a win-win situation. The same for many fertilizer products which can be produced by mining rather than gas conversion.

I don't think that the people who started up Vegas, Phoenix or even LA ever really envisioned the extent to which these centres would grow. Each has a very different origin and reason why it grew into what it is. The problem (feature?) about humans is that we tend to operate in an unstructured manner. You can only plan for so much. All too often serendipity plays a role. Then you react the best way that you can.

🍻


----------



## Kirkhill

FSTO said:


> Hmmm, why should we encourage the living in unsustainable in inhospitable regions. The ability to move water and introduction of A/C to the desert allowed the cities of Vegas, Phoenix, and LA to flourish. Why should we reward bad behavior by draining rivers and aquafers?
> 
> It's this sort of thinking that got us in this pickle in the first place.



Glaciers melt and the rivers they create carry water to the oceans. 

We adapt - until the rivers dry up and then we adapt again.


Riverm3/secOutflowMississippi18,434​Gulf of Mexico, Atlantic OceanSaint Lawrence16,800​Gulf of Saint Lawrence, Atlantic OceanMackenzie10,338​Beaufort Sea, Arctic OceanColumbia7,504​Pacific OceanYukon6,428​Bering Sea, Pacific OceanFraser3,475​Pacific OceanKoksoak2,800​Ungava Bay, Arctic OceanNelson2,370​Hudson Bay, Arctic Ocean

Of those rivers only the MacKenzie and the Yukon have reliable Glacier Systems.

All of the others are heavily reliant on seasonal snow fall and archaic waters like the Great Lakes.


----------



## Spencer100

FSTO said:


> Hmmm, why should we encourage the living in unsustainable in inhospitable regions. The ability to move water and introduction of A/C to the desert allowed the cities of Vegas, Phoenix, and LA to flourish. Why should we reward bad behavior by draining rivers and aquafers?
> 
> It's this sort of thinking that got us in this pickle in the first place.


I say SELL IT!  We are really moving away from make anything in this country now so we have to have something to sell.  Manufacturing costs have skyrocketed.  

And yes people will move where they do.  Plus don't forget we buy a ton of that water back.  It's call fresh produce in the winter.  You would be surprised the amount of water in produce and the amount we buy.


----------



## Spencer100

The Bread Guy said:


> Before we can figure out what the military _needs_, there has to be a clear, _everyone_-on-board vision on what it's supposed to _do_.
> 
> Anyone have a decent summary of any recent government that's come up with such a thing?
> 
> And how many such documents have been generated only to become dust collectors when the "new & improved" team comes in?
> 
> Yeah, weak DefMins play a role, but usually as part of an overall weak process of defining Canada's goals in a clear, concise and agreed-to way.


I have see that sentiment on these boards for years.  And I agree with it.  But I am at the point that maybe screw the doctrine, policy, mission statement, the endless papers and studies.  Just put it out there we will take anything that min works ok and can be delivered in a shorter time window.   I think any kit acquired at this point will be used and used hard.  I understand not the proper way but what has that gotten over the last decade?  Plus I bet the green world can use anything (little better than RCAF and Navy)  New trucks just get something that moves, AA anything better than nothing, Anti Tank etc.  I would at this point just tell PSPC anything would be great.  Thanks.  I know that not how it works. but....


----------



## The Bread Guy

Spencer100 said:


> I say SELL IT!  We are really moving away from make anything in this country now so we have to have something to sell ...


Ask Canadian lumber manufacturers how well selling to the U.S. is going ...


----------



## Spencer100

The Bread Guy said:


> Ask Canadian lumber manufacturers how well selling to the U.S. is going ...


At the moment very well.  In the past not so well

But the funny part is the problem in the eyes of the Americans is the Gov does not charge enough for stumpage fees.  So in their eyes we are giving away our resources....LOL  I have always found this to be an interesting case.  For the hewn and cry from some corners about selling Canadian resources but then upset because the US is mad we sell too cheap into the US market. Then when the US puts a tariff on the wood they get the revenue.  urgh....Everyone in this country wants it both ways.....and then most of time because of that attitude we get nothing.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Spencer100 said:


> At the moment very well.  In the past not so well


That narrative doesn't fly well in towns that saw sawmills close under previous Team Red & Team Blue governments who couldn't do enough to get REAL "free trade" on lumber.


Spencer100 said:


> ... the funny part is the problem in the eyes of the Americans is the Gov does not charge enough for stumpage fees.  So in their eyes we are giving away our resources....LOL  I have always found this to be an interesting case.  For the hewn and cry from some corners about selling Canadian resources but then upset because the US is mad we sell too cheap into the US market. Then when the US puts a tariff on the wood they get the revenue.  urgh....Everyone in this country wants it both ways.....and then most of time because of that attitude we get nothing.


Bang on re:  the dynamic.  That said, though, people who say we should be hewers of wood and (in this case, drawers of water) can't also say, "hey, we should sell natural resources to the U.S." while ignoring the U.S. wants it both ways, too.  I suspect if the U.S. really wanted to buy Canadian water en masse, they would get away with getting a lot better deal than the sellers - sound familiar?  Then again, a big buyer can always hose a (relatively) small supplier, no matter what the thing or service being sold is.


----------



## FJAG

The Bread Guy said:


> That narrative doesn't fly well in towns that saw sawmills close under previous Team Red & Team Blue governments who couldn't do enough to get REAL "free trade" on lumber.
> 
> Bang on re:  the dynamic.  That said, though, people who say we should be hewers of wood and (in this case, drawers of water) can't also say, "hey, we should sell natural resources to the U.S." while ignoring the U.S. wants it both ways, too.  I suspect if the U.S. really wanted to buy Canadian water en masse, they would get away with getting a lot better deal than the sellers - sound familiar?  Then again, a big buyer can always hose a (relatively) small supplier, no matter what the thing or service being sold is.


So make deals with individual states and generate some competition. This is a commodity for which demand will grow. Just don't do something stupid like the wind farm power deals.

🍻


----------



## The Bread Guy

FJAG said:


> So make deals with individual states and generate some competition. This is a commodity for which demand will grow. Just don't do something stupid like the wind farm power deals.
> 
> 🍻


Someone should email that idea to Doug Ford - here's what his team had to say earlier this month ....





						Ontario Newsroom
					






					news.ontario.ca
				





> ... Ontario supports the U.S. Department of Commerce’s recent decision to lower the unfair duty rates on Canadian softwood lumber exports – however, the Ontario government maintains that all duty rates should be removed immediately ... At a time when we are taking action to provide cost-of-living relief, softwood lumber duties punish consumers and businesses on both sides of the border – and impose added hardship on the workers, families and communities that depend on Ontario’s forest sector.  As this trade dispute continues, we will continue to seek fair treatment of our forest sector and fair outcomes for the public and industry alike.
> Together with provincial governments, the federal government and industry leaders across the country, Ontario stands united in support for the Canadian forest industry and free trade.”


----------



## Edward Campbell

This, from Jack Granatstein, is on point:  "And what are the chances of the Canadian military getting this new weaponry—or even replacing its obsolescent equipment that it dispatched to Ukraine? In most countries, replacing donated weapons would be a no-brainer. In this nation, however, the defence procurement system is completely broken, and there is no indication that the government will provide the necessary funds ... [and] ... the military has been stripped even of much of the obsolete gear it had. It is essential that replacements—or preferably more modern weaponry—be acquired. The world is a dangerous place right now with Russia, China, North Korea, and other states making threats. We might hope we can continue to be sheltered by the oceans and protected by the Americans. But we cannot count on that."


----------



## MilEME09

Edward Campbell said:


> This, from Jack Granatstein, is on point:  "And what are the chances of the Canadian military getting this new weaponry—or even replacing its obsolescent equipment that it dispatched to Ukraine? In most countries, replacing donated weapons would be a no-brainer. In this nation, however, the defence procurement system is completely broken, and there is no indication that the government will provide the necessary funds ... [and] ... the military has been stripped even of much of the obsolete gear it had. It is essential that replacements—or preferably more modern weaponry—be acquired. The world is a dangerous place right now with Russia, China, North Korea, and other states making threats. We might hope we can continue to be sheltered by the oceans and protected by the Americans. But we cannot count on that."


I was chatting to a guy the other day and summed up the Canadian and US systems pretty well. Neither the system nor the companies actually want to produce results. Companies are after the massive R&D funding the government provides but spends little on actual output. The government in turn needs to create studies, reviews, and processes for bureaucrats to stay employed. Thus results in a system that is entirely broken. The solution he had? Take a design that we have that belongs to the government (more so for the US) go to the south Koreans and tell them build this. Cause they will do it, and faster then any domestic manufacturers. Which will scare every domestic manufacturer


----------



## rmc_wannabe

Edward Campbell said:


> This, from Jack Granatstein, is on point:  "And what are the chances of the Canadian military getting this new weaponry—or even replacing its obsolescent equipment that it dispatched to Ukraine? In most countries, replacing donated weapons would be a no-brainer. In this nation, however, the defence procurement system is completely broken, and there is no indication that the government will provide the necessary funds ... [and] ... the military has been stripped even of much of the obsolete gear it had. It is essential that replacements—or preferably more modern weaponry—be acquired. The world is a dangerous place right now with Russia, China, North Korea, and other states making threats. We might hope we can continue to be sheltered by the oceans and protected by the Americans. But we cannot count on that."


Granatstein hits the nail on the head.

We have too few strategic thinkers and too many reactionary political thinkers leading our defense and foreign policy; but also mainly our procurement processes. 

What's needed is a leader with vision past the next election cycle. I think that might be too big an ask for the current ruling party, but sadly I don't see any other political party in this country stepping up to the plate either.


----------



## DBNSG

rmc_wannabe said:


> Granatstein hits the nail on the head.
> 
> We have too few strategic thinkers and too many reactionary political thinkers leading our defense and foreign policy; but also mainly our procurement processes.
> 
> What's needed is a leader with vision past the next election cycle. I think that might be too big an ask for the current ruling party, but sadly I don't see any other political party in this country stepping up to the plate either.


The National Shipbuilding program I thought was an attempt to do just that and much to my surprise the Trudeau NDP coalition Government have not killed it. Is it too expensive , yes, taking too long , yes but it IS producing. It is a truly National commitment to build a  combined 65-70 Ship National fleet when adding the Navy and Coast Guard. The PSAC owns the Navy and Coast Guard now and I would venture that no Canadian politician will mess with it as the pressure from our Allies is steady and growing and after a 30 minute brief even a Canadian politician could be educated on how big our Coastlines are and how much capability we need. 

In Time the program will probably strive for a 90 SHIP combined fleet just to keep the lines going.


----------



## rmc_wannabe

DBNSG said:


> The National Shipbuilding program I thought was an attempt to do just that and much to my surprise the Trudeau NDP coalition Government have not killed it. Is it too expensive , yes, taking too long , yes but it IS producing. It is a truly National commitment to build a  combined 65-70 Ship National fleet when adding the Navy and Coast Guard. The PSAC owns the Navy and Coast Guard now and I would venture that no Canadian politician will mess with it as the pressure from our Allies is steady and growing and after a 30 minute brief even a Canadian politician could be educated on how big our Coastlines are and how much capability we need.
> 
> In Time the program will probably strive for a 90 SHIP combined fleet just to keep the lines going.


So.... what you're saying is in order to get the AD, ATGM, Tac2IS, and other effects we need for the Army we need to become part of a Public Service union that governments fear pissing off? 

Seems like a bit of ass pain, but if that's what it takes....


----------



## MilEME09

DBNSG said:


> The National Shipbuilding program I thought was an attempt to do just that and much to my surprise the Trudeau NDP coalition Government have not killed it. Is it too expensive , yes, taking too long , yes but it IS producing. It is a truly National commitment to build a  combined 65-70 Ship National fleet when adding the Navy and Coast Guard. The PSAC owns the Navy and Coast Guard now and I would venture that no Canadian politician will mess with it as the pressure from our Allies is steady and growing and after a 30 minute brief even a Canadian politician could be educated on how big our Coastlines are and how much capability we need.
> 
> In Time the program will probably strive for a 90 SHIP combined fleet just to keep the lines going.


And that's great and all, but the canadization of designs and the R&D involved in that is what's killing the budget and time on all these projects. Like I said above companies care more about the R&D more then delivery


----------



## Kirkhill

rmc_wannabe said:


> So.... what you're saying is in order to get the AD, ATGM, Tac2IS, and other effects we need for the Army we need to become part of a Public Service union that governments fear pissing off?
> 
> Seems like a bit of ass pain, but if that's what it takes....


Jobs at GDOTSC and Rheinmetall in Quebec,  at GDLSC in Ontario, and dare I suggest BAE in Winnipeg,  L3Harris and Foremost in Calgary, Viking in BC.  

We have a firm skeleton on which to build.  What we don't have is a government that is morally assured of the need for violence.


----------



## rmc_wannabe

They'll find out one of two ways:

-Our allies make support in other areas contingent on Canada developing that capability

Or

-They find out the hard way when the first salvos land and we have nothing to counter with. 

In either case, it will be on someone else's terms that we rise to the occasion.


----------



## suffolkowner

Edward Campbell said:


> This, from Jack Granatstein, is on point:  "And what are the chances of the Canadian military getting this new weaponry—or even replacing its obsolescent equipment that it dispatched to Ukraine? In most countries, replacing donated weapons would be a no-brainer. In this nation, however, the defence procurement system is completely broken, and there is no indication that the government will provide the necessary funds ... [and] ... the military has been stripped even of much of the obsolete gear it had. It is essential that replacements—or preferably more modern weaponry—be acquired. The world is a dangerous place right now with Russia, China, North Korea, and other states making threats. We might hope we can continue to be sheltered by the oceans and protected by the Americans. But we cannot count on that."


Good to see Jack's still at it. I've always enjoyed his opinions


----------



## DBNSG

rmc_wannabe said:


> So.... what you're saying is in order to get the AD, ATGM, Tac2IS, and other effects we need for the Army we need to become part of a Public Service union that governments fear pissing off?
> 
> Seems like a bit of ass pain, but if that's what it takes....


Most governments will see the AD, ATGM and other Army gear as inside Army baseball if you will. They know enough that they DON'T know what any of those acronym's are and would wave their arms at NDHQ and say "what is this ?" Why should I care?". 

 The Field Army's greatest obstacle is the Office Army in Ottawa. How much relevant modern gear and in what quantities could the Army buy if we had a U.S MARINE CORPS Ratio of Officers to enlisted? But Shhhh that's one of Canada's quiet secrets and the Ottawa Office Army know that the civil service and our politicians are too ignorant to ask that tough question. 

 There are folks far more educated on those facts than me and I would suspect some share this forum.


----------



## Navy_Pete

rmc_wannabe said:


> Granatstein hits the nail on the head.
> 
> We have too few strategic thinkers and too many reactionary political thinkers leading our defense and foreign policy; but also mainly our procurement processes.
> 
> What's needed is a leader with vision past the next election cycle. I think that might be too big an ask for the current ruling party, but sadly I don't see any other political party in this country stepping up to the plate either.


I don't see this every coming from politicians; the NSS was a strategic vision from a number of dedicated public servants. Part of the pitch was selling the short term benefits to politicians.

It's not that the politicians didn't get the long term strategic goals, but they needed something in it for them in the short term.

My LL from that is that anytime there is something like IRBs, Indigenous procurement, GBA+ we need to embrace it on the PM side and try and use it to get the project going. Bit of a pain in the ass, but I'd rather work through some extra things with OGDs and deliver a capability than try and fight city hall and get nothing.

Just wish the other departments that are supposed to be supporting that weren't useless; trying to figure out if there are Indigenous companies that actually provide the widget/service that you are looking for is a completely manual process, and we just don't have time to run around looking for it. It would be nice if INAC (or whatever they are called now) was actively working with PSPC on that to push that info out.


----------



## DBNSG

Navy_Pete said:


> I don't see this every coming from politicians; the NSS was a strategic vision from a number of dedicated public servants. Part of the pitch was selling the short term benefits to politicians.
> 
> It's not that the politicians didn't get the long term strategic goals, but they needed something in it for them in the short term.
> 
> My LL from that is that anytime there is something like IRBs, Indigenous procurement, GBA+ we need to embrace it on the PM side and try and use it to get the project going. Bit of a pain in the ass, but I'd rather work through some extra things with OGDs and deliver a capability than try and fight city hall and get nothing.
> 
> Just wish the other departments that are supposed to be supporting that weren't useless; trying to figure out if there are Indigenous companies that actually provide the widget/service that you are looking for is a completely manual process, and we just don't have time to run around looking for it. It would be nice if INAC (or whatever they are called now) was actively working with PSPC on that to push that info out.


I believe Chretien was the P.M. that designated an indigenous component for Defence contracts with the Sea King replacement project. I live just a few KM's away from that manifestation when I drive by the General Dynamics building in Cole Harbour. A local Mic Mac reserve are the landlords. Mr Trudeau's relaxation of Cannabis laws has now almost completely surrounded the GD building with at least seven private cannabis shops including a couple of drive thrus.

Priorities ?


----------



## Kirkhill

DBNSG said:


> I believe Chretien was the P.M. that designated an indigenous component for Defence contracts with the Sea King replacement project. I live just a few KM's away from that manifestation when I drive by the General Dynamics building in Cole Harbour. A local Mic Mac reserve are the landlords. Mr Trudeau's relaxation of Cannabis laws has now almost completely surrounded the GD building with at least seven private cannabis shops including a couple of drive thrus.
> 
> Priorities ?



Sometimes the 70% solution is all you get.


----------



## MilEME09

DBNSG said:


> I believe Chretien was the P.M. that designated an indigenous component for Defence contracts with the Sea King replacement project. I live just a few KM's away from that manifestation when I drive by the General Dynamics building in Cole Harbour. A local Mic Mac reserve are the landlords. Mr Trudeau's relaxation of Cannabis laws has now almost completely surrounded the GD building with at least seven private cannabis shops including a couple of drive thrus.
> 
> Priorities ?


Industrial off sets, like the French fry plant in Alberta Irving claimed as an industrial offset for the NSPP


----------



## FJAG

suffolkowner said:


> Good to see Jack's still at it. I've always enjoyed his opinions


It would be nice if someone within the government, DND or the CA had read and paid attention to his and Charlie Belzile's The Special Commission on the Restructuring the Reserves 1995: Ten Years Later.

13 recommendations either ignored or given lip service.

😖


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Navy_Pete said:


> Just wish the other departments that are supposed to be supporting that weren't useless; trying to figure out if there are Indigenous companies that actually provide the widget/service that you are looking for is a completely manual process, and we just don't have time to run around looking for it. It would be nice if INAC (or whatever they are called now) was actively working with PSPC on that to push that info out.


Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada (CIRNAC) and Indigenous Services Canada (ISC). What a useless org for the most part, with a few exceptional people that gave a damm. Even during our Environmental Reviews, it was almost impossible to get an answer from them.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Colin Parkinson said:


> Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada (CIRNAC) and Indigenous Services Canada (ISC). What a useless org for the most part, with a few exceptional people that gave a damm. Even during our Environmental Reviews, it was almost impossible to get an answer from them.


This is the program I was thinking of; everytime we do a procurement now we have to fill in a form if it's appropriate for an Indigenous procurement. There isn't any kind of guide for how to do this, and no idea what happens if there happens to be a supplier that is an indigenous business that can do the contract (ie can I sole source something easily with them). 

Odds are good it will actually take longer than a standard RFP, so no advantage to me to spend the time to look around suppliers, see if any are on a list, and then figure out what to do next, so this is a really bizarre requirement when you go out to buy widgets.

At the moment just means that everytime I buy something I fill out a form for this, as well as another form if it's been looked at for accessibility criteria and a few other unexplained random forms, plus normal forms to do an actual RFP.

It makes more sense for something like the NSS, where the companies get multipliers towards their credits, with using Indigenous businesses as one of them, but otherwise it just is a rubber stamped form that gets ignored.

If I could somehow check a list against a part list, and have some expedited process to buy from it, it would be awesome, but otherwise it's just a waste of time, when we go out to buy some widgets in a normal RFP from the lowest compliant bidder.

Opportunities for Indigenous businesses - Advancing socio-economic goals, increasing competition and fostering innovation - Better Buying - Buying and selling - PSPC



> Description​
> Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC) is fostering the participation of businesses owned or led by Indigenous groups in its contracts.
> 
> 
> Status​
> Ongoing. PSPC is leveraging federal procurement to support Indigenous businesses by providing them with increased opportunities to access the federal government market. To further help stimulate Indigenous economic development, PSPC is increasingly incorporating requirements for benefits for Indigenous Peoples and businesses into federal procurement, such as through Indigenous Benefits Plans. Indigenous Benefits Plans enhance economic opportunities for Indigenous Peoples and businesses through increased possibilities of competing successfully for contracts or of participating in employment, training or subcontracting opportunities. The contract for the administration of the Canada Student Loans Program, for example, awarded by PSPC on behalf of Employment and Social Development Canada, stipulated that a portion of the services needed to be delivered by an Indigenous sub-contractor.
> 
> 
> In collaboration with Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada, PSPC is also encouraging departments that procure more than $1 million annually to find ways to increase the value of contracts awarded to Indigenous businesses. Departments have been asked to aspire to an Indigenous procurement objective of 5% by the end of the next 5 years.
> 
> 
> Finally, the department is partnering with professional organizations that support Indigenous businesses to help encourage their participation in government procurement. These organizations include the Canadian Aboriginal and Minority Supplier Council (CAMSC) and the Council for the Advancement of Native Development Officers (CANDO).


----------



## dimsum

DBNSG said:


> The Field Army's greatest obstacle is the Office Army in Ottawa. How much relevant modern gear and in what quantities could the Army buy if we had a U.S MARINE CORPS Ratio of Officers to enlisted?


Honest question:  Isn't the USMC essentially (although they hate to admit it), a part of the Navy though?  So while yes, it's a "separate service", it's not really in the eyes of the politicians.  Also, would that mean that the USMC would have a smaller "tail" because part of it is taken up by the USN, including HQ, etc roles?  I also don't think comparing us to the US Army is appropriate (too big), so I would think a better comparison would be the Australian Army.

Also, I've heard (so take with a massive chunk of salt) but if you take the programs and rank them by $ value, the top few are RCN and RCAF programs, then CA.  It was third-hand info, but given how much money aircraft procurement estimates are, I'm not really surprised.


----------



## rmc_wannabe

dimsum said:


> Also, I've heard (so take with a massive chunk of salt) but if you take the programs and rank them by $ value, the top few are RCN and RCAF programs, then CA.  It was third-hand info, but given how much money aircraft procurement estimates are, I'm not really surprised.


Part of that is national/strategic goals place on the different "elements" of the CAF, within the National Defence policy.

"Protecting the air, land, and sea approaches" of the country, in addition to commitments to NORAD states a pretty clear intention to maintain some kind of fighter/air defence/early warning system within Canada. If those fighters happen to go expeditionary, that's a bonus too.

Similarly with the Navy as well, but we also have NATO maritime commitments and the Fisheries/CARRIBE stuff to require a semi-blue water Navy. That all requires hulls in the water and hulls being fabricated. Hence NSS.

The Army piece, however, is left pretty strongly up to interpretation and that's what's killing any form of readiness/reaction capabilities from being created or fielded. We need to be FEMA, Youth Employment, PSO, COIN, NATO augmentees etc. Different governments have different opinions on what the Army needs, regardless of what we ask for. Some of it is our doing, but a lot of it comes from the colonial "we'll be part of a coalition...so....."  mentality.

It's that dithering, unharmonized mentality that sees us on the bottom of the pecking order with funding until there are Troops in Contact.


----------



## FSTO

dimsum said:


> Honest question: Isn't the USMC essentially (although they hate to admit it), a part of the Navy though?


The are under the control of Secretary of the Navy. There is a big fight going on within the Corps about returning to its roots and re-invigorating the Navy-Marine team. This is due to the long land wars in the Middle East that corrupted the USMC's raison d'etre. 

You can also toss in the Coast Guard during times of war (go from DHS to Sec Nav). The US Coast Guard is an interesting beast, it fits seamlessly into the maritime military when required, our command master chief at Combined Maritime Force Bahrain was a Coastie.

I'm going to find an opinion piece from Proceedings that proposed that all maritime assets of the US government (like everything in the US, each department has an enforcement arm of some sort) be placed under one department.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Navy_Pete
I am not sure any fully owned FN company is capable of manufacturing ship parts. The big push now is to get their people into trades and companies are teaming up with FN to provide opportunities for training in skilled jobs. LNGCanada has hired a company that will use mostly FN personal to man the escort tugs for the LNG tankers. However even that will take 10-15 years to produce skilled tug Masters. Better to look at companies that have a solid capacity building program for the FN.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Colin Parkinson said:


> Navy_Pete
> I am not sure any fully owned FN company is capable of manufacturing ship parts. The big push now is to get their people into trades and companies are teaming up with FN to provide opportunities for training in skilled jobs. LNGCanada has hired a company that will use mostly FN personal to man the escort tugs for the LNG tankers. However even that will take 10-15 years to produce skilled tug Masters. Better to look at companies that have a solid capacity building program for the FN.


There are some that are working with VSY on the NC ships, but in general it's just an annoying bit of paperwork that in no way actually creates any opportunities for Indigenous businesses as we have no idea who is offering what.

We work with a lot of resellers, so there are likely some companies out there that provide some of the COTs items we use that aren't aware that we're trying to buy things, and we aren't aware they are selling things, so it's a performative policy that does nothing to actually let anyone know what the options are.

We have pretty limited procurement bandwidth, so most buys are time sensitive, but if there were benefits to us as LCMMs (like reduced procurement processing times) then it would be a win/win, but even if someone pushed us a list of companies that sold things relevant to what we work on (like fire services) then we could at least include them in the emails that go out to suppliers when we put RFPs out. Right now we just have a giant unsorted list of suppliers, so unless they've bid on similar items we just don't have time to dig through the list to be proactive.

The accessiblity one is equally futile; there aren't any requirements for things like ramps etc when I'm buying POL, so we just have a blank form with some kind of statement along the lines of 'does not apply' that we use with each procurement, but takes a few minutes to sign it every time. Bit frustating to have spent a few cumulative hours over the last quarter signing meaningless forms that don't actually do anything.

I'd be happy to push business to Indigenous businesses if there was actually real support to be able to do it, but I guess at the moment they at least have the same opportunity as anyone else who can navigate Buy & Sell, and the RFP process, which is still pretty confusing even if you are familiar with it.

Maybe it would be better if between PSPC, CIRNAC and ISC someone had workshops etc for Indigenous businesses looking to get into federal contracts to help explain the process.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Here is the company I speak of, perhaps they can push to offer tug services in Esquimalt as well? 





						Home - HaiSea Marine
					






					haiseamarine.com


----------



## Spencer100

Colin Parkinson said:


> Here is the company I speak of, perhaps they can push to offer tug services in Esquimalt as well?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Home - HaiSea Marine
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> haiseamarine.com


its a Seaspan company.


----------



## CountDC

Years ago while working at a HQ in Ottawa the policy we had to live with was that at least 10% of our orders had to go to an Indigenous company.  Was a pain tracking it and when the turn came everyone complained about the paper provided.  It was thinner and yellow instead of white plus cost more upfront.  It also cost more in the long run as the thinner paper tended to get messed up more in the printers.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Spencer100 said:


> its a Seaspan company.


Corporate ownership in general is really complicated, but included the bit below where it's a joint enterprise with Haisla Nation holding the majority.

There are a lot of similar corporate relationships in much larger enterprises as well, with some wings being majority owned by a private owner.

VSY has parterned up with Coastal Aboriginal Shipbuilding Alliance to help get people into apprenticeship type spots, and also working with some suppliers for things like some commercial radars ( I think ) for some CCG ships. That required a lot of work on their end though, so really requires people to be proactive.

Under our tendering process, there isn't any kind of exception to sole source something or provide preferential selection to Indigenous companies, but there doesn't seem to be anything in Government to help anyone up to speed in putting in bids. The really big projects encourage the primes to work with Indigenous companies (as part of the Value Proposition multipliers) but there aren't many big projects like NSS, so outside the once a generation strategic bids there is nothing really happening, and we don't have the HR resources on the procurement side to proactively look for new suppliers on normal NICP buys.

I'm sure there are companies looking to do bids on big projects that would be interested in getting extra procurement points by partnering with some indigenous companies, and you would think if there is a departmental priority to do it there would be someone working to help link them together, by at least letting some of the multinationals know that there are some First Nation business development associations or something.

Anyway, just a pet peeve of mine, where we have some kind of on paper priority to do more business with FN companies, and make things more accessible, but that actual implementation is a completely ineffective bit of additional paperwork that doesn't actual achieve anything other than waste people's time (when we are already short handed).



> About HaiSea Marine​
> HaiSea Marine is a joint venture majority owned by the Haisla Nation in partnership with Seaspan ULC.
> “HaiSea Marine is majority-owned by the Haisla Nation,” Haisla Nation Chief Councillor Crystal Smith said. “Our agreement with Seaspan ensures our members will have access to employment, training and procurement opportunities on the contract with LNG Canada. The opportunity to work locally in the marine industry is of great significance to the Haisla people.”
> Both partners have considerable experience and knowledge of operating in Northern British Columbia, making HaiSea a natural choice for providing responsible and dependable marine services in the region.
> In May 2021, HaiSea announced the start of an innovative and industry leading new battery-powered and low emissions tugboat build program.


----------



## DBNSG

Navy_Pete said:


> There are some that are working with VSY on the NC ships, but in general it's just an annoying bit of paperwork that in no way actually creates any opportunities for Indigenous businesses as we have no idea who is offering what.
> 
> We work with a lot of resellers, so there are likely some companies out there that provide some of the COTs items we use that aren't aware that we're trying to buy things, and we aren't aware they are selling things, so it's a performative policy that does nothing to actually let anyone know what the options are.
> 
> We have pretty limited procurement bandwidth, so most buys are time sensitive, but if there were benefits to us as LCMMs (like reduced procurement processing times) then it would be a win/win, but even if someone pushed us a list of companies that sold things relevant to what we work on (like fire services) then we could at least include them in the emails that go out to suppliers when we put RFPs out. Right now we just have a giant unsorted list of suppliers, so unless they've bid on similar items we just don't have time to dig through the list to be proactive.
> 
> The accessiblity one is equally futile; there aren't any requirements for things like ramps etc when I'm buying POL, so we just have a blank form with some kind of statement along the lines of 'does not apply' that we use with each procurement, but takes a few minutes to sign it every time. Bit frustating to have spent a few cumulative hours over the last quarter signing meaningless forms that don't actually do anything.
> 
> I'd be happy to push business to Indigenous businesses if there was actually real support to be able to do it, but I guess at the moment they at least have the same opportunity as anyone else who can navigate Buy & Sell, and the RFP process, which is still pretty confusing even if you are familiar with it.
> 
> Maybe it would be better if between PSPC, CIRNAC and ISC someone had workshops etc for Indigenous businesses looking to get into federal contracts to help explain the process.


I would do some reach out to Membertou in Sydney. The Nephew of the Chief obtained his Law degree at Dalhousie and spent five years practicing on Bay Street but came home with a brand new plan. He convinced the Chief , his uncle that it was time to modernize the bands practices to professionalize how they did things. Membertou is one of the only 9002 certified Indigenous bands in North America. They are building new homes for band members with real 3/4 Plywood sheathing. No one makes that investment in Homes . Membertou does. I stay at the Hampton Suites on Membertou when I am in CB for business. They even host and teach other Band administrations how to do it. 

Perhaps they could be a one stop shop for Defence investment?


----------



## Navy_Pete

I guess my point is that none of that is my job, and we're actually discouraged from giving any single supplier preferential treatment, but there are people who are supposed to be doing this kind of thing that don't seem to be doing anything.

There are lots of bands that are doing some really great and proactive things like that, as well as individual entrepreneurs with pretty good businesses that take advantage of things like their income tax to be more competetive in labour rates that I'm sure would be more than capable of getting into government contracting and provide the same quality, but it's not going to happen by asking individual LCMMs trying to maintain a few thousand widgets whether they've done an exhaustive market survey every time you go to buy something.

What we are doing at the LCMM level really achieves nothing but generates a form marked 'N/A', but some policy clown is probably using it to tick a box.

If someone was going to put resources towards this, that would be great, but I generally resent wasting my time on performative bureacracy that achieves no actual effect, when we can't keep up with the pile of existing work.

It could be something simple, like someone looking at what is posted on Buy & Sell, and pinging potential suppliers about the RFP, while letting us know who they are. Otherwise, unless someone happens to bid on an RFP, we don't have time to go and look for additional suppliers when we know there are a few existing potential suppliers.

Different story when we are replacing a major system, and you will spend a bit of time looking at the marketplace for some options, and do things like requests for Information (RFIs), but we do however many millions every year in routine and ongoing widget buys for exciting things like filters, valves, cables etc that are readily available.

I joke once in a while about setting up a business to sell CAF widgets as a reseller, but a lot of business out there for small companies if they can jump through the RFP hoops. Also a lot of work for consultants helping companies navigate the bureaucracy, so wouldn't be surprised if there are teams of retired procurement/policy SMEs that are trying the create a niche for themselves working with different bands to help develop that kind of business.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Speaking of which...


Navy_Pete said:


> I joke once in a while about setting up a business to sell CAF widgets as a reseller, but a lot of business out there for small companies if they can jump through the RFP hoops. Also a lot of work for consultants helping companies navigate the bureaucracy, so wouldn't be surprised if there are teams of retired procurement/policy SMEs that are trying the create a niche for themselves working with different bands to help develop that kind of business.



The Federal Government has ensured that it will always be served by - mainly - the 'Second Eleven' of the consulting industry, largely because of its Byzantine procurement processes. 

All other levels of government are more responsive, less bureaucratic, pay more, and partner willingly in the right ways to help ensure a much better overall result. 

They also execute, unlike the Feds, more easily which is the money shot for most ethical consultants that actually want to make a difference.

You can't pay me enough to have a bad time


----------



## Navy_Pete

I don't know about that one, the city of Ottawa accepted a bid on the LRT that didn't meet the technical requirements.

Even by Fed government standards for procurements that's pretty amateur hour.

Basic RFPs are actually pretty straight forward, it's the actual process to get it on the street that we add a lot of internal stupidity on.

Complex procurements are difficult; I think things look worse at the fed level because it's much more complex than most things provincial or local governments do. The big provincial infrastructure programs are also full of disasters.

Adding on a whack of additional requirement from OGDs makes it harder as well.  That seems to be where all the consultants come in; people can work their way through RFPs easily enough it's when you add in things from ISED and another deparments it seems to be where they bring them in more. 

I also would most likely want to gnaw a limb off, but if it was something useful like helping some of the bands work through the bureaucracy that might not be too bad.


----------



## Good2Golf

Navy_Pete said:


> I don't know about that one, the city of Ottawa accepted a bid on the LRT that didn't meet the technical requirements.


More to the point, the city deliberately de-linked and anonymized the financial and technical bids, and awarded purely in the financial bid, then re-linked the financial and technical bids and ‘surprise, surprise’ realized that SNC Lavelin had entirely under-spec’d the tech bid big time to be able to win the overall bid given they understood the award was solely based on the financial bid the technical bid was entirely missing an automated control system, and this non-compliant…so they were ‘allowed’ to keep the win and add the automated control system which…get ready for this…made the financials more expensive and thus not the cheapest financial bid this negating the validity of the award.   Not even DND and PSPC could have gotten away with such a fiasco…


----------



## OldSolduer

Good2Golf said:


> More to the point, the city deliberately de-linked and anonymized the financial and technical bids, and awarded purely in the financial bid, then re-linked the financial and technical bids and ‘surprise, surprise’ realized that SNC Lavelin had entirely under-spec’d the tech bid big time to be able to win the overall bid given they understood the award was solely based on the financial bid the technical bid was entirely missing an automated control system, and this non-compliant…so they were ‘allowed’ to keep the win and add the automated control system which…get ready for this…made the financials more expensive and thus not the cheapest financial bid this negating the validity of the award.   Not even DND and PSPC could have gotten away with such a fiasco…


So in other words SNC and Ottawa scammed the contract. Not surprising.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Good2Golf said:


> More to the point, the city deliberately de-linked and anonymized the financial and technical bids, and awarded purely in the financial bid, then re-linked the financial and technical bids and ‘surprise, surprise’ realized that SNC Lavelin had entirely under-spec’d the tech bid big time to be able to win the overall bid given they understood the award was solely based on the financial bid the technical bid was entirely missing an automated control system, and this non-compliant…so they were ‘allowed’ to keep the win and add the automated control system which…get ready for this…made the financials more expensive and thus not the cheapest financial bid this negating the validity of the award.   Not even DND and PSPC could have gotten away with such a fiasco…


The bid also quoted for the changeover from the old diesel train line to a new electric train, but didn't have anything in place for the difference between the two.

I'll see if I can dig it up but there is a really good local reporter on CBC Ottawa following this one that got the tech bid released under whatevre the ATI equivalent is from the city.

You can actually feel the disdain from the tech evaluators on how bad the SNC bid for missing a lot of basics, it was really kind of embarassing what kind of things they missed.

I don't see the current provincial inquiry going anywhere but the LRT is a complete disaster, and I'm still shocked both the other bidders didn't sue the city for lost profits for breaching the RFP requirements. I think they are waiting to see if it's going to fall apart, the contract with SNC gets broken for breach of contract and they can swoop in with a fix at a higher profit margin. Or just don't want anything to do with the City.

It's legitamitely a reason a lot of people in Ottawa don't want to go back to the office; the old bus system was actually better.


----------



## OldSolduer

Navy_Pete said:


> The bid also quoted for the changeover from the old diesel train line to a new electric train, but didn't have anything in place for the difference between the two.
> 
> I'll see if I can dig it up but there is a really good local reporter on CBC Ottawa following this one that got the tech bid released under whatevre the ATI equivalent is from the city.
> 
> You can actually feel the disdain from the tech evaluators on how bad the SNC bid for missing a lot of basics, it was really kind of embarassing what kind of things they missed.
> 
> I don't see the current provincial inquiry going anywhere but the LRT is a complete disaster, and I'm still shocked both the other bidders didn't sue the city for lost profits for breaching the RFP requirements. I think they are waiting to see if it's going to fall apart, the contract with SNC gets broken for breach of contract and they can swoop in with a fix at a higher profit margin. Or just don't want anything to do with the City.
> 
> It's legitamitely a reason a lot of people in Ottawa don't want to go back to the office; the old bus system was actually better.


So who recently retired from Ottawa city bureaucracy and where did they retire to? Call me cynical....


----------



## Navy_Pete

OldSolduer said:


> So who recently retired from Ottawa city bureaucracy and where did they retire to? Call me cynical....


Aside from the guy running the implementation for the city, the mayor not running again, and the greasy lawyer that was there as a consultant? (ie basically all the inside people on the bid review)

Suspect it's more of a case of total incompetence and arrogance that they know more than the experts though vice corruption.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Navy_Pete said:


> I guess my point is that none of that is my job, and we're actually discouraged from giving any single supplier preferential treatment, but there are people who are supposed to be doing this kind of thing that don't seem to be doing anything.
> 
> There are lots of bands that are doing some really great and proactive things like that, as well as individual entrepreneurs with pretty good businesses that take advantage of things like their income tax to be more competetive in labour rates that I'm sure would be more than capable of getting into government contracting and provide the same quality, but it's not going to happen by asking individual LCMMs trying to maintain a few thousand widgets whether they've done an exhaustive market survey every time you go to buy something.
> 
> What we are doing at the LCMM level really achieves nothing but generates a form marked 'N/A', but some policy clown is probably using it to tick a box.
> 
> If someone was going to put resources towards this, that would be great, but I generally resent wasting my time on performative bureacracy that achieves no actual effect, when we can't keep up with the pile of existing work.
> 
> It could be something simple, like someone looking at what is posted on Buy & Sell, and pinging potential suppliers about the RFP, while letting us know who they are. Otherwise, unless someone happens to bid on an RFP, we don't have time to go and look for additional suppliers when we know there are a few existing potential suppliers.
> 
> Different story when we are replacing a major system, and you will spend a bit of time looking at the marketplace for some options, and do things like requests for Information (RFIs), but we do however many millions every year in routine and ongoing widget buys for exciting things like filters, valves, cables etc that are readily available.
> 
> I joke once in a while about setting up a business to sell CAF widgets as a reseller, but a lot of business out there for small companies if they can jump through the RFP hoops. Also a lot of work for consultants helping companies navigate the bureaucracy, so wouldn't be surprised if there are teams of retired procurement/policy SMEs that are trying the create a niche for themselves working with different bands to help develop that kind of business.



I just want LCMMs to stop telling department storesmen there's no stock coming into the system and to go to Burnside and buy spare parts.  

PS: I would also like to up your budgets so you guys/gals/peeps can get back to filling my warehouses


----------



## rmc_wannabe

Halifax Tar said:


> PS: I would also like to up your budgets so you guys/gals/peeps can get back to filling my warehouses


PPS: I would also like to see a hiring blitz so that you folks have the PYs behind that budget to actually do something with it.


----------



## MilEME09

Halifax Tar said:


> I just want LCMMs to stop telling department storesmen there's no stock coming into the system and to go to Burnside and buy spare parts.
> 
> PS: I would also like to up your budgets so you guys/gals/peeps can get back to filling my warehouses


Yeap I remember the report that came out about our supply system over a year ago. Many items are deliberately set to hold 0 in the system.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Halifax Tar said:


> I just want LCMMs to stop telling department storesmen there's no stock coming into the system and to go to Burnside and buy spare parts.
> 
> PS: I would also like to up your budgets so you guys/gals/peeps can get back to filling my warehouses


Yeah, me too, but sometimes local purchases make more sense in the short term.

HR really the big restriction. We don't have enough supply managers to keep up with HPRs, let alone do routine buys. Pretty fortunate to have an excellent SM at the moment, so we're almost on top of HPRs, so actually able to go through the great big list of oustanding NICP buys and manually prioritize the routine re-supplies, which is pretty exciting.

Some brainbox did turn off the DRMIS auto-resupply function years ago because of the budget restrictions at the time, so now there is a massive backlog. When we redid our min/max in the last annual review, we went with 2 years min supply, which was unable to be actioned (due to lack of staff), so we basically told the policy weenies to get stuffed when they asked us to do the annual review again this year, and we'll update individual NSNs as HPRs or buys go out.

In that context, useless forms for every procurement drive me crazy. Even if it's only a few minutes per procurement, that adds up when we're doing hundreds of them, and would be time better spent actually procuring things.

It's taken a while but we're finally starting to get a lot of deliveries. Never thought I'd be excited to get delivery confirmation of things like hoses, valves etc but after a year of telling ships the bins are empty it's nice to be able to actually fill stores demands.

Maybe in a few years we'll even be in a place where we can actively track what items are going to becoming obsolete and find a replacement ahead of time! A guy can dream.


----------



## MJP

MilEME09 said:


> Yeap I remember the report that came out about our supply system over a year ago. Many items are deliberately set to hold 0 in the system.


It just means there is no max/mins set in the system, it is less about deliberately not setting a min/max as the default is 0. If a demand comes in for a part with zero stock or one that breaches a minimum at 3rd line, it automatically creates a purchase requirement that is supposed to be actioned by the relevant Equipment Management Team.  You can set 0 as a min but it really means nothing. I looked in the system at one of the depots and there are roughly 57,600 NSNs with an associated min/max (out of roughly 154k NSNs) so roughly 1/3.  None had a min of 0 set but 18Kish had  a min of 1 with 7Kish of those having a max of 1 which means nothing will happen until they hit zero stock and is a pretty useless min/max.  So 50Kish had min/maxs set, how useful they are would require a deeper dive.  

Should there be more min/max set? Sure for some things especially those with long lead times it makes sense.  The kicker is the same Equipment Management Team (EMTs) that @Navy_Pete is discussing with a million things on their plate are the ones actioning the purchase.  The EMTs or better there Equipment Program Managers (EPMs) have the ability to use the Defence Resource Planning (DRP) which is a material forecasting tool to help them identify and manage stock based on usage patterns.  From what I have seen there is little use of it in that fashion and come 2023 its lifecycle will be ending.  It has a replacement on the go to get us from 2023 to 2027 when we fully move to S4 Hana and the suite of analytics it has imbedded in it but not sure how far along they are in the project.


----------



## Navy_Pete

@MJP the fun bit about the DRP tool is that because of all the workaround we've been doing (GSM for contractor work, local purchases, substitutions etc) a lot of the forecasting data wasn't necessarily useful, so the AR process required a lot of deep dives to figure out what the real usage was.  Keep finding weird things like active items marked for disposal and obsolete items still in the system as relevant so huge amount of cleanup required on the thousands of line items we have, so probably isn't helping DRP either. Additionally in a lot of cases, we are at the end of life of all kinds of items that may have only been replaced once or twice (some original to build), so we're getting massive spikes in failures creating a lot of sudden demand, which DRP wouldn't actually show. It's a really handraulic process that takes a lot of time.

Murphy's law a lot of those items that are obsolete with the company long gone, and getting something like a shock qualified bronze valve can take several years due to global supply issues and forges being at capacity.

The fun ones were when the companies politely told us that the item is on backorder, with the USN ahead of us, so they'll get to us ASAP but unable to provide an EDD. Completely reasonable, but means we're back to finding more work arounds and temp substitutions (which also takes time). And then when all that lines up and you have an EC in place it can take years to implement, because the lead time to plan/install is pretty significant with the constantly changing OPSCHED.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Navy_Pete said:


> Yeah, me too, but sometimes local purchases make more sense in the short term.



You're not wrong in an expeditious sense, except its misuse of an AQC to buy spare parts with a unit AQC, and its simply downloading work from ADM(Mat) onto the 1st line. The next problem is ADM(Mat) has no authority/DOA to authorize units to buy spare parts. The last problem is ships/units are not budgeted to fill in gaps for the CFSS.

I lied, there is a whole QA problem as well if units are buying off the shelf items and installing them on the ship.  The unit has, now, added stock to the CFSS further muddying the waters (Life cycle management) for you and your fine folks.

Its a dogs breakfast, but my bottom line is I want to get you guy in a position to fill my warehouses, and quickly.


----------



## MilEME09

We really need to stop treating the CFSS like Amazon with just in time delivery. It doesn't work in a war zone, I can't carry 72 hours of technical stores when half of it can't be ordered unless i have a valid work order open. We changed the nature of our supply system over the past few decades but now it doesn't fit how we are doctrinally supposed to operate.


----------



## MJP

MilEME09 said:


> We really need to stop treating the CFSS like Amazon with just in time delivery. It doesn't work in a war zone, I can't carry 72 hours of technical stores when half of it can't be ordered unless i have a valid work order open. We changed the nature of our supply system over the past few decades but now it doesn't fit how we are doctrinally supposed to operate.


That is just poor policy not JIT, and highlights our inability to do predictive scaling for our 1st and 2nd line folks.

While we have some very poor practices, IMHO we do not do JIT nor does anyone in the DSC think we should be (well maybe Bill but he is weird). We have some poor policy, a convoluted enterprise resource system/architecture that requires way to much manual intervention and huge number of disparate stakeholders each only really worried about their little piece of the DSC.


----------



## daftandbarmy

MJP said:


> That is just poor policy not JIT, and highlights our inability to do predictive scaling for our 1st and 2nd line folks.
> 
> While we have some very poor practices, IMHO we do not do JIT nor does anyone in the DSC think we should be (well maybe Bill but he is weird). We have some poor policy, a convoluted enterprise resource system/architecture that requires way to much manual intervention and huge number of disparate stakeholders each only really worried about their little piece of the DSC.



It's not that hard to fix fast and cheap... but you need the right kind of leadership:


A Simpler Way to Modernize Your Supply Chain​How to spend less and accomplish more 


"Conventional wisdom says it takes three to five years and tens of millions of dollars to digitize a corporation’s supply chain. However, a few companies have reaped major benefits—including higher revenue and customer retention—with a faster, cheaper approach. It involves assembling available data; using analytics to understand and predict customers’ and suppliers’ behavior and optimize inventory, production, and procurement; and adding automation to revamp or introduce processes. The transformation requires three main initiatives: replacing consensus forecasts with one unified view of demand, changing one-size-fits-all supply strategies to segmented ones, and creating a plan to continually balance supply and demand and manage deviations or disruptions."









						A Simpler Way to Modernize Your Supply Chain
					

Conventional wisdom says it takes three to five years and tens of millions of dollars to digitize a corporation’s supply chain. However, a few companies have reaped major benefits—including higher revenue and customer retention—with a faster, cheaper approach. It involves assembling available...




					hbr.org


----------



## Halifax Tar

MilEME09 said:


> We really need to stop treating the CFSS like Amazon with just in time delivery. It doesn't work in a war zone, I can't carry 72 hours of technical stores when half of it can't be ordered unless i have a valid work order open. We changed the nature of our supply system over the past few decades but now it doesn't fit how we are doctrinally supposed to operate.



I don't even think we are JIT anymore.  We are "Maybe in time" or "Nil Stock Avail CFSS, no fill date".

What we seem to do now is jump from fire to fire putting them out, HPR process I'm looking at you, and now the HPR process is believed to be the only way to get timely resupply. 

This all comes back to us need warehouses full of spare parts just waiting to be used. Which we don't have.


----------



## MilEME09

Halifax Tar said:


> I don't even think we are JIT anymore.  We are "Maybe in time" or "Nil Stock Avail CFSS, no fill date".
> 
> What we seem to do now is jump from fire to fire putting them out, HPR process I'm looking at you, and now the HPR process is believed to be the only way to get timely resupply.
> 
> This all comes back to us need warehouses full of spare parts just waiting to be used. Which we don't have.


Exactly, in my opinion as an end user the shortages, and supply difficulties we face due to the global economic situation could be softened or mitigated if we actually carried a substantial stock of spare parts in warehouses, properly preserved.


----------



## Kirkhill

MilEME09 said:


> Exactly, in my opinion as an end user the shortages, and supply difficulties we face due to the global economic situation could be softened or mitigated if we actually carried a substantial stock of spare parts in warehouses, properly preserved.



Perhaps your supply system might be eased if you weren't using 50 year old kit.

You might as well be asking for a supply of spare wagon wheels.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Kirkhill said:


> Perhaps your supply system might be eased if you weren't using 50 year old kit.
> 
> You might as well be asking for a supply of spare wagon wheels.










Its a terrible cycle, because need procurement to get us the up to date equipment, and we need the government to get procurement to get us the up to date equipment...


----------



## MilEME09

Kirkhill said:


> Perhaps your supply system might be eased if you weren't using 50 year old kit.
> 
> You might as well be asking for a supply of spare wagon wheels.


Ridiculous! Wagon wheels would be local purchase in Alberta, along with the horses to replace the LSVW


----------



## Kirkhill

MilEME09 said:


> Ridiculous! Wagon wheels would be local purchase in Alberta, along with the horses to replace the LSVW





Another GDLSC contractor.


----------



## rmc_wannabe

It would help if we set our procurement schedule along the same lines as vendors set up their EOL/EOS time lines. Its a real kick in the pants to have a capability funded to support 20 years of service life for the CAF, have the products reach End of Life from the manufacturer in 5, and then have a complete End of Support happen after 10 years.

Theres no money for the vendors to maintain a production line for a 30-40 year item, when its not parts that make them their R&D Budget. If we want to maintain a fleet for 40 years, we need to buy 40 years worth of parts up front and stockpile them in depot. If not, we need to be prepared to upgrade or lifecycle within the manufacturer timeline, not ours.


----------



## MJP

Halifax Tar said:


> I don't even think we are JIT anymore.  We are "Maybe in time" or "Nil Stock Avail CFSS, no fill date".
> 
> What we seem to do now is jump from fire to fire putting them out, HPR process I'm looking at you, and now the HPR process is believed to be the only way to get timely resupply.
> 
> This all comes back to us need warehouses full of spare parts just waiting to be used. Which we don't have.



HPR usage has actually dropped quite significantly over the past few years from a year over year from an average 8% to 4% of all orders.  It is hard to say if this is a COVID related fall or a tightening of HPR usage in policy that has trickled down to the formations and units.  I suspect it is a little of both.

That said there is a pervasive distinct lack of faith in the supply chain hence the use of HPR. 3rd line is trying to get better at distribution as that is a key driver of delays that is within their control.  Unfortunately stock levels falls under ADM(MAT) and they are having issues given the depth and breadth of what they do.

Looking across the two depots there are roughly 11.5K STOs outstanding from before FY 2021 which means at a macro level there are 11.5K Pur Req out to ADMMat that have been actioned for purchase.  Now that is a macro nuanced number as many of those STOs are from closed work orders, or are no longer required (51 from 2013 for example) or the stock exists just not at the depot the STO is pointed at but does highlights the backlog that ADM Mat is dealing with on top of their ongoing procurement projects.



MilEME09 said:


> Exactly, in my opinion as an end user the shortages, and supply difficulties we face due to the global economic situation could be softened or mitigated if we actually carried a substantial stock of spare parts in warehouses, properly preserved.


There is a good argument for buying key stocks in large enough quantities to weather short terms storms or when the lead time is long however, a properly aligned supply chain would have a way of ordering stocks in advance of running out of them without storing a lifetime's worth. Unfortunately we are not there yet but we should be buying material incrementally as needed for most things but that comes with the caveat that scaling needs to be properly done along with good thresholds that trigger procurement. 

Space is limited in current infrastructure and new infra takes decades.  There are ok interim ways to solve infra issues and the depots are revamping internally to utilize space better but regardless of what they do buying mountains of parts is likely not going to happen so the rationale way to solve the issue is make the supply chain more robust and automated all along the chain.


----------



## MilEME09

MJP said:


> Space is limited in current infrastructure and new infra takes decades.  There are ok interim ways to solve infra issues and the depots are revamping internally to utilize space better but regardless of what they do buying mountains of parts is likely not going to happen so the rationale way to solve the issue is make the supply chain more robust and automated all along the chain.


One solution I have would be to have CnC machines in every mat shop and negotiate for the specs for various small widgets. That way our mat techs can local manufacture simple parts in a pinch.


----------



## MJP

MilEME09 said:


> One solution I have would be to have CnC machines in every mat shop and negotiate for the specs for various small widgets. That way our mat techs can local manufacture simple parts in a pinch.


That and 3D printing are good initiatives but there are huge challenges to overcome; resourcing and IP rights being the largest hurdles.

I haven't checked in a while but interested to see a summary of the 3D printing trial they were doing in Latvia.


----------



## MilEME09

MJP said:


> That and 3D printing are good initiatives but there are huge challenges to overcome; resourcing and IP rights being the largest hurdles.
> 
> I haven't checked in a while but interested to see a summary of the 3D printing trial they were doing in Latvia.


There are articles about the testing in issues 8 and 9 of the LEMS journal, including the testing results of different materials, very fascinating work.


----------



## Halifax Tar

MJP said:


> HPR usage has actually dropped quite significantly over the past few years from a year over year from an average 8% to 4% of all orders.  It is hard to say if this is a COVID related fall or a tightening of HPR usage in policy that has trickled down to the formations and units.  I suspect it is a little of both.
> 
> That said there is a pervasive distinct lack of faith in the supply chain hence the use of HPR. 3rd line is trying to get better at distribution as that is a key driver of delays that is within their control.  Unfortunately stock levels falls under ADM(MAT) and they are having issues given the depth and breadth of what they do.
> 
> Looking across the two depots there are roughly 11.5K STOs outstanding from before FY 2021 which means at a macro level there are 11.5K Pur Req out to ADMMat that have been actioned for purchase.  Now that is a macro nuanced number as many of those STOs are from closed work orders, or are no longer required (51 from 2013 for example) or the stock exists just not at the depot the STO is pointed at but does highlights the backlog that ADM Mat is dealing with on top of their ongoing procurement projects.
> 
> 
> There is a good argument for buying key stocks in large enough quantities to weather short terms storms or when the lead time is long however, a properly aligned supply chain would have a way of ordering stocks in advance of running out of them without storing a lifetime's worth. Unfortunately we are not there yet but we should be buying material incrementally as needed for most things but that comes with the caveat that scaling needs to be properly done along with good thresholds that trigger procurement.
> 
> Space is limited in current infrastructure and new infra takes decades.  There are ok interim ways to solve infra issues and the depots are revamping internally to utilize space better but regardless of what they do buying mountains of parts is likely not going to happen so the rationale way to solve the issue is make the supply chain more robust and automated all along the chain.



That lack of faith in the CFSS is not unfounded.  I cant tell you from when I started to where I am now, I have seen the daily HPR reports go from one or items per ship to upwards of 20.   And lead times go from next port of call (NPOC) to LCMM/SM state no fill of requirement until _______ .


----------



## dapaterson

Better asset visibility and proper disposal of obsolete materiel also has a major role to play; having warehouses filled with spares for fleets divested 20+ years ago is not optimal resource utilization.


----------



## Halifax Tar

dapaterson said:


> Better asset visibility and proper disposal of obsolete materiel also has a major role to play; having warehouses filled with spares for fleets divested 20+ years ago is not optimal resource utilization.



Yup, like LCMMs arguing that I need to keep burlap sacks in stock in 2 Gen Stores because the Navy may reinstall the glass and tin crushers someday...


----------



## Colin Parkinson

MJP said:


> There is a good argument for buying key stocks in large enough quantities to weather short terms storms or when the lead time is long however, a properly aligned supply chain would have a way of ordering stocks in advance of running out of them without storing a lifetime's worth. Unfortunately we are not there yet but we should be buying material incrementally as needed for most things but that comes with the caveat that scaling needs to be properly done along with good thresholds that trigger procurement.
> 
> Space is limited in current infrastructure and new infra takes decades.  There are ok interim ways to solve infra issues and the depots are revamping internally to utilize space better but regardless of what they do buying mountains of parts is likely not going to happen so the rationale way to solve the issue is make the supply chain more robust and automated all along the chain.


Challenge with NOS is that seals have dried out and rubber has perished. I am a believer in having stock, but sadly some parts have a finite life span.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

MilEME09 said:


> One solution I have would be to have CnC machines in every mat shop and negotiate for the specs for various small widgets. That way our mat techs can local manufacture simple parts in a pinch.


Working with the US Army National Guard in Ft Lewis, they had a full machine shop mounted on the back of an extended 5 Ton. We needed some pins for our Deuces. The guys were all older and loved our old trucks, so they made us new pins on the spot and some other stuff. We paid them back with time behind the wheel of a Deuce and Canadian beer.


----------



## MilEME09

Colin Parkinson said:


> Working with the US Army National Guard in Ft Lewis, they had a full machine shop mounted on the back of an extended 5 Ton. We needed some pins for our Deuces. The guys were all older and loved our old trucks, so they made us new pins on the spot and some other stuff. We paid them back with time behind the wheel of a Deuce and Canadian beer.


As part of our trials of 3D printing, we have created a SEV with 3D printers and scanners. Experimental technology but could prove fruitful. That said I'd prefer a full matshop, but like the rest of the army, the mat trade is hurting right now.


----------



## MJP

Colin Parkinson said:


> Challenge with NOS is that seals have dried out and rubber has perished. I am a believer in having stock, but sadly some parts have a finite life span.


Yea it is easy to manage spare parts like seals, rubbers and the like through batch management.  It is a whole other game to do that for major assemblies.  Our 3rd line Tech teams are really not stablished to do periodic maintenance/inspections on major assemblies.  Inspections are generally Mk 1 eyeball which can't catch internal issues.  They do catch issues and invaluable in providing advice on any particular item though due to the depth of teams and their experience


----------



## PPCLI Guy

MJP said:


> That and 3D printing are good initiatives but there are huge challenges to overcome; resourcing and IP rights being the largest hurdles.
> 
> I haven't checked in a while but interested to see a summary of the 3D printing trial they were doing in Latvia.


That is indeed the way ahead...and IP is the biggest stumbling block.

As to the supply chain, we need to find the right balance between Just in Time, Just in Case, and Just Because. I am doing some work with Supply Ontario and they will face some of the same issues as they ramp up to full capacity.


----------



## rmc_wannabe

PPCLI Guy said:


> That is indeed the way ahead...and *IP is the biggest stumbling block.*
> 
> As to the supply chain, we need to find the right balance between Just in Time, *Just in Case, and Just Because. *


You don't get those two with IP/ITAR. A lot of it has to do with the fact that most technology we have today is designed to be a "run'er til she breaks, replace the unit or replace the whole damn thing." 

The fact that most SLAs and Warranties now specify that any part level repair needs to be done by the vendor is a testament that. Right to Repair gets in the way of profits. 

Even if we wanted to have parts on the shelf for certain kit, there may not be an incentive for vendors to provide it.


----------



## Kirkhill

The 3D printing situation, as applied in Ukraine, is intriguing.  

The USN is applying it on USS Essex.









						U.S. Navy equips USS Essex warship with Xerox 3D printing technology - 3D Printing Industry
					

COMNAVSURFPAC and the Navy Postgraduate School (NPS) have installed a 3D printer on the USS Essex, a Wasp-class amphibious assault ship.




					3dprintingindustry.com
				




Essex works in Aluminum.  The Ukrainians are using a lot of plastics.

How about the manufacture of explosives on site?  Stockpiling and transporting inert materials and then mixing them just prior to filling into 3D printed munitions?  Is there work being done in that field?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Kirkhill said:


> The 3D printing situation, as applied in Ukraine, is intriguing.
> 
> The USN is applying it on USS Essex.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U.S. Navy equips USS Essex warship with Xerox 3D printing technology - 3D Printing Industry
> 
> 
> COMNAVSURFPAC and the Navy Postgraduate School (NPS) have installed a 3D printer on the USS Essex, a Wasp-class amphibious assault ship.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3dprintingindustry.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Essex works in Aluminum.  The Ukrainians are using a lot of plastics.
> 
> How about the manufacture of explosives on site?  Stockpiling and transporting inert materials and then mixing them just prior to filling into 3D printed munitions?  Is there work being done in that field?


Making explosive at the site is not that uncommon for large industrial sites like mines. PLX and ANFO are two types in use.


----------



## rmc_wannabe

Colin Parkinson said:


> Making explosive at the site is not that uncommon for large industrial sites like mines. PLX and ANFO are two types in use.


Worked well enough for the Taliban in a conflict zone.


----------



## Kirkhill

rmc_wannabe said:


> Worked well enough for the Taliban in a conflict zone.



Perhaps something a little less sensitive?


----------



## rmc_wannabe

Kirkhill said:


> Perhaps something a little less sensitive?


With more competent manufacturers? Most definitely


----------



## Navy_Pete

Halifax Tar said:


> Yup, like LCMMs arguing that I need to keep burlap sacks in stock in 2 Gen Stores because the Navy may reinstall the glass and tin crushers someday...


On the flip side the RCN is still operating the Oriole and other ships past their EOL, so some of the ancient gear is still in use.

I did inherit a bit of a TA code of misfit toys though; I think it was a catchall for legacy NSNs that no one knows who they belonged to, so managed to find parts from the old chemox, some kind of air defence system from the 60s, and some other completely random items. At some point I had to go to ebay to figure out what it was, and got lucky the NSN was cross referenced.

@Halifax Tar, usually takes a week or two for the HPR to work it's way to us and then turn into an RFP. Once it's awarded delivery times can be anywhere from 6-12 weeks to 6 months+ (with a few now in years). Pretty nuts, but we did raise this as a significant risk years ago when they told us to not stockpile things, and trust the min/max to autofill (which they quickly turned off). A lot of the shortages probably date back to decisions made around a decade ago.

The fun bit about EOS/EOL is that it can take years to create an engineering change, and years to implement it, so for a lot of items we would almost need to start the process to replace it when we install it; our configuration managment system is way too labour intensive and time consuming, and requiring full on projects to replace a widget creates an unbelievable amount of extra overhead on the already short staff. We have a few ECs that we have stuck in the review process, but already have the spec and parts for, so we've been installing them 'at risk' using deviations in DRMIS. It's nuts.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Navy_Pete said:


> On the flip side the RCN is still operating the Oriole and other ships past their EOL, so some of the ancient gear is still in use.
> 
> I did inherit a bit of a TA code of misfit toys though; I think it was a catchall for legacy NSNs that no one knows who they belonged to, so managed to find parts from the old chemox, some kind of air defence system from the 60s, and some other completely random items. At some point I had to go to ebay to figure out what it was, and got lucky the NSN was cross referenced.
> 
> @Halifax Tar, usually takes a week or two for the HPR to work it's way to us and then turn into an RFP. Once it's awarded delivery times can be anywhere from 6-12 weeks to 6 months+ (with a few now in years). Pretty nuts, but we did raise this as a significant risk years ago when they told us to not stockpile things, and trust the min/max to autofill (which they quickly turned off). A lot of the shortages probably date back to decisions made around a decade ago.
> 
> The fun bit about EOS/EOL is that it can take years to create an engineering change, and years to implement it, so for a lot of items we would almost need to start the process to replace it when we install it; our configuration managment system is way too labour intensive and time consuming, and requiring full on projects to replace a widget creates an unbelievable amount of extra overhead on the already short staff. We have a few ECs that we have stuck in the review process, but already have the spec and parts for, so we've been installing them 'at risk' using deviations in DRMIS. It's nuts.



That's a false equivalency Oriole, no matter what you and I think of her place in service or value,  is still in service.  The tin and glass crushers are gone. 

So when a ship submits an HPR, the HPR cell receives it and starts searching for stock.  If its not local in one of the Naval depots they search nationally.  If nothing is found their emails go right out to LCMMs and SMs.  This is all done within an hour of the HPR being received by the DST or the HPR cell.  Someone in Ottawa is either not checking their emails or forwarding them on in a timely fashion. 

There is a massive disconnect, animosity even, between the ships and LCMMs/ADM(Mat).  And the fault lays somewhere in-between.


----------



## Navy_Pete

@Halifax Tar getting the HPR is quick;  It's al the work to take that and turn it into an RFP that can take a few weeks. It gets worse when the RCN has massive activity spikes, like the big TG exercises. If I get a dozen HPRs in a single day, it might be a week before I even look at the last few.

That's actually an improvement; last year there was such a backlog of work took about a month (sometimes months) for an HPR to get to the top of the pile for a buy because there was such a shortage of SMs.

And once we get up to date on the HPRs, there is still the expediting list for FMF work, and then after all that we might get to routine buys.

All of this takes time we are supposed to be using to proactively manage the equipment to avoid all of this, so it's a bit of a vicious circle of reactive work creating more reactive work down the line, and we've got a few decades of that built up. Add to that lot of items on the CPF suddenly getting end of life failures (ie that sharp spike up in the bathtub curve), ships carrying a few thousand defects and running with half crews (so even critical maintenance doesn't always get done) and here we are.

I've got the pleasure of working with a great LCMM team and have a rockstar SM, but we're still triaging extensively with a growing list of known items we just can't get to. No animosity for the ships, and genuinely hate having to tell them the bins are empty, but it took us a few decades to get here, so won't fix it overnight, and we can only fix what we know about. 

Unless the RCN parks some ships and focuses on properly maintaining the rest of them, I don't see us ever getting caught up, let alone getting ahead of things a bit, especially with all the process 'improvements' that just add more LOE and time onto each individual task. We might have a chance if the Navy started paying off some MCDVs/CPFs, but they are still beating them (and the crews) like rentals. But we got morale patches and some new bling so guess it balances out.


----------



## PPCLI Guy

rmc_wannabe said:


> You don't get those two with IP/ITAR. A lot of it has to do with the fact that most technology we have today is designed to be a "run'er til she breaks, replace the unit or replace the whole damn thing."
> 
> The fact that most SLAs and Warranties now specify that any part level repair needs to be done by the vendor is a testament that. Right to Repair gets in the way of profits.
> 
> Even if we wanted to have parts on the shelf for certain kit, there may not be an incentive for vendors to provide it.


A UK Company is getting after this problem.  Industry is not against Additive manufacturing - they just want to be able to monetize their IP.  This approach (and there are others) solves that problem.  You still pay for the part (by buying the code that you cannot see) and get to produce on item, at the edge...and they get paid.

We need to reimagine the ecosystem that delivers effects and secures profits....


----------



## MilEME09

NATO officially calls us out











						NATO's Jens Stoltenberg calls on Canada to meet alliance defence commitments
					

NATO's secretary-general is commending Canada on its investments in northern defence systems, but also says it’s important Canada deliver on its promises to spend two per cent of its GDP on defence to meet its commitments to the alliance.




					www.ctvnews.ca


----------



## Good2Golf

MilEME09 said:


> NATO officially calls us out
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NATO's Jens Stoltenberg calls on Canada to meet alliance defence commitments
> 
> 
> NATO's secretary-general is commending Canada on its investments in northern defence systems, but also says it’s important Canada deliver on its promises to spend two per cent of its GDP on defence to meet its commitments to the alliance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.ctvnews.ca




…but…but…Because it’s 2015!  Canada’s back! We’re taking care of the debt so you *don’t have to!  We’re getting guns off the streets!


----------



## rmc_wannabe

Good2Golf said:


> View attachment 72787
> 
> …but…but…Because it’s 2015!  Canada’s back! We’re taking care of the debt so you Dany have to!  We’re getting guns off the streets!


My teenage daughter said it best:

"If you have to ask me if it's still "cool" or relevant, you already have your answer." 

The Liberal Party hasn't budged an inch policy wise since 2015, because it was a winning formula for 2015. 

Almost 10 years on, no one is doing the "Whip Nae Nae" or talking about Carpool Karaoke. Likewise, 2 and a half years of pandemic, economic recession, a land war in Europe, and many other current issues mean people don't care any more about what they did in 2015. 

Until there is a policy shift to reflect current changes to the world picture, it's going to sound out of touch.


----------



## FJAG

Good2Golf said:


> View attachment 72787
> 
> …but…but…Because it’s 2015!  Canada’s back! We’re taking care of the debt so you *don’t have to!  We’re getting guns off the streets!


Just reading about the Militia back in the 1890s.

Do you realize that there was a time when, under Liberal Prime Minister Wilfrid Laurier, the federal policy was to get rifles and free ammunition into the hands of a large part of the Canadian public so as to be able to form an enthusiastic semi skilled _levée en masse_ for when the Americans invaded?

😁


----------



## Edward Campbell

rmc_wannabe said:


> My teenage daughter said it best:
> 
> "If you have to ask me if it's still "cool" or relevant, you already have your answer."
> 
> *The Liberal Party hasn't budged an inch policy wise since 2015, because it was a winning formula for 2015.*
> 
> Almost 10 years on, no one is doing the "Whip Nae Nae" or talking about Carpool Karaoke. Likewise, 2 and a half years of pandemic, economic recession, a land war in Europe, and many other current issues mean people don't care any more about what they did in 2015.
> 
> Until there is a policy shift to reflect current changes to the world picture, it's going to sound out of touch.


The reason the Liberal Party hasn't budged an inch is the same reason you do not hear Pierre Poilievre shouting that he'll double the defence budget ... all parties poll assiduously and they all hear exactly the same thing from Canadians: *we spend at least enough, maybe  even too much one defence. *

There will be no change in policy until Canadians are convinced that there is a real, credible threat to their pocketbooks.


----------



## Kirkhill

FJAG said:


> Just reading about the Militia back in the 1890s.
> 
> Do you realize that there was a time when, under Liberal Prime Minister Wilfrid Laurier, the federal policy was to get rifles and free ammunition into the hands of a large part of the Canadian public so as to be able to form an enthusiastic semi skilled _levée en masse_ for when the Americans invaded?
> 
> 😁



Laurier won by being more British than the Brits.... especially on French language instruction.


----------



## RangerRay

Edward Campbell said:


> The reason the Liberal Party hasn't budged an inch is the same reason you do not hear Pierre Poilievre shouting that he'll double the defence budget ... all parties poll assiduously and they all hear exactly the same thing from Canadians: *we spend at least enough, maybe  even too much one defence. *
> 
> There will be no change in policy until Canadians are convinced that there is a real, credible threat to their pocketbooks.


I do not know how many times friends of mine tell me they think we spend the same obscene amount of money on defence as our Yank cousins do…


----------



## FSTO

Watched the PM say unequivocally that the NW Passage is Canadian. Now that was an easy call when it was frozen most of the year and our allies would say “That’s nice Canada that you think that”. But now that it’s starting to melt we may have to actually do something about it. 

While he said that, the Foreign Minister bobbled her head like it was on a spring. Could she look even more vacuous? Is that what the monkeys in cabinet are trained to do by media experts?


----------



## dimsum

FSTO said:


> While he said that, the Foreign Minister bobbled her head like it was on a spring. Could she look even more vacuous? Is that what the monkeys in cabinet are trained to do by media experts?


I haven't seen the video and I'm not saying she's right or wrong, but I'm not sure anyone (Minister, random dude #8, whoever) could get away from criticism there.

Visibly agree?  Vacuous.
Neutral face?  Not listening (or implying she disagrees, which is worse)
Visibly disagree?  Prob not having that job much longer.

Of those choices, I'd rather look vacuous.


----------



## FSTO

^^
Nod a couple of times at the PM’s key inflection moments. Don’t bob your head up and down like an out of control bobble head!

Edit to add: to the PM, you’ve been in office since 2015, the time for blaming Harper or comparing yourself to Harper has long past!


----------



## MilEME09

FSTO said:


> ^^
> Nod a couple of times at the PM’s key inflection moments. Don’t bob your head up and down like an out of control bobble head!
> 
> Edit to add: to the PM, you’ve been in office since 2015, the time for blaming Harper or comparing yourself to Harper has long past!


It's what they always do, even though they have had 8 years almost, it's still because of the previous government. We are reaching that apathy point though of when voters will want change, especially with all the economic turmoil. However unless a split between the NDP and the liberals happen, I dint see an election any time soon


----------



## Kirkhill

Stoltenberg:  Get a grip!
Trudeau: Pffft.



Trudeau:  Here's how it is.
Stoltenberg:  I give up.


----------



## Booter

At least they coordinated their outfits.


----------



## Brad Sallows

Can't know that without seeing their socks.


----------



## rmc_wannabe

Trudeau: _slaps fuselage_ you can extend so many operational fight years out of this baby.... why upgrade?

Stoltenberg: _sigh_


----------



## Quirky

At this point Canada would be better off under Putin than Trudeau.


----------



## dimsum

Quirky said:


> At this point Canada would be better off under Putin than Trudeau.


I’m not sure that “getting your ass handed to you by a country you tried to invade” is better than Canada right now.


----------



## Brad Sallows

> At this point Canada would be better off under Putin than Trudeau.



I'd pick Don Knotts before I'd pick Putin.  (I liked Don Knotts.)


----------



## OldSolduer

Brad Sallows said:


> I'd pick Don Knotts before I'd pick Putin.  (I liked Don Knotts.)


Which character? Ralph Furley or Barney Google?


----------



## Quirky

dimsum said:


> I’m not sure that “getting your ass handed to you by a country you tried to invade” is better than Canada right now.


In all fairness Ukraine wouldn’t last a few weeks without international help. Russia isn’t just fighting one country. That’s for the other tread though.


----------



## Kirkhill

Quirky said:


> In all fairness Ukraine wouldn’t last a few weeks without international help. Russia isn’t just fighting one country. That’s for the other tread though.


The Yanks wouldn't have lasted without French help.


----------



## Retired AF Guy

From a couple days ago; Peter Mansbridge interviews Defence Minister Anita Anand:









						ANITA  ANAND UNPLUGGED - The Bridge with Peter Mansbridge
					

The minister of defense, Anita Anand, on dealing with the Generals, fighting Putin, and what she's learned about leadership.




					podcast.app


----------



## WestIsle

Retired AF Guy said:


> From a couple days ago; Peter Mansbridge interviews Defence Minister Anita Anand:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ANITA  ANAND UNPLUGGED - The Bridge with Peter Mansbridge
> 
> 
> The minister of defense, Anita Anand, on dealing with the Generals, fighting Putin, and what she's learned about leadership.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> podcast.app


Is there any interesting points here or was it largely a regurgitation of LPC talking points and gas lighting the state of the CAF?


----------



## Retired AF Guy

WestIsle said:


> Is there any interesting points here or was it largely a regurgitation of LPC talking points and gas lighting the state of the CAF?


The only thing that caught my attention is towards the end of the interview Mansbridge asks Anand about more spending and she said something to the effect that it depends if Canadians are okay with it. And we all know how the average Canadian thinks about defense spending.


----------



## FJAG

Retired AF Guy said:


> The only thing that caught my attention is towards the end of the interview Mansbridge asks Anand about more spending and she said something to the effect that it depends if Canadians are okay with it. And we all know how the average Canadian thinks about defense spending.


Well that's no different then its been since 1867. - But then she says "culture change" is at the top of our agenda". Back in 1867 at least defence of Canada was at the top of the agenda. At that point I started skimming it. At least Peter touched procurement when she segued to fighter jets. That was a laugh. She talked like it wasn't JT who screwed the whole thing up in the first place.

🍻


----------



## FSTO

I was disappointed but not surprised at her answers.


----------



## OldSolduer

Retired AF Guy said:


> The only thing that caught my attention is towards the end of the interview Mansbridge asks Anand about more spending and she said something to the effect that it depends if Canadians are okay with it. And we all know how the average Canadian thinks about defense spending.


The solution is simple - strip all heavy weapons and ships and fighters from the CAF inventory and make everyone a blue beret peacekeeper. That will make the idiot chattering class happy - and the Liberal "elite" happy. Honestly I wonder where their heads are some days. Don't answer that - its a rhetorical question.


----------



## rmc_wannabe

They have used the whole "its up to the Canadian people" as a cover for everything from Green Shift, Electoral Reform, Foreign Policy, and yes...National Defence.

News flash... you were elected to actually make decisions, set policy, and actually do something outside of "convening."


----------



## Halifax Tar

Retired AF Guy said:


> From a couple days ago; Peter Mansbridge interviews Defence Minister Anita Anand:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ANITA  ANAND UNPLUGGED - The Bridge with Peter Mansbridge
> 
> 
> The minister of defense, Anita Anand, on dealing with the Generals, fighting Putin, and what she's learned about leadership.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> podcast.app



The PC started out with 10 min of Mansbridge talking about himself.  And then he threw softballs at the DM and wasn't able actually pull answers from her.

That was 40 mins of my life I won't get back.

Has to be one of those most self aggrandizing podcasters I've ever listened too.  Won't be listening again.


----------



## Weinie

Halifax Tar said:


> *The PC started out with 10 min of Mansbridge talking about himself. * And then he threw softballs at the DM and wasn't able actually pull answers from her.
> 
> That was 40 mins of my life I won't get back.
> 
> Has to be one of those most self aggrandizing podcasters I've ever listened too.  Won't be listening again.


Peter has always loved Peter.


----------



## Good2Golf

Weinie said:


> Peter has always loved Peter.


Peter’s turtleneck sweater has more personality than Peter does…


----------



## MilEME09

As good a place as any for this, CDS in a short interview states readinessis suffering 



			https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/2079615555884


----------



## daftandbarmy

MilEME09 said:


> As good a place as any for this, CDS in a short interview states readinessis suffering
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/2079615555884



I watched that last night and thought 'better pack your bags Wayne, the Liberal machine will be displeased'.


----------



## OldSolduer

daftandbarmy said:


> I watched that last night and thought 'better pack your bags Wayne, the Liberal machine will be displeased'.


The CDS may have had enough of the circus this government and the CAF have become.


----------



## CBH99

daftandbarmy said:


> I watched that last night and thought 'better pack your bags Wayne, the Liberal machine will be displeased'.


Even the Libtards must realize they’ve taken overt & public legal action against some, and were the ‘anonymous sources’ of sexual misconduct allegations against the rest that who is left to select is a pretty small pool.

If they did tell Wayne to take a hike, who else is really going to want the job?  

Being CDS is absolutely a position to aspire to, most of the time… but who wants a job where the people above you are the ones you have to worry about?


----------



## GK .Dundas

Or it may well the Government may testing the waters so to speak .
 Senior officers in this day and age do offer up anything that would be in opposition to Government policy. That goes doubly or more for the CDS.
Defence policy is completely alien to Canadian politicians of all stripes and even more so for the Prime Minister's faction of Liberal party. They are very unsure of their footing and very nervous and cautious to a fault.


----------



## KevinB

daftandbarmy said:


> I watched that last night and thought 'better pack your bags Wayne, the Liberal machine will be displeased'.


I doubt he did that in a vacuum.   
   It was a factual statement that didn’t pick any fight with the GoC.


----------



## FSTO

GK .Dundas said:


> Or it may well the Government may testing the waters so to speak .
> Senior officers in this day and age do offer up anything that would be in opposition to Government policy. That goes doubly or more for the CDS.
> Defence policy is completely alien to Canadian politicians of all stripes and even more so for the Prime Minister's faction of Liberal party. They are very unsure of their footing and very nervous and cautious to a fault.


Like the Premier of NS asking for a 1000 troops to help with the clean up. 

"No problem sir, lets fire up that 3D Printer!"


----------



## Halifax Tar

FSTO said:


> Like the Premier of NS asking for a 1000 troops to help with the clean up.
> 
> "No problem sir, lets fire up that 3D Printer!"



You mean we cant expect endless federal hand outs ?


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Halifax Tar said:


> You mean we cant expect endless federal hand outs ?


This may be hard for the average Nova Scotian (or really, any Canadian) to understand, but…no.


----------



## dapaterson

CDS would not engage in that sort of public discussion without GoC approval.


----------



## GK .Dundas

dapaterson said:


> CDS would not engage in that sort of public discussion without GoC approval.


I would not been surprised if there had been a political staffer from the PMO.in the room.
Which is how the Government has worked irregardless of political party for at least the last thirty years.


----------



## FSTO

CBC Radio's the current is having a talk about the role of the CAF. Should be "interesting".


----------



## MilEME09

dapaterson said:


> CDS would not engage in that sort of public discussion without GoC approval.


Unless he wanted to fall on his own sword, though with how little public engagement there is, he would be a hero to the troops, but forgotten after they read the story on page 6 of the paper.


----------



## Halifax Tar

FSTO said:


> CBC Radio's the current is having a talk about the role of the CAF. Should be "interesting".



Is there a way to listen to it after the fact ?


----------



## Weinie

dapaterson said:


> CDS would not engage in that sort of public discussion without GoC approval.


I call bullshit. Several have, with varying degrees of success.


----------



## FSTO

CBC Podcasts - The Current


			https://www.cbc.ca/radio/thecurrent


----------



## dapaterson

Weinie said:


> I call bullshit. Several have, with varying degrees of success.


OK then, _this_ CDS would not.


----------



## Weinie

dapaterson said:


> OK then, _this_ CDS would not.


I don't know this CDS as well as I have known previous CDS's


----------



## QV

Weinie said:


> I call bullshit. Several have, with varying degrees of success.


Hillier comes to mind.


----------



## daftandbarmy

FSTO said:


> CBC Radio's the current is having a talk about the role of the CAF. Should be "interesting".



I can guess...


----------



## FSTO

FSTO said:


> CBC Podcasts - The Current
> 
> 
> https://www.cbc.ca/radio/thecurrent


It was pretty good. The host Matt Galloway was shocked, SHOCKED I tell you when David Bercuson said the military was for killing people and breaking things. After that, the three guests had very good analysis of what the military is for and what it can deliver in both War and Peace. There were no morons on the panel.

There was only one mention of our leadership issues.
Listen to the podcast, the link is above.


----------



## Halifax Tar

FSTO said:


> It was pretty good. The host Matt Galloway was shocked, SHOCKED I tell you when David Bercuson said the military was for killing people and breaking things. After that, the three guests had very good analysis of what the military is for and what it can deliver in both War and Peace. There were no morons on the panel.
> 
> There was only one mention of our leadership issues.
> Listen to the podcast, the link is above.



I am fully onside with your assessment. Pretty good little 22mins.


----------



## FSTO

‎The Current: The role of the Canadian military in 2022 on Apple Podcasts
					

‎Show The Current, Ep The role of the Canadian military in 2022 - Oct 3, 2022



					podcasts.apple.com
				




Here’s the actual podcast link.


----------



## CBH99

GK .Dundas said:


> Or it may well the Government may testing the waters so to speak .
> Senior officers in this day and age do offer up anything that would be in opposition to Government policy. That goes doubly or more for the CDS.
> Defence policy is completely alien to Canadian politicians of all stripes and even more so for the Prime Minister's faction of Liberal party. They are very unsure of their footing and very nervous and cautious to a fault.


That’s a good indicator that at the very least, they know their unicorn message isn’t for everyone.

If one had any sense of self reflection and/or a desire for constant improvement of self - to say to that self ‘maybe this is an area we really need to learn more about & focus on understanding the space better.’

When you have to tread lightly because after all this time, they still can’t figure out that at least part of the problem might actually be them… it just makes me think of Picard facepalming himself in annoyance


----------



## Weinie

CBH99 said:


> That’s a good indicator that at the very least, they know their unicorn message isn’t for everyone.
> 
> If one had any sense of self reflection and/or a desire for constant improvement of self - to say to that self ‘maybe this is an area we really need to learn more about & focus on understanding the space better.’
> 
> When you have to tread lightly because after all this time, they still can’t figure out that at least part of the problem might actually be them… it just makes me think of Picard facepalming himself in annoyance


Yeah but............Defence is one of the last priorities that Canadians prize. If I was a politician, I would read the tea leaves, and act accordingly


----------



## Remius

Weinie said:


> Yeah but............Defence is one of the last priorities that Canadians prize. If I was a politician, I would read the tea leaves, and act accordingly


It’s not likely something that will get them elected one way or another that’s for sure.  I don’t even vote with defence in mind anymore.   Until one side gets serious i certainly won’t lend any credence to any side making empty promises.


----------



## OldSolduer

FSTO said:


> It was pretty good. The host Matt Galloway was shocked, SHOCKED I tell you when David Bercuson said the military was for killing people and breaking things. Aft


Does this Galloway fellow not study history? Most of history is about the uncomfortable shit humans do to each other up to and including war.


----------



## Kirkhill

Halifax Tar said:


> I am fully onside with your assessment. Pretty good little 22mins.



My only comment is that the conversation made no reference to the US National Guard.  My understanding is that it is the Guard, together with the Army Corps of Engineers, more than FEMA, that bring physical assets and manpower to manage disasters.    And that they are State Assets.

That ends up taking in the whole issue of provincial responsibilities and funding.  FEMA is by and large a manager of Federal grants to address states of emergency.   Those funds allow the States to call out their Guard to man the federally provided trucks, helicopters and Hercs.


----------



## FSTO

OldSolduer said:


> Does this Galloway fellow not study history? Most of history is about the uncomfortable shit humans do to each other up to and including war.


He’s very much a product of our liberal school system.


----------



## CBH99

FSTO said:


> He’s very much a product of our liberal school system.


I’m not sure if I should laugh along with KevinB, or sigh in sadness at how pathetic that is…

The fact that people _still_ don’t know what a military is actually for at the end of the day, is jaw dropping.  

It’s like this weird “awe inspiring stupid” that you’d think one would have to work long and hard to master, but rather just comes so naturally to some.   

(Remember when that reporter from CTV went and covered CSOR & 427 SOAS during operations in northern Iraq, who kept asking what a .50 door gun was for?  Like wtf do you think it’s for?)

Even if somebody is not familiar with history, surely to goodness people have at least heard about Russia invading Ukraine… that right there is a good example of what militaries are for…

Defending the nation against an attack, or attacking another nation.  


Like watching ISIS spread like a wildfire for a little while, and western air power & SOF units putting a stop to that.  What do they think our jets dropped?  What do they think special forces do?  🤦🏼‍♂️

It was just over a _decade_ ago we were fighting in Afghanistan in one of the busiest sectors in theatre, with Afghanistan related news stories being regular. 

Sometimes we were racking up to 1000 enemy dead per month.  (Notice how THAT didn't make the news…)


The fact that people are still shocked that the military, at the end of the day, is there to defeat the nation’s enemies is just crazy to me.  

<rant over>


----------



## Kirkhill

CBH99 said:


> The fact that people are still shocked that the military, at the end of the day, is there to* defeat  kill* the nation’s enemies is just crazy to me.



Not to put too fine a point on it...

Apparently we need to be more clear in our discussions.


----------



## daftandbarmy

CBH99 said:


> I’m not sure if I should laugh along with KevinB, or sigh in sadness at how pathetic that is…
> 
> The fact that people _still_ don’t know what a military is actually for at the end of the day, is jaw dropping.
> 
> It’s like this weird “awe inspiring stupid” that you’d think one would have to work long and hard to master, but rather just comes so naturally to some.
> 
> (Remember when that reporter from CTV went and covered CSOR & 427 SOAS during operations in northern Iraq, who kept asking what a .50 door gun was for?  Like wtf do you think it’s for?)
> 
> Even if somebody is not familiar with history, surely to goodness people have at least heard about Russia invading Ukraine… that right there is a good example of what militaries are for…
> 
> Defending the nation against an attack, or attacking another nation.
> 
> 
> Like watching ISIS spread like a wildfire for a little while, and western air power & SOF units putting a stop to that.  What do they think our jets dropped?  What do they think special forces do?  🤦🏼‍♂️
> 
> It was just over a _decade_ ago we were fighting in Afghanistan in one of the busiest sectors in theatre, with Afghanistan related news stories being regular.
> 
> Sometimes we were racking up to 1000 enemy dead per month.  (Notice how THAT didn't make the news…)
> 
> 
> The fact that people are still shocked that the military, at the end of the day, is there to defeat the nation’s enemies is just crazy to me.
> 
> <rant over>



In general, the military tends to go out of its way to avoid civilians, most of whom have never met a CAF member let alone one in uniform, so we probably shouldn't be surprised at their lack of knowledge.

Viz - reflecting on discussions with senior people in my deep and dark past where I suggested things like: 'maybe we should invite the Mayor and councillors to the Annual Dinner/Cocktail Party/other event' only to be told that was ridiculous 

Take that parochial attitude, times it by 'Canada wide', and I think you'll get an idea of the scale of the problem.


----------



## Good2Golf

Kirkhill said:


> Not to put too fine a point on it...
> 
> Apparently we need to be more clear in our discussions.


We used to be clear…when we were killing murderers and scum bags…


----------



## Kirkhill

Good2Golf said:


> We used to be clear…when we were killing murderers and scum bags…



Geez man!  Keep up!  That was a couple of generations ago.  (Funny how the generations are getting shorter even as the generations aren't generating anymore)


----------



## Good2Golf

Kirkhill said:


> Geez man! Keep up! That was a couple of generations ago. (Funny how the generations are getting shorter even as the generations aren't generating anymore)


Hunh? 10-15 years isn’t a “couple of generations…”


----------



## Kirkhill

Good2Golf said:


> Hunh? 10-15 years isn’t a “couple of generations…”


 
2003

Xers commanding Millenials who were raising Zeds who are now having Alphas  -- Grandad...


----------



## Good2Golf

Kirkhill said:


> 2003
> 
> Xers commanding Millenials who were raising Zeds who are now having Alphas  -- Grandad...


Until Alphas are fighting, at most I’ll give you is one generation and that’s generous, and the date was 2005. 😉


----------



## rmc_wannabe

The youngest pers I checked on an incoming DP1 Sigs was 2003. We're all getting super old.


----------



## Good2Golf

rmc_wannabe said:


> The youngest pers I checked on an incoming DP1 Sigs was 2003. We're all getting super old.


Indeed.  Back when Hillier made his famous comment, the youngest troops would have been ‘old’ Millenials.


----------



## Furniture

Good2Golf said:


> Indeed.  Back when Hillier made his famous comment, the youngest troops would have been ‘old’ Millenials.


I'm one of those "old" Millennials, I'm soon turning 40 and have been in nearly 22 years.


----------



## Kirkhill

Good2Golf said:


> Until Alphas are fighting, at most I’ll give you is one generation and that’s generous, and the date was 2005. 😉



I recall that generations used to be considered about 25 years.  Now we're down to 15.

Baby - 0
Mummy - 15
Granny - 30
Great Granny - 45
GGG - 60
GGGG - 75
GGGGG - 90

Even Indiana doesn't crank them out that fast.


----------



## lenaitch

Kirkhill said:


> Not to put too fine a point on it...
> 
> Apparently we need to be more clear in our discussions.


Lack of clarity has become the key to success in politics, leadership, management, academia and just about every other endeavour, so I'm not surprised Galloway was surprised at the "blunt language" - he's not used to hearing it.  Lack of clarity allows for wiggle room, so-called misinterpretations, and has less chance at offending anyone.

Anybody who doesn't know what the primary mandate of a military is - the 'A' in CAF in our case - should turn in any educational certificate they ever received.  I would suggest they turn in their citizenship but I'm told they can't do that.  Of course the military can do other things; firefighters get kittens out trees but nobody complains when they need a new million dollar aerial.


----------



## lenaitch

Kirkhill said:


> I recall that generations used to be considered about 25 years.  Now we're down to 15.
> 
> Baby - 0
> Mummy - 15
> Granny - 30
> Great Granny - 45
> GGG - 60
> GGGG - 75
> GGGGG - 90
> 
> Even Indiana doesn't crank them out that fast.


I've worked in some towns like that.


----------



## Good2Golf

lenaitch said:


> I've worked in some towns like that.


Moose Jaw enters the chat.

I actually saw a contest in the local mall with six generations taking the prize. 😯


----------



## Quirky

CBH99 said:


> I’m not sure if I should laugh along with KevinB, or sigh in sadness at how pathetic that is…
> 
> The fact that people _still_ don’t know what a military is actually for at the end of the day, is jaw dropping.


Conclusion: Canadians are retarded.
Easy to not care about a military when you are next to the largest one and have never been threatened with an invasion or attack.


----------



## FSTO

I sent an email to Mr Galloway expressing shock that he was shocked at the blunt language. I asked him what he was taught in school.


----------



## OldSolduer

FSTO said:


> I asked him what he was taught in school.


That the CAF did not exist before 1956 and that we are UN Blue Beret peacekeepers only.


----------



## Kilted

rmc_wannabe said:


> The youngest pers I checked on an incoming DP1 Sigs was 2003. We're all getting super old.


The youngest recruits we can get this year are from 2006.


----------



## OldSolduer

OldSolduer said:


> That the CAF did not exist before 1956 and that we are UN Blue Beret peacekeepers only.


And as I think it through a bit more there was no "CAF" as we know it prior to 1964? Am I correct? We were CA, RCN and RCAF.


----------



## Halifax Tar

OldSolduer said:


> And as I think it through a bit more there was no "CAF" as we know it prior to 1964? Am I correct? We were CA, RCN and RCAF.



Its RCN, CA and RCAF


----------



## rmc_wannabe

Halifax Tar said:


> Its RCN, CA and RCAF


Being the perceived "Seinor Service" and actual chronology are two different things. 

Naval Service of Canada - 4 May 1910

Canadian Signaling Corps - 24 October 1903 

But hey, we follow tradition I guess 😉


----------



## KevinB

rmc_wannabe said:


> Being the perceived "Seinor Service" and actual chronology are two different things.
> 
> Naval Service of Canada - 4 May 1910
> 
> Canadian Signaling Corps - 24 October 1903
> 
> But hey, we follow tradition I guess 😉


RCA laughs and points to 1855 (or 1883).


----------



## rmc_wannabe

KevinB said:


> RCA laughs and points to 1855 (or 1883)


Shhh we're ragging on the RCN, remember? 😉


----------



## Halifax Tar

I'll just leave this here  






						Canadian Armed Forces order of precedence - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## Lumber

Halifax Tar said:


> I'll just leave this here
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Canadian Armed Forces order of precedence - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org


RMC has entered the chat.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Lumber said:


> RMC has entered the chat.



Ya there was a caveat about a certain time when RMC is the right of the line.  But I cant find it.  Other than:



> _Note:_ The honour of "the right of the line" (precedence over other units), on an army parade, is held by the units of the Royal Canadian Horse Artillery (RCHA) when on parade with their guns. On dismounted parades, RCHA units take precedence over all other land force units except formed bodies of officer cadets of the Royal Military College representing their college. Royal Canadian Artillery units parade to the left of units of the Royal Canadian Armoured Corps.


----------



## CBH99

Quirky said:


> Conclusion: Canadians are retarded.
> Easy to not care about a military when you are next to the largest one and have never been threatened with an invasion or attack.


I hate to say it, but a majority of the current lot seem to be just that... they don't care about military matters all that much, nor military affairs in general.

Part of that is living right next door to the biggest, baddest dude in the entire neighborhood, aka earth.  But part of that is sheer wilful ignorance that the government blissfully perpetuates.

We were in the sandbox for roughly a decade, fighting an organization which was absolutely brutal to those who lived under it.  

(Not sure where in the Koran it says to beat people to death, or behead folks.  Anybody else have a few heads of their local workers put in a box & delivered to their front gate as a message?)

We put out forest fires every year.  Help with floods, disaster assistance missions around the world, etc. 

We intercept huge narcotics shipments in the maritime environment, with the USCG tactical units using our ships to stage from.  
Conduct counterterrorism ops around the world.

And our CF-18's are an important part of NORAD, and even covered for American F-15C's while they were grounded for a while.



Canadians also don't see the economic benefits that come with a stable defence industry.  

It doesn't need to be huge, but if Canadians can build weapons, IFV's, warships, maybe patrol aircraft, etc - and do a low rate continuous build rather than the feast & famine we've done in the past, it would draw more people's attention to the military if only for economic reasons.

And recruiting, holy s**t can we get it together?   The other day I saw a recruiting ad on YouTube... It showed a couple of people on a warship strapping on some helmets & a Cyclone flying over water while banking away from the camera.

Cool shot aside...it was 27 seconds long and told me jack about the CAF.   If I was one of those people who didn't know anything about the military, that ad would not help.

Run recruit classes on a stable, regular basis.  No more of this ad-hoc crap... recruit classes start on the same dates each year. 

Coordinate qualification courses so people can go from course to course, and get qualified as soon as possible.  Nobody joins up to not only have no operations they can contribute to, nor can they be happy they are still waiting to be trained in the job they signed up for.


Talk about the medak pocket.   Talk about our operations in Afghanistan.  Talk about our operations against ISIS.  Eventually talk about the contribution we are making to Ukraine.   Talk about missions the DART team has deployed for.


How Canadians can still be like "We should pull out of Iraq!  Because, like, it isn't right..." blows my f****** mind...


----------



## CBH99

lenaitch said:


> Lack of clarity has become the key to success in politics, leadership, management, academia and just about every other endeavour, so I'm not surprised Galloway was surprised at the "blunt language" - he's not used to hearing it.  Lack of clarity allows for wiggle room, so-called misinterpretations, and has less chance at offending anyone.
> 
> Anybody who doesn't know what the primary mandate of a military is - the 'A' in CAF in our case - should turn in any educational certificate they ever received.  I would suggest they turn in their citizenship but I'm told they can't do that.  Of course the military can do other things; firefighters get kittens out trees but nobody complains when they need a new million dollar aerial.


Firefighters are like the untouchable heroes of emergency services.  

Police?  Nobody wants the police around until something horrible happens, then the police can't get there fast enough.  

(I personally love having the police around as a presence,  It tells would be shitheads to go ply their craft somewhere else.)

EMS?   It felt like we were the red headed stepchildren of the 3 services.  People appreciated us, but not anywhere close to how much they loved the firefighters!


( I kept suggesting we should do a sexy calendar also, to boost our rep. I was blatantly told no, our job was to help people, not give them PTSD...)


----------



## Weinie

Good2Golf said:


> Hunh? 10-15 years isn’t a “couple of generations…”


It is in Amherst, N.S. (teen pregnancy of Canada capital in the 70's)


----------



## Edward Campbell

CBH99 said:


> Firefighters are like the untouchable heroes of emergency services.
> 
> Police?  Nobody wants the police around until something horrible happens, then the police can't get there fast enough.
> 
> (_I personally love having the police around as a presence,  It tells would be shitheads to go ply their craft somewhere else.)_
> 
> EMS?   It felt like we were the red headed stepchildren of the 3 services.  People appreciated us, but not anywhere close to how much they loved the firefighters!
> 
> 
> ( I kept suggesting we should do a sexy calendar also, to boost our rep. I was blatantly told no, our job was to help people, not give them PTSD...)



I'm with you ... I'm 80 now, I don't need to be hassled. I like to go for a walk every day, along some city streets and through some parks and so on. Having a cop on her or his "beat" is always a comforting thing because there are some odd people (not just me ) out there and some of them can be a bit of a bother.

A tip of the hat to all LEOs.


----------



## mariomike

CBH99 said:


> Firefighters are like the untouchable heroes of emergency services.



In our town, there were 790 paramedics, and  >3200 firefighters.

We gave our taxpayers the best customer service we could. I am sure our firefighters , and police, did as well.


----------



## Prairie canuck

> "Conclusion: Canadians are retarded."


Now there's a statement that will get the public on your side. FFS.
The Canadian public only know what they're told. If you want them on your side then stop insulting them and start educating them.


----------



## mariomike

Prairie canuck said:


> Now there's a statement that will get the public on your side. FFS.
> The Canadian public only know what they're told. If you want them on your side then stop insulting them and start educating them.



I never understood the need to insult taxpayers.  They are the people needed to vote for salary and benefits etc.


----------



## Quirky

Prairie canuck said:


> If you want them on your side then stop insulting them and start educating them.



Bullshit. Most of the opinions formed by Canadians are because of ignorance and laziness who vote for politicians based on the color of their socks and how pretty they are. Canadians are ultimately stupid and don't care, nor care to educate themselves, about things beyond their borders, or in this case, the state of their military. Ignorance is not an excuse.


----------



## GK .Dundas

Screaming at people and telling them that they're Morons at the top of your lungs. That  should do the trick. 
_Sigh_ The charm school just took your money and ran. Didn't they ?
Personally I suspect educating the public might require a slightly different approach to.be successful.


----------



## Prairie canuck

Quirky said:


> Bullshit. Most of the opinions formed by Canadians are because of ignorance and laziness who vote for politicians based on the color of their socks and how pretty they are. Canadians are ultimately stupid and don't care, nor care to educate themselves, about things beyond their borders, or in this case, the state of their military. Ignorance is not an excuse.


The guy with the coloured socks and all his friends have done a much better job selling their kool-aid then you are.
You have a point that people don't care to educate themselves on the military but how many people have you won over by taking the tact you have? People only know what the media tells them unfortunately and if you're not getting your message to the media you're not going to educate people to why the CAF is necessary. All the armchair bitching and insulting will only alienate the public even more. I've mentioned before that every single time a CAF rep is in front of the camera no matter the rank the message should start and end with "our job is to kill people and break things". Hillier, with all his faults, was spot on with his message.


----------



## mariomike

GK .Dundas said:


> Screaming at people and telling them that they're Morons at the top of your lungs. That  should do the trick.
> _Sigh_ The charm school just took your money and ran. Didn't they ?
> Personally I suspect educating the public might require a slightly different approach to.be successful.


Right.

Deeds speak louder than words.


----------



## CBH99

Prairie canuck said:


> The guy with the coloured socks and all his friends have done a much better job selling their kool-aid then you are.
> You have a point that people don't care to educate themselves on the military but how many people have you won over by taking the tact you have? People only know what the media tells them unfortunately and if you're not getting your message to the media you're not going to educate people to why the CAF is necessary. All the armchair bitching and insulting will only alienate the public even more. I've mentioned before that every single time a CAF rep is in front of the camera no matter the rank the message should start and end with "our job if to kill people and break things". Hillier, with all his faults, was spot on with his message.


Damnit PrairieCanuck… I both agree with part of what you said, and disagree with the other part.  A very audible “eeeeehhhhh…” while flat hand waving from side to side, on this end. 

On the one hand, I do happen to agree with


mariomike said:


> In our town, there were 790 paramedics, and  >3200 firefighters.
> 
> We gave our taxpayers the best customer service we could. I am sure our firefighters , and police, did as well.


Oh wow, here in Alberta we seem to have the opposite trend.  Firefighters are the smallest of the services, with EMS having more units on the road.  

(In an ambulance we run 2-person crews, but when a firetruck shows up it always seems to have 6 or 7 folks, so who knows.  I could very well be wrong about the above.

But you are far more likely to see an ambulance than a fire truck, if you’re out driving around looking for emergency vehicles.


----------



## KevinB

CBH99 said:


> Damnit PrairieCanuck… I both agree with part of what you said, and disagree with the other part.  A very audible “eeeeehhhhh…” while flat hand waving from side to side, on this end.
> 
> On the one hand, I do happen to agree with
> 
> Oh wow, here in Alberta we seem to have the opposite trend.  Firefighters are the smallest of the services, with EMS having more units on the road.
> 
> (In an ambulance we run 2-person crews, but when a firetruck shows up it always seems to have 6 or 7 folks, so who knows.  I could very well be wrong about the above.
> 
> But you are far more likely to see an ambulance than a fire truck, if you’re out driving around looking for emergency vehicles.


That’s because the firefighters are snoozing so they are well rested for their second job…


----------



## foresterab

CBH99 said:


> Damnit PrairieCanuck… I both agree with part of what you said, and disagree with the other part.  A very audible “eeeeehhhhh…” while flat hand waving from side to side, on this end.
> 
> On the one hand, I do happen to agree with
> 
> Oh wow, here in Alberta we seem to have the opposite trend.  Firefighters are the smallest of the services, with EMS having more units on the road.
> 
> (In an ambulance we run 2-person crews, but when a firetruck shows up it always seems to have 6 or 7 folks, so who knows.  I could very well be wrong about the above.
> 
> But you are far more likely to see an ambulance than a fire truck, if you’re out driving around looking for emergency vehicles.


Part of this is I think tied back to how much time are units moving around (i.e. patient delivery) vs. surging to a response.  I see lots of police and occasionally ambulances around...but the local fire department is double to triple their manpower and that's before the municipal guys are added in.   But it's tough if you're only seeing volunteer firefighters vs. RCMP vs. EMS units who all operate different missions, have different areas to cover, and have different levels of back up.     Locally the FD does a ton of EMS calls due to ambulance shortages but it's also a matter of the 911 dispatch as to how many other agencies drop and run for the incident.


----------



## CBH99

mariomike said:


> In our town, there were 790 paramedics, and  >3200 firefighters.
> 
> We gave our taxpayers the best customer service we could. I am sure our firefighters , and police, did as well.


Oh wow.  

Here in Alberta, we seem to have the opposite trend.  I don’t have any data infront of me at the moment, but EMS is constantly hiring throughout the province.  

Getting on as a firefighter?  Your chances are slim…


A few ago I called Calgary Fire Department  recruiting, and was told they weren’t hiring any that year, and were hiring _maybe_ 3 to 5 the following year.  (About 3000 applicants)


----------



## CBH99

KevinB said:


> That’s because the firefighters are snoozing so they are well rested for their second job…


You are 1000% ain’t lying 🤣


----------



## Furniture

Prairie canuck said:


> The guy with the coloured socks and all his friends have done a much better job selling their kool-aid then you are.
> You have a point that people don't care to educate themselves on the military but how many people have you won over by taking the tact you have? People only know what the media tells them unfortunately and if you're not getting your message to the media you're not going to educate people to why the CAF is necessary. All the armchair bitching and insulting will only alienate the public even more. I've mentioned before that every single time a CAF rep is in front of the camera no matter the rank the message should start and end with "our job is to kill people and break things". Hillier, with all his faults, was spot on with his message.


The CAF puts out press releases, and operational updates all the time, the media doesn't cover them because the media doesn't care. 

Until the media, and the politicians start acting like adults, and treating defence/security as a serious issue there is nothing the CAF can do to make a bigger splash.


----------



## dapaterson

KevinB said:


> That’s because the firefighters are snoozing so they are well rested for their second job…


Firefighters: the only people asleep on the job more than NDHQ staff...


----------



## CBH99

Prairie canuck said:


> The guy with the coloured socks and all his friends have done a much better job selling their kool-aid then you are.
> You have a point that people don't care to educate themselves on the military but how many people have you won over by taking the tact you have? People only know what the media tells them unfortunately and if you're not getting your message to the media you're not going to educate people to why the CAF is necessary. All the armchair bitching and insulting will only alienate the public even more. I've mentioned before that every single time a CAF rep is in front of the camera no matter the rank the message should start and end with "our job is to kill people and break things". Hillier, with all his faults, was spot on with his message.


I both agree & disagree with you here PrairieCanuck…

On the one had, I agree with what you say near the end, re members making a point of reminding people of what an Army/Navy/Air Force traditionally does.  The military needs to be blunt about its basic job - and that is to kill our enemies & break their stuff.  

There is no reason one reporter should be blown away that the military’s basic function is combatting our enemies either in the offence or defence.  Nor another reporter asking what a door gun is for…


Which leads me to the point I do respectfully disagree with you on…  

If I had to lean towards either Canadians ARE retarded, or Canadians AREN’T retarded… when it comes to military matters in global affairs, I have to lean towards the retarded camp as well.  Maybe even utterly retarded.  

No telling them that win them over?  Probably not.  

Is this something they need to have brought to their attention from time to time when a situation demands it?  I believe so, yes.  


My original point is that in today’s age with smartphones & internet access, people do choose to be ignorant of these things.  (In my opinion anyway)


----------



## mariomike

CBH99 said:


> Here in Alberta, we seem to have the opposite trend.  I don’t have any data infront of me at the moment, but EMS is constantly hiring throughout the province.


Paramedicine is provincially regulated. Requirements and issue of a licence to practice are set by the individual regulators.
They say if you know one service, that's what you know. One service.
Other than what I read on here, I'm only familiar with emergecny operations in one province - and only 240 sq. miles within it.

I don't know what the qualifications to apply are in Alberta, but If you are interested in comparing them with Toronto.









						Paramedic Jobs
					

Career Opportunities Recruitment for 2023 is open until November 28th, 2022 Career Opportunities Toronto Paramedic Services is now accepting applications for full-time Primary Care Paramedics (Paramedic Level 1). Apply Here Information about applying at the City of Toronto Please do not email or...




					www.toronto.ca
				







KevinB said:


> That’s because the firefighters are snoozing so they are well rested for their second job…



Ours do 24-hour tours, so they have dormitories.


----------



## KevinB

mariomike said:


> Paramedicine is provincially regulated. Requirements and issue of a licence to practice are set by the individual regulators.
> They say if you know one service, that's what you know. One service.
> Other than what I read on here, I'm only familiar with emergecny operations in one province - and only 240 sq. miles within it.
> 
> I don't know what the paramedic qualifications are in Alberta, but If you are interested in comparing them with Toronto.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paramedic Jobs
> 
> 
> Career Opportunities Recruitment for 2023 is open until November 28th, 2022 Career Opportunities Toronto Paramedic Services is now accepting applications for full-time Primary Care Paramedics (Paramedic Level 1). Apply Here Information about applying at the City of Toronto Please do not email or...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.toronto.ca
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ours work 24-hour tours, so they have dormitories.


I think you missed the quotes on ‘work’  
 * I love to take the piss out of Firemen, because they have a job that has exceptionally intense periods with lots and lots of downtime when not on call.


----------



## Quirky

GK .Dundas said:


> Screaming at people and telling them that they're Morons at the top of your lungs. That  should do the trick.
> _Sigh_ The charm school just took your money and ran. Didn't they ?
> Personally I suspect educating the public might require a slightly different approach to.be successful.



Who is screaming? Try this: next time you get pulled over for a traffic violation, tell the cop you didn't know of X rule, see if they'll redact the ticket because you were ignorant. When the next natural disaster or world conflict hits, the CAF needs to let the phone go to answering machine. Sorry, the cookie jar is empty.


----------



## kev994

Quirky said:


> Who is screaming? Try this: next time you get pulled over for a traffic violation, tell the cop you didn't know of X rule, see if they'll redact the ticket because you were ignorant. When the next natural disaster or world conflict hits, the CAF needs to let the phone go to answering machine. Sorry, the cookie jar is empty.


I don’t think ‘not responding’ is going to improve public opinion.  YMMV.


----------



## QV

Prairie canuck said:


> The guy with the coloured socks and all his friends have done a much better job selling their kool-aid then you are.
> You have a point that people don't care to educate themselves on the military but how many people have you won over by taking the tact you have? People only know what the media tells them unfortunately and if you're not getting your message to the media you're not going to educate people to why the CAF is necessary. All the armchair bitching and insulting will only alienate the public even more. I've mentioned before that every single time a CAF rep is in front of the camera no matter the rank the message should start and end with "our job is to kill people and break things". Hillier, with all his faults, was spot on with his message.


Is it a coincidence the coloured sock guy‘s success has to do with having the country’s biggest PR firm and media in his pocket?


----------



## Edward Campbell

A couple of points:

First: *don't blame Justin Trudeau*. He's just doing what most Canadians have wanted done for the past half century. 

Political parties, Conservative, Liberal and NDP and all the others poll assiduously, and they ask good questions, too, because they really do want to know what Canadians think. Why do you think that Pierre Poilievre doesn't talk a lot about doubling the defence budget and getting serious abut global peace and security? The answer is because CPC pollsters have heard, loud and clear, from Canadians, that it is NOT an issue. Support for increased national defence is on about the same level as support for more symphony orchestras and ballet companies and increased MPs' pensions.​​It doesn't matter why Canadians think that way; the simple fact is that they do ... and they have done since before 1970.​​In the last 1940s Louis St Laurent gave a speech at the University of Toronto in which he laid out a plan for Canada to adopt a leadership role - politically, diplomatically, economically and militarily - in the world. It secured broad general public support for a number of reasons -​​1. We had just come out of a huge and costly war and most people understood that it could have been prevented by bold action;​2. Canada was looking forward to a fairly bright economic future; and​3. Although this was slightly after Kennan's 'long telegram,' St Laurent, himself, and many Canadian opinion makers - including the media - were now worried about Soviet aims and aggression.​​The Canadian Political Landscape was different in the late 1940s. Canadians had come out of the Great Depression and the Second World War is remarkably good form. The country was confident. Even though the Liberal Party was old and tired, St Laurent, who became prime minister in 1948, was popular with both the general public and the media and he seemed fresh and very, very able. That's all changed.​​It began to change in the mid 1960s. The welfare state was growing, world-wide. St Laurent had been a very cautious fiscal conservative and Canada was actually lagging behind many Western nations, including the USA and especially Scandinavia, in implementing a welfare state. Canadians wanted to spend less on defence and more own themselves.​​If you want to blame some it should be Pierre Trudeau, not his son, because he understood what Canadians wanted and he offered it to them, lock, stock and barrel.​
Second: *don't blame the media*. It, also, is just giving Canadians what they want.

The media is a consumer driven service. The media - print, TV, radio and the Internet - "sell" eyes and ears to advertisers. If the media doesn't give Canadians what they want to see, hear and read then they will look/listen elsewhere and advertisers will follow.​​Canadians are *uninterested* in defence, despite the War in Ukraine and despite the _Rise of China_ and so on for a whole bunch of reasons that others have mentioned but, mainly, because they have been led to believe that they live under the American security umbrella, even though many experts have explained that isn't true.​
If you want to blame someone, it needs to be someone like your spouse or your parents or your siblings or your neighbours. They all *expect *to have an efficient and effective military force but they don't want to spend any more than they do now - and preferably less - to get it.


----------



## Brad Sallows

Whatever support you think a person has for the CAF, it will likely diminish quickly as soon as he knows someone (with one or two degrees of separation) whose life is in jeopardy because timely medical care (mainly, diagnosis) was inaccessible.


----------



## btrudy

Furniture said:


> The CAF puts out press releases, and operational updates all the time, the media doesn't cover them because the media doesn't care.
> 
> Until the media, and the politicians start acting like adults, and treating defence/security as a serious issue there is nothing the CAF can do to make a bigger splash.



Which came first, the chicken or the egg? 

Does the public ignore military matters because the media doesn't cover it and politicians don't campaign on it, or do the media and the politicians not focus on it because the public doesn't care?

I would argue the latter. And honestly, I can't blame them. Canada is lucky, given that we're geographically removed from any reasonable threat; our only real neighbor (sorry Greenland, but you don't really count) is both our closest ally and the world's only remaining superpower. 

Sure, on paper our priorities are the defence of the country first, and all the other stuff we do comes later. But in actuality, in terms of what we actually do? Foreign policy through adventures abroad and domestic disaster relief. Because we don't actually have any existential threats knocking on our door. 

Unless the nukes start getting lobbed, in which case we don't really have anything to counter that anyways, so ... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Canada doesn't focus on national defence because Canada doesn't really need to focus on national defence. We could almost entirely drop the ball, and still be safe. We just wouldn't be able to exert as much influence abroad as we currently do. Which is again also something that Canadians aren't all that interested in.


----------



## Prairie canuck

CBH99 said:


> I both agree & disagree with you here PrairieCanuck…
> 
> On the one had, I agree with what you say near the end, re members making a point of reminding people of what an Army/Navy/Air Force traditionally does.  The military needs to be blunt about its basic job - and that is to kill our enemies & break their stuff.
> 
> There is no reason one reporter should be blown away that the military’s basic function is combatting our enemies either in the offence or defence.  Nor another reporter asking what a door gun is for…
> 
> 
> Which leads me to the point I do respectfully disagree with you on…
> 
> If I had to lean towards either Canadians ARE retarded, or Canadians AREN’T retarded… when it comes to military matters in global affairs, I have to lean towards the retarded camp as well.  Maybe even utterly retarded.
> 
> No telling them that win them over?  Probably not.
> 
> Is this something they need to have brought to their attention from time to time when a situation demands it?  I believe so, yes.
> 
> 
> My original point is that in today’s age with smartphones & internet access, people do choose to be ignorant of these things.  (In my opinion anyway)


Regardless of whether we think the public is listening or not the message has to be repeated at every opportunity. "two all beef patties special..etc etc"


----------



## Blackadder1916

CBH99 said:


> There is no reason one reporter should be blown away that the military’s basic function is combatting our enemies either in the offence or defence.  *Nor another reporter asking what a door gun is for…*



Not having seen the programs/reports that both these comments refer to, I don't know the level of naivety/stupidity that may have been evident, however I did have an experience with a reporter years ago that suggested there is sometimes a reason for the stupid question.

During the Gulf War (1991) my unit was deployed to Ramstein Air Base to support the Aeromedical Staging Facility (ASF) that was established there.  On an occasion that a reporter was visiting, I was "elected" to show him around and explain what we were doing.  While he was there, an evac flight from downrange had come in and he was able to observe the off-load out on the ramp.  As this was going on he kept asking me questions about what the ASF crew (Americans and Canadians) were doing.

There aren't a lot of ways to describe carrying stretchers off a C-141, so I got a little short with him and said something to the effect of  "you can see what they're doing, they lifting stretchers" insinuating that he was a bit thick.  He paused the recorder that he was using, turned to me and said "I know it sounds like I'm stupid, but I do radio.  If you want to tell the story, you have to paint the picture solely by your description.  I could describe what I'm seeing, but you're the expert here.  The audience could just as easily accept what I say at face value but you lend credence.  It's proof that what's happening is actually happening and the details of what your soldiers are doing, what is happening to the patients, where they've been, what you'll do for them and where they go from here all adds weight of the story."

I got with the program.  And on the few occasions since then that I've been interviewed (including once by Harry Belafonte, in Rwanda) I've used that lesson.


----------



## YZT580

btrudy said:


> Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
> 
> Does the public ignore military matters because the media doesn't cover it and politicians don't campaign on it, or do the media and the politicians not focus on it because the public doesn't care?
> 
> I would argue the latter. And honestly, I can't blame them. Canada is lucky, given that we're geographically removed from any reasonable threat; our only real neighbor (sorry Greenland, but you don't really count) is both our closest ally and the world's only remaining superpower.
> 
> Sure, on paper our priorities are the defence of the country first, and all the other stuff we do comes later. But in actuality, in terms of what we actually do? Foreign policy through adventures abroad and domestic disaster relief. Because we don't actually have any existential threats knocking on our door.
> 
> Unless the nukes start getting lobbed, in which case we don't really have anything to counter that anyways, so ... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
> 
> Canada doesn't focus on national defence because Canada doesn't really need to focus on national defence. We could almost entirely drop the ball, and still be safe. We just wouldn't be able to exert as much influence abroad as we currently do. Which is again also something that Canadians aren't all that interested in.


you are correct but our attitude can be found elsewhere in abundance.  Consider Germany.  they have allowed their military to be completely hollowed out as well and they have Russia right on their door step.  We collectively seem to think that all we have to do is talk it over and we will find a happy compromise without the mess of having a war.  Ukraine's main lesson is that compromise doesn't work.


----------



## OldSolduer

YZT580 said:


> Ukraine's main lesson is that compromise doesn't work.


We should have learned that from World War 2.  But lessons in history are soon forgotten because each new generation of political leadership thinks they can do it better.


----------



## CBH99

GK .Dundas said:


> Screaming at people and telling them that they're Morons at the top of your lungs. That  should do the trick.
> _Sigh_ The charm school just took your money and ran. Didn't they ?
> Personally I suspect educating the public might require a slightly different approach to.be successful.


Would it help if I whispered it softly?  🤨

Jk jk 

I don’t know how to educate the Canadian public when it comes to the importance of military matters.   

Our operations in Afghanistan were discussed nearly daily, or weekly, for roughly a decade.  And that isn’t even including the ramp ceremonies, or when the government sole sourced big contracts to acquire capabilities quickly.  Plus there were quite a few documentaries made, and monuments erected throughout the country.  

Also remember, we all had smart phones which could Google things then, too.  


Between that era, recent developments with us leading a tripwire brigade in Latvia, having trainers in Ukraine, having been quite involved in the SOF side with combating ISIS - plus domestic operations which have increasingly been discussed in the MSM…

If all of that hasn’t prompted Terry from Swift Current, SK to Google something relevant on his smartphone… I honestly don’t know what we could do to encourage or facilitate education.  


We need to be open to the possibility that there may, as suggested, be an abundant number of ‘low mental performance’ people in society…


----------



## Dana381

It's not so much that canadians don't care about our military. It's more that they think the CAF is a pathetic institution that has no budget and is full of toxic men that prey on women members. When something is perceived as bad people get uncomfortable try not to think about it.

Canadian media reports on the CAF whenever a juicy story comes along where they can spin it to make the CAF look stupid. When the C-17 was ordered the media was "this is was too expensive" when they should have been "wow look what this new plane can do" every CAF news story plays out the same.

Canadians are proud of our military accomplishments when they know about them. Look at the highway of heroes phenomenon. Has any other country had anything like it? When the C-17 was bought none of the people I talked too objected to it when I told them how good it is. They had only heard the media's side and thought it was a waste of money.

 Canadians want to be proud of the CAF but the media keeps them focused on social programs and gender issues. The GOC could turn around public perception of the CAF if they desired but then they would have to fund it better. It's far easier to let the media do its thing and use that money to buy votes with $10 day care.


----------



## btrudy

YZT580 said:


> you are correct but our attitude can be found elsewhere in abundance.  Consider Germany.  they have allowed their military to be completely hollowed out as well and they have Russia right on their door step.  We collectively seem to think that all we have to do is talk it over and we will find a happy compromise without the mess of having a war.  Ukraine's main lesson is that compromise doesn't work.



Consider Germany?  Actually assess the threat to Germany. Is Russia going to sweep thru Poland and invade Germany (obviously Belarus would let them pass)? No. They can't even take Ukraine, and that's right next door. 

Germany's not quite as isolated as we are from any current threats, but they're not in any imminent danger, due to having at least a bit of a buffer, and of course the whole "entirety of NATO backing them up". They, like us, largely can get away with needing to keep their forces strong enough to maintain NATO membership and to do whatever foreign policy stuff they want to do abroad. 

They don't actually need to hold off Russia single-handedly. 

And, of course, given Russia's performance this year, they probably could anyways.


----------



## Dana381

btrudy said:


> Consider Germany?  Actually assess the threat to Germany. Is Russia going to sweep thru Poland and invade Germany (obviously Belarus would let them pass)? No. They can't even take Ukraine, and that's right next door.
> 
> Germany's not quite as isolated as we are from any current threats, but they're not in any imminent danger, due to having at least a bit of a buffer, and of course the whole "entirety of NATO backing them up". They, like us, largely can get away with needing to keep their forces strong enough to maintain NATO membership and to do whatever foreign policy stuff they want to do abroad.
> 
> They don't actually need to hold off Russia single-handedly.
> 
> And, of course, given Russia's performance this year, they probably could anyways.



True but Germany didn't know how bad Russia was when they were letting their military be hollowed out. Russia surprised everyone at how bad they really are. 

Germany trusted Russia for almost all of their energy needs, you don't do that and arm against them at the same time.


----------



## btrudy

Dana381 said:


> True but Germany didn't know how bad Russia was when they were letting their military be hollowed out. Russia surprised everyone at how bad they really are.
> 
> Germany trusted Russia for almost all of their energy needs, you don't do that and arm against them at the same time.



Sure, because Germany didn't see Russia as a threat to themselves. 

Perhaps a threat to overall regional stability or peace, but not an existential threat. 

Did they just get lucky in that regard? I would argue no. Even the worst case scenario, back when we still thought Russia was big strong bear, Russia invading Germany just wasn't in the cards.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Dana381 said:


> True but Germany didn't know how bad Russia was when they were letting their military be hollowed out. Russia surprised everyone at how bad they really are.
> 
> Germany trusted Russia for almost all of their energy needs, you don't do that and arm against them at the same time.


I disagree - people closed their eyes and actively chose not to understand how bad Russia was.

Any individual with a brain, including Germans with a brain, who read/watched/understood the news knew that Russia and VVP were bad actors - simply look at how many ex-Russian spies were murdered or had attempted murder occur on UK soil, including their children, at how many Russian dissidents were murdered, jailed or 'fell' out of windows and the wars/annexations that occured in Chechnya, in Georgia, at the Moscow apartment bombings, etc, etc, etc.

People chose to close their eyes and say, 'it's not happening to me or my family or my friends and therefore is doesn't matter'.......


----------



## Dana381

Czech_pivo said:


> I disagree - people closed their eyes and actively chose not to understand how bad Russia was.
> 
> Any individual with a brain, including Germans with a brain, who read/watched/understood the news knew that Russia and VVP were bad actors - simply look at how many ex-Russian spies were murdered or had attempted murder occur on UK soil, including their children, at how many Russian dissidents were murdered, jailed or 'fell' out of windows and the wars/annexations that occured in Chechnya, in Georgia, at the Moscow apartment bombings, etc, etc, etc.
> 
> People chose to close their eyes and say, 'it's not happening to me or my family or my friends and therefore is doesn't matter'.......



To clarify I meant how unable the Russian military is. Your right everyone knew they were bad people. 

Sorry for the confusion. My choice of words could have been better.


----------



## KevinB

Dana381 said:


> To clarify I meant how unable the Russian military is. Your right everyone knew they were bad people.
> 
> Sorry for the confusion. My choice of words could have been better.


Unable isn’t a word I would use.  
   Let’s face it, they tried a high risk, high reward strategy at the beginning without any of the enablers.   That isn’t really an issue of the Russian Army, but the Command Guidance, and Intelligence they based it on.  

Secondly, they ran into the 2nd largest European Army, that was backed by western support.  

Russia could have rolled any other Army in Europe - and if they followed their standard  Russian doctrine with fires from the start would probably be in Lviv now.


----------



## Kirkhill

Edward Campbell said:


> A couple of points:
> 
> First: *don't blame Justin Trudeau*. He's just doing what most Canadians have wanted done for the past half century.
> 
> Political parties, Conservative, Liberal and NDP and all the others poll assiduously, and they ask good questions, too, because they really do want to know what Canadians think. Why do you think that Pierre Poilievre doesn't talk a lot about doubling the defence budget and getting serious abut global peace and security? The answer is because CPC pollsters have heard, loud and clear, from Canadians, that it is NOT an issue. Support for increased national defence is on about the same level as support for more symphony orchestras and ballet companies and increased MPs' pensions.​​It doesn't matter why Canadians think that way; the simple fact is that they do ... and they have done since before 1970.​​In the last 1940s Louis St Laurent gave a speech at the University of Toronto in which he laid out a plan for Canada to adopt a leadership role - politically, diplomatically, economically and militarily - in the world. It secured broad general public support for a number of reasons -​​1. We had just come out of a huge and costly war and most people understood that it could have been prevented by bold action;​2. Canada was looking forward to a fairly bright economic future; and​3. Although this was slightly after Kennan's 'long telegram,' St Laurent, himself, and many Canadian opinion makers - including the media - were now worried about Soviet aims and aggression.​​The Canadian Political Landscape was different in the late 1940s. Canadians had come out of the Great Depression and the Second World War is remarkably good form. The country was confident. Even though the Liberal Party was old and tired, St Laurent, who became prime minister in 1948, was popular with both the general public and the media and he seemed fresh and very, very able. That's all changed.​​It began to change in the mid 1960s. The welfare state was growing, world-wide. St Laurent had been a very cautious fiscal conservative and Canada was actually lagging behind many Western nations, including the USA and especially Scandinavia, in implementing a welfare state. Canadians wanted to spend less on defence and more own themselves.​​If you want to blame some it should be Pierre Trudeau, not his son, because he understood what Canadians wanted and he offered it to them, lock, stock and barrel.​
> Second: *don't blame the media*. It, also, is just giving Canadians what they want.
> 
> The media is a consumer driven service. The media - print, TV, radio and the Internet - "sell" eyes and ears to advertisers. If the media doesn't give Canadians what they want to see, hear and read then they will look/listen elsewhere and advertisers will follow.​​Canadians are *uninterested* in defence, despite the War in Ukraine and despite the _Rise of China_ and so on for a whole bunch of reasons that others have mentioned but, mainly, because they have been led to believe that they live under the American security umbrella, even though many experts have explained that isn't true.​
> If you want to blame someone, it needs to be someone like your spouse or your parents or your siblings or your neighbours. They all *expect *to have an efficient and effective military force but they don't want to spend any more than they do now - and preferably less - to get it.



The Public's Canadian Armed Forces


----------



## daftandbarmy

Kirkhill said:


> The Public's Canadian Armed Forces
> 
> View attachment 74059View attachment 74060View attachment 74061
> View attachment 74062View attachment 74063



You forgot headline grabbers like:

2021: A year of investigations into alleged military sexual misconduct​









						2021: A year of investigations into alleged military sexual misconduct
					

The Canadian military spent 2021 grappling with sexual misconduct investigations of its highest ranking members, deepening the call for a complete internal culture shift. CTVNews.ca has compiled a timeline of investigations launched by the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service (CFNIS)...



					www.ctvnews.ca


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Kirkhill said:


> The Public's Canadian Armed Forces
> 
> View attachment 74059View attachment 74060View attachment 74061
> View attachment 74062View attachment 74063


Perception vs Reality:


----------



## Kirkhill

btrudy said:


> Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
> 
> Does the public ignore military matters because the media doesn't cover it and politicians don't campaign on it, or do the media and the politicians not focus on it because the public doesn't care?
> 
> I would argue the latter. And honestly, I can't blame them. Canada is lucky, given that we're geographically removed from any reasonable threat; our only real neighbor (sorry Greenland, but you don't really count) is both our closest ally and the world's only remaining superpower.
> 
> Sure, on paper our priorities are the defence of the country first, and all the other stuff we do comes later. But in actuality, in terms of what we actually do? Foreign policy through adventures abroad and domestic disaster relief. Because we don't actually have any existential threats knocking on our door.
> 
> Unless the nukes start getting lobbed, in which case we don't really have anything to counter that anyways, so ... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
> 
> Canada doesn't focus on national defence because Canada doesn't really need to focus on national defence. We could almost entirely drop the ball, and still be safe. We just wouldn't be able to exert as much influence abroad as we currently do. Which is again also something that Canadians aren't all that interested in.




Greenland is more important to the US than Canada is.

Russia owns everything on the other side of the North Pole, from 168 W to 30 E.  

The US covers our left flank all the way up to the North Pole - Alaska.   It also covers our right flank all the way up to the North Pole - Greenland. The rest of the Right Flank is well covered by the UK, Norway and Denmark, with an assist from Iceland. Our portion of the front facing Russia is literally vanishingly small - the sole point of contact is the North Pole itself.


----------



## Kirkhill

Humphrey Bogart said:


> Perception vs Reality:



No argument here but....



			https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/medak-battle-soldiers-awarded-medal-1.302445
		


The Canadian Government, especially of the Liberal variety, is just as happy to deploy Secret Squirrels and the Silent Service.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Kirkhill said:


> No argument here but....
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/medak-battle-soldiers-awarded-medal-1.302445
> 
> 
> 
> The Canadian Government, especially of the Liberal variety, is just as happy to deploy Secret Squirrels and the Silent Service.


It doesn't even have to be secret squirrels.  There are things many people, on this board included, will never be allowed to talk about.

Some of these are stories that should be told and Canadians would be immensely proud if they knew but they never will.


----------



## Kilted

Kirkhill said:


> No argument here but....
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/medak-battle-soldiers-awarded-medal-1.302445
> 
> 
> 
> The Canadian Government, especially of the Liberal variety, is just as happy to deploy Secret Squirrels and the Silent Service.


That was just the Liberal government of the day being ashamed of our soldiers being soldiers.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Kilted said:


> That was just the Liberal government of the day being ashamed of our soldiers being soldiers.



Kind of like a CBC radio host who is shocked to hear a military is for killing people and breaking stuff.


----------



## GK .Dundas

I really doubt political party would have mattered. Even  the Medak pocket. Our politics dating back to the war of 1812 pretty much ment the response was all but preordained .
And yes, I am a cynic.


----------



## Kirkhill

GK .Dundas said:


> I really doubt political party would have mattered. Even  the Medak pocket. Our politics dating back to the war of 1812 pretty much ment the response was all but preordained .
> And yes, I am a cynic.



Harper of 2006 was one man.  Harper of 2011 was another.   Experience changes everyone.


----------



## OldSolduer

KevinB said:


> Russia could have rolled any other Army in Europe - and if they followed their standard  Russian doctrine with fires from the start would probably be in Lviv now.


Possibly if they had followed Soviet doctrine. Overwhelming artillery - the norm was 1 gun per metre of frontage on the main effort. I don't know if that was achievable but even 25% of that would have been down right uncomfortable.


----------



## lenaitch

CBH99 said:


> Firefighters are like the untouchable heroes of emergency services.
> 
> Police?  Nobody wants the police around until something horrible happens, then the police can't get there fast enough.
> 
> (I personally love having the police around as a presence,  It tells would be shitheads to go ply their craft somewhere else.)
> 
> EMS?   It felt like we were the red headed stepchildren of the 3 services.  People appreciated us, but not anywhere close to how much they loved the firefighters!
> 
> 
> ( I kept suggesting we should do a sexy calendar also, to boost our rep. I was blatantly told no, our job was to help people, not give them PTSD...)


You gotta start rescuing kittens from trees!

I understand what you are saying but I've never understood why that is.  Cops piss off a percentage of the population, but fire and EMS generally only make people happy.  

The calendar couldn't hurt.  Charity organizations affiliated with my former Service do one of their dogs and it is a major fundraiser.  Not sexy mind you (well, it might be for some people).


----------



## mariomike

lenaitch said:


> The calendar couldn't hurt.  Charity organizations affiliated with my former Service do one of their dogs and it is a major fundraiser.  Not sexy mind you (well, it might be for some people).



Our Fire dept. put out their beefcake calender. 
Our people wanted to put out a cheesecake calender. HR said no.

So they picked the best looking six guys, and  six girls , from a recruit class, and put out their calender. I think they let them undo one button on their shirt collar. But , that was all.


----------



## Brad Sallows

Sounds like calendars I saw in the UBC gift shop c. 1982.  "The Men of UBC" and "The Guys of UBC".  Intended for different consumers, I suppose.


----------



## FSTO

So for shits and giggles yesterday I tried to go see the local recruiting det in Regina. They are located in a GoC building in the downtown. The building houses passport Canada and a few other social services. I could see the CAF dressed mannequins in the little recruiting office but I could not get in because each door to get into the building are plastered with do not enter signs, go to other door signs, covid restrictions signs. It was just after 5 so the doors were locked, a gentleman was coming out so I asked when the doors get locked and he told me 4pm.

I again question why the Recruiting Det is inside an office building downtown that is only opened from 10 til 4.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Because it is cheap and convenient…for the Government of Canada.

Recruits are a secondary consideration.


----------



## MilEME09

FSTO said:


> So for shits and giggles yesterday I tried to go see the local recruiting det in Regina. They are located in a GoC building in the downtown. The building houses passport Canada and a few other social services. I could see the CAF dressed mannequins in the little recruiting office but I could not get in because each door to get into the building are plastered with do not enter signs, go to other door signs, covid restrictions signs. It was just after 5 so the doors were locked, a gentleman was coming out so I asked when the doors get locked and he told me 4pm.
> 
> I again question why the Recruiting Det is inside an office building downtown that is only opened from 10 til 4.


I did my application in 2009 online,  then recruiting center called me, but the process took 9 months. 7 months after my medical they called to say my vision was to poor for combat engineer  pick another trade. Picked weapons tech and was sworn in a month later.


----------



## MilEME09

New French ambassador calls us out, seems our allies are getting tired of our sh*t










						Navel-gazing Canada has neglected its military, new French ambassador says
					

The problem in part is that Canada has grown too reliant on the U.S. and its massive defence machine, the most costly in the world, he said




					nationalpost.com


----------



## rmc_wannabe

MilEME09 said:


> New French ambassador calls us out, seems our allies are getting tired of our sh*t
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Navel-gazing Canada has neglected its military, new French ambassador says
> 
> 
> The problem in part is that Canada has grown too reliant on the U.S. and its massive defence machine, the most costly in the world, he said
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nationalpost.com


That article was sobering to read. It's something we have been screaming about on this forum for a least 20 years. 

Hopefully our Francophile PM heeds the advice; then again, he doesn't listen to his own cabinet and other advisors, so I hold out little hope.


----------



## daftandbarmy

rmc_wannabe said:


> That article was sobering to read. It's something we have been screaming about on this forum for a least 20 years.
> 
> Hopefully our Francophile PM heeds the advice; then again, he doesn't listen to his own cabinet and other advisors, so I hold out little hope.



Well, he's just reflecting the (lack of) will of the people 


Canadians are in a sleepy state when it comes to their military according to a column earlier this summer by the CBC’s Murray Brewster, who reported on the results of a poll by the Earnscliffe Strategy Group.

The poll found that awareness of, and familiarity with, the Canadian Armed Forces was generally very low, and virtually non-existent among younger Canadians.

None of this should come as a surprise to those who study Canadian military history and civil-military relations in Canada.

About the only foreign war Canada has fought in the past 120 years that did not create significant political tensions for a Canadian government was the Korean War.

What is the main lesson the current government has learned from this history?

Hide the military as much as possible. That way there’s fewer political problems and national unity issues, no fierce debates about national apathy, no assertions of where Canadian interests lie or ought to lie. Instead, fall back on age-old slogans about protecting Canada and protecting North America, and helping out allies when called upon to do so — sometimes.

Fund just enough military to protect our sovereign borders, which are largely not threatened by anyone. That way we haven’t solved any military problems, but we have debated them away, which is just as good for most Canadians. And in the next election, there will be no military matters to worry about.









						Why Canadians pay little attention to their military
					

Canadians’ indifference to their military isn’t so surprising. Almost every military conflict has raised serious questions, and spurred divisive debate, about Canadian unity and independence.




					theconversation.com


----------



## Kirkhill

daftandbarmy said:


> Well, he's just reflecting the (lack of) will of the people
> 
> 
> Canadians are in a sleepy state when it comes to their military according to a column earlier this summer by the CBC’s Murray Brewster, who reported on the results of a poll by the Earnscliffe Strategy Group.
> 
> The poll found that awareness of, and familiarity with, the Canadian Armed Forces was generally very low, and virtually non-existent among younger Canadians.
> 
> None of this should come as a surprise to those who study Canadian military history and civil-military relations in Canada.
> 
> About the only foreign war Canada has fought in the past 120 years that did not create significant political tensions for a Canadian government was the Korean War.
> 
> What is the main lesson the current government has learned from this history?
> 
> Hide the military as much as possible. That way there’s fewer political problems and national unity issues, no fierce debates about national apathy, no assertions of where Canadian interests lie or ought to lie. Instead, fall back on age-old slogans about protecting Canada and protecting North America, and helping out allies when called upon to do so — sometimes.
> 
> Fund just enough military to protect our sovereign borders, which are largely not threatened by anyone. That way we haven’t solved any military problems, but we have debated them away, which is just as good for most Canadians. And in the next election, there will be no military matters to worry about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why Canadians pay little attention to their military
> 
> 
> Canadians’ indifference to their military isn’t so surprising. Almost every military conflict has raised serious questions, and spurred divisive debate, about Canadian unity and independence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theconversation.com




As Bercuson notes - this is no surprise.

So why does DND, the CAF and the Canadian Army act as if it is?   The expression is "to cut one's suit to suit the cloth".  Work with what you have and not what you wish to have.

The fact that Canada has so little available to offer the Ukrainians is as much the fault of the CAF and decisions taken at that level as it is the fault of the GOC.

In order to support requests for equipment we don't have and can't buy we deny ourselves equipment we don't have but could buy.


----------



## rmc_wannabe

Honestly, I truly believe it's being told "No" or "Yes, but...." enough times by the GoC that has bred a culture of apathy in Projects and DevCap.

It's less that we are always shooting high and getting upset when we don't get all the bells and whistles; it's more that we only ask when we have exhausted all other options, and then it's a "it's going g to cost how much?!" Response after going without for so long.

It's a lose lose situation: get told no when you're being proactive, and then being told it'll cost too much once you've rusted out the capability by kicking the can down the road. 

We reap what we sow


----------



## FJAG

Granatstein wrote "Who killed the Canadian Military" in 2004 and, while not a great book, accurately spelled out the failings of all the successive Canadian governments and the people in general for this issue. He also hinted that "Some of our generals also did their part in killing the Canadian Forces through bad judgement" but doesn't name names or incidents.

I'm not one of those who believes that Canada is purposefully hiding under the coat tails of the US and depending on them for continental defence. IMHO, Canadians simply don't believe that there are threats in the world that can harm us, period. We're simply too far away from where the problems are. Even worse, many believe that by being in defence alliances we're attracting unnecessary attention to ourselves and putting ourselves into adversarial positions with countries like Russia and China when they ordinarily wouldn't give a fig about us.

I think the Arctic, amongst other issues, will be a place of contention maybe ten or twenty years down the road with both those countries. Unfortunately that time frame is long past the next election cycle. Preparing for that should start now, but since a rearmament program would be a negative election issue, it will be left in abeyance. 

We're a Pollyanna country and will remain that way until someone slaps us upside the head.

$0.02

🍻


----------



## QV

I worry we’ll be so unprepared that when we’re slapped we won’t recover.


----------



## Ostrozac

OldSolduer said:


> Possibly if they had followed Soviet doctrine. Overwhelming artillery - the norm was 1 gun per metre of frontage on the main effort. I don't know if that was achievable but even 25% of that would have been down right uncomfortable.


Overwhelming artillery requires overwhelming supplies of ammo. Since the Soviet rail network existed, but was less than impressive, and horses don’t exactly cut it — I sometimes wonder how much of the famed Soviet Operational Art 1943-1945 was entirely reliant on lend lease trucks from Detroit — trucks that Soviet/Russian industry still struggles to produce and maintain at scale.

Russia might be losing in Ukraine simply because what they really needed was a lend lease agreement with Sinotruck.


----------



## YZT580

FJAG said:


> Granatstein wrote "Who killed the Canadian Military" in 2004 and, while not a great book, accurately spelled out the failings of all the successive Canadian governments and the people in general for this issue. He also hinted that "Some of our generals also did their part in killing the Canadian Forces through bad judgement" but doesn't name names or incidents.
> 
> I'm not one of those who believes that Canada is purposefully hiding under the coat tails of the US and depending on them for continental defence. IMHO, Canadians simply don't believe that there are threats in the world that can harm us, period. We're simply too far away from where the problems are. Even worse, many believe that by being in defence alliances we're attracting unnecessary attention to ourselves and putting ourselves into adversarial positions with countries like Russia and China when they ordinarily wouldn't give a fig about us.
> 
> I think the Arctic, amongst other issues, will be a place of contention maybe ten or twenty years down the road with both those countries. Unfortunately that time frame is long past the next election cycle. Preparing for that should start now, but since a rearmament program would be a negative election issue, it will be left in abeyance.
> 
> We're a Pollyanna country and will remain that way until someone slaps us upside the head.
> 
> $0.02
> 
> 🍻


wishful thinking but defense should be a joint effort by all major parties.  The governing party should set the budget and then give to a bi-partisan group to decide on allocation.  In my dream this would remove the necessity to support Bombardier or Airbus or Boeing for any particular purchase and avoid fiascos like the helicopter, SAR and pistol purchases.


----------



## OldSolduer

YZT580 said:


> wishful thinking but defense should be a joint effort by all major parties.  The governing party should set the budget and then give to a bi-partisan group to decide on allocation.  In my dream this would remove the necessity to support Bombardier or Airbus or Boeing for any particular purchase and avoid fiascos like the helicopter, SAR and pistol purchases.


I am glad you said "in my dream" because unless we face an existential threat this will not change for one millisecond. There is too much pandering and pleading with a spoilt child who keeps threatening to leave.


----------



## CBH99

OldSolduer said:


> I am glad you said "in my dream" because unless we face an existential threat this will not change for one millisecond. There is too much pandering and pleading with a spoilt child who keeps threatening to leave.


Who is the spoiled child who keeps threatening to leave?  

(Genuinely asking for clarity is all - I’m following the chat by scrolling up instead of scrolling down today.  Cracked screen life.)


----------



## McG

YZT580 said:


> wishful thinking but defense should be a joint effort by all major parties.


Realistically, shouldn’t the good of the country should be a joint effort by all parties? And if a subject is not a matter of what’s good for the country, does it even belong in Parliament? So everything worth Parlaiment’s time should be a joint venture?

… so our politicians are doing everything wrong as partisan politicking & point scoring always comes before anything in Parliament?!

Maybe there is something wrong with our system.


----------



## Kirkhill

McG said:


> Realistically, shouldn’t the good of the country should be a joint effort by all parties? And if a subject is not a matter of what’s good for the country, does it even belong in Parliament? So everything worth Parlaiment’s time should be a joint venture?
> 
> … so our politicians are doing everything wrong as partisan politicking & point scoring always comes before anything in Parliament?!
> 
> Maybe there is something wrong with our system.




I think you have to start from the premise that most people are trying to do the best they can.  And that includes politicians.

Many Canadians just can bring themselves to believe that there is a threat.  Some people just want to believe that people are good.  Others want to believe that this place is special and not like their homelands.  They want a refuge.  If Canada is a country like any other, and their problems are the same then why did they uproot themselves and come here?

A few years ago in an inappropriate setting I blurted out an inappropriate question and got an answer I was not expecting.  Having supper the conversation drifted and I ended up asking the hostess what she would do if her daughter were threatened and she, the hostess, had the means to kill her daughter's attacker.  Would she kill to save her daughter?  The answer was no.

There are some good people that just don't think the way I do.  And apparently I don't think the same way as a lot of you folks.

The need for guns is not more obvious to many than the need for butter.


----------



## CBH99

rmc_wannabe said:


> That article was sobering to read. It's something we have been screaming about on this forum for a least 20 years.
> 
> Hopefully our Francophile PM heeds the advice; then again, he doesn't listen to his own cabinet and other advisors, so I hold out little hope.


The guy didn’t listen to his own cabinet Minister about the whole SNC Lavalin scandal, re “accepting bribes to change the law so your buddies don’t get charged isn’t allowed…”

Or the “awarding a sole source contract for a Billion dollars to a charity your family just so happens to run, is again, not allowed…”


International embarrassment doesn’t seem to affect him either, ie dressing more Indian than people living in India.  

And it isn’t the first time Canada has been called out for being laggards when it comes to defense matters.  I wouldn’t bank on him being embarrassed into doing anything, because some people really just are an embarrassment.   


I disagree with him that Canada should be more involved in some places like Africa.  

I don’t like the comparison of then & now when it comes to the UN…yes we used to have 3,300 assigned to missions compared with some token assignments now.  

But that doesn’t acknowledge the troops we had on IMPACT, REASSURANCE, PODIUM - the rotational training for those troops also - plus the RCAF being extremely active in NATO roles, flying supplies to various places worldwide, SAR, and forward deployed aircraft to support our Ukraine efforts as well as UN efforts in Africa.  


Overall though, I do agree with the French ambassador’s broader point.  He isn’t wrong.


----------



## FJAG

YZT580 said:


> defense should be a joint effort by all major parties.


Does "major party" include the NDP?


----------



## Kirkhill

FJAG said:


> Does "major party" include the NDP?


Yup.   Has to.  They're Canucks as well.


----------



## MarkOttawa

CBH99 said:


> The guy didn’t listen to his own cabinet Minister about the whole SNC Lavalin scandal, re “accepting bribes to change the law so your buddies don’t get charged isn’t allowed…”
> 
> Or the “awarding a sole source contract for a Billion dollars to a charity your family just so happens to run, is again, not allowed…”
> 
> 
> International embarrassment doesn’t seem to affect him either, ie dressing more Indian than people living in India.
> 
> And it isn’t the first time Canada has been called out for being laggards when it comes to defense matters.  I wouldn’t bank on him being embarrassed into doing anything, because some people really just are an embarrassment.
> 
> 
> I disagree with him that Canada should be more involved in some places like Africa.
> 
> I don’t like the comparison of then & now when it comes to the UN…yes we used to have 3,300 assigned to missions compared with some token assignments now.
> 
> But that doesn’t acknowledge the troops we had on IMPACT, REASSURANCE, PODIUM - the rotational training for those troops also - plus the RCAF being extremely active in NATO roles, flying supplies to various places worldwide, SAR, and forward deployed aircraft to support our Ukraine efforts as well as UN efforts in Africa.
> 
> 
> Overall though, I do agree with the French ambassador’s broader point.  He isn’t wrong.



Meanwhile, sounds like the CDS is close to despair--CP story:



> *Defence chief  calls on Canadians to rally behind military during personnel crisis*





> Lee Berthiaume





> The commander of the Canadian Armed Forces is calling on the country to rally behind its military as it faces an unprecedented personnel crisis that he says is threatening its ability to protect and defend Canada.





> “We’re here to defend our way of life, now and into the future,” chief of the defence staff Gen. Wayne Eyre said. “So we need a whole-of-society effort to help us bring the Armed Forces back to where it needs to be for the dangerous world ahead.”





> The extraordinary appeal comes as Eyre and his subordinates are struggling to fill around 10,000 empty positions at a time when Canada’s military is facing a growing number of threats and requests for help at home and abroad.





> Earlier this month, the defence chief issued an order setting a new direction for the military after years of high-tempo deployments and operations, making recruitment and retention of personnel its top priority…





> Defence chief calls on Canadians to rally behind military during personnel crisis
> 
> 
> The commander of the Canadian Armed Forces is calling on the country to rally behind its military as it faces an unprecedented personnel crisis that he says is threatening its ability to protect and defend Canada.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cp24.com



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## lenaitch

CBH99 said:


> The guy didn’t listen to his own cabinet Minister about the whole SNC Lavalin scandal, re “accepting bribes to change the law so your buddies don’t get charged isn’t allowed…”
> 
> Or the “awarding a sole source contract for a Billion dollars to a charity your family just so happens to run, is again, not allowed…”
> 
> 
> International embarrassment doesn’t seem to affect him either, ie dressing more Indian than people living in India.
> 
> And it isn’t the first time Canada has been called out for being laggards when it comes to defense matters.  I wouldn’t bank on him being embarrassed into doing anything, because some people really just are an embarrassment.
> 
> 
> I disagree with him that Canada should be more involved in some places like Africa.
> 
> I don’t like the comparison of then & now when it comes to the UN…yes we used to have 3,300 assigned to missions compared with some token assignments now.
> 
> But that doesn’t acknowledge the troops we had on IMPACT, REASSURANCE, PODIUM - the rotational training for those troops also - plus the RCAF being extremely active in NATO roles, flying supplies to various places worldwide, SAR, and forward deployed aircraft to support our Ukraine efforts as well as UN efforts in Africa.
> 
> 
> Overall though, I do agree with the French ambassador’s broader point.  He isn’t wrong.


The answer from the majority of Canadians to the question 'do you want money spent on defence or dental care' would tell us where politicians will place CAF funding on the priority list.

Pearsonian peacekeeping involved two at least somewhat legitimate governments at least somewhat agreeing to the presence of the contingent.  I would ask those who wish to return to those days where such conditions exist today.


----------



## quadrapiper

lenaitch said:


> The answer from the majority of Canadians to the question 'do you want money spent on defence or dental care' would tell us where politicians will place CAF funding on the priority list.
> 
> Pearsonian peacekeeping involved two at least somewhat legitimate governments at least somewhat agreeing to the presence of the contingent.  I would ask those who wish to return to those days where such conditions exist today.


Especially with an understanding that the peacekeepers won't be involved in combat on a regular basis. Wouldn't be surprised if there's a few countries who've got armed problems beyond their own capability to get rid of who'd be quite happy with a Canadian force getting stuck in.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

MarkOttawa said:


> Meanwhile, sounds like the CDS is close to despair--CP story:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa


Maybe they should stop throwing people out for refusing the vaccine, then allowing recruits to join without vaccinations. For want of a charge, we lose skilled, dedicated soldiers. If the soldiers win on appeal, all the better.


----------



## Kirkhill

quadrapiper said:


> Especially with an understanding that the peacekeepers won't be involved in combat on a regular basis. Wouldn't be surprised if there's a few countries who've got armed problems beyond their own capability to get rid of who'd be quite happy with a Canadian force getting stuck in.



But they won't be wanting rifles and bayonets, or even truck drivers for that matter.   They want somebody to bring them all the stuff they can't afford and help them use it effectively.


----------



## JLB50

It seems hardly anyone talks about patriotism and serving one’s country.  My formative years were spent in the U.S. where the mindset was that, for the most part, it was a duty and an honour to serve in one of the branches following graduation from either high school or university.  And then along came the Vietnam war which muddied the issue considerably.  Still large numbers of (mostly) men were willing to do what it takes to defend their country’s values, even if those values were sometimes misplaced.

Yes, I know Canada is not the same as the U.S. and has a much smaller population and economy, etc., etc.  But Canada did at least still have a respectable military following the War…we also had a decent military/industrial sector.  I think it was in 1962-63, around the time of the Cuban Missile Crisis that Canada had approximately125,000 in uniform. Consider Canada’s population at the time, which was almost 19 million, half of what it is today.  Mind you that was before we had the huge expense of health care.  

Regardless, Canada today can afford, or should I say cannot afford to NOT have a larger more powerful military.  While in many ways I am a bit left of centre politically (especially the environment) I feel that too many people are ashamed to say that they want a stronger military.  Maybe they think they will be considered warmongers for doing so.  For one thing the media has long presented the military in a mostly bad light.  Seeing reports from Afghanistan showing blood that is actually red rather than fading into the background black and white of WW2 newscasts can have a very sobering  effect on a person.  Also, the tragic events in Somalia as well as sexual harassment issues of today has scared many away from supporting our military.  

In summary it’s all to easy for politicians to hide behind public perceptions as a reason to avoid pushing patriotism and increasing spending on our military.  Unfortunately, Canada seems to have ignored the lessons of history just as Neville Chamberlain and his ilk in the U.K and France sought to appease Hitler.  If they had stood up to him earlier in the mid 1930s the German high command had been willing to topple him from power.  

While Russia’s military invasion of Ukraine has shown their incompetence in many ways, they are still a force to be reckoned with even if it’s due to their having a huge atomic weapons stockpile (some of which may actually work).  However, the bigger threat is China with it’s huge military and mostly new weapons.  On top of that, China considers itself a near-arctic nation and is building huge icebreakers to accomplish its agenda.  They have a fleet of several thousand fishing vessels that travel en masse to the “disputed” fishing waters of other countries such as  the Philippines, Vietnam and Chile quickly deplete the fish in those waters before moving on to the next fertile fishing ground.  And in many cases they are backing up their economic imperialism with military protection.

Together, China and a weakened Russia (with huge energy reserves)  are a threat unlike anything we have seen since the 1930s and possibly even more so.  We cannot leave military preparedness only to the U.S., Britain and Australia. Those who support the military need to amplify their voices to ensure that the Canadian public is truly aware of what is happening and that Canada is woefully unprepared for a major war. 

My wife recently lost a dear cousin who had been in the RCAF not too many years ago.  A few years ago he ending up getting a mole on his nose which grew and looked threatening, and those who loved him urged him to go to a doctor and get it looked at.  As it turns out it was melanoma and while the surgeon was able to successfully remove it, he ended up having cancer in his lungs.  He passed away a very short time later.  The reason I mention him is that he more or less hoped the problem would go away but it didn’t.  Similarly, the problems of China and Russia are not going to go away because we wish them to.

Anyway, I hope I have been on topic and haven’t bored you folks half to death.


----------



## Quirky

Fishbone Jones said:


> Maybe they should stop throwing people out for refusing the vaccine, then allowing recruits to join without vaccinations. For want of a charge, we lose skilled, dedicated soldiers.



Screw them, they made these idiotic policies, let the entire CAF collapse along with any sort of national defence we have left. We’re a large green welfare machine now.


----------



## markppcli

Fishbone Jones said:


> Maybe they should stop throwing people out for refusing the vaccine, then allowing recruits to join without vaccinations. For want of a charge, we lose skilled, dedicated soldiers. If the soldiers win on appeal, all the better.


All ten of them? Also we aren’t letting anyone into BMQ, as far as I know, without vaccinations. Either way the numbers are so small that it’s a nil effect; plus those guys wouldn’t be able to deploy anyways so who cares ?


----------



## daftandbarmy

Makes sense, based on our (messed up) national priorities


----------



## lenaitch

quadrapiper said:


> Especially with an understanding that the peacekeepers won't be involved in combat on a regular basis. Wouldn't be surprised if there's *a few countries who've got armed problems beyond their own capability* to get rid of who'd be quite happy with a Canadian force getting stuck in.


There are several places with a (sort of) legitimate government with an internal insurrection problem, but that is a domestic issue.  A far cry from two countries arguing over common turf like Cyprus or the Golan Heights.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Jump into the British Gurkha recruiting program, they get first pick, we get second. Solider does 10 years and can get his citizenship and direct spouse/kids/parents PR status. That can give us a whole other battalion of infantry. Also let that battalion select it's officers from the Canadian Army, with a 6 month probation for the officer and then they are voted upon to see if they can stay, similar how the interwar Indian Army did it.
I be happy to have Gurkha's as neighbours.


----------



## YZT580

FJAG said:


> Does "major party" include the NDP?


only if they agree that a properly equipped and manned armed forces is an unwanted but extremely necessary fact of life.


----------



## dapaterson

The CAF does not need more full time infantry.

The traditional solution to recruiting problems is to declare success by bringing in excess infantry and MSE Ops and other easy to recruit trades, and continuing to ignore the difficult ones.


----------



## rmc_wannabe

dapaterson said:


> The CAF does not need more full time infantry.


What the CAF does need is a clear set of priorities, a definition of capabilites needed to support those priorities, and the room to maneuver to seek out and acquire those capabilities with minimal political and burecratic interference. We can assign people to trades based on what it is we need most to employ those capabilities and achieve tasks given within out priorities.

Until those things happen, we're doing the status quo with more flailing


----------



## FJAG

Maybe it's time to let the Navy press gangs start touring the local alehouses again.


----------



## Lumber

The war in Ukraine has both changed the international order and revealed many unknowns about what a modern peer on peer war would look like. All of NATO, not just Canada, needs to take a good hard look at what we really need, then collectively release new white papers. Until then, we're just spending money for the sake of hitting unqualified targets and buying votes.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

FJAG said:


> Maybe it's time to let the Navy press gangs start touring the local alehouses again.


Hmmmm, is he serious?🤔

Does it matter?🫡


----------



## Kirkhill

The one thing I take from the current unpleasantness is that dispersion is a fact of life.  A low density battle field.

It may be possible to form up an armoured division on a narrow front.  Let's say it survives the attack.  Even if if does it will still only be exploiting a short distance on a narrow front.   It has the potential to win a battle.  I doubt if it is a war winner.

We have been worrying about the Cold War Soviet Army even as publicly available open source intelligence from people like the Swedes were informing us that Fronts were now Brigades, that tanks were rusted out and that ships, subs and planes hadn't been updated since the 1970s.

The only WW3 vestige left is the nuclear threat - also of 1970s technology.

Even the Chinese PLA - is going to be hard pressed to maintain internal order, defend their borders and launch an invasion of Taiwan.

The good news is that nobody has enough soldiers to go around.


----------



## CBH99

Kirkhill said:


> The one thing I take from the current unpleasantness is that dispersion is a fact of life.  A low density battle field.
> 
> It may be possible to form up an armoured division on a narrow front.  Let's say it survives the attack.  Even if if does it will still only be exploiting a short distance on a narrow front.   It has the potential to win a battle.  I doubt if it is a war winner.
> 
> We have been worrying about the Cold War Soviet Army even as publicly available open source intelligence from people like the Swedes were informing us that Fronts were now Brigades, that tanks were rusted out and that ships, subs and planes hadn't been updated since the 1970s.
> 
> The only WW3 vestige left is the nuclear threat - also of 1970s technology.
> 
> Even the Chinese PLA - is going to be hard pressed to maintain internal order, defend their borders and launch an invasion of Taiwan.
> 
> The good news is that nobody has enough soldiers to go around.


I suppose that is good news.  Really good news in the grande scheme of things.  


Russia did pop back up on the radar after relatively falling off of it after the Cold War.  

Somewhat normalized relations turned more tense again, and we imagined the Russians being able to plow through 3 whole countries before NATO could mobilize & stop them.  Turns out they couldn’t make it halfway across 1 country that, while not a NATO member, took seriously their ability to defend themselves. 

Now the Russian conventional threat is pretty much gone.  (Which makes things safer but also more dangerous.)


So now the focus can go back to China… maybe it’s a good thing we’re going through the personnel shortage _now_ … and not a decade from now?


----------



## GR66

CBH99 said:


> So now the focus can go back to China… maybe it’s a good thing we’re going through the personnel shortage _now_ … and not a decade from now?


What makes you think we won't continue to have a personnel shortage a decade from now?

Some of the recruiting/retention issues may be internal (bad media in recent years, painfully slow recruitment processes, management issues impacting retention, crappy equipment, etc.) but the main reason we're short of people in the military is that the majority of Canadians either don't feel the need for a large military or have the desire to be in the military.  Are we expecting that to radically change in the next ten years?

And realistically with personnel costs being a big portion of the defence budget won't growing the military potentially have the perverse effect of cutting into the budget required to recapitalize our rusting out/missing equipment?  Of course a larger defence budget could help with that, but does anyone here really see that happening?

Maybe it's time to accept that we are highly unlikely to grow the size of the CAF...not just due to lack of money, but also due to a lack of interested people.  We need to take a serious look at where we can cut the fat and overhead in the CAF and move those PYs saved into those positions (both front line and support) that make the CAF militarily effective.  We need to look at ways to make the Reserves (even if just a portion of them) more capable of relieving some of the staffing pressure on the Reg Force.  

And maybe we need to take a serious look at how we choose to structure our forces in a way that makes the best use of the PYs we do have available.  We're lucky as being effectively an island state that the bulk of our military commitments are optional.  We don't face the realistic threat of a conventional land invasion so that gives us some pretty wide discretion as to the types of forces we can choose to have.  For example, would a Fires Brigade require less personnel than a LAV Brigade?  An AD Battalion less personnel than an Armoured Recce/Cavalry Regiment?  A submarine less than a CSC?  etc.


----------



## FJAG

On the other hand we might just be back in a conventional arms race.



> Xi calls for China military growth at Communist Party Congress​
> 
> 
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/china-communist-party-congress-xi-jinping-1.6618336





> Army (PLA) into a “world-class military,” pledging to improve the PLA’s ability to safeguard national sovereignty and build strategic deterrence. He also urged the PLA to strengthen its training and improve its “ability to win.”
> 
> Xi’s speech was peppered with the Chinese term for “security” — which was mentioned about 50 times. He called national security the “foundation of the rejuvenation of the Chinese nation,” and urged enhancing security in military, economy and “all aspects,” both at home and abroad.





> China's Xi opens Party Congress with speech tackling Taiwan, Hong Kong and zero-Covid | CNN
> 
> 
> Chinese leader Xi Jinping on Sunday vowed to steer China through grave challenges toward national rejuvenation, advancing a nationalistic vision that has put it on a collision path with the West.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cnn.com





> “The rejuvenation of the Chinese nation is an irreversible, historical course,” he said to the more than 2,000 delegates attending the opening, held in the Great Hall of the People that overlooks Tiananmen Square in the centre of Beijing.
> 
> He called for accelerating military and technology development to propel this rejuvenation and said the People’s Liberation Army, the world’s second-largest military after the United States, needs to “safeguard China’s dignity and core interests”.
> 
> “We will work faster to modernise military theory, personnel and weapons,” Xi said in the nearly two hour speech, which was punctuated by brief bursts of applause from the masked delegates. “We will enhance the military’s strategic capabilities.”





> Xi vows to strengthen China’s military as Party Congress begins
> 
> 
> Chinese leader defends ‘zero-COVID’, lauds end of ‘chaos’ in Hong Kong and refuses to rule out force to take Taiwan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.aljazeera.com



China is wearing its plans to build an even stronger military on its sleeve.

And there should be no doubt that regardless of who ends up controlling Russia when all this is over, there will be a concentrated plan to rebuild the Russian conventional military. 

And, let's face it, the plan to rebuild the Canadian military is long, long overdue.

It might not be a real peace but in order to have a lasting period of no active war, deterrence matters: 



> _The gold standard of deterrence and assurance is a defensive posture that confronts the adversary with the prospect of operational failure as the likely consequence of aggression_.[1]
> 
> [1] Ochmanek, David _et al._ “U.S. Military Capabilities and Forces for a Dangerous World” _RAND Corp_ 2017 at p. 45 Rethinking the U.S. Approach to Force Planning



And as can be seen from Russia's incursion into the Ukraine, the ability to defend oneself needs to be clearly and obviously seen in order to prevent a miscalculation on the scale that Putin made.

🍻


----------



## Furniture

GR66 said:


> What makes you think we won't continue to have a personnel shortage a decade from now?
> 
> Some of the recruiting/retention issues may be internal (bad media in recent years, painfully slow recruitment processes, management issues impacting retention, crappy equipment, etc.) but the main reason we're short of people in the military is that the majority of Canadians either don't feel the need for a large military or have the desire to be in the military.  Are we expecting that to radically change in the next ten years?
> 
> And realistically with personnel costs being a big portion of the defence budget won't growing the military potentially have the perverse effect of cutting into the budget required to recapitalize our rusting out/missing equipment?  Of course a larger defence budget could help with that, but does anyone here really see that happening?
> 
> Maybe it's time to accept that we are highly unlikely to grow the size of the CAF...not just due to lack of money, but also due to a lack of interested people.  We need to take a serious look at where we can cut the fat and overhead in the CAF and move those PYs saved into those positions (both front line and support) that make the CAF militarily effective.  We need to look at ways to make the Reserves (even if just a portion of them) more capable of relieving some of the staffing pressure on the Reg Force.
> 
> And maybe we need to take a serious look at how we choose to structure our forces in a way that makes the best use of the PYs we do have available.  We're lucky as being effectively an island state that the bulk of our military commitments are optional.  We don't face the realistic threat of a conventional land invasion so that gives us some pretty wide discretion as to the types of forces we can choose to have.  For example, would a Fires Brigade require less personnel than a LAV Brigade?  An AD Battalion less personnel than an Armoured Recce/Cavalry Regiment?  A submarine less than a CSC?  etc.


The biggest problem with this sort of thinking is that it is why we are where we are right now. FRP in the 90s was about "doing more with less", after 20+ years of "doing more with less" we need to start looking at "doing less with more".


----------



## GR66

Furniture said:


> The biggest problem with this sort of thinking is that it is why we are where we are right now. FRP in the 90s was about "doing more with less", after 20+ years of "doing more with less" we need to start looking at "doing less with more".


Great.  The CAF is having trouble finding people to fill it's current positions.  Same is happening in the USA.  Where do you propose we get the people from to not only stabilize the current force but to expand it?

The Government could overnight decide to increase the Defence budget to the NATO 2% of GDP target and yes, that would allow us to upgrade and expand our equipment holdings but how does that help with the fact that we can't actually man the limited equipment we have now?

You deride it as "this sort of thinking" but it is the physical reality on the ground.  We don't have the numbers we need for our current force.  Is it just wrong thinking that is standing in the way of our being able to man a deployable Army Division, two dozen CSCs and ten subs, and a fighter force of 250 F-35's?

If you have a magical solution to solve the problem of both convincing the Canadian public to provide the funding required for a substantially larger military as well as attracting the 10's of thousands of new recruits required to man that force then I'd love to hear it!  

Hopefully the CAF's "Reconstitution" efforts will succeed in stabilizing the manning situation, but that just maintains us where we currently are...which is a generally ineffective military unsuited for a peer conflict.  In the absence of an increase in funding AND a sudden desire for more Canadians to join the military then we can either choose the status quo and remain largely irrelevant or we can re-examine how we can make best use of the funding and manpower we currently have available to make us more relevant.


----------



## Furniture

GR66 said:


> Great.  The CAF is having trouble finding people to fill it's current positions.  Same is happening in the USA.  Where do you propose we get the people from to not only stabilize the current force but to expand it?


We start with stabilizing things, part of that is going to be redistribution of PYs from areas that don't need to be CAF and fixing the issues keeping/driving people away. Some occupations have no trouble filling their positions, and others can't get anyone interested. Rather than looking just at CAF numbers, we need to look at occupations specifically.

Part of the reason my occupation can't recruit or retain people is that our education and CFAT standards are too high. We are already working on fixing those issues, so that's part of the problem being solved right now.



GR66 said:


> The Government could overnight decide to increase the Defence budget to the NATO 2% of GDP target and yes, that would allow us to upgrade and expand our equipment holdings but how does that help with the fact that we can't actually man the limited equipment we have now?


Part of the recruitment/retention issue is not having the right kit, in the right quantities. If the GoC got serious about providing good kit, in sufficient qualities, some of our current personnel problems might start to go away.



GR66 said:


> You deride it as "this sort of thinking" but it is the physical reality on the ground.  We don't have the numbers we need for our current force.  Is it just wrong thinking that is standing in the way of our being able to man a deployable Army Division, two dozen CSCs and ten subs, and a fighter force of 250 F-35's?


I deride that sort of thinking because I'm one of the people being asked to do more with less, and I'm tired of it. doing less with more might mean cutting bureaucratic process, or maybe automating what can be automated. I don't see cutting CAF numbers to save on personnel costs as anything more than the next round of what we have been doing since the 90s.



GR66 said:


> If you have a magical solution to solve the problem of both convincing the Canadian public to provide the funding required for a substantially larger military as well as attracting the 10's of thousands of new recruits required to man that force then I'd love to hear it!
> 
> Hopefully the CAF's "Reconstitution" efforts will succeed in stabilizing the manning situation, but that just maintains us where we currently are...which is a generally ineffective military unsuited for a peer conflict.  In the absence of an increase in funding AND a sudden desire for more Canadians to join the military then we can either choose the status quo and remain largely irrelevant or we can re-examine how we can make best use of the funding and manpower we currently have available to make us more relevant.


There is no magical solution, but I can assure you that you are not going to get a more capable CAF by cutting personnel numbers to reinvest the money in new toys. You might get a couple of boutique capabilities for a few years(until they rust out/become obsolete and are deemed too expensive to replace), but without an increase in public support all you will have accomplished is making the CAF smaller, and less well rounded.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Furniture said:


> *There is no magical solution*, but I can assure you that you are not going to get a more capable CAF by cutting personnel numbers to reinvest the money in new toys. You might get a couple of boutique capabilities for a few years(until they rust out/become obsolete and are deemed too expensive to replace), but without an increase in public support all you will have accomplished is making the CAF smaller, and less well rounded.



It might not be magical, but it's mainstream for big organizations.

Employees are a commodity, and you need to commoditize the HR supply chain or - these days - you're probably doomed .

This is one way to do it   https://www.indeed.com/hire/resources/recruiting-hiring


----------



## Kirkhill

FJAG said:


> On the other hand we might just be back in a conventional arms race.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> China is wearing its plans to build an even stronger military on its sleeve.
> 
> And there should be no doubt that regardless of who ends up controlling Russia when all this is over, there will be a concentrated plan to rebuild the Russian conventional military.
> 
> And, let's face it, the plan to rebuild the Canadian military is long, long overdue.
> 
> It might not be a real peace but in order to have a lasting period of no active war, deterrence matters:
> 
> 
> 
> And as can be seen from Russia's incursion into the Ukraine, the ability to defend oneself needs to be clearly and obviously seen in order to prevent a miscalculation on the scale that Putin made.
> 
> 🍻




All true FJAG - and yet nothing in that speech suggests a sense of strength.  If anything it suggests a continuing sense of weakness and inferiority.  It suggests a nation with a chip on its shoulder denied its rightful place in history.  It also suggests a nation, or at least a leader, who has decided/discovered that there is still a ways to go to match the west in military technology and that military technology is the key.

A couple of days ago I referenced Canada's WW2 Auxilliary Corps as an option for engaging they Canadian civil community  in support of militarily relevant objectives.

Here's another one.



> The *Royal Observer Corps* (*ROC*) was a civil defence organisation intended for the visual detection, identification, tracking and reporting of aircraft over Great Britain. It operated in the United Kingdom between 29 October 1925 and 31 December 1995, when the Corps' civilian volunteers were stood down (ROC headquarters staff at RAF Bentley Priory stood down on 31 March 1996). Composed mainly of civilian spare-time volunteers, ROC personnel wore a Royal Air Force (RAF) style uniform and latterly came under the administrative control of RAF Strike Command and the operational control of the Home Office. Civilian volunteers were trained and administered by a small cadre of professional full-time officers under the command of the Commandant Royal Observer Corps; latterly a serving RAF Air Commodore.











						Royal Observer Corps - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




The Corps was stood down on 31 March 1996.   

Playstation was introduced on 3 December 1994






						PlayStation - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				





Given the popularity of both PlayStations and Multi-Player Games, as well as the broad international interest in following events in Ukraine, offering commentary and active engagement in all sorts of activities to support the Ukrainians on line with resources and intelligence perhaps the Observer Corps was stood down a bit too early.

I understand that one of the arguments against UAVs is the narrow field of vision - the expression I have heard is like looking through a straw.  There is a solution to that.   Many straws with many eyeballs.


----------



## GR66

Furniture said:


> We start with stabilizing things, part of that is going to be redistribution of PYs from areas that don't need to be CAF and fixing the issues keeping/driving people away. Some occupations have no trouble filling their positions, and others can't get anyone interested. Rather than looking just at CAF numbers, we need to look at occupations specifically.


Redistribution of existing PYs from unneeded positions (as uniformed positions) to positions that need to be uniformed.  Agreed and I stated this specifically in a previous post in the Reconstitution thread.


Furniture said:


> Part of the reason my occupation can't recruit or retain people is that our education and CFAT standards are too high. We are already working on fixing those issues, so that's part of the problem being solved right now.





Furniture said:


> Part of the recruitment/retention issue is not having the right kit, in the right quantities. If the GoC got serious about providing good kit, in sufficient qualities, some of our current personnel problems might start to go away.


I agree that better kit will help with retention and possibly some boost in recruitment (but honestly how many potential recruits base their decision to join on their understanding of the condition of our current equipment?)


Furniture said:


> I deride that sort of thinking because I'm one of the people being asked to do more with less, and I'm tired of it. doing less with more might mean cutting bureaucratic process, or maybe automating what can be automated. I don't see cutting CAF numbers to save on personnel costs as anything more than the next round of what we have been doing since the 90s.


Show me where I suggested cutting CAF numbers to save on personnel costs?  I suggested simply that the existing recruitment challenges are likely to continue in the absence of a significant cultural shift by the Canadian public toward an EXPANDED CAF.  Without such a shift in opinion neither the budget or the pool of potential recruits available to the CAF is likely to significantly increase.  I specifically suggested the same solutions that you are suggesting...reducing the bureaucratic overhead and automate where possible.  Not less people doing the same things, but possibly the same number of people doing different things more efficiently.


Furniture said:


> There is no magical solution, but I can assure you that you are not going to get a more capable CAF by cutting personnel numbers to reinvest the money in new toys. You might get a couple of boutique capabilities for a few years(until they rust out/become obsolete and are deemed too expensive to replace), but without an increase in public support all you will have accomplished is making the CAF smaller, and less well rounded.


Again, I never suggested making the deliberate decision to reduce the size of the CAF.  I simply pointed out the reality that we are having trouble maintaining the numbers we have now and I don't see anything that suggests to me that the situation is suddenly going to change.  

Let me be clear, if I had my way the CAF would both grow and get lots of new kit to make it a relevant and effective deterrent and combat force.  I believe that should be a no-brainer political goal for Canada's citizens and Government.  However, unfortunately reality shows that the majority of Canadians (and as a result our politicians) don't share that opinion. 

We've seen where decades of the CAF leadership pretending that it's not the case and maintaining the facade of a full-spectrum fighting force capable of expeditionary operations.  They keep the basic structure but continue to allow it to hollow out to the point of ineffectiveness in order to keep up the charade.  I'm suggesting that it's time for truth to be told to those in power (the GOC) that with the equipment and people we have available this is what we are capable of.  



daftandbarmy said:


> It might not be magical, but it's mainstream for big organizations.
> 
> Employees are a commodity, and you need to commoditize the HR supply chain or - these days - you're probably doomed .
> 
> This is one way to do it   https://www.indeed.com/hire/resources/recruiting-hiring


Certainly better recruiting processes and more improved HR practices to keep up with changes to the modern workforce will help but I don't think they will have a meaningful impact on significantly expanding the pool of citizens that will be interested in joining the military in the first place.  That will require a cultural change.

I don't think that change is impossible, but it will require buy-in and effort from our political leadership.  They will have to give to Canadians a sense of our important role in the World and how fulfilling that role has very real everyday impacts on our personal welfare.  Canada needs leaders that will provide Canadians with a vision that we can believe in and feel is worth a level of self sacrifice.  THEN you will see more people willing to serve.  That has been lacking since the PET era and probably has as much to do with the current woes of the CAF as any other factor.

$0.02

[/rant]


----------



## YZT580

CBH99 said:


> I suppose that is good news.  Really good news in the grande scheme of things.
> 
> 
> , while not a NATO member,* took seriously their ability to defend themselves.*
> 
> So now the focus can go back to China… maybe it’s a good thing we’re going through the personnel shortage _now_ … and not a decade from now?


And that line summarizes everything that is wrong with our outlook.  We somehow think that we are impervious so we don't take things seriously.  The DND is our Swiss guard


----------



## Kirkhill

daftandbarmy said:


> It might not be magical, but it's mainstream for big organizations.
> 
> Employees are a commodity, and you need to commoditize the HR supply chain or - these days - you're probably doomed .
> 
> This is one way to do it   https://www.indeed.com/hire/resources/recruiting-hiring



Scandinavian 






Chinese


----------



## daftandbarmy

GR66 said:


> Redistribution of existing PYs from unneeded positions (as uniformed positions) to positions that need to be uniformed.  Agreed and I stated this specifically in a previous post in the Reconstitution thread.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that better kit will help with retention and possibly some boost in recruitment (but honestly how many potential recruits base their decision to join on their understanding of the condition of our current equipment?)
> 
> Show me where I suggested cutting CAF numbers to save on personnel costs?  I suggested simply that the existing recruitment challenges are likely to continue in the absence of a significant cultural shift by the Canadian public toward an EXPANDED CAF.  Without such a shift in opinion neither the budget or the pool of potential recruits available to the CAF is likely to significantly increase.  I specifically suggested the same solutions that you are suggesting...reducing the bureaucratic overhead and automate where possible.  Not less people doing the same things, but possibly the same number of people doing different things more efficiently.
> 
> Again, I never suggested making the deliberate decision to reduce the size of the CAF.  I simply pointed out the reality that we are having trouble maintaining the numbers we have now and I don't see anything that suggests to me that the situation is suddenly going to change.
> 
> Let me be clear, if I had my way the CAF would both grow and get lots of new kit to make it a relevant and effective deterrent and combat force.  I believe that should be a no-brainer political goal for Canada's citizens and Government.  However, unfortunately reality shows that the majority of Canadians (and as a result our politicians) don't share that opinion.
> 
> We've seen where decades of the CAF leadership pretending that it's not the case and maintaining the facade of a full-spectrum fighting force capable of expeditionary operations.  They keep the basic structure but continue to allow it to hollow out to the point of ineffectiveness in order to keep up the charade.  I'm suggesting that it's time for truth to be told to those in power (the GOC) that with the equipment and people we have available this is what we are capable of.
> 
> 
> Certainly better recruiting processes and more improved HR practices to keep up with changes to the modern workforce will help but I don't think they will have a meaningful impact on significantly expanding the pool of citizens that will be interested in joining the military in the first place.  That will require a cultural change.
> 
> I don't think that change is impossible, but it will require buy-in and effort from our political leadership.  They will have to give to Canadians a sense of our important role in the World and how fulfilling that role has very real everyday impacts on our personal welfare.  Canada needs leaders that will provide Canadians with a vision that we can believe in and feel is worth a level of self sacrifice.  THEN you will see more people willing to serve.  That has been lacking since the PET era and probably has as much to do with the current woes of the CAF as any other factor.
> 
> $0.02
> 
> [/rant]



Every time the Reg F opens up options for CT, lots of well trained reservists migrate over there. The problem is that the CT door opens and closes with a mysterious irregularity that confounds the best of planning minds.

Why not triple the size of the A Res and have a continuous supply of troops moving in to the RegF, via CT, after they've finished their degrees at college and completed most of their trades training?

Then, after they do their Reg F service (in their early/mid-40s) they can CT back to their ARes units and serve until they hit CRA.


----------



## FJAG

That's kind of apples and oranging, @Kirkhill.

I don't disagree with the comment about a display of weakness by China. That's why I say there is an upcoming arms race as they move to cure their "weakness". I agree totally that they are signalling that they do not have the strength to achieve what they wish to. I wish China would stay that way but as it stands their rhetoric on the one hand talks about defence as a deterrent while their national objectives are international (such as Taiwan). It's not too hard to parse the language to conclude that they wish a military posture to let them do, internationally, whatever it is they want to do without interference.



Furniture said:


> I deride that sort of thinking because I'm one of the people being asked to do more with less, and I'm tired of it. doing less with more might mean cutting bureaucratic process, or maybe automating what can be automated. I don't see cutting CAF numbers to save on personnel costs as anything more than the next round of what we have been doing since the 90s.


I agree very much with this. In my way of thinking I have always differentiated between resources dedicated to defence outputs and those dedicated to administrative overhead.

As far as administrative overhead is concerned I tend to favour doing less with less. Dedicate fewer resources and greatly reduce the bureaucratic processes required for defence management (including streamlining procurement)

As far as defence outputs are concerned, we need to firstly generate more with what we have and then turn to positioning ourselves so that we can be depended on by the public to be able to generate more (or perhaps more accurately - generate what is needed) if we are given more. 

🍻


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Two words - National Service

They don't  want to join, we'll  make them join🤣


----------



## Brad Sallows

Get behind "green" policies.  "Green" policies create energy insecurity (eg. Europe) and food insecurity (eg. Sri Lanka); energy and food insecurities create conflict over resources; conflict over resources leads to wars.  Also, food insecurity will eventually cause nations with large oceangoing fishing fleets to fish without restraint.  Between the wars and the ecological disasters, Canadians' attention might be captured.


----------



## Kirkhill

FJAG said:


> That's kind of apples and oranging, @Kirkhill.
> 
> I don't disagree with the comment about a display of weakness by China. That's why I say there is an upcoming arms race as they move to cure their "weakness". I agree totally that they are signalling that they do not have the strength to achieve what they wish to. I wish China would stay that way but as it stands their rhetoric on the one hand talks about defence as a deterrent while their national objectives are international (such as Taiwan). It's not too hard to parse the language to conclude that they wish a military posture to let them do, internationally, whatever it is they want to do without interference.



I don't think it is apples and oranging.

I think we fail to adequately grasp that our resource base isn't what we think it is and what we would like it to be.

We would like our recruiting base to be sturdy farm lads who can heft a hundred pounds repeatedly all day.  But that isn't the recruit base we actually have.  In fact it wasn't the recruit base the Brits had in WW1.  Much of their recruit base had respiratory ailments, were skinny, stunted and had rickets due to vitamin D deficiency. That is partly why the the Canadians, ANZACs, and even Highlanders were both prized and successful.  They were sturdy farm lads.

But now those farm lads are as scarce as professional athletes.  The vast majority of the population are couch potatoes with eyeballs glued to screens and thumbs poised to click or swipe.

There are ways to engage those couch dwelling eyeballs and thumbs.

Equally there are ways to engage civilians, as civilians, in the service of the national defence to take the load off the uniformed personnel.

If there is a scarcity of athletes then you have to do something else and figure out how to make the best use of the few athletes available.



We build out of concrete because we were running out of wood.  We're going to have to change again soon because we're running out of sand.









						Sand crisis looms as world population surges, U.N. warns
					

A U.N. report on Tuesday called for urgent action to avert a "sand crisis," including a ban on beach extraction as demand surges to 50 billion tonnes a year amid population growth and urbanisation.




					www.reuters.com
				




Do we replace concrete with plastic and keep mining hydrocarbons?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I think a study of Ukrainian's mobilization will be helpful in turning modern civilians into soldiers quickly will be helpful. 

For equipment I will have a high turnover of equipment, particularly of trucks. Right now order new SMP trucks to replace the MSVS Sterling's in all frontline duties (Gun tractors, engineering vehicles, Infantry units) Each unit gets to keep one for logistical support. The best of them goes to Service Battalion to do Echelon B duties and to base support. I suspect they do well in that role. Do the same for all the other fleets. Build a facility in the prairies to store vehicles. A reserve of vehicles can be cycled through there. All trucks should be replaced after 10 years, this will reduce maintenance issues and make us a reliable customer for truck manufacturers. Change the laws so we can sell off military trucks as working units so to get some of that money back.

Start equipping Reserve units with proper military equipment, new artillery guns, new mortars, new AT weapons. Stand up AD units, UAV Troops, Heavy weapons and AT Platoons. Even if we don't have the personal now, the equipment and structure is there for people to work into. So when you get recruits, they are working with new equipment and see that we are serious. How to convince a Gunner/Infanteer that we are serious about artillery or mortars or effective AT tactics, when the weapons are older than their fathers? Cycle older weapons to those facilities in the Prairies as part of the War Reserve. All weapons should have a due date for replacement (10-15 years?) 

Bring back the Summer Youth Employment Program, make that a mandate of Reserve units, start fairly small perhaps one course for several units so they can effectively train it. Expand the program as resource become available. 

Fix the previously mentioned impacts of going from Reg force to Reserves, make it worth their while to stick around. Every base should be getting an apartment block or two to be used as PMQ's/single quarters, so people can have some housing. Start renewing all the existing PMQ's using a standard design that is modern, safe and a good use of space, such as duplexes instead of single houses. 

Naval Reserves- Give the units on the coasts such as Esquimalt/Victoria, Halifax, Vancouver and similar Patrol vessels about the size of the Orcas. Their duties are harbour defense both surface and subsurface, give them the equipment to do that and the vessels are maintained by local civilian infrastructure. Having a defined task will give them focus and experience. Eventually those people can step up to running the MCDV's and similar.

Air Reserve - Not sure how well it works now. Perhaps a Squadron or two of trainers (or a fighter that has low maintenance costs as compared to the F35, but with some similar cockpit equipment) equipped with weapons to practice tactics. Pilots and maintainers get a bonus for transitioning to the reserve and their employers get a hefty tax break for releasing them for training. Perhaps stand up a Air Reserve Transport Squadron with a couple of Hercs that can do annual training or be called up when required. Aircraft with higher flight hours can be transferred there to keep them viable for longer and new aircraft can be brought on line for the reg Force units.


----------



## SupersonicMax

For Air Reserve, we tend to integrate reservists into normal Squadrons, be them pilots, maintainers or otherwise.  They become a relief valve, to reducing the FG burden on the cadre of Reg Force senior pilots/techs (those teaching the young folks), and a bassin of experience, retaining some form of corporate knowledge.  I never understood the need for distinct reserve units…


----------



## Colin Parkinson

SupersonicMax said:


> For Air Reserve, we tend to integrate reservists into normal Squadrons, be them pilots, maintainers or otherwise.  They become a relief valve, to reducing the FG burden on the cadre of Reg Force senior pilots/techs (those teaching the young folks), and a bassin of experience, retaining some form of corporate knowledge.  I never understood the need for distinct reserve units…


The distinct units seem to work for other countries, a way to increase the size of the force if required.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

SupersonicMax said:


> For Air Reserve, we tend to integrate reservists into normal Squadrons, be them pilots, maintainers or otherwise.  They become a relief valve, to reducing the FG burden on the cadre of Reg Force senior pilots/techs (those teaching the young folks), and a bassin of experience, retaining some form of corporate knowledge.  I never understood the need for distinct reserve units…


Other than that pesky NDA and the whole issue of Class A Reservists parading routinely with units of the Regular Force, which opens a whole can of worms as to what degree/when they are subject to the NDA.

I asked an AJAG about that once and tripped circuit breakers all the way back to NDHQ. Never got an answer, either…


----------



## KevinB

Colin Parkinson said:


> The distinct units seem to work for other countries, a way to increase the size of the force if required.


It really is a false economy though.  

If you look at the Militia in Canada, it’s not going to be able to expand to anything meaningful. 
 1) Equipment is lacking worse than the Reg Force 
2) A very very very slim amount of SNCO’s and Officers at Capt and above have any experience in their jobs beyond a 2 week ex.  

Other countries make it work by having a real system, not some sort of pre WW2 relic.


----------



## rmc_wannabe

The problem will always be that the Reserve will always be o  someone else's terms and not on that for the Force Employer: be that a civilian employer, the member, the Reserve Unit, training establishments, or any other number of factors that limit how and when we use reservists effectively with Regular force formations. 

Until we develop a framework to deconflict and unfuck the intricacies, it's valid COA, but nowhere near a reliable one


----------



## Kirkhill

KevinB said:


> It really is a false economy though.
> 
> If you look at the Militia in Canada, it’s not going to be able to expand to anything meaningful.
> 1) Equipment is lacking worse than the Reg Force
> 2) A very very very slim amount of SNCO’s and Officers at Capt and above have any experience in their jobs beyond a 2 week ex.
> 
> Other countries make it work by having a real system, not some sort of pre WW2 relic.



The Militia is not going to take front line places with the RCR et al.

But that doesn't mean that it can't be meaningful - even if it just has trucks (1300), small arms and tippy TAPVs.  It can still be organized to serve usefully at home - in logistics, comms and security.


----------



## rmc_wannabe

Kirkhill said:


> The Militia is not going to take front line places with the RCR et al.
> 
> But that doesn't mean that it can't be meaningful - even if it just has trucks (1300), small arms and tippy TAPVs. * It can still be organized to serve usefully at home - in logistics, comms and security. *


All fields that require technical expertise and mastery of your load station; and also fields in which we are struggling to recruit and retain folks with full time  Reg Force employment.

There is a reason why we have very few Atts from ABC Sig Regt when we head out to door. The amount of time it takes to bring Sig Bloggins up to even a working level means the juice is not worth the squeeze. 

My IS Techs trained day in and day out to become SMEs; dropping a dude who has not been working on the kit for 2 years past their DP2 is more of a piss off to them than anything else. 

Similar training, job titles, and rank experience are one thing; trade mastery is another. One takes far more time and consistency than a lot of folks on the pointy end tend to realise.


----------



## MilEME09

rmc_wannabe said:


> Similar training, job titles, and rank experience are one thing; trade mastery is another. One takes far more time and consistency than a lot of folks on the pointy end tend to realise.


This right here is what grinds my gears about technical trades, and our people being pushed onto plq right after DP2. No time to become SME's or even gain useful OJT before bring expected to teach and pass on knowledge as an "expert". At one time you needed atleast three years from DP2 to plq so you can get OJT. Not any more, waivers galore cause we need leaders


----------



## rmc_wannabe

MilEME09 said:


> This right here is what grinds my gears about technical trades, and our people being pushed onto plq right after DP2. No time to become SME's or even gain useful OJT before bring expected to teach and pass on knowledge as an "expert". At one time you needed atleast three years from DP2 to plq so you can get OJT. Not any more, waivers galore cause we need leaders


"But Tpr McFuckFace was able to become a Recce Crew Commander in the same DP time-frame, what gives RCCS/RCEME/RCLS/RCE?"

Lots of things; the big one is thar technical training and the CFITES/StAR model are incompatible.


----------



## Kirkhill

rmc_wannabe said:


> All fields that require technical expertise and mastery of your load station; and also fields in which we are struggling to recruit and retain folks with full time  Reg Force employment.
> 
> There is a reason why we have very few Atts from ABC Sig Regt when we head out to door. The amount of time it takes to bring Sig Bloggins up to even a working level means the juice is not worth the squeeze.
> 
> My IS Techs trained day in and day out to become SMEs; dropping a dude who has not been working on the kit for 2 years past their DP2 is more of a piss off to them than anything else.
> 
> Similar training, job titles, and rank experience are one thing; trade mastery is another. One takes far more time and consistency than a lot of folks on the pointy end tend to realise.



You misunderstand me.

My militia is not going to be showing up on exercise or deployment with the professionals.  Full Stop.

They are going to serve entirely at home.  They are going to work in a civvy supported environment.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Kirkhill said:


> You misunderstand me.
> 
> My militia is not going to be showing up on exercise or deployment with the professionals.  Full Stop.
> 
> They are going to serve entirely at home.  *They are going to work in a civvy supported environment.*



Dude... part timers can be professional too.

What makes you think that any civvies would want to support the militia?


----------



## Kirkhill

daftandbarmy said:


> Dude... part timers can be professional too.
> 
> What makes you think that any civvies would want to support the militia?



You know.... you're dead right.  What makes me think anybody wants to do anything?


----------



## TCM621

FJAG said:


> Maybe it's time to let the Navy press gangs start touring the local alehouses again.


To be honest, I would be afraid for our sailors at this point in time. Most of the sailors I have known couldn't fight their way out of a wet paper bag. To be fair to the sailors though, the idea of some in the military being tough is pretty much a myth at this point. I'm amazed at how many people I work with who have never been in a fight or even an argument that got particularly heated. A significant portion of them look like they will cry if you speak harshly to them.


----------



## KevinB

Kirkhill said:


> The Militia is not going to take front line places with the RCR et al.
> 
> But that doesn't mean that it can't be meaningful - even if it just has trucks (1300), small arms and tippy TAPVs.  It can still be organized to serve usefully at home - in logistics, comms and security.


So not an Army Reserve…
     Honestly Logistics and Support as well as tech trades are areas that require significantly more regulars. Being an Infanteer as a Pte/Cpl doesn’t take a fantastic amount of training. 
   Eventually those PTE/CPL if deployed in a large scale conflict will either rise or die…


----------



## MilEME09

Kirkhill said:


> You misunderstand me.
> 
> My militia is not going to be showing up on exercise or deployment with the professionals.  Full Stop.
> 
> They are going to serve entirely at home.  They are going to work in a civvy supported environment.


So I guess the Cpl Vtech in my unit who is a heavy duty mechanic with 3 journeyman tickets in the field (and actually got all CAF vtrch training PLAR'ed) isn't a professional because he doesn't turn green wrenches every day?

There are massive misconceptions about reservists and what we can being to the table. You would be amazed what can be accomplished with the business mind set from civi street vs the government working mind set.


----------



## rmc_wannabe

Kirkhill said:


> You misunderstand me.
> 
> My militia is not going to be showing up on exercise or deployment with the professionals.  Full Stop.
> 
> They are going to serve entirely at home.  They are going to work in a civvy supported environment.


You misunderstand me as well. Professional fields such as engineering, logistics, communications, medicine all require pers to be trained and proficient in their craft in order to be useful to anyone; that includes the civilian organizations that you claim would be there supporting the main effort domestically.

My points were to highlight that with our current training structure for the Reserves, that model would need MASSIVE amounts of risk acceptance, or conversely, a massive amount of skilled applicants we can militarized to suit the need. 

Both those COAs are not viable at the moment, so I ask again, where are you drawing your pool from? How are you providing the training and proficiency needed in a specialist to make your model work even for OGDs to trust Cpl Bloggins more than Civi number 3 coming in to offer their services in a moment of crisis?



MilEME09 said:


> So I guess the Cpl Vtech in my unit who is a heavy duty mechanic with 3 journeyman tickets in the field (and actually got all CAF vtrch training PLAR'ed) isn't a professional because he doesn't turn green wrenches every day?


I agree with you whole heartedly that the PLAR system is broken and that starts with CFRG. 

I have had PAT personnel showing up to my Troop for OJE that have more certs and credentials than I could ever hope for. When asked why they weren't coming in as a Semi-Skilled applicant and where their PLAR was, the looked at me like I had a phallus growing out of my forehead. 

There is no reason for the CAF, Reg or Res F , to retrain a specialist in their craft if they have them coming in.



MilEME09 said:


> There are massive misconceptions about reservists and what we can being to the table. You would be amazed what can be accomplished with the business mind set from civi street vs the government working mind set.


I don't deny this at all. The problem that exists is that the training, qualifications, and experience disparity within the Reserves doesn't lend well to "every ______ an expert" that persists within the CAF when talking about CS/CSS.


----------



## MilEME09

rmc_wannabe said:


> I don't deny this at all. The problem that exists is that the training, qualifications, and experience disparity within the Reserves doesn't lend well to "every ______ an expert" that persists within the CAF when talking about CS/CSS.


I agree, however the buck stops with reg force leadership who have over all control of the ResF. Every time I hear of a new plan for the ResF, someone, usually reg force says the plan won't work, they don't try to make it work, and we end up with status quo. Any initiative will fail if those tasked with executing it do not believe it will succeed. What we need is transformation and new ideas, and someone tasked to follow through with the plan till the end, not posted to a new file after 4-6 years.


----------



## MilEME09

> I agree with you whole heartedly that the PLAR system is broken and that starts with CFRG.
> 
> I have had PAT personnel showing up to my Troop for OJE that have more certs and credentials than I could ever hope for. When asked why they weren't coming in as a Semi-Skilled applicant and where their PLAR was, the looked at me like I had a phallus growing out of my forehead.
> 
> There is no reason for the CAF, Reg or Res F , to retrain a specialist in their craft if they have them coming in.



You missed my point that labeling a reservist as unprofessional because we do not do our trade 5-7 days a week is counter productive, and there are plenty of reservists who want to do their jobs if we were just enabled to do so. Be it equipment, training opportunities, or simply giving us time to practice our craft. Saying no because we are reservists shows more about a broken RegF view of the ResF as much as it shows how broken the ResF is.


----------



## rmc_wannabe

MilEME09 said:


> I agree, however the buck stops with reg force leadership who have over all control of the ResF. Every time I hear of a new plan for the ResF, someone, usually reg force says the plan won't work, they don't try to make it work, and we end up with status quo. Any initiative will fail if those tasked with executing it do not believe ot will succeed. What we need is transformation and new ideas, and someone tasked to follow through with the plan till the end, not posted to a new file after 4-6 years.


Preaching to the converted here my dude. 

I had to slam the StAR policy on the table numerous times at my last QSTP board. Working at a school and seeing Course Directors rearrage POs because they "flow better" , without understanding how that messes with the modularity of the course and the training Delta it creates for a reservist 9nly.able to come on Mod 3 and then return to school/civi work at the end of the Mod. Member doesn't get the MITE Code and then the time was all for naught. 

Training Authorities never factor in the Reserves and it has been a massive detriment to everyone.


----------



## Furniture

rmc_wannabe said:


> Preaching to the converted here my dude.
> 
> I had to slam the StAR policy on the table numerous times at my last QSTP board. Working at a school and seeing Course Directors rearrage POs because they "flow better" , without understanding how that messes with the modularity of the course and the training Delta it creates for a reservist 9nly.able to come on Mod 3 and then return to school/civi work at the end of the Mod. Member doesn't get the MITE Code and then the time was all for naught.
> 
> Training Authorities never factor in the Reserves and it has been a massive detriment to everyone.


At least you have the course broken into Mods, it's a massive step in the right direction. My occupation does not, and the first two courses are 5.5 months long... We have zero ability to generate a reserve occupation, and there is strong resistance within the occupation to not break the courses into modules.


----------



## dapaterson

The CAF has no understanding of the value of time.  So the Reg F has too much and fritters it away; the Res F has too little, but also fritters it away.


----------



## Kirkhill

And every Canadian over the age of 16 can drive a pickup truck.  Four year olds can communicate on cell phones and 2 year olds can operate computers.

Most folks can pick up the basics of point and shoot in an afternoon.  And a fair number know how to operate a chain saw.  First aid qualifications and CPR certification are a dime a dozen.

Tell me again how much professional training you need to pitch in and have a go when things are dire.

Shop stewards everywhere.

Am I denigrating the place of the "professional"?  Aye.  Mebbe I am.  Given that I have spent 40 years working with the unskilled and uncredentialled, many of them who can't read English, teaching them how to operate the kit that puts the food on your table and supervise them so that they come home safe and you don't die from the Fries they make that get served at MacDonalds.

Would I want those folks fixing my car?  No.  Not generally.  But I have found more than one capable of it.  I've trained a fair number of them how to manage a wrench to perform routine sanitation and maintenance.  

There is indeed a place for the professional - the person that is paid explicitly for the task they are asked to undertake - as opposed to the amateur - the person that does the same thing for the love of the thing.  

So you'll not sell me on the merits of the professional attitude.

It's one thing to be proud of your trade and your accomplishments.  Its another entirely to think that others can't perform equally as well without  the paper.

The Ukrainians are not waiting around to certify their people or their kit.   They are getting the best they can out of what is on hand.  

And that includes the small number of professionals they have available to them.  They are all organizing themselves and their neighbours.

And once they are finished with this Russian stramash they will return to their civvy street jobs as coders, mechanical engineers, bakers and shop keepers.



I keep hearing the Army doesn't want to do this, that and the other.  Well fine.  Don't.  Do the things you want to do.  But stand out the way and let others get on with the things you don't want to do.

You won't by trucks and chainsaws for fear it will cut into the number of Leos and K9s you can buy.  And yet you freely acknowledge that you can't operate either without those trucks and chainsaws.   Trucks and chainsaws that are going to experience a lot more wear and tear due to actual use than any of the tanks you ever buy.

Your Territorial Battle Groups?   Keep the combat arms.   Do with them as you will.   10 Combat Engineer Regiments,  10 Field Ambulances, 10 Transport Coys, 10 Signals Squadrons and 10 Command Elements would serve just fine.  Add them to the Rangers.

Governments don't hire professionals because they are better than amateurs.  They hire professionals because they want the service to ready at a moments notice - and they expect that when the service is provided it will be competently executed.

Given enough time and training anybody can be competent.

Kikhill, Out!


----------



## rmc_wannabe

@Kirkhill I think we keep missing one another on where we stand on this issue. 

I am with you. The way we train and employ our Reserve force as "Reg Force Lite" is bullshit and has cost the CAF and taxpayer far more than it really should. I am with you that "good enough" training is fine for most trades and for others that require specialization, we _should_ be able to have a seamless transfer of skills between civilian land and what the CAF wants to see for its skilled workers.

My point, if there was one, is that as we stand today, we don't have the mechanism to facilitate this. I am certainly not an elitist in this regard, as I scraped through high school and managed to become a Temporary Gentleman after learning the business and fucking up routinely. Folks need the ability to learn and grow and that doesn't happen solely in school or by obtaining X NQual code.

If the Russian experience has shown us anything is that there is a massive benefit to ha ing a professional force. What we have also seen from. The Ukrainian experience is the massive boon civilian professionals taking their skills and providing them for military use is, and I would hazard a month's pay that the TDF did not have to retrain doctors, comms folks, truckers, farm hands, engineers, to do it the Green way. 

I think we both have common ground in the belief that the CAF, both Reg and Res F, do HR poorly, do training poorly, and do force employment t poorly with our current construct.

If we're going to see our respective forces grow, we need to not do more with less, but be more efficient with what we have. I think that's something g we both can agree on.


----------



## Kirkhill

rmc_wannabe said:


> @Kirkhill I think we keep missing one another on where we stand on this issue.
> 
> I am with you. The way we train and employ our Reserve force as "Reg Force Lite" is bullshit and has cost the CAF and taxpayer far more than it really should. I am with you that "good enough" training is fine for most trades and for others that require specialization, we _should_ be able to have a seamless transfer of skills between civilian land and what the CAF wants to see for its skilled workers.
> 
> My point, if there was one, is that as we stand today, we don't have the mechanism to facilitate this. I am certainly not an elitist in this regard, as I scraped through high school and managed to become a Temporary Gentleman after learning the business and fucking up routinely. Folks need the ability to learn and grow and that doesn't happen solely in school or by obtaining X NQual code.
> 
> If the Russian experience has shown us anything is that there is a massive benefit to ha ing a professional force. What we have also seen from. The Ukrainian experience is the massive boon civilian professionals taking their skills and providing them for military use is, and I would hazard a month's pay that the TDF did not have to retrain doctors, comms folks, truckers, farm hands, engineers, to do it the Green way.
> 
> I think we both have common ground in the belief that the CAF, both Reg and Res F, do HR poorly, do training poorly, and do force employment t poorly with our current construct.
> 
> If we're going to see our respective forces grow, we need to not do more with less, but be more efficient with what we have. I think that's something g we both can agree on.



Aye.  Right enough.


----------



## MilEME09

Kirkhill said:


> And every Canadian over the age of 16 can drive a pickup truck.  Four year olds can communicate on cell phones and 2 year olds can operate computers.
> 
> Most folks can pick up the basics of point and shoot in an afternoon.  And a fair number know how to operate a chain saw.  First aid qualifications and CPR certification are a dime a dozen.
> 
> Tell me again how much professional training you need to pitch in and have a go when things are dire.
> 
> Shop stewards everywhere.
> 
> Am I denigrating the place of the "professional"?  Aye.  Mebbe I am.  Given that I have spent 40 years working with the unskilled and uncredentialled, many of them who can't read English, teaching them how to operate the kit that puts the food on your table and supervise them so that they come home safe and you don't die from the Fries they make that get served at MacDonalds.
> 
> Would I want those folks fixing my car?  No.  Not generally.  But I have found more than one capable of it.  I've trained a fair number of them how to manage a wrench to perform routine sanitation and maintenance.
> 
> There is indeed a place for the professional - the person that is paid explicitly for the task they are asked to undertake - as opposed to the amateur - the person that does the same thing for the love of the thing.
> 
> So you'll not sell me on the merits of the professional attitude.
> 
> It's one thing to be proud of your trade and your accomplishments.  Its another entirely to think that others can't perform equally as well without  the paper.
> 
> The Ukrainians are not waiting around to certify their people or their kit.   They are getting the best they can out of what is on hand.
> 
> And that includes the small number of professionals they have available to them.  They are all organizing themselves and their neighbours.
> 
> And once they are finished with this Russian stramash they will return to their civvy street jobs as coders, mechanical engineers, bakers and shop keepers.
> 
> 
> 
> I keep hearing the Army doesn't want to do this, that and the other.  Well fine.  Don't.  Do the things you want to do.  But stand out the way and let others get on with the things you don't want to do.
> 
> You won't by trucks and chainsaws for fear it will cut into the number of Leos and K9s you can buy.  And yet you freely acknowledge that you can't operate either without those trucks and chainsaws.   Trucks and chainsaws that are going to experience a lot more wear and tear due to actual use than any of the tanks you ever buy.
> 
> Your Territorial Battle Groups?   Keep the combat arms.   Do with them as you will.   10 Combat Engineer Regiments,  10 Field Ambulances, 10 Transport Coys, 10 Signals Squadrons and 10 Command Elements would serve just fine.  Add them to the Rangers.
> 
> Governments don't hire professionals because they are better than amateurs.  They hire professionals because they want the service to ready at a moments notice - and they expect that when the service is provided it will be competently executed.
> 
> Given enough time and training anybody can be competent.
> 
> Kikhill, Out!


I think we are debating the same side from different perspectives. System is broken and at this point needs to be torn down and rebuilt. No amount of band aid solutions will turn this around into a more capable force. Some of our best influences to deter people from joining are the people in uniform, including us on this site, and if we think it's screwed up, we won't recommend it as a career


----------



## Czech_pivo

MilEME09 said:


> New French ambassador calls us out, seems our allies are getting tired of our sh*t
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Navel-gazing Canada has neglected its military, new French ambassador says
> 
> 
> The problem in part is that Canada has grown too reliant on the U.S. and its massive defence machine, the most costly in the world, he said
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nationalpost.com


I absolutely love this line - “You’re very French, *you’re riding a first-class carriage with a third-class ticket*…. If you want to remain in the first-class seat, you need to train and expand and to go somewhere.”

Calls us out for being the cheap sons of bitches that we so plainly are.  Good on him.  Now if we can only get the UK Ambassador to say something even more viritol and then have the US rumble about tossing us from the 5 eyes - but keeping in the Kiwi's to rub some salt in the wound - it would be even better.


----------



## WLSC

GR66 said:


> Great.  The CAF is having trouble finding people to fill it's current positions.  Same is happening in the USA.  Where do you propose we get the people from to not only stabilize the current force but to expand it?
> 
> The Government could overnight decide to increase the Defence budget to the NATO 2% of GDP target and yes, that would allow us to upgrade and expand our equipment holdings but how does that help with the fact that we can't actually man the limited equipment we have now?
> 
> You deride it as "this sort of thinking" but it is the physical reality on the ground.  We don't have the numbers we need for our current force.  Is it just wrong thinking that is standing in the way of our being able to man a deployable Army Division, two dozen CSCs and ten subs, and a fighter force of 250 F-35's?
> 
> If you have a magical solution to solve the problem of both convincing the Canadian public to provide the funding required for a substantially larger military as well as attracting the 10's of thousands of new recruits required to man that force then I'd love to hear it!
> 
> Hopefully the CAF's "Reconstitution" efforts will succeed in stabilizing the manning situation, but that just maintains us where we currently are...which is a generally ineffective military unsuited for a peer conflict.  In the absence of an increase in funding AND a sudden desire for more Canadians to join the military then we can either choose the status quo and remain largely irrelevant or we can re-examine how we can make best use of the funding and manpower we currently have available to make us more relevant.


Messaging is what make that happen and managing results is what make it work.  You can’t attract good people if messaging by the GC is that the CAF “doesn’t get it” and not showing the money that tell good people that we have good equipment and proper organisation to welcome them.  Keeping people in and attracting them will real ressources should be the driver, not the opposite.


----------



## FSTO

Czech_pivo said:


> I absolutely love this line - “You’re very French, *you’re riding a first-class carriage with a third-class ticket*…. If you want to remain in the first-class seat, you need to train and expand and to go somewhere.”
> 
> Calls us out for being the cheap sons of bitches that we so plainly are.  Good on him.  Now if we can only get the UK Ambassador to say something even more viritol and then have the US rumble about tossing us from the 5 eyes - but keeping in the Kiwi's to rub some salt in the wound - it would be even better.


Threating to toss us from the G7 would open some eyes.


----------



## Czech_pivo

FSTO said:


> Threating to toss us from the G7 would open some eyes.


I think that the US/UK/France will wait and see if either of 2 things happen - Trudeau is deposed by his own party and a new Lib leader starts reading from the script that they put in front of them, or; PP wins the next election and he starts to read from the script put in front of him.

If either of these things don't occur, they will start chattering about a new and improved G6 - no more Canada or Italy and a formally recognised EU representative.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Czech_pivo said:


> I think that the US/UK/France will wait and see if either of 2 things happen - Trudeau is deposed by his own party and a new Lib leader starts reading from the script that they put in front of them, or; PP wins the next election and he starts to read from the script put in front of him.
> 
> If either of these things don't occur, they will start chattering about a new and improved G6 - no more Canada or Italy and a formally recognised EU representative.


_My guess_ is that what's in the mill is a D-10; a group of global democracies: 

1. America​2. India​3. Japan​4. Germany​5. Australia​6. Sweden​7. South Korea​9. Netherlands​10. United Kingdom​​But, and it's a BIG BUT, it's not going to come quickly or easily. The entire G-7 may have to disband itself, first ... and I'm not sure I see a styretgeic driver for that.

There is an emerging Big Two - America and China; I'm not sure the G-20 makes any sense, any more, but it's very hard to actually disband groups. That goes, in spades, for the G-7 because it gives France an outsized voice. But, _I think_ that Boris Johnson's D-10 idea (admittedly a bit different from mine - he kept Canada and France instead of Sweden and Netherlands) struck. chord with the Americans.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Edward Campbell said:


> _My guess_ is that what's in the mill is a D-10; a group of global democracies:
> 
> 1. America​2. India​3. Japan​4. Germany​5. Australia​6. Sweden​7. South Korea​9. Netherlands​10. United Kingdom​​But, and it's a BIG BUT, it's not going to come quickly or easily. The entire G-7 may have to disband itself, first ... and I'm not sure I see a styretgeic driver for that.
> 
> There is an emerging Big Two - America and China; I'm not sure the G-20 makes any sense, any more, but it's very hard to actually disband groups. That goes, in spades, for the G-7 because it gives France an outsized voice. But, _I think_ that Boris Johnson's D-10 idea (admittedly a bit different from mine - he kept Canada and France instead of Sweden and Netherlands) struck. chord with the Americans.


I'll play Devil's Advocate here, zero chance of SA being added in loo of Nederlands?  Having some sort of African presence will tick off alot of boxes - of course the massive corruption that has become entrenched there and their flirting with the Sino more than likely stops this train of thought dead in its tracks. Also, some lingering love of the old SU still resides among the older cadres of the ANC.

I also don't see India joining in on this - the optics on this goes 100% against their mantra of officially 'non-aligned'. But things can/do change.  Lastly, I'd see Sweden, in order to 'share/spread' the risk to themselves, proposing their presence to be in essence a 'pan-nordic' position, including Norway/Finland and Danemark into the mix.  

But it is certainly to fun to say 'what if'.  I value your thoughts/opinion Mr Campbell.


----------



## KevinB

Edward Campbell said:


> _My guess_ is that what's in the mill is a D-10; a group of global democracies:
> 
> 1. America​2. India​3. Japan​4. Germany​5. Australia​6. Sweden​7. South Korea​9. Netherlands​10. United Kingdom​​But, and it's a BIG BUT, it's not going to come quickly or easily. The entire G-7 may have to disband itself, first ... and I'm not sure I see a styretgeic driver for that.
> 
> There is an emerging Big Two - America and China; I'm not sure the G-20 makes any sense, any more, but it's very hard to actually disband groups. That goes, in spades, for the G-7 because it gives France an outsized voice. But, _I think_ that Boris Johnson's D-10 idea (admittedly a bit different from mine - he kept Canada and France instead of Sweden and Netherlands) struck. chord with the Americans.


I'm not sure anyone wants to play with India these days.
  They are about as reliable as Pakistan goes for a "ally", and they are fairly Ru friendly beyond what any other group in there would accept.


----------



## Good2Golf

Czech_pivo said:


> I also don't see India joining in on this - the optics on this goes 100% against their mantra of officially 'non-aligned'.


CP, I agree with you on this.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Some analysts suggest that India is, geo-strategically, the ONLY viable counter to China. It doesn't really matter what India does or doesn't do, we need them ... or we need to go ugly early, and often.


----------



## Good2Golf

Just so long as there isn’t too much emphasis on the capital-D of democracy.


Edward Campbell said:


> Some analysts suggest that India is, geo-strategically, the ONLY viable counter to China. It doesn't really matter what India does or doesn't do, we need them ... or we need to go ugly early, and often.


----------



## Kirkhill

If you are going to talk about Sweden these days then you should include Denmark, Norway and Finland in the group.

Their integration is getting tighter and tighter.






						Testing the Nordic Combat Uniform (NCU) System - Nordefco
					

Since the start of December 2019, soldiers in Norway, Sweden, Denmark, and Finland, have been testing the offered System for the new Nordic Combat Uniform System.



					www.nordefco.org
				






			About NORDEFCO - Nordefco
		



And for that matter I would suggest you can't mention them without Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania.

And that brings you to Poland, Czechia, Slovakia, Romania, and Bulgaria - Hungary is odd man out in Bucharest.

Then you finally have Ukraine.

That group is only going to get tighter within both the EU and NATO.

I'm intrigued to see if this new mob in London is as strongly pro-JEF as Boris was.   I suspect they are more Macronish.


----------



## Gunnar

Kirkhill said:


> The expression is "to cut one's suit to suit the cloth".


Why does my suit kinda look like a neon green banana hammock?  Is the suit still appropriate for Mess Dinners?  It’s the cloth I had...


----------



## Edward Campbell

Kirkhill said:


> If you are going to talk about Sweden these days then you should include Denmark, Norway and Finland in the group.
> 
> Their integration is getting tighter and tighter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Testing the Nordic Combat Uniform (NCU) System - Nordefco
> 
> 
> Since the start of December 2019, soldiers in Norway, Sweden, Denmark, and Finland, have been testing the offered System for the new Nordic Combat Uniform System.
> 
> 
> 
> www.nordefco.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> About NORDEFCO - Nordefco
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And for that matter I would suggest you can't mention them without Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania.
> 
> And that brings you to Poland, Czechia, Slovakia, Romania, and Bulgaria - Hungary is odd man out in Bucharest.
> 
> Then you finally have Ukraine.
> 
> *That group is only going to get tighter within both the EU and NATO.*
> 
> I'm intrigued to see if this new mob in London is as strongly pro-JEF as Boris was.   I suspect they are more Macronish.


I agree; it is part of what they call, in there EU, the New Hanseatic League. 

Neither the EU nor NATO is united in any meaningful way. There are three main European divisions:

1. The fiscally conservative Northerners - the New Hanseatic League+;​2. The fiscally irresponsible _Romans_ - France, Italy, Portugal, Spain and honorary member Greece; and​3. The Eastern European rest.​
None of the three wants to upset the whole apple-cart ... yet ... but, equally, none of the three is happy with the status quo.


----------



## Kirkhill

Kirkhill said:


> All true FJAG - and yet nothing in that speech suggests a sense of strength.  If anything it suggests a continuing sense of weakness and inferiority.  It suggests a nation with a chip on its shoulder denied its rightful place in history.  It also suggests a nation, or at least a leader, who has decided/discovered that there is still a ways to go to match the west in military technology and that military technology is the key.
> 
> A couple of days ago I referenced Canada's WW2 Auxilliary Corps as an option for engaging they Canadian civil community  in support of militarily relevant objectives.
> 
> Here's another one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Royal Observer Corps - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Corps was stood down on 31 March 1996.
> 
> Playstation was introduced on 3 December 1994
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PlayStation - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Given the popularity of both PlayStations and Multi-Player Games, as well as the broad international interest in following events in Ukraine, offering commentary and active engagement in all sorts of activities to support the Ukrainians on line with resources and intelligence perhaps the Observer Corps was stood down a bit too early.
> 
> I understand that one of the arguments against UAVs is the narrow field of vision - the expression I have heard is like looking through a straw.  There is a solution to that.   Many straws with many eyeballs.




And then I find this 



> New app lets civilians help shoot down drones and missiles in Ukraine​The ePPO application is currently available for the Android platform, developers are working on creating a version for iOS, which is expected to ship in a few weeks.​
> 
> Ukraine has created an application for mobile devices that will help air defense units supplement radar information about an air target to better the chances of taking it down, according to Ukraine's Strategic Communications Department.
> 
> 
> "The Android version of the "ePPO" application is already available to download. Now every citizen of Ukraine can join the anti-missile and anti-aircraft defense of our skies," the Strategic Communications Department of the Office of the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine said.
> 
> To use the app, all that is needed is to install the "ePPO" application on your smartphone, pass a quick authorization process, click "Test" to make sure that everything works, and be ready to notify anti-aircraft fighters about perceived threats.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> New app lets civilians help shoot down drones and missiles in Ukraine
> 
> 
> The ePPO application is currently available for the Android platform, developers are working on creating a version for iOS, which is expected to ship in a few weeks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.jpost.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How the app works​If you see an air target, for example, a cruise missile or a suicide drone, you need to open "ePPO" on your smartphone, select the type of air target, point your smartphone in the direction of the target and press the big red button.
> 
> Air defense specialists will see a mark on the map, it will complement the radar information and the threat will be shot down.
> 
> The ePPO application is currently available for the Android platform, developers are working on creating a version for iOS, which is expected to ship in a few weeks.











						New app lets civilians help shoot down drones and missiles in Ukraine
					

The ePPO application is currently available for the Android platform, developers are working on creating a version for iOS, which is expected to ship in a few weeks.




					www.jpost.com


----------



## Kirkhill

Edward Campbell said:


> I agree; it is part of what they call, in there EU, the New Hanseatic League.
> 
> Neither the EU nor NATO is united in any meaningful way. There are three main European divisions:
> 
> 1. The fiscally conservative Northerners - the New Hanseatic League+;​2. The fiscally irresponsible _Romans_ - France, Italy, Portugal, Spain and honorary member Greece; and​3. The Eastern European rest.​
> None of the three wants to upset the whole apple-cart ... yet ... but, equally, none of the three is happy with the status quo.



Thanks Ted - I hadn't realized that they had come together formally.  The presence of Ireland in the mix is intriguing.

Makes me think that if this mob had come out of the closet seven or eight years ago and supported Cameron the Brexit result might have been different.  Now they have to fight their own battles inside the EU.

I wonder if they will give Britain credit for helping them outside the EU.

New Hanseatic League -  Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, the Netherlands and Sweden  February 2018
Joint Expeditionary Force -  United Kingdom-led expeditionary force which may consist of, Denmark, Finland, Estonia, Iceland, Latvia, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Sweden and Norway. - 2015 with Sweden and Finland joining in 2017

Ireland and Iceland are the odd ones.


----------



## PPCLI Guy

This thread should be called "Liberals Boost Hinting At Becoming a Serious Country"


----------



## Edward Campbell

Another geezer eruption, I'm afraid, but ...

*Canada hasn't wanted to be serious country since the late 1960s.*

_I think_ that's understandable ... we never were a great power, but, briefly, we were a leader, maybe even *the* leader of the responsible, Western, 'middle powers.' But leadership came at a price - other middle powers were betiding generous welfare states while Canada, led by a fiscally prudent (downright fiscally conservative) Liberal government was spending on building - national microwave systems, great, world altering seaways, far North radar lines and transcontinental pipelines - was overly cautious about social spending. We, well, not even me, I was only a teenager when John Diefenbaker tossed the Liberals on to the opposition benches and began to _*restrain*_ the previous government's foreign and defence programmes. I was an adult, a captain, actually, in 2RCR when the government-of-the-day (Pierre Elliot Trudeau's government) decided that we should not be leaders ... we should not, _Saint Pierre_ said, even be good followers; we should be slackers and laggards and freeloaders because we had more serious problems to contend with: National Unity; building a "Just Society;" and maintaining a "harmonious natural environment" - there was a whole booklet about that in his in famous (1970) white paper _Foreign Policy for Canadians_. 

Canadians, by and large, agreed with Pierre Trudeau. Brian Mulroney, Paul Martin Jr and Stephen Harper all wanted to do more but they all *knew*, with near absolute certainty, that Canadians didn't want an activist, principled foreign policy and Canadians really, really didn't want too pay for the sort of military force that such a policy needs to be effective.

_I do not believe_ that the situation has changed. We can call it whatever we like, but only if we understand that the reason we are not a serious country is because we, most (maybe 85%+ of us) Canadians, are not a serious people who deserve such a country.

_/rant_


----------



## Kat Stevens

Edward Campbell said:


> Another geezer eruption, I'm afraid, but ...
> 
> *Canada hasn't wanted to be serious country since the late 1960s.*
> 
> _I think_ that's understandable ... we never were a great power, but, briefly, we were a leader, maybe even *the* leader of the responsible, Western, 'middle powers.' But leadership came at a price - other middle powers were betiding generous welfare states while Canada, led by a fiscally prudent (downright fiscally conservative) Liberal government was spending on building - national microwave systems, great, world altering seaways, far North radar lines and transcontinental pipelines - was overly cautious about social spending. We, well, not even me, I was only a teenager when John Diefenbaker tossed the Liberals on to the opposition benches and began to _*restrain*_ the previous government's foreign and defence programmes. I was an adult, a captain, actually, in 2RCR when the government-of-the-day (Pierre Elliot Trudeau's government) decided that we should not be leaders ... we should not, _Saint Pierre_ said, even be good followers; we should be slackers and laggards and freeloaders because we had more serious problems to contend with: National Unity; building a "Just Society;" and maintaining a "harmonious natural environment" - there was a whole booklet about that in his in famous (1970) white paper _Foreign Policy for Canadians_.
> 
> Canadians, by and large, agreed with Pierre Trudeau. Brian Mulroney, Paul Martin Jr and Stephen Harper all wanted to do more but they all *knew*, with near absolute certainty, that Canadians didn't want an activist, principled foreign policy and Canadians really, really didn't want too pay for the sort of military force that such a policy needs to be effective.
> 
> _I do not believe_ that the situation has changed. We can call it whatever we like, but only if we understand that the reason we are not a serious country is because we, most (maybe 85%+ of us) Canadians, are not a serious people who deserve such a country.
> 
> _/rant_
> 
> View attachment 74296


Good for you for still being able to erupt at your age, Pops!


----------



## Kirkhill

Edward Campbell said:


> Another geezer eruption, I'm afraid, but ...
> 
> *Canada hasn't wanted to be serious country since the late 1960s.*
> 
> _I think_ that's understandable ... we never were a great power, but, briefly, we were a leader, maybe even *the* leader of the responsible, Western, 'middle powers.' But leadership came at a price - other middle powers were betiding generous welfare states while Canada, led by a fiscally prudent (downright fiscally conservative) Liberal government was spending on building - national microwave systems, great, world altering seaways, far North radar lines and transcontinental pipelines - was overly cautious about social spending. We, well, not even me, I was only a teenager when John Diefenbaker tossed the Liberals on to the opposition benches and began to _*restrain*_ the previous government's foreign and defence programmes. I was an adult, a captain, actually, in 2RCR when the government-of-the-day (Pierre Elliot Trudeau's government) decided that we should not be leaders ... we should not, _Saint Pierre_ said, even be good followers; we should be slackers and laggards and freeloaders because we had more serious problems to contend with: National Unity; building a "Just Society;" and maintaining a "harmonious natural environment" - there was a whole booklet about that in his in famous (1970) white paper _Foreign Policy for Canadians_.
> 
> Canadians, by and large, agreed with Pierre Trudeau. Brian Mulroney, Paul Martin Jr and Stephen Harper all wanted to do more but they all *knew*, with near absolute certainty, that Canadians didn't want an activist, principled foreign policy and Canadians really, really didn't want too pay for the sort of military force that such a policy needs to be effective.
> 
> _I do not believe_ that the situation has changed. We can call it whatever we like, but only if we understand that the reason we are not a serious country is because we, most (maybe 85%+ of us) Canadians, are not a serious people who deserve such a country.
> 
> _/rant_
> 
> View attachment 74296




I presume you saw this - 



> The Canadian government works on two world stages.
> 
> In one, a decisive Canada identifies the developing dangers of the globe and acts boldly to deal with them. Unfortunately, that exists only in the imaginary world of Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland’s foreign-policy speeches. In the other one, the real world, Canada vacillates aimlessly on tough choices without much of a foreign policy.





> The speech itself was fascinating. The Deputy Prime Minister argued that the era of hoping that democracy and global rules would inexorably spread around the world is over. Now, democratic countries must recognize that their powerful authoritarian nations aren’t about to change, and those democracies will have to take steps to blunt the power and economic leverage of authoritarian rivals.
> 
> The implications are vast. This wasn’t just about sanctioning Russia for invading Ukraine. It was about taking steps to reduce economic dependence, not only on Russian energy but Chinese supply chains. Follow the logic, and it means dividing into two trading blocs.
> 
> But there’s no sign that bears any relation to Canada’s actual foreign policy. It is not clear that Foreign Affairs Minister Mélanie Joly agrees, or Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.





> In Ottawa, officials have been labouring on a new Indo-Pacific strategy, but the first hiccup was that the drafters couldn’t decide if they should have the audacity to mention China by name. The current draft is said to be too tough on China for Ms. Joly’s liking. At any rate, the Foreign Affairs Minister has indicated she is out to re-establish warmer ties with China. The European Union’s policy declared China a “strategic rival,” but Canada hasn’t said anything like it.
> 
> Yet Ms. Freeland is telling the world we have to wake up to the fact that we can’t always have “win-win” relationships with authoritarian states,












						Chrystia Freeland issues a clarion call from Canada’s foreign-policy void
					

If you don’t whether the Deputy Prime Minister’s latest speech is the government’s foreign policy, it could be because in the real world, it hasn’t really got one




					www.theglobeandmail.com
				




Campbell Clark doesn't seem to be holding his breath.

Musing.....


I wonder if the Westminster theatrics have got the good idea fairies fluttering in Ottawa?

It is kind of a piece with the LNG conundrum and Carbon Capture - good enough for Joe, good enough for Justin.


----------



## Kirkhill

Future Probable

We get to sell more Hydrocarbons to Europe when we jack our Defence Spending to 2.5% and  our International Aid to 0.7%.

Kickbacks make the world go round.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Kirkhill said:


> Future Probable
> 
> We get to sell more Hydrocarbons to Europe when we jack our Defence Spending to 2.5% and  our International Aid to 0.7%.
> 
> Kickbacks make the world go round.



Stranger things and all that ... we got Leopard tanks after Pierre Trudeau had a "walk in there garden" with Germany's chancellor; so who knows?


----------



## PPCLI Guy

There is no way these lightweights suddenly get a dose of realpolitik strong enough to burst the echo chamber bubble.

As Mr Campbell said, we are an unserious people in an unserious country who elect unserious governments.  

And our long-suffering Allies and otherwise well-meaning friends are getting to the point that they will call us on it.

And we, as Canadians, don't get to point fingers at the politicians.  We did this.  We are the vacuous.  We are the unserious.  We need only look in the mirror.

I suspect, however, that we will *fiddle* with our social media, watch Netflix, make well-intentioned and unrealistic if not unhinged pronouncements of our virtue,  and make bigger car payments as we fail to even realise that it is all *burning.*...


----------



## Brad Sallows

Too many Canadians are near-obsessed with setting themselves apart from Americans.


----------



## FSTO

Brad Sallows said:


> Too many Canadians are near-obsessed with setting themselves apart from Americans.


While at the same time greedily sucking every drop of US culture as it washes across the border daily.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Edward Campbell said:


> I agree; it is part of what they call, in there EU, the New Hanseatic League.
> 
> Neither the EU nor NATO is united in any meaningful way. There are three main European divisions:
> 
> 1. The fiscally conservative Northerners - the New Hanseatic League+;​2. The fiscally irresponsible _Romans_ - France, Italy, Portugal, Spain and honorary member Greece; and​3. The Eastern European rest.​
> None of the three wants to upset the whole apple-cart ... yet ... but, equally, none of the three is happy with the status quo.


Add the Belgians to #2 and the Dutch to #1.
In #3 there’s a split; Poland, Czech Rep, Slovakia and the Baltics, with the Romanians lumped in with that group and then all the others - Slovenia, Croatia, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Bulgaria in the other and the Hungary dangling in the wind.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Kirkhill said:


> I presume you saw this -
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chrystia Freeland issues a clarion call from Canada’s foreign-policy void
> 
> 
> If you don’t whether the Deputy Prime Minister’s latest speech is the government’s foreign policy, it could be because in the real world, it hasn’t really got one
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theglobeandmail.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Campbell Clark doesn't seem to be holding his breath.
> 
> Musing.....
> 
> 
> I wonder if the Westminster theatrics have got the good idea fairies fluttering in Ottawa?
> 
> It is kind of a piece with the LNG conundrum and Carbon Capture - good enough for Joe, good enough for Justin.


The one thing that Freeland sort of gets is the seriousness of VVP and his lot.
She’s lived in Ukraine during its birth and the dying days of the old SU, she’s seen this stuff first hand. She grew up listening to the ‘Evil Empire’ speeches from her Grandfather (plus or minus any lingering love of Nazi Germany that he may still have had). But somehow this has not translated into anything meaningful in terms of pushing for a renewed CAF. The years of living the good life in a utopian bubble here in Canada have damped, stifled everything else. She needs to spend 2-3 months back in Ukraine among her relatives to reawaken this knowledge that has been buried away.


----------



## KevinB

Czech_pivo said:


> The one thing that Freeland sort of gets is the seriousness of VVP and his lot.
> She’s lived in Ukraine during its birth and the dying days of the old SU, she’s seen this stuff first hand. She grew up listening to the ‘Evil Empire’ speeches from her Grandfather (plus or minus any lingering love of Nazi Germany that he may still have had). But somehow this has not translated into anything meaningful in terms of pushing for a renewed CAF. The years of living the good life in a utopian bubble here in Canada have damped, stifled everything else. She needs to spend 2-3 months back in Ukraine among her relatives to reawaken this knowledge that has been buried away.


I'm not sure it is a her problem (or solely a her problem)  - but more of a Trudeau, Joy - rest of the LPC (and most of Canada) problem.
   On can shout fire to their hearts content in an empty room, and have no one notice -- as they are all at the mall...


----------



## ueo

daftandbarmy said:


> Every time the Reg F opens up options for CT, lots of well trained reservists migrate over there. The problem is that the CT door opens and closes with a mysterious irregularity that confounds the best of planning minds.
> 
> Why not triple the size of the A Res and have a continuous supply of troops moving in to the RegF, via CT, after they've finished their degrees at college and completed most of their trades training?
> 
> Then, after they do their Reg F service (in their early/mid-40s) they can CT back to their ARes units and serve until they hit CRA.


I would dearly like to hear from some one with pers/first hand knowledge of the actual nos by trade/rank today. PM and minister seem to be pulling pax out of thair bums. Any takers?


----------



## Kirkhill

KevinB said:


> I'm not sure it is a her problem (or solely a her problem)  - but more of a Trudeau, Joy - rest of the LPC (and most of Canada) problem.
> On can shout fire to their hearts content in an empty room, and have no one notice -- as they are all at the mall...



Similar problem for Anand and all the bright sparks that were reassigned to national security positions at the beginning of this government.   It isn't lack of talent, or corporate knowledge or advice that prevents Trudeau and Joly acting on the Defence and Energy fronts.  It is conviction.  And that is worse.


----------



## dapaterson

ueo said:


> I would dearly like to hear from some one with pers/first hand knowledge of the actual nos by trade/rank today. PM and minister seem to be pulling pax out of thair bums. Any takers?


Nothing that's open source.

But on DWAN the data vis tool can be instructive about actual current numbers.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Kirkhill said:


> *There is indeed a place for the professional - the person that is paid explicitly for the task they are asked to undertake - as opposed to the amateur - the person that does the same thing for the love of the thing. *
> *
> So you'll not sell me on the merits of the professional attitude.
> *
> *It's one thing to be proud of your trade and your accomplishments.  Its another entirely to think that others can't perform equally as well without  the paper.*


The Canadian Rugby Union Team would challenge your last assertion.


----------



## Kirkhill

There used to be a difference between Union and League - other than just the number of players on the field.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Humphrey Bogart said:


> The Canadian Rugby Union Team would challenge your last assertion.



Point of clarity, then Men's Canadian Rugby Union side.  I would completely fold the international men's side, it's GD disgrace.

The women's side is world class.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Halifax Tar said:


> Point of clarity, then Men's Canadian Rugby Union side.  I would completely fold the international men's side, it's GD disgrace.
> 
> The women's side is world class.


Yah, my point was really to illustrate the gulf between professional vs amateur sides.  The Men's Team current predicament is a result of the prevailing attitudes that "our amateurs will give them a good run for their money"


----------



## Halifax Tar

Humphrey Bogart said:


> Yah, my point was really to illustrate the gulf between professional vs amateur sides.  The Men's Team current predicament is a result of the prevailing attitudes that "our amateurs will give them a good run for their money"



Oh I understood you.  I just wanted to make sure we didn't lump the ladies in with your flailing men's side. 

I played rugby for over 25 years.  Where we were when I started to where we are now is a disgrace.  But its actually a good example of your point.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Halifax Tar said:


> Oh I understood you.  I just wanted to make sure we didn't lump the ladies in with your flailing men's side.
> 
> I played rugby for over 25 years.  Where we were when I started to where we are now is a disgrace.  But its actually a good example of your point.


Oh yah, I played for 20 years.  I remember Canada running Italy close in 2003 and acquitting themselves well.  They also beat Scotland and Italy in the lead up to that tournament and tied Ireland.

It was after that tournament though that the gulf between amateur and the now fully professional sides grew.  It's only gotten larger since then and if you don't have a professional competition, you're players aren't going to cut it at Test level.

It's why Canada is now not only getting smashed by the traditionally weaker test nations but also getting crushed by the likes of Romania, Georgia, Spain, Uruguay, Chile, Portugal, etc.


----------



## Kirkhill

Edward Campbell said:


> I agree; it is part of what they call, in there EU, the New Hanseatic League.
> 
> Neither the EU nor NATO is united in any meaningful way. There are three main European divisions:
> 
> 1. The fiscally conservative Northerners - the New Hanseatic League+;​2. The fiscally irresponsible _Romans_ - France, Italy, Portugal, Spain and honorary member Greece; and​3. The Eastern European rest.​
> None of the three wants to upset the whole apple-cart ... yet ... but, equally, none of the three is happy with the status quo.



Thinking about this....

One might be excused from thinking somebody is actively engaged in upsetting apple carts.

The US apple cart is going through its regularly scheduled upset - Jacksonians seem to be trending upwards
The UK apple cart is experiencing some uncharacteristic turbulence - Hanseatic Brexiteers and Roman Remainers are engaged in a grudge match
The French apple cart is experiencing its usual instability - Yet another government threatening strike (Ho Hum)
The Italian apple cart has been upset by its new nationalist PM - who seems to be actually quite steady
The German apple cart is being upset - the Pro Russian factions in the government, security services, business and economic departments are threatened with a repeat of the 1945 deNazification policies

And the EU in Brussels - is trying to pretend that it is still in control of the situation 

My money is on Poland and the Easterners - once they get Hungary sorted.

Is this another "spontaneous" eruption - like 1848 or 1968?  Or is it something other?


----------



## Czech_pivo

Kirkhill said:


> Thinking about this....
> 
> One might be excused from thinking somebody is actively engaged in upsetting apple carts.
> 
> The US apple cart is going through its regularly scheduled upset - Jacksonians seem to be trending upwards
> The UK apple cart is experiencing some uncharacteristic turbulence - Hanseatic Brexiteers and Roman Remainers are engaged in a grudge match
> The French apple cart is experiencing its usual instability - Yet another government threatening strike (Ho Hum)
> The Italian apple cart has been upset by its new nationalist PM - who seems to be actually quite steady
> The German apple cart is being upset - the Pro Russian factions in the government, security services, business and economic departments are threatened with a repeat of the 1945 deNazification policies
> 
> And the EU in Brussels - is trying to pretend that it is still in control of the situation
> 
> My money is on Poland and the Easterners - once they get Hungary sorted.
> 
> Is this another "spontaneous" eruption - like 1848 or 1968?  Or is it something other?


Canada:  "Wait, you guys have an apple cart!"


----------



## Kirkhill

More apples spilling









						Macron and Scholz in bitter row as Berlin snubs EU for US defence
					

A Franco-German summit next week could be cancelled over disagreements between Paris and Berlin, officials have hinted.




					www.express.co.uk
				












						The EU cannot insulate itself from the coming cataclysm
					

Our European friends would be wise not to laugh at Britain's troubles – they'll be in the same boat soon enough




					www.telegraph.co.uk
				












						Ukraine war: Mysterious defence secretary trip to Washington amid fears of Russian escalation
					

The secretive, last-minute nature of the trip and a comment by a second defence minister, James Heappey - who said the conversations Mr Wallace would be having on Tuesday were "beyond belief" - suggested particularly sensitive and serious issues would be discussed.




					news.sky.com


----------



## Brad Sallows

Foreign affairs can sometimes be used to deflect attention away from domestic affairs, which are pretty crappy (economic) right now.  Everyone's looking for scapegoats.


----------



## Spencer100

Wow.  France upset about Germany need weapons now and not paying for a French make work program.  LOL....but that's the deal we do the project and you pay for it!


----------



## Spencer100

Kirkhill said:


> More apples spilling
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ukraine war: Mysterious defence secretary trip to Washington amid fears of Russian escalation
> 
> 
> The secretive, last-minute nature of the trip and a comment by a second defence minister, James Heappey - who said the conversations Mr Wallace would be having on Tuesday were "beyond belief" - suggested particularly sensitive and serious issues would be discussed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> news.sky.com


I don't think there is anything wrong about get the UK and US ducks in a line.  I think the UK Def Min needs to see from their mouths how far they are going to go and/or push it.  I would think that can't done over zoom.


----------



## Spencer100

And here ends any thoughts of an increased budget.  









						Chrystia Freeland warns cabinet ministers: New programs must be funded by budget cuts
					

Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland has told her cabinet colleagues that if they want money for new programs in the next federal budget, they’ll have to help pay for them with some cuts of their own.




					www.thestar.com
				




Dentalcare? or Anti-tank Missiles?.......You already know the answer.


----------



## Good2Golf

At least let’s hope that the $$$ worth of donated kit to UKR doesn’t come directly out of DND’s budget… (not holding out hope TBH)


----------



## Brad Sallows

"So long dental plan ATGM!"


----------



## rmc_wannabe

I have zero faith that this government could fiscally run a lemonade stand, so this does not surprise me.


----------



## OldSolduer

rmc_wannabe said:


> I have zero faith that this government could fiscally run a lemonade stand, so this does not surprise me.


First you would have to obtain a license from the municipality to run said lemonade stand. Then the province would inspect said stand for hygiene, etc and all requirements therein. Then the Feds would want to do a Gender Base analysis plus and LGBTQ2S ++ survey to ensure your hiring practices are diverse enough. In about three years you can open said lemonade stand....and not everyone likes lemonade so you need to allow for that. 

There you go


----------



## SeaKingTacco

OldSolduer said:


> First you would have to obtain a license from the municipality to run said lemonade stand. Then the province would inspect said stand for hygiene, etc and all requirements therein. Then the Feds would want to do a Gender Base analysis plus and LGBTQ2S ++ survey to ensure your hiring practices are diverse enough. In about three years you can open said lemonade stand....and not everyone likes lemonade so you need to allow for that.
> 
> There you go


You forgot first nations consultation….

….and official languages.

Call it…10 years?


----------



## Halifax Tar

Spencer100 said:


> And here ends any thoughts of an increased budget.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chrystia Freeland warns cabinet ministers: New programs must be funded by budget cuts
> 
> 
> Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland has told her cabinet colleagues that if they want money for new programs in the next federal budget, they’ll have to help pay for them with some cuts of their own.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.thestar.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dentalcare? or Anti-tank Missiles?.......You already know the answer.



Oooooooooooo I can't wait for the next budget!


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

rmc_wannabe said:


> I have zero faith that this government could fiscally run a lemonade stand, so this does not surprise me.


Well we have a Finance Minister who had to have her Parents co-sign a house her and her husband bought in her constituency not too long ago.






						Slumming in Summerhill: LPC candidate Freeland now a Toronto homeowner |  National Newswatch
					

National Newswatch: Canada's most comprehensive site for political news and views. Make it a daily habit.




					www.nationalnewswatch.com
				




Then there is the fact that her sole claim to fame in the business World was running her department at Reuters in to the ground, financially. 🤣









						How Chrystia Freeland Hastened Reuters Next's Demise
					

<b>The dynamo who left Reuters to run for a seat in Canada's parliament was both the motivating force behind the wire service's ambitious digital revamp and one of the primary reasons it was killed, current and former employees tell BuzzFeed.</b>




					www.buzzfeednews.com
				




I enjoy this quote:



> "When you are building something to become the tip of the spear of the company, you need to know how the company operates," the Reuters employee said. But Freeland "doesn't do the thing where you talk to the rest of the people in the company," said the first former Reuters employee, "She just steamrolls in."



So yes, you're right, they couldn't run a lemonade stand.  Freeland and Co are really good at lighting money on fire though!

I fear for our future 😂


----------



## Jarnhamar

Humphrey Bogart said:


> I fear for our future 😂



Few dozen firearms, 10k bullets and a couple years worth of freeze dried food helps with that sorta anxeity 😛


----------



## OldSolduer

SeaKingTacco said:


> You forgot first nations consultation….
> 
> ….and official languages.
> 
> Call it…10 years?


First Nations don't care about lemonade....


----------



## SeaKingTacco

OldSolduer said:


> First Nations don't care about lemonade....


You still have to consult.


----------



## CBH99

Brad Sallows said:


> Foreign affairs can sometimes be used to deflect attention away from domestic affairs, which are pretty crappy (economic) right now.  Everyone's looking for scapegoats.


If you have a decently organized & robust enough defence industry, its a great way to spur that economy up again too.

“We get to bomb baddies AND unemployment goes down!?  Sounds like a good deal!”


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

CBH99 said:


> If you have a decently organized & robust enough defence industry, its a great way to spur that economy up again too.
> 
> “We get to bomb baddies AND unemployment goes down!?  Sounds like a good deal!”


Decently organized and robust......

Two words Canadians don't understand 🤣


----------



## CBH99

Ain’t that the truth.  

In an alternative dimension somewhere, Canada looks much different. 

- stupid people who introduce stupid policies are not allowed in positions of authority 

- common sense reigns supreme.  (Need the ability to manufacture your own small arms & ammo without it being a hassle?  No problem!)


But our souls ended up in THIS dimension, subjected to becoming ever dumber anytime our ‘leader’ speaks.  It’s like a mirror universe damnit…

_Let me get this straight, you want to replace 1400 old trucks with 1400 new trucks?  I don’t understand, can 950 trucks give you the same capability as 1400 trucks could?_

^tell me aren’t living in the simpsons of realities…


----------



## MarkOttawa

Excellent paper at Macdonald-Laurier Institute by the very knowledgeable Prof. James Fergusson (U. of Manitoba):



> North American defence modernization in an age of uncertainty​This commentary by James Fergusson looks at the future of NORAD modernization and the threat posed by new military technologies.
> 
> First formally identified as a priority in the 2017 defence white paper, _Strong, Secure and Engaged_, and three years after NORAD modernization was identified in Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s mandate letter to Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan, the Trudeau government has finally earmarked funds for North American defence modernization. In the 2021 federal budget, the government did commit by defence standards, a paltry $252 million to “lay the groundwork for North American Aerospace Defence Command (NORAD) modernization and sustain existing continental and Arctic defence capabilities” (Canada 2021). Yet no spending details were provided.
> 
> Subsequently, in January 2022, the government awarded a $592 million contract for in-service support of the North Warning System (NWS).[1] In the recent 2022 budget, $6.1 billion over five years was added to the defence budget (Canada 2022b), although the amount committed to NORAD modernization was left unspecified. In June, Defence Minister Anand announced $4.9 billion over six years, and $40 billion over 20 years for modernization with some additional details.[2] A month later on July 21, the Department of National Defence (DND) provided further details on its fact sheet, though this still lacked specificity.
> 
> The announcement and subsequent July DND fact sheet raise two areas for evaluation. The first concerns the funding commitments relative to the reality of defence spending in Canada and infrastructure construction in the Canadian Arctic. The _second relates to the underlying policy implications, which have not been acknowledged or presented_ [emphasis added]...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> North American defence modernization in an age of uncertainty | Macdonald-Laurier Institute
> 
> 
> This commentary by James Fergusson looks at the future of NORAD modernization and the threat posed by new military technologies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> macdonaldlaurier.ca



Read on.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Kirkhill

From a Government mouthpiece in a Government paper.

Is there hope?



> It is an axiom of Canadian politics that a thing is not known until the Liberals know it. Free trade was terra incognita before the Liberals discovered it, a creature of Tory myth that Brian Mulroney somehow convinced the public to support in 1988. As late as 1993 the Liberals were still campaigning against it.
> 
> But then they won power, after which it was suddenly transformed into conventional wisdom – one of those things everybody knows, and what is more has always known. By a similarly mysterious process the GST, balanced budgets and price stability, ideas once so barbaric no civilized person could repeat them, became familiar parts of the Liberal lexicon.
> 
> Something of the same seems now to be happening in the realm of foreign policy. For some time now it has been apparent that the great hope of post-Cold War diplomacy, that the world could be made not only more prosperous through trade but also more democratic and more peaceful, had failed.











						Opinion: With the ‘Freeland Doctrine,’ the Liberals say what has long been apparent to everyone but them
					

In a recent speech, the Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland acknowledged that the age of peace through prosperity is over




					www.theglobeandmail.com
				






> Trade had, to be sure, delivered the expected economic benefits: The evidence on globalization’s contribution to rising incomes, not only in the developing world but the developed, is overwhelming. But in its civilizing mission it had, if anything, made matters worse.
> 
> Not only had Russia and China failed to grow more democratic, they had slid backward into dictatorship. Not only had they declined to embrace the norms and obligations of great power citizenry, they had weaponized the West’s openness to trade with them, using the gains from trade to fund their military buildups and, as we have lately seen, holding hostage those nations who were so unwary as to depend on trade with them.
> 
> All this, as I say, has long been apparent – apparent, that is, to everyone but the Liberals. While other countries were raising the alarm about China’s growing threat, for example, the early years of the Trudeau government were given over to ingratiating itself with what many in the government saw as the rising world power.
> 
> Not until this year – after Hong Kong, after the two Michaels – could the government even bring itself to formally bar Huawei from our telecoms systems. To this day, present and former Liberal potentates talk glowingly of the business opportunities to be had in China – an expansionist power that, along with Russia, “consider themselves to be at war with the West,” as the chief of the defence staff reminded us the other day.
> 
> A similar mix of cynicism and naiveté had animated our relations with Russia, until recent events made the illusion of ameliorability impossible to sustain any longer – though even then, someone at Global Affairs thought it proper to send a representative to that Russian Embassy party.
> 
> Hence the news value in last week’s speech in Washington by the Deputy Prime Minister, Chrystia Freeland – a speech that has given rise to excited proclamations of a “Freeland Doctrine.” Certainly it was news to hear a senior Liberal declare that the age of peace through prosperity is over; that China and Russia are not our partners but our implacable adversaries; that national security, with the threat of nuclear war in the air, trumps the gains from trade, or – dare I say it – even the environment. That it was news, however, was not because the ideas are new – only because a Liberal said it.
> 
> The “three pillars” on which Ms. Freeland proposed to build a new international order – closer trade and investment ties among the democracies, openness to trade with other countries who share our values, and a determination to stand together against the encroachments of the autocracies – were likewise not particularly new.
> 
> The catchphrase “friend-shoring,” or the diversion of trade and investment, particularly in sensitive sectors, from autocratic to democratic countries, was coined by the U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, as Ms. Freeland acknowledged.
> 
> Still, it was all sensible enough – a trade bloc among the democracies, an economic NATO – or would have been, had Ms. Freeland resisted the temptation to load it up with extraneous considerations.
> 
> There was first the pretense that friend-shoring, rather than a stopgap, a second-best in a security climate that no longer permits global free trade, was somehow also an economic panacea. “Friend-shoring,” she declared, “is an historic opportunity for our workers and our communities … to attract new investment, create more good-paying jobs, and thrive in a changed global economy.”
> 
> Well, no. If it were economically preferable to trade with countries other than China, we would not need a foreign policy requiring it. China’s cheap labour, as the minister acknowledges elsewhere in the speech, “brought down the cost of consumer goods and commodities for us all.” Avoiding trade with China and other dictatorships might be good for our security, it might be truer to our principles, but it is not going to make us all richer. In fact it is going to make us a little poorer. It’s a trade-off, not a win-win.
> 
> Second, it is not necessarily the case, as Ms. Freeland claimed, that friend-shoring will help “preserve the planet.” The decisions that must be taken, the policies that must be implemented, the sacrifices that must be made – for a cleaner environment also, inescapably, implies some loss of material income – are broadly the same, whether we trade with the world or just our friends.
> 
> It may be that there are political opportunities, amid all the other changes friend-shoring will require, to advance a green agenda – I seem to recall Ms. Freeland saying much the same about the pandemic – but that is a different story. For that matter, nothing about friend-shoring requires us to engage in a subsidy war with our allies and partners – it’s supposed to be about free trade, remember? – though Ms. Freeland seems determined to pursue one.
> 
> In any case, it’s hard to square the “friend-shoring must be green” dogma with the most remarked-upon bit of Sudden Liberal Awareness in the speech, the commitment to “fast-track” energy and mining projects “our allies need to heat their homes.” Quite what this means we can only speculate: Could it really be that this government is now prepared to put the demands of a global security crisis before the delights of environmental purity? Was it only two months ago that the German Chancellor, on a visit in search of Canadian liquefied natural gas, was turned away empty-handed?
> 
> But like much else in the speech it seemed to imply the Liberals were prepared once again to give their blessing to common knowledge, and for that I suppose we should be grateful.


----------



## kev994

CBH99 said:


> If you have a decently organized & robust enough defence industry, its a great way to spur that economy up again too.
> 
> “We get to bomb baddies AND unemployment goes down!?  Sounds like a good deal!”


It’s more popular to give people a bit of cash and pretend like it’s not just from the income tax they paid last week. Case in point: Ontario will give you $200 to ignore this education problem so that they don’t have to deal with the teachers union.


----------



## Brad Sallows

I doubt the age of "peace through prosperity" is over.  Governments need to stop leeching prosperity, so that it can work its magic.

I also doubt that it's mere coincidence that as prosperity takes a kick from "events" (eg. pandemic and pandemic mitigation), peace also takes a kick.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Military recruiting issues may be ‘more serious’ than senior ranks letting on: Hillier - National | Globalnews.ca
					

Until the recruitment issue is addressed, the Canadian Forces will continue to be "in a huge amount of trouble," retired Gen. Rick Hillier warned.




					globalnews.ca
				




The Big Cod exposing the ugly truth.


----------



## Quirky

Humphrey Bogart said:


> Military recruiting issues may be ‘more serious’ than senior ranks letting on: Hillier - National | Globalnews.ca
> 
> 
> Until the recruitment issue is addressed, the Canadian Forces will continue to be "in a huge amount of trouble," retired Gen. Rick Hillier warned.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> globalnews.ca
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Big Cod exposing the ugly truth.



Ah yes, the sexual misconduct and right wing extremist boogyman. That is part of the problem, but those things exist in every large company, you just don’t hear about it.

Lack of housing on bases, pay, old garbage equipment and lack of purpose and direction are the biggest problems.


----------



## WestIsle

Quirky said:


> Ah yes, the sexual misconduct and right wing extremist boogyman. That is part of the problem, but those things exist in every large company, you just don’t hear about it.
> 
> Lack of housing on bases, pay, old garbage equipment and lack of purpose and direction are the biggest problems.


A huge issue the chain seems to be ignorant of is the posting system messing up the workup cycle. Officers rolling into platoons and companies for less than the workup cycle has led many units to be on perpetual workup for years to get people their checks in the box while also never deploying themselves. There is too much demand and pressure to produce for NDHQ and its burning out the line units not to mention what its doing to the officer corps.


----------



## Weinie

WestIsle said:


> A huge issue the chain seems to be ignorant of is the posting system messing up the workup cycle. Officers rolling into platoons and companies for less than the workup cycle has led many units to be on perpetual workup for years to get people their checks in the box while also never deploying themselves. There is too much demand and pressure to produce for NDHQ and its burning out the line units not to mention what its doing to the officer corps.


I am just glad I retired end of May.


----------



## dimsum

WestIsle said:


> There is too much demand and pressure to produce for NDHQ the GoC and its burning out the line units not to mention what its doing to the officer corps.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Quirky said:


> Ah yes, the sexual misconduct and right wing extremist boogyman. That is part of the problem, but those things exist in every large company, you just don’t hear about it.
> 
> Lack of housing on bases, pay, old garbage equipment and _lack of purpose_ and direction are the biggest problems.



There you have it ... but that _lack of purpose_ is NOT the CF's fault; nor is it the Government of Canada's fault. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his team have asked Canadians, over and over again, what they want ... and they never, ever say - not more than about 10% of them, anyw3ay - that they went more more money or effort or anything else spent on defence.

The people of Canada - your friends and neighbours, maybe even your family members - think that the CF is a waste, a useless bunch of layabouts who are constantly demanding new "toys for the boys" but rarely do anything useful.

I am pretty sure that Pierre Poilievre's Conservatives have received the same message as have Trudeau's Liberals: _defence doesn't matter_.

Until Canadians change their minds there will be no change. What will make them change their minds?


----------



## dimsum

Edward Campbell said:


> I am pretty sure that Pierre Poilievre's Conservatives have received the same message as have Trudeau's Liberals: _defence doesn't matter_.


Correct.  If the CPC wins next election, DND will not get a windfall of money because frankly, nobody cares.


----------



## rmc_wannabe

WestIsle said:


> A huge issue the chain seems to be ignorant of is the posting system messing up the workup cycle. Officers rolling into platoons and companies for less than the workup cycle has led many units to be on perpetual workup for years to get people their checks in the box while also never deploying themselves. There is too much demand and pressure to produce for NDHQ and its burning out the line units not to mention what its doing to the officer corps.


I find as much as we preach the "4 kinds of officers" thing as a deterrent, we forget that is it's also very much a real aspect of employing people to their strengths.

Some people are great as Platoon/Troop Commanders, but would suck hard as a Staff officer at the Unit or Command level; that's OK

Some people are amazing, intellectual Staff Officers that have the charisma of a wet sock; that's OK.

Some people have the project management skills to see an idea sprout wings and take off, but would buckle at the weight of sub-unit or unit command; That's OK

Even with "succession planning" to identify our star streamers; we need to see where a person's strengths are, where their own desires are, and employ them in a useful and rewarding environment.

"Breadth of experience" needs to become a sentence that is verboten for 80 percent of the CAF: you cannot post people into character, nor can you post them into intellect or organizational skills.

A quote from the kids movie "Kung Fu Panda" actually fits well for what I see our major downfall is:

"You can choose where you plant that seed, but no matter what you do, that seed will grow to be a peach tree. You may wish for an apple or an orange, but you will get a peach. But if you nurture it, it will grow and bear fruit, even if it's not the kind you wanted." 

If we as the CAF stopped trying to believe we can have an "all singing, all dancing" member/officer by posting them every 3 years somewhere our of their depth, maybe more folks would want to stay on instead of picking a civilian workplace that let's them stay in the lane they want to.


----------



## dimsum

rmc_wannabe said:


> If we as the CAF stopped trying to believe we can have an "all singing, all dancing" member/officer by posting them every 3 years somewhere our of their depth, maybe more folks would want to stay on instead of picking a civilian workplace that let's them stay in the lane they want to.


I agree in principle that people are better suited to some things, but in many cases people don't really know how suited they are (or aren't) until you put them in those positions, sometimes with some stress to see how they do.

Example:  How would anyone know whether they are a good project officer if they never get put into a project?  Having a bit of staff work at the tactical level doesn't really translate well.  

This is a personal one because I didn't think I'd like project/staff work, but I found out I really did.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

dimsum said:


> Correct.  If the CPC wins next election, DND will not get a windfall of money because frankly, nobody cares.


Not to mention the piggybank is empty. It took 3-4 PM's to pay off JT dad's debt, I suspect the cycle will repeat.


----------



## rmc_wannabe

dimsum said:


> I agree in principle that people are better suited to some things, but in many cases people don't really know how suited they are (or aren't) until you put them in those positions, sometimes with some stress to see how they do.
> 
> Example:  How would anyone know whether they are a good project officer if they never get put into a project?  Having a bit of staff work at the tactical level doesn't really translate well.
> 
> This is a personal one because I didn't think I'd like project/staff work, but I found out I really did.


I can agree with that as well, and I believe that comes from true *mentorship* and _*career management *_as opposed to the current *position management we currently have.*


----------



## Good2Golf

Colin Parkinson said:


> Not to mention the piggybank is empty. It took 3-4 PM's to pay off JT dad's debt, I suspect the cycle will repeat.


Probably 5-6 PMs to pay off Junior’s sunny ways…


----------



## Kirkhill

WestIsle said:


> A huge issue the chain seems to be ignorant of is the posting system messing up the workup cycle. Officers rolling into platoons and companies for less than the workup cycle has led many units to be on perpetual workup for years to get people their checks in the box while also never deploying themselves. There is too much demand and pressure to produce for NDHQ and its burning out the line units not to mention what its doing to the officer corps.



I hear that a lot.  But is that a CAF thing or an Army thing?

The system seems to work fine to sustain a Naval Force continuously operating out of two ports, an Air Force, also on continuous operations, the majority of the purple trades (those not attached to the army), the Special Forces and a permanently staffed NDHQ.

So the Army (and its Reserves and its training system) are the odd men out.

Some nasty and inconsiderate souls could ask the question does National Defence require an Army?


----------



## KevinB

Kirkhill said:


> I hear that a lot.  But is that a CAF thing or an Army thing?
> 
> The system seems to work fine to sustain a Naval Force continuously operating out of two ports, an Air Force, also on continuous operations, the majority of the purple trades (those not attached to the army), the Special Forces and a permanently staffed NDHQ.
> 
> So the Army (and its Reserves and its training system) are the odd men out.
> 
> Some nasty and inconsiderate souls could ask the question does National Defence require an Army?


I think you are missing the effects on the RCN and RCAF. 
  SOF doesn’t have those issues as at user end the postings aren’t occurring.  Staff rotates but the deployable forces are fairly isolated.


----------



## Kirkhill

rmc_wannabe said:


> I find as much as we preach the "4 kinds of officers" thing as a deterrent, we forget that is it's also very much a real aspect of employing people to their strengths.
> 
> Some people are great as Platoon/Troop Commanders, but would suck hard as a Staff officer at the Unit or Command level; that's OK
> 
> Some people are amazing, intellectual Staff Officers that have the charisma of a wet sock; that's OK.
> 
> Some people have the project management skills to see an idea sprout wings and take off, but would buckle at the weight of sub-unit or unit command; That's OK
> 
> Even with "succession planning" to identify our star streamers; we need to see where a person's strengths are, where their own desires are, and employ them in a useful and rewarding environment.
> 
> "Breadth of experience" needs to become a sentence that is verboten for 80 percent of the CAF: you cannot post people into character, nor can you post them into intellect or organizational skills.
> 
> A quote from the kids movie "Kung Fu Panda" actually fits well for what I see our major downfall is:
> 
> "You can choose where you plant that seed, but no matter what you do, that seed will grow to be a peach tree. You may wish for an apple or an orange, but you will get a peach. But if you nurture it, it will grow and bear fruit, even if it's not the kind you wanted."
> 
> If we as the CAF stopped trying to believe we can have an "all singing, all dancing" member/officer by posting them every 3 years somewhere our of their depth, maybe more folks would want to stay on instead of picking a civilian workplace that let's them stay in the lane they want to.



The key to everything is recognizing, in your lingo, that there are, and always will be, four types of officers (and troops), and then exploiting them for what they CAN do.  That means not putting everyone through the same career programme.   No company, successful or otherwise, would consider trying to make all its mechanics payroll clerks for a season.


----------



## dapaterson

Kirkhill said:


> The system seems to work fine to sustain a Naval Force continuously operating out of two ports, an Air Force, also on continuous operations, the majority of the purple trades (those not attached to the army), the Special Forces and a permanently staffed NDHQ.


Wicked sense of humour there.


----------



## Kirkhill

dimsum said:


> I agree in principle that people are better suited to some things, but in many cases people don't really know how suited they are (or aren't) until you put them in those positions, sometimes with some stress to see how they do.
> 
> Example:  How would anyone know whether they are a good project officer if they never get put into a project?  Having a bit of staff work at the tactical level doesn't really translate well.
> 
> This is a personal one because I didn't think I'd like project/staff work, but I found out I really did.



In non-military terms you give people a shot at small scale projects and see how they handle them with coaching.  If they are good, or even just show promise,  you give them another one.   Some of them you turn into full time project managers.   Some get further promotion.  Others get relegated to Special Projects For Life.   

And some fitters never leave the shop floor.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Kirkhill said:


> I hear that a lot.  But is that a CAF thing or an Army thing?
> 
> The system seems to work fine to sustain a Naval Force continuously operating out of two ports, an Air Force, also on continuous operations, the majority of the purple trades (those not attached to the army), the Special Forces and a permanently staffed NDHQ.
> 
> So the Army (and its Reserves and its training system) are the odd men *people *out.
> 
> Some nasty and inconsiderate souls could ask the question does National Defence require an Army?



There, FTFY


----------



## FJAG

Edward Campbell said:


> I am pretty sure that Pierre Poilievre's Conservatives have received the same message as have Trudeau's Liberals: _defence doesn't matter_.


Interesting point.

While the CPC's Policy Declaration states that:



> 171. ... A Conservative Government will work towards spending at least the NATO recommended two (2) percent of 67 our GDP on National Defence



It also lists 23 policy categories of which "National Defence and Security" is number 22. That basically tells me how far down the line and out of sight and out of mind Defence is even for the CPC.

If that isn't bad enough, there are only eight policy statements under that topic. There were seven before the last National Convention when this one was added:



> 172. National Standard of Training for PTSD Service Dog Trainers The Conservative Party will create a National Standard of Training for PTSD Service Dog Trainers for Veterans. This standard must be developed to include a standard for PTSD Service Dogs and a standard for training the recipient veteran.



I don't want to be overly critical because there are some good, and long standing policy statements in there, but the point is that there hasn't been much recent debate or promulgation of any serious defence or security issues or initiatives. Just the occasional regurgitation of the usual motherhood things which didn't get fixed under Harper either.

🍻


----------



## Good2Golf

KevinB said:


> I think you are missing the effects on the RCN and RCAF.
> SOF doesn’t have those issues as at user end the postings aren’t occurring.  Staff rotates but the deployable forces are fairly isolated.


Having seen many years worth of trying to align some RCAF elements (predominately Tac Avn) to the Army’s MRS, only to have such plans dashed by the Army’s own inability to steward itself to the schedule of the MRS, it’s not just some in the Army that get frustrated with how it attempts to manage its rotation of readiness/deployable forces.


----------



## dapaterson

The Army is surprised every year by annual events.


----------



## YZT580

dimsum said:


> Correct.  If the CPC wins next election, DND will not get a windfall of money because frankly, nobody cares.


maybe true but after 8 years of lies anything would be an improvement


----------



## dimsum

Kirkhill said:


> In non-military terms you give people a shot at small scale projects and see how they handle them with coaching.  If they are good, or even just show promise,  you give them another one.   Some of them you turn into full time project managers.   Some get further promotion.  Others get relegated to Special Projects For Life.


That works in principle, but seconding Capt Bloggins from 4XX Sqn to ADM Mat or PMO for 3-6 months when 4XX Sqn is hurting for pilots and Capt Bloggins needs to fly at least once every 30 days to stay current is not really going to work out long term.

Also, that's where I said "small scale staff work at the tactical level" doesn't translate to being a part of project staff.  Having done both, you can get a small inkling of whether Capt Bloggins would be good at verbal/written communication, but I maintain that it's hard to gauge whether they would be a good staff officer without having an extended time in a project staff. 

Then, there's the chance that people will want to "game" the system.  It'd probably happen anyway, but folks who do show promise but don't want to leave the operational world would just tank the small project.  I suppose there could be financial/career incentives (like promotion) to entice them to staff jobs, but then those folks need to be senior enough to be promotable, or somehow get the funding piece.  And, the twist with being promotable is if there is a great staff officer but only a so-so [insert trade] officer, then they're theoretically not going to get promoted...




YZT580 said:


> maybe true but after 8 years of lies anything would be an improvement


Be careful what you wish for.


----------



## Furniture

dimsum said:


> Then, there's the chance that people will want to "game" the system.  It'd probably happen anyway, but folks who do show promise but don't want to leave the operational world would just tank the small project.  I suppose there could be financial/career incentives (like promotion) to entice them to staff jobs, but then those folks need to be senior enough to be promotable, or somehow get the funding piece.  And, the twist with being promotable is if there is a great staff officer but only a so-so [insert trade] officer, then they're theoretically not going to get promoted...


You highlight one of the CAF's retention issues in this paragraph. 

If someone would rather stay operational, why would you force them to do something they don't want to do? Seems like a perfect way to encourage people to look elsewhere for employment. 

It doesn't matter how much potential someone has, if they don't want to do the work they are not going to bring their best to the job.


----------



## Good2Golf

Furniture said:


> You highlight one of the CAF's retention issues in this paragraph.
> 
> If someone would rather stay operational, why would you force them to do something they don't want to do? Seems like a perfect way to encourage people to look elsewhere for employment.
> 
> It doesn't matter how much potential someone has, if they don't want to do the work they are not going to bring their best to the job.


And a failure to develop and maintain streams that allow suitably motivated members to advance along alternate career streams that in part, support procurement-related activities that fall far from the minds of many at the line units, but that is just as much an important function for the CAF as pure operations.


----------



## dimsum

Good2Golf said:


> And a failure to develop and maintain streams that allow suitably motivated members to advance along alternate career streams that in part, support procurement-related activities that fall far from the minds of many at the line units, but that is just as much an important function for the CAF as pure operations.


I’m one of those “alternate career streams” folks.  

I know I asked for it, but my promotion prospects were definitely not helped because my career was (and continues to be) not the normal progression.


----------



## Weinie

Furniture said:


> You highlight one of the CAF's retention issues in this paragraph.
> 
> If someone would rather stay operational, why would you force them to do something they don't want to do? Seems like a perfect way to encourage people to look elsewhere for employment.
> 
> It doesn't matter how much potential someone has, if they don't want to do the work they are not going to bring their best to the job.


How many real purely operational positions does the CAF have, full time? CANSOFCOM has some, SAR has some, I am sure I have missed some others. But mostly, it is hurry up and wait. Recruiting was not a problem during the Afghanistan era. Thereafter, people voted with their feet.


----------



## Kirkhill

dimsum said:


> That works in principle, but seconding Capt Bloggins from 4XX Sqn to ADM Mat or PMO for 3-6 months when 4XX Sqn is hurting for pilots and Capt Bloggins needs to fly at least once every 30 days to stay current is not really going to work out long term.



Somewhere along the line Capt Bloggins is going to have to commit.   Although I understand that a lot of pilots have commitment issues.   



dimsum said:


> Also, that's where I said "small scale staff work at the tactical level" doesn't translate to being a part of project staff.  Having done both, you can get a small inkling of whether Capt Bloggins would be good at verbal/written communication, but I maintain that it's hard to gauge whether they would be a good staff officer without having an extended time in a project staff.



Verbal/Written communication doesn't really start to define the problem.  Generating consensus in a team is a lot different than having that team click their heels and say Yes Ma'am! to die Fuehrerin.   That ability to interact with others may show up in different fashions - like how does a lieutenant take advice from NCOs, can they sustain friendly relations with the junior ranks, does he or she take on board what they are being told, do they give credit where it is due - 

And how is that culture seen in the command and control culture of an operational unit?



dimsum said:


> Then, there's the chance that people will want to "game" the system.  It'd probably happen anyway, but folks who do show promise but don't want to leave the operational world would just tank the small project.  I suppose there could be financial/career incentives (like promotion) to entice them to staff jobs, but then those folks need to be senior enough to be promotable, or somehow get the funding piece.  And, the twist with being promotable is if there is a great staff officer but only a so-so [insert trade] officer, then they're theoretically not going to get promoted...



I saw that and had to read that two or three times.  My immediate reaction was WOW!!!

I'm glad that @Furniture and @Good2Golf articulated the responses they did.


----------



## Weinie

Kirkhill said:


> Somewhere along the line Capt Bloggins is going to have to commit.   Although I understand that a lot of pilots have commitment issues.
> 
> 
> 
> Verbal/Written communication doesn't really start to define the problem.  Generating consensus in a team is a lot different than having that team click their heels and say Yes Ma'am! to die Fuehrerin.   That ability to interact with others may show up in different fashions - like how does a lieutenant take advice from NCOs, can they sustain friendly relations with the junior ranks, does he or she take on board what they are being told, do they give credit where it is due -
> 
> And how is that culture seen in the command and control culture of an operational unit?
> 
> 
> 
> I saw that and had to read that two or three times.  My immediate reaction was WOW!!!
> 
> I'm glad that @Furniture and @Good2Golf articulated the responses they did.


I met a Cpl (played hockey and ball with in PLAP in the 80's) that turned down five promotions, because it would take him away from the thing he wanted to do, which was fix planes. I worked with a LCol, in Ottawa, who turned down a promotion to Col three times because it would have meant a job where he would have to be an asshole.


----------



## Good2Golf

dimsum said:


> I’m one of those “alternate career streams” folks.
> 
> I know I asked for it, but my promotion prospects were definitely not helped because my career was (and continues to be) not the normal progression.


I hear you.  Hopefully the CAF/RCAF isn’t stupid enough not to capitalize on its investment, which also means keeping you engaged and productive and acknowledged within the organization.  Your departure/transfer/etc. would be a loss.  That being said, I’ve seen it and lived it similarly, and while I was able to walk both lines of line ops and tech, it did have a de facto cap (not being one of the Cool NORAD kids) that was a catalyst for moving on to something more rewarding and fulfilling.  Good luck with your path, @dimsum!


----------



## Furniture

Weinie said:


> How many real purely operational positions does the CAF have, full time? CANSOFCOM has some, SAR has some, I am sure I have missed some others. But mostly, it is hurry up and wait. Recruiting was not a problem during the Afghanistan era. Thereafter, people voted with their feet.


I was referring more to units which can be operational, vs. static HQ/staff jobs.

Eg. People wanting to sail, rather than be posted to NDHQ. 

Both jobs are necessary for the CAF, but not everybody wants to do both, and not everybody will do well at both. The current "system" forces people to do both though, regardless of their wishes or suitability.


----------



## Kirkhill

Weinie said:


> I met a Cpl (played hockey and ball with in PLAP in the 80's) that turned down five promotions, because it would take him away from the thing he wanted to do, which was fix planes.



The $100,000 Mechanic - because that's the kind of money that a top of the line tradesman can command outside the service.

On the other hand a 5B PI 4 at 84,000, a secure job with benefits and a full pension after 20 years isn't too shabby either.  Especially when, after retirement, you can add a civvy mechanic's income on top.

Corporal

Pay levelTrade groupBasic payPI 1PI 2PI 3PI 45AStandard532053985478555456265ASpecialist 1595960636166626763765ASpecialist 2631164366562668868115BStandard554256215692577358535BSpecialist 1618562946398650166085BSpecialist 265396670679069207052


----------



## Halifax Tar

Furniture said:


> I was referring more to units which can be operational, vs. static HQ/staff jobs.
> 
> Eg. People wanting to sail, rather than be posted to NDHQ.
> 
> Both jobs are necessary for the CAF, but not everybody wants to do both, and not everybody will do well at both. The current "system" forces people to do both though, regardless of their wishes or suitability.



Part of the reason for the variation of postings is to provide a well rounded understanding of the CAF and its operations. 

If someone just wants to sail, they can do that right now at least in my trade.  Simply opt out of PERs at the S1 level.


----------



## Furniture

Halifax Tar said:


> Part of the reason for the variation of postings is to provide a well rounded understanding of the CAF and its operations.
> 
> If someone just wants to sail, they can do that right now at least in my trade.  Simply opt out of PERs at the S1 level.


Thats not really a solution though, you could still easily be posted as a S1 to Gagetown or Cold Lake. 

How well rounded is someone who has done two years or less at each job? They have breadth of experience, but no depth. 

There isn't an easy solution to make everyone happy, but the current "system" (which in my occupation is whatever the Occ Advisors at the time think is best) isn't working.


----------



## Furniture

Kirkhill said:


> The $100,000 Mechanic - because that's the kind of money that a top of the line tradesman can command outside the service.
> 
> On the other hand a 5B PI 4 at 84,000, a secure job with benefits and a full pension after 20 years isn't too shabby either.  Especially when, after retirement, you can add a civvy mechanic's income on top.
> 
> Corporal
> 
> Pay levelTrade groupBasic payPI 1PI 2PI 3PI 45AStandard532053985478555456265ASpecialist 1595960636166626763765ASpecialist 2631164366562668868115BStandard554256215692577358535BSpecialist 1618562946398650166085BSpecialist 265396670679069207052


5B is a MCpl, and spec 2 is not what most spec trades make. 

A Spec 1 5A Cpl makes $76.5K, still good money, but nowhere near $100K.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Furniture said:


> Thats not really a solution though, you could still easily be posted as a S1 to Gagetown or Cold Lake.
> 
> How well rounded is someone who has done two years or less at each job? They have breadth of experience, but no depth.
> 
> There isn't an easy solution to make everyone happy, but the current "system" (which in my occupation is whatever the Occ Advisors at the time think is best) isn't working.



I can only speak from what I have observed in my trade.  But if you want to sail, stay an S1.  We almost always only geo post for promotion.  

We should hault the stupid tri-service requirements for CSS folks.  That would alleviate a lot of this garbage.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Furniture said:


> You highlight one of the CAF's retention issues in this paragraph.
> 
> If someone would rather stay operational, why would you force them to do something they don't want to do? Seems like a perfect way to encourage people to look elsewhere for employment.
> 
> It doesn't matter how much potential someone has, if they don't want to do the work they are not going to bring their best to the job.


Who would want to go work in CAF projects when history has shown 90% of them end up getting canned or used as toilet paper in NDHQ?

In another life, I was asked if I was interested in going Tech Staff.  The answer was a big fat NO.  I ultimately OT'ed to squeeze a little more juice out of the operational World.


----------



## rmc_wannabe

Like I said earlier, "Breadth of experience" is of no use when  the person with said experience is disgruntled and takes it elsewhere.


----------



## Brad Sallows

If you're doing pay comparisons between CAF and other occupations, the value of benefits has to be added in.  That includes the employer's direct contributions and the value of guarantee provisions in pensions.  An educated guess: the "value" of a defined benefit pension with even a little bit of inflation protection is greater than the "20% of gross" recommended as a minimum savings target for people who will have to rely on private savings.


----------



## YZT580

Furniture said:


> You highlight one of the CAF's retention issues in this paragraph.
> 
> If someone would rather stay operational, why would you force them to do something they don't want to do? Seems like a perfect way to encourage people to look elsewhere for employment.
> 
> It doesn't matter how much potential someone has, if they don't want to do the work they are not going to bring their best to the job.


The British had an interesting system in place for their management team in the ACC back in the 90's.  They double teamed every middle management position.  All were considered as operational.  An individual would come off operations for a designated period, spend a week or so getting up to speed with the person he/she was relieving and then assume the non-operational duties.  the person he replaced went back to their position in operations; requiring them to live and work with the decisions they had made in the previous 6 months or so.  The two rotated by schedule, although allowance was made to ensure that a project nearing completion was finished before the relief.  A little cumbersome but it allowed them to maintain currency and skills and made them more responsible for good decision making.  It also removed the them/us attitude in operations.  Just a thought!


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Is this raise in spending before or after we replace all the stuff he gave away to Ukraine? Or are we on the hook for his largesse?


----------



## Halifax Tar

rmc_wannabe said:


> Like I said earlier, "Breadth of experience" is of no use when  the person with said experience is disgruntled and takes it elsewhere.



I get it, I really do.  BUT I have a BUT.  When do the requirements of the service supersede ones wishes ?

How long and what positions do we let people hold down indefinitely ?


----------



## quadrapiper

dimsum said:


> That works in principle, but seconding Capt Bloggins from 4XX Sqn to ADM Mat or PMO for 3-6 months when 4XX Sqn is hurting for pilots and Capt Bloggins needs to fly at least once every 30 days to stay current is not really going to work out long term.


Would that be better or worse, assuming you flush _everyone_ back to (say) the Wings, than Capt Bloggins leaving the flying world for three years?

On the workups and officer progression discussion: would porting whatever the RCN does as far as posting timings and subordinating personnel box-checking to the ship's needs to the Army be a worthwhile fix? Also: are there any other RCN career practices worth copying?


----------



## Halifax Tar

quadrapiper said:


> Would that be better or worse, assuming you flush _everyone_ back to (say) the Wings, than Capt Bloggins leaving the flying world for three years?
> 
> On the workups and officer progression discussion: would porting whatever the RCN does as far as posting timings and subordinating personnel box-checking to the ship's needs to the Army be a worthwhile fix? Also: are there any other RCN career practices worth copying?



Not many, but I would propose some form of HPD (Home Port Division).


----------



## daftandbarmy

quadrapiper said:


> Would that be better or worse, assuming you flush _everyone_ back to (say) the Wings, than Capt Bloggins leaving the flying world for three years?
> 
> On the workups and officer progression discussion: would porting whatever the RCN does as far as posting timings and subordinating personnel box-checking to the ship's needs to the Army be a worthwhile fix? Also: *are there any other RCN career practices worth copying*?



I'm not sure how these are deployed in either service but I like the idea of promotion 'boards', if they are well run, for certain appointments. 

Some of the best boarding approaches I've seen include subordinates of the 'boardee'. If you've treated your people like crap, that tends to come out 

I had a look at the new GOFO selection process. It looks really, really complex and might just bog down under it's own red tape, but the principles are sound. If this multi-faceted approach could be fast tracked in some way it's probably a good idea for other rank levels too:






						CAF improves promotion selection process, beginning with General and Flag Officers - Canada.ca
					

This process allows the CAF to evolve its appointment to command and promotion processes in order to be more inclusive and to ensure that those who are selected to lead truly embody CAF values.




					www.canada.ca


----------



## Quirky

Furniture said:


> A Spec 1 5A Cpl makes $76.5K, still good money, but nowhere near $100K.



That’s excellent money when you consider all the benefits, job security and pension. Majority of people still don’t think it’s enough and assume the lucrative world of the AME ‘make more’. People are dumb.


----------



## OldSolduer

Halifax Tar said:


> I get it, I really do.  BUT I have a BUT.  When do the requirements of the service supersede ones wishes ?


The requirements of the military in a perfect world would always supersede the wants and needs of the individual.
That is the CAF I grew up in. Career managers might post you to where you wanted to go BUT the needs of the military always came first. 

But that has changed.


----------



## Furniture

Halifax Tar said:


> I get it, I really do.  BUT I have a BUT.  When do the requirements of the service supersede ones wishes ?


As infrequently as possible... The CAF should be considering members wishes before deciding "it would be good for their career" to move them across a continent to get a check in a box.

That said, we need to provide clear information to people that is followed through on, so they can make informed choices about where they want their career to go. I shouldn't be sitting here 60% sure I'm going somewhere next summer, but not sure if/where I am getting posted.  There are only 20 at my rank in the occupation, of that 20 there are only a few that aren't newly promoted/posted.


Halifax Tar said:


> How long and what positions do we let people hold down indefinitely ?


Depends on the position, if it's a 1 of 1 that is highly desirable like Port Met Inspector, there should be a clear message that it's a 2-3 year posting, followed by a posting somewhere else. If you don't agree to the conditions, you don't get the job, if you don't like it after taking the job, your COS is your release date.  If it's S1 observer on a Wing? stay as long as you like.

The problem right now is we treat all positions pretty much the same apart from CPO1/CWO jobs, that come with a timeline to release or SCP if you aren't picked up for anything further. If we had a more responsive HR system we could manage careers and positions more effectively, and maybe formalize all the "if you take this posting, I'll get you where you want to go next time", rather than it being the CAF equivalent of "the cheque is in the mail".



> The requirements of the military in a perfect world would always supersede the wants and needs of the individual.
> That is the CAF I grew up in. Career managers might post you to where you wanted to go BUT the needs of the military always came first.
> 
> But that has changed.


@OldSolduer It hasn't changed for all, just for some(allegedly). 

That's one of the big problems we have in some occupations, the existence/perception of favouritism. Some people get the postings they want every time, others go where "the needs of the CAF" send them.


----------



## KevinB

Fishbone Jones said:


> Is this raise in spending before or after we replace all the stuff he gave away to Ukraine? Or are we on the hook for his largesse?


That's sounds like DJT...
   Given the CAF wasn't really operationally viable anyway beyond a Btl Group -- does it matter if everyone beyond that is given away?


----------



## Fishbone Jones

KevinB said:


> That's sounds like DJT...
> Given the CAF wasn't really operationally viable anyway beyond a Btl Group -- does it matter if everyone beyond that is given away?


I could be a defeatist and say that being our miniscule military on the world stage means we don't  need shit except shovels, sandbags, trucks, generators and chainsaws. In case we have a flood or ice storm. Our NATO contribution has been a self boasting lie forever.


----------



## KevinB

Fishbone Jones said:


> I could be a defeatist and say that being our miniscule military on the world stage means we don't  need shit except shovels, sandbags, trucks, generators and chainsaws. In case we have a flood or ice storm. Our NATO contribution has been a self boasting lie forever.


Well pre disassembly of 4 CBMG it was actually a decent sized, considering AMF(L) and CAST.
   The "Golden Age of Peacekeeping" in the 90's destroyed that - and I'd argue the CAF in the process.


----------



## dapaterson

Program Review in the 90s, without leadership planning to rebuild and reorient the force, was the problem.

Add to that the RCAF committing their reserve and not then reconstituting it, plus the Army's unwillingness to change, and a century of tradition unimpeded by progress in the RCN...


----------



## daftandbarmy

dapaterson said:


> Program Review* (or Peace Dividend)* in the 90s, without leadership planning to rebuild and reorient the force, was the problem.
> 
> Add to that the RCAF committing their reserve and not then reconstituting it, plus the Army's unwillingness to change, and a century of tradition unimpeded by progress in the RCN...



The Peace Dividend seems to have been 'crisis management'


----------



## rmc_wannabe

OldSolduer said:


> The requirements of the military in a perfect world would always supersede the wants and needs of the individual.
> That is the CAF I grew up in. Career managers might post you to where you wanted to go BUT the needs of the military always came first.
> 
> But that has changed.


And this is part of the problem. The needs of the service right now are people. Plain and simple. 

We touted the service before self bit enough with little to nil return; we need to check fire, reorient, and engage differently if we are going to have a service to put before self. 

If the Intent is to reconstitute the CAF, the Main Effort in my eyes needs to be retention.  I see this at the Training Establishment level already where you get the recruits in; they exist, they're in the system, we need to train them and get them to OFP so we can plug holes where needed in the field force. 

Biggest problem is that we are in the Black for MCpl/Sgts and Capt/Maj positions to train these folks. 

So you can get 10000 new recruits in if you open the flood gates: we have no infrastructure, instructors, or equipment to train them all


----------



## Kirkhill

Halifax Tar said:


> I get it, I really do.  BUT I have a BUT.  When do the requirements of the service supersede ones wishes ?
> 
> How long and what positions do we let people hold down indefinitely ?



Respectfully but how is that any different than line managers in civilian companies constantly reviewing their staff to determine if they are good fits and serving the needs of the manager and the company?

In a big company some people may have the luxury of being reassigned.  More often than not people are handed their severance and replaced.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Kirkhill said:


> Respectfully but how is that any different than line managers in civilian companies constantly reviewing their staff to determine if they are good fits and serving the needs of the manager and the company?
> 
> In a big company some people may have the luxury of being reassigned.  More often than not people are handed their severance and replaced.



Coincidentally, I spoke to a senior manager who's firing 50 people a month for not getting vaccinated.

Is the CAF doing the same?


----------



## TCM621

dapaterson said:


> The Army is surprised every year by annual events.


I remember one year they were surprised by Easter.


----------



## TacticalTea

TCM621 said:


> I remember one year they were surprised by Easter.


Easter's a tricky one! It surprises *me* every year!


----------



## Halifax Tar

Furniture said:


> As infrequently as possible... The CAF should be considering members wishes before deciding "it would be good for their career" to move them across a continent to get a check in a box.



Its just not that easy.  One release causes a ripple effect.  You know that I know as you're in a very small trade. 

I think the fix for this getting rid of the color purple.  Not a fix all, but its probably a 70% fix.



Furniture said:


> That said, we need to provide clear information to people that is followed through on, so they can make informed choices about where they want their career to go. I shouldn't be sitting here 60% sure I'm going somewhere next summer, but not sure if/where I am getting posted.  There are only 20 at my rank in the occupation, of that 20 there are only a few that aren't newly promoted/posted.



Absolutely.  We need some definition in our career paths. The constant roll of the dice every year is nauseating.



Furniture said:


> Depends on the position, if it's a 1 of 1 that is highly desirable like Port Met Inspector, there should be a clear message that it's a 2-3 year posting, followed by a posting somewhere else. If you don't agree to the conditions, you don't get the job, if you don't like it after taking the job, your COS is your release date.  If it's S1 observer on a Wing? stay as long as you like.



(1) This doesn't lead to geographic stability, which is what I though you were searching for.

 (2) Bingo, I am in agreement to this.  If you want geographic stability there are less career opportunities. 



Furniture said:


> The problem right now is we treat all positions pretty much the same apart from CPO1/CWO jobs, that come with a timeline to release or SCP if you aren't picked up for anything further. If we had a more responsive HR system we could manage careers and positions more effectively, and maybe formalize all the "if you take this posting, I'll get you where you want to go next time", rather than it being the CAF equivalent of "the cheque is in the mail".



I'm going to need to expand on this before I respond.

Good conversation!  I truly appreciate it.



rmc_wannabe said:


> Like I said earlier, "Breadth of experience" is of no use when  the person with said experience is disgruntled and takes it elsewhere.



Breadth of experience cant be concentrated into a few individuals for what ever reason.  We have to develop people, and we have to give people a tempo break; sometimes whether they think they need it or not. 

After my 2020 deployment, I volunteered to go right back out the door.  My MOC Advisor pulled in for a coffee and told me no.  I needed a break.  He was right, and I couldn't see it at that point. Thank you Danny. 



Kirkhill said:


> Respectfully but how is that any different than line managers in civilian companies constantly reviewing their staff to determine if they are good fits and serving the needs of the manager and the company?
> 
> In a big company some people may have the luxury of being reassigned.  More often than not people are handed their severance and replaced.



I'm not picking up what you're putting down.


----------



## Halifax Tar

TacticalTea said:


> Easter's a tricky one! It surprises *me* every year!



My wedding anniversary... You'd think after 10 years I would have it down.  Nope.


----------



## dimsum

Halifax Tar said:


> I think the fix for this getting rid of the color purple. Not a fix all, but its probably a 70% fix.


It's early here and I haven't had my coffee yet, but why would dropping purple trades be a fix, rather than stovepiping folks?


----------



## Halifax Tar

dimsum said:


> It's early here and I haven't had my coffee yet, but why would dropping purple trades be a fix, rather than stovepiping folks?



Not dropping the trades, dropping the tri-service-ness of them. 

Eg: 

I am a Navy Sup Tech.  My career will be spent in the Navy, not posted on a whim. 

FYI, my Keurig just finished and I'm taking the first sip of glory!  Cheers brother.


----------



## Kirkhill

Halifax Tar said:


> I get it, I really do.  BUT I have a BUT.  When do the requirements of the service supersede ones wishes ?
> 
> How long and what positions do we let people hold down indefinitely ?





Kirkhill said:


> Respectfully but how is that any different than line managers in civilian companies constantly reviewing their staff to determine if they are good fits and serving the needs of the manager and the company?
> 
> In a big company some people may have the luxury of being reassigned. More often than not people are handed their severance and replaced.





Halifax Tar said:


> I'm not picking up what you're putting down.



Every organization deals with the human resource issues on a daily basis.  More often than not it is managed by the line managers rather than HR.   HR finds candidates for the line managers and looks to protect the organizations investments in those resources.  But every organization has to deal with the trade-offs necessary between the good of the organization and the good of the employee.  Constantly.

The CAF is not unique in that regard,  Nor are any militaries. 

The difference is that most companies run on the same basis as the Army Reserve:  people work when they want to work.  If they don't like the work, and they can afford to do something else, they won't work.  Ultimately, the same is true of the CAF at large.  If your people don't like the work they will release.

People will only accept orders if they want to accept orders.

Which can make operational commanders poor managers.  And why leaders are few and far between.  Good leaders need some of the skills of the politician and the salesman to convince their subordinates and co-workers, heck even their seniors, that the good idea is their own.


----------



## KevinB

Kirkhill said:


> Every organization deals with the human resource issues on a daily basis.  More often than not it is managed by the line managers rather than HR.   HR finds candidates for the line managers and looks to protect the organizations investments in those resources.  But every organization has to deal with the trade-offs necessary between the good of the organization and the good of the employee.  Constantly.
> 
> The CAF is not unique in that regard,  Nor are any militaries.
> 
> The difference is that most companies run on the same basis as the Army Reserve:  people work when they want to work.  If they don't like the work, and they can afford to do something else, they won't work.  Ultimately, the same is true of the CAF at large.  If your people don't like the work they will release.
> 
> People will only accept orders if they want to accept orders.
> 
> Which can make operational commanders poor managers.  And why leaders are few and far between.  Good leaders need some of the skills of the politician and the salesman to convince their subordinates and co-workers, heck even their seniors, that the good idea is their own.


I’d argue that the CAF wouldn’t been in nearly the terrible shape for recruiting, if the CAF was in a lot better shape equipment wise. 

Lots of folks release when they don’t see an end in sight for the rust out, or antiquated/missing kit.  The lack of kit hampers mission readiness and deployments, which historically has been a good recruiting tool — by and large most people join a Military to do Military things.  

Then due to those releases, others end up burning the candle at both ends — it doesn’t matter if you’re a fantastic manager, if your team has shit, and it’s 1/2 a team trying to keep the lights on, it’s not going to make folks happy.


----------



## Good2Golf

Halifax Tar said:


> Not dropping the trades, dropping the tri-service-ness of them.
> 
> Eg:
> 
> I am a Navy Sup Tech.  My career will be spent in the Navy, not posted on a whim.
> 
> FYI, my Keurig just finished and I'm taking the first sip of glory!  Cheers brother.


The math to be done would be calculating if the ‘overhead of inefficiency’ of service-segregated trades was really any worse than the inefficiencies (and effectiveness challenges) of trying to bounce uniform-coloured but (on trade qual paper) purple traded around the services and joint world.  At the worst, my gut feel (since I don’t have numbers, and I’m not even sure you could measure it accurately) is it couldn’t be much worse than what’s being achieved now…or at the very least.  I do think folks tend to over-appreciate the ‘MBA-like’ savings of a pure purple set of support trades, and under-appreciate the sense of belonging that service-aligned employment and identification provide. 

BLAB (bottom line at bottom 😆) - could it be any worse than what we have now?  I don’t think so.  If we’re experimenting with the CAF with all the other stuff, could it really hurt to do a decade-long or two trial of service-aligned support trades?


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

KevinB said:


> I’d argue that the CAF wouldn’t been in nearly the terrible shape for recruiting, if the CAF was in a lot better shape equipment wise.
> 
> Lots of folks release when they don’t see an end in sight for the rust out, or antiquated/missing kit.  The lack of kit hampers mission readiness and deployments, which historically has been a good recruiting tool — by and large most people join a Military to do Military things.
> 
> Then due to those releases, others end up burning the candle at both ends — it doesn’t matter if you’re a fantastic manager, if your team has shit, and it’s 1/2 a team trying to keep the lights on, it’s not going to make folks happy.


Then they send us on multinational exercises with others and we truly realize how garbage our equipment is.  For instance, I think one of the worst things the Navy can do is go on exercise in places like Australia.

We see quite clearly that the ADF is far better equipped and our fleet looks like garbage compared to theirs.


----------



## Kirkhill

KevinB said:


> I’d argue that the CAF wouldn’t been in nearly the terrible shape for recruiting, if the CAF was in a lot better shape equipment wise.
> 
> Lots of folks release when they don’t see an end in sight for the rust out, or antiquated/missing kit.  The lack of kit hampers mission readiness and deployments, which historically has been a good recruiting tool — by and large most people join a Military to do Military things.
> 
> Then due to those releases, others end up burning the candle at both ends — it doesn’t matter if you’re a fantastic manager, if your team has shit, and it’s 1/2 a team trying to keep the lights on, it’s not going to make folks happy.



The equipment end of things is absolutely true.  Most companies I know issue managers phones and laptops.  Olivetti's and secretaries are hard to come by these days.

Those people burning the candle at both ends are the ones that care.  The volunteers.  Others, that care, release.  So who does that leave?


----------



## Furniture

Halifax Tar said:


> (1) This doesn't lead to geographic stability, which is what I though you were searching for.
> 
> (2) Bingo, I am in agreement to this.  If you want geographic stability there are less career opportunities.
> 
> 
> 
> (3) I'm going to need to expand on this before I respond.


1. I am big on geographic stability, but it is a 1 of 1 PO 1/WO billet on each coast. If someone goes in there and sits in the position for more than three years, it prevents others from having geographic stability. The ideal situation would be that someone comes to the coast as a S1 or MS, and goes to Metoc for a couple of years, after Metoc they go to ship as a MS/PO 2 for a few more years, then get sent back to Metoc as the I/C or promoted to the PMI job as a PO 1. That's a lot of years in one place for my occupation, so expecting them to move after three years as a PMI is not being too unreasonable. 

2. 100%. I believe members need to be given the information they need to make decisions about where they want their careers to go. I think there should be a way to get more geographic stability, but it comes at the cost of other opportunities. 

3. My thought process is that we need to improve our HR systems so that we assign specific terms to some positions, or to "promises" made by the CM. Right now we can't designate positions as having specific terms, even though it would improve our ability to manage our people and their jobs. To go back to the PMI job in my trade, if it came with a set of terms that clearly laid out that "if you accept the position, in three years you will be posted to a different geographic location to make room for the next PMI", it would allow us to plan for progression. We already do something similar for CPO 1/CWO, so it should be too hard to come up with solutions for other positions. 

As for the CM "promises", if we had a system that allowed specific terms to be applied to postings or positions it would be easier for people to swallow a posting they don't really want. eg. "If you take the posting to Cold Lake for three years, we'll send you to Comox for your next posting, if we fail to do it there is a $10K* cash payout". 

 *Just an example, the payout would need to be high enough to incentivize the system to follow through, and the member to trust the system.


----------



## Navy_Pete

KevinB said:


> I’d argue that the CAF wouldn’t been in nearly the terrible shape for recruiting, if the CAF was in a lot better shape equipment wise.
> 
> Lots of folks release when they don’t see an end in sight for the rust out, or antiquated/missing kit.  The lack of kit hampers mission readiness and deployments, which historically has been a good recruiting tool — by and large most people join a Military to do Military things.


When I was recruited they were talking about maybe getting to do my training on a new support ship (about 20 years ago). It may be delivered before I retire, but as a commercial design with some MOTS features it's still a scaled back version compared to the 'big honking ship' capability that was the failed second procurement. Third time is the charm!



KevinB said:


> Then due to those releases, others end up burning the candle at both ends — it doesn’t matter if you’re a fantastic manager,* if your team has shit, and it’s 1/2 a team trying to keep the lights on*, it’s not going to make folks happy.


Yes, this. Even with a full team, trying to support 20+ year old equipment that is largely obsolete is a challenge. With a skeleton crew it's just a grind, and when you have more work at the end of a full day (with some OT) then when you started it's pretty demoralizing.

Nothing will break someone or turn them into someone that doesn't care quite like that feeling of mopping up a waterfall (or whatever Sisyphus kind of visual you like). Even if you leave things better than when you showed up slightly less shitty is still shitty.


----------



## PPCLI Guy

I firmly believe that there should be a binding contract between the member and the CAF that is periodically renegotiated.  That negotiation would be free of coercion, and the penalties for breaking the contract should be spelled out - and in the case of the CAF, penalties should be quite punitive.

Example.  CAF and member sit down to review next five years.  CAF says we need you to do SLT, and a demanding staff job so that you are competitive for command in five years.  Member says ok, but I need to be geo-stable in my current location for those 5 years because because my spouse has a good job, and my kids are starting high school, and I would like an operational tour.  Both sides agree.  Member decides not to do SLT, and commitment to remain in geo-location is rescinded.  CAF decides to renege on geo-stability, and is required to pay member 100K payment for breaking their commitment.

This takes the transitory promises of transitory career managers and chain of command out of the equation.  It empowers the individual.  And it forces the CAF to start to manage people and talent, rather than succession.....


----------



## Weinie

PPCLI Guy said:


> I firmly believe that there should be a binding contract between the member and the CAF that is periodically renegotiated.  That negotiation would be free of coercion, and the penalties for breaking the contract should be spelled out - and in the case of the CAF, penalties should be quite punitive.
> 
> Example.  CAF and member sit down to review next five years.  *CAF says we need you to do SLT,* and a demanding staff job so that you are competitive for command in five years.  *Member says ok,* but I need to be geo-stable in my current location for those 5 years because because my spouse has a good job, and my kids are starting high school, and I would like an operational tour.  Both sides agree.  *Member decides not to do SLT, *and commitment to remain in geo-location is rescinded.  CAF decides to renege on geo-stability, and is required to pay member 100K payment for breaking their commitment.
> 
> This takes the transitory promises of transitory career managers and chain of command out of the equation.  It empowers the individual.  And it forces the CAF to start to manage people and talent, rather than succession.....


WTF. Member said OK to SLT, IOT guarantee geo-stability. Now s/he says no to SLT. Post them the fuck out.


----------



## Furniture

Weinie said:


> WTF. Member said OK to SLT, IOT guarantee geo-stability. Now s/he says no to SLT. Post them the fuck out.


I read those two sentences as separate situations. i.e. Situation A: Member fails to meet obligations; geo-stability is rescinded. Situation B: CAF fails to meet obligations; member gets a payout as compensation.


----------



## PPCLI Guy

Furniture said:


> I read those two sentences as separate situations. i.e. Situation A: Member fails to meet obligations; geo-stability is rescinded. Situation B: CAF fails to meet obligations; member gets a payout as compensation.


That is how I meant it.  No SLT means you get posted


----------



## quadrapiper

PPCLI Guy said:


> ...and is required to pay member 100K payment for breaking their commitment.


On a similarly "make things too expensive for the CAF to casually break commitments," something in the nature of a differential payment for lost earnings by the spouse?


----------



## Furniture

quadrapiper said:


> On a similarly "make things too expensive for the CAF to casually break commitments," something in the nature of a differential payment for lost earnings by the spouse?


My issue with that is it would incentivize the CAF to continue to abuse single members, as it would be less costly. If the CAF has to pay Cpl Bloggins $10K to break the terms, but has to pay S1 Smith $10K, plus $60K for lost spousal income, the CAF will break Cpl Bloggins' terms every single time.

The CAF already treats single members as second class when it comes to postings, the last thing we should be doing is encouraging more of it.


----------



## Brad Sallows

In that vein, yes: approach any incentive scheme humbly, with the idea that you've overlooked some horrible unintended consequences and must first find them before proceeding (aka "wargaming").


----------



## TCM621

KevinB said:


> by and large most people join a Military to do Military things.



This is the thing that the CAF seems to be missing right now. The CAF can never be corporate Canada, people don't join the military for a job if they have other options. They choose the military because they want to do Military things and there isn't any other game in town.


----------



## rmc_wannabe

TCM621 said:


> This is the thing that the CAF seems to be missing right now. The CAF can never be corporate Canada, people don't join the military for a job if they have other options. They choose the military because they want to do Military things and there isn't any other game in town.


Yes. I will agree with that. With one caveat.

People also join the mitary with the belief that the military will provide for them while they are asked to do the Military stuff. We are asked to do monumental things, with scant resources, in some of the worse places on earth. In days of Yore, we took care of our people and their family by providing housing, amenities, and a marginally good quality of life at the rate of compensation we were allowed to by the GoC.

Then we lost it all. Housing was a taxable benefit and RHU numbers are dwindling due to poor maintenance and divestment. We have a lack of single quarters that are derelict or non-existant for members in our lowest pay brackets. Our dining halls are charging members 700 CAD a month, only to have boxed lunches on weekends because the kitchen is too short staffed and the SWE is prioritized to other things. MFRCs became daycare centres and not much else. Our messes are no longer about serving those who pay dues, but are run militantly by CFMWS in pursuit of "revenue neutral" events vice providing services.

So what happened? The CAF moved off base. We moved our families into communities with infrastructure and supports we no longer were receiving on base. That all costs members much more than if the CAF stepped up and provided them. That cost being downloaded to our members means our competitive pay for crappy work conditions doesn't go nearly as far as TBS et al like to believe. 

So yes, members are saying "pay us more." Why? The cool military shit is now coming with personal costs; both financially and domestically.  That shouldn't have been the deal in the first place, but after being penny wise and pound foolish, we have outsourced supports to our members and the bill is due, figuratively, because everyone who would join knows the score thanks to the internet and places like reddit.

People want to join to do the cool military stuff, but not when the administrative impacts of service become infeasible. Logistical mismanagement has crippled armies in battle, and now, certainly will have an effect on people's willingness to be recruited and retained.


----------



## MarkOttawa

1) "This summer, @AnitaAnandMP made significant announcements regarding @NORADCommand
 modernization. How will these be implemented? @AndreaCharron
 speaks to BGen McKenna, BGen Sabourin, Cheri Crosby, and Martin Tomkin on this episode of "DefenceDeconstructed" (Oct. 25)

__
		https://soundcloud.com/user-609485369%2Fdefence-deconstructed-implementing-norad-modernization

2) Video of interview with CDS Gen. Eyre by US CSIS, Nov. 2:








						U.S.-Canada Defense Partnership in a Dangerous World
					

Please join the CSIS International Security Program for a conversation with General Wayne Eyre, Canada’s Chief of the Defence Staff. General Eyre and Dr. Seth G. Jones, senior vice president and director of the International Security Program, will discuss the future of North American defense...




					www.csis.org
				




Mark
Ottawa


----------



## kev994

Must be Remembrance Day. Defence is apparently “one of” Canadas top priorities. Until Monday.
Canada’s Defence Minister Anita Anand says boosting and protecting the country’s armed forces is a “top priority” amid a changing global geopolitical landscape, recruitment problems and ongoing efforts to address sexual misconduct in the military.
Defence minister says Canada's military is 'top priority' amid worries about 'darker' world


----------



## daftandbarmy

kev994 said:


> Must be Remembrance Day. Defence is apparently “one of” Canadas top priorities. Until Monday.
> Canada’s Defence Minister Anita Anand says boosting and protecting the country’s armed forces is a “top priority” amid a changing global geopolitical landscape, recruitment problems and ongoing efforts to address sexual misconduct in the military.
> Defence minister says Canada's military is 'top priority' amid worries about 'darker' world



<remembers half of 19th C armoury being put out of bounds due to roof and other collapses and resulting leaks and safety hazards>


----------



## Quirky

kev994 said:


> Must be Remembrance Day. Defence is apparently “one of” Canadas top priorities. Until Monday.
> Canada’s Defence Minister Anita Anand says boosting and protecting the country’s armed forces is a “top priority” amid a changing global geopolitical landscape, recruitment problems and ongoing efforts to address sexual misconduct in the military.
> Defence minister says Canada's military is 'top priority' amid worries about 'darker' world


----------



## dimsum

kev994 said:


> Must be Remembrance Day. Defence is apparently “one of” Canadas top priorities. Until Monday.
> Canada’s Defence Minister Anita Anand says boosting and protecting the country’s armed forces is a “top priority” amid a changing global geopolitical landscape, recruitment problems and ongoing efforts to address sexual misconduct in the military.
> Defence minister says Canada's military is 'top priority' amid worries about 'darker' world



_Her_ top priority, not necessarily the GoC's top priority.

Which, as MND, makes sense that the military would be her top priority


----------



## Edward Campbell

_Rumour_ - unsubstantiated, just rumour, but from a source that _I think_ is both "plugged in" and trustworthy - says that U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken's brief visit to Canada a couple of weeks ago was to deliver a fairly rude "dressing down" to Prime Minister Trudeau, DPM Freeland and Foreign Minister Joly. The same _rumour_ says that MND Anand and her DM and their CDS were warned, a few weeks before the visit, of both the content and the tenor of Blinken's message.

The _rumour_ says that Blinken delivered a stern warning that Canada must either shape up, including in defence spending and readiness, or risk being booted out of the Five Eyes and the G-7.


----------



## rmc_wannabe

Edward Campbell said:


> _Rumour_ - unsubstantiated, just rumour, but from a source that _I think_ is both "plugged in" and trustworthy - says that U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken's brief visit to Canada a couple of weeks ago was to deliver a fairly rude "dressing down" to Prime Minister Trudeau, DPM Freeland and Foreign Minister Joly. The same _rumour_ says that MND Anand and her DM and their CDS were warned, a few weeks before the visit, of both the content and the tenor of Blinken's message.


Good. Needed to be done. Hard to claim to be a valued world partner in security and diplomacy when you are a laggard to defense commitments globally, and especially in the defence of your own air, sea, and dare I say land approaches.


Edward Campbell said:


> The _rumour_ says that Blinken delivered a stern warning that Canada must either shape up, including in defence spending and readiness, or * risk being booted out of the Five Eyes and the G-7.*


That might get Le Dauphin to pull his head out of his ass.

Prestige and platform mean more to him than doing the right thing. I hope we see action in this and not continued handwringing


----------



## Good2Golf

rmc_wannabe said:


> That might get Le Dauphin to pull his head out of his ass.


At this point, it just doesn’t matter where he sticks/keeps his head.  There are enough senior apparatchiks who get it (the ‘message’) and will follow US orders from behind the scene.


----------



## Edward Campbell

_I think_ that we are seeing, right now, a major, actually a complete 180° (3200 mils) course correction on the Indo-Pacific file. Barton will still get a seat at the table but his voice will go unheard. There will be a sop to the _Trudeauites_ about working with China to combat climate change but, essentially, a team of policy professionals will Canadianize a strategy made in Washington, DC.

I also _suspect_ that the CDS' Reconstitution programme is designed to "strike while the iron is hot" and Team Trudeau has little choice but too get on board the Biden Express which looks, to _progressive_ Canadians, distressingly, like the Trump Express but, this time, with some oomph behind it.

Team Trudeau's trip to visit ASEAN is timely and a step in the right direction - part of the strategic fallout from Putin's misadventures in Ukraine is that ASEAN is going to become more and more important to both China and India and, therefore, more important to the US-led West, too.


----------



## FSTO

Edward Campbell said:


> _I think_ that we are seeing, right now, a major, actually a complete 180° (3200 mils) course correction on the Indo-Pacific file. Barton will still get a seat at the table but his voice will go unheard. There will be a sop to the _Trudeauites_ about working with China to combat climate change but, essentially, a team of policy professionals will Canadianize a strategy made in Washington, DC.
> 
> I also _suspect_ that the CDS' Reconstitution programme is designed to "strike while the iron is hot" and Team Trudeau has little choice but too get on board the Biden Express which looks, to _progressive_ Canadians, distressingly, like the Trump Express but, this time, with some oomph behind it.
> 
> Team Trudeau's trip to visit ASEAN is timely and a step in the right direction - part of the strategic fallout from Putin's misadventures in Ukraine is that ASEAN is going to become more and more important to both China and India and, therefore, more important to the US-led West, too.


When the CBC talking heads are taking the Trudeau Liberals to task for their China Policy you know there has been a shift in the tide.


----------



## Good2Golf

FSTO said:


> When the CBC talking heads are taking the Trudeau Liberals to task for their China Policy you know there has been a shift in the tide.


Wait until Blinken’s next trip when he tells Le Dauphin to throttle back on state-run media, lest one be forced to look longingly at the G6 and wish you were still part of the club… 😉


----------



## rmc_wannabe

Good2Golf said:


> Wait until Blinken’s next trip when he tells Le Dauphin to throttle back on state-run media, lest one be forced to look longingly at the G6 and wish you were still part of the club… 😉


When you're taking policy tips from the CCP, you're no longer an ally; you're a liability.

He'll the Huawei debacle was grounds enough for us to no longer receive FVEY status on things. This is a long time coming and I hope it sees the 3200mils backbearing @Edward Campbell  speaks of.


----------



## RangerRay

Edward Campbell said:


> _I think_ that we are seeing, right now, a major, actually a complete 180° (3200 mils) course correction on the Indo-Pacific file. Barton will still get a seat at the table but his voice will go unheard. There will be a sop to the _Trudeauites_ about working with China to combat climate change but, essentially, a team of policy professionals will Canadianize a strategy made in Washington, DC.
> 
> I also _suspect_ that the CDS' Reconstitution programme is designed to "strike while the iron is hot" and Team Trudeau has little choice but too get on board the Biden Express which looks, to _progressive_ Canadians, distressingly, like the Trump Express but, this time, with some oomph behind it.
> 
> Team Trudeau's trip to visit ASEAN is timely and a step in the right direction - part of the strategic fallout from Putin's misadventures in Ukraine is that ASEAN is going to become more and more important to both China and India and, therefore, more important to the US-led West, too.


Does this mean we were told to get a handle on Beijing’s influence operations?  Because I sure wasn’t impressed with the PM’s response to the CSIS report on election interference here…


----------



## Good2Golf

RangerRay said:


> Does this mean we were told to get a handle on Beijing’s influence operations?  Because I sure wasn’t impressed with the PM’s response to the CSIS report on election interference here…




It’ll be worth the short wait. 👍🏼


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Good2Golf said:


> View attachment 74822
> 
> It’ll be worth the short wait. 👍🏼


Well, to be fair, the chinese were not interfering with Liberal candidates, so why should he care?


----------



## OldSolduer

So could I ask for a few million to spruce up and make an armoury safe for troops to utilize? 

I’d rather see a new complex built to house the Winnipeg garrison. But we gave Kapyong Barracks away.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Edward Campbell said:


> I also _suspect_ that the CDS' Reconstitution programme is designed to "strike while the iron is hot" and Team Trudeau has little choice but too get on board the Biden Express which looks, to _progressive_ Canadians, distressingly, like the Trump Express but, this time, with some oomph behind it.



If only the RCN would get onboard with the CDS direction; I genuinely worry that we are driving are ships/crews so hard that we will break the fleet doing low impact sailing. Not having enough time to get the ships up to basic SOLAS standards by having time for things like maintenance and adequate crew sizes means they won't be up to snuff if they need to go to any kind of combat standard.


----------



## OldSolduer

Edward Campbell said:


> _Rumour_ - unsubstantiated, just rumour, but from a source that _I think_ is both "plugged in" and trustworthy - says that U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken's brief visit to Canada a couple of weeks ago was to deliver a fairly rude "dressing down" to Prime Minister Trudeau, DPM Freeland and Foreign Minister Joly. The same _rumour_ says that MND Anand and her DM and their CDS were warned, a few weeks before the visit, of both the content and the tenor of Blinken's message.
> 
> The _rumour_ says that Blinken delivered a stern warning that Canada must either shape up, including in defence spending and readiness, or risk being booted out of the Five Eyes and the G-7.


Just as I suspected something like that would happen. 

I hope it was given in a rude condescending fashion. Yeah I am an asshole I know.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Good2Golf said:


> Wait until Blinken’s next trip when he tells Le Dauphin to throttle back on state-run media, lest one be forced to look longingly at the G6 and wish you were still part of the club… 😉


That message will, I suspect, be delivered by this lady, and she may not even bother coming to Ottawa to deliver it.

Her "mandate" is:  "to spur good-paying jobs, empower entrepreneurs to innovate and grow, and help American workers and businesses compete." Guess whose actions threaten the competitive status of American workers and businesses?


----------



## dimsum

Navy_Pete said:


> If only the RCN would get onboard with the CDS direction; I genuinely worry that we are driving are ships/crews so hard that we will break the fleet doing low impact sailing. Not having enough time to get the ships up to basic SOLAS standards by having time for things like maintenance and adequate crew sizes means they won't be up to snuff if they need to go to any kind of combat standard.


I don't think it's just the RCN that is dragging its heels on that.

Or so I hear.


----------



## rmc_wannabe

dimsum said:


> I don't think it's just the RCN that is dragging its heels on that.
> 
> Or so I hear.


I think across elements is the same tune as when I try to get my kids to downsize their stuffed animals:
"Oh no... Mr. Fuzzykins is essential...."

Except

"Oh no... Unified Resolve is essential...."


----------



## dimsum

rmc_wannabe said:


> I think across elements is the same tune as when I try to get my kids to downsize their stuffed animals:
> "Oh no... Mr. Fuzzykins is essential...."
> 
> Except
> 
> "Oh no... Unified Resolve the Change of Command Parade for XYZ unit is essential...."


At least an exercise, _at least theoretically_, is useful since that's how you train with others and assess the force.

In the RCN and RCAF, multinational exercises are usually the only times we work with our partner allies with any regularity.


----------



## daftandbarmy

dimsum said:


> At least an exercise, _at least theoretically_, is useful since that's how you train with others and assess the force.
> 
> In the RCN and RCAF, multinational exercises are usually the only times we work with our partner allies with any regularity.



As opposed to exercises between the CAF Reg F and A Res which happen... well.... never


----------



## SeaKingTacco

dimsum said:


> I don't think it's just the RCN that is dragging its heels on that.
> 
> Or so I hear.


To be fair, when the CDS direction came out, two ships were already deployed. Should they have just ceased operations and come home?

There is also the small matter that GAC is intimately involved. Forces were committed to certain operations, by the Government of Canada, not CRCN or the CDS.


----------



## dimsum

SeaKingTacco said:


> To be fair, when the CDS direction came out, two ships were already deployed. Should they have just ceased operations and come home?
> 
> There is also the small matter that GAC is intimately involved. Forces were committed to certain operations, by the Government of Canada, not CRCN or the CDS.


I'd put operations in the "essential" category.


----------



## Navy_Pete

SeaKingTacco said:


> To be fair, when the CDS direction came out, two ships were already deployed. Should they have just ceased operations and come home?
> 
> There is also the small matter that GAC is intimately involved. Forces were committed to certain operations, by the Government of Canada, not CRCN or the CDS.


Should the RCN still be operating the MCDVs, which were supposed to get paid off to free up people for the AOPs? Has the RCN been beating on the fleet like rentals for over a decade and never scheduling long enough work periods to get the required maintenance done?

The RCN has been ignoring this my entire career and it's just in a death spiral at this point. Martechs are at 50-60% PMLs on the coasts, that's insane, and it's continuing to get worse as the RCN keeps the pedal down on the OPSCHED.

Even before the CDS order they should have been begging to slow things down. Instead they are still planning on RAMPING UP TRAINING to a level higher than we've ever acheived, despite numerous instructor billets being empty, major maintenance needed to the schools and a general lack of throughput capacity..

Institutionally completely out of touch. So either CRCN and staff is getting their arses shined on or they are just ignoring reality, and not sure which is worse.


----------



## rmc_wannabe

Navy_Pete said:


> Institutionally completely out of touch. So either CRCN and staff is getting their arses shined on or they are just ignoring reality, and not sure which is worse.


My uninformed guess is that the RCN is pushing the fleet to the breaking point to try and maintain relevance within the NDHQ/SJS/CJOC circles. Those circles will set funding priorities far fast than having an L1 screaming into the void and being drowned out by the larger and costlier elements (CA and RCAF, respectively). 

Doesn't make sense on the personnel side, but I can see that as a perceived Ace in the Hole when it comes to the new Defence White Paper/budget allocation.


----------



## KevinB

dimsum said:


> I'd put operations in the "essential" category.


One would hope everyone does.


----------



## OldSolduer

Edward Campbell said:


> That message will, I suspect, be delivered by this lady, and she may not even bother coming to Ottawa to deliver it.
> 
> Her "mandate" is:  "to spur good-paying jobs, empower entrepreneurs to innovate and grow, and help American workers and businesses compete." Guess whose actions threaten the competitive status of American workers and businesses?
> View attachment 74825


I have no idea who that is 🤦‍♂️


----------



## SeaKingTacco

OldSolduer said:


> I have no idea who that is 🤦‍♂️


She is the Secretary of Commerce for the United States.

With a stroke of a pen, she could destroy trade with Canada and put 2 million people out of work- mostly in Quebec and Southern Ontario.

Are you picking up what the White House is throwing down?


----------



## OldSolduer

SeaKingTacco said:


> She is the Secretary of Commerce for the United States.
> 
> With a stroke of a pen, she could destroy trade with Canada and put 2 million people out of work- mostly in Quebec and Southern Ontario.
> 
> Are you picking up what the White House is throwing down?


It should have happened 18 months ago


----------



## SupersonicMax

dimsum said:


> I'd put operations in the "essential" category.


Depends what Operation.  Honestly, some are pretty useless.


----------



## daftandbarmy

KevinB said:


> One would hope everyone does.



Not if you want to get promoted faster, which requires you to cozy up to the GOFOs and Politicos in Ottawa


----------



## PPCLI Guy

daftandbarmy said:


> Not if you want to get promoted faster, which requires you to cozy up to the GOFOs and Politicos in Ottawa


I am sure you saw lots of that in your time in Ottawa, or at the operational or strategic level


----------



## daftandbarmy

PPCLI Guy said:


> I am sure you saw lots of that in your time in Ottawa, or at the operational or strategic level



Oh hell no... I'm just parrotting second hand information which is, of course, worth pretty much what it cost


----------



## Good2Golf

daftandbarmy said:


> Oh hell no... I'm just parrotting second hand information which is, of course, worth pretty much what it cost


Or overpriced? 😉


----------



## daftandbarmy

Good2Golf said:


> Or overpriced? 😉



It's a priceless, timeless old tune 






						'Modern Major General' lyrics | Classical Music
					

Do you know all the lyrics to 'Modern Major General' one of Gilbert and Sullivan's most famous songs?



					www.classical-music.com


----------



## PPCLI Guy

And an old story


----------



## daftandbarmy

PPCLI Guy said:


> And an old story



I love that movie a little too much


----------



## FJAG

PPCLI Guy said:


> And an old story


Thanks for the reminder. I've been meaning to watch it again.

Here's the link to the full version on YouTube:



>



🍻


----------



## Edward Campbell

_My opinion_ - worth exactly what you're paying for it - is that no matter what President Biden (and, indeed, other world leaders say or (in the cases of e.g. Kim Jong-un and Ali Khamenei) do) Canadian voters will find it very hard to support any substantial action to make Canada more powerful ... militarily. It is also _my opinion_ that that overwhelming majority of Canadian does not understand that there is an important, unbreakable nexus between *hard* and _soft_ power. It is great to have _soft power_ - the more the better - but Joseph Nye himself pointed out that _soft power_ works *only* when the country wielding it has demonstrated that it has and is wiling to use enough *hard power* to make its voice heard.

I know I'm repeating myself, but both the Conservative and Liberal parties know that Canadians oppose rebuilding our military - they poll assiduously and they ask hard question; they want to know what we think; and we, most Canadians (my _guess_ is 60%+ of us) tell them, over and over again, that we don't like the idea of Canada using military power and, therefore, don't want Canada to have much military power; they certainly, by and even larger percentage, don't want to see their taxes go up our their entitlements go down not pay for it.

I don't know how Pierre Poilievre could sell rebuilding Canada's military to his own party, much less to the country at large. I'm about 99.9% certain that Justin Trudeau and Chrystia Freeland would find the notion totally impossible.


----------



## Booter

I suspect the next relationship with the way politicians on the right are courting the anti government vote is that you’ll see less desire on their part to make strong “government forces”. Strong security isn’t in line with “draining the swamp”.


----------



## rmc_wannabe

I think that the only way they'll sell rebuilding the CAF is on the back of losing trade partnerships. Money talks, and we make more keeping the U.S and E.U. partners happy than we do with the Chinese.


----------



## Rifleman62

If we ever rebuild the CAF, possibly the UK method may make sense.






						Minister of State (Minister for Defence Procurement) - GOV.UK
					






					www.gov.uk
				




Minister of State (Minister for Defence Procurement)​
Organisations: Ministry of Defence


> Contents​
> Responsibilities
> Previous holders
> Announcements
> Responsibilities​The Minister for Defence Procurement is responsible for the Defence Equipment Plan, relations with defence industry and exports, science and technology.
> Responsibilities include:
> 
> delivery of the Equipment Plan
> nuclear enterprise
> defence exports
> innovation
> defence science and technology including Dstl
> information computer technology
> the Single Source Regulations Office (SSRO)
> DIO estates and investment
> environment and sustainability
> Defence Supply Chain and Defence Estate monitoring, engagement and resilience in the context of COVID-19.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Britain’s military procurement agency gets new management
> 
> 
> A former defense industry executive is taking over the British government’s multibillion-pound defense procurement effort.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.defensenews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Britain’s military procurement agency gets new management​
> Defence Procurement Minister Jeremy Quin said Start’s appointment comes at an important time for U.K. defense. “I am pleased that DE&S will be led by a CEO with extensive commercial experience,” Quin said.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Rifleman62 said:


> If we ever rebuild the CAF, possibly the UK method may make sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Minister of State (Minister for Defence Procurement) - GOV.UK
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.gov.uk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Minister of State (Minister for Defence Procurement)​
> Organisations: Ministry of Defence



But without the Ajax disaster, right? 


Inside Britain's £5.5 billion military disaster​The Ajax tank was meant to revolutionise modern warfare – but after a succession of setbacks, is it now destined for the scrap heap.

There is a saying in the arms business about how some deals get done: ‘a conspiracy of optimism’. It’s a term for the bargains that are struck when military men dreaming of revolutionary new kit meet manufacturers desperate to land what might be the only contract for decades. 
Neither side wants to dwell on limitations of design or problems that have derailed past procurements. Instead, the soldiers ask for the earth and manufacturers promise they can deliver it, on time and on budget. 

It tends not to work that way. This year the Infrastructure and Projects Authority, which evaluates the Government’s major spending plans, analysed 52 projects underway at the MoD, worth a total of £194.7 billion – about one and a half times the entire NHS budget. Of those 52, just three were given the green rating suggesting that ‘successful delivery appears highly likely’. Most, in the amber zone, are freighted with difficulties. And nine are flagged red, where ‘the project appears to be unachievable’. 

These now include critical programmes like the Crowsnest helicopter surveillance programme; the production capability which builds the nuclear reactors for our Navy subs; a futuristic anti-ship weapon known as FCASW; the F35B Lightning combat jet; the Sea Venom anti-surface missile; and a communications system known as MoDnet Evolve. 

In all, notes a recent Defence Select Committee report, attempts to equip Britain’s armed forces in the last two decades amount to ‘a woeful story of bureaucratic procrastination, military indecision, financial mismanagement and general ineptitude’. As a result, it goes on, if British soldiers had to go to war today, they would have to rely on ‘obsolete armoured vehicles… [be] very heavily outgunned by more modern missile and artillery systems and [be] chronically lacking in adequate air defence’.

Even amid this blizzard of failure, however, a single programme stands out, symbolising the nation’s procurement failings: Ajax. 

Ajax, a type of light tank, has been repeatedly delayed. It was supposed to provide unparalleled protection to its crew, while delivering devastating fire through a 40mm cannon and hitting top speeds of 45mph. When one was finally delivered for trial in 2019  it shook so violently and was so noisy that it injured not the enemy but the personnel using it, with the vibrations also affecting the automatic loading of the cannon. Meanwhile billions of pounds of public money have so far been spent in return for not a single tank that the Army deems acceptable. According to a National Audit Office report, the project was ‘flawed from the start’.









						Inside Britain's £5.5 billion military disaster
					

The Ajax tank was meant to revolutionise modern warfare – but after a succession of setbacks, is it now destined for the scrap heap?




					www.telegraph.co.uk


----------



## Rifleman62

Want to start a list  of Cdn military disasters?


----------



## Halifax Tar

Rifleman62 said:


> Want to start a list  of Cdn military disasters?



I'll start.  The MacAdam Shield Shovel. 









						MacAdam Shield Shovel - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## Good2Golf

Edward Campbell said:


> _My opinion_ - worth exactly what you're paying for it - is that no matter what President Biden (and, indeed, other world leaders say or (in the cases of e.g. Kim Jong-un and Ali Khamenei) do) Canadian voters will find it very hard to support any substantial action to make Canada more powerful ... militarily. It is also _my opinion_ that that overwhelming majority of Canadian does not understand that there is an important, unbreakable nexus between *hard* and _soft_ power. It is great to have _soft power_ - the more the better - but Joseph Nye himself pointed out that _soft power_ works *only* when the country wielding it has demonstrated that it has and is wiling to use enough *hard power* to make its voice heard.



Sadly (vis-a-vis Canadians becoming less and less the masters of their own destiny), they won’t have much of a say about it, as the Govermnent of the day will put whatever appeasing, Maskirovkaic coverings on “their own” _defense_ investment policies, onto their direction from South of the border.  It could be that Canada leads the World in becoming, as Trudeau says, the first post-nation state (for as long as the US doesn’t accept the role of ‘Benevolent Annexer.’




Edward Campbell said:


> I know I'm repeating myself, but both the Conservative and Liberal parties know that Canadians oppose rebuilding our military - they poll assiduously and they ask hard question; they want to know what we think; and we, most Canadians (my _guess_ is 60%+ of us) tell them, over and over again, that we don't like the idea of Canada using military power and, therefore, don't want Canada to have much military power; they certainly, by and even larger percentage, don't want to see their taxes go up our their entitlements go down not pay for it.



Perhaps one day a poll will ask, “Do you support Canada equipping its own moderate military force, if the alternative was accepting US military ‘assistance’ leveraged against Canada’s existing bi-lateral agreement with the U.S.?”



Edward Campbell said:


> I don't know how Pierre Poilievre could sell rebuilding Canada's military to his own party, much less to the country at large. I'm about 99.9% certain that Justin Trudeau and Chrystia Freeland would find the notion totally impossible.


I don’t think any (of the) mainstream political parties in Canada give a fig about defe*nce*…so someone will ensure defe*nse* that affects their own country is effected…


----------



## OldSolduer

Halifax Tar said:


> I'll start.  The MacAdam Shield Shovel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MacAdam Shield Shovel - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org


The Ross rifle.


----------



## Rifleman62

> Perhaps one day a poll will ask, “Do you support Canada equipping its own moderate military force, if the alternative was accepting US military ‘assistance’ leveraged against Canada’s existing bi-lateral agreement with the U.S.?”



Yes, super idea.


----------



## YZT580

Halifax Tar said:


> I'll start.  The MacAdam Shield Shovel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MacAdam Shield Shovel - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org


Add in the Ross rifle


----------



## Halifax Tar

OldSolduer said:


> The Ross rifle.



The Ross Rifle was a great sporting rifle, but too sensitive for the trenches.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Halifax Tar said:


> The Ross Rifle was a great sporting rifle, but too sensitive for the trenches.


More like to sensitive to crappy British ammunition not made to spec. But better to blame the Colonials right? Also there was not a lot of other options at the time. The Ross continued in the trenches often preferred by snipers.


----------



## Brad Sallows

There are a couple of routes by which Canadians might be convinced to spend more.  One, other countries start ignoring our claims in the north.  Two, other countries start cutting us out of things from which we benefit.  In both cases, it'd have to be stated bluntly that it's a consequence of not carrying enough weight.


----------



## FSTO

Could you just imagine the howls of outrage from the chattering classes if a Democrat Administration, one who the Liberal Party loves to emulate lets it be known that if Canada doesn't pull its weight in the defence of North America that the US will pull its support of keeping Canada in the G7.

There isn't enough beer and popcorn in the world to satisfy that amount of entertainment!


----------



## Quirky

FSTO said:


> Could you just imagine the howls of outrage from the chattering classes if a Democrat Administration, one who the Liberal Party loves to emulate lets it be known that if Canada doesn't pull its weight in the defence of North America that the US will pull its support of keeping Canada in the G7.
> 
> There isn't enough beer and popcorn in the world to satisfy that amount of entertainment!



What would be worse, Canada getting booted from the G7 or US troops on Canadian soil manning our their bases?


----------



## GK .Dundas

Since the average Canadian neither knows nor cares about any these matters
I actually wonder how long it would take for them to react to a complete loss of sovereignty ?
 A good month or two at least.


----------



## OldSolduer

GK .Dundas said:


> Since the average Canadian neither knows nor cares about any these matters
> I actually wonder how long it would take for them to react to a complete loss of sovereignty ?
> A good month or two at least.


As long as curling was on Tv or maybe HNIC most would not notice


----------



## YZT580

Brad Sallows said:


> There are a couple of routes by which Canadians might be convinced to spend more.  One, other countries start ignoring our claims in the north.  Two, other countries start cutting us out of things from which we benefit.  In both cases, it'd have to be stated bluntly that it's a consequence of not carrying enough weight.


next group photo of the NATO leaders put Trudeau on the outer edge and then crop him out in the press release


----------



## Brad Sallows

Just photoshop it to show him in kiddie short pants.


----------



## Edward Campbell

The problem is NOT Justin Trudeau; the problem wasn't Jean Chrétien nor was it Pierre Trudeau. The problem was and remains that we, the people of Canada,  wanted and still want what our American neighbours and our European allies had and have: an advanced welfare state, but we didn't and still don't want to allow the sort of open, highly competitive, red in tooth and claw capitalism that characterizes the USA nor did we want pay European level taxes. We want something for nothing. We told the market researchers (pollsters) that in the early to mid 1960s. Neither John Diefenbaker nor Mike Pearson paid much attention; Jim Coutts and Keith Davey did and they advised Pierre Trudeau that his instinct - to try to abandon the US-led West and lead Canada, somehow, into the non-aligned group of nations, while politically naive was, essentially, what Canadians wanted ... this was the 1960s and '70s, remember, and Vietnam dominated the global narrative.

Nothing much has changed.

Partisan party politics isn't the problem.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Edward Campbell said:


> The problem is NOT Justin Trudeau; the problem wasn't Jean Chrétien nor was it Pierre Trudeau. The problem was and remains that we, the people of Canada,  wanted and still want what our American neighbours and our European allies had and have: an advanced welfare state, but we didn't and still don't want to allow the sort of open, highly competitive, red in tooth and claw capitalism that characterizes the USA nor did we want pay European level taxes. We want something for nothing. We told the market researchers (pollsters) that in the early to mid 1960s. Neither John Diefenbaker nor Mike Pearson paid much attention; Jim Coutts and Keith Davey did and they advised Pierre Trudeau that his instinct - to try to abandon the US-led West and lead Canada, somehow, into the non-aligned group of nations, while politically naive was, essentially, what Canadians wanted ... this was the 1960s and '70s, remember, and Vietnam dominated the global narrative.
> 
> Nothing much has changed.
> 
> Partisan party politics isn't the problem.
> 
> View attachment 74869



You're right.  We tend to blame politicians, but in reality they are just going to do what the people want and keep thier butts warming seats in the HoC.


----------



## kev994

daftandbarmy said:


> But without the Ajax disaster, right?
> 
> 
> Inside Britain's £5.5 billion military disaster​The Ajax tank was meant to revolutionise modern warfare – but after a succession of setbacks, is it now destined for the scrap heap.
> 
> There is a saying in the arms business about how some deals get done: ‘a conspiracy of optimism’. It’s a term for the bargains that are struck when military men dreaming of revolutionary new kit meet manufacturers desperate to land what might be the only contract for decades.
> Neither side wants to dwell on limitations of design or problems that have derailed past procurements. Instead, the soldiers ask for the earth and manufacturers promise they can deliver it, on time and on budget.
> 
> It tends not to work that way. This year the Infrastructure and Projects Authority, which evaluates the Government’s major spending plans, analysed 52 projects underway at the MoD, worth a total of £194.7 billion – about one and a half times the entire NHS budget. Of those 52, just three were given the green rating suggesting that ‘successful delivery appears highly likely’. Most, in the amber zone, are freighted with difficulties. And nine are flagged red, where ‘the project appears to be unachievable’.
> 
> These now include critical programmes like the Crowsnest helicopter surveillance programme; the production capability which builds the nuclear reactors for our Navy subs; a futuristic anti-ship weapon known as FCASW; the F35B Lightning combat jet; the Sea Venom anti-surface missile; and a communications system known as MoDnet Evolve.
> 
> In all, notes a recent Defence Select Committee report, attempts to equip Britain’s armed forces in the last two decades amount to ‘a woeful story of bureaucratic procrastination, military indecision, financial mismanagement and general ineptitude’. As a result, it goes on, if British soldiers had to go to war today, they would have to rely on ‘obsolete armoured vehicles… [be] very heavily outgunned by more modern missile and artillery systems and [be] chronically lacking in adequate air defence’.
> 
> Even amid this blizzard of failure, however, a single programme stands out, symbolising the nation’s procurement failings: Ajax.
> 
> Ajax, a type of light tank, has been repeatedly delayed. It was supposed to provide unparalleled protection to its crew, while delivering devastating fire through a 40mm cannon and hitting top speeds of 45mph. When one was finally delivered for trial in 2019  it shook so violently and was so noisy that it injured not the enemy but the personnel using it, with the vibrations also affecting the automatic loading of the cannon. Meanwhile billions of pounds of public money have so far been spent in return for not a single tank that the Army deems acceptable. According to a National Audit Office report, the project was ‘flawed from the start’.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Inside Britain's £5.5 billion military disaster
> 
> 
> The Ajax tank was meant to revolutionise modern warfare – but after a succession of setbacks, is it now destined for the scrap heap?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.telegraph.co.uk


PSPC: “Hold my beer and watch this!”


----------



## Good2Golf

kev994 said:


> PSPC: “Hold my beer and watch this!”


TBS: “Hold my cognac snifter…”


----------



## GR66

Edward Campbell said:


> The problem is NOT Justin Trudeau; the problem wasn't Jean Chrétien nor was it Pierre Trudeau. The problem was and remains that we, the people of Canada,  wanted and still want what our American neighbours and our European allies had and have: an advanced welfare state, but we didn't and still don't want to allow the sort of open, highly competitive, red in tooth and claw capitalism that characterizes the USA nor did we want pay European level taxes. We want something for nothing. We told the market researchers (pollsters) that in the early to mid 1960s. Neither John Diefenbaker nor Mike Pearson paid much attention; Jim Coutts and Keith Davey did and they advised Pierre Trudeau that his instinct - to try to abandon the US-led West and lead Canada, somehow, into the non-aligned group of nations, while politically naive was, essentially, what Canadians wanted ... this was the 1960s and '70s, remember, and Vietnam dominated the global narrative.
> 
> Nothing much has changed.
> 
> Partisan party politics isn't the problem.
> 
> View attachment 74869


Absolutely correct, but a smart military leadership would watch the winds of public opinion and time steps toward improving our military accordingly.  The Ukraine conflict has ATGMs, AD Systems, small UAVs and Artillery (both tube and rocket) firmly in the public eye at the moment.  All capabilities that are either completely missing or sorely deficient in our forces.  

The CDS and everyone else in uniform with an opportunity to speak to our politicians and the general public should be drawing attention to the demonstrated importance of these systems and highlight our lack of them in order to get movement on these programs while there may be some increased public awareness and support.

Maritime human trafficing or illegal fishing in the news?  We only have a handful of aging MPAs to patrol our vast coastal regions.

A warming arctic and increased foreign vessel traffic in the NW Passage increasing environmental risks along with a lack of basic infrastructure for our Inuit communities?  Need improved airfields, port facilities and surveillance systems in the far North as well as all-terrain vehicles to get around.

The RCAF delivers aid to a disaster stricken country on the other side of the planet?  With a few extra transport aircraft we could increase our lift capability and reduce the wear on our limited fleet of aircraft.  Etc., etc., etc.


----------



## WLSC

GR66 said:


> Absolutely correct, but a smart military leadership would watch the winds of public opinion and time steps toward improving our military accordingly.  The Ukraine conflict has ATGMs, AD Systems, small UAVs and Artillery (both tube and rocket) firmly in the public eye at the moment.  All capabilities that are either completely missing or sorely deficient in our forces.
> 
> The CDS and everyone else in uniform with an opportunity to speak to our politicians and the general public should be drawing attention to the demonstrated importance of these systems and highlight our lack of them in order to get movement on these programs while there may be some increased public awareness and support.
> 
> Maritime human trafficing or illegal fishing in the news?  We only have a handful of aging MPAs to patrol our vast coastal regions.
> 
> A warming arctic and increased foreign vessel traffic in the NW Passage increasing environmental risks along with a lack of basic infrastructure for our Inuit communities?  Need improved airfields, port facilities and surveillance systems in the far North as well as all-terrain vehicles to get around.
> 
> The RCAF delivers aid to a disaster stricken country on the other side of the planet?  With a few extra transport aircraft we could increase our lift capability and reduce the wear on our limited fleet of aircraft.  Etc., etc., etc.



I don’t think the CDS is allowed to speech as freely as he wants about those things.  Read the lines Chief, thank you.


----------



## Spencer100

In other news the government signed a contract with GDLS-C for the deverted LAVs to Ukraine to replace one for one. Can't post the news piece.  Also said to be looking at AT-4 to replace the CGs.


----------



## Quirky

WLSC said:


> I don’t think the CDS is allowed to speech as freely as he wants about those things.  Read the lines Chief, thank you.


What’s the government going to do, give him early retirement with a pension that’s more than 90% of Canadian household salaries? The horror. We need more GOFOs to say what needs to be said.


----------



## dimsum

GR66 said:


> The CDS and everyone else in uniform with an opportunity to speak to our politicians and the general public should be drawing attention to the demonstrated importance of these systems and highlight our lack of them in order to get movement on these programs while there may be some increased public awareness and support.


The CDS has been pretty vocal in the news about that lately.


----------



## WLSC

dimsum said:


> The CDS has been pretty vocal in the news about that lately.



Yes, but the MDN answers are always about the culture as her primary focus so, is vocal without being backed.


----------



## Grimey

OldSolduer said:


> As long as curling was on Tv or maybe HNIC most would not notice


^^^This.  The part of the national consciousnes/pride that isn’t defined by “The Best Healthcare System in the World (TM)” is HNIC.


----------



## GR66

WLSC said:


> I don’t think the CDS is allowed to speech as freely as he wants about those things.  Read the lines Chief, thank you.


There's ways of doing it without crossing the lines.  In briefings, etc. he raises the issue directly.  In public the issues can be discussed in a round about manner.

Public Affairs Officer on the nightly news:  "Our CC-177's and their crews have been doing an amazing job making the 11 hour flight to the disaster area delivering the food and medical supplies that are so urgent at this critical moment.  It's also been a herculean task for our maintenance crews and other supporters keeping this airlift going as with just five aircraft in the fleet and other important tasks to be done it puts a lot of strain on both our personnel and the equipment".

At the same time the CDS is privately briefing the Minister and the HOC Defence Committee on the wear and readiness effects on the fleet and projects what our expected airlift capacity would be in a full wartime deployment situation and what that means in terms of our ability to deploy and support our forces.


----------



## WLSC

GR66 said:


> There's ways of doing it without crossing the lines.  In briefings, etc. he raises the issue directly.  In public the issues can be discussed in a round about manner.
> 
> Public Affairs Officer on the nightly news:  "Our CC-177's and their crews have been doing an amazing job making the 11 hour flight to the disaster area delivering the food and medical supplies that are so urgent at this critical moment.  It's also been a herculean task for our maintenance crews and other supporters keeping this airlift going as with just five aircraft in the fleet and other important tasks to be done it puts a lot of strain on both our personnel and the equipment".
> 
> At the same time the CDS is privately briefing the Minister and the HOC Defence Committee on the wear and readiness effects on the fleet and projects what our expected airlift capacity would be in a full wartime deployment situation and what that means in terms of our ability to deploy and support our forces.



You’re probably right ans I know it can be done, It has been done effectively in the past.  It all come back to the latitude the CAF have to discuss that with the population.  Right now, I hear those messages out that much.


----------



## RangerRay

FSTO said:


> Could you just imagine the howls of outrage from the chattering classes if a Democrat Administration, one who the Liberal Party loves to emulate lets it be known that if Canada doesn't pull its weight in the defence of North America that the US will pull its support of keeping Canada in the G7.
> 
> There isn't enough beer and popcorn in the world to satisfy that amount of entertainment!


Obama did when he said “the world needs more Canada”. Unfortunately, it flew over most Canadians heads since he did go old school Chicago and beat us over the head with a two-by-four.


----------



## Underway

I'm calling BS on eviction from 5 Eyes and G7+1 (EU is the +1).  They can't even kick the Russians out of the G20, and as far as Five Eyes are concerned the Kiwi's are probably first on the chopping block.

The G7 has Canada in it because the US wants another diplomatic foil against Europe.  Five Eyes contributions from Canada also include massive bilateral deals with the US that go further than Five Eyes.  US can't afford to cut those cords for their own security.

I'm not saying things were not said by the US, nor frustration being show, but there are threats and there are threats you can actually deliver on. But we'll see how things go with the new Defence Policy (expected in the New Year) and how that impacts the Fed budget in Feb.


----------



## Good2Golf

Underway said:


> I'm calling BS on eviction from 5 Eyes and G7+1 (EU is the +1).  They can't even kick the Russians out of the G20, and as far as Five Eyes are concerned the Kiwi's are probably first on the chopping block.



You mean the little nation that already bought P-8s to remain serious ASW players, while we look to extend our aged platform out to 60-year lifecycle? 



Underway said:


> The G7 has Canada in it because the US wants another diplomatic foil against Europe.  Five Eyes contributions from Canada also include massive bilateral deals with the US that go further than Five Eyes.  US can't afford to cut those cords for their own security.



By “massive” you mean the US share of the “bi”-lateral relationship?  The US could cease all bilats with Canada tomorrow and the morning hiccups will be done by afternoon.



Underway said:


> I'm not saying things were not said by the US, nor frustration being show, but there are threats and there are threats you can actually deliver on. But we'll see how things go with the new Defence Policy (expected in the New Year) and how that impacts the Fed budget in Feb.


That’s a classically Canadian view that isn’t shared by many south of the border.

I actually heard a not-uninformed American posit that it seemed that some Canadians wanted to play the ‘Fuck Around and Find Out’ game…


----------



## Booter

Quirky said:


> What’s the government going to do, give him early retirement with a pension that’s more than 90% of Canadian household salaries? The horror. We need more GOFOs to say what needs to be said.


Except there is always a bankrupt second rank that is willing to step up and say whatever they want. If a GOFO Did that they would Be out- and a new guy in- explaining how the other guy was wrong. You don’t have enough depth of integrity at the senior ranks next to
Politics to have that happen.


----------



## Kirkhill

YZT580 said:


> next group photo of the NATO leaders put Trudeau on the outer edge and then crop him out in the press release



For the record the Money Men in Britain just fired the last two sitting Prime Ministers who wanted to increase defence spending.  Boris wanted 2.5% and Liz wanted 3%,  All the other candidates popular with the Tory Party also all wanted a big defence budget.

The new guy is saying 2% is good enough.....


----------



## Kirkhill

Edward Campbell said:


> _My opinion_ - worth exactly what you're paying for it - is that no matter what President Biden (and, indeed, other world leaders say or (in the cases of e.g. Kim Jong-un and Ali Khamenei) do) Canadian voters will find it very hard to support any substantial action to make Canada more powerful ... militarily. It is also _my opinion_ that that overwhelming majority of Canadian does not understand that there is an important, unbreakable nexus between *hard* and _soft_ power. It is great to have _soft power_ - the more the better - but Joseph Nye himself pointed out that _soft power_ works *only* when the country wielding it has demonstrated that it has and is wiling to use enough *hard power* to make its voice heard.
> 
> I know I'm repeating myself, but both the Conservative and Liberal parties know that Canadians oppose rebuilding our military - they poll assiduously and they ask hard question; they want to know what we think; and we, most Canadians (my _guess_ is 60%+ of us) tell them, over and over again, that we don't like the idea of Canada using military power and, therefore, don't want Canada to have much military power; they certainly, by and even larger percentage, don't want to see their taxes go up our their entitlements go down not pay for it.
> 
> I don't know how Pierre Poilievre could sell rebuilding Canada's military to his own party, much less to the country at large. I'm about 99.9% certain that Justin Trudeau and Chrystia Freeland would find the notion totally impossible.



The best option, I'm thinking is dual function civil-military assets.  Buy milspec kit for civvy applications (air, sea and cyber monitoring) that both civvy and milspec kit can plug into.

Example cited previously is airspace protection against wandering pilots, birds and UAVs.


----------



## ueo

Navy_Pete said:


> Should the RCN still be operating the MCDVs, which were supposed to get paid off to free up people for the AOPs? Has the RCN been beating on the fleet like rentals for over a decade and never scheduling long enough work periods to get the required maintenance done?
> 
> The RCN has been ignoring this my entire career and it's just in a death spiral at this point. Martechs are at 50-60% PMLs on the coasts, that's insane, and it's continuing to get worse as the RCN keeps the pedal down on the OPSCHED.
> 
> Even before the CDS order they should have been begging to slow things down. Instead they are still planning on RAMPING UP TRAINING to a level higher than we've ever acheived, despite numerous instructor billets being empty, major maintenance needed to the schools and a general lack of throughput capacity..
> 
> Institutionally completely out of touch. So either CRCN and staff is getting their arses shined on or they are just ignoring reality, and not sure which is worse.


So go the others!


----------



## Edward Campbell

YZT580 said:


> next group photo of the NATO leaders put Trudeau on the outer edge and then crop him out in the press release


Which appears to be exactly what Xi Jinping did:

"After more than two years without leaving his country, Chinese President Xi Jinping isn’t missing the chance for in-person diplomacy as he joins other world leaders at the G20 summit in Bali, Indonesia, this week ... [and]... Mr. Xi had a highly anticipated meeting with U.S. President Joe Biden on Monday, and will meet with the leaders of Australia and Japan, as well as Indonesian President Joko Widodo ... [but] ... *Not on the list, however, is Prime Minister Justin Trudeau*."


----------



## Good2Golf

Edward Campbell said:


> Which appears to be exactly what Xi Jinping did:
> 
> "After more than two years without leaving his country, Chinese President Xi Jinping isn’t missing the chance for in-person diplomacy as he joins other world leaders at the G20 summit in Bali, Indonesia, this week ... [and]... Mr. Xi had a highly anticipated meeting with U.S. President Joe Biden on Monday, and will meet with the leaders of Australia and Japan, as well as Indonesian President Joko Widodo ... [but] ... *Not on the list, however, is Prime Minister Justin Trudeau*."



The Good Grey Globe gave me a perk this morning with that.


----------



## Rifleman62

How about stating the CAF will take unnecessary casualties in any conflict due to lack of, and aging equipment. Tell citizens, who are watching what is happening in the Ukrainian, that Cdn troops don't have Javelins to stop tanks killing our troops, have zero air defense capabilities to stop attacking aircraft/helicopters from killing our troops, minimal modern tanks to to stop enemy tanks from killing our troops, and, largely in the news, minimal artillery, zero MLRS, to stop our troops from being killed. Let alone logistics.


----------



## Rifleman62

> "After more than two years without leaving his country, Chinese President Xi Jinping isn’t missing the chance for in-person diplomacy as he joins other world leaders at the G20 summit in Bali, Indonesia, this week ... [and]... Mr. Xi had a highly anticipated meeting with U.S. President Joe Biden on Monday, and will meet with the leaders of Australia and Japan, as well as Indonesian President Joko Widodo ... [but] ... *Not on the list, however, is Prime Minister Justin Trudeau*."



CBC is making a big deal of the few minutes together they did spend when they passed each other. CBC did say minutes. I am sure Global, CTV,  CBC  and the print media will blow the few minutes up,. Somewhat the Quebec Conference, with Mackenzie King in the photo with Roosevelt and Churchill.


----------



## Good2Golf

Rifleman62 said:


> CBC is making a big deal of the few minutes together they did spend when they passed each other. CBC did say minutes. I am sure Global, CTV,  CBC  and the print media will blow the few minutes up,. Somewhat the Quebec Conference, with Mackenzie King in the photo with Roosevelt and Churchill.


If it ain’t a pre-planned sit down with an agenda, it ain’t worth squat.


----------



## GR66

Good2Golf said:


> If it ain’t a pre-planned sit down with an agenda, it ain’t worth squat.


Xi thought he was staff and asked him for directions to the lavatory.  Does that count?


----------



## OldSolduer

Rifleman62 said:


> How about stating the CAF will take unnecessary casualties in any conflict due to lack of, and aging equipment. Tell citizens, who are watching what is happening in the Ukrainian, that Cdn troops don't have Javelins to stop tanks killing our troops, have zero air defense capabilities to stop attacking aircraft/helicopters from killing our troops, minimal modern tanks to to stop enemy tanks from killing our troops, and, largely in the news, minimal artillery, zero MLRS, to stop our troops from being killed. Let alone logistics.


Like we have done with EVERY war Canada has joined. Woefully unprepared.


----------



## Underway

Good2Golf said:


> You mean the little nation that already bought P-8s to remain serious ASW players, while we look to extend our aged platform out to 60-year lifecycle?


Wow, the Kiwi's bought some P-8's.  Do they let US nuclear vessels into their waters yet?  There are plenty of Kiwi and US friction points. Particularly the one where the contribute zero info the the Five Eyes.



Good2Golf said:


> By “massive” you mean the US share of the “bi”-lateral relationship?  The US could cease all bilats with Canada tomorrow and the morning hiccups will be done by afternoon.


Massive as in criminal, legal, trade and NORAD.  What about ELINT which is huge, full cooperation between CSIS, CSE and military INT.  When Canada goes onto a mission whatever we learn is fed directly to the US analyists. Which is more then NATO does.


Good2Golf said:


> That’s a classically Canadian view that isn’t shared by many south of the border.


We see what we want to see in these relationships often.   The classic Canadian view is complete ignorance of the entire situation.  I'm not so nieve that the US isn't entering a period of "America First" and isn't willing to bully us around. We saw it with the renegotiation that was USMCA where they basically forced us to cave on almost every single point.  Canada is a competator to the US now, no longer a market or a partner in many ways.  

 I would caution that its more likely the US is able to leverage Canada into doing what it wants using the bilats as a lever, then getting what they want by cutting ties.  They also are smart enough to know that a single election cycle can change things for them and for us.


----------



## Good2Golf

Underway said:


> I would caution that its more likely the US is able to leverage Canada into doing what it wants using the bilats as a lever, then getting what they want by cutting ties.


Oh, I think we both agree on this.  My point was more along the lines that if push came to shove and Canada was pompously resistant, the US wouldn’t blink twice to thump us and not lose any sleep that night, nor any night thereafter.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Good2Golf said:


> Oh, I think we both agree on this.  My point was more along the lines that if push came to shove and Canada was pompously resistant, the US wouldn’t blink twice to thump us and not lose any sleep that night, nor any night thereafter.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Rifleman62 said:


> CBC is making a big deal of the few minutes together they did spend when they passed each other. CBC did say minutes. I am sure Global, CTV,  CBC  and the print media will blow the few minutes up,. Somewhat the Quebec Conference, with Mackenzie King in the photo with Roosevelt and Churchill.


But Team Trudeau's decision publicize the brief chat has, now, further annoyed Xi Jinping ... _le Dauphin _cannot seem to figure out this diplomacy stuff, can he?

"Chinese leader Xi Jinping angrily confronted Prime Minister Justin Trudeau on the sidelines of the G20 meeting Wednesday, complaining Mr. Trudeau’s office had published details of an earlier conversation between them ... [saying] ... “Everything we said has been leaked to the papers, that’s not appropriate, that’s not the way the conversation was conducted ...[and] ... “If you are sincere, we should communicate with each other in a respectful manner, otherwise it will be hard to say what the result will be like.”"


----------



## FSTO

^^
“If you’re sincere”
I wonder if JT has ever been sincere.


----------



## Edward Campbell

FSTO said:


> ^^
> “If you’re sincere”
> I wonder if JT has ever been sincere.


In fairness to _le Dauphin_, the overarching political aim was a photo that Canadian media could use showing that he was NOT excluded from meeting Paramount Leader Xi Jinping. He appears to have correctly recited the 30 second, two point script that someone (PMO or Global Affairs) drafted ... so it's a win, right?


----------



## FSTO

Edward Campbell said:


> In fairness to _le Dauphin_, the overarching political aim was a photo that Canadian media could use showing that he was NOT excluded from meeting Paramount Leader Xi Jinping. He appears to have correctly recited the 30 second, two point script that someone (PMO or Global Affairs) drafted ... so it's a win, right?


Not quite like the interaction between LBJ and Pearson but I think the same message was sent.


----------



## KevinB

Edward Campbell said:


> In fairness to _le Dauphin_, the overarching political aim was a photo that Canadian media could use showing that he was NOT excluded from meeting Paramount Leader Xi Jinping. He appears to have correctly recited the 30 second, two point script that someone (PMO or Global Affairs) drafted ... so it's a win, right?


and perhaps to show Team America he knew what team he was batting for...


----------



## Good2Golf

Edward Campbell said:


> In fairness to _le Dauphin_, the overarching political aim was a photo that Canadian media could use showing that he was NOT excluded from meeting Paramount Leader Xi Jinping. He appears to have correctly recited the 30 second, two point script that someone (PMO or Global Affairs) drafted ... so it's a win, right?


The other photo op ‘available’ didn’t pass PMO’s selection… 

(Photo: Global News/Corus)


----------



## Edward Campbell

KevinB said:


> and perhaps to show Team America he knew what team he was batting for...


_My guess_, and it's a _guess_ based on one _rumour_, is that neither the Conservative nor Liberal parties is terribly upset by the message that _may_ have been delivered three weeks ago by Secretary of State Blinken. Both major parties know that the USA is p!ssed at us for being strategic shirkers but the overarching political objective to is to put loyal Liberal (or loyal Conservative) bums in the seats of (not really luxurious) ministerial limos in Ottawa. That means not annoying the Canadian populace.

_I think_ that Justin Trudeau really, honestly *believes* that climate change is the battle of the century - the only war that really matters to the modern world. It doesn't matter why he thinks that, it also doesn't matter if you and I agree or not. *The fact* - and I assert it is a* fact* - is that at least a very, very large minority, likely a majority of Canadians agrees with him. Within that large group are many, many well educated "*opinion leaders*" including many, many high-school teachers and university professors (including from science and engineering) ands many, many senior civil servants.

*I believe *that there remains, as there was in the 1960s and '70s, a broad consensus, in the "chattering classes" that:


Unfettered *American* capitalism - red in tooth and claw - is a greater threat to the world than are Chinese or Russian autocracies;
Military spending is wasteful and unnecessary; and
Canada is a "nice" nation and people should listen to our preaching, pretentious though it may be.

Canada will "bat" for *Team Americ*a because we have no choice, but our political leaders, Conservative and Liberal alike, will do the bare minimum that can be found acceptable - that's the Canadian way.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Good2Golf said:


> The other photo op ‘available’ didn’t pass PMO’s selection…
> View attachment 74918
> (Photo: Global News/Corus)



Is that the kids table at NATO and G7 meetings ?


----------



## Kirkhill

FSTO said:


> ^^
> “If you’re sincere”
> I wonder if JT has ever been sincere.




“The key to success is sincerity. If you can fake that you've got it made.”​
― George Burns


----------



## Good2Golf

Halifax Tar said:


> Is that the kids table at NATO and G7 meetings ?


Hopefully….I fear we may get turfed from the ‘G6’, in which case, it would be a kids table at the G20 meeting… 😢


----------



## Spencer100

Underway said:


> Wow, the Kiwi's bought some P-8's.  Do they let US nuclear vessels into their waters yet?  There are plenty of Kiwi and US friction points. Particularly the one where the contribute zero info the the Five Eyes.
> 
> 
> Massive as in criminal, legal, trade and NORAD.  What about ELINT which is huge, full cooperation between CSIS, CSE and military INT.  When Canada goes onto a mission whatever we learn is fed directly to the US analyists. Which is more then NATO does.
> 
> We see what we want to see in these relationships often.   The classic Canadian view is complete ignorance of the entire situation.  I'm not so nieve that the US isn't entering a period of "America First" and isn't willing to bully us around. We saw it with the renegotiation that was USMCA where they basically forced us to cave on almost every single point.  Canada is a competator to the US now, no longer a market or a partner in many ways.
> 
> I would caution that its more likely the US is able to leverage Canada into doing what it wants using the bilats as a lever, then getting what they want by cutting ties.  They also are smart enough to know that a single election cycle can change things for them and for us.


The thing being in the USMCA the US points were much better for the average Canadian.  Not so much the Liberal party and their gang.


----------



## Czech_pivo

PPCLI Guy said:


> And an old story


That clip almost made me want to don a kilt, grab a broadsword and run up and my street "Freedom!" 









FJAG said:


> Thanks for the reminder. I've been meaning to watch it again.
> 
> Here's the link to the full version on YouTube:
> 
> 
> 
> 🍻


----------



## Czech_pivo

Underway said:


> I'm calling BS on eviction from 5 Eyes and G7+1 (EU is the +1).  They can't even kick the Russians out of the G20, and as far as Five Eyes are concerned the Kiwi's are probably first on the chopping block.
> 
> The G7 has Canada in it because the US wants another diplomatic foil against Europe.  Five Eyes contributions from Canada also include massive bilateral deals with the US that go further than Five Eyes.  US can't afford to cut those cords for their own security.
> 
> I'm not saying things were not said by the US, nor frustration being show, but there are threats and there are threats you can actually deliver on. But we'll see how things go with the new Defence Policy (expected in the New Year) and how that impacts the Fed budget in Feb.


Fine, they won't cut us or the Kiwi's from 5 Eyes - but who's to say that the existing 5 Eyes remains and a new 3 Eyes is created?  The existing 5 Eyes becomes watered down, less 'in the know' and more 'need to know'? The new 3 Eyes becomes the dominant group.  Geographically NA, Europe and SE Asia are still covered off and less meddling by small bit players in terms of Canada/NZ that look to be increasingly under subversive attacks (influence?) by China. 
Same goes with the G7 - quite easy to make a new, inner group called the G5 (US, UK, France, Germany and Japan), again cutting out the small bit players that are Canada/Italy. I mean that G7 is really the G8 with the European Union rep always sulking about.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Edward Campbell said:


> _My guess_, and it's a _guess_ based on one _rumour_, is that neither the Conservative nor Liberal parties is terribly upset by the message that _may_ have been delivered three weeks ago by Secretary of State Blinken. Both major parties know that the USA is p!ssed at us for being strategic shirkers but the overarching political objective to is to put loyal Liberal (or loyal Conservative) bums in the seats of (not really luxurious) ministerial limos in Ottawa. That means not annoying the Canadian populace.
> 
> _I think_ that Justin Trudeau really, honestly *believes* that climate change is the battle of the century - the only war that really matters to the modern world. It doesn't matter why he thinks that, it also doesn't matter if you and I agree or not. *The fact* - and I assert it is a* fact* - is that at least a very, very large minority, likely a majority of Canadians agrees with him. Within that large group are many, many well educated "*opinion leaders*" including many, many high-school teachers and university professors (including from science and engineering) ands many, many senior civil servants.
> 
> *I believe *that there remains, as there was in the 1960s and '70s, a broad consensus, in the "chattering classes" that:
> 
> 
> Unfettered *American* capitalism - red in tooth and claw - is a greater threat to the world than are Chinese or Russian autocracies;
> Military spending is wasteful and unnecessary; and
> Canada is a "nice" nation and people should listen to our preaching, pretentious though it may be.
> 
> Canada will "bat" for *Team Americ*a because we have no choice, but our political leaders, Conservative and Liberal alike, will do the bare minimum that can be found acceptable - that's the Canadian way.


A simple reality on a go forward basis is this; as an ever greater % of the CDN population hails from non-European countries, for example, China, India, the Philippines, Nigeria, Iran, Pakistan, the ever greater 'rift' there will be between how Canadian's view the US and its approach/objectives. The majority of these countries hail from countries that are historically part of the 'Non-aligned Movement' (think India) or quasi-adversaries in terms of China/Iran.  They are NOT 'buddy-buddy' places with the US (maybe the Philippines as an exception).  

None of those countries are in NATO, none of those countries are in 5 Eyes, none of those countries are in the EU, none of them are in the G7, none of those countries are defined as 'stable, open' democracies (India would be the closest), all of those countries are considered to be 'developing', none of those countries are known for 'open media', all of them would be considered to be 'corrupt' countries by Canadian standards in terms of business/political practises. 

The future for Canada is not an ever closer relationship with the US, the future is a strained relationship, a separating/decoupling relationship, one where Canada is on the losing side, where our standard of living falls significantly, along with our presence on the world stage.

As an aside, here's an example of how things are changing here in Canada. I've been working in the banking sector in Canada for the last 22yrs since leaving the same industry in the US back in 2000.  What I have started to see in the bathrooms (pre-pandemic and post) at work is instructions on how to properly maintain the bathroom - instructions to flush the toilet after every use, instructions to lift the toilet seat if not using it, instructions on how to keep it clean, instructions on how to wash your hands after every use, with soap and for how long.  These things didn't exist in the bathrooms 10-15yrs ago and I can say for a fact that they bathrooms were much cleaner throughout the day.  The examples that I'm giving are in professional settings, Bay St office towers where people with salaries well well north of 100-150k work on a daily basis. 
Say what you will about the above, but prior accepted social standards are no longer the case.


----------



## Kirkhill

Czech_pivo said:


> A simple reality on a go forward basis is this; as an ever greater % of the CDN population hails from non-European countries, for example, China, India, the Philippines, Nigeria, Iran, Pakistan, the ever greater 'rift' there will be between how Canadian's view the US and its approach/objectives. The majority of these countries hail from countries that are historically part of the 'Non-aligned Movement' (think India) or quasi-adversaries in terms of China/Iran.  They are NOT 'buddy-buddy' places with the US (maybe the Philippines as an exception).
> 
> None of those countries are in NATO, none of those countries are in 5 Eyes, none of those countries are in the EU, none of them are in the G7, none of those countries are defined as 'stable, open' democracies (India would be the closest), all of those countries are considered to be 'developing', none of those countries are known for 'open media', all of them would be considered to be 'corrupt' countries by Canadian standards in terms of business/political practises.
> 
> The future for Canada is not an ever closer relationship with the US, the future is a strained relationship, a separating/decoupling relationship, one where Canada is on the losing side, where our standard of living falls significantly, along with our presence on the world stage.
> 
> As an aside, here's an example of how things are changing here in Canada. I've been working in the banking sector in Canada for the last 22yrs since leaving the same industry in the US back in 2000.  What I have started to see in the bathrooms (pre-pandemic and post) at work is instructions on how to properly maintain the bathroom - instructions to flush the toilet after every use, instructions to lift the toilet seat if not using it, instructions on how to keep it clean, instructions on how to wash your hands after every use, with soap and for how long.  These things didn't exist in the bathrooms 10-15yrs ago and I can say for a fact that they bathrooms were much cleaner throughout the day.  The examples that I'm giving are in professional settings, Bay St office towers where people with salaries well well north of 100-150k work on a daily basis.
> Say what you will about the above, but prior accepted social standards are no longer the case.



One of the things the food industry has had to deal with, especially when importing workers for seasonal "camps" as in Alaska has been to change the assumptions associated with training people in personal hygiene requirements.  Flush toilets and toilet paper are not a universal solution to personal waste management.   People trying to squat on the rims of toilet bowls, injuring themselves when they lose their balance, disposing of used toilet paper in the garbage bucket are not uncommon problems.

Pivo's very right.  Cultural assumptions are very different.  My generation of immigrants referenced their experience around the Queen Mary and the Queen Elizabeth and then the Boeing 707.  And everybody understood Brown Sauce.



None of those mean much to my kids, much less the kids I work with.


----------



## YZT580

Kirkhill said:


> One of the things the food industry has had to deal with, especially when importing workers for seasonal "camps" as in Alaska has been to change the assumptions associated with training people in personal hygiene requirements.  Flush toilets and toilet paper are not a universal solution to personal waste management.   People trying to squat on the rims of toilet bowls, injuring themselves when they lose their balance, disposing of used toilet paper in the garbage bucket are not uncommon problems.
> 
> Pivo's very right.  Cultural assumptions are very different.  My generation of immigrants referenced their experience around the Queen Mary and the Queen Elizabeth and then the Boeing 707.  And everybody understood Brown Sauce.
> 
> View attachment 74924View attachment 74925View attachment 74926
> 
> None of those mean much to my kids, much less the kids I work with.


Been an intentional shift in attitude from Ottawa to ensure a steady stream of votes for the liberal party.  Theoretically all are treated equally but the unite the family policy ensures that the predominant flow is from the east where there are larger families


----------



## Brad Sallows

I miss the Canada I grew up in (which of course is an idealization of what it was), and I still like the Canada I live in, but I can conceive I might live long enough to change my mind.  It won't be because I have changed; what I am is pretty much locked in.  Previous iterations of Canadian culture got us to where we are.  There's no natural law which requires successive iterations to be monotonically increasing improvements.  Without a strong assimilation story arc for the country, immigrants become most but not all of what we are, but we become a little bit of what they were.


----------



## Rifleman62

> The other photo op ‘available’ didn’t pass PMO’s selection…


That's going to be an historic photo. Trudeau is banding Lego in Canada as it is made of petroleum products.


----------



## Remius

Rifleman62 said:


> That's going to be an historic photo. Trudeau is banding Lego in Canada as it is made of petroleum products.


Biggest tire maker in the world is Lego apparently.


----------



## Kirkhill

Edward Campbell said:


> But Team Trudeau's decision publicize the brief chat has, now, further annoyed Xi Jinping ... _le Dauphin _cannot seem to figure out this diplomacy stuff, can he?
> 
> "Chinese leader Xi Jinping angrily confronted Prime Minister Justin Trudeau on the sidelines of the G20 meeting Wednesday, complaining Mr. Trudeau’s office had published details of an earlier conversation between them ... [saying] ... “Everything we said has been leaked to the papers, that’s not appropriate, that’s not the way the conversation was conducted ...[and] ... “If you are sincere, we should communicate with each other in a respectful manner, otherwise it will be hard to say what the result will be like.”"















						Watch: Justin Trudeau gets a dressing down from Xi Jinping at G20
					

Confrontation caught on camera as China’s leader accuses Canada’s PM of leaking details of their private meeting to the media




					www.telegraph.co.uk
				




Schooling.


----------



## Good2Golf

Kirkhill said:


> Watch: Justin Trudeau gets a dressing down from Xi Jinping at G20
> 
> 
> Confrontation caught on camera as China’s leader accuses Canada’s PM of leaking details of their private meeting to the media
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.telegraph.co.uk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Schooling.


Yup.  Claiming that’s anything other than a dismissive spanking is farcical.  Father would be ashamed.

Most of us are simply embarrassed at the naive approach by Jr. to pretend there was any diplomacy going on, instead of a pathetic attempt to push for a photo op above anything else.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Kirkhill said:


> Watch: Justin Trudeau gets a dressing down from Xi Jinping at G20
> 
> 
> Confrontation caught on camera as China’s leader accuses Canada’s PM of leaking details of their private meeting to the media
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.telegraph.co.uk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Schooling.



I love watching him get put in his place.


----------



## Dana381

Remius said:


> Biggest tire maker in the world is Lego apparently.


Just like the biggest toy store in the world is McDonald's


----------



## Quirky

Halifax Tar said:


> I love watching him get put in his place.


He’s a perfect reflection of a Canadian.


----------



## Grimey

Kirkhill said:


> None of those mean much to my kids, much less the kids I work with


Spending my first 10 years in Yorkshire, I made HP sandwiches with Hovis bread an early staple.  I'd still crawl over broken glass for it, as would my son.  The wife thinks we're nuts......

There's a scene in Tomorrow Never Dies were the badies sink an RN Type 23.  As HMS Somethingshire heels over, the bottles of HP in the mess go flying.  The wife nudges me and says, "ok I get it now....kinda".


----------



## daftandbarmy

Grimey said:


> Spending my first 10 years in Yorkshire, I made HP sandwiches with Hovis bread an early staple.  I'd still crawl over broken glass for it, as would my son.  The wife thinks we're nuts......
> 
> There's a scene in Tomorrow Never Dies were the badies sink an RN Type 23.  As HMS Somethingshire heels over, the bottles of HP in the mess go flying.  The wife nudges me and says, "ok I get it now....kinda".



HP 'Bold', I would hope


----------



## Grimey

daftandbarmy said:


> HP 'Bold', I would hope


Bold wasn't around then, but a yes today.

Despite her previous reservations, the wife is adding it to tonight's meatloaf as a substitute for Lea & Perrin's.  I give up.


----------



## suffolkowner

I think I read that there is supposed to be a big announcement on Friday in Halifax, I wont hold my breath.

As far as China goes I wouldnt believe or lose a minutes sleep over what they think or say


----------



## OldSolduer

Good2Golf said:


> Yup.  Claiming that’s anything other than a dismissive spanking is farcical.  Father would be ashamed.
> 
> Most of us are simply embarrassed at the naive approach by Jr. to pretend there was any diplomacy going on, instead of a pathetic attempt to push for a photo op above anything else.


I really wish some high ranking diplomat (Brit or French or German) would publicly scold Canada for its lax attitude towards security. AND to add its not entirely the fault of the LPC.


----------



## suffolkowner

OldSolduer said:


> I really wish some high ranking diplomat (Brit or French or German) would publicly scold Canada for its lax attitude towards security. AND to add its not entirely the fault of the LPC.


sometimes I wish the states would just take us over


----------



## KevinB

suffolkowner said:


> sometimes I wish the states would just take us over


We don’t need more democrats


----------



## Retired AF Guy

Quirky said:


> He’s a perfect reflection of a Canadian.


Not bloody likely!!!


----------



## Kirkhill

Grimey said:


> Spending my first 10 years in Yorkshire, I made HP sandwiches with Hovis bread an early staple.  I'd still crawl over broken glass for it, as would my son.  The wife thinks we're nuts......
> 
> There's a scene in Tomorrow Never Dies were the badies sink an RN Type 23.  As HMS Somethingshire heels over, the bottles of HP in the mess go flying.  The wife nudges me and says, "ok I get it now....kinda".



Were you a sterilized milk or a pasteurized milk family?  Sterilized was in a slim neck crown cap bottle, golden yellow in colour, nutty flavour.  Pasteurized was the wider neck with a foil top (pecked by the birds) and white in colour.  The Top of the Bottle was desired by all.


----------



## Grimey

Kirkhill said:


> Were you a sterilized milk or a pasteurized milk family?  Sterilized was in a slim neck crown cap bottle, golden yellow in colour, nutty flavour.  Pasteurized was the wider neck with a foil top (pecked by the birds) and white in colour.  The Top of the Bottle was desired by all.


The latter, but as a kid I hated milk.  Having to drink it at school after it had sat in a warm room for hours didn't help.  We emigrated here before Thatcher the Milk Snatcher showed up.  Incidentally, my dad thought the sun shone out of her arse.  Considering the face-painting shit show being lectured by Xi on the previous page, if only the West had a leader now of Maggie's stature.


----------



## Kirkhill

Grimey said:


> The latter, but as a kid I hated milk.  Having to drink it at school after it had sat in a warm room for hours didn't help.  We emigrated here before Thatcher the Milk Snatcher showed up.  Incidentally, my dad thought the sun shone out of her arse.  Considering the face-painting shit show being lectured by Xi on the previous page, if only the West had a leader now of Maggie's stature.



Agree completely on school milk.   My first school the teachers were old school and convinced that milk plugged up young children unless it was served at body temperature as God clearly intended it to be consumed.  Consequently it was placed on radiators in the class room to warm until the mid morning break.  My only saving grace was the Kit Kat my mum let me buy on the way to school.

I also learned to chug and not worry about the taste of whatever went in my mouth.  Hence Brown Sauce.


----------



## FJAG

Kirkhill said:


> Were you a sterilized milk or a pasteurized milk family?  Sterilized was in a slim neck crown cap bottle, golden yellow in colour, nutty flavour.  Pasteurized was the wider neck with a foil top (pecked by the birds) and white in colour.  The Top of the Bottle was desired by all.


And then there were these delivered to our homes in the sixties.







The bulb at the top is where the cream and butter fat collected. There was a little curved spoon that fit in the top and closed off the thin neck so that you could pour off the cream while keeping the milk trapped below.

🍻


----------



## PPCLI Guy

daftandbarmy said:


> HP 'Bold', I would hope


The Canadian HP is different from UK HP...which is of course much better.  I cannot eat fried eggs without HP.  I have actually brought my own bottle to misguided so called breakfast places that do not have it on hand....but scrambled eggs must have Lea and Perrins, as must poached eggs.  Boiled eggs need egg soldiers of course.....


----------



## PPCLI Guy

PPCLI Guy said:


> The Canadian HP is different from UK HP...which is of course much better.  I cannot eat fried eggs without HP.  I have actually brought my own bottle to misguided so called breakfast places that do not have it on hand....but scrambled eggs must have Lea and Perrins, as must poached eggs.  Boiled eggs need egg soldiers of course.....


And HP Fruity was just plain wrong.


----------



## Kirkhill

PPCLI Guy said:


> The Canadian HP is different from UK HP...which is of course much better.  I cannot eat fried eggs without HP.  I have actually brought my own bottle to misguided so called breakfast places that do not have it on hand....but scrambled eggs must have Lea and Perrins, as must poached eggs.  Boiled eggs need egg soldiers of course.....



Too much time among the Yanks.  I will tolerate fried eggs with McIlhenny's when HP is not available.


----------



## PPCLI Guy

Kirkhill said:


> Too much time among the Yanks.  I will tolerate fried eggs with McIlhenny's when HP is not available.


----------



## daftandbarmy

PPCLI Guy said:


> The Canadian HP is different from UK HP...which is of course much better.  I cannot eat fried eggs without HP.  I* have actually brought my own bottle* to misguided so called breakfast places that do not have it on hand....but scrambled eggs must have Lea and Perrins, as must poached eggs.  Boiled eggs need egg soldiers of course.....



Great idea!

I have been known to import my own Coleman's mustard to certain establishments who seem to think that the height of mustard cuisine is 'Dijon'.

It's like no one remembers who won the Battle of Waterloo, FFS....


----------



## PPCLI Guy

daftandbarmy said:


> I have been known to import my own Coleman's mustard to certain establishments who seem to think that the height of mustard cuisine is 'Dijon'.


If you really want to freak them out, bring the powder and mix it in front of them....I still use that stuff all of the time when cooking


----------



## daftandbarmy

PPCLI Guy said:


> If you really want to freak them out, bring the powder and mix it in front of them....I still use that stuff all of the time when cooking
> 
> 
> View attachment 74954


----------



## Kirkhill

OK Alice beckons down the rabbit hole.....

French Toast



Or


----------



## FJAG

daftandbarmy said:


> I have been known to import my own Coleman's mustard to certain establishments who seem to think that the height of mustard cuisine is 'Dijon'.


First comes Löwensenf Sweet Bavarian






followed by Düsseldorfer Extra Sharf






of which Dijon is a pale imitation. I've had Coleman's and it'll do.

My guess is that it's a genetic thing.    🍻

Edited to add:



> In January 2018, it was announced that Colman's was to leave its base in Norwich where the condiment had been produced for 160 years and would move its production to Burton-on-Trent and Germany.[8]
> 
> In 2019 the Colman's factory in Norwich rolled its last jar of mustard off the production line and its "best before" date was changed for the occasion to: "*Norwich's* Last. By Its Finest. July 24th 2019".[9] Colman's continued making other condiments at the Carrow site until closing its doors in early 2020.



😖


----------



## Weinie

FJAG said:


> First comes Löwensenf Sweet Bavarian
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> followed by Düsseldorfer Extra Sharf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> of which Dijon is a pale imitation. I've had Coleman's and it'll do.
> 
> My guess is that it's a genetic thing.    🍻
> 
> Edited to add:
> 
> 
> 
> 😖


Where can I buy that?


----------



## Furniture

Weinie said:


> Where can I buy that?


About a days Panzer ride East I'd assume....


----------



## Weinie

Furniture said:


> About a days Panzer ride East I'd assume....


That fucking killed me. Well done.


----------



## Furniture

Weinie said:


> That fucking killed me. Well done.


I am a bit proud of it...


----------



## Weinie

Furniture said:


> I am a bit proud of it...


I am still chuckling. Well done.


----------



## Spencer100

Remius said:


> Biggest tire maker in the world is Lego apparently.


Do not worry my Lego fans.  And the term is AFOL.  Adult Fans of Lego.  

Lego is the wokest of woke.  They are and have reformulated the ABS.  Plus new sets starting this year are coming in paper bags and not plastic.


----------



## FJAG

Weinie said:


> Where can I buy that?


Probably in most large grocery stores in Belgium and if not there just across the border in Aachen I would think. It's also on Amazon.de but I don't know if they deliver where you live.

🍻


----------



## RangerRay

PPCLI Guy said:


> The Canadian HP is different from UK HP...which is of course much better.  I cannot eat fried eggs without HP.  I have actually brought my own bottle to misguided so called breakfast places that do not have it on hand....but scrambled eggs must have Lea and Perrins, as must poached eggs.  Boiled eggs need egg soldiers of course.....


I am going to have to try HP on scrambled…


----------



## Weinie

RangerRay said:


> I am going to have to try HP on scrambled…


No.


----------



## Furniture

RangerRay said:


> I am going to have to try HP on scrambled…


Forget HP, get some Maritime Madness Simple Lime + Cilantro. It's hot sauce that makes everything better. 

Hot sauce on eggs is a life changer. 

275ml Simple Lime + Cilantro Hot Sauce


----------



## Brad Sallows

Eggs have a flavour, which I don't find disagreeable.  Putting hot sauce on anything is just a way of killing its inherent flavour by temporarily desensitizing most of your taste buds.


----------



## Weinie

Furniture said:


> Forget HP, get some Maritime Madness Simple Lime + Cilantro. It's hot sauce that makes everything better.
> 
> Hot sauce on eggs is a life changer.
> 
> 275ml Simple Lime + Cilantro Hot Sauce


WTF? Maritime Madness. I'm from Nova Scotia. Why haven't I heard about this? I love hot shit.


----------



## OldSolduer

How the fuck did this get so sidetracked with chats about eggs and hot sauce???

Louisiana Hot Sauce please,


----------



## Furniture

Weinie said:


> WTF? Maritime Madness. I'm from Nova Scotia. Why haven't I heard about this? I love hot shit.


It's from Montague PEI, and absolutely delicious. They grow most, maybe all, of of the chillies used in the sauces on PEI.


----------



## Furniture

Brad Sallows said:


> Eggs have a flavour, which I don't find disagreeable.  Putting hot sauce on anything is just a way of killing its inherent flavour by temporarily desensitizing most of your taste buds.







A good hot sauce compliments flavour, it doesn't overpower. 

Cheap spices burn just to be hot, good spices make favour more interesting.


----------



## Weinie

Brad Sallows said:


> Eggs have a flavour, which I don't find disagreeable.  Putting hot sauce on anything is just a way of killing its inherent flavour by temporarily desensitizing most of your taste buds.


Eggs Benedict I agree. Most other eggs preparation have something/need that adds to it, and makes it better, IMO, whether ketchup, HP sauce, or salt.


----------



## Weinie

Furniture said:


> It's from Montague PEI, and absolutely delicious. They grow most, maybe all, of of the chillies used in the sauces on PEI.


Do they export? Not waiting to hear your response. I'm going to their website. Yum.


----------



## dimsum

OldSolduer said:


> How the fuck did this get so sidetracked with chats about eggs and hot sauce???


You say that like it's a bad thing.



or 

real Sichuan peppercorn oil.  Both don't hit you at first, but they have a sustained, intense building heat.  Sichuan peppercorns also numb your entire mouth (like a local anaesthetic).


----------



## Grimey

Brad Sallows said:


> Eggs have a flavour, which I don't find disagreeable.  Putting hot sauce on anything is just a way of killing its inherent flavour by temporarily desensitizing most of your taste buds.


I agree.  On the other hand, HP on eggs is sublime, fried or scrambled.


----------



## tomydoom

You can keep your HP Sauce, I will stick to YR Sauce.  Especially on a bacon sandwich..


----------



## dapaterson

Weinie said:


> WTF? Maritime Madness. I'm from Nova Scotia. Why haven't I heard about this? I love hot shit.


You claim to be from NS and don't know about Maritime Madness?

Do you drink Coors Light instead of Schooner, too?


----------



## MJP

dapaterson said:


> You claim to be from NS and don't know about Maritime Madness?
> 
> Do you drink Coors Light instead of Schooner, too?


Pretty sure @Weinie bucks the trend for folks from the Maritimes as he has been gainfully employed for his adult life, so other aspects of the culture may have slipped as well ☺️

#joking....mostly


----------



## Weinie

dapaterson said:


> You claim to be from NS and don't know about Maritime Madness?
> 
> Do you drink Coors Light instead of Schooner, too?


I drink Keiths. Canada's oldest/best beer. Established in 1820.


----------



## Weinie

MJP said:


> Pretty sure @Weinie bucks the trend for folks from the Maritimes as he has been gainfully employed for his adult life, so other aspects of the culture may have slipped as well ☺️
> 
> #joking....mostly


I left Nova Scotia in 1983: went back to hunt every year til 2005. I suspect that Maritime Madness came after. 

I went to PEI on my 18th birthday, because it was legal to drink there.


----------



## Dana381

Weinie said:


> I drink Keiths. Canada's oldest/best beer. Established in 1820.


It was until it was bought by labatt's a Belgium owned company, its not the same now. I switched to Moosehead the last true Canadian (mass market) beer 

Edit to correct wrong info


----------



## Dana381

Weinie said:


> I left Nova Scotia in 1983: went back to hunt every year til 2005. I suspect that Maritime Madness came after.
> 
> I went to PEI on my 18th birthday, because it was legal to drink there.



I lived in P.E.I. from 1988 until 2014 except 2000-2003. I don't remember the drinking age ever being 18, when did it change?
 I didn't care about the drinking age until the mid-90's though.


----------



## PMedMoe

Dana381 said:


> I lived in P.E.I. from 1988 until 2014 except 2000-2003. I don't remember the drinking age ever being 18, when did it change?
> I didn't care about the drinking age until the mid-90's though.



In 1987.  The Impact and Effectiveness of Minimum Legal Drinking Age Legislation in Canada


----------



## Weinie

Dana381 said:


> I lived in P.E.I. from 1988 until 2014 except 2000-2003. I don't remember the drinking age ever being 18, when did it change?
> I didn't care about the drinking age until the mid-90's though.


I went to P.E.I. in 1979 on 31 May. 

It was in 1987.

https://ccsa.ca/sites/default/files/2019-04/CCSA-Impact-Effectiveness-MLDA-Legislation-2017-en.pdf


----------



## Weinie

PMedMoe said:


> In 1987.  The Impact and Effectiveness of Minimum Legal Drinking Age Legislation in Canada


Moe beat me to it.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Weinie said:


> I drink Keiths. Canada's oldest/best beer. Established in 1820.


Alpine is better, just saying 😁


----------



## Weinie

Humphrey Bogart said:


> Alpine is better, just saying 😁


Alpine is moooooose piss.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Weinie said:


> Alpine is moooooose piss.


Mooooose piss is just like mooooose milk, delicious!


----------



## daftandbarmy

Humphrey Bogart said:


> Mooooose piss is just like mooooose milk, delicious!



Now that the subject of Moose Piss has emerged, does that mean we've come full circle back to the title of this thread?


----------



## Halifax Tar

Weinie said:


> I went to P.E.I. in 1979 on 31 May.
> 
> It was in 1987.
> 
> https://ccsa.ca/sites/default/files/2019-04/CCSA-Impact-Effectiveness-MLDA-Legislation-2017-en.pdf



FYI I was born in Feb 1979


----------



## FJAG

Weinie said:


> Where can I buy that?


I just remembered, If you can't find the Löwensenf, then the Kühne Sweet Bavarian is pretty good too. The one on the left is the export version, the one on the right is the German domestic version.










Should also be available at most grocery stores over there.

And while we're on the topics of eggs and hot sauce, try soft boiled eggs and a mustard sauce some time.   

🍻


----------



## lenaitch

Kirkhill said:


> OK Alice beckons down the rabbit hole.....
> 
> French Toast
> 
> View attachment 74956
> 
> Or
> 
> View attachment 74957


In it or on it?  In the mixture, vanilla.  On the finished product, (real) maple syrup.


Furniture said:


> Forget HP, get some Maritime Madness Simple Lime + Cilantro. It's hot sauce that makes everything better.
> 
> Hot sauce on eggs is a life changer.
> 
> 275ml Simple Lime + Cilantro Hot Sauce


According to my system, hot sauce on anything is a "changer" for the next several hours, at least.  A buddy once mixed in chili sauce with the scambled eggs he was serving for breakfast.  He just assumed everybody ate them that way.  Since we were kicking off a week-long m/c trip, I figured that's the least my butt needs.


Epic thread deviation!


----------



## Kirkhill

lenaitch said:


> In it or on it?  In the mixture, vanilla.  On the finished product, (real) maple syrup.
> 
> According to my system, hot sauce on anything is a "changer" for the next several hours, at least.  A buddy once mixed in chili sauce with the scambled eggs he was serving for breakfast.  He just assumed everybody ate them that way.  Since we were kicking off a week-long m/c trip, I figured that's the least my butt needs.
> 
> 
> Epic thread deviation!




I was raised on savoury French Toast - with Lea and Perrins.

Sweet French Toast, dusted with sugar and drizzled with maple syrup just never seemed right.

One thing these deviations seem to do is lower the temperature.  For that alone, and the entertainment value, they are worth tolerating.


----------



## Good2Golf

Any informed thoughts on what MND is announcing tomorrow in Halifax?  P-8s? 😉


----------



## Spencer100

Good2Golf said:


> Any informed thoughts on what MND is announcing tomorrow in Halifax?  P-8s? 😉


the purchase of a Ford class carrier.


----------



## dapaterson

The only Ford class Canada can afford.


----------



## Spencer100

dapaterson said:


> The only Ford class Canada can afford.



This is available in the RCN budget!


----------



## dapaterson

Spencer100 said:


> This is available in the RCN budget!
> View attachment 74977


Yeah, but we're short on the MarTechs needed to assemble the model.


----------



## Viking17

Weinie said:


> Do they export? Not waiting to hear your response. I'm going to their website. Yum.


PM'd.


----------



## OldSolduer

Good2Golf said:


> Any informed thoughts on what MND is announcing tomorrow in Halifax?  P-8s? 😉


I’m guessing it’s a new initiative to weed out “white nationalists” in the ranks of the CAF, 

I’m fuckjng joking troops


----------



## kev994

Good2Golf said:


> Any informed thoughts on what MND is announcing tomorrow in Halifax?  P-8s? 😉


More likely P3 block 5. Or maybe P3 being replaced by 295


----------



## Halifax Tar

kev994 said:


> More likely P3 block 5. Or maybe P3 being replaced by 295



What not make that announcement down the highway in Greenwood?


----------



## dapaterson

Halifax International Security Forum this weekend.


----------



## Quirky

Good2Golf said:


> Any informed thoughts on what MND is announcing tomorrow in Halifax?  P-8s? 😉



New infrastructure for CFB Shilo.


----------



## Dana381

MPA kits for the Kingfisher and a new competition for FWSAR


----------



## kev994

Dana381 said:


> MPA kits for the Kingfisher and a new competition for FWSAR


Screw the competition, sole source some more C130Js


----------



## dapaterson

Weinie said:


> WTF? Maritime Madness. I'm from Nova Scotia. Why haven't I heard about this? I love hot shit.



Here's the real order page:  2L Fan Size

Because if you're not ordering your hot sauce in 2L bottles, you're some sort of poseur.


----------



## dimsum

Dana381 said:


> MPA kits for the Kingfisher and a new competition for FWSAR


Hey - don't try to push that onto another community.


----------



## kev994

dimsum said:


> Hey - don't try to push that onto another community.


Too late. It’s your problem now.


----------



## Spencer100

dimsum said:


> Hey - don't try to push that onto another community.



Wow that is a perfect idea.  The Kingfisher to MPA.   Similar aircraft used by other countries.  No need to buy from Boeing.  No need to buy weapons for it.  So get that in the minister ear.  Move some of the equipment from the CP140.  This the best idea I have seen in a long time.  Liberals will love it.   Many stones at once.  New planes for surveillance.  No weapons.  That is always a good thing in Justin world.  Looks to be doing something when doing nothing or even less.  Plus there are those RAAF C-130J coming available.  It could be prefect.  I get excited thinking about it.  

All boxes checked.


----------



## dimsum

Spencer100 said:


> Wow that is a perfect idea.  The Kingfisher to MPA.   Similar aircraft used by other countries.  No need to buy from Boeing.  No need to buy weapons for it.  So get that in the minister ear.  Move some of the equipment from the CP140.  This the best idea I have seen in a long time.  Liberals will love it.   Many stones at once.  New planes for surveillance.  No weapons.  That is always a good thing in Justin world.  Looks to be doing something when doing nothing or even less.  Plus there are those RAAF C-130J coming available.  It could be prefect.  I get excited thinking about it.
> 
> All boxes checked.


I'm not sure whether I'm happy that Canadians at least hear of the CP-140 Aurora, even though it's called a "surveillance aircraft" in most media, or that I'm sad because it is still essentially an anti-submarine platform that also does surveillance.

An ASW aircraft can do surveillance.  A surveillance aircraft can't necessarily do ASW.


----------



## Spencer100

dimsum said:


> I'm not sure whether I'm happy that Canadians at least hear of the CP-140 Aurora, even though it's called a "surveillance aircraft" in most media, or that I'm sad because it is still essentially an anti-submarine platform that also does surveillance.
> 
> An ASW aircraft can do surveillance.  A surveillance aircraft can't necessarily do ASW.


My favourite is when the media calls it a "spy" plane.  Like did when it was tasked to the sandbox etc.  And they did call it that too.

Spy plane most people think SR71 or U2 and then the picture is a 1950's style converted prop airliner......and think what is that?


----------



## dimsum

Spencer100 said:


> My favourite is when the media calls it a "spy" plane.  Like did when it was tasked to the sandbox etc.  And they did call it that too.


The exact term was "James Bond" spy plane, thank you very much.


----------



## dapaterson

I mean, from a physique perspective, an ACSO is more James Bond than a NWO...


----------



## dimsum

dapaterson said:


> I mean, from a physique perspective, an ACSO is more James Bond than a NWO...


Wouldn't he technically be an Int O though?









....lol I can't even keep a straight face while typing that.


----------



## dapaterson

I know a very senior member of the Int branch, who I critiqued for not upholding branch standards by being physically fit.


----------



## Good2Golf

Halifax Tar said:


> What not make that announcement down the highway in Greenwood?


Chinook laughs at you after being announced in IMP’s Hangar 9 in Halifax in 2009…


----------



## CBH99

dapaterson said:


> Yeah, but we're short on the MarTechs needed to assemble the model.


If we offer members a quick, 5 month crash course & qualify them as MarTechs, we could get that model done soon enough!  (Gotta think outside the box…)


----------



## calculus

Good2Golf said:


> Any informed thoughts on what MND is announcing tomorrow in Halifax?  P-8s? 😉


Could it be the finalized contract for the F35s? The GoC did say that would be done before the end of the year.... I would normally expect this at an airbase, but with the Halifax International Security Forum currently ongoing, it would probably have more impact with the _attendees _if such a large and significant purchase was announced at that venue.


----------



## Spencer100

Well here is the big Halifax announcement.  Basically, an office. LOL.  

Look to be doing something but in reality, doing less than nothing!  Liberals are awesome! 

On second thought...spend money on offices and civil service is very important coming vote time. So success!   



			Halifax proposed as new home for NATO's North American innovation hub: minister


----------



## GR66

Spencer100 said:


> Well here is the big Halifax announcement.  Basically, an office. LOL.
> 
> Look to be doing something but in reality, doing less than nothing!  Liberals are awesome!
> 
> On second thought...spend money on offices and civil service is very important coming vote time. So success!
> 
> 
> 
> Halifax proposed as new home for NATO's North American innovation hub: minister


Not even an office.  Just a PROPOSAL to build an office...which hasn't been approved by NATO yet.


----------



## dimsum

Spencer100 said:


> Well here is the big Halifax announcement.  Basically, an office. LOL.
> 
> Look to be doing something but in reality, doing less than nothing!  Liberals are awesome!
> 
> On second thought...spend money on offices and civil service is very important coming vote time. So success!
> 
> 
> 
> Halifax proposed as new home for NATO's North American innovation hub: minister


I think you may be surprised how much NATO consists of "offices".

Also, from the media advisory, NATO Chair of the Military Committee was also going to be there.  Of _course_ the announcement was going to be NATO-centric.


----------



## daftandbarmy

dimsum said:


> I think you may be surprised how much NATO consists of "offices".
> 
> Also, from the media advisory, NATO Chair of the Military Committee was also going to be there.  Of _course_ the announcement was going to be NATO-centric.



And the ironic thing about innovation is that it doesn't come from a centralized program in a building, in Halifax or elsewhere, so it will be a waste of time and money 


Innovation Is Everyone’s Business​









						Innovation Is Everyone’s Business
					

Offering employees the tools and motivation to create ideas is the key to an innovative organisation.




					knowledge.insead.edu


----------



## kev994

Spencer100 said:


> Well here is the big Halifax announcement.  Basically, an office. LOL.
> 
> Look to be doing something but in reality, doing less than nothing!  Liberals are awesome!
> 
> On second thought...spend money on offices and civil service is very important coming vote time. So success!
> 
> 
> 
> Halifax proposed as new home for NATO's North American innovation hub: minister


Oh good, somewhere to put all the extra people


----------



## dimsum

kev994 said:


> Oh good, somewhere to put all the extra people


I'd be surprised if many CAF members get posted there. 

But if they did - do they get NATO pay?


----------



## Kirkhill

So Champagne was busy today?

The Honourable François-Philippe Champagne
Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry

Related - Canada announces new ministry of creativity.  Beatings will continue until all Canadians are more creative.


----------



## dimsum

Kirkhill said:


> Related - Canada announces new ministry of creativity. Beatings will continue until all Canadians are more creative.


Link?  I don't see it when I Googled.


----------



## Kirkhill

Meanwhile



			Canadian Armed Forces to enhance engagement with Indo-Pacific, Trudeau says
		




> Canadian Armed Forces to enhance engagement with Indo-Pacific, Trudeau says​



Canada is serious


> Last week, Foreign Affairs Minister Mélanie Joly said diplomats in Asia have told her about "the issue of Canada not always being a reliable partner, because sometimes we show up, and then we leave, and then we go back."
> 
> Thai Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha noted that sporadic engagement Thursday when he welcomed Trudeau to his Bangkok residence.
> 
> "This is the first visit for you as a prime minister," Prayut said through an interpreter.
> 
> "I hope that this visit, this particularly short one, will be as memorable" as the one Trudeau made in his youth, Prayut said.
> 
> Trudeau seemed to contradict Joly's framing Friday.
> 
> "Canada is serious about this, this region, we have always been," he sai



Trudeau has one pal



> He also met with New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, who said she's keen to partner with Canada when Trudeau releases the regional strategy.
> 
> Ardern said she agreed with much of what of Trudeau said in closed-door APEC discussions.
> 
> “Listening to the interventions in the room, you can hear the many areas in which we're like-minded; where we have the same anxieties, where we have the same aspirations," she said.




Jobs for Canadians overseas cost money.


> Canada's participation in the APEC gathering ended with a pledge of nearly $183 million in new funding over five years to strengthen ties to the region, part of the Indo-Pacific strategy the Liberals have finally started rolling out.
> 
> That includes $92.5 million to create about 60 new jobs, both at Canada's missions in the region and within Global Affairs Canada.
> 
> "This will increase Canada's presence here on the ground (and) deepen diplomatic ties to build and maintain the important relationships that we are creating," International Trade Minister Mary Ng said Friday.
> 
> There is also $45 million for trade missions and about $32 million to set up Canada's first agricultural office.



The Energy Word Salad continues


> Before Trudeau was pulled aside to discuss North Korea's move with other leaders, he announced that Ottawa will spend $13.5 million to launch a team in Canada and Asia to form energy partnerships.
> 
> "The need for clean energy and green infrastructure is also growing at a rapid pace here in the Indo-Pacific," Trudeau said in his opening remarks at the news conference before taking questions from reporters.
> 
> "As the world moves towards net zero, there is enormous potential to grow our ties in the natural resources sector."
> 
> While Trudeau previously spoke about expanding natural gas exports to Japan and Korea, his office said he also wants to exchange natural resources with India, Australia, Indonesia, Singapore, and Taiwan.




I'm reminded of the Mediaeval Warm Period, that inconvenient truth that hindered the selling of the Global Warming Crisis.   The Michael Mann solution was to make it disappear by scribbling over it.  Lots of data released so that the historically acknowledged inflection disappeared - signal buried in noise.

I sense a Liberal Inflection Period.  Lots of noise.


----------



## Kirkhill

dimsum said:


> Link?  I don't see it when I Googled.



Look under Australian Philosophers Club.


----------



## Brad Sallows

"Ministry of Creativity".  Truly?  Has the requirement for grants to people to do work that no-one wants to pay for become that large?


----------



## daftandbarmy

How dare this guy talk about our Prime Minister like that 


Why do so many incompetent men become leaders, and what can we do about it?

Why do so many incompetent men become leaders? And what can we do about it?


----------



## Brad Sallows

A little while ago I was thinking about how replaceable our leaders are.  Losing one is no big deal.  Our choices prove that our standards aren't that high, so there is a large population of potential replacements.  So at least there's that.


----------



## Kirkhill

Brad Sallows said:


> A little while ago I was thinking about how replaceable our leaders are.  Losing one is no big deal.  Our choices prove that our standards aren't that high, so there is a large population of potential replacements.  So at least there's that.




Lottery -


----------



## McG

Canada has been promising to do more gore a while now, but our capability has been moving in the opposite direction. We’ve made force development assumptions that there would never be a war between first world nations, and we would never actually have to do heavy lifting to be a lead-nation (the US would always be there for that, right?).









						Canada could not mount a whole Haiti mission even if it wanted to
					

The Canadian Armed Forces don’t have enough troops to make up the backbone of a force for a mission in Haiti




					www.theglobeandmail.com


----------



## GR66

McG said:


> Canada has been promising to do more gore a while now, but our capability has been moving in the opposite direction. We’ve made force development assumptions that there would never be a war between first world nations, and we would never actually have to do heavy lifting to be a lead-nation (the US would always be there for that, right?).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Canada could not mount a whole Haiti mission even if it wanted to
> 
> 
> The Canadian Armed Forces don’t have enough troops to make up the backbone of a force for a mission in Haiti
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theglobeandmail.com


Makes you wonder how we'll manage increase our eFP Latvia commitment to a full Brigade.


----------



## daftandbarmy

GR66 said:


> Makes you wonder how we'll manage increase our eFP Latvia commitment to a full Brigade.


----------



## Brad Sallows

Rock soup.


----------



## rmc_wannabe

GR66 said:


> Makes you wonder how we'll manage increase our eFP Latvia commitment to a full Brigade.


Bring in more pissed off Spaniards and Italians who already think we're freeloadong assholes?


----------



## McG

rmc_wannabe said:


> Bring in more pissed off Spaniards and Italians who already think we're freeloadong assholes?


I am sure they will eventually announce that they each will lead their own battle groups.  It’s not a brigade if it only holds one multinational battle group.


----------



## Good2Golf

McG said:


> It’s not a brigade if it only holds one multinational battle group.


Canada:


----------



## calculus

Meanwhile, Sweden joins the 2% club, and they aren't even in NATO yet: WEB EXCLUSIVE: Sweden to Move Deadline Up for NATO’s 2% GDP Threshold Requirement

hen will this Liberal government get the picture?


----------



## Kirkhill

One of  these is not like the other.



> *Military expenditure (% of GDP) in Canada was reported at 1.4151 % in 2020, according to the World Bank collection of development indicators, compiled from officially recognized sources. Canada - Military expenditure (% of GDP) - actual values, historical data, forecasts and projections were sourced from the World Bank on November of 2022.*​





> *Sweden moving from 1.4% of GDP to 2% - bringing the timeline forwards by 2 years to 2026.*








						WEB EXCLUSIVE: Sweden to Move Deadline Up for NATO’s 2% GDP Threshold Requirement
					

WEB EXCLUSIVE: Sweden to Move Deadline Up for NATO’s 2% GDP Threshold Requirement




					www.nationaldefensemagazine.org
				




Canada pays salaries and pensions.

Sweden buys hardware



> assets include Patriot batteries, 100 jet fighters, electric submarines, naval surface combatants with low signatures and “good intelligence capabilities, particularly on Russia,” he said.
> 
> In addition, Sweden punches way above its weight when it comes to its defense industry. “There's no other country in the world of 10 million people who can produce submarines, fighter aircraft, advanced combat vehicles and artillery pieces,” he said. “I think we can bring things to the table when it comes to innovation and technology and partner up with corporations and new starts in the United States.”
> 
> The new Swedish government is also steadfastly supporting Ukraine’s fight against Russia with its ninth military aid package, totaling some $300 million, which is more than the previous eight aid packages combined, he said. The new funding will provide cold weather gear, equipment for the winter and air defense technology, he added.





> Sweden elected a new government in September, and Jonson was sworn in as the new defense minister about a month later. The previous government had vowed to raise its defense spending in line with the NATO threshold by 2028. Jonson said Sweden currently spends about 1.4 percent of its GDP on defense. However, with the worsening security situation in Europe, the nation will move that goal up to 2026, he said.
> 
> “This is about solidarity with other allies. The Baltic nations are at about 2 percent. Poland is way over 2 percent, and Germany is on the track to 2 percent,” he said. All eight parties in the newly formed Swedish government support meeting the threshold, although half of them want to keep the original goal of 2028, he noted. “We can find bipartisan agreement on it,” he added.





> As far as interoperability with NATO nations’ weapon systems, Jonson said Sweden doesn’t have far to go. Creating interoperable command, control and communications systems among the treaty’s allies has been a long-standing problem among members, as they go their separate ways when acquiring systems.
> 
> “We’re quite interoperable with NATO. We use Link 16 and Link 22 [radios]. Since we participate in many crisis management operations, we’re not so worried about the command structures as such. I think we're well on our way to integrate the internet since we've been participating in so many exercises,” he said.
> 
> Along with joining NATO, Sweden actively participates in exercises and keeps an eye on the Arctic region, where Russia has been continuing to aggressively advance its interests, he said. The war in Ukraine has not diminished Russia’s activity in the region, he noted.
> 
> And China has declared itself a “near-Arctic” nation and is increasing its activity there even though no other nation recognizes it as such, Jonson added. “They've been increasing their presence there as well, and we're cognizant about that,” he said. Sweden published a new Arctic strategy two years ago, which is “more precise” when it comes to some of the threats, risks and vulnerabilities there, especially with increased Russian presence, he said.
> 
> “There's going to be more focus on the Arctic in the future,” Jonson said.



Sweden has used its neutrality to its advantage.  Its subsidization of the homegrown arms industry has resulted in innovations that have found homes in other armies, navies and air forces.   Including the US @KevinB.

Even if Canada does sit in the attic of the arsenal of democracy it would benefit the US to encourage Canada to take on new interests.

You want help to hold North America - you have to make it worth our while.   Just like you did with the Auto Pact for Norad and Free Trade for the North Warning System.


----------



## MilEME09

CDS essentially admits we are not able to under take any large scale operations, we are too under staffed and under equipped.









						Canadian military would be 'challenged' to launch a large scale operation: chief of the defence staff
					

Canada’s military forces are 'ready' to meet their commitments should Russia's war in Ukraine spread to NATO countries, but it would be a 'challenge' to launch a larger scale operation in the long term, with ongoing personnel and equipment shortages, according to Chief of the Defence Staff Gen...




					www.ctvnews.ca


----------



## kev994

MilEME09 said:


> CDS essentially admits we are not able to under take any large scale operations, we are too under staffed and under equipped.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Canadian military would be 'challenged' to launch a large scale operation: chief of the defence staff
> 
> 
> Canada’s military forces are 'ready' to meet their commitments should Russia's war in Ukraine spread to NATO countries, but it would be a 'challenge' to launch a larger scale operation in the long term, with ongoing personnel and equipment shortages, according to Chief of the Defence Staff Gen...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.ctvnews.ca


I admire his courage to say these things when his boss is basically telling the voting public that ‘this is fine.’


----------



## daftandbarmy

MilEME09 said:


> CDS essentially admits we are not able to under take any large scale operations, we are too under staffed and under equipped.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Canadian military would be 'challenged' to launch a large scale operation: chief of the defence staff
> 
> 
> Canada’s military forces are 'ready' to meet their commitments should Russia's war in Ukraine spread to NATO countries, but it would be a 'challenge' to launch a larger scale operation in the long term, with ongoing personnel and equipment shortages, according to Chief of the Defence Staff Gen...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.ctvnews.ca



Good of him to save the government the trouble... a real servant leader move


----------



## Quirky

kev994 said:


> I admire his courage to say these things when his boss is basically telling the voting public that ‘this is fine.’



Canadians: “we have a military? hahaha”….. *go back to scrolling on their phones.


----------



## rmc_wannabe

MilEME09 said:


> CDS essentially admits we are not able to under take any large scale operations, we are too under staffed and under equipped.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Canadian military would be 'challenged' to launch a large scale operation: chief of the defence staff
> 
> 
> Canada’s military forces are 'ready' to meet their commitments should Russia's war in Ukraine spread to NATO countries, but it would be a 'challenge' to launch a larger scale operation in the long term, with ongoing personnel and equipment shortages, according to Chief of the Defence Staff Gen...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.ctvnews.ca



Shame. I really liked him...

Minister Anand at the moment:


----------



## kev994




----------



## MilEME09

kev994 said:


> View attachment 75163


You know things are when the ARes gets asked to supply 15% of a tour on 90 days notice, and people aren't selected until 45 days notice


----------



## daftandbarmy

MilEME09 said:


> You know things are when the ARes gets asked to supply 15% of a tour on 90 days notice, and people aren't selected until 45 days notice



And then half DAG Red at the last minute for dental?


----------



## suffolkowner

MilEME09 said:


> CDS essentially admits we are not able to under take any large scale operations, we are too under staffed and under equipped.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Canadian military would be 'challenged' to launch a large scale operation: chief of the defence staff
> 
> 
> Canada’s military forces are 'ready' to meet their commitments should Russia's war in Ukraine spread to NATO countries, but it would be a 'challenge' to launch a larger scale operation in the long term, with ongoing personnel and equipment shortages, according to Chief of the Defence Staff Gen...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.ctvnews.ca


Forgetting the Navy and Airforce for a second what is the Army doing that is stressing it so much? A peacetime deployment to Latvia? At what point is it the CAF's and CDS's responsibility to be able to deliver? Quite frankly the CAF's dont seem like value for money. Is it because the funding is never enough to get an appreciable return or is it because of the choices made by successive governments and CDS's?


----------



## daftandbarmy

suffolkowner said:


> Forgetting the Navy and Airforce for a second what is the Army doing that is stressing it so much? A peacetime deployment to Latvia? At what point is it the CAF's and CDS's responsibility to be able to deliver? Quite frankly the CAF's dont seem like value for money. Is it because the funding is never enough to get an appreciable return or is it because of the choices made by successive governments and CDS's?



Holy crap...

"Eyre said his number one priority is getting Canada’s armed forces up to full strength, *with an attrition rate of 9.3 per cent between both regular and reserve forces, up from 6.9 per cent last year. *The Canadian Armed Forces Retention Strategy was released just last month."


----------



## suffolkowner

daftandbarmy said:


> Holy crap...
> 
> "Eyre said his number one priority is getting Canada’s armed forces up to full strength, *with an attrition rate of 9.3 per cent between both regular and reserve forces, up from 6.9 per cent last year. *The Canadian Armed Forces Retention Strategy was released just last month."


Yeah that seems like a bad number. its been known that recruitment and retention have been a problem for a long time. Its been talked about on this site. I mean 9.3% is going to be an insurmountable problem if not fixed quickly. Can the CAF do that? It also doesnt help when people wait 2 years to join up. 

The 9.3% attrition this is from people not reupping or is the CAF losing 9.3% a year of total personel?


----------



## dimsum

suffolkowner said:


> The 9.3% attrition this is from people not reupping or is the CAF losing 9.3% a year of total personel?


I would guess the latter.


----------



## suffolkowner

Thats a lot for a big institution. Sometimes the problem has to get really big before anyone pays attention I guess. For any small business Ive been involved with we 10% attrition would have been considered a good year. But I have a feeling the CAF are losing the people that actually do the work and are necessary to everyday function. Funny how not that long ago we were talking about some sort of mandatory service, maybe we need it to save the CAF's from itself as much as to provide career opportunities for people


----------



## Furniture

suffolkowner said:


> Thats a lot for a big institution. Sometimes the problem has to get really big before anyone pays attention I guess. For any small business Ive been involved with we 10% attrition would have been considered a good year. But I have a feeling the CAF are losing the people that actually do the work and are necessary to everyday function. Funny how not that long ago we were talking about some sort of mandatory service, maybe we need it to save the CAF's from itself as much as to provide career opportunities for people


The last thing the CAF needs is people forced to be there... Want to see your good people leave? Make them work alongside people who don't want to be there, and don't care about the job.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

daftandbarmy said:


> Holy crap...
> 
> "Eyre said his number one priority is getting Canada’s armed forces up to full strength, *with an attrition rate of 9.3 per cent between both regular and reserve forces, up from 6.9 per cent last year. *The Canadian Armed Forces Retention Strategy was released just last month."



The CAF has a retention strategy? 😄

I thought they were saying as little as a few months ago: "what retention problem?"


----------



## dimsum

suffolkowner said:


> Thats a lot for a big institution. Sometimes the problem has to get really big before anyone pays attention I guess.


I wonder what the "standard" level of attrition is for the CAF?  It can't be zero because people do retire.


----------



## kev994

Humphrey Bogart said:


> The CAF has a retention strategy? 😄
> 
> I thought they were saying as little as a few months ago: "what retention problem?"


The strategy is to hope that a recession brings people back. The problem is that this recession will be different because there isn’t a lack of available jobs.


----------



## rmc_wannabe

The reason for why there is that much attrition is 2 fold:

-the largest cohort of generations since the Second World War is starting to retire. Their "replacements" weren't hired due to the FRP in the 90s. Massive gaps up in the senior side of the house for both the Snr NCO/WO cadre as well as the Officer corps.

And

-"doing more with less" for 40 odd years means our equipment is broken, harder to maintain, and in some cases; divested to the point where you're not actually doing the job you saw in the cool recruiting video. Couple that with the gradual the "doing more with less" reduction in traditional supports like housing, social clubs, messes, infrastructure; while downloading it onto the member to provide, while refusing to budge on revizing the Compensation and Benefits structure to attract and retain talent. 

Put those two things together and your "CAF Offer TM"  isn't nearly as awesome as you make it out to be; both for recruiting and retention.


----------



## FJAG

dimsum said:


> I wonder what the "standard" level of attrition is for the CAF?  It can't be zero because people do retire.


From a CAF website:



> 3.1 Attrition in the CAF​The average rate of attrition from the CAF (Reg Force and P Res) is generally between 8% and 9%. This rate compares favourably with the Canadian labour market, including both the private (10.2%) and public sectors (4.7%) (Coburn & Cowan, 2019).



🍻


----------



## daftandbarmy

FJAG said:


> From a CAF website:
> 
> 
> 
> 🍻



But it went up almost 3% since last year, apparently. That's an insane increase, isn't it?


----------



## FJAG

Just to follow on - here's a recent staff paper from the CFC:



> https://www.cfc.forces.gc.ca/259/290/23/286/Beriault.pdf



🍻


----------



## McG

suffolkowner said:


> Forgetting the Navy and Airforce for a second what is the Army doing that is stressing it so much? A peacetime deployment to Latvia?


In addition to REASSURANCE, the Army is still in Iraq and the UNIFIER mission is back to life with a few deployments training Ukrainians in different locations. We should be able to do more … but the current government’s direction (published in SSE) only directs CAF to deploy quantities of people, not be able to achieve particular effects.

While government (supported by some GOFO) has been (correctly) arguing that 2% GDP is not an effective measure, nobody has asked the legitimate grown-up question about how to measure capability. Meanwhile, projects have been told to keep costs within initial budget - if delivering a viable, sustainable, and relevant military capability cannot be done  within budget then it is okay to keep shaving away at the requirement up to the point where it inhibits the deployment of FOBbits in mandates SSE quantities.


----------



## markppcli

rmc_wannabe said:


> The reason for why there is that much attrition is 2 fold:
> 
> -the largest cohort of generations since the Second World War is starting to retire. Their "replacements" weren't hired due to the FRP in the 90s. Massive gaps up in the senior side of the house for both the Snr NCO/WO cadre as well as the Officer corps.
> 
> And
> 
> -"doing more with less" for 40 odd years means our equipment is broken, harder to maintain, and in some cases; divested to the point where you're not actually doing the job you saw in the cool recruiting video. Couple that with the gradual the "doing more with less" reduction in traditional supports like housing, social clubs, messes, infrastructure; while downloading it onto the member to provide, while refusing to budge on revizing the Compensation and Benefits structure to attract and retain talent.
> 
> Put those two things together and your "CAF Offer TM"  isn't nearly as awesome as you make it out to be; both for recruiting and retention.


The “deal” has changed substantially even in the last 15 years since I’ve been in. We, in a regular force Bn, are expecting soldiers to bring their own food while we train instead of providing it for them, we throw people on C&P for any incident involving alchohol, we don’t play sports, we have a need for all things to be productive as opposed to cohesion building. Quite frankly we’ve kept all the work, and eroded the “more than a job” parts. Meanwhile we have a generation of senior leaders who keep forcing these traditional events  and not understanding the disdain for them now that no one can actually let their hair down.


----------



## markppcli

FJAG said:


> From a CAF website:
> 
> 
> 
> 🍻


The private and public sectors can afford a higher turnover rate because their employees are largely productive at the first moment they’ve been hired. The military doesn’t see production for 6-12 months.


----------



## MilEME09

markppcli said:


> The private and public sectors can afford a higher turnover rate because their employees are largely productive at the first moment they’ve been hired. The military doesn’t see production for 6-12 months.


Private sector also doesn't take 12-24 months to hire


----------



## Remius

We also rarely recruit at level unlike the private sector that can do that on a more frequent basis.


----------



## Dale Denton

*From Janes:*​Future Armoured Vehicles Survivability 2022: Canada seeks equipment in light of Ukraine conflict​Source


> He told the conference that Canada had an urgent operational requirement (UOR) for anti-tank guided weapons and counter-unmanned aircraft systems for deployment to Latvia and was seeking to replace M777 towed howitzers transferred to Ukraine. He also spoke of a UOR for a ground-based air-defence system.
> 
> Regarding the replacement of LAV 6.0 armoured vehicles, Col Raymond identified among the protection considerations NATO Standardization Agreement (STANAG) 4569 protection levels for occupants of logistic and light armoured vehicles from kinetic energy and artillery rounds, as well as from improvised explosive devices. He added that the new vehicle would be equipped with smoke launchers and feature cyber protection and mobile camouflage. He said Canada was also seeking an armour protection system, adding that it “is expensive for a small nation” and that the collateral damage it can cause was another consideration.
> 
> He expected a contract award in 2023 but said the procurement could last seven years, compared with 10–15 years for the replacement of the LAV III with the LAV 6.0.
> 
> Looking ahead, Col Raymond spoke of continuous capability sustainment, including the long-term sustainment of Canadian Leopard 2 tanks. Regarding the replacement of M777s transferred to Ukraine as well as deployed to Latvia after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, he said it could be a self-propelled howitzer with a range of 30–40 km and up to 80 km with extended-range ammunition.


----------



## FJAG

McG said:


> In addition to REASSURANCE, the Army is still in Iraq and the UNIFIER mission is back to life with a few deployments training Ukrainians in different locations. We should be able to do more … but the current government’s direction (published in SSE) only directs CAF to deploy quantities of people, not be able to achieve particular effects.
> 
> While government (supported by some GOFO) has been (correctly) arguing that 2% GDP is not an effective measure, nobody has asked the legitimate grown-up question about how to measure capability. Meanwhile, projects have been told to keep costs within initial budget - if delivering a viable, sustainable, and relevant military capability cannot be done  within budget then it is okay to keep shaving away at the requirement up to the point where it inhibits the deployment of FOBbits in mandates SSE quantities.


There's a 2017 article by John Dowdy on this subject that I like: “More tooth, less tail: Getting beyond NATO’s 2% rule”



> More tooth, less tail: Getting beyond NATO’s 2 percent rule



Essentially he says: don't stop measuring input as to 1) total defense spending; 2) report that its spent on the right things; and 3) measure spending effectiveness on a) personnel; b) equipment; and c) operations and maintenance,  but also start measuring 4) outputs by measuring a) capabilities; b) readiness, deployability, sustainability; and c) actual deployment/contribution on/to on NATO missions.

🍻


----------



## FJAG

Dale Denton said:


> *From Janes:*​Future Armoured Vehicles Survivability 2022: Canada seeks equipment in light of Ukraine conflict​Source


CCV, C3 replacement and so many other subjects enter the chat.


----------



## CBH99

Dale Denton said:


> *From Janes:*​Future Armoured Vehicles Survivability 2022: Canada seeks equipment in light of Ukraine conflict​Source


For an active protection system contract to take 7-10 years, don’t even bother.  

Just incorporate it into the replacement vehicle contract, or add whatever system is current at the time to the replacement vehicle.  Or do a UOR for one once the replacement vehicle is chosen, depending on where things are at.  

(Trophy might not be top of the game in a decade or so, or vehicles might have APS become more standard/modular, etc)


And don’t bother trying to replace the whopping 4 guns we donated, unless it’s a magical deal.  

Put those funds towards whatever we replace the M777 with. 


My 0.02


----------



## Furniture

CBH99 said:


> For an active protection system contract to take 7-10 years, don’t even bother.
> 
> Just incorporate it into the replacement vehicle contract, or add whatever system is current at the time to the replacement vehicle.  Or do a UOR for one once the replacement vehicle is chosen, depending on where things are at.
> 
> (Trophy might not be top of the game in a decade or so, or vehicles might have APS become more standard/modular, etc)
> 
> 
> And don’t bother trying to replace the whopping 4 guns we donated, unless it’s a magical deal.
> 
> Put those funds towards whatever we replace the M777 with.
> 
> 
> My 0.02


My suspicion is that "replacing" M777s donated to Ukraine is the CAF's way of getting a new SPG via UOR.


----------



## MilEME09

Furniture said:


> My suspicion is that "replacing" M777s donated to Ukraine is the CAF's way of getting a new SPG via UOR.


That's what I would do, "oh no we don't have enough to meet our needs" and with the 777 out of production something else will need to be procured.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Quirky said:


> Canadians: “we have a military? hahaha”….. *go back to scrolling on their phones.


_go back to scrolling on their *Chinese* phones_ - fixed it for you….


----------



## Eye In The Sky

The CAF is concerned about under strength Reg force.  Is the GoC, or is it happy to avoid paying 10k more salaries each month for the time being?

Curious how “in step” the MND and CDS are at this point..


----------



## kev994

I think they’ll be happy so long as someone shows up to fill sandbags every couple months.


----------



## kev994

kev994 said:


> I think they’ll be happy so long as someone shows up to fill sandbags every couple months.


In fact, I’m not entirely convinced that they care whether the sand bags actually get filled as long as they can tweet that they ‘called in the army.’


----------



## dimsum

Eye In The Sky said:


> The CAF is concerned about under strength Reg force.  Is the GoC, or is it happy to avoid paying 10k more salaries each month for the time being?
> 
> Curious how “in step” the MND and CDS are at this point..


I think it’s more how in-step the MND is with GoC.  I think housing and healthcare (the part that Feds can influence) are the closest crocodiles to the GoC.


----------



## daftandbarmy

kev994 said:


> I think they’ll be happy so long as someone shows up to fill sandbags every couple months.



Because no one else in the country can do that.


----------



## Good2Golf

dimsum said:


> I think it’s more how in-step the MND is with GoC.  I think housing and healthcare (the part that Feds can influence) are the closest crocodiles to the GoC.


I think the MND and CDS are a lot closer to being in step with “how things are going to go down” in the next couple of years.  GoC will figure out what it has to do to keep its big neighbor to the South happy.  Canada is beyond the point of having full control of its own destiny.


----------



## kev994

daftandbarmy said:


> Because no one else in the country can do that.


You’re never going to get re-elected if you’re talking that kind of nonsense.


----------



## dimsum

daftandbarmy said:


> Because no one else in the country can do that.


I'm just imagining Ministers having a collective game of "not me".


----------



## Brad Sallows

Some GoC-aspiring parties will continue doing what they must in order to keep voters happy.

One thing a lot of Canadians seem to enjoy is running the US down.

And have you heard about those psych experiments that find people choose to deny someone else a larger payoff and get nothing themselves, rather than have a small payout themselves?


----------



## Good2Golf

Brad Sallows said:


> One thing a lot of Canadians seem to enjoy is running the US down.


 
Which is ironic, given how Canada has de-powered itself to the point of now being subtly directed by the US how to invest in a number of wider security-related capabilities. 



Brad Sallows said:


> And have you heard about those psych experiments that find people choose to deny someone else a larger payoff and get nothing themselves, rather than have a small payout themselves?



 Some Canadians complaining that CAF family members were getting standby flights on DND's contracted service air flights led contributed to that service's demise...of course said Canadians complaining wouldn't want to have their families picked up and moved around the country every few years, to reestablish employment and schools and the like...


----------



## dimsum

Good2Golf said:


> of course said Canadians complaining wouldn't want to have their families picked up and moved around the country every few years, to reestablish employment and schools and the like...


Them:  They chose to be in the CAF!

Yes - base brats choose who their parents are. 

A non-zero number of them also think we don't pay taxes.


----------



## markppcli

Good2Golf said:


> Some Canadians complaining that CAF family members were getting standby flights on DND's contracted service air flights led contributed to that service's demise...of course said Canadians complaining wouldn't want to have their families picked up and moved around the country every few years, to reestablish employment and schools and the like...


What’s the over under on those “some Canadians” being the civilian DND employees?


----------



## Good2Golf

markppcli said:


> What’s the over under on those “some Canadians” being the civilian DND employees?


😉 

Probably 100 (99% civ DND empl, 1% someone else)


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

daftandbarmy said:


> Because no one else in the country can do that.


----------



## Quirky

Good2Golf said:


> Some Canadians complaining that CAF family members were getting standby flights on DND's contracted service air flights led contributed to that service's demise...



This is no different than one or two karens complaining about some nonsensical thing and since they yell loud enough, the approving authority or authorities caving in because they have no balls.


----------



## CBH99

daftandbarmy said:


> Because no one else in the country can do that.


"We bring specialized skill sets and capabilities to this extremely important tasking, these capabilities are unique to that of any other department in the federal government..."

<Que the Class A reservists, augmented by 15yo cadets, showing up with those mini-shovels in 3...2...1>


----------



## daftandbarmy

CBH99 said:


> "We bring specialized skill sets and capabilities to this extremely important tasking, these capabilities are unique to that of any other department in the federal government..."
> 
> <Que the Class A reservists, augmented by 15yo cadets, showing up with those mini-shovels in 3...2...1>



We're alot cheaper than good old regular labour at $20/hr. 

Maybe we need to up our rates so as not to become the option of 'cheapest resort'


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Meanwhile back in Poland and South Korea


----------



## CBH99

When it comes to Eastern European countries arming up big time in light of the recent Russian invasion of Ukraine, I can’t say any of them give me pause to think… “Is Poland secretly planning to invade Germany, or any other country in Europe?”

Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, etc etc - I’d actually feel quite safe if any of those countries became a solid pillar of the eastern flank.  (Even though Ukraine very much already is now.)

I imagine some of the quantities being purchased is that Poland can bypass Germany if a situation like this ever flares up again.  

Instead of Germany being the gate keeper and slowly allowing other countries to donate kit to Ukraine, Poland has plenty of kit for itself - and can donate whatever surplus it has to someone else if need be.

(Or they just decided to order some actual combat spares, in the west seem hesitant to do.)


----------



## suffolkowner

CBH99 said:


> When it comes to Eastern European countries arming up big time in light of the recent Russian invasion of Ukraine, I can’t say any of them give me pause to think… “Is Poland secretly planning to invade Germany, or any other country in Europe?”
> 
> Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, etc etc - I’d actually feel quite safe if any of those countries became a solid pillar of the eastern flank.  (Even though Ukraine very much already is now.)
> 
> I imagine some of the quantities being purchased is that Poland can bypass Germany if a situation like this ever flares up again.
> 
> Instead of Germany being the gate keeper and slowly allowing other countries to donate kit to Ukraine, Poland has plenty of kit for itself - and can donate whatever surplus it has to someone else if need be.
> 
> (Or they just decided to order some actual combat spares, in the west seem hesitant to do.)


They are gearing up to stand alone. I question the need for all the MLRS seeing what 30 have done to the Russians in Ukraine but they will not be at the whim of Germany or France that is for sure


----------



## Kirkhill

suffolkowner said:


> They are gearing up to stand alone. I question the need for all the MLRS seeing what 30 have done to the Russians in Ukraine but they will not be at the whim of Germany or France that is for sure



The Ukrainians have been quite vocal in stating that if they had had lots of MLRS (and a modern Air Defence System) they could have driven the Russians out by now and saved lots of lives and Billions of Dollars.

The intent is not to fight.  The intent is to destroy an invading force as quickly as possible and get back to making money in peace.


----------



## suffolkowner

Kirkhill said:


> The Ukrainians have been quite vocal in stating that if they had had lots of MLRS (and a modern Air Defence System) they could have driven the Russians out by now and saved lots of lives and Billions of Dollars.
> 
> The intent is not to fight.  The intent is to destroy an invading force as quickly as possible and get back to making money in peace.


sure but 500 I think I would have bought a couple more F35's


----------



## Kirkhill

suffolkowner said:


> sure but 500 I think I would have bought a couple more F35's



Those MLRS vehicles will be putting rounds down range long after all the F35 runways have been cratered.  Add in a bunch of runway independent UAVs for spotting.


----------



## Czech_pivo

suffolkowner said:


> They are gearing up to stand alone. I question the need for all the MLRS seeing what 30 have done to the Russians in Ukraine but they will not be at the whim of Germany or France that is for sure


Poland has not been in a position to be able to truly dictate its own future for over 250yrs.  They have tried to rely on Allies in the inter-war years (1920-39) but that didn't work out so well for them now did it? 
They might actually have the belief that they could in a 'Turkey' regional over the next 10yrs if they are willing to invest enough in their military.  Ignoring the Germans, they are the largest regional power outside of Russia/Ukraine and they are now lock step with the Ukrainians for the foreseeable future.


----------



## Kirkhill

Czech_pivo said:


> Poland has not been in a position to be able to truly dictate its own future for over 250yrs.  They have tried to rely on Allies in the inter-war years (1920-39) but that didn't work out so well for them now did it?
> They might actually have the belief that they could in a 'Turkey' regional over the next 10yrs if they are willing to invest enough in their military.  Ignoring the Germans, they are the largest regional power outside of Russia/Ukraine and they are now lock step with the Ukrainians for the foreseeable future.



I'm pretty sure that the Poles and Ukrainians can equally rely on support from Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Finland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Iceland.   And the Turkish association looks to be interesting too, if they can sort out the Kurdish situation.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Kirkhill said:


> I'm pretty sure that the Poles and Ukrainians can equally rely on support from Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Finland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Iceland.   And the Turkish association looks to be interesting too, if they can sort out the Kurdish situation.


I'd throw in the the Slovaks into that mix and quite possibly the Czechs.  The Slovaks are still leary of the Hungarians and Hungary is not making many friends within NATO or regionally right now.  
For certain the mini Baltic states will hitch their wagon to Poland (without ticking off the US of course) as well. 
Poland and the Czechs (and on a smaller scale the Slovaks) still have a decent of amount of heavy industry available, along with solid engineering companies/skills (think Skoda) and a growing, maturing tech sector.  There is alot that they can build/grow regionally for their military needs.  Add into that mix the Swedes and the Finns and voila, a fairly self-sufficient regional block in terms of military hardware.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Edward Campbell said:


> Which appears to be exactly what Xi Jinping did:
> 
> "After more than two years without leaving his country, Chinese President Xi Jinping isn’t missing the chance for in-person diplomacy as he joins other world leaders at the G20 summit in Bali, Indonesia, this week ... [and]... Mr. Xi had a highly anticipated meeting with U.S. President Joe Biden on Monday, and will meet with the leaders of Australia and Japan, as well as Indonesian President Joko Widodo ... [but] ... *Not on the list, however, is Prime Minister Justin Trudeau*."



Meanwhile....


----------



## Eye In The Sky




----------



## suffolkowner

‘Big Bonanza’ For Polish Armed Forces – Set To Acquire A Series Of Cutting Edge Weapons To Challenge Russian Hegemony
					

If the just concluded 30th annual International Defense Industry Exhibition (MSPO), held in the Polish city of Kielce (September 6-9), is any indication, then Poland, given its historical “Russian-fear,” seems determined to be one of Europe’s leading military powers. The country’s political...




					eurasiantimes.com
				



going over what the Poles have been doing I found this article that had some good info
Honestly I doubt theres a country that could take Poland right now nevermind in 2 years.* What Poland has ordered in the time that we actually reduced our defence spending by 14%*

250 M1A2 v3
28 M1A2 v2 *already in place*
116 M1A1

180 K2's *of which they have or are about to receive 10*
820 K2PL

122 Krab 155mm *of which 64 in service*

212 K9 *of which 24 already delivered*
460 K9PL

122 120mm mortar on KTO Rosomak *almost completed*

288 K239 MLRS
220 M142 HIMARS (of 500?)

23 batteries of Sky Sabre on 400 trucks including 1000 CAMM missiles plus an interim UOR system

96 Apache
32 AW-149
48 FA-50 to add/complement the 48 F-16
32 F-35

6 more Patriot batteries to add to the 2 existing

Im sure Ive missed some in the flury of announcements. My perspective is probably skewed to our own environment where fighter jets probably provide a decent force due to the limited exposure to land forces


----------



## Czech_pivo

daftandbarmy said:


> Meanwhile....
> 
> View attachment 75209


OMG - once you've seen this you can't wipe this from you memory. Dear God help me.


----------



## Kirkhill

Czech_pivo said:


> I'd throw in the the Slovaks into that mix and quite possibly the Czechs.  The Slovaks are still leary of the Hungarians and Hungary is not making many friends within NATO or regionally right now.
> For certain the mini Baltic states will hitch their wagon to Poland (without ticking off the US of course) as well.
> Poland and the Czechs (and on a smaller scale the Slovaks) still have a decent of amount of heavy industry available, along with solid engineering companies/skills (think Skoda) and a growing, maturing tech sector.  There is alot that they can build/grow regionally for their military needs.  Add into that mix the Swedes and the Finns and voila, a fairly self-sufficient regional block in terms of military hardware.



You're right enough.   The Czechs and the Slovakians have both been solid in their support.

What is your take on the Romanians?


----------



## OldSolduer

Kirkhill said:


> You're right enough.   The Czechs and the Slovakians have both been solid in their support.
> 
> What is your take on the Romanians?


Simple - invoke the spirit of Vlad the Impaler. 

It stopped the Turks.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Czech_pivo said:


> OMG - once you've seen this you can't wipe this from you memory. Dear God help me.



Funny thing, that's exactly what the guy who sent it to me said


----------



## CBH99

Kirkhill said:


> I'm pretty sure that the Poles and Ukrainians can equally rely on support from Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Finland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Iceland.   And the Turkish association looks to be interesting too, if they can sort out the Kurdish situation.


I agree with almost everything you said here…just not sure how much firepower Iceland will bring to the fight 😉

When Turkey was more of a genuine ally compared to the current ‘guy we don’t want but can’t get rid of’ ally we have now (don’t even think that word can accurately describe Turkey now?) - then yes, perhaps.

But the modern day Turkey?  I doubt they’ll sort the Kurd situation out anytime soon, unless the solution is to wipe them out entirely. 

(This is the same country who’s president carried out a false flag coupe to declare himself president for life, that openly bought oil from ISIS as a extremely thin disguise at openly finding them, hired proxies to fight ISIS along its border…kinda/sorta…had its warships lock weapons on a French warship when the French wanted to board a suspected smuggling vessel, conducts air strikes within its own borders on its own towns, against its own citizens, floods Europe with refugees if it doesn’t get what it wants, is pretty cosy with the Russians these days, etc etc)


But all of the other countries listed, absolutely.  Fantastic allies to have!

(Poland has been the next-door neighbour anybody could ask for in this current situation.)


----------



## Kirkhill

CBH99 said:


> I agree with almost everything you said here…just not sure how much firepower Iceland will bring to the fight 😉
> 
> When Turkey was more of a genuine ally compared to the current ‘guy we don’t want but can’t get rid of’ ally we have now (don’t even think that word can accurately describe Turkey now?) - then yes, perhaps.
> 
> But the modern day Turkey?  I doubt they’ll sort the Kurd situation out anytime soon, unless the solution is to wipe them out entirely.
> 
> (This is the same country who’s president carried out a false flag coupe to declare himself president for life, that openly bought oil from ISIS as a extremely thin disguise at openly finding them, hired proxies to fight ISIS along its border…kinda/sorta…had its warships lock weapons on a French warship when the French wanted to board a suspected smuggling vessel, conducts air strikes within its own borders on its own towns, against its own citizens, floods Europe with refugees if it doesn’t get what it wants, is pretty cosy with the Russians these days, etc etc)
> 
> 
> But all of the other countries listed, absolutely.  Fantastic allies to have!
> 
> (Poland has been the next-door neighbour anybody could ask for in this current situation.)



I guess I am looking at Turkish-Ukrainian relations.  The Ukrainians seem to have a better sense of the Turks?


----------



## Czech_pivo

Kirkhill said:


> You're right enough.   The Czechs and the Slovakians have both been solid in their support.
> 
> What is your take on the Romanians?


That's a good question.
Quiet, that's the first thing that comes to my mind. 
Quiet because of a number of factors - proximity to Russia (across the Black Sea), Orthodox, their Church hasn't split from Mother Russia like the Ukrainian Orthodox Church has, border with Moldova (Transnistria), large border with Serbia, large border with Hungary. 

The Czechs/Slovaks geographically are almost wrapped in a warm embrace by both Germany, Poland and each other, they live in a less dangerous neighbourhood.  The Romanians are not really in the best neighbourhood, almost as bad as the Baltics.  

Hungary would love to have back Transylvania and all those orphaned Hungarians living in Romanian.  Serbia/Romania have had a long, solid relationship for the most part but now are on opposite sides of friendship with Russia. Moldova and Romania are close, with the former concerned about their intentions.


----------



## Kirkhill

Czech_pivo said:


> That's a good question.
> Quiet, that's the first thing that comes to my mind.
> Quiet because of a number of factors - proximity to Russia (across the Black Sea), Orthodox, their Church hasn't split from Mother Russia like the Ukrainian Orthodox Church has, border with Moldova (Transnistria), large border with Serbia, large border with Hungary.
> 
> The Czechs/Slovaks geographically are almost wrapped in a warm embrace by both Germany, Poland and each other, they live in a less dangerous neighbourhood.  The Romanians are not really in the best neighbourhood, almost as bad as the Baltics.
> 
> Hungary would love to have back Transylvania and all those orphaned Hungarians living in Romanian.  Serbia/Romania have had a long, solid relationship for the most part but now are on opposite sides of friendship with Russia. Moldova and Romania are close, with the former concerned about their intentions.


Thanks for that.

I don't feel that the Balkans and the South generally have moved much from 1913 and the Austro-Hungarian positions.  Fractious and unstable?


----------



## Edward Campbell

"*Canada, a country with a long history of involvement in Haiti, is the top candidate and favored by the United States, but Ottawa is weighing the operational risks of fighting an enemy embedded in civilian communities, as well as the challenges of doing so in a fraught political environment.*"

So says _Foreign Affairs_, this week.

In fact t, I'm told by a source I consider reliable, that was one of the specific messages Secretary of State Blinken delivered to Prime Minister Trudeau when he visited Ottawa in October. 

I heard (less reliable source) that message was delivered to the CDS in September and that was, in some part, responsible for the Reconstitution thing. The CDS, I heard (same less than 90% reliable source) knows that the mission requires a larger force than Canada could muster, even if we pulled out of Latvia, and there is no way, none at all, that he could build such a force in less than several years and with less than several billions of dollars of new funding - year-after-year-after-decade.

The result is:


----------



## daftandbarmy

Edward Campbell said:


> "*Canada, a country with a long history of involvement in Haiti, is the top candidate and favored by the United States, but Ottawa is weighing the operational risks of fighting an enemy embedded in civilian communities, as well as the challenges of doing so in a fraught political environment.*"
> 
> So says _Foreign Affairs_, this week.
> 
> In fact t, I'm told by a source I consider reliable, that was one of the specific messages Secretary of State Blinken delivered to Prime Minister Trudeau when he visited Ottawa in October.
> 
> I heard (less reliable source) that message was delivered to the CDS in September and that was, in some part, responsible for the Reconstitution thing. The CDS, I heard (same less than 90% reliable source) knows that the mission requires a larger force than Canada could muster, even if we pulled out of Latvia, and there is no way, none at all, that he could build such a force in less than several years and with less than several billions of dollars of new funding - year-after-year-after-decade.
> 
> The result is:
> View attachment 75231



Northern Ireland would probably look easy compared to Haiti.

Except the added dimension of of rich white first world colonialists, from another country, shooting Haitians on international TV would add a bit of spice to the whole thing.


----------



## OldSolduer

daftandbarmy said:


> Northern Ireland would probably look easy compared to Haiti.
> 
> Except the added dimension of of rich white first world colonialists, from another country, shooting Haitians on international TV would add a bit of spice to the whole thing.



A terrible fit. Avoid it. If you go in bring a battalions worth of lawyers and PR types.


----------



## Edward Campbell

daftandbarmy said:


> Northern Ireland would probably look easy compared to Haiti.
> 
> Except the added dimension of of _*rich white first world colonialists, from another country, shooting Haitians on international TV*_ would add a bit of spice to the whole thing.


A few, actually quite a few, years ago an acquaintance, a former very senior official, who was well paid (by governments (not just ours) and foundations) to think both this sort of thing, said that Haiti would need three generations of colonial rule - trusteeship, he said - to be ready to assume a productive place in the world:

In the first generation the mandatory power (his words again, shades of the League of Nations) would restore impose law and order and establish trust in the motives of the mandate;
Two generations would be required, overlapping the first and third, to build institutions in which the people had trust and confidence; and
The third generation would see the rise of a legitimate independence movement which would, eventually, form a home-grown government.
It would be, he said, the work of a century, and no responsible "white" nation would ever want to touch the problem ... and any one that did couldn't be trusted to do the job properly.

His candidate was India.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Edward Campbell said:


> A few, actually quite a few, years ago an acquaintance, a former very senior official, who was well paid (by governments (not just ours) and foundations) to think both this sort of thing, said that Haiti would need three generations of colonial rule - trusteeship, he said - to be ready to assume a productive place in the world:
> 
> In the first generation the mandatory power (his words again, shades of the League of Nations) would restore impose law and order and establish trust in the motives of the mandate;
> Two generations would be required, overlapping the first and third, to build institutions in which the people had trust and confidence; and
> The third generation would see the rise of a legitimate independence movement which would, eventually, form a home-grown government.
> It would be, he said, the work of a century, and no responsible "white" nation would ever want to touch the problem ... and any one that did couldn't be trusted to do the job properly.
> 
> His candidate was India.


100% spot on -


----------



## MilEME09

Opinion: The Canadian Armed Forces are heading for a Titanic collapse
					

Canada’s military claims to be ‘mission first, people always.’ To deal with that contradiction – and its recruiting crisis – the CAF needs to reinvent itself as a modern organization




					www.theglobeandmail.com
				




Catastrophe puts our situation mildly, we are in a state of collapse


----------



## daftandbarmy

MilEME09 said:


> Opinion: The Canadian Armed Forces are heading for a Titanic collapse
> 
> 
> Canada’s military claims to be ‘mission first, people always.’ To deal with that contradiction – and its recruiting crisis – the CAF needs to reinvent itself as a modern organization
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theglobeandmail.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Catastrophe puts our situation mildly, we are in a state of collapse



As if getting rid of drill would help with all that.

All we need, of course, is a damned good little war


----------



## Edward Campbell

daftandbarmy said:


> As if getting rid of drill would help with all that.
> 
> _*All we need, of course, is a damned good little war*_


Which is precisely what the government-of-the-day - any government, any day - doesn't want.


----------



## Kirkhill

1940 Bombers Blitz London
1940 Radar guided interceptors beat bombers
1940 Bombers beat Berlin
1944 V1 Cruise missiles terrorize London
1945 V2 Ballistic missiles terrorize London

1953 GBAD Nike missiles beat bombers
1957 ICBMs replace bombers
1957 Orbital missiles terrorize everyone - MAD - and there ain't nothing we can do about it.

1984 Reagan's Star Wars programme - laughed off because of difficulty of hitting a missile with a missile

But 

1980 CIWS Phalanx 
2004 C-RAM Phalanx
2011 Iron Dome

Why the list?

Fewer butts in seats
Fewer buttons
More automatic responses

The realm of the possible keeps increasing.
The need for people on parade keeps decreasing.


----------



## FSTO

daftandbarmy said:


> As if getting rid of drill would help with all that.
> 
> All we need, of course, is a damned good little war


And uniforms............... 

PIRATE RIG FOR ALL! That'll bring em in!


----------



## Brad Sallows

I doubt armed forces which are just another kind of corporation is the correct path.


----------



## MilEME09

Brad Sallows said:


> I doubt armed forces which are just another kind of corporation is the correct path.


Atleast not in its current form


----------



## GR66

Brad Sallows said:


> I doubt armed forces which are just another kind of corporation is the correct path.


Agreed.  Sounds more like a recipe for an armed bureaucracy than a warfighting military.

While we don't necessarily need a "damned good little war" as @daftandbarmy suggests, we certainly should be preparing and organizing as if we were going to have to fight one.


----------



## daftandbarmy

GR66 said:


> Agreed.  Sounds more like a recipe for an armed bureaucracy than a warfighting military.
> 
> While we don't necessarily need a "damned good little war" as @daftandbarmy suggests, *we certainly should be preparing and organizing as if we were going to have to fight one.*



And everyone I've ever worked with below, roughly, the rank of Major/MWO is wholly in agreement with you.

Above that level? Experiences differ greatly...


----------



## CBH99

daftandbarmy said:


> As if getting rid of drill would help with all that.
> 
> All we need, of course, is a damned good little war


You aren’t wrong.  

When I was doing recruiting back in 2008-2009 timeframe, we had a line out the door.  Literally.  

If I recall correctly, during a town hall style meeting with our 41CBG senior guys, the CAF had a list of close to 5000 people waiting to be enrolled…compare today’s recruiting picture with that, and bleak isn’t even the right word.  

Why did people want to join up so badly back then, compared to now?  Just like you said D&B, we had a little war on our hands 

People want a sense of purpose, and they want to contribute to something noble and worthwhile.  

When we had “legions of murdering scumbags pouring acid on little girls & decapitating villagers who were seen talking with infidels” - people who didn’t agree with that showed up wanting to join the fight.  

Now?  Can you have so many operations going on simultaneously, yet none of them garner more than a mention in the evening news.  


The next little while we find ourselves in will result in something similar I imagine.  

This time we can’t allow all of the great leaders and potential leaders to leave once the war is over, like we did last time.


----------



## Kirkhill

GR66 said:


> Agreed.  Sounds more like a recipe for an armed bureaucracy than a warfighting military.



And why nobody ever hired a management consultant to fix the military....




Department of Militia and Defence -1906
Department of National Defence - 1922
War Deparment becomes the Department of Defense - 1949
War Office becomes Ministry of Defence - 1964

Canada was ahead of the curve in recognizing that War was a hard sell.  Defence is what the citizenry wanted.  The citizenry don't want to go to war and be heroes.  They want to drink their beer in peace.

They put up umbrellas to keep the sun and the rain off.  Their ideal defence is an umbrella to keep the bullets off.  A full spectrum Nav Canada would probably meet much of Canada's National Defence expectations.



> Nav Canada is a privately run, not-for-profit corporation that owns and operates Canada's civil air navigation system. It was established in accordance with the Civil Air Navigation Services


----------



## daftandbarmy

Kirkhill said:


> And why nobody ever hired a management consultant to fix the military....



Kennedy did...


----------



## Kirkhill

See you and raise you....



daftandbarmy said:


> Kennedy did...
> 
> View attachment 75256





> The *RAND Corporation* (from the phrase "research and development")[7] is an American nonprofit global policy think tank[1] created in 1948 by Douglas Aircraft Company to offer research and analysis to the United States Armed Forces. It is financed by the U.S. government and private endowment,[6] corporations,[8] universities[8] and private individuals.[8]











						RAND Corporation - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				







> Bell Labs Quality Assurance Department gave the world and the United States such statisticians as Walter A. Shewhart, W. Edwards Deming, Harold F. Dodge, George D. Edwards, Harry Romig, R. L. Jones, Paul Olmstead, E.G.D. Paterson, and Mary N. Torrey. During World War II, Emergency Technical Committee – Quality Control, drawn mainly from Bell Labs' statisticians, was instrumental in advancing Army and Navy ammunition acceptance and material sampling procedures.











						Bell Labs - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## CBH99

CBH99 said:


> You aren’t wrong.
> 
> When I was doing recruiting back in 2008-2009 timeframe, we had a line out the door.  Literally.
> 
> If I recall correctly, during a town hall style meeting with our 41CBG senior guys, the CAF had a list of close to 5000 people waiting to be enrolled…compare today’s recruiting picture with that, and bleak isn’t even the right word.
> 
> Why did people want to join up so badly back then, compared to now?  Just like you said D&B, we had a little war on our hands
> 
> People want a sense of purpose, and they want to contribute to something noble and worthwhile.
> 
> When we had “legions of murdering scumbags pouring acid on little girls & decapitating villagers who were seen talking with infidels” - people who didn’t agree with that showed up wanting to join the fight.
> 
> Now?  How can we have so many operations going on simultaneously, yet none of them garner more than a mention in the evening news?
> 
> 
> The next little war we find ourselves in will result in something similar I imagine.  Give people an opportunity to fight for something noble, to protect people who need protecting, and be heroes - they’ll come.
> 
> This time we can’t allow all of the great leaders and potential leaders the war uncovers to leave once the war is over, like we did last time.


Had to fix some errors that were bugging me, sorry


----------



## dimsum

CBH99 said:


> Now? Can you have so many operations going on simultaneously, yet none of them garner more than a mention in the evening news.


Because none of them are big (for us) "shooting wars".  OP REASSURANCE in Europe has lots of people, but they're not directly engaging anyone so it's a bit tough to write headlines.  OP UNIFIER is a training mission for the right reasons, but it's hard to make "train others" sound sexy or interesting enough for continued coverage.  

OP NEON, etc aren't really big enough to hit front page news except when they trudge out the article (again) about dangerous intercepts on Auroras or the PRC govt being pissy about our Frigates sailing by their waters.



CBH99 said:


> The next little while we find ourselves in will result in something similar I imagine.


Yup.  And I would bet that a bunch of the people who recently VR and swore never to return to the CAF (as I read on CAF Reddit) will beg to re-join.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Watching this video and thinking "This could so be done here as well"


----------



## Kirkhill

Finland's Prime Minister in Australia - a world of hurt without the USA.









						Sanna Marin: Europe is not strong enough to stand against Russia alone
					

Finnish Prime Minister Sanna Marin said Putin's attack on Ukraine has exposed European weaknesses and the strategic mistakes it made regarding Russia.




					yle.fi


----------



## CBH99

dimsum said:


> Because none of them are big (for us) "shooting wars".  OP REASSURANCE in Europe has lots of people, but they're not directly engaging anyone so it's a bit tough to write headlines.  OP UNIFIER is a training mission for the right reasons, but it's hard to make "train others" sound sexy or interesting enough for continued coverage.
> 
> OP NEON, etc aren't really big enough to hit front page news except when they trudge out the article (again) about dangerous intercepts on Auroras or the PRC govt being pissy about our Frigates sailing by their waters.
> 
> 
> Yup.  And I would bet that a bunch of the people who recently VR and swore never to return to the CAF (as I read on CAF Reddit) will beg to re-join.


The British have really upped their production quality in both Forces News, as well as the Royal Marine Commandos. 

CANSOFCOM did a FANTASTIC job with their new recruiting video for CJIRU.  Top notch. 

If you took that level of production quality, and applied it to some short blurbs about CF-18’s ‘Protecting Romanian Skies’ or our eFP in Latvia being the ‘pointy end of the stick to make sure the war doesn’t spread’ - you could probably have some pretty cool, recruitment friendly videos 


But agreed.  A real conflict & given the chance to ‘be heroes’ of sorts is a huge attractor.  

(I say ‘be heroes’ because I think we’ve all had/have a hero complex of some sort, hence being attracted to the kind of work that we are)


----------



## GK .Dundas

Some years back I saw some posters for the Singaporean Army.  Showed as I recall  a young soldier's face streaked with sweat and mud . He has some in his outstretched hand. Caption reads " It's not just dirt, it's soil. Our soil !"
Simple and powerful.


----------



## rmc_wannabe

GK .Dundas said:


> Some years back I saw some posters for the Singaporean Army.  Showed as I recall  a young soldier's face streaked with sweat and mud . He has some in his outstretched hand. Caption reads " It's not just dirt, it's soil. Our soil !"
> Simple and powerful.



But that would run counter to the post-nationalist brand of Canada the Liberals have been pushing over the past 7 years.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Colin Parkinson said:


> Watching this video and thinking "This could so be done here as well"


I'm sure there are of a couple of operations in the Windsor, ON area that would be well suited for something like this with some re-tooling and cross-training.


----------



## quadrapiper

rmc_wannabe said:


> But that would run counter to the post-nationalist brand of Canada the Liberals have been pushing over the past 7 years.


It's also harder to sell that particular sort of _we will keep what is ours_ as a credible campaign with our neighbours: the US is sufficiently large that, even if they got land-grabby rather than just buying whatever they wanted, even the most enthusiastically equipped and recruited, well-trained and properly organized CAF would have issues keeping them out, and nobody else is really positioned to threaten Canadian territory militarily. Singapore's in a much rougher borough.


----------



## dimsum

rmc_wannabe said:


> But that would run counter to the post-nationalist brand of Canada the Liberals have been pushing over the past 7 years.


Also, the Singaporeans aren't really an "expeditionary" force.  Can't really use "our soil" when we have troops around the world.

Much easier to use that angle when your homeland has been invaded and occupied within the past century.


----------



## MilEME09

Of course it will take two years...... no wonder we have issues









						Military received 2,400 applications from permanent residents in November
					

The Canadian Armed Forces says it has received hundreds of applications from permanent residents interested in joining the military, but getting those prospective recruits into uniform could take up to two years.




					www.ctvnews.ca


----------



## Furniture

MilEME09 said:


> Of course it will take two years...... no wonder we have issues
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Military received 2,400 applications from permanent residents in November
> 
> 
> The Canadian Armed Forces says it has received hundreds of applications from permanent residents interested in joining the military, but getting those prospective recruits into uniform could take up to two years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.ctvnews.ca


To be fair, two years depending on the required security clearance is not unreasonable for a non-citizen. To my knowledge that CAF didn't restrict it to just a few enhanced reliability occupations.


----------



## daftandbarmy

MilEME09 said:


> Of course it will take two years...... no wonder we have issues
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Military received 2,400 applications from permanent residents in November
> 
> 
> The Canadian Armed Forces says it has received hundreds of applications from permanent residents interested in joining the military, but getting those prospective recruits into uniform could take up to two years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.ctvnews.ca



Meanwhile, kids leaving college today are being snapped up by high paying businesses tomorrow...


----------



## rmc_wannabe

Is it crazy to imagine that most folks won't be touching anything particularly sensitive within their first 18-24 months in uniform? 

There are some recruits I wouldn't want touching a microwave oven, let alone classified systems. 

Perhaps it's time we tell DM Secur that they're the problem....


----------



## Rifleman62

> While many are weeded out after failing aptitude, medical and security tests, officials say the majority end up *voluntarily withdrawing.*


VAC: Deny, Deny, Die.

CF Recruiting: piss around, piss around, pissed off.


P.S.  Air Canada: We're not happy until you're unhappy.


----------



## Kirkhill

rmc_wannabe said:


> Is it crazy to imagine that most folks won't be touching anything particularly sensitive within their first 18-24 months in uniform?
> 
> There are some recruits I wouldn't want touching a microwave oven, let alone classified systems.
> 
> Perhaps it's time we tell DM Secur that they're the problem....



How long does it take for the USMC to process a foreigner and convert her from a interested candidate at the recruiting office into a private?

Recruit riflemen, troopers, gun bunnies and truckers first - and tell me that they all need security clearances.

Once they have been in a year or two some will want to transfer.  People that want to join the trades will either have to wait their turn or, if they want to "jump the cue" become riflemen, troopers, gun bunnies and truckers.


----------



## CBH99

MilEME09 said:


> Of course it will take two years...... no wonder we have issues
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Military received 2,400 applications from permanent residents in November
> 
> 
> The Canadian Armed Forces says it has received hundreds of applications from permanent residents interested in joining the military, but getting those prospective recruits into uniform could take up to two years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.ctvnews.ca


Because they are fairly new to Canada, I can understand the security screening taking longer. Can't just let the automated CSIS process do its thing.

But 2 years is absurd.  2 years to get a few hundred people into uniform & starting their journey?  

Agreed...no wonder we have issues...


After the basic checks are done, have the applicants swear their path all together, not individually.  

Have friends & family there to clap, and staff from around the building attend if they can spare 5 minutes. The energy & positivity would be a great way to start a new career!  

Have them draw kit, and start reporting to a unit while they wait for BMQ so they can be slightly less new once the course starts.

*And don't make everybody go to St. Jean!  F**k that place!  Run BMQ serials at Wainwright, Meaford, have local reserve units run 1 or 2 throughout the year for the are.  And use St. Jean as well, just don't solely rely on it.

When their enhanced check comes back, more options will available to them.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

BMQ at St Jean is rumoured to be so watered down, I can't see why getting masses of recruits thru "even-more-Basic-Training" is an issue.

I agree with removing BMQ a "common to all"; let the environmental command run their own Recruit/Basic/Depot.  Distributed BMQs were/are already being run;  Camp Aldershot NS is home to RCAF BMQs.


----------



## Czech_pivo

MilEME09 said:


> Of course it will take two years...... no wonder we have issues
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Military received 2,400 applications from permanent residents in November
> 
> 
> The Canadian Armed Forces says it has received hundreds of applications from permanent residents interested in joining the military, but getting those prospective recruits into uniform could take up to two years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.ctvnews.ca


"officials say the majority end up voluntarily withdrawing."

When it takes 24 months to process - its no fricking wonder that the above occurs. Unreal. Heads should roll -


----------



## OldSolduer

Eye In The Sky said:


> BMQ at St Jean is rumoured to be so watered down, I can't see why getting masses of recruits thru "even-more-Basic-Training" is an issue.
> 
> I agree with removing BMQ a "common to all"; let the environmental command run their own Recruit/Basic/Depot.  Distributed BMQs were/are already being run;  Camp Aldershot NS is home to RCAF BMQs.


What is old is new is old is new. Cornwallis was the basic training facility for the RCN at one time. Regiments had the depots and I am not sure what the RCAF did. Borden maybe?


----------



## Czech_pivo

CBH99 said:


> Because they are fairly new to Canada, I can understand the security screening taking longer. Can't just let the automated CSIS process do its thing.
> 
> But 2 years is absurd.  2 years to get a few hundred people into uniform & starting their journey?
> 
> Agreed...no wonder we have issues...
> 
> 
> After the basic checks are done, have the applicants swear their path all together, not individually.
> 
> Have friends & family there to clap, and staff from around the building attend if they can spare 5 minutes. The energy & positivity would be a great way to start a new career!
> 
> Have them draw kit, and start reporting to a unit while they wait for BMQ so they can be slightly less new once the course starts.
> 
> *And don't make everybody go to St. Jean!  F**k that place!  Run BMQ serials at Wainwright, Meaford, have local reserve units run 1 or 2 throughout the year for the are.  And use St. Jean as well, just don't solely rely on it.
> 
> When their enhanced check comes back, more options will available to them.


"Because they are fairly new to Canada, I can understand the security screening taking longer."

I'm not certain that statement covers the majority of PR's that might be looking to apply.

My mother become a PR in Jan of 1968 when she married my father and moved from Detroit to Windsor and she never became a CDN citizen, she passed in Aug 2020.  My wife is a PR since Sept of 2000 and she's not a citizen either 22yrs later.  I know personally a number, probably 10 people, who are similar to my family, been in Canada for decades and no desire to move forward with the process.  The current state works just fine for them.


----------



## Good2Golf

CBH99 said:


> Because they are fairly new to Canada, I can understand the security screening taking longer. Can't just let the automated CSIS process do its thing.
> 
> But 2 years is absurd.  2 years to get a few hundred people into uniform & starting their journey?
> 
> Agreed...no wonder we have issues...
> 
> 
> After the basic checks are done, have the applicants swear their path all together, not individually.
> 
> Have friends & family there to clap, and staff from around the building attend if they can spare 5 minutes. The energy & positivity would be a great way to start a new career!
> 
> Have them draw kit, and start reporting to a unit while they wait for BMQ so they can be slightly less new once the course starts.
> 
> *And don't make everybody go to St. Jean!  F**k that place!  Run BMQ serials at Wainwright, Meaford, have local reserve units run 1 or 2 throughout the year for the are.  And use St. Jean as well, just don't solely rely on it.
> 
> When their enhanced check comes back, more options will available to them.


I bet it took less time to approve those two Chinese foreign national microbiologists as PRs with clearances to work in the Winnipeg Level 4 bio lab….


----------



## Czech_pivo

Good2Golf said:


> I bet it took less time to approve those two Chinese foreign national microbiologists as PRs with clearances to work in he Winnipeg Level 4 bio lab….


Or, just as good - how long does it take the PR's who work for MP's to get their H of C clearance?


----------



## Furniture

CBH99 said:


> Because they are fairly new to Canada, I can understand the security screening taking longer. Can't just let the automated CSIS process do its thing.
> 
> But 2 years is absurd.  2 years to get a few hundred people into uniform & starting their journey?
> 
> Agreed...no wonder we have issues...
> 
> 
> *After the basic checks are done, have the applicants swear their path all together, not individually.
> 
> Have friends & family there to clap, and staff from around the building attend if they can spare 5 minutes. The energy & positivity would be a great way to start a new career!
> 
> Have them draw kit, and start reporting to a unit while they wait for BMQ so they can be slightly less new once the course starts.*
> 
> *And don't make everybody go to St. Jean!  F**k that place!  Run BMQ serials at Wainwright, Meaford, have local reserve units run 1 or 2 throughout the year for the are.  And use St. Jean as well, just don't solely rely on it.
> 
> When their enhanced check comes back, more options will available to them.


Dispersed BMQ serials are already a thing, and there is no plan to stop running them.

I'm not sure if you were around back in the early-mid '00s, but the CAF tried the "bring them all in, then sort the rest out" thing back then. It resulted in massive holding platoons at bases all over the country, which resulted in lots of trouble being caused by bored troops. Many of those bored troops went on to resent the CAF, and the wasted time they spent. It also costs a lot of money, because once someone is in, it's hard to get rid of them when they turn out to not be suited to the job.  

I'm sure the system can be improved, but I don't think that is the route to take.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Interesting piece of info on non-Americans in the military



			https://immigrationforum.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/VNA-Fact-Sheet.pdf


----------



## CBH99

Good2Golf said:


> I bet it took less time to approve those two Chinese foreign national microbiologists as PRs with clearances to work in he Winnipeg Level 4 bio lab….


I bet you're right actually!

Man oh man...someone come save us from the silly people at the top


----------



## CBH99

Furniture said:


> Dispersed BMQ serials are already a thing, and there is no plan to stop running them.
> 
> I'm not sure if you were around back in the early-mid '00s, but the CAF tried the "bring them all in, then sort the rest out" thing back then. It resulted in massive holding platoons at bases all over the country, which resulted in lots of trouble being caused by bored troops. Many of those bored troops went on to resent the CAF, and the wasted time they spent. It also costs a lot of money, because once someone is in, it's hard to get rid of them when they turn out to not be suited to the job.
> 
> I'm sure the system can be improved, but I don't think that is the route to take.


Fair enough.  

Can we agree that taking 2 years to get their applications approved & have them enrolled sounds like it's too long though?


(Question - are reg force BMQ serials run across the country also, or just for reserves?)


----------



## Kirkhill

Furniture said:


> Dispersed BMQ serials are already a thing, and there is no plan to stop running them.
> 
> I'm not sure if you were around back in the early-mid '00s, but the CAF tried the "bring them all in, then sort the rest out" thing back then. It resulted in massive holding platoons at bases all over the country, which resulted in lots of trouble being caused by bored troops. Many of those bored troops went on to resent the CAF, and the wasted time they spent. It also costs a lot of money, because once someone is in, it's hard to get rid of them when they turn out to not be suited to the job.
> 
> I'm sure the system can be improved, but I don't think that is the route to take.



That sounds like a failure of the system to utilize the graduates.   The solution to not knowing what do with people was to slow the intake?

Either we have slots that need filling or we don't.


----------



## dapaterson

We required trained individuals to do jobs.

Training has to be aligned with intake.

It's like you're saying "I need a piece of particle board, but I'll just use that log instead - it's the same raw material".


----------



## Eye In The Sky

OldSolduer said:


> What is old is new is old is new. Cornwallis was the basic training facility for the RCN at one time. Regiments had the depots and I am not sure what the RCAF did. Borden maybe?



My dad did basic with the RCAF in Chatham NB back in the early 50s.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Furniture said:


> Dispersed BMQ serials are already a thing, and there is
> I'm not sure if you were around back in the early-mid '00s, but the CAF tried the "bring them all in, then sort the rest out" thing back then. It resulted in massive holding platoons at bases all over the country, which resulted in lots of trouble being caused by bored troops. Many of those bored troops went on to resent the CAF, and the wasted time they spent. It also costs a lot of money, because once someone is in, it's hard to get rid of them when they turn out to not be suited to the job.
> 
> I'm sure the system can be improved, but I don't think that is the route to take.



Yup when they removed the Fitness test for reg force.  Warrior platoon was born at CFLRS ( trust me. There were no warrior recruit on it) which then because RFT Coy and PRETC rear it’s ugly head in…Borden?  

Agreed ; let’s not try that experiment again.


----------



## daftandbarmy

CBH99 said:


> Because they are fairly new to Canada, I can understand the security screening taking longer. Can't just let the automated CSIS process do its thing.
> 
> But 2 years is absurd.  2 years to get a few hundred people into uniform & starting their journey?
> 
> Agreed...no wonder we have issues...
> 
> 
> After the basic checks are done, have the applicants swear their path all together, not individually.
> 
> Have friends & family there to clap, and staff from around the building attend if they can spare 5 minutes. The energy & positivity would be a great way to start a new career!
> 
> Have them draw kit, and start reporting to a unit while they wait for BMQ so they can be slightly less new once the course starts.
> 
> *And don't make everybody go to St. Jean!  F**k that place!  Run BMQ serials at Wainwright, Meaford, have local reserve units run 1 or 2 throughout the year for the are.  And use St. Jean as well, just don't solely rely on it.
> 
> When their enhanced check comes back, more options will available to them.




Every summer, across Canada, wildfire management organizations hire thousands of young people - men and women - who go on to do a pretty good job under stressful conditions in the field.

Maybe we should copy them? e.g.,





__





						Wildfire Fighters
					

The application process to become a wildfire fighter with the BC Wildfire Service



					www2.gov.bc.ca


----------



## kev994

Eye In The Sky said:


> Yup when they removed the Fitness test for reg force.  Warrior platoon was born at CFLRS ( trust me. There were no warrior recruit on it) which then because RFT Coy and PRETC rear it’s ugly head in…Borden?
> 
> Agreed ; let’s not try that experiment again.


I thought it was called ‘fat camp’? Was that a fake name?


----------



## Eye In The Sky

kev994 said:


> I thought it was called ‘fat camp’? Was that a fake name?



Unofficially;  the ones I said were the CFLRS ones.  🙂

Recruit Fitness Training was abbreviated to RFT.  That had a few nicknames like “Ready For Turkey!” etc at the School.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Furniture said:


> Dispersed BMQ serials are already a thing, and there is no plan to stop running them.
> 
> I'm not sure if you were around back in the early-mid '00s, but the CAF tried the "bring them all in, then sort the rest out" thing back then. It resulted in massive holding platoons at bases all over the country, which resulted in lots of trouble being caused by bored troops. Many of those bored troops went on to resent the CAF, and the wasted time they spent. It also costs a lot of money, because once someone is in, it's hard to get rid of them when they turn out to not be suited to the job.
> 
> I'm sure the system can be improved, but I don't think that is the route to take.


Wait, so the Navy's plan to bring in more recruits, push them through the NETP after basic, then sit around waiting for their QL3 won't be a booming success?

It's cool, they'll just go on masse to the empty bunks on ships trying to figure out how to keep things going with a skeleton crew, what could go wrong?


----------



## rmc_wannabe

Eye In The Sky said:


> Unofficially;  the ones I said were the CFLRS ones.  🙂
> 
> Recruit Fitness Training was abbreviated to RFT.  That had a few nicknames like “Ready For Turkey!” etc at the School.



I was on Week 4 when that program stood up. It was embarrassing to watch.

 Having done the enrollment PT test prior to swearing in, I made sure I was fit as hell walking through that green door. Some of the gents that were on RFT were easily 300-350 lbs and got winded in the meal line. 

I honestly can't comprehend how much money was wasted trying to squeeze the square pegs into a round hole.


----------



## MilEME09

I wonder how many are coming in with skills the CAF desperately needs? Like air crews, pilots,  marine engineers, etc...feel like we would want to fast track those individuals. Maybe even offer expedited citizenship for those that serve?


----------



## Furniture

Navy_Pete said:


> Wait, so the Navy's plan to bring in more recruits, push them through the NETP after basic, then sit around waiting for their QL3 won't be a booming success?
> 
> It's cool, they'll just go on masse to the empty bunks on ships trying to figure out how to keep things going with a skeleton crew, what could go wrong?


In fairness to the RCN, it might be a great way to fill the watch and station bill. You don't need to be trade qualified to be on an attack team, or stand lookout on the bridge wings. It would free qualified people to do their real jobs, and give the trainees something "real" to do while waiting.


----------



## dapaterson

MilEME09 said:


> I wonder how many are coming in with skills the CAF desperately needs? Like air crews, pilots,  marine engineers, etc...feel like we would want to fast track those individuals. Maybe even offer expedited citizenship for those that serve?


Skilled applicants are handled a bit differently.  However, there are still challenges:  Access to some foreign-procured equipment and supporting documents, for example, are restricted for some foreign nationals, precluding their employment in areas where such access is needed.

Citizenship law is outside DND/CAF's mandate, although MND can engage her cabinet colleagues on such things.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Furniture said:


> In fairness to the RCN, it might be a great way to fill the watch and station bill. You don't need to be trade qualified to be on an attack team, or stand lookout on the bridge wings. It would free qualified people to do their real jobs, and give the trainees something "real" to do while waiting.


Sure, and we've done stuff like that with the officer phase 4 course, but included course staff to handle the admin and basic supervision. But was 2 Lt(N)s to supervise/run the training for the SLts with SS support, with the ship running around 80% of max capacity.

Small number of NETP only is great, and you can start doing OJT for them to prepare for their QL3 when you have time.

They are talking about huge numbers that would outnumber most departments, on ships where they are at 50% capacity to start with; that's the unworkable part.

I'm a huge proponent of OJT and having trainees on board, but it requires a lot more work and supervision, and is doomed to fail if that's not part of the plan.

Tieing a few ships up and turning them into a training fleet would make more sense, but we want to do even more with even less, then act like surprised pikachus when people burn out and quit when they decide they don't like it and get out.


----------



## Furniture

Navy_Pete said:


> Sure, and we've done stuff like that with the officer phase 4 course, but included course staff to handle the admin and basic supervision. But was 2 Lt(N)s to supervise/run the training for the SLts with SS support, with the ship running around 80% of max capacity.
> 
> Small number of NETP only is great, and you can start doing OJT for them to prepare for their QL3 when you have time.
> 
> They are talking about huge numbers that would outnumber most departments, on ships where they are at 50% capacity to start with; that's the unworkable part.
> 
> I'm a huge proponent of OJT and having trainees on board, but it requires a lot more work and supervision, and is doomed to fail if that's not part of the plan.
> 
> Tieing a few ships up and turning them into a training fleet would make more sense, but we want to do even more with even less, then act like surprised pikachus when people burn out and quit when they decide they don't like it and get out.


The RCN just needs to be more imaginative... Send a crusty Met Tech PO1 to the coast to wrangle NETP trainees on a ship headed to Hawaii...


----------



## dimsum

CBH99 said:


> I bet you're right actually!
> 
> Man oh man...someone come save us from the silly people at the top


The top as in the CDS?  MND?  PM?


----------



## FSTO

Eye In The Sky said:


> BMQ at St Jean is rumoured to be so watered down, I can't see why getting masses of recruits thru "even-more-Basic-Training" is an issue.
> 
> I agree with removing BMQ a "common to all"; let the environmental command run their own Recruit/Basic/Depot.  Distributed BMQs were/are already being run;  Camp Aldershot NS is home to RCAF BMQs.


Delete


----------



## kev994

Eye In The Sky said:


> BMQ at St Jean is rumoured to be so watered down, I can't see why getting masses of recruits thru "even-more-Basic-Training" is an issue.
> 
> I agree with removing BMQ a "common to all"; let the environmental command run their own Recruit/Basic/Depot.  Distributed BMQs were/are already being run;  Camp Aldershot NS is home to RCAF BMQs.


Isn’t more recruit schools going to require significantly more staff? We’re then taking additional qualified people off the line to bring in unqualified people.


----------



## FJAG

kev994 said:


> Isn’t more recruit schools going to require significantly more staff? We’re then taking additional qualified people off the line to bring in unqualified people.


The math is pretty easy. Assuming you can get them in the door, more recruits mean more instructors are needed. Put that in the plan. 

The solution isn't that complex either. Make every reconstituting battalion/regiment etc an individual training unit for the entire year with no other duties. Have them take recruits off the street and run them through to full DP1 and more during that year. 

Then the next year get back to unit training on the road to high readiness.

🍻


----------



## RangerRay

daftandbarmy said:


> Every summer, across Canada, wildfire management organizations hire thousands of young people - men and women - who go on to do a pretty good job under stressful conditions in the field.
> 
> Maybe we should copy them? e.g.,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wildfire Fighters
> 
> 
> The application process to become a wildfire fighter with the BC Wildfire Service
> 
> 
> 
> www2.gov.bc.ca


Big advantages they have:

1. They pay WAY better, including bags of OT when on operations. 

2. They’re unionized. See OT above. 

3. They’re not military. No beasting, no chickenshit (or smaller amounts). Just show up on time and be prepared to work hard.


----------



## MilEME09

kev994 said:


> Isn’t more recruit schools going to require significantly more staff? We’re then taking additional qualified people off the line to bring in unqualified people.


unfortunately we are trying to rebuild AND be operationally ready at the same time when the CAF as a whole is combat ineffective, we need to step back and for a year just train, train and train people at the schools and nothing more. You will then get thousands of troops in OJT bringing our capabilities back up, and a year and a half later they will be completing their 5s. then we can get back to business, but when we have PAT battalions because the schools are not at max throughput, we need to change. F2025 is suppose to prioritize manning the schools, but the schools need more capacity too.


----------



## Furniture

FJAG said:


> The math is pretty easy. Assuming you can get them in the door, more recruits mean more instructors are needed. Put that in the plan.
> 
> The solution isn't that complex either. Make every reconstituting battalion/regiment etc an individual training unit for the entire year with no other duties. Have them take recruits off the street and run them through to full DP1 and more during that year.
> 
> Then the next year get back to unit training on the road to high readiness.
> 
> 🍻


There is a plan to try BMQ/DP1 for Infantry, but for many other occupations that doesn't work. 

There aren't battalions of mechanics, clerks, or Met Techs that can rotate through a system like that.


----------



## rmc_wannabe

Furniture said:


> There is a plan to try BMQ/DP1 for Infantry, but for many other occupations that doesn't work.
> 
> There aren't battalions of mechanics, clerks, or Met Techs that can rotate through a system like that.



Especially trades that require training anywhere close to industry standards, specifically the technical trades we're bleeding out the middle that we desperately need to fill.

I would have to crunch the numbers, but something tells me the turn around in an infantry battalion is far lower than on the flight line, tech shops, and MSE Divs. Especially in folks that are already trained and are seeing how much more even a PS equivalent job pays. 

Toss another task on those folks and it will be the straw that collapses the camel corpse ( the back was broken decades ago).


----------



## Furniture

rmc_wannabe said:


> Especially trades that require training anywhere close to industry standards, specifically the technical trades we're bleeding out the middle that we desperately need to fill.
> 
> I would have to crunch the numbers, but something tells me the turn around in an infantry battalion is far lower than on the flight line, tech shops, and MSE Divs. Especially in folks that are already trained and are seeing how much more even a PS equivalent job pays.
> 
> Toss another task on those folks and it will be the straw that collapses the camel corpse ( the back was broken decades ago).


Have you heard of the CAF offer? Based on the brief I received yesterday we should all be more appreciative of all that we get from the CAF compared to the PS.... Pay isn't everything don't 'cha know. 

After hearing what the "way forward" is yesterday, I question why I bother sticking around now, and don't just jump to something with less BS, and less/equal pay.


----------



## dapaterson

Infanteer and MSE Op are the traditional "Quick bring in a bunch to meet SIP at end of FY" occupations, whether they are needed or not .

This masks underperformance on other occupations year after year, and contributes to the current situation.


----------



## Furniture

dapaterson said:


> Infanteer and MSE Op are the traditional "Quick bring in a bunch to meet SIP at end of FY" occupations, whether they are needed or not .
> 
> This masks underperformance on other occupations year after year, and contributes to the current situation.


On top of that, we also have a ridiculous system designed to fail.

Back in the mid 10's my occupation was so short we were running our DP1 in a morning and night serial at the same time. Fast forward a year, and we were allowing anyone and everyone to OT because we were overborn in Pte/Cpl.

Now we are again back at ~80%, but short specifically in the MCpl-Sgt range... The very people we trained at night, then let go because according to the AMOR we were "fat".


----------



## dapaterson

Lots of simple data checks are also revealing.  Like Hard Sea Trades being under 10% francophone.  Imagine adding 15% to every hard sea trade's trained strength my matching Canada's OL profile.


----------



## dapaterson

AMOR is imperfect but important.  Org design across the enterprise is important too - since we do little lateral entry, rank pyramid is important to have healthy promotion ratios - to select out.

The classic example was Int Op wanting more MCpl than Cpl, more Sgt than MCpl.  WO at least was smaller than Sgt - but greater than Cpl.

That's been mostly fixed, but stupidity like "A Cpl can't brief a Col" needs to be stomped out - hard - whenever it recurs.


----------



## Furniture

dapaterson said:


> Lots of simple data checks are also revealing.  Like Hard Sea Trades being under 10% francophone.  Imagine adding 15% to every hard sea trade's trained strength my matching Canada's OL profile.


?

So conscript French Canadians to serve in the RCN? Or fire a bunch of Anglos?


----------



## dapaterson

Or base two frigates and a minesweeper in Quebec City.


----------



## Furniture

dapaterson said:


> AMOR is imperfect but important.  Org design across the enterprise is important too - since we do little lateral entry, rank pyramid is important to have healthy promotion ratios - to select out.
> 
> The classic example was Int Op wanting more MCpl than Cpl, more Sgt than MCpl.  WO at least was smaller than Sgt - but greater than Cpl.
> 
> That's been mostly fixed, but stupidity like "A Cpl can't brief a Col" needs to be stomped out - hard - whenever it recurs.


My occupation had 12 MCpl and 60 Sgts when I joined... We are still dealing with the aftermath of restructuring the training. 

A Col doesn't need a Sgt/WO to brief them, but a brand new S3 that can barely read the GFA themself is not a useful briefer either.


----------



## Furniture

dapaterson said:


> Or base two frigates and a minesweeper in Quebec City.


I'd definitely take a posting there as an Anglo, what better way to learn French?


----------



## dapaterson

Furniture said:


> My occupation had 12 MCpl and 60 Sgts when I joined... We are still dealing with the aftermath of restructuring the training.
> 
> A Col doesn't need a Sgt/WO to brief them, but a brand new S3 that can barely read the GFA themself is not a useful briefer either.


Many Maj / LCol are not useful briefers, either.

No names.


----------



## Furniture

dapaterson said:


> Many Maj / LCol are not useful briefers, either.
> 
> No names.


I've met a few in my "new" branch... 

I've had a couple of people try to take on my briefings. I gave them as polite of a "f**k-off" as I could muster, and proceeded to conduct the brief myself. I may not be great, but I at least understand what I'm talking about better than most people in the room.


----------



## dapaterson

Furniture said:


> I'd definitely take a posting there as an Anglo, what better way to learn French?


A friend took a posting to Valcartier, and met his wife there.  She greatly improved his skill with the French tongue.


----------



## OldSolduer

dapaterson said:


> A friend took a posting to Valcartier, and met his wife there.  She greatly improved his skill with the French tongue.


Oh I bet he did Trebek!! (Sean Connery voice)


----------



## rmc_wannabe

dapaterson said:


> A friend took a posting to Valcartier, and met his wife there.  She greatly improved his skill with the French tongue.


----------



## FJAG

Furniture said:


> There is a plan to try BMQ/DP1 for Infantry, but for many other occupations that doesn't work.
> 
> There aren't battalions of mechanics, clerks, or Met Techs that can rotate through a system like that.


You have to start someplace. 

For the mechanics clerks etc there are community colleges if you work it right. The math is still the math. You don't get people out of the pipe unless you grease the pipe with something. If you don't, you're in a death spiral. There's always a point where one has to quit wringing ones hands and actually face the problem head on.

🍻


----------



## dapaterson

Clerks are a bad example, as they need to know CAF processes and systems.

Mechanics are a better example.


----------



## Furniture

FJAG said:


> You have to start someplace.
> 
> For the mechanics clerks etc there are community colleges if you work it right. The math is still the math. You don't get people out of the pipe unless you grease the pipe with something. If you don't, you're in a death spiral. There's always a point where one has to quit wringing ones hands and actually face the problem head on.
> 
> 🍻


Sure, there are definitely some cases where we can look at the civvy world and say "close enough for government work". 

The problem is, we don't offer anything competitive enough to draw most of the civvy collage people we want... To the average 20-30 year old, a pension after 25 years isn't much incentive when compared against more take-home money now, and no silly military BS.


----------



## MilEME09

FJAG said:


> You have to start someplace.
> 
> For the mechanics clerks etc there are community colleges if you work it right. The math is still the math. You don't get people out of the pipe unless you grease the pipe with something. If you don't, you're in a death spiral. There's always a point where one has to quit wringing ones hands and actually face the problem head on.
> 
> 🍻


Here is an example of us just giving up at greasing the pipe. Friend of mine is in DP1 for the new Cyber op trade, really cool stuff, but day one they were told their career expectancy is 1 year after DP2, why? because after 1 year they can jump shit and work for CSEC for $140k a year doing the same thing we are training them to do.


----------



## Furniture

MilEME09 said:


> Here is an example of us just giving up at greasing the pipe. Friend of mine is in DP1 for the new Cyber op trade, really cool stuff, but day one they were told their career expectancy is 1 year after DP2, why? because after 1 year they can jump shit and work for CSEC for $140k a year doing the same thing we are training them to do.


To be fair to the CAF, we are held hostage by TB... 

Apparently TB considers our crappy, ill-fitting uniforms as part of our overall compensation package, so they won't bump pay without taking something else away.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Furniture said:


> I've met a few in my "new" branch...
> 
> I've had a couple of people try to take on my briefings. I gave them as polite of a "f**k-off" as I could muster, and proceeded to conduct the brief myself. I may not be great, but I *at least understand what I'm talking about better than most people in the room.*



Which is the not so secret secret of a great presentation


----------



## MilEME09

Furniture said:


> To be fair to the CAF, we are held hostage by TB...
> 
> Apparently TB considers our crappy, ill-fitting uniforms as part of our overall compensation package, so they won't bump pay without taking something else away.


You'd think they would of atleast be given sprc pay though


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Spec pay won’t make a difference if the other side offers 140k.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Eye In The Sky said:


> Spec pay won’t make a difference if the other side offers 140k.



And bonuses, and home every night


----------



## Furniture

MilEME09 said:


> You'd think they would of atleast be given sprc pay though


My understanding is that spec pay is closely watched by TB, and they are already looking at taking it away, they just want a reason.

To paraphrase my source "TB doesn't care if we are short 17K, we aren't going to see massive pay increases".

Edit: In fairness to my source, who may or may not frequent these forums, they weren't taking TB's side, just pointing out the reality in which we live. A reality which has inspired me to look at opportunities outside the CAF.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

MilEME09 said:


> I wonder how many are coming in with skills the CAF desperately needs? Like air crews, pilots,  marine engineers, etc...feel like we would want to fast track those individuals. Maybe even offer expedited citizenship for those that serve?



Pilots are aircrew; CAF/RCAF aircrew trades are pilot, ACSO, SAR Tech, Flight Engineer and AES Op.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

dapaterson said:


> AMOR is imperfect but important.  Org design across the enterprise is important too - since we do little lateral entry, rank pyramid is important to have healthy promotion ratios - to select out.
> 
> The classic example was Int Op wanting more MCpl than Cpl, more Sgt than MCpl.  WO at least was smaller than Sgt - but greater than Cpl.
> 
> That's been mostly fixed, but stupidity like "A Cpl can't brief a Col" needs to be stomped out - hard - whenever it recurs.



My trade is suffering now because the pyramid was forced.

I don't want to hear anyone say "but" unless, first, they are going to address the extreme number of GOFOs we have to 'command' our miniscule (semi) Armed Forces.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Furniture said:


> My understanding is that spec pay is closely watched by TB, and they are already looking at taking it away, they just want a reason.
> 
> To paraphrase my source "TB doesn't care if we are short 17K, we aren't going to see massive pay increases".
> 
> Edit: In fairness to my source, who may or may not frequent these forums, they weren't taking TB's side, just pointing out the reality in which we live. A reality which has inspired me to look at opportunities outside the CAF.



I've been saying recently;  the CAF cares that we are short XXXXX people but I'm not entirely convinced the current GoC particularly cares.

When I went thru Cornwallis, we were taught "service before self".  For many, many years I tried to live up to that motto.

Now, my motto is slightly different...and I don't feel the least bit guilty for the change, either, as it was born from the actions of successive governments.

They're just asking for more than I can/am willing to give.


----------



## Furniture

Eye In The Sky said:


> I've been saying recently;  the CAF cares that we are short XXXXX people but I'm not entirely convinced the current GoC particularly cares.
> 
> When I went thru Cornwallis, we were taught "service before self".  For many, many years I tried to live up to that motto.
> 
> Now, my motto is slightly different...and I don't feel the least bit guilty for the change, either, as it was born from the actions of successive governments.
> 
> They're just asking for more than I can/am willing to give.


100%

The CAF/GoC has shown it's colours, and I'm done giving more than I get back.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Furniture said:


> I've met a few in my "new" branch...
> 
> I've had a couple of people try to take on my briefings. I gave them as polite of a "f**k-off" as I could muster, and proceeded to conduct the brief myself. I may not be great, but I at least understand what I'm talking about better than most people in the room.


Well, there was the one time you told me there was no risk of a thunderstorm, with a CB clearly visible 10 NM off the port bow.

I forgive you


----------



## CBH99

dimsum said:


> The top as in the CDS?  MND?  PM?


In this case I’d say the PM.

It wasn’t on Gen. Vance, nor is it on Gen. Eyre.  (It happened before Eyre was even CDS)

It wasn’t on our current MND, as it was before her time also.  And it wasn’t on our former MND, as this wasn’t in his portfolio. 

I’m going with the PM.

I’m going to bet that the processing time for the 2 Chinese scientists employed at our National Microbiology Lab _was_ faster than the 2 years the article was suggesting for a PR.  (If they were even subject to a background investigator prior to employment, or were they strapped in from elsewhere?)

________


Not to blindly throw hate on the PM (although I’m biased right now, I think he deserves as much as he’s getting right now…)

This is the same PM that wouldn’t ban Weihei until the last moment.  

The same PM that allowed planes to land here in Canada that were a direct flight from China.  

And a PM that just awarded a contract to a Chinese company who’s parent company is currently charged with 21 espionage…


----------



## Eye In The Sky

CBH99 said:


> In this case I’d say the PM.
> 
> It wasn’t on Gen. Vance, nor is it on Gen. Eyre.  (It happened before Eyre was even CDS)
> 
> It wasn’t on our current MND, as it was before her time also.  And it wasn’t on our former MND, as this wasn’t in his portfolio.
> 
> I’m going with the PM.
> 
> I’m going to bet that the processing time for the 2 Chinese scientists employed at our National Microbiology Lab _was_ faster than the 2 years the article was suggesting for a PR.  (If they were even subject to a background investigator prior to employment, or were they strapped in from elsewhere?)
> 
> ________
> 
> 
> Not to blindly throw hate on the PM (although I’m biased right now, I think he deserves as much as he’s getting right now…)
> 
> This is the same PM that wouldn’t ban Weihei until the last moment.
> 
> The same PM that allowed planes to land here in Canada that were a direct flight from China.
> 
> And a PM that just awarded a contract to a Chinese company who’s parent company is currently charged with 21 espionage…



That’s because he admires them so much…



			https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/2416976891


----------



## dimsum

Eye In The Sky said:


> I don't want to hear anyone say "but" unless, first, they are going to address the extreme number of GOFOs we have to 'command' our miniscule (semi) Armed Forces.



_Tangent_

I was tending to agree, until I realized (and posted in a different thread) the ratio of GOFOs to troops in the Australian Defence Force.

Long story short, they have 205 Reg F GOFOs for 58k Reg F mbrs, and 400+ Res F GOFOs for about 30k Res F mbrs.  We have 137 GOFOs, Reg and Res, for about 90k mbrs.  I haven't taken a look at the UK or NZ ratios.

A Reddit thread comment says this:



> in WW2, the yanks had a 1:6000 GOFO:soldier ratio, in 2017 the US military had about 1:1400 ratio, while the ADF is currently running a *1:180* ratio. The US army is about half a million personnel, they have recently had their GOFO number reduced to 220, which is only 15 more than what we have in the ADF, which numbers less than 60000 full time. We are currently employing nearly 10 times the number of flag officers vs the US army. Clearly, the rank bloat at the higher levels goes beyond needing experts in key areas.


----------



## kev994

Furniture said:


> To be fair to the CAF, we are held hostage by TB...
> 
> Apparently TB considers our crappy, ill-fitting uniforms as part of our overall compensation package, so they won't bump pay without taking something else away.


They can have my DEU back if it’s worth a couple %.


----------



## OldSolduer

CBH99 said:


> In this case I’d say the PM.
> 
> It wasn’t on Gen. Vance, nor is it on Gen. Eyre.  (It happened before Eyre was even CDS)
> 
> It wasn’t on our current MND, as it was before her time also.  And it wasn’t on our former MND, as this wasn’t in his portfolio.
> 
> I’m going with the PM.
> 
> I’m going to bet that the processing time for the 2 Chinese scientists employed at our National Microbiology Lab _was_ faster than the 2 years the article was suggesting for a PR.  (If they were even subject to a background investigator prior to employment, or were they strapped in from elsewhere?)
> 
> ________
> 
> 
> Not to blindly throw hate on the PM (although I’m biased right now, I think he deserves as much as he’s getting right now…)
> 
> This is the same PM that wouldn’t ban Weihei until the last moment.
> 
> The same PM that allowed planes to land here in Canada that were a direct flight from China.
> 
> And a PM that just awarded a contract to a Chinese company who’s parent company is currently charged with 21 espionage…


I fully agree. The PM was the one that said he admired China. I took that as a warning but it seems that the chattering class went gaga over it.


----------



## KevinB

dimsum said:


> _Tangent_
> 
> I was tending to agree, until I realized (and posted in a different thread) the ratio of GOFOs to troops in the Australian Defence Force.
> 
> Long story short, they have 205 Reg F GOFOs for 58k Reg F mbrs, and 400+ Res F GOFOs for about 30k Res F mbrs.  We have 137 GOFOs, Reg and Res, for about 90k mbrs.  I haven't taken a look at the UK or NZ ratios.
> 
> A Reddit thread comment says this:


Just because someone else is worse doesn’t make the CAF situation with GOFO’s reasonable.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

dimsum said:


> _Tangent_
> 
> I was tending to agree, until I realized (and posted in a different thread) the ratio of GOFOs to troops in the Australian Defence Force.
> 
> Long story short, they have 205 Reg F GOFOs for 58k Reg F mbrs, and 400+ Res F GOFOs for about 30k Res F mbrs.  We have 137 GOFOs, Reg and Res, for about 90k mbrs.  I haven't taken a look at the UK or NZ ratios.
> 
> A Reddit thread comment says this:



They also have…F-35s, P-8s, AWACS…the list is likely longer for their navy and army for actual forces that exist in comparison to ours.

They are more Armed than semi-armed which I believe is the accurate name for the CAF.  Maybe their ratios are equally as bad but at least those GOFOs command more potent forces.  Combat capability should be a more important metric overall than ratios.


----------



## GR66

Eye In The Sky said:


> They also have…F-35s, P-8s, AWACS…the list is likely longer for their navy and army for actual forces that exist in comparison to ours.
> 
> They are more Armed than semi-armed which I believe is the accurate name for the CAF.  Maybe their ratios are equally as bad but at least those GOFOs command more potent forces.  Combat capability should be a more important metric overall than ratios.


Since we're all about bows, ribbons and signaling over substance then I propose we make EITS' naming suggestion official....*CSAF*


----------



## FJAG

Furniture said:


> Sure, there are definitely some cases where we can look at the civvy world and say "close enough for government work".
> 
> The problem is, we don't offer anything competitive enough to draw most of the civvy collage people we want... To the average 20-30 year old, a pension after 25 years isn't much incentive when compared against more take-home money now, and no silly military BS.


Maybe one of the mistakes is that we have a service model where want everyone to stick around for 25 years. Maybe its good enough if the bulk stays for 3 or 4 years full-time and another 5 years part-time.

Make the incentive that we provide one group with adventure while they are youth (I'm thinking the usual infantry and so on) and the others a paid for education in a civilian trade and some experience with a full period of summer employment to make some cash. Target high school students by paying tuitions for colleges and universities but pay them a salary only when they attend their military skills conversion courses in the summer. Enforce "obligatory service" provisions for several years of pay-back and then incentivise re-enlistment for further terms of obligatory service.

If turnover is a fact of life, then learn to live with turnover. Not everyone needs to stay the full course. We only need the vast number of middle and senior managers that we do because we have built a constipated system that needs them. Even as it is, in an infantry battalion (from an establishment a few years out of date) we have 594 all ranks of which 519 are of the rank of sergeant and below. That feeds 36 NCMs of the rank of WO and above. That means that you only need to keep 7% of the base to generate the NCM leadership needed within a given battalion. Let's double that to 15% to keep a reasonable ERE base. The trouble is that we've created an artificially high ERE base within our numerous headquarters above brigade level that takes leadership away from the battalions and converts them into middle management for marginally useful administrative functions. To compound things we have created a system where it is nigh on impossible to bring skilled retirees back to the colours in time of need.

We need to massively prune the tree, reduce that ERE need and then ensure that line units--the real defence outputs--are properly filled by young and still interested and motivated troops. And yes - that applies to the officer corps as well. We have to stop looking at the careerist as our role model and develop a system of how to still make use of those that leave the CF for a civilian career.

🍻


----------



## Eye In The Sky

GR66 said:


> Since we're all about bows, ribbons and signaling over substance then I propose we make EITS' naming suggestion official....*CSAF*



Is “Forces” too aggressive though?  What if that word makes some people and/or non-people sad or uncomfortable?


----------



## Good2Golf

Maybe an immediate annuity (still prorated to YOS) should have changed from 20 to 15 years, not to 25?


----------



## GR66

Eye In The Sky said:


> Is “Forces” too aggressive though?  What if that word makes some people and/or non-people sad or uncomfortable?


CSAC?  Canadian Semi-Armed Conveners?


----------



## dimsum

GR66 said:


> Since we're all about bows, ribbons and signaling over substance then I propose we make EITS' naming suggestion official....*CSAF*


Until the not-so-recent past, we were the "Canadian Forces"...


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

dimsum said:


> Until the not-so-recent past, we were the "Canadian Forces"...


And anyone with a schmick of soldiering ability thought that was lame too 😆


----------



## Kirkhill

dimsum said:


> Until the not-so-recent past, we were the "Canadian Forces"...





> The Canadian Forces​Constitution​Marginal note:Canadian Forces
> 
> *14* The Canadian Forces are the armed forces of Her Majesty raised by Canada and consist of one Service called the Canadian Armed Forces.








						National Defence Act
					

Federal laws of Canada




					laws.justice.gc.ca


----------



## Eye In The Sky

This paragraph never made sense to me…



“The Canadian Forces shall consist of the Canadian Armed Forces”.


----------



## Kirkhill

Eye In The Sky said:


> This paragraph never made sense to me…
> 
> View attachment 75414
> 
> “The Canadian Forces shall consist of the Canadian Armed Forces”.



Words mean exactly what politicians and lawyers want them to mean.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Eye In The Sky said:


> This paragraph never made sense to me…
> 
> View attachment 75414
> 
> “The Canadian Forces shall consist of the Canadian Armed Forces”.


----------



## OldSolduer

At this rate the RCAF will be flying kites, The RCN will be sailing row boats and the Army will have cork pop guns. Kick the effing can down the road seems to be the way here.


----------



## dimsum

OldSolduer said:


> RCAF will be flying kites


The CA will argue that since they're attached to the ground, they should take control of said kites.

Paper airplanes, however...


----------



## FSTO

OldSolduer said:


> At this rate the RCAF will be flying kites, The RCN will be sailing *pulling *row boats and the Army will have cork pop guns. Kick the effing can down the road seems to be the way here.


Fixed it for you.

Yer welcome!


----------



## Furniture

FSTO said:


> Fixed it for you.
> 
> Yer welcome!


I love that this post unironically showcases one of DND/CAF's major issues.

We spend so much time "picking fly droppings out of pepper", that we never get around to accomplishing anything.

"I'd love to buy you new subs, but you said "sail on" not "sail in"  in the RFP, so we'll have to start again from scratch."


----------



## Halifax Tar

Furniture said:


> I love that this post unironically showcases one of DND/CAF's major issues.
> 
> We spend so much time "picking fly droppings out of pepper", that we never get around to accomplishing anything.
> 
> "I'd love to buy you new subs, but you said "sail on" not "sail in"  in the RFP, so we'll have to start again from scratch."



We miss the forest for the trees every day. 

Staff jobs are most enlightening.


----------



## FSTO

Furniture said:


> I love that this post unironically showcases one of DND/CAF's major issues.
> 
> We spend so much time "picking fly droppings out of pepper", that we never get around to accomplishing anything.
> 
> "I'd love to buy you new subs, but you said "sail on" not "sail in"  in the RFP, so we'll have to start again from scratch."


So I’m the bad guy??🤔🤨😑🤣🤣😉


----------



## dapaterson

Bold of you to assume that I'd assume your gender.


----------



## Furniture

FSTO said:


> So I’m the bad guy??🤔🤨😑🤣🤣😉


No, but it was a perfect example of what I see at least on a weekly basis at NDHQ.


----------



## FJAG

Eye In The Sky said:


> This paragraph never made sense to me…
> 
> View attachment 75414
> 
> “The Canadian Forces shall consist of the Canadian Armed Forces”.


It makes sense when you compare it to the prior National Defence Act such as the 1950 version which at s 15 provided that the Canadian Forces consisted of three services "namely the Royal Canadian Navy, the Canadian Army and the Royal Canadian Air Force" 



> http://www.lareau-legal.ca/NDA1950.pdf



When everything was unified and integrated in the sixties, they had to roll the three services into one and give it a neutral name. That's the best they could do.

🍻


----------



## CBH99

OldSolduer said:


> At this rate the RCAF will be flying kites, The RCN will be sailing row boats and the Army will have cork pop guns. Kick the effing can down the road seems to be the way here.


You remember when they put arrows down on the floors of stores like Shoppers, so people would feel safe during the pandemic if they were walking down the aisle the right way?

Take this mindset, and apply it to DND/CAF projects that get kicked down the road & we still want to seem like we are doing something


----------



## Kirkhill

A sense of how Germany is managing its NATO shortfall - Perhaps Trudeau can be enticed to follow suit?









						Germany looks to close 'peacetime' capability gaps, targets €15B procurement budget by 2024 - Breaking Defense
					

"What this tells us is that those projects once in the annual defense budget were not properly funded before transferring to the special arms fund," said Christian Molling, research director at the German Council on Foreign Relations.




					breakingdefense.com
				






> Germany’s decision to approve a €100 billion special arms fund a matter of days after Russia invaded Ukraine represented a historic shift in the country’s national security ambitions. The move was designed to bring Germany closer to meeting the 2% NATO GDP spending target,





> The “16th report on selected procurements” document, published on Dec. 6, acknowledged that *the draft 2023 defense budget will be* set at €50.1 billion, *€300 million less than the official 2022 total*. However, Berlin optimistically forecasts that procurement spending will dramatically increase to reach a target of €15 billion by 2024, jumping from €9.9 billion set to be spent on equipment in 2022.
> 
> “Effectively *the regular defense budget is decreasing but* the government always makes the argument that the flow of money from *the special arms fund* into procurements *will end this trend*,”





> Besides personnel changes,* a total of 19 procurements are assessed* by the BMVg, ranging from fighter jet and helicopter projects to frigates, corvettes, infantry fighting vehicles and multinational efforts like the Franco-German-Spanish Future Combat Air System and Eurodrone MALE RPAS programs.
> 
> The report also reveals that *ten acquisitions have been moved from the national defense budget to the special arms fund:* the Puma IFV, F126 Frigate, K130 Corvette, submarine 212 common design, CH-47F heavy lift helicopter, C-130J airlifter, Naval Strike Missile (NSM) Block 1A, Eurodrone MALE RPAS, Pegasus SIGINT and P-8A Poseidon.
> 
> “What this tells us is that* those projects once in the annual defense budget were not properly funded before *transferring to the special arms fund,” said Molling. “If you look back into the decisions taken by the previous government on procurement, there were a significant number of examples where budgeting did not cover 100% of costs but nonetheless, the decision to procure equipment [was] taken.”



Effectively the Germans have created an extraordinary, war-time, capital fund outside of the regular budget programme.  A very large Operations Budget from General Revenues?


----------



## FormerHorseGuard

They will spend the increase in a 2 or 3 fold on operational and planning 

Part 1 will be a bilingual study on how much they should invest in the CAF to be released after the next election
Part 2 will be another study on how much the previous Government spent on the CAF
Part 3 will be the final study on what the new Government will do to spend more money on the CAF

Add up the costs of these 3 studies and that will be equal to the cost of the Increase to the CAF Budget before HST.

They will study it till it is time to retire the equipment they just purchased and figure out a way to upgrade,  but cut the actual number of whatever fleet in half, because the CAF has operated  for X number of years on half because half the equipment was worn out or broken down.  The Upgrade will be new paint and rubber tires for APC fleet, and new plastic covers and cases for the C7 family.
Nothing will change.  Just keep delaying the rebuild or the building of equipment till it is out of date and we have to start over.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

CBH99 said:


> You remember when they put arrows down on the floors of stores like Shoppers, so people would feel safe during the pandemic if they were walking down the aisle the right way?
> 
> Take this mindset, and apply it to DND/CAF projects that get kicked down the road & we still want to seem like we are doing something



I remember getting back from Sea (being unaware of the new restrictions) and seeing people blow gaskets at the grocery store because someone walked down an aisle "the wrong way".  

I also remember we then put arrows in my Ship so the civilian workers coming onboard "felt safe" (forgot to let them know it's a pressurized environment 😆). 

I have thought since then that we are royally ####ed and the good times are definitely over.  My thoughts haven't changed since.  

People are pretty stupid 🤣


----------



## Quirky

The worst thing to come from the pandemic is the idiotic “stay safe” nonsense. The arrows were annoying but it’s not like they were enforced by grocery workers.


----------



## Prairie canuck

Quirky said:


> The worst thing to come from the pandemic is the idiotic “stay safe” nonsense. The arrows were annoying but it’s not like they were enforced by grocery workers.


How exactly was "stay safe" nonsense and idiotic?


----------



## Kirkhill

Prairie canuck said:


> How exactly was "stay safe" nonsense and idiotic?



Right up there with "the precautionary principle".

Risk aversion carried to extremes. Beware of Sharknados.


----------



## QV

Furniture said:


> I love that this post unironically showcases one of DND/CAF's major issues.
> 
> We spend so much time "picking fly droppings out of pepper", that we never get around to accomplishing anything.
> 
> "I'd love to buy you new subs, but you said "sail on" not "sail in"  in the RFP, so we'll have to start again from scratch."


This is a Canadian tradition. Same concept goes for choosing who to vote for.


----------



## Spencer100

Prairie canuck said:


> How exactly was "stay safe" nonsense and idiotic?


"Stay Safe"  its now part of the daily liturgy.  A signal to all you are genuflecting to power that be.


----------



## dimsum

Spencer100 said:


> "Stay Safe"  its now part of the daily liturgy.  A signal to all you are genuflecting to power that be.


Uh what?

Not everything is a conspiracy.  So when people say to "stay safe over the holidays" or "stay safe when travelling", they're pushing something?

I guess I'll stop saying "have a safe trip" to folks travelling then.


----------



## Spencer100

dimsum said:


> Uh what?
> 
> Not everything is a conspiracy.  So when people say to "stay safe over the holidays" or "stay safe when travelling", they're pushing something?
> 
> I guess I'll stop saying "have a safe trip" to folks travelling then.


Have you not been in team meetings or the like over the last 3 years?  It is so top level cringe everyone having to say "stay safe".....


----------



## dimsum

Spencer100 said:


> Have you not been in team meetings or the like over the last 3 years?  It is so top level cringe everyone having to say "stay safe".....


Maybe I've been in different Teams meetings then.


----------



## Halifax Tar

I told the HQ I'm the SM for to stay safe over the holidays... What have I done...


----------



## daftandbarmy

Spencer100 said:


> Have you not been in team meetings or the like over the last 3 years?  It is so top level cringe everyone having to say "stay safe".....



I am reminded of the motivations of another safety committee, in another time and place 

The *Committee of Public Safety* (French: _Comité de salut public_) was a committee of the National Convention which formed the provisional government and war cabinet during the Reign of Terror, a violent phase of the French Revolution. Supplementing the Committee of General Defence created after the execution of King Louis XVI in January 1793, the Committee of Public Safety was created in April 1793 by the National Convention. It was charged with protecting the new republic against its foreign and domestic enemies, fighting the First Coalition and the Vendée revolt. As a wartime measure, the committee was given broad supervisory and administrative powers over the armed forces, judiciary and legislature, as well as the executive bodies and ministers of the Convention.









						Committee of Public Safety - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## RangerRay

Spencer100 said:


> "Stay Safe"  its now part of the daily liturgy.  A signal to all you are genuflecting to power that be.


Yeah…I don’t think so.


----------



## Furniture

RangerRay said:


> Yeah…I don’t think so.


First it's "stay safe", then it becomes "have a good day"!! 

Who the hell has the right to tell me what kind of day to have!?!


----------



## Kirkhill

Furniture said:


> First it's "stay safe", then it becomes "have a good day"!!
> 
> Who the hell has the right to tell me what kind of day to have!?!



Should see the looks I get when I respond - "I'll do my best."


----------



## Quirky

Furniture said:


> First it's "stay safe", then it becomes "have a good day"!!
> 
> Who the hell has the right to tell me what kind of day to have!?!



Statistically the only way to truly stay safe is to lock yourself in your own house. Telling someone to ‘stay safe’ is the equivalent of doing your part for X cause that does absolutely nothing in larger terms, but it makes you feel better about yourself. Extra points if you post it to social media to validate yourself.


----------



## Kirkhill

Quirky said:


> Statistically the only way to truly stay safe is to lock yourself in your own house.



Sound of teeth sucking!

Ooooo.  I don't know about thaaat!



> 1. 160,000 Americans die due to accidents every year​(Safewise)
> 
> This number is so high that it makes accidents the third biggest cause of death in the US. Unintentional household injury makes up 75% of these deaths.












						26 Scary Home Accident Stats to Make You Careful
					

Read these home accident stats to see why your home is not as safe as you thought and take necessary steps to protect your most relaxing environment.




					safeatlast.co
				





Might should go play on the highway...


----------



## Dana381

Quirky said:


> Statistically the only way to truly stay safe is to lock yourself in your own house. Telling someone to ‘stay safe’ is the equivalent of doing your part for X cause that does absolutely nothing in larger terms, but it makes you feel better about yourself. Extra points if you post it to social media to validate yourself.



To quote Dory “Well, *you can't never let anything happen to him.* *Then nothing would ever happen to him.*”


----------



## Quirky

Kirkhill said:


> Sound of teeth sucking!
> 
> Ooooo.  I don't know about thaaat!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 26 Scary Home Accident Stats to Make You Careful
> 
> 
> Read these home accident stats to see why your home is not as safe as you thought and take necessary steps to protect your most relaxing environment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> safeatlast.co
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Might should go play on the highway...



If only someone told them to stay safe.


----------



## Furniture

Quirky said:


> Statistically the only way to truly stay safe is to lock yourself in your own house. Telling someone to ‘stay safe’ is the equivalent of doing your part for X cause that does absolutely nothing in larger terms, but it makes you feel better about yourself. Extra points if you post it to social media to validate yourself.


That is a ridiculous reduction to the absurd... 

"Stay safe" is no different than  saying "drive safe" when someone heads out on a road trip... It's someone reminding you that a) they care b) they want you to make smart choices to protect yourself. 

I get that politics can be all consuming, but this is the silliest thing I have read in a long time.


----------



## lenaitch

Spencer100 said:


> Have you not been in team meetings or the like over the last 3 years?  It is so top level cringe everyone having to say "stay safe".....


Maybe it all started with this:


----------



## Kirkhill

Meanwhile Japan figures that 320 BUSD will get it up to the 2% of GDP number.









						Japan to buy missiles that can hit China under $320bn defence plan
					

The country is set become the world’s third biggest military spender amid rising tensions with Beijing and fears for islands around Taiwan




					www.telegraph.co.uk


----------



## daftandbarmy

Kirkhill said:


> Meanwhile Japan figures that 320 BUSD will get it up to the 2% of GDP number.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Japan to buy missiles that can hit China under $320bn defence plan
> 
> 
> The country is set become the world’s third biggest military spender amid rising tensions with Beijing and fears for islands around Taiwan
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.telegraph.co.uk


----------



## FJAG

daftandbarmy said:


>


Okay - I get the sentiment but "Welcome Back" would be like cheering Germany on if it started rearming to Hitler standards. Maybe "Welcome on Board" would be safer.


----------



## Brad Sallows

The only reasonable response to "Stay Safe" is "Live Free or Die".


----------



## dapaterson

The full sentence is "Stay safe or pay child support for at least two decades".


----------



## daftandbarmy

dapaterson said:


> The full sentence is "Stay safe or pay child support for at least two decades".



Unsafe behaviour...


----------



## kev994

Quirky said:


> Statistically the only way to truly stay safe is to lock yourself in your own house. Telling someone to ‘stay safe’ is the equivalent of doing your part for X cause that does absolutely nothing in larger terms, but it makes you feel better about yourself. Extra points if you post it to social media to validate yourself.


Have you not heard of radon gas? Your home could be a death-trap.


----------



## Quirky

Furniture said:


> That is a ridiculous reduction to the absurd...
> 
> "Stay safe" is no different than  saying "drive safe" when someone heads out on a road trip... It's someone reminding you that a) they care b) they want you to make smart choices to protect yourself.
> 
> I get that politics can be all consuming, but this is the silliest thing I have read in a long time.



The stay safe and drive safe people are the same Karen’s who write policies that cater to the lowest common denominator instead of letting Darwinism cull the herd.

“Drive safe” is another stupid comment, like hearing that will make any difference in the outcome of anything. These safe sayings are on par with “are you having fun yet” or “sounds like you have the case of the Monday's.”

To get back on topic, no, Trudeau won’t be increasing spending. Why would he when Canadians don’t care?


----------



## Furniture

Quirky said:


> The stay safe and drive safe people are the same Karen’s who write policies that cater to the lowest common denominator instead of letting Darwinism cull the herd.
> 
> “Drive safe” is another stupid comment, like hearing that will make any difference in the outcome of anything. These safe sayings are on par with “are you having fun yet” or “sounds like you have the case of the Monday's.”
> 
> To get back on topic, no, Trudeau won’t be increasing spending. Why would he when Canadians don’t care?


The only thing colder than absolute zero, is  internet cool dudes.

As I implied before, "stay safe" is no different than "have a good day". It's a simple, polite way to say "I hope your day goes well, and you enjoy good health". That you choose to read it as something else says a lot about you and your political obsessions, but says pretty much nothing about the person saying it.


----------



## Kirkhill

A Canadian home for Christmas from Ukraine - John Ivison

Ivison: Canadian on frontlines of Ukraine war saw most of his team killed. He's going back​'Losing brothers is a tough thing to do - they were my family down there and it’s always going to be at the back of my mind. But I’ve got to keep moving forward'

John Ivison
Published Dec 16, 2022  •  3 minute read






PHOTO BY POSTMEDIA
​This week, John Ivison is joined by Canadian Forces veteran, James Challice, who spent six months training troops and fighting on the frontline in Ukraine earlier this year. He’s spending Christmas with his sons and mother in Ontario but early in the New Year he is heading back to the brutal killing fields of eastern Ukraine.


The contrast with a cozy Canadian Christmas could not be more stark and the decision to return to the war-zone might seem inexplicable to many people.

Challice makes light of it: “Some people are cooks, some people are teachers, some work for the town. I just took it as a job…”

But it is clear that the fight in Ukraine is personal for the 42-year-old, Coburg native. “I left a lot of stuff on the table down there,” he said.

Challice trained 300 young Ukrainians, before leading a team of 15 in the southern Kherson region.

“We were really effective but we only had eight guys left out of 15 when I left for home. Unfortunately, two days after I stepped off the plane, they got sent into a trench and ended up getting hit. Only one guy was left from the team and he is in hospital.”

He said the remaining team member, who lost a hand, called him from hospital in tears, apologizing for the loss of his colleagues. “That’s one of the reasons I really want to go back,” said Challice, who admits he’s had some tough times since returning to Canada. “I’m OK. It took a while to piece everything together when I got home. Dragging dead bodies out of the frontline, one after the other, does get to you….It’s still there. Losing brothers is a tough thing to do — they were my family down there and it’s always going to be at the back of my mind. But I’ve got to keep moving forward.”

Challice said that the high casualty rate is the consequence of a Russian advantage in artillery coverage. “The way war works right now with drones, is that they (Ukrainian troops) get sent into spot A to draw fire from artillery and tanks, while other teams get into position to locate and destroy. So, you’ve got to give people to get into position. It’s unfortunate but it is the only logical way to push forward.

“With these drones, you can’t hide. There’s no cover, especially at this time of the year when there’s no tree cover and no heat thermal cover.”

He said he will be heading to the Donbas region to train fresh recruits on new weapons systems and reconnaissance, as well as accompanying them on missions.

“You’d be dumb not to be scared but it turns out to be a job after a while, so the fear kinda goes away, which is also dangerous.”

He said the biggest problem is that the Ukrainians don’t have enough artillery or armoured vehicles. He said he used to travel to the frontline in a Hyundai Sonata. “By the end of the tour, it was full of shrapnel and the glass was smashed out. But that thing saved my life a few times, believe it or not.”

He said Canada has not covered itself in glory when it comes to military aid, despite the commitment to send $500 million in equipment.

“I feel kinda ashamed to be Canadian. We have all these Coyotes (armoured vehicles) that are being decommissioned. As taxpayers, we paid for them to be built and now we’re paying to decommission them. They could have sent them down there.”

Is it fair to say that Canada delivers less than it promises? “Yes, I can honestly say that,” said Challice. “I know there is other equipment we could be sending. After seeing what they say on the news and then what we see down there, it’s kinda discouraging,” he said.









						Ivison: Canadian on frontlines of Ukraine war saw most of his team killed. He's going back
					

Returning to a war-zone may seem inexplicable to many people, but it's clear the fight in Ukraine is personal for Coburg native James Challice




					nationalpost.com


----------



## Kirkhill

Kirkhill said:


> Challice said that the high casualty rate is the consequence of a Russian advantage in artillery coverage. “The way war works right now with drones, is that they (Ukrainian troops) get sent into spot A to draw fire from artillery and tanks, while other teams get into position to locate and destroy. So, you’ve got to give people to get into position. It’s unfortunate but it is the only logical way to push forward.
> 
> “With these drones, you can’t hide. There’s no cover, especially at this time of the year when there’s no tree cover and no heat thermal cover.”



From the National Post article -

My observations.

It has been suggested in the past that the CAF doesn't play Football, it plays Rugby.  If that is true then it seems to me that what Challice is saying about the impact of drones then the conflict has become more like a game.   A game, in the sense that everybody can now see everything in real time just the same way players, managers, coaches and fans can observe every action on the field.  Surprise is hard to come by.  Feinting is possible but comes at a price.

Football, in my opinion, is going to become harder to play.  With its set plays and long OODA loops that come from involving the management on the sidelines looking for planned solutions in the play book it is going to be hard to develop surprise and to get the other side off balance.  The long OODA loop gives them time to recover and reset so every play is like a mini-game.

By contrast Rugby, if not easier to play, is better placed to exploit opportunities and openings as they develop on the field, and the on-field OODA loop, the on-field decision making by the players, both makes it harder for the opposition to guess what is coming next (unpredictable players making both good and bad decisions) and both sides constantly looking for, and creating, exploitable opportunities.  Those opportunities can be both intentionally generated and by chance.

So...?

Low level management
Rapid pace
Dispersal
Opportunistic
On-Field Action setting the pace
Off-Field support responding to the needs of the field
A lot more concurrent activity and a lot less opportunity for planned sequential phasing.

Lives will be lost.  The winner will be the commander that minimizes the lives lost by bringing the conflict to a close as quickly as possible.


----------



## Kirkhill

What Canada is missing ...



> I want to be radical and deeply unfashionable by talking up a few things. We should be proud of the UK’s response.
> 
> I am grateful for *bold action by ministers, a united parliament and responsible opposition politicians who have accepted briefings under Privy Council rules and abided by them.
> 
> The sense of unity and cohesion across the political spectrum* is a source of strength at a time when our democratic values are being tested internationally.
> 
> *The Government has made Ukraine a priority, in funds* but also through National Security Council meetings, *through Prime Ministerial time – with all three of them* – and even some four or five dedicated Cabinet meetings at the outset.



Admiral Radakin UK CDS speaking at RUSI









						Chief of the Defence Staff RUSI Lecture 2022
					

Chief of the Defence Staff, Admiral Sir Tony Radakin, at the RUSI Lecture 2022




					www.gov.uk
				




And some other thoughts.



> That attitude has been matched by our media: brave people going to the front line in the best traditions to tell astonishing stories. And we have all benefitted from the thoughtfulness of commentators, speed of analysis and the ubiquitous access to these views. Thank you, and especially to many of you here.
> 
> That backdrop has been further supplemented by our magnificent intelligence community. Defence Intelligence and GCHQ, alongside American NSA colleagues, cued us at the very beginning and provided remarkably accurate windows into plans and psyche all the way through.
> 
> People ask does it make a difference? Absolutely. And we have been able to spike guns, prepare plans and galvanise allies. Similarly, MI5 have been essential in keeping the home base safe at a point of tension. And, yes, MI6 do provide an astonishing array of insights and opportunities. Thank you to all in the UK Intelligence Community.
> 
> We should also be proud we were the first European country to supply lethal aid. We have gifted almost 200 armoured vehicles and more than 10,000 anti-tank missiles to Ukraine. Over a hundred thousand rounds of artillery ammunition.
> 
> Now, as the year ends, nearly 10,000 Ukrainian troops have been trained on British soil in an effort that includes Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Norway, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Canada, New Zealand and, from next month, Australia.
> 
> This is significant. Ukraine’s fight is our fight. We support Ukraine because we share their belief in the rule of law and the simple conviction that aggression must not pay.





> And this poses a series of questions which the IR Refresh will seek to answer:
> 
> 
> *How do we manage a weaker but more vindictive Russia over the long term?*
> Are we going to remain committed to a global outlook?
> And if so, how much do we invest?
> These are serious questions. And I welcome the Government’s willingness and seriousness to undertake the answers.
> 
> One view for the IR Refresh is that we will draw on the tenets of our traditional way of warfare:
> 
> 
> The belief that* Britain is an expeditionary rather than a continental power.*
> That* our interests are best served through the indirect application of power* by, with, and through our partners.
> That* our operational advantage comes not from the mass but through disproportionate effect.*
> And that we do not shy away from our status as a permanent member of the UN Security Council, a nuclear power with global responsibilities and the 6th largest economy in the world.
> There is something very British about our approach to having the bomb: almost mild embarrassment. And yet perhaps one of the starkest lessons of the past year has been our extended nuclear deterrence. It has protected us and our Allies, allowing us to resist coercion and continue to do what is right. A reminder that nuclear and conventional deterrence are linked.
> 
> And in the same way, the notion that you can separate security in Europe from security in the Pacific seems difficult - especially if you happen to be a global trading nation with a permanent seat on the UN Security Council.


----------



## Kirkhill

More from Radakin - the need for speed and flexibility

Canada makes Whitehall look like a an olympic athlete.


----------



## Edward Campbell

_Apologies in advance for the typos. And this is another Geezer Eruption._

I know I'm repeating myself, but there is no point in dreaming about Canadian defence budget increases unless and until there is aa absolutely HUGE shift in Canadian public opinion.

In 1947, George Kennan, using there pseudonym X published a version of his now famous 'long telegram' in _Foreign Affairs_; also in 1947 Canadian Foreign Minister Louis St Laurent outlined his plan for Canada to be a leading middle power; in 1948 The USSR tried to seize Berlin by blockade, confirming Kennan's thesis; in 1949 the Soviet Union successfully exploded its own atomic bomb. All these events were widely reported in Canada's newspapers, on the radio (TV was in its infancy) and in movie theatres where "newsreels" were always shown and updated on a regular basis.

By the time North Korea invaded its southern neighbour in 1950, Canadians were:

Well informed; and
Very conscious of the price of being unprepared - 1939 was less than a dozen years and 40,000+ fresh margraves in the past.
Until Canadians are, once again, well informed and conscious of the need to be prepared for war the Canadian Armed Forces are worth little more than the Ceremonial Guard and the Snowbirds.

It is the job of politicians, the media and the "chattering classes" (I call them the _commentariat_) to sound the alarm as Churchill, aided by a handful of newspapers (notably the _Daily Telegraph_ and the _Daily Express_) did in the 1930s. Do we have a Churchill in Canada in the 2020s? It certainly _doesn't seem, to me_ to be Pierre Poilievre. Is there even one modern Canadian equivalent to the_ Daily Telegraph_ and the _Daily Express_? I don't see that sort of commentary in e.g. the _Globe and Mail_ or the _Sun_ chain of papers.

By 1968, only 20 years after St Laurent's _Gray Lecture_ at the University of Toronto, Canadians were growing tired of paying the price of leadership. They could see the modern welfare state growing in America and Europe and when Pierre Trudeau rejected St Laurent's (and Diefenbaker's and Pearson's) vision and told us that the "Land is Strong" and could/would somehow look after us as we were entitled, a solid majority of us agreed. Pierre Trudeau had his own ax to grind with the Canadian military and the whole notion of a US-led West that relied upon military alliances but, mainly, he and his Liberal Party sold us on the notions that:

The threat was NOT just Soviet communism; and
We could and should do less to make the armed race a reality.
Nothing much changed in the intervening 50+ years since Trudeau's '_Foreign Policy for Canadians_.'

Canadians remain:

Suspicious of the USA;
Attracted to socialist ideas; and
Unwilling to spend on anything but their own entitlements.
They see no real threat, but ...


----------



## Good2Golf

Edward Campbell said:


> Canadians remain:
> 
> *Suspicious of the USA*;
> Attracted to socialist ideas; and
> Unwilling to spend on anything but their own entitlements.


They’ll only be suspicious for a bit longer until they realize that they are the first post-nation state that has handed itself over practically to a still-nation state…


----------



## Kirkhill

Edward Campbell said:


> _Apologies in advance for the typos. And this is another Geezer Eruption._
> 
> I know I'm repeating myself, but there is no point in dreaming about Canadian defence budget increases unless and until there is aa absolutely HUGE shift in Canadian public opinion.
> 
> In 1947, George Kennan, using there pseudonym X published a version of his now famous 'long telegram' in _Foreign Affairs_; also in 1947 Canadian Foreign Minister Louis St Laurent outlined his plan for Canada to be a leading middle power; in 1948 The USSR tried to seize Berlin by blockade, confirming Kennan's thesis; in 1949 the Soviet Union successfully exploded its own atomic bomb. All these events were widely reported in Canada's newspapers, on the radio (TV was in its infancy) and in movie theatres where "newsreels" were always shown and updated on a regular basis.
> 
> By the time North Korea invaded its southern neighbour in 1950, Canadians were:
> 
> Well informed; and
> Very conscious of the price of being unprepared - 1939 was less than a dozen years and 40,000+ fresh margraves in the past.
> Until Canadians are, once again, well informed and conscious of the need to be prepared for war the Canadian Armed Forces are worth little more than the Ceremonial Guard and the Snowbirds.
> 
> It is the job of politicians, the media and the "chattering classes" (I call them the _commentariat_) to sound the alarm as Churchill, aided by a handful of newspapers (notably the _Daily Telegraph_ and the _Daily Express_) did in the 1930s. Do we have a Churchill in Canada in the 2020s? It certainly _doesn't seem, to me_ to be Pierre Poilievre. Is there even one modern Canadian equivalent to the_ Daily Telegraph_ and the _Daily Express_? I don't see that sort of commentary in e.g. the _Globe and Mail_ or the _Sun_ chain of papers.
> 
> By 1968, only 20 years after St Laurent's _Gray Lecture_ at the University of Toronto, Canadians were growing tired of paying the price of leadership. They could see the modern welfare state growing in America and Europe and when Pierre Trudeau rejected St Laurent's (and Diefenbaker's and Pearson's) vision and told us that the "Land is Strong" and could/would somehow look after us as we were entitled, a solid majority of us agreed. Pierre Trudeau had his own ax to grind with the Canadian military and the whole notion of a US-led West that relied upon military alliances but, mainly, he and his Liberal Party sold us on the notions that:
> 
> The threat was NOT just Soviet communism; and
> We could and should do less to make the armed race a reality.
> Nothing much changed in the intervening 50+ years since Trudeau's '_Foreign Policy for Canadians_.'
> 
> Canadians remain:
> 
> Suspicious of the USA;
> Attracted to socialist ideas; and
> Unwilling to spend on anything but their own entitlements.
> They see no real threat, but ...




The sine qua non - *a united parliament and responsible opposition politicians who have accepted briefings under Privy Council rules and abided by them.*

Until that then there will be no change.


----------



## dimsum

Good2Golf said:


> They’ll only be suspicious for a bit longer until they realize that they are the first post-nation state that has handed itself over practically to a still-nation state…


Let's be serious - until they notice* that the country's approaches are protected by American flags, they won't be suspicious at all.

* and let's be serious (again), it would take a "Rotational Force - Canada" like what the USMC is doing in Darwin, Australia to make most people wonder why the US has a "base" here.


----------



## Good2Golf

dimsum said:


> Let's be serious - until they notice* that the country's approaches are protected by American flags, they won't be suspicious at all.
> 
> * and let's be serious (again), it would take a "Rotational Force - Canada" like what the USMC is doing in Darwin, Australia to make most people wonder why the US has a "base" here.




So America can operate in stealth mode for the next 200 years…


----------



## Brad Sallows

Canada has become the political equivalent of an overbearing mother-in-law, smugly telling people how they ought to live.  Her likes are mandatory; her dislikes are forbidden.  There cannot be social peace in a country while a bare majority or mere plurality directs a substantial but smaller fraction to change to suit the former.  Tolerance means putting up with sh!t.  Progressives are intolerant.


----------



## daftandbarmy

An unimpressive performance by MND today on the West Block.

Starting at about 11.45....










						The West Block – Episode 14, Season 12 - National | Globalnews.ca
					

Watch the full episode of The West Block with host Mercedes Stephenson – December 18, 2022




					globalnews.ca


----------



## OldSolduer

Brad Sallows said:


> Canada has become the political equivalent of an overbearing mother-in-law, smugly telling people how they ought to live.  Her likes are mandatory; her dislikes are forbidden.  There cannot be social peace in a country while a bare majority or mere plurality directs a substantial but smaller fraction to change to suit the former.  Tolerance means putting up with sh!t.  Progressives are intolerant.


Paul Martin said “the minority shall not be dictated to by the majority “.

For all his faults he was a far better PM Than the current one. 

Progressives want everything done yesterday.

And most Canadians would rather watch Survivor or some trash about a family who revels in excess and whose only claim to fame is that Daddy was an attorney for OJ Simpson


----------



## dapaterson

Interestingly, MND signalled in her year end interview with Global that the F35 contract is a near term thing, with deliveries to be sequenced with availability of trained crew and secure infrastructure.

Might be a good time to be a construction company with secret cleared staff in Cold Lake or Bagotville.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Brad Sallows said:


> _Canada has become the political equivalent of an overbearing mother-in-law, smugly telling people how they ought to live.  Her likes are mandatory; her dislikes are forbidden. _ There cannot be social peace in a country while a bare majority or mere plurality directs a substantial but smaller fraction to change to suit the former.  Tolerance means putting up with sh!t.  Progressives are intolerant.


But it's not new. Back in the late a940s/early '50s the US Secretary of State Dean Acheson complained about Canadian diplomats being like "the stern daughters of the voice of God" (a reference to an 18th century hymn by Wordsworth) as they castigated America and Britain for not being as "nice" as th Canadians thought possible. (I'm away, but the anecdote is in his book "Present at the Creation".)


----------



## Kirkhill

Good2Golf said:


> View attachment 75499
> So America can operate in stealth mode for the next 200 years…









50% of Canadians live south of this line, along with all the voters that matter.

What's north of that line?  North Bay. A great place for an American branch plant.  North Bay is too far north for Torontonians to consider it as cottage country.

What else is north of the line?  Cold Bay, Bagotville, Comox, Gander, all the FOLs and Alert.   Anchor the system with Thule, Elmendorf and Colorado Springs and let the US Air Force continue to do what it has been doing since it was the US Army Air Corps.  

It just doesn't register.


----------



## Good2Golf

Frankly, it doesn’t matter what the distribution of Canada’s population is.  It’s a mindset of societal arrogance/ignorance on the part of most Canadians, not geographic distribution.


----------



## Kirkhill

Good2Golf said:


> Frankly, it doesn’t matter what the distribution of Canada’s population is.  It’s a mindset of societal arrogance/ignorance on the part of most Canadians, not geographic distribution.



You're right.  I wasn't alluding to regional attitudes.  My point was that the most of Canada is unknown territory, Terra Incognita, to the vast majority of Canadians.   And it has been since the US opened up Prince Rupert, Placentia, Gander, Goose Bay, Frobisher Bay, Eureka, Alert and all the radar stations.   There may be some Canadian tax dollars at work, largely US dollars laundered through Canadian branch plants, and the Canadian flag may fly over them, but all of them were built on US initiative.


----------



## Rifleman62

The Line  Matt Gurney: Our military is accomplishing its mission: giving the politicians cover

Matt Gurney: Our military is accomplishing its mission: giving the politicians cover - 16 Dec 22
                      The sorry state of our armed forces isn’t a failure of our policy. This is our policy.


Canadian politicians have an inputs problem. Maybe that's actually the wrong way to describe it — the problem is with the outputs. But it's the inputs they love talking about.

If that all sounds a little vague, maybe this sounds familiar: “Hey there, citizen. Alarmed about Troubling Issue X? Well, don’t worry. We’re pledging $300 million over the next six years to Troubling Issue X. Oh, and Annoying Irritant Y? We’re announcing a task force to report back on that.”

Does Troubling Issue X get solved? Does Annoying Irritant Y get less annoying and irritating? Eh. We probably don’t collect enough stats to even know. The purpose of the announcement isn’t to solve the problem. It’s to announce something and hope people stop paying attention.

A few weeks ago, I returned from the beautiful city of Halifax, Nova Scotia, where I was a guest of the Halifax International Security Forum. The forum, put on by Washington, D.C.-based HFX, brings military, defence and intelligence experts and leaders to Halifax from across the free world for a three-day conference on the pressing issues of the day. (Ukraine was obviously a big part of this year's agenda.) As I left the conference, I sketched out four broad ideas worth writing about; the first two of those are already online here and here, and the fourth is a little more tangential, and I'll get to it in the new year.

The third topic, though, ended up being a bit more challenging to write about than I'd expected, but for a happy reason: someone else said it better than I would have.

A big part of the conference, which is funded in part by the Canadian government, is showing that Canada is pulling its weight in its alliances. More than one person observed to me at the conference "how lucky" Canada is to have landed a plum annual event like the Forum, precisely because it gives us a chance to centre ourselves in key discussions in a way our actual substantive contributions to international security alone do not. I had thought I'd write a column about that idea, linked to Canada's fairly underwhelming plan for the Indo-Pacific region, but then retired LGen. Michael Day, a long-serving veteran of the Canadian Armed Forces, wrote a better piece (and with more authority!) than I ever could. He laid bare the problems with our Indo-Pacific plan: it sounds good, but it's lacking in actual goals and any real way of measuring success or even failure. There isn't much there there. It’s just … an announcement.

I won't repeat the general's arguments at length. You can just read his piece! But his argument, and the one I was originally going to make, share a common theme: we are good at talking but not at doing. And the reason for this is because, for the purposes of the government, the talking is the point. The doing isn't really necessary. A lot of what looks like policy failure in Canadian foreign and military affairs only looks like a failure when you forget that accomplishing something wasn't the point. Being photographed and videotaped saying you'll accomplish something was the point. And the announcement itself accomplishes that!

It's not that Canada accomplishes nothing on the world stage. We accomplish things. Sometimes we even play an outsized role — Canada did, for instance, perform well and above expectations in Kandahar. The odd exception aside, though, when it comes to foreign policy generally and especially with defence policy, successive Canadian governments have set a very clear target: we will do, technically, more than nothing. We won't often do much more than that. But we'll do enough to not get kicked out of the club of allied nations.

Why do we want to be in the club? Not because we feel any sense of duty or obligation to lead and take on any real burden. But because being in the club makes us safer, and it would, after all, be embarrassing to get kicked out.

It's important to remember that Canada is, by any standard, a rich country. We could be an actual force for good and stability on the world stage if we wanted to. We could build a bigger fleet and patrol more places, more often — we’d be welcome! We could have a bigger army and lead more peacekeeping missions, or contribute more to NATO. A bigger air force, likewise, could contribute more to our allies, especially in Europe in these unsettled times. In a parallel universe where we did these things, we'd then be able to say with a straight face that the purpose of Canada's navy was contributing to the safety and security of the seas, the purpose of our army was to assist allies and provide peacekeepers to help end international crises, and the purpose of our air force was to project power and bring support to threatened allies.

In the world we actually live in, though, the purpose of the navy is to technically have a navy that technically does things, the purpose of the army is to technically have an army that technically does things, and the purpose of the air force ... you see where this is going, right?

Our navy does things! It shows up places, and patrols areas. But only as much as necessary to technically tick that box. The army is in much the same condition; with a growing number of domestic commitments sapping its strength and budget, even its ability to assist with disasters at home is largely maxed out, but we send a few hundred soldiers here and there, thereby allowing ourselves to proclaim that we’ve … sent soldiers somewhere. The air force, as was just reported this week, can't even really do even that much this year. The exhausted force is skipping the very modest — a half-dozen fighter jets — annual mission to Europe. The air force is just too burnt out to sustain even that tiny mission.

This is a big and growing problem. Canada, again, is rich enough to make a difference in global security affairs, if we chose to make different choices with how we spend our money. We have made the opposite choice. We field just enough of a military to be able to make just enough difference to avoid being accused of being total deadbeats, and no more.

Can it fight? Eh, maybe a bit. Can it make a difference? Depends how you define “difference,” I guess. Does it make the world and our allies safer? In a way? Can it keep Canadians safe at home? Sort of.

This isn’t a failure of our policy. This is our policy. We show up with as little as possible for as brief a time as possible, but gosh, do we ever talk about the showing up. 


And that's where we get back to the real purpose of it all: the government wants just enough of a military to assure our allies we technically have one, and that also applies at home. Every political leader likes showing up at conferences, visiting the troops, sailing with a frigate for a day or two, and so on. The military isn't a huge issue in Canadian domestic politics, so a few photo ops a year are sufficient. Once the political needs of the government are met, it loses interest, until it either needs some new photos, has a juicy procurement contract to announce, or the military does something so stupid the government has to be seen doing something. (The unfolding sexual misconduct crisis in the ranks is a damn topical example of that kind of stupid thing.)

But otherwise, in this, the Canadian Armed Forces serves the same goal for both foreign and domestic audiences. "Here's our warship. See?"

There's two big problems with this policy, and I should note that it’s not a particular Liberal failing — they’re bad, but the Tories aren’t really any better. The first problem is that the manifest state-capacity failures that are eroding Canadian capabilities across the board are cutting into the military, too. When the bar for the size and capability of the force is deliberately set at "Just barely enough," you don't have much room for attrition via incompetence. It doesn't take a lot of missed recruiting goals or delayed procurements to put our armed forces into a real capacity crisis. There just isn't any muscle left, every cut goes right into the bone.

And the second problem is a moral one: do we want to be a force for good? Are we satisfied not doing all we can to make the world a more stable, peaceful place?

On that second point, the answer is sadly obvious: we do not want to be a force for good (assuming we have to actually work hard) and we are indeed satisfied — or at least not particularly dissatisfied — doing less than we could. The world probably does need more Canada. There are small countries warily eying Russia and China that would be assured by a regular Canadian naval presence in their region. There are people living under real danger of brutal personal violation and death today who’d love a battalion of Canadian peacekeepers in their city or country. But Canada isn't interested. We feel bad for y’all, but we’ve done enough for this year’s Christmas photo album. So sorry. Good luck and everything, though, eh?

And this is our inputs/outputs problem. A critically understaffed and underarmed army is fine if it can still throw a few sandbags after a flood. A few warships on patrol, a few times a year, on the world’s largest ocean, means we get mentioned in the U.S. military tweets about the allied exercise, and who could ask for more? And the air force. Well, best not to ask about them. They’re in a pinch right now, sadly. Those are the inputs the government needs. For them, it’s mission accomplished.

No one worries much about our lack of outputs: meaningful, tangible accomplishments and contributions to global security, and a Canadian Armed Forces with enough personnel, equipment and training to be a real, effective fighting force, ready and able to keep Canadians safe at home and contribute to peace and security missions abroad.

And we could have that. It would cost a lot, in both money and political capital. But it’s a realistic goal. And it’s also what all the politicians are telling you they’re doing. We have to start calling them out on this. It’s nonsense, and transparently so. Every time they dribble out some new announcement — new pistols! a new ship is commissioned! — we have to ask them the key question: what is the mission of the Canadian Armed Forces, and is it currently capable of carrying out that specific mission?

I’m not holding my breath, to put it mildly. But the world isn’t getting any friendlier. We can fix this now, when all it costs is money and political capital, or we can rush to fix it later, when it may cost us lives.

Subscribe
The Line is Canada’s last, best hope for irreverent commentary. We reject bullshit. We love lively writing. Please consider supporting us by subscribing. Follow us on Twitter @the_lineca. Fight with us on Facebook. Pitch us something: lineeditor@protonmail.com


----------



## Fishbone Jones

So, 133 pages in and what exactly has he done? Or is this another trudeau 'ethereal promise'?


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Fishbone Jones said:


> So, 133 pages in and what exactly has he done? Or is this another trudeau 'ethereal promise'?


----------



## Brad Sallows

Edward Campbell said:


> BuBack in the late a940s/early '50s the US Secretary of State Dean Acheson complained about Canadian diplomats being like "the stern daughters of the voice of God" (a reference to an 18th century hymn by Wordsworth) as they castigated America and Britain for not being as "nice" as th Canadians thought possible


I can guess how such an attitude arises.  Canadians have a neighbour who is the best possible trading partner and guarantor of security.  With nothing to worry about, small minds turn to busybody preoccupations.


----------



## Good2Golf

Fishbone Jones said:


> So, 133 pages in and what exactly has he done? Or is this another trudeau 'ethereal promise'?


Added to Urban Dictionary’s database…






						Urban Dictionary: speaking moistly
					

To speak to a Canadian within a two-metre radius of yourself as specks of spittle fly from your lips.




					www.urbandictionary.com


----------



## Spencer100

Brad Sallows said:


> I can guess how such an attitude arises.  Canadians have a neighbour who is the best possible trading partner and guarantor of security.  With nothing to worry about, small minds turn to busybody preoccupations.


Canada is the ultimate "Karen" of the world!  

Plus being from Windsor and working with Americans everyday....we are the smug freeloaders that complain how we get our new stuff.


----------



## Spencer100

Rifleman62 said:


> The Line  Matt Gurney: Our military is accomplishing its mission: giving the politicians cover
> 
> Matt Gurney: Our military is accomplishing its mission: giving the politicians cover - 16 Dec 22
> The sorry state of our armed forces isn’t a failure of our policy. This is our policy.


Like they say "it's not bug but a feature"

As I look around the world and the messed up stuff.....I am coming to the conclusion that its F$#%$ for a reason and somebody wants it that way.  

.......I have that tin foil somewhere........maybe Hellyer is telling the........... ;(


----------



## daftandbarmy

Spencer100 said:


> Like they say "it's not bug but a feature"
> 
> As I look around the world and the messed up stuff.....I am coming to the conclusion that its F$#%$ for a reason and somebody wants it that way.
> 
> .......I have that tin foil somewhere........maybe Hellyer is telling the........... ;(


----------



## OldSolduer

Brad Sallows said:


> I can guess how such an attitude arises.  Canadians have a neighbour who is the best possible trading partner and guarantor of security.  With nothing to worry about, small minds turn to busybody preoccupations.


I find a good number of Canadians look down their noses at the USA BUT continue to go to Disney venues, Universal Studios etc. Personally I like the USA.


----------



## daftandbarmy

OldSolduer said:


> I find a good number of Canadians look down their noses at the USA BUT continue to go to Disney venues, Universal Studios etc. Personally I like the USA.



'America is a large, friendly dog in a very small room. Every time it wags its tail, it knocks over a chair.'

- Arnold Toynbee


----------



## Fishbone Jones

I like going to the States. I like shopping there, visiting there and partying with friends there. On a good day, I can leave home and be on I-75 in about 15 minutes. Contrary to common belief, I find most Americans friendly, helpful and laid back. The idea of the 'ugly Aamerican' is a fallacy and utter bullshit. You want self centered, smug, asshole attitude, you can find that here in spades. Like liberals, we scoff and make fun of of them, to hide our own insecurities and failures as a nation. Taking all of our own shitty characteristics and putting them on


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Sorry guys. I'm having tech difficulties and trouble posting. Hence stopping in the middle of the last post.

Cont'd -

Taking all of our own shitty characteristics and putting them on the US to shift to blame and morally judge. The same as if a politician was calling us racists, misogynists, fringe minority science deniers. All the while that politician is really the biggest major offender of those ideals. It's called narcissistic blame shifting and it's a psychopathic condition. One need only look at the political forums with their wailing and gnashing of teeth, hundreds of pages about the US, mostly Trump and decisions made by the US, that people get offended about, as if they had skin in the game. Meanwhile, trudeau and his pack get a free ride and the Canadian political forums languish and collect cobwebs, with the exception of the odd kerfuffle that grabs our attention for a few days. Our only thread that consistently hammers our government is the Gun Control thread. And that's only because we're pissed he's stealing our personal property for his own gain. No longer the quiet professional, but the loudmouth on the soap box pointing fingers and deflecting blame.

Our systems of government are different, but we share the same swamp, with the same caustic creatures as our compatriots have. We have leaders, who while years apart, share the same ideals and mental capacities. As well the same goals for their countries. And both are enthralled with and devoted to Red China, who is the biggest enemy the world faces right now.

We also have the same problems. Ours are just less pronounced. 35 million people v. 350 million.

I don't see an us and them. A US and Canada. I see us all collectively as North Americans. I just wish Creepy Joe would afford the northern border the same attention he shows the southern one. Maybe it's my one mile proximity to them here in South Detroit that makes me feel the kinship.

We're damn lucky they let us share a bed with them. Otherwise, we would have been raped and left laying out in the cold a long time ago, while someone else sits at our hearth, sipping our broth.


----------



## MilEME09

Europe Is Rushing Arms to Ukraine but Running Out of Ammo
					

The continent is struggling to produce enough ammunition for Ukraine and for itself, jeopardizing NATO’s defense capacity and its support for Kyiv, officials and industry leaders say.




					www.wsj.com
				




While Ukraine related, this shows the startling lack of readiness for a conflict by NATO member states. Germany for example barely makes any ammo any more, and it's own stocks would last two days at Ukrainian war levels of fighting. We have let our capabilities atrophy, and I think we need to invest more heavily in production of ammunition and arms. The benefit to this would be allow more range time for our troops.


----------



## rmc_wannabe

L





MilEME09 said:


> Europe Is Rushing Arms to Ukraine but Running Out of Ammo
> 
> 
> The continent is struggling to produce enough ammunition for Ukraine and for itself, jeopardizing NATO’s defense capacity and its support for Kyiv, officials and industry leaders say.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.wsj.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While Ukraine related, this shows the startling lack of readiness for a conflict by NATO member states. Germany for example barely makes any ammo any more, and it's own stocks would last two days at Ukrainian war levels of fighting. We have let our capabilities atrophy, and I think we need to invest more heavily in production of ammunition and arms. The benefit to this would be allow more range time for our troops.



Whoa whoa whoa.... you make it sound as if our cushy, socio-democratic Western nations need to be on a _ War _ footing? Do you know the Climate Change/GBA implications of what you're suggesting? 😏

Seriously though, this is a hard fact that we have ignored since at least the early 60s. No need for large scale, conventional munitions because "push button, MAD, lights out everywhere" meant no one would ever dream of another large scale global conflict. What with the UN, Peacekeeping, and the Peace Dividend... why worry?

24 Feb 2022 should have been the wake up call we all needed, but a lot of folks in the West of all political stripes went back to hitting snooze, like they have for the past 60 years.


----------



## MilEME09

Canadian Army feeling squeeze of more demands, fewer soldiers
					

The head of the Canadian Army says his force is facing more demands at home and in Europe even as the number of soldiers under his command continues to shrink.




					www.ctvnews.ca
				




Army commander says we are short 1200, and possibly an additional 800 in 2023. Thsts really not looking good for us long term if we are expanding Latvia


----------



## CBH99

MilEME09 said:


> Canadian Army feeling squeeze of more demands, fewer soldiers
> 
> 
> The head of the Canadian Army says his force is facing more demands at home and in Europe even as the number of soldiers under his command continues to shrink.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.ctvnews.ca
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Army commander says we are short 1200, and possibly an additional 800 in 2023. Thsts really not looking good for us long term if we are expanding Latvia


I think General Eyre is being far too kind in his assessment, and seems to be playing it safe with the government.  

I’d say we are WELL short of far more than 1200… you could recruit that 1200 and pipe every single one of them to combat arms RegF units, and we would just be flushing out their authorized numbers.


----------



## ArmyRick

CBH99 said:


> I think General Eyre is being far too kind in his assessment, and seems to be playing it safe with the government.
> 
> I’d say we are WELL short of far more than 1200… you could recruit that 1200 and pipe every single one of them to combat arms RegF units, and we would just be flushing out their authorized numbers.


He is probably doing the best he can given the incompetent and corrupt current but temporary Liberal government.

If he resigned in protest, the truth is most Canadians would be like "what happened now? Who is he?" It wouldn't have the splash effect that it should.

The truth is, the current Armed Forces reflects the current Trudeau government total not give a $hit attitude about it which is an extension of Canadians "m'eh" attitude overall. 

@Fishbone Jones well said and on point. Too many Canadians are wallowing in the false idea that Americans are bad and Canadians loved by all because...Canada! Sure as hell doesn't help that CBC and government paid MSM contribute to that nonsense


----------



## Eye In The Sky

ArmyRick said:


> He is probably doing the best he can given the incompetent and corrupt current but temporary Liberal government.



I'm not convinced, unfortunately, that the next election will change much because collectively, Canadians have their head in the sand and seem to care not about the direction we have been and are heading.  



ArmyRick said:


> If he resigned in protest, the truth is most Canadians would be like "what happened now? Who is he?" It wouldn't have the splash effect that it should.
> 
> The truth is, the current Armed Forces reflects the current Trudeau government total not give a $hit attitude about it which is an extension of Canadians "m'eh" attitude overall.



M'eh sums it up nicely.  Unless it's about the Snowbirds when it comes to the CAF.  We are like the mouthy kid in Grade 5 who thinks they can say whatever they want to any kid on the playground because our big brother is in high school and could kick their butt.


----------



## dimsum

Eye In The Sky said:


> I'm not convinced, unfortunately, that the next election will change much because collectively, Canadians have their head in the sand and seem to care not about the direction we have been and are heading.


I'd suggest that Canadians are aware and are concerned.  But, their awareness and concern is centred around how their wages are not keeping up, housing is out of reach, and medical coverage is getting worse.  

Most Canadians don't know anyone serving in the CAF - we are a small minority.  The only time they see CAF members are either in the news, the Snowbirds, or bailing them out during OP LENTUS.  Coupled with your point below about the kid in Gr 5, is it really surprising that most Canadians don't know/care about defence issues?  

A question to all:  If you (reading this) weren't in the CAF, would you know or care?  I'm not sure I would, to be honest.  I would think that like the healthcare shambles (I have many friends in that sector who are basically saying what we're saying here), it would be something I read every so often, get mildly outraged, then move on.  Is it because we've experienced the deeper, systemic issues rather than the surface-level issues that most Canadians would only read about.

I'm unconvinced that even if the CPC wins, they will actually implement a substantial increase to Defence spending - after all, they are just campaign promises.  The housing, wages, and medical concerns (yes those are primarily provincial jurisdictions) will be whatever governing party's big challenges. 




Eye In The Sky said:


> M'eh sums it up nicely.  Unless it's about the Snowbirds when it comes to the CAF.  We are like the mouthy kid in Grade 5 who thinks they can say whatever they want to any kid on the playground because our big brother is in high school and could kick their butt.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

dimsum said:


> I'd suggest that Canadians are aware and are concerned.  But, their awareness and concern is centred around how their wages are not keeping up, housing is out of reach, and medical coverage is getting worse.



Those are some of them.  Then there are the ones who care mostly about their TikTok image, free wifi on public transit and ignore all the real issues Canadians are and have been facing under the current govt...I'm not sure which group is the larger portion of voters anymore.  Their numbers are growing, though, I suspect.



dimsum said:


> Most Canadians don't know anyone serving in the CAF - we are a small minority.  The only time they see CAF members are either in the news, the Snowbirds, or bailing them out during OP LENTUS.  Coupled with your point below about the kid in Gr 5, is it really surprising that most Canadians don't know/care about defence issues?



Agreed....



dimsum said:


> A question to all:  If you (reading this) weren't in the CAF, would you know or care?  I'm not sure I would, to be honest.  I would think that like the healthcare shambles (I have many friends in that sector who are basically saying what we're saying here), it would be something I read every so often, get mildly outraged, then move on.  Is it because we've experienced the deeper, systemic issues rather than the surface-level issues that most Canadians would only read about.
> 
> I'm unconvinced that even if the CPC wins, they will actually implement a substantial increase to Defence spending - after all, they are just campaign promises.  The housing, wages, and medical concerns (yes those are primarily provincial jurisdictions) will be whatever governing party's big challenges.



And agreed.


----------



## Halifax Tar

dimsum said:


> I'd suggest that Canadians are aware and are concerned.  But, their awareness and concern is centred around how their wages are not keeping up, housing is out of reach, and medical coverage is getting worse.
> 
> Most Canadians don't know anyone serving in the CAF - we are a small minority.  The only time they see CAF members are either in the news, the Snowbirds, or bailing them out during OP LENTUS.  Coupled with your point below about the kid in Gr 5, is it really surprising that most Canadians don't know/care about defence issues?
> 
> A question to all:  If you (reading this) weren't in the CAF, would you know or care?  I'm not sure I would, to be honest.  I would think that like the healthcare shambles (I have many friends in that sector who are basically saying what we're saying here), it would be something I read every so often, get mildly outraged, then move on.  Is it because we've experienced the deeper, systemic issues rather than the surface-level issues that most Canadians would only read about.
> 
> I'm unconvinced that even if the CPC wins, they will actually implement a substantial increase to Defence spending - after all, they are just campaign promises.  The housing, wages, and medical concerns (yes those are primarily provincial jurisdictions) will be whatever governing party's big challenges.



I think you're probably right.  Defence spending doesn't win elections, and defence scandals don't bring down governments.  So really they need not pay more than lip service.


----------



## FSTO

I was listening to this podcast: #54 The Backbench Live: A Year in Review
and one of the guests, Quebec Journalist Emilie Nicolas (Haitian decent) mentioned that she was worried that the Canadian Army was going to invade Haiti. To me that encapsules the absolute ignorance most Canadians have of our military. That she (a very intelligent journalist) thinks that the CAF has the people, equipment, and capability to mount such an operation shows the lack of rudimentary knowledge of our military.


----------



## Halifax Tar

FSTO said:


> I was listening to this podcast: #54 The Backbench Live: A Year in Review
> and one of the guests, Quebec Journalist Emilie Nicolas (Haitian decent) mentioned that she was worried that the Canadian Army was going to invade Haiti. To me that encapsules the absolute ignorance most Canadians have of our military. That she (a very intelligent journalist) thinks that the CAF has the people, equipment, and capability to mount such an operation shows the lack of rudimentary knowledge of our military.



I used to like Canadaland.  I don't find it very balanced and have given up on it.  

If you know of any good Canadian Political PCs I'd love to hear them.


----------



## FSTO

Halifax Tar said:


> I used to like Canadaland.  I don't find it very balanced and have given up on it.
> 
> If you know of any good Canadian Political PCs I'd love to hear them.


I hear you and I yell at Jesse much more than I nod in agreement. But it is good to hear what the leftish folks are talking about.

Good podcasts:

David Herle (a Sask liberal). I never thought I'd like his stuff but he gets great guests who challenge his dogma








						The Herle Burly Podcast
					

Subscribe on iTunes, Spotify, and Stitcher.




					www.theherleburly.com
				











						Curse of Politics | AQM
					

Politics. It's a blessing and a curse.




					www.airquotesmedia.com
				




Jenn Gerson and Matt Gureny - The Line








						The Line
					

Commentary for Canadians. Click to read The Line, a Substack publication with tens of thousands of readers.




					theline.substack.com
				




The Big Story








						The Big Story Podcast
					

Join host Jordan Heath-Rawlings for an in-depth look at the news, culture, politics and personalities shaping Canada today.




					thebigstorypodcast.ca


----------



## Fabius

Random thought, if the CAF is short 8-10,000 personnel from total authorized where is the department and CAF redirecting the excess funding that would be paying salaries, allowances etc.? 
Is it going to recruiting, modernization, O&M, piling up or returning to the centre?


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Fabius said:


> Random thought, if the CAF is short 8-10,000 personnel from total authorized where is the department and CAF redirecting the excess funding that would be paying salaries, allowances etc.?
> Is it going to recruiting, modernization, O&M, piling up or returning to the centre?


----------



## JLB50

FSTO said:


> I was listening to this podcast: #54 The Backbench Live: A Year in Review
> and one of the guests, Quebec Journalist Emilie Nicolas (Haitian decent) mentioned that she was worried that the Canadian Army was going to invade Haiti. To me that encapsules the absolute ignorance most Canadians have of our military. That she (a very intelligent journalist) thinks that the CAF has the people, equipment, and capability to mount such an operation shows the lack of rudimentary knowledge of our military.


Not sure if I’m staying on topic or not but peacekeeping is vastly overrated and is often a quagmire for those countries that participate.  Maybe I’m just an old fart but if the people of Haiti, Syria, Central America, Venezuela and numerous other countries around the world were willing to stand up to aggression in their homelands the way the Ukrainians are doing, then there wouldn’t be nearly the refugee problem that exists today.  For the most part, the United Nations has proven to be ineffective if not downright corrupt in dealing with aggressions over the last 40 years (and perhaps even longer).  

Should Canada go into Haiti, nothing will change.  Sure, the gangs and bad guys will go into hiding.  And maybe, just maybe there will be a few minor skirmishes so that the Canadian media and politicians can show how CAF participation is helping to free the world from tyranny.  But I think most of us know that eventually Haiti will go back to being the same country it has always been.  Again, I say quagmire...not something worth risking Canadian lives.  

So, Justin, definitely increase our budget.  Give us the people and the military resources Canada needs.  But just don’t intend for it to be spent on peacekeeping…not when Russia and China are too hell bent on domination.  Singing ”Kumbaya” around a campfire isn’t enough.  Why?  Because it’s 2023…we’ll, almost.


----------



## rmc_wannabe

Fabius said:


> Random thought, if the CAF is short 8-10,000 personnel from total authorized where is the department and CAF redirecting the excess funding that would be paying salaries, allowances etc.?
> Is it going to recruiting, modernization, O&M, piling up or returning to the centre?


----------



## Brad Sallows

What Canadians mostly seem to care about is living well at someone else's expense.  Almost everyone has his hand out for something.  If you're getting some kind of subsidies or have been lucky enough to benefit from compensation gains above inflation without increasing your productivity for the past few decades, you're part of the problem.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

FSTO said:


> I was listening to this podcast: #54 The Backbench Live: A Year in Review
> and one of the guests, Quebec Journalist Emilie Nicolas (Haitian decent) mentioned that she was worried that the Canadian Army was going to invade Haiti. To me that encapsules the absolute ignorance most Canadians have of our military. That she (a very intelligent journalist) thinks that the CAF has the people, equipment, and capability to mount such an operation shows the lack of rudimentary knowledge of our military.



If she actually believes that ANYONE in the world is interested at all in invading the backwards, impossible to govern (unless you are a dictator) country amongst the poorest in the world that is Haiti, she doesn't only lack rudimentary knowledge of our military, she lacks rudimentary knowledge of human life on this planet - period.

I live in Montreal, and have contacts with some people in the Haitian diaspora here. They are the most conceited people when it comes to their country of origin, with this great belief that Haiti actually matters in the world and that the world actually cares about what goes on in Haiti. Only people in Canada who actually care (outside that diaspora) are the Liberals, and only to the extent that it can get them votes in esat-end Montreal ridings.


----------



## Kirkhill

dimsum said:


> The housing, wages, and medical concerns (yes those are primarily provincial jurisdictions) will be whatever governing party's big challenges.



You may have put your finger on the problem there.   Federal and Provincial jurisdictions.

All the things are really matter to Canadians are Provincial responsibilities.  That is a feature not a bug.  That is the Constitution by design.

The role of the Feds was to deliver a trans-Canada railway and maintain friendly relations with the United States seeing as how Britain wasn't willing to pick a fight on our behalf.

1914 and the Feds get dragged into WWI by the Brits and the government has to implement conscription and the income tax to fund the war.

Neither of which make the Feds popular with the average taxpayer.

1939 and the Feds get dragged into WWII by the Brits and the government has to implement conscription and rationing as well as hiking taxes.

Again the Feds are not popular.

The British Labour Party saves the Canadian Federal Government.   Their cradle to the grave socialism system cracks open a seam for MacKenzie King.  King can't intervene with a National Health Plan because that is a Provincial responsibility.  As is housing.   He can, however, influence income.  He has the accepted income tax to work with.  He can now put money back into the pockets of taxpayers directly and proceeds to do so by instituting the Baby Bonus - paying $5 to $8 monthly to all parents of children under 16 - Canada's first universal welfare programme.

The taxpayer now sees a personal value in the existence of a federal government. 
That value increased with the addition of the Canada Pension Plan in 1966,

These build on more targeted values provided by the Canadian Wheat Board (1935), Unemployment Insurance (1940) and the Canadian Dairy Commission (1967).

By the end of the Pearson era, the beginning of the Trudeau era, Canadians were looking to the feds to solve their problems by showering them with money.

With that established it then becomes a fight between the feds and the provinces to see who can spend more and who gets the most credit for that spending.

Nobody gets credit for wars.  Nobody gets credit for spending on wars.


----------



## FSTO

Kirkhill said:


> You may have put your finger on the problem there.   Federal and Provincial jurisdictions.
> 
> All the things are really matter to Canadians are Provincial responsibilities.  That is a feature not a bug.  That is the Constitution by design.
> 
> The role of the Feds was to deliver a trans-Canada railway and maintain friendly relations with the United States seeing as how Britain wasn't willing to pick a fight on our behalf.
> 
> 1914 and the Feds get dragged into WWI by the Brits and the government has to implement conscription and the income tax to fund the war.
> 
> Neither of which make the Feds popular with the average taxpayer.
> 
> 1939 and the Feds get dragged into WWII by the Brits and the government has to implement conscription and rationing as well as hiking taxes.
> 
> Again the Feds are not popular.
> 
> The British Labour Party saves the Canadian Federal Government.   Their cradle to the grave socialism system cracks open a seem for MacKenzie King.  King can't intervene with a National Health Plan because that is a Provincial responsibility.  As is housing.   He can, however, influence income.  He has the accepted income tax to work with.  He can now put money back into the pockets of taxpayers directly and proceeds to do so by instituting the Baby Bonus - paying $5 to $8 monthly to all parents of children under 16 - Canada's first universal welfare programme.
> 
> The taxpayer now sees a personal value in the existence of a federal government.
> That value increased with the addition of the Canada Pension Plan in 1966,
> 
> These build on more targeted values provided by the Canadian Wheat Board (1935), Unemployment Insurance (1940) and the Canadian Dairy Commission (1967).
> 
> By the end of the Pearson era, the beginning of the Trudeau era, Canadians were looking to the feds to solve their problems by showering them with money.
> 
> With that established it then becomes a fight between the feds and the provinces to see who can spend more and who gets the most credit for that spending.
> 
> Nobody gets credit for wars.  Nobody gets credit for spending on wars.


So true. The LPC is always in the shorts of the provinces because that is their route to power in this country. With that attitude, external affairs ( the real role of the federal government) is given the shaft. The Conservatives (both PC and their Reform brothers) were/are more respective of the designated responsibilities of the Provinces and the Feds and they suffer from that.


----------



## Edward Campbell

dimsum said:


> ...
> 
> I'm unconvinced that even if the CPC wins, they will actually implement a substantial increase to Defence spending - after all, they are just campaign promises.  The housing, wages, and medical concerns (yes those are primarily provincial jurisdictions) will be whatever governing party's big challenges.


I'm pretty sure you're right. All political parties poll assiduously and their polls often ask the right questions, too. The answers they get are pretty much what you said: bread and butter/pocketbook issues - food, housing, healthcare and so on. Most Canadians,  way over 75% of them at an educated _guess_, put national defence down near the bottom of their GaF list - down near support for symphony orchestras and ballet companies.


----------



## dapaterson

Edward Campbell said:


> I'm pretty sure you're right. All political parties poll assiduously and their polls often ask the right questions, too. The answers they get are pretty much what you said: bread and butter/pocketbook issues - food, housing, healthcare and so on. Most Canadians,  way over 75% of them at an educated _guess_, put national defence down near the bottom of their GaF list - down near *support for symphony orchestras and ballet companies.*



Bands and the Snowbirds (and Ceremonial Guard) resemble that implication.


----------



## kev994

Fabius said:


> Random thought, if the CAF is short 8-10,000 personnel from total authorized where is the department and CAF redirecting the excess funding that would be paying salaries, allowances etc.?
> Is it going to recruiting, modernization, O&M, piling up or returning to the centre?


RCAF was trying to use it for Class B but they seem to have found a different way to give everyone topups so I’m not sure if they’re still trying to do that.
Edit: RCAF relies heavily on people who are double dipping to keep things running.


----------



## dapaterson

Fabius said:


> Random thought, if the CAF is short 8-10,000 personnel from total authorized where is the department and CAF redirecting the excess funding that would be paying salaries, allowances etc.?
> Is it going to recruiting, modernization, O&M, piling up or returning to the centre?


Short answer is "yes".

Longer answer gets into reprofiling, ARLU, addressing pressures both in-year and flagged in Level 1 business plans...  ADM Fin staff could bend your ear for days talking about how things like that are managed.


----------



## FJAG

Kirkhill said:


> With that established it then becomes a fight between the feds and the provinces to see who can spend more and who gets the most credit for that spending.


I think that, to an extent, there is a legitimate national purpose in redistributing wealth between the provinces in order to ensure an equal minimum standard of essential services, however, you are bang on and we are no longer at just that task but in a campaign of buying the vote through largesse. I have a hard time seeing how universal child care and dental care is a federal issue.



Edward Campbell said:


> Most Canadians, way over 75% of them at an educated _guess_, put national defence down near the bottom of their GaF list - down near support for symphony orchestras and ballet companies.


And based on the recent questionnaire I received from Poilievere on what concerns me as a citizen and voter, and the total absence of anything remotely resembling national defence or security in it, it's not even on his GaF list. The party does have a 2% of GDP mandate in its policy paper but the rest of that is so screwed up that it's incoherent and offers no hint of what the extra $ would be spent on. - My guess, more cubicles in Ottawa.

😖


----------



## Kirkhill

What happens if....

Goose Bay is revived as an active NATO training base but....

With a live GBAD-CRAM unit, 
Enhancing drone launching capability to include the Kratos Mako UTAP-22 to complement the Kratos BQMs










Add in an MQ(CQ)-9B overwatch capability and then allow manned aircraft into the environment for training purposes.

NATO scores a useful training environment.
Canada scores useful training, new kit, an experimental facility, new capabilities and international kudos
Politicians score Newfy votes.


----------



## Will M

If the Trudeau mouth is open you are hearing a lie. He's proved he's completely undependable except to create disasters. 
The WEF and UN control his actions not to mention the Chinese communist party. He spends others $$ like it was water.
For a brighter outlook watch YouTube Dr John Campbell for accurate covid and other news.


----------



## Brad Sallows

Deja vu.  The PC government of the '80s was full of well-meaning ideas for improving Canadian military capability, but had to deal with a fiscal crisis.  The first order of business of any fiscally responsible federal government has to be to get the operating budget balanced, and then to see whether there's anything practical that can be done about the net budget deficit (which at that point would be mainly cost of servicing debt).  

There isn't any "new money" for anything.  Almost everyone has a hand out asking for more money.  People with grievances want payoffs, unions want theirs to be the best-compensated province in all of Canada, people with fuzzy skills want a government-funded teat, people in communities that shouldn't exist want endless subsidies to build and re-build in perpetuity, people in high-demand occupations want theirs to be chosen as the one funded to have as many workers as are needed, people who don't have as much mad money as they would like want more individual transfers from governments and are unwilling to step back from any they already have.

Interest rates are reasonable by recent historical standards, but we make it increasingly difficult (costly) to build anything.  We can't know whether there is another boom (eg. '90s dot-com) around the corner to help.  Some people are obsessed with gutting the energy economy we have while demanding we somehow pay to develop the energy economy of the future.  And a not inconsiderable fraction of mostly urban-dwelling people are determined to piss off their rural cousins in whose backyards resides much of the infrastructure needed to sustain dense urban populations.


----------



## markppcli

Frankly no party will invest more money in the CAF because the inevitable result will be a procurement nightmare and they’ll take the heat for the ensuing scandal. We’re backed into a corner with no solutions beyond very serious, boring, and complicated policy adjustment.


----------



## markppcli

Will M said:


> If the Trudeau mouth is open you are hearing a lie. He's proved he's completely undependable except to create disasters.
> The WEF and UN control his actions not to mention the Chinese communist party. He spends others $$ like it was water.
> For a brighter outlook watch YouTube Dr John Campbell for accurate covid and other news.



Out of curiosity do you find it easier to fit the tin oil to your head or is some kind of a chin strap better?


----------



## daftandbarmy

Better late than never... which is going to feel like 'never' by the time we get the stuff issued:


Canadian military rushing to buy new weapons after lessons learned from Ukraine war​
The Canadian Army is rushing to buy new equipment in response to lessons learned from Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

Canadian Army commander Lt.-Gen. Joe Paul says that includes anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles as well as systems to protect against drones.

Paul says the military is also hoping to purchase the types of long-range, precision missile systems that have given Ukrainian forces a distinct advantage over their Russian foes.

The new weapon systems were not included in the Liberal government’s defence policy when it was released five years ago.

But Paul says the need for such equipment has emerged as the Canadian Armed Forces has closely watched and studied the fighting in Ukraine since February.

Paul says one challenge in obtaining the equipment is that many of Canada’s allies have come to the same conclusions about what they need, and are moving to buy the same stuff.










						Canadian military rushing to buy new weapons after lessons learned from Ukraine war - National | Globalnews.ca
					

The Canadian Army is rushing to buy new equipment in response to lessons learned from Russia's invasion of Ukraine.




					globalnews.ca


----------



## kev994

Kirkhill said:


> What happens if....
> 
> Goose Bay is revived as an active NATO training base but....
> 
> With a live GBAD-CRAM unit,
> Enhancing drone launching capability to include the Kratos Mako UTAP-22 to complement the Kratos BQMs
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Add in an MQ(CQ)-9B overwatch capability and then allow manned aircraft into the environment for training purposes.
> 
> NATO scores a useful training environment.
> Canada scores useful training, new kit, an experimental facility, new capabilities and international kudos
> Politicians score Newfy votes.


Everyone posted there quits is what happens


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Deleted, because it belonged in another thread (how they got mixed up - I don't know.


----------



## Retired AF Guy

Oldgateboatdriver said:


> I live in Montreal, and have contacts with some people in the Haitian diaspora here. They are the most conceited people when it comes to their country of origin, with this great belief that Haiti actually matters in the world and that the world actually cares about what goes on in Haiti. Only people in Canada who actually care (outside that diaspora) are the Liberals, and only to the extent that it can get them votes in esat-end Montreal ridings.


If these folks are so-to-trot to liberate Haiti, give them weapons, train them, and send them back to Haiti to sort things out.


----------



## lenaitch

Fabius said:


> Random thought, if the CAF is short 8-10,000 personnel from total authorized where is the department and CAF redirecting the excess funding that would be paying salaries, allowances etc.?
> Is it going to recruiting, modernization, O&M, piling up or returning to the centre?


Government departments don't get funding in the normal sense, they get allocations.  They don't lay out a budget then get a big bag of money sometime after April 1st.  Money not spent doesn't 'go back' to the Centre - it never left.


Kirkhill said:


> What happens if....
> 
> Goose Bay is revived as an active NATO training base but....
> 
> With a live GBAD-CRAM unit,
> Enhancing drone launching capability to include the Kratos Mako UTAP-22 to complement the Kratos BQMs
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Add in an MQ(CQ)-9B overwatch capability and then allow manned aircraft into the environment for training purposes.
> 
> NATO scores a useful training environment.
> Canada scores useful training, new kit, an experimental facility, new capabilities and international kudos
> Politicians score Newfy votes.


Aboriginal push-back.  Caribou herds and all that.


----------



## Ostrozac

Kirkhill said:


> What happens if....
> 
> Goose Bay is revived as an active NATO training base but....


I thought that everyone was united in hating 5 Wing Goose Bay — the locals (who protest it), the CAF (whose families hate living there) and our Allies (who hate the bad press from the protests).

Everyone except one person. Former MND O’Connor wanted to revitalize it and put a light infantry battalion there — presumably as some form of penal battalion.


----------



## dapaterson

Ostrozac said:


> I thought that everyone was united in hating 5 Wing Goose Bay — the locals (who protest it), the CAF (whose families hate living there) and our Allies (who hate the bad press from the protests).
> 
> Everyone except one person. Former MND O’Connor wanted to revitalize it and put a light infantry battalion there — presumably as some form of penal battalion.



Being a former CO of the RCD, presumably 1st Bn The RCR, to free up more space for his regiment in Petawawa...


----------



## markppcli

Kirkhill said:


> What happens if....
> 
> Goose Bay is revived as an active NATO training base but....
> 
> With a live GBAD-CRAM unit,
> Enhancing drone launching capability to include the Kratos Mako UTAP-22 to complement the Kratos BQMs
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Add in an MQ(CQ)-9B overwatch capability and then allow manned aircraft into the environment for training purposes.
> 
> NATO scores a useful training environment.
> Canada scores useful training, new kit, an experimental facility, new capabilities and international kudos
> Politicians score Newfy votes.


I sincerely doubt you’d earn many votes given the locals dislike of the existing facility. You’d see most posted there releasing as soon as humanly possible; unless they truly hated themselves, their spouses, and wished ill upon their children.


----------



## daftandbarmy

markppcli said:


> I sincerely doubt you’d earn many votes given the locals dislike of the existing facility. You’d see most posted there releasing as soon as humanly possible; unless they truly hated themselves, their spouses, and wished ill upon their children.



YVR has acres of languishing terrain they're looking to monetize in some way. The CAF should make them an offer and move back in to the South Terminal area.


As part of the Financial Sustainability lens of our 2022-2024 Strategic Plan, we outlined how we will aim to drive value from land assets to diversify our revenues and grow our core airport business while supporting regional economic development. To strengthen the non-passenger related business to a higher proportion than in the past, we will put our land assets into productive use, expanding our focus in cargo and logistics, and activating digital opportunities.

In February 2022, the Minister of Transport formally approved the proposed amendment to YVR’s 2037 Land Use Plan. We’re exploring new and innovative ways to strengthen our role as a diverse global hub while aligning YVR to the future growth and needs of British Columbia. This includes unlocking development opportunities on Sea Island that will benefit our community and the economy that supports it.



			https://www.yvr.ca/en/about-yvr/who-we-are/yvr-2037-master-plan


----------



## Kirkhill

kev994 said:


> Everyone posted there quits is what happens



So the reality is that the reason the CAF can't hire is nobody wants to go to sea and nobody wants to live in those parts of Canada that are not served by Starbucks.

You know we could save a lot of money by turning the 93% of the land that isn't arable, equivalent to that served by Starbucks, back to the First Nations and negotiating lumber and mineral claims with them directly.


----------



## Kirkhill

Ostrozac said:


> I thought that everyone was united in hating 5 Wing Goose Bay — the locals (who protest it), the CAF (whose families hate living there) and our Allies (who hate the bad press from the protests).
> 
> Everyone except one person. Former MND O’Connor wanted to revitalize it and put a light infantry battalion there — presumably as some form of penal battalion.



Fair enough.  Move the GBAD/Drone/UAS range to Cold Lake.  I understand that to be an equally popular posting.


----------



## markppcli

Kirkhill said:


> So the reality is that the reason the CAF can't hire is nobody wants to go to sea and nobody wants to live in those parts of Canada that are not served by Starbucks.
> 
> You know we could save a lot of money by turning the 93% of the land that isn't arable, equivalent to that served by Starbucks, back to the First Nations and negotiating lumber and mineral claims with them directly.


No people want to go to sea; they just don’t want to do it while jumping from ship to ship working for and officer corps that spends 1/3 of the time at sea as them.

They don’t want Starbucks; they want their partners to have jobs and their kids to be have the opportunity to go to schools and partake in extra curricular activities. They do not want to live in a Gulag in the most remote part of the Country.


----------



## markppcli

Kirkhill said:


> Fair enough.  Move the GBAD/Drone/UAS range to Cold Lake.  I understand that to be an equally popular posting.



Cold Lakes issues as a posting can be solved by the CAF, Goose Bay’s can’t.


----------



## Kirkhill

Nobody says that any posting has to be permanent.  Seasonal campaigns. Two weeks on - Two weeks off.  The civilian world uses a variety of solutions to those types of problems.  -- Different thread -- overlap.


----------



## MilEME09

Canadian Army eyeing new weapons in response to lessons learned from Ukraine war
					

The war in Ukraine has identified critical gaps in the Canadian Army's ability to fight and survive on the battlefield, leading to an unanticipated rush to buy new military equipment.




					www.ctvnews.ca


----------



## SeaKingTacco

daftandbarmy said:


> YVR has acres of languishing terrain they're looking to monetize in some way. The CAF should make them an offer and move back in to the South Terminal area.
> 
> 
> As part of the Financial Sustainability lens of our 2022-2024 Strategic Plan, we outlined how we will aim to drive value from land assets to diversify our revenues and grow our core airport business while supporting regional economic development. To strengthen the non-passenger related business to a higher proportion than in the past, we will put our land assets into productive use, expanding our focus in cargo and logistics, and activating digital opportunities.
> 
> In February 2022, the Minister of Transport formally approved the proposed amendment to YVR’s 2037 Land Use Plan. We’re exploring new and innovative ways to strengthen our role as a diverse global hub while aligning YVR to the future growth and needs of British Columbia. This includes unlocking development opportunities on Sea Island that will benefit our community and the economy that supports it.
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.yvr.ca/en/about-yvr/who-we-are/yvr-2037-master-plan


No. Just. No.


----------



## markppcli

Kirkhill said:


> Nobody says that any posting has to be permanent.  Seasonal campaigns. Two weeks on - Two weeks off.  The civilian world uses a variety of solutions to those types of problems.  -- Different thread -- overlap.


Well actually the posting instruction kinda does…


----------



## Kirkhill

markppcli said:


> Well actually the posting instruction kinda does…



In which case there may be an opportunity for some creativity in devising new posting instructions.

Maybe the Cold Lake guys can join the Fort McMurray flights from Montreal and St John's.


----------



## markppcli

Kirkhill said:


> In which case there may be an opportunity for some creativity in devising new posting instructions.
> 
> Maybe the Cold Lake guys can join the Fort McMurray flights from Montreal and St John's.


Possibly, but then we need double the people to keep up the maintenance.


----------



## YZT580

There are lots of places in which we could establish a well-founded drone facility and remain close to civilization.  Centrallia for example in southwestern Ontario.  North Bay, although a little remote does offer good hunting, fishing and a reasonably large community so there is no need to maroon people in places like Goose.


----------



## Quirky

markppcli said:


> Possibly, but then we need double the people to keep up the maintenance.


Or reduce ops to properly reflect manning levels.


----------



## Kirkhill

Where's Waldo?  - Go to the link for legible text -  You still won't find Waldo.










			https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/defence-spending-pledges-by-nato-members-since-russia-invaded-ukraine/


----------



## KevinB

Kirkhill said:


> Where's Waldo?  - Go to the link for legible text -  You still won't find Waldo.
> 
> 
> View attachment 75663
> 
> View attachment 75664
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/defence-spending-pledges-by-nato-members-since-russia-invaded-ukraine/


The Estonian Defence page is quite informative.








						Defence budget | Kaitseministeerium
					

As of 2012 the Defence budget or the Ministry of Defence’s governing minimum amount is 2% of the gross domestic product. This supports a military national defence with a balanced and sustainable development as well as meeting NATO ...




					kaitseministeerium.ee
				



2% GDP supports a sustainable and balanced development of national defence​
As of 2012 there has been an agreement between the political parties of the government to support and maintain the defence budget at a 2% GDP expenditure. Military expenditures represent approximately 4.5% of the total state budget. This is one of the smallest items in the budget. This guarantees the defence expenditure to be maintained at 2% of the gross domestic product supporting a sustainable and balanced development of national defence.


----------



## Edward Campbell

In 1960, the year I enrolled in the Army, as a private soldier, Canada spent 4.2% of GDP on defence - that was about $1.7 Billion and it had bought us 18 new, modern destroyers and several smaller ships, the Army had four full or nearly full strength (85%) brigade groups and we flew 130 CF-101 _Voodoo_ jets in Canada and 8 squadrons of CF-104 _Starfighters_ in Europe. There were 120,000 men and women in the regular force.

By the time I was promoted to LCol and took command of my own Regiment (1978) our defence budget was 1.85% of GDP, almost $4 Billion in 1978 dollars. We had about 100,000 men and women in the regular force but "rust out" was a real issue.

I retired in 1997, our defence b budget was 1.25& of GDP but almost $8 Billion. We had about 90,000 regular force members but they had new, modern frigates (only 12 of them) and 135+ new, modern CF-18s. The Army had given a good account of itself in UNPROFOR and IFOR in the Balkans but some senior officers argued it was too small even as a mobilization base for a serious war.

Defence spending in dollar terms is meaningless ... inflation drives numbers up and up and up, but each larger number "buys" fewer mean and women and less and less capable equipment for them to use.

Defence spending as a % of GDP is a fair indicator of national will. Our "national will" had declined sharply after 1952 (when defence spent almost 7% of GDP) because there was less need. The threat, by 1960, was still real but it was contained. Our will remained well above average, for NATO (2.75% to 3%), until 1968 when it took another precipitous fall, down to below 2% by 1973. It stayed above 1.5% until 1982 and it rose only because of threatened trade actions by Germany. It stayed above or near 2% during the Mulroney years but fell again after 1993. 

Spending rose sharply, in real dollar terms, from 2002 to 2011 (Afghanistan) but in 2012 Defence Minister Peter MacKay decided, on the advice of his admirals and generals, to disobey a pretty clear directive from Prime Minister Harper to cut the HQ bloat and the PM, in his turn, cut DND's funding sharply. By 2014 Canada spent less than 1% of GDP on defence and that, _I think_, was a shot aimed directly at Rick Hillier and Walt Natynczyk and so on.

Under pressure from the GOB (Great Orange Buffon in the White House) Prime Minister Trudeau has made the defence budget rise from 1.15% ($18B) to 1,4% ($23B) but that is not even keeping pace with inflation.

The message I get from the numbers is that Canadians are unwilling to spend on defence. 2% may be a red line that Canadians are unwilling to allow any government to cross.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Edward Campbell said:


> In 1960, the year I enrolled in the Army, as a private soldier, Canada spent 4.2% of GDP on defence - that was about $1.7 Billion and it had bought us 18 new, modern destroyers and several smaller ships, the Army had four full or nearly full strength (85%) brigade groups and we flew 130 CF-101 _Voodoo_ jets in Canada and 8 squadrons of CF-104 _Starfighters_ in Europe. There were 120,000 men and women in the regular force.
> 
> By the time I was promoted to LCol and took command of my own Regiment (1978) our defence budget was 1.85% of GDP, almost $4 Billion in 1978 dollars. We had about 100,000 men and women in the regular force but "rust out" was a real issue.
> 
> I retired in 1997, our defence b budget was 1.25& of GDP but almost $8 Billion. We had about 90,000 regular force members but they had new, modern frigates (only 12 of them) and 135+ new, modern CF-18s. The Army had given a good account of itself in UNPROFOR and IFOR in the Balkans but some senior officers argued it was too small even as a mobilization base for a serious war.
> 
> Defence spending in dollar terms is meaningless ... inflation drives numbers up and up and up, but each larger number "buys" fewer mean and women and less and less capable equipment for them to use.
> 
> Defence spending as a % of GDP is a fair indicator of national will. Our "national will" had declined sharply after 1952 (when defence spent almost 7% of GDP) because there was less need. The threat, by 1960, was still real but it was contained. Our will remained well above average, for NATO (2.75% to 3%), until 1968 when it took another precipitous fall, down to below 2% by 1973. It stayed above 1.5% until 1982 and it rose only because of threatened trade actions by Germany. It stayed above or near 2% during the Mulroney years but fell again after 1993.
> 
> Spending rose sharply, in real dollar terms, from 2002 to 2011 (Afghanistan) but in 2012 Defence Minister Peter MacKay decided, on the advice of his admirals and generals, to disobey a pretty clear directive from Prime Minister Harper to cut the HQ bloat and the PM, in his turn, cut DND's funding sharply. By 2014 Canada spent less than 1% of GDP on defence and that, _I think_, was a shot aimed directly at Rick Hillier and Walt Natynczyk and so on.
> 
> Under pressure from the GOB (Great Orange Buffon in the White House) Prime Minister Trudeau has made the defence budget rise from 1.15% ($18B) to 1,4% ($23B) but that is not even keeping pace with inflation.
> 
> The message I get from the numbers is that Canadians are unwilling to spend on defence. 2% may be a red line that Canadians are unwilling to allow any government to cross.



That's perfectly fine.  Canadians then have to be realistic about our place on the world stage and what we are actually capable of.  

Both of which I think out of whack at the moment.


----------



## rmc_wannabe

Halifax Tar said:


> That's perfectly fine.  Canadians then have to be realistic about our place on the world stage and what we are actually capable of.
> 
> Both of which I think out of whack at the moment.



Canadians are a lot like Germans when it comes to their armed forces: 

-a major player in past conflicts with a history of herculean feats, in spite of political incompetence

-Post WWII, developed a massive reliance on American efforts for defense, rusted out their own capabilities and put that money elsewhere (social supports, environmentalism, healthcare), while sticking noses up at America not having the same for their own citizens.

-Post Cold War, believed that token deployments with the UN /NATO would keep their seat at the big kid's table.

-struggled to fully sustain large scale rotations in Afg, while the domestic population was apathetic or hostile to the mission.

Now in 2022, no one wants to pay to rearm, but citizens of both countries want the same clout they once had. 

What is the French expression again? You can't have the butter and still keep the money for the butter?


----------



## OldSolduer

Halifax Tar said:


> That's perfectly fine.  Canadians then have to be realistic about our place on the world stage and what we are actually capable of.
> 
> Both of which I think out of whack at the moment.


Mark my words the chickens will come home to roost. When or where I can't say BUT it will be a huge scandal with many empty headed people asking "what went wrong? "


----------



## Halifax Tar

OldSolduer said:


> Mark my words the chickens will come home to roost. When or where I can't say BUT it will be a huge scandal with many empty headed people asking "what went wrong? "



You're absolutely right and the people of Canada are to blame.


----------



## YZT580

Halifax Tar said:


> You're absolutely right and the people of Canada are to blame.


Yes and no.  The vast majority of Canadians, in fact people in general, are followers.  They are also selfish in that they want the things that OW promises them and don't think any further than their own best interests.  They are extremely naïve but at the same time afraid to think for themselves in spite of the evidence in front of them.  They have also become used to their entitlements as Jean so eloquently said.  The guilt lies with the people who are lying to them and in the people who knowingly are profiting from those lies. 

 In the 30's American businessmen fought to preserve their market in Japan, selling shipload upon shipload of steel plating that was used to build the Japanese airforce and navy.  We all know how that turned out, don't we?


----------



## dimsum

YZT580 said:


> There are lots of places in which we could establish a well-founded drone facility and remain close to civilization.  Centrallia for example in southwestern Ontario.  North Bay, although a little remote does offer good hunting, fishing and a reasonably large community so there is no need to maroon people in places like Goose.


But they've already announced the place(s), and none of them are Goose.


----------



## Brad Sallows

It's impractical to try to determine what the degree of financial commitment to something is without converting for inflation and adjusting for population and prosperity growth.  For example, adjusted for inflation, our per capita GDP is about 60% greater than 50 years ago (using figures from 1971 to 2021, which seem to differ a bit between sources, and a simple online inflation adjustment calculator).  Our per-person productivity is greater, and we have more people, than at any past time.  We can afford "more", but the question is how "more" is composed.


----------



## markppcli

Quirky said:


> Or reduce ops to properly reflect manning levels.


Also an option. But even if their sat there the plans still need maintenance. If you change to two weeks on two weeks off you need two crews as opposed to one. Not sure it’s much savings. Also you need to administer and support those crews while their “home,” so how does that work?


----------



## Quirky

markppcli said:


> Also an option. But even if their sat there the plans still need maintenance. If you change to two weeks on two weeks off you need two crews as opposed to one. Not sure it’s much savings. Also you need to administer and support those crews while their “home,” so how does that work?



Two weeks off means just that. Off. No appointments, no “come in to sign X nonsense”, off. Everything is done while you are on your two week rotation.


----------



## Kirkhill

markppcli said:


> Also an option. But even if their sat there the plans still need maintenance. If you change to two weeks on two weeks off you need two crews as opposed to one. Not sure it’s much savings. Also you need to administer and support those crews while their “home,” so how does that work?



To save money buy equipment that doesn't require people.

Or at least requires fewer people.

Maybe you only need a 6 man security section and a regional maintenance team with a circuit to support.


----------



## Quirky

Kirkhill said:


> To save money buy equipment that doesn't require people.
> 
> Or at least requires fewer people.
> 
> Maybe you only need a 6 man security section and a regional maintenance team with a circuit to support.



Security lol. Just beef up the commissionaire sections.


----------



## CBH99

Quirky said:


> Security lol. Just beef up the commissionaire sections.


I mean there are more & more seniors looking for part time gigs, and Wal-Mart isn't for everyone...


----------



## Quirky

CBH99 said:


> I mean there are more & more seniors looking for part time gigs, and Wal-Mart isn't for everyone...



25% of the population will be 65+ by 2028 in Canada. We will need them in any capacity to keep this insane gov spending going.


----------



## Brad Sallows

For the most part seniors will either be retired or working time-filling jobs that don't pay enough to make them appreciable contributors to income tax revenues, and their retirement savings (those that have them) won't be going as far as before inflation took a bite.  Some of them will be voting for whoever promises to increase payments to contemporary beneficiaries of CPP, OAS, and GIS.  Whoever makes any kind of promises - no matter how wild - to improve access to health care might also get their votes.

What I expect to happen is that taxes will increase substantially on the upper quarter or third of filers by income.  The amount won't be noticed by the super-rich, but below that small fraction there is going to be a large tranch of taxpayers whose disposable income starts to shrink - maybe starting at $70K income, if you're wondering whether that is likely to include yourself.  Roughly half of Canadians receive more in transfers than they pay in income tax, so don't look to them.


----------



## PPCLI Guy

0l


Quirky said:


> Security lol. Just beef up the commissionaire sections.


Launch the Geriatric Response Force!!!!


----------



## daftandbarmy

PPCLI Guy said:


> 0l
> 
> Launch the Geriatric Response Force!!!!



I'm REDy


----------



## dimsum

PPCLI Guy said:


> 0l
> 
> Launch the Geriatric Response Force!!!!


----------



## FJAG

Edward Campbell said:


> Spending rose sharply, in real dollar terms, from 2002 to 2011 (Afghanistan) but in 2012 Defence Minister Peter MacKay decided, on the advice of his admirals and generals, to disobey a pretty clear directive from Prime Minister Harper to cut the HQ bloat and the PM, in his turn, cut DND's funding sharply. By 2014 Canada spent less than 1% of GDP on defence and that, _I think_, was a shot aimed directly at Rick Hillier and Walt Natynczyk and so on.
> 
> Under pressure from the GOB (Great Orange Buffon in the White House) Prime Minister Trudeau has made the defence budget rise from 1.15% ($18B) to 1,4% ($23B) but that is not even keeping pace with inflation.
> 
> The message I get from the numbers is that Canadians are unwilling to spend on defence. 2% may be a red line that Canadians are unwilling to allow any government to cross.


And, based on the first para above and the transformation report by Leslie on where the new Afghan money for personnel ended up, it seems clear that the generals and admirals and EXs are more than happy to spend money in Ottawa and the greater defence administrative system bloat rather than on defence capabilities.

Personally, as a Canadian, I'm willing to spend 2% of the GDP on defence, but not until DND/CAF sorts out its personnel imbalance, its bloated administrative system and the moribund procurement system.

🍻


----------



## rmc_wannabe

FJAG said:


> And, based on the first para above and the transformation report by Leslie on where the new Afghan money for personnel ended up, it seems clear that the generals and admirals and EXs are more than happy to spend money in Ottawa and the greater defence administrative system bloat rather than on defence capabilities.
> 
> Personally, as a Canadian, I'm willing to spend 2% of the GDP on defence, but not until DND/CAF sorts out its personnel imbalance, its bloated administrative system and the moribund procurement system.
> 
> 🍻



Agreed.

You could hand DND/CAF 4% of GDP tomorrow and it would have zero positive effect on how we do business.

We still have 6 "Divisional" HQs fully staffed, yet could probably field a Brigade's worth of personnel, Reg and Reserve, and roughly a Combat Team's worth of assets to support within each Division (completely glossing over the fact that 3 of those 6 Divisional HQs lack a CMBG in them.) 

Unless we are pulled into Article 5, or we are outright attacked; no government of any political stripe will give the order to mobilize enough personnel to field a full Division. It's a money pit to maintain these structures "just in case."


----------



## Brad Sallows

We need all those HQs.  One of the Lessons Learned of the war in Ukraine is that the enemy artillery we don't have much to fight back with is probably going to wipe HQs off the map on a regular basis.


----------



## daftandbarmy

FJAG said:


> Personally, as a Canadian, I'm willing to spend 2% of the GDP on defence, but not until DND/CAF sorts out its personnel imbalance, its bloated administrative system and the moribund procurement system.
> 
> 🍻



And I'm guessing that the politicians are thinking the same. No need to throw good money after bad until the CAF can get its internal act together... 

... which will probably be never


----------



## kev994

rmc_wannabe said:


> Agreed.
> 
> You could hand DND/CAF 4% of GDP tomorrow and it would have zero positive effect on how we do business.


This close to the end of FY they may as well hand it directly to CORCAN and skip the middle-man. Just drop off some crappy furniture that’s identical to what’s here now.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

rmc_wannabe said:


> Agreed.
> 
> You could hand DND/CAF 4% of GDP tomorrow and it would have zero positive effect on how we do business.
> 
> We still have 6 "Divisional" HQs fully staffed, yet could probably field a Brigade's worth of personnel, Reg and Reserve, and roughly a Combat Team's worth of assets to support within each Division (completely glossing over the fact that 3 of those 6 Divisional HQs lack a CMBG in them.)
> 
> Unless we are pulled into Article 5, or we are outright attacked; no government of any political stripe will give the order to mobilize enough personnel to field a full Division. It's a money pit to maintain these structures "just in case."



The RCAF isn’t sitting around in garrison waiting for a deployment - we’re “operational” every day of the year. 

I can’t speak for the entire RCAF but I know my fleet could put more flying (gas and TD $) to good use. 

Use some of the money to buy things, use some of the money to train people to use the things you buy.  My fleet would benefit hugely from that combined with an increase in YFR.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Eye In The Sky said:


> The RCAF isn’t sitting around in garrison waiting for a deployment - we’re “operational” every day of the year.
> 
> I can’t speak for the entire RCAF but I know my fleet could put more flying (gas and TD $) to good use.
> 
> Use some of the money to buy things, use some of the money to train people to use the things you buy.  My fleet would benefit hugely from that combined with an increase in YFR.



You stop it!  If it's not Army it's not doing anything.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Halifax Tar said:


> You stop it!  If it's not Army it's not doing anything.



You’ve been at your current work location for a while now;  would you shut it down and give the money to the RCN for ships and sailors?  🙂


----------



## KevinB

Eye In The Sky said:


> The RCAF isn’t sitting around in garrison waiting for a deployment - we’re “operational” every day of the year.
> 
> I can’t speak for the entire RCAF but I know my fleet could put more flying (gas and TD $) to good use.
> 
> Use some of the money to buy things, use some of the money to train people to use the things you buy.  My fleet would benefit hugely from that combined with an increase in YFR.


Sorry how old are your planes? 
   Or the rest of the RCAF assets?


----------



## Eye In The Sky

KevinB said:


> Sorry how old are your planes?
> Or the rest of the RCAF assets?



Our fleet is this many years old 






😆


----------



## Eye In The Sky

KevinB said:


> Sorry how old are your planes?
> Or the rest of the RCAF assets?



And our fleet is this big


----------



## Halifax Tar

Eye In The Sky said:


> You’ve been at your current work location for a while now;  would you shut it down and give the money to the RCN for ships and sailors?  🙂



It's much the opposite where I am.  In Halifax the Army is the bastard child. 

It's been eye opening for some when I express that the CBG is not the priority here.  There grey floaty things are.  

But what has been refreshing is working with a bunch of people who want to be here.  Stay tuned, I've been approached and am contemplating a major change.


----------



## rmc_wannabe

Eye In The Sky said:


> The RCAF isn’t sitting around in garrison waiting for a deployment - we’re “operational” every day of the year.
> 
> I can’t speak for the entire RCAF but I know my fleet could put more flying (gas and TD $) to good use.
> 
> Use some of the money to buy things, use some of the money to train people to use the things you buy.  My fleet would benefit hugely from that combined with an increase in YFR.



I only can speak to my own experience and observations. The most I have been exposed to how the RCAF operates were in and out of 8 Wing to head to theatre. 

My point was mainly that while we need more $, we tend to take that money and piss it away in acts of delusions of grandeur thar making what we have more functional. 

I would love to see more money as well. I need to get folks firing more than 49 rounds a year to stay proficient on their personal weapons. I need more money to perform the crucial O&M tasks that have been kicked down the road for decades. 

The Army is garrison bound, yes; but there has been a lot of "ridden hard, put away wet." In the past 10 years that has come to roost in 2022. Especially personnel wise.

I find exercises in "who has it worst" only serve to deflect from those truly at fault, and continue the infighting between the L1s.


----------



## dimsum

Halifax Tar said:


> It's been eye opening for some when I express that the CBG is not the priority here. There grey floaty things are.


There are people in Halifax who seriously don't think the RCN is the big priority?  

Unlike Esquimalt, where the base is tucked away in another cove, it's pretty impossible not to see the Atlantic fleet when driving over the bridges.


----------



## Halifax Tar

dimsum said:


> There are people in Halifax who seriously don't think the RCN is the big priority?
> 
> Unlike Esquimalt, where the base is tucked away in another cove, it's pretty impossible not to see the Atlantic fleet when driving over the bridges.



There absolutely are.  

I truly think the CBG would be better supported if it was able to establish 36 Svc (Halifax) into a 3rd line CBG supporting logistics/maintenance unit and detach from needing to go through CFB Halifax units.

And it could be done.  Just need the positions and the money.

I have truly loved my time at the CBG HQ.  The Army Reserve has been absolutely refreshing.  The can do and positive attitude is so refreshing. I just think things from a sustainment and maintenance perspective thing could be better done independently.


----------



## markppcli

Quirky said:


> Two weeks off means just that. Off. No appointments, no “come in to sign X nonsense”, off. Everything is done while you are on your two week rotation.


So where do they do fitness training? What happens if they get injured ? 



Kirkhill said:


> To save money buy equipment that doesn't require people.
> 
> Or at least requires fewer people.
> 
> Maybe you only need a 6 man security section and a regional maintenance team with a circuit to support.



All equipment requires people; the buildings and vehicles, even drones, require maintenance and up keep. Then those people required support.


----------



## Quirky

markppcli said:


> So where do they do fitness training? What happens if they get injured ?



At their local gym or field house, CAF could partially subsidize memberships. Is $20 a month out of your own pocket really a deal breaker for a regular gym rat? I know it wouldn't be for me. If they get injured then there's the local ER, CAF members can experience what it's like seeking medical care like everyone else. Maybe then they'll appreciate the MIR services and the instant care they receive.


----------



## dimsum

markppcli said:


> So where do they do fitness training?


Not OP, but I know that at least one unit had a deal with the nearby civ gym because it wasn't near the rest of the base and its gym.



markppcli said:


> What happens if they get injured ?


I imagine that they would go to civ hospital, like what happens during off hours.

I'm not suggesting that's a _good_ idea...


----------



## markppcli

Quirky said:


> At their local gym or field house, CAF could partially subsidize memberships. Is $20 a month out of your own pocket really a deal breaker for a regular gym rat?



And if it isn’t available? We talk a lot, to potential recruits, about all the benefits of the CAF. Call me crazy but it seems like we should provide them. While it can be said “those that want to go will go” fitness training should be more concerned about those that won’t go, who’s going to ensure thats happening whiles Cpl Bloggins on his two weeks off? Also where are you getting a 20 dollar gym membership? Very curious. 



Quirky said:


> I know it wouldn't be for me. If they get injured then there's the local ER, CAF members can experience what it's like seeking medical care like everyone else. Maybe then they'll appreciate the MIR services and the instant care they receive.


If your expecting them to regularly use the civilian medical services I would expect the provincial health authority will have something to say about it.


----------



## dimsum

markppcli said:


> Also where are you getting a 20 dollar gym membership? Very curious.


Right?  The lowest that Anytime Fitness (pretty bare bones in terms of gyms) offers is $55/month. 



markppcli said:


> If your expecting them to regularly use the civilian medical services I would expect the provincial health authority will have something to say about it.


I think the regular shifting of med records btwn the CAF and provincial health authorities will be a massive headache.  As it stands, if you get injured and go to the ER, you then need to contact the MIR to ensure billing and records are transferred properly.  But @Quirky says that folks shouldn't be doing any work-related stuff in those two weeks that they're off. 

Does this count as work-related stuff?  If not, would the hospital wait for up to 2 weeks before med records are transferred and/or they get paid?

Edit to add:  How about folks who need long-term stuff like physio, etc?  Do they keep flipping between CAF physio and civ physio, depending on when their appointments land?


----------



## markppcli

dimsum said:


> Right?  The lowest that Anytime Fitness (pretty bare bones in terms of gyms) offers is $55/month.
> 
> 
> I think the regular shifting of med records btwn the CAF and provincial health authorities will be a massive headache.  As it stands, if you get injured and go to the ER, you then need to contact the MIR to ensure billing and records are transferred properly.  But @Quirky says that folks shouldn't be doing any work-related stuff in those two weeks that they're off.
> 
> Does this count as work-related stuff?  If not, would the hospital wait for up to 2 weeks before med records are transferred and/or they get paid?
> 
> Edit to add:  How about folks who need long-term stuff like physio, etc?  Do they keep flipping between CAF physio and civ physio, depending on when their appointments land?


This is what I mean; the admin hassle we have because of using our medical system becomes enormous. Let’s talk about admin; what do you do when your off and your pay is messed up and they need a signature to fix it / pay you via cashier ?  Or finalize a claim ? How about your ripped you clothes day 14 of your shift do you wait two weeks to get reissued ? All of this would require some kind of support for those folks in their “off” time.


----------



## kev994

rmc_wannabe said:


> I only can speak to my own experience and observations. The most I have been exposed to how the RCAF operates were in and out of 8 Wing to head to theatre.
> 
> My point was mainly that while we need more $, we tend to take that money and piss it away in acts of delusions of grandeur thar making what we have more functional.
> 
> I would love to see more money as well. I need to get folks firing more than 49 rounds a year to stay proficient on their personal weapons. I need more money to perform the crucial O&M tasks that have been kicked down the road for decades.
> 
> The Army is garrison bound, yes; but there has been a lot of "ridden hard, put away wet." In the past 10 years that has come to roost in 2022. Especially personnel wise.
> 
> I find exercises in "who has it worst" only serve to deflect from those truly at fault, and continue the infighting between the L1s.


I’ll take some of that, and I would like my workplace to not be made out of lead and asbestos. It would also be nice if I could drink a beverage without being concerned about its content of heavy metals.


----------



## Weinie

dimsum said:


> Right?  The lowest that Anytime Fitness (pretty bare bones in terms of gyms) offers is $55/month.


Fit 4 Less is substantially cheaper than that.


----------



## Quirky

markppcli said:


> And if it isn’t available? We talk a lot, to potential recruits, about all the benefits of the CAF. Call me crazy but it seems like we should provide them. While it can be said “those that want to go will go” fitness training should be more concerned about those that won’t go, who’s going to ensure thats happening whiles Cpl Bloggins on his two weeks off? Also where are you getting a 20 dollar gym membership? Very curious.



I said subsidized, meaning the CAF would cover a portion of the gym membership while you're "off" living in civilization unlike in isolated places like Cold lake. I used to take a month off during the summer away from any base and paid the 30-day fee, which was $40-50. Given the current physical fitness state of our Air Force, I doubt many would use that fitness allowance. The amount of GenZs who work-out for their own health is extremely low compared to those who game all day pounding back energy drinks.



> If your expecting them to regularly use the civilian medical services I would expect the provincial health authority will have something to say about it.



You use regular medical service while on shift and use the civilian services when off for any emergencies. Like we do now. I don't book regular medical appointments when I'm on leave.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

rmc_wannabe said:


> I only can speak to my own experience and observations. The most I have been exposed to how the RCAF operates were in and out of 8 Wing to head to theatre.
> 
> My point was mainly that while we need more $, we tend to take that money and piss it away in acts of delusions of grandeur thar making what we have more functional.
> 
> I would love to see more money as well. I need to get folks firing more than 49 rounds a year to stay proficient on their personal weapons. I need more money to perform the crucial O&M tasks that have been kicked down the road for decades.
> 
> The Army is garrison bound, yes; but there has been a lot of "ridden hard, put away wet." In the past 10 years that has come to roost in 2022. Especially personnel wise.
> 
> I find exercises in "who has it worst" only serve to deflect from those truly at fault, and continue the infighting between the L1s.



Wait you get 49 “live” rounds a year?

I get less than that in the SAT, for the 9mm.

But ya, we all need more money and a procurement system and training system that will allow us to put it to good use.


----------



## markppcli

Quirky said:


> I said subsidized, meaning the CAF would cover a portion of the gym membership while you're "off" living in civilization unlike in isolated places like Cold lake. I used to take a month off during the summer away from any base and paid the 30-day fee, which was $40-50. Given the current physical fitness state of our Air Force, I doubt many would use that fitness allowance. The amount of GenZs who work-out for their own health is extremely low compared to those who game all day pounding back energy drinks.



I actually find gym use much higher in our younger troops but that could be different organizations.



Quirky said:


> You use regular medical service while on shift and use the civilian services when off for any emergencies. Like we do now. I don't book regular medical appointments when I'm on leave.



You’re also not on 2 week rotations. That’s 6 months of “off” time. Not unreasonable to assume medical needs will occur while your in your away time.


----------



## Quirky

markppcli said:


> You’re also not on 2 week rotations. That’s 6 months of “off” time. Not unreasonable to assume medical needs will occur while your in your away time.



Then we need to figure out another system that works. We could just maintain the status quo, because change is hard and sometimes expensive, and keep losing people because of stupidity like isolated bases. I prefer to see the later and let the ship sink, maybe things will change at that point. We are already combat ineffective pretty much across the board.


----------



## markppcli

Quirky said:


> Then we need to figure out another system that works. We could just maintain the status quo, because change is hard and sometimes expensive, and keep losing people because of stupidity like isolated bases. I prefer to see the later and let the ship sink, maybe things will change at that point. We are already combat ineffective pretty much across the board.



I don’t disagree I’m just pointing out that fly in and fly out creates its own host of problems; and it would also likely increase our manpower needs vs solve them.

 Isolated bases should just be done away with quite frankly. The advantages of raining area proximity are offset by the costs of posting and out and retention losses. Bases closer to towns with reasonable housing and better services, by virtue of concentration, could go a long way. 

Regardless which problem the CAF needs to address first, the answer probably isn’t putting an Air Defence Bn in Goose Bay.


----------



## dimsum

markppcli said:


> Regardless which problem the CAF needs to address first, the answer probably isn’t putting an Air Defence Bn in Goose Bay.


Are you referring to the 2006 Harper campaign promise?  Because no one has suggested it since.


----------



## markppcli

dimsum said:


> Are you referring to the 2006 Harper campaign promise?  Because no one has suggested it since.



I was referring to this suggestion 


Kirkhill said:


> What happens if....
> 
> Goose Bay is revived as an active NATO training base but....
> 
> With a live GBAD-CRAM unit,
> Enhancing drone launching capability to include the Kratos Mako UTAP-22 to complement the Kratos BQMs
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Add in an MQ(CQ)-9B overwatch capability and then allow manned aircraft into the environment for training purposes.
> 
> NATO scores a useful training environment.
> Canada scores useful training, new kit, an experimental facility, new capabilities and international kudos
> Politicians score Newfy votes.


----------



## Quirky

markppcli said:


> Isolated bases should just be done away with quite frankly. The advantages of raining area proximity are offset by the costs of posting and out and retention losses. Bases closer to towns with reasonable housing and better services, by virtue of concentration, could go a long way.



-Navy isn’t isolated, West and East coasts in major centres. I think.
-Army has wainwright, which could be closed and relocated to Edmonton. Shilo is close enough to Brandon? 
-Air Force has Cold Lake which is the biggest isolated cancer. That’s not going away with the infrastructure planned for the F-35. Greenwood could be moved to Halifax airport. Maybe?


----------



## markppcli

Quirky said:


> -Navy isn’t isolated, West and East coasts in major centres. I think.
> -Army has wainwright, which could be closed and relocated to Edmonton. Shilo is close enough to Brandon?
> -Air Force has Cold Lake which is the biggest isolated cancer. That’s not going away with the infrastructure planned for the F-35. Greenwood could be moved to Halifax airport. Maybe?



Wainwright is a training centre; Edmonton houses units has no training area (well nearly). It’s standard to drive to wainwright to conduct most training and it’s workable.

Shilo is very isolated, having just been posted here “25 minutes to Brandon” sounds great until you realize your out of milk / butter / eggs and the canex closed at 5 pm because it’s Wednesday.  Oh and you’d love to go have a beer and watch the game at the pub but there isn’t one for 30 minutes around you and the mess is open one day a week.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

markppcli said:


> I actually find gym use much higher in our younger troops but that could be different organizations.
> 
> 
> 
> You’re also not on 2 week rotations. That’s 6 months of “off” time. Not unreasonable to assume medical needs will occur while your in your away time.


Out west young people are very fitness conscious, either the endurance fitness like running or weight lifting/Yoga and also very conscious of what they eat. I can't speak for other region though.


----------



## MilEME09

markppcli said:


> Wainwright is a training centre; Edmonton houses units has no training area (well nearly). It’s standard to drive to wainwright to conduct most training and it’s workable.
> 
> Shilo is very isolated, having just been posted here “25 minutes to Brandon” sounds great until you realize your out of milk / butter / eggs and the canex closed at 5 pm because it’s Wednesday.  Oh and you’d love to go have a beer and watch the game at the pub but there isn’t one for 30 minutes around you and the mess is open one day a week.


Messes and amenities for those on bases has been slowly dying the last ten years. I was in borden in summer 2019, every long weekend the Jr was closed, as was any entertainment on base. Canex closed at about 4 and opened at 10, realistically you want any entertainment you had to cab it off base as anyone with a vehicle to give you a lift left Friday


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Quirky said:


> -Navy isn’t isolated, West and East coasts in major centres. I think.
> -Army has wainwright, which could be closed and relocated to Edmonton. Shilo is close enough to Brandon?
> -Air Force has Cold Lake which is the biggest isolated cancer. That’s not going away with the infrastructure planned for the F-35. Greenwood could be moved to Halifax airport. Maybe?



I doubt Hfx Intl would want the air weapons stuff there.


----------



## Kirkhill

Quirky said:


> -Navy isn’t isolated, West and East coasts in major centres. I think.
> -Army has wainwright, which could be closed and relocated to Edmonton. Shilo is close enough to Brandon?
> -Air Force has Cold Lake which is the biggest isolated cancer. That’s not going away with the infrastructure planned for the F-35. Greenwood could be moved to Halifax airport. Maybe?




All of which would play to the "hollowing out" of Canada as the population moves from a large number of dispersed communities to an ever shrinking number of urban centres.   That, in my view, tends to promote a "colonial" mentality with each city developing an independent character with its own hinterland.  The hinterlands butt up against each other and isolate the cities.  The hinterlands also become prey for third parties willing to pay more attention to them than their patron cities do.

What does Canada look like with 10,000,000 km2 of land and 40,000,000 people packed into 10 cities occupying 1% of that area?


----------



## Halifax Tar

Eye In The Sky said:


> I doubt Hfx Intl would want the air weapons stuff there.



Can Shearwater be brought back to fixed wing operation ?


----------



## Good2Golf

Kirkhill said:


> What does Canada look like with 10,000,000 km2 of land and 40,000,000 people packed into 10 cities occupying 1% of that area?



…like a larger version of 65,000 Inuit packed into 53 resettlement communities across the North…


----------



## dapaterson

Halifax Tar said:


> Can Shearwater be brought back to fixed wing operation ?


I'm not certain, but I think they've decommissioned the long runway, and the current field is about 1800m or so, well below minimums for current production 737s.


----------



## Halifax Tar

dapaterson said:


> I'm not certain, but I think they've decommissioned the long runway, and the current field is about 1800m or so, well below minimums for current production 737s.



That's a shame.  I too don't see a reason for both Greenwood and Shearwater to exist.  

I suppose local economies and such.


----------



## Kirkhill

Halifax Tar said:


> That's a shame.  I too don't see a reason for both Greenwood and Shearwater to exist.
> 
> I suppose local economies and such.


Or Greenwood, Shearwater and Stanfield?


----------



## Kirkhill

Good2Golf said:


> …like a larger version of 65,000 Inuit packed into 53 resettlement communities across the North…



Makes life a lot easier for Covid and the next plague.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Kirkhill said:


> Or Greenwood, Shearwater and Stanfield?



Shearwater just does helos now. 

Maybe a Cessna?


----------



## GR66

dapaterson said:


> I'm not certain, but I think they've decommissioned the long runway, and the current field is about 1800m or so, well below minimums for current production 737s.


According to Wikipedia DND still owns the land for the old runway 16/34 which is (was) 2,743m long.  Not sure if any infrastructure was added that would prevent it from being recommissioned (if that's the correct term).

As for the Army, would there be any advantage to concentrating all three Battalions from each of the Infantry Regiments together in a single location (Edmonton/Petawawa/Valcartier)?  Are there many geographic moves of personnel within the Regiments?


----------



## dapaterson

A valid question.  OSINT satellite image (aka Google) shows the long runway (a) having large Xs painted all over it to indicate it's not serviceable, and (b) the perimeter fencing of the airfield does not include the long runway.  I suspect that its not just a question of paving, but also of radars, lighting, signalling, crewing etc etc.









						Shearwater · Halifax, NS, Canada
					

Halifax, NS, Canada




					www.google.com


----------



## markppcli

GR66 said:


> According to Wikipedia DND still owns the land for the old runway 16/34 which is (was) 2,743m long.  Not sure if any infrastructure was added that would prevent it from being recommissioned (if that's the correct term).
> 
> As for the Army, would there be any advantage to concentrating all three Battalions from each of the Infantry Regiments together in a single location (Edmonton/Petawawa/Valcartier)?  Are there many geographic moves of personnel within the Regiments?


So typically you’ll get posted out to a school, then get posted to a different Bn from there. 

I think there would be advantages to having all 3 Bns of the PPCLI co located, having a Bn to support Gagetown makes some sense to me, but I’d say the bigger change would be to have the schools (Meaford and Wainwright) moved to the operational bases so we can cut down our postings / moves.


----------



## lenaitch

markppcli said:


> Isolated bases should just be done away with quite frankly.


Why defines an "isolated base"?  Greenwood?  North Bay?  Gagetown?  From a later post, even the 20-ish km from Borden to Barrie can be isolating if you don't have wheels.   According to some, locating all bases in big cities would help recruiting.  I imagine it would only cost several billion to consolidate, remediate the old bases, and pay for the transfers.  At least they could save some money because provided housing shouldn't be needed.


----------



## GR66

markppcli said:


> So typically you’ll get posted out to a school, then get posted to a different Bn from there.
> 
> I think there would be advantages to having all 3 Bns of the PPCLI co located, having a Bn to support Gagetown makes some sense to me, but I’d say the bigger change would be to have the schools (Meaford and Wainwright) moved to the operational bases so we can cut down our postings / moves.


Possibly also stream Infantry members into Light or Mech trades with Anglo Mech Infantry all in Edmonton, Franco Mech all in Valcartier and Light Infantry all in Petawawa?


----------



## GR66

lenaitch said:


> Why defines an "isolated base"?  Greenwood?  North Bay?  Gagetown?  From a later post, even the 20-ish km from Borden to Barrie can be isolating if you don't have wheels.   According to some, locating all bases in big cities would help recruiting.  I imagine it would only cost several billion to consolidate, remediate the old bases, and pay for the transfers.  At least they could save some money because provided housing shouldn't be needed.


For locations like Borden, Gagetown, etc. a good, subsidized public transit system and expanded on base housing would be a lot cheaper than relocating the bases.  Places like Cold Lake that aren't close to at least a medium-sized centre are a more difficult issue.


----------



## dimsum

lenaitch said:


> Why defines an "isolated base"?  Greenwood?  North Bay?  Gagetown?


None of the above.  This document details the Isolated Posts, which receive extra allowances:

Table to CBI 11.2.03​
Isolated PostEnvironment ClassificationLiving Cost DifferentialFuel and Utilities DifferentialAlert, NU5Sans objetSans objetChevery, QC33Sans objetGoose Bay, NL31Sans objetInukjuak, QCFootnote 14911 (01.10.20)Iqaluit, NU41115Kuujjuaq, QCFootnote 141114 (01.10.20)Masset, BC32Sans objetPuvirnituq, QCFootnote 14912 (01.10.20)Quaqtaq, QCFootnote 141314 (01.10.20)Salluit, QCFootnote 141112 (01.10.20)Whitehorse, YT1Sans objet12Yellowknife, NT1230


----------



## markppcli

GR66 said:


> Possibly also stream Infantry members into Light or Mech trades with Anglo Mech Infantry all in Edmonton, Franco Mech all in Valcartier and Light Infantry all in Petawawa?


No, we don’t have the numbers to do that and breadth of experience is valuable.



lenaitch said:


> Why defines an "isolated base"?  Greenwood?  North Bay?  Gagetown?  From a later post, even the 20-ish km from Borden to Barrie can be isolating if you don't have wheels.   According to some, locating all bases in big cities would help recruiting.  I imagine it would only cost several billion to consolidate, remediate the old bases, and pay for the transfers.  At least they could save some money because provided housing shouldn't be needed.



I would say if it’s more than 40km from a population centre of 15000 it’s isolated. I would take those old bases and keep them as skeleton crew training centres.  It’s less recruiting more retention, trying to keep some one in while telling them they’ll have move somewhere that will be prohibitive to their spouses career isn’t helping anyone when we can have those bases functions performed elsewhere.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Kirkhill said:


> Or Greenwood, Shearwater and Stanfield?



It’s much easier to conduct the trg that goes on at Greenwood in Greenwood.  Not just the OTUs but things like Para drops and low level hover/confined area stuff.

There’s also the noise factor.  Not sure the residents close to Shearwater would be all happy to have an operational SAR and LRP Sqn doing their business at all hours of the day and night.   

Greenwood also performs other functions for other aircraft that I’m not sure are common knowledge, but there are good reasons to maintain military airfields and associated supporting pers and infrastructure.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Halifax Tar said:


> That's a shame.  I too don't see a reason for both Greenwood and Shearwater to exist.
> 
> I suppose local economies and such.



If anything, close YAW.  

But the time to make that decision was before all the new building were constructed on the upper base there.


----------



## dimsum

Eye In The Sky said:


> If anything, close YAW.


_Cue cries of hundreds of Maritime Helicopter folks when they realize the Sqns are moving to Greenwood_


----------



## Halifax Tar

Eye In The Sky said:


> If anything, close YAW.
> 
> But the time to make that decision was before all the new building were constructed on the upper base there.



Probably the better option right now.  

Divest of shearwater all together.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

dimsum said:


> _Cue cries of hundreds of Maritime Helicopter folks when they realize the Sqns are moving to Greenwood_



…and that Greenwood is not a PLDA…


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Halifax Tar said:


> Probably the better option right now.
> 
> Divest of shearwater all together.



It would be.  There is way more space down on 14 Wing to put the MH fleet than there would be in Shearwater to move 404, 405, 413, 415 Sqns as well as 14 WOps and the MSS and OSS folks.

The hangars for the FW stuff take up a fair amount of real estate that I don’t believe exits at YAW now.


----------



## dapaterson

Any ideas of divest / relocate need to consider the size of the destination community, and the availability of housing.  Dropping hundreds more people into the Annapolis Valley if there aren't places to live available would be problematic at best.


----------



## dimsum

Eye In The Sky said:


> There is way more space down on 14 Wing to put the MH fleet than there would be in Shearwater to move 404, 405, 413, 415 Sqns as well as 14 WOps and the MSS and OSS folks.


How much space is around Halifax Airport to move 12 and 14 Wing units?


----------



## Eye In The Sky

dimsum said:


> How much space is around Halifax Airport to move 12 and 14 Wing units?



That I am not sure of.   My first thought is the spaces required for air weapons for all the aircraft the operate from ZX.  

I am also thinking of when they moved the Airshow from Shearwater to Hfx and the realities that come with flight ops around a place like Hfx and it’s controlled airspace.


----------



## Halifax Tar

dapaterson said:


> Any ideas of divest / relocate need to consider the size of the destination community, and the availability of housing.  Dropping hundreds more people into the Annapolis Valley if there aren't places to live available would be problematic at best.



You're expecting a lot of foresight from the CAF and GOC lol



Eye In The Sky said:


> That I am not sure of.   My first thought is the spaces required for air weapons for all the aircraft the operate from ZX.
> 
> I am also thinking of when they moved the Airshow from Shearwater to Hfx and the realities that come with flight ops around a place like Hfx and it’s controlled airspace.



Ya I think Stanfield is pretty much off the table.


----------



## dapaterson

As I recall as self-loading cargo traveling to Stanfield multiple times, the airport approach is basically trees, trees, Trees, Trees, TREES, OMG I CAN COUNT THE LEAVES, TREES, THAT'S IT WE ARE GOING TO DIE A FIREY DEATH CRASHING INTO THE FOREST, oh there's the runway.

So I think there may be some space around the airport.


----------



## dimsum

Halifax Tar said:


> You're expecting a lot of foresight from the CAF and GOC lol


Having been a part of discussions about basing before, I can guarantee you that those _are_ major factors and discussed in very fine detail.


----------



## Quirky

dapaterson said:


> Any ideas of divest / relocate need to consider the size of the destination community, and the availability of housing.  Dropping hundreds more people into the Annapolis Valley if there aren't places to live available would be problematic at best.



Target of 500k new immigrants by 2025, Trudeaus answer to housing is immigrants will build their own houses, or to that effect. We are already short housing.


----------



## kev994

Quirky said:


> Target of 500k new immigrants by 2025, Trudeaus answer to housing is immigrants will build their own houses, or to that effect. We are already short housing.


We’re also short labour and you can’t have it both ways.


----------



## Halifax Tar

dimsum said:


> Having been a part of discussions about basing before, I can guarantee you that those _are_ major factors and discussed in very fine detail.



Well that is good to hear.



kev994 said:


> We’re also short labour and you can’t have it both ways.



I think it's probably more that we lack people willing to do the work.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

dapaterson said:


> As I recall as self-loading cargo traveling to Stanfield multiple times, the airport approach is basically trees, trees, Trees, Trees, TREES, OMG I CAN COUNT THE LEAVES, TREES, THAT'S IT WE ARE GOING TO DIE A FIREY DEATH CRASHING INTO THE FOREST, oh there's the runway.
> 
> So I think there may be some space around the airport



There’s all kinds of airspace and space…but it is an international airport.  Maybe not the best location for pounding the circuit on PPFs and doing parachuting and streamers and stuff.


----------



## dimsum

Halifax Tar said:


> I think it's probably more that we lack people willing to do the work.


And the ones usually willing are...wait for it...

New immigrants.


----------



## Quirky

Halifax Tar said:


> I think it's probably more that we lack people willing to do the work.



5% unemployment rate in Canada. What are those people doing?


----------



## FSTO

markppcli said:


> Wainwright is a training centre; Edmonton houses units has no training area (well nearly). It’s standard to drive to wainwright to conduct most training and it’s workable.
> 
> Shilo is very isolated, having just been posted here “25 minutes to Brandon” sounds great until you realize your out of milk / butter / eggs and the canex closed at 5 pm because it’s Wednesday.  Oh and you’d love to go have a beer and watch the game at the pub but there isn’t one for 30 minutes around you and the mess is open one day a week.


I remember when they closed Kapyong Barracks and the howls from the troops about not being able to see the RWB. I figured Brandon’s ballet at the Keystone would be more to the infantry’s liking!😉


----------



## kev994

Quirky said:


> 5% unemployment rate in Canada. What are those people doing?


Unemployment isn’t the issue, the boomers are all retiring and no longer in the workforce, thus not unemployed. We’ve known this was coming for 50+ years and didn’t do anything about it.


----------



## markppcli

kev994 said:


> We’re also short labour and you can’t have it both ways.


Are we short labour or are people just not willing to do shit jobs for 16 dollars an hour ? Look back to last summers air travel crisis when airlines claimed they couldn’t hire enough luggage handlers. They were offering 16 dollars an hour; what a shock no one wanted to do it.


----------



## Good2Golf

dapaterson said:


> Any ideas of divest / relocate need to consider the size of the destination community, and the availability of housing.  Dropping hundreds more people into the Annapolis Valley if there aren't places to live available would be problematic at best.


I’m sure the savings that would accrue to consolidating all East Coast LRP and MH into Greenwood would prove just as effective as the money saved with NCR consolidation to Carling………….. 🦗 🦗 🦗


----------



## Halifax Tar

dimsum said:


> And the ones usually willing are...wait for it...
> 
> New immigrants.



Absolutely.  

That's not my point.


----------



## Quirky

markppcli said:


> Are we short labour or are people just not willing to do shit jobs for 16 dollars an hour ? Look back to last summers air travel crisis when airlines claimed they couldn’t hire enough luggage handlers. They were offering 16 dollars an hour; what a shock no one wanted to do it.



Those vaccine mandates had nothing to do with it right? They laid off those people and they decided not to come back. Those sectors who mandated vaccines and now can’t find employees get what they deserve.


----------



## markppcli

Quirky said:


> Those vaccine mandates had nothing to do with it right? They laid off those people and they decided not to come back. Those sectors who mandated vaccines and now can’t find employees get what they deserve.


Well the overwhelming majority of Canadians got vaccinated. People will work for fair wages; the vaccine argument is pretty baseless frankly.


----------



## lenaitch

GR66 said:


> For locations like Borden, Gagetown, etc. a good, subsidized public transit system and expanded on base housing would be a lot cheaper than relocating the bases.  Places like Cold Lake that aren't close to at least a medium-sized centre are a more difficult issue.


I know for Borden there has been talk of (re)starting a transit route to Barrie.  I thought it was already done but I don't see it on their schedule.  If Base housing is geared to local rents, Barrie is about $1500/mth and I doubt Angus is much different .  I'm not sure housing availability is a big issue in the area.  At least you'd have a better chance of living in a place that wasn't built in 1950.


----------



## childs56

markppcli said:


> Are we short labour or are people just not willing to do shit jobs for 16 dollars an hour ? Look back to last summers air travel crisis when airlines claimed they couldn’t hire enough luggage handlers. They were offering 16 dollars an hour; what a shock no one wanted to do it.


The government was paying their bills up until the end of November under a extended EI plan after they ended the Covid pay.  Many of those people will be back in the work force in the new year.


----------



## kev994

childs56 said:


> The government was paying their bills up until the end of November under an extended EI plan after they ended the Covid pay.  Many of those people will be back in the work force in the new year.


The decline in workforce participation since 2019 is entirely people over 60. And it’s only going to get worse. 





						'It is your new normal': Canada's aging workforce root of national labour shortage
					

For years, experts have been warning of a looming wave of retirements as baby boomers -- those born between 1946 and 1964 and Canada's largest generation by size -- grow older and start to exit the workforce en masse. This country's labour force growth rate has been trending downward since 2000...




					beta.ctvnews.ca


----------



## childs56

kev994 said:


> The decline in workforce participation since 2019 is entirely people over 60.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 'It is your new normal': Canada's aging workforce root of national labour shortage
> 
> 
> For years, experts have been warning of a looming wave of retirements as baby boomers -- those born between 1946 and 1964 and Canada's largest generation by size -- grow older and start to exit the workforce en masse. This country's labour force growth rate has been trending downward since 2000...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beta.ctvnews.ca


Yes and no. Many working age people who were collecting  covid benefits were transitioned over to extended EI benefits. as stated above this ran out the end of Nov 2022. Those people will be looking for work and or other sources of money in the new year. 

We do have lots of over 60 crowd coming to retirement , many companies are starting to offer extended work force programs for those who are ready to or about to retire. 

But stats Can shows interesting unemployment rates for under 50 crowd. 





						Labour force characteristics by age group, monthly, seasonally adjusted
					

Number of persons in the labour force (employment and unemployment), unemployment rate, participation rate and employment rate by age group and sex. Data are presented for 12 months earlier, previous month and current month, as well as year-over-year and month-to-month level change and...




					www150.statcan.gc.ca


----------



## Quirky

kev994 said:


> The decline in workforce participation since 2019 is entirely people over 60. And it’s only going to get worse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 'It is your new normal': Canada's aging workforce root of national labour shortage
> 
> 
> For years, experts have been warning of a looming wave of retirements as baby boomers -- those born between 1946 and 1964 and Canada's largest generation by size -- grow older and start to exit the workforce en masse. This country's labour force growth rate has been trending downward since 2000...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beta.ctvnews.ca



Which will only makes things worse for the CAF as we aren’t seen as a preferable employer. Great for those who are retreating into retirement (like me) or just releasing. Jobs everywhere!


----------



## kev994

Quirky said:


> Which will only makes things worse for the CAF as we aren’t seen as a preferable employer. Great for those who are retreating into retirement (like me) or just releasing. Jobs everywhere!


Yeah, I think some people are hoping that a recession will save us again but this one will be different in that there will be plenty of jobs available.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Quirky said:


> Which will only makes things worse for the CAF as we aren’t seen as a preferable employer. Great for those who are retreating into retirement (like me) or just releasing. Jobs everywhere!


I got a job immediately after releasing from the CAF that paid very well.  I got my first promotion 7 months in to my new career.  The opportunities are there for the taking if you want them.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Humphrey Bogart said:


> I got a job immediately after releasing from the CAF that paid very well.  I got my first promotion 7 months in to my new career.  The opportunities are there for the taking if you want them.



But you really miss paying mess bills to a place you never attend, right?


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

daftandbarmy said:


> But you really miss paying mess bills to a place you never attend, right?


Now I get paid to go to functions 😉

It used to be the other way around 🤣


----------



## Kirkhill

Humphrey Bogart said:


> I got a job immediately after releasing from the CAF that paid very well.  I got my first promotion 7 months in to my new career.  The opportunities are there for the taking if you want them.



A recently deceased brother-in-law of mine had just started collecting his 40 year pension from CN and was double dipping as a consultant.  He joined at 17 (his future father-in-law got him the job so that he could support his pregnant 16 year old daughter - they died married).   His career included postings to such major metropolitan centres as Smithers, Terrace, Unity and Martensville - as I remember.  He and his wife raised two good kids who had families of their own.  His wife worked bars, Co-Ops and stores.

The thing that kept them going was a word you don't here much of these days:

Ambition.

You go to a job interview and you get asked "where do you see yourself in 5 years?"  You don't get asked "what is your ambition?"   There is a difference there.  One is limited.  The other is unlimited.

I think part of the problem we have with the labour force generally is that AMBITION has been beaten out of the kids - 

Go to school, do well, go to college - pay your way with jobs at McDonalds, Marble Slab and Starbucks at 15 bucks an hour
Graduate - find you are still working at Starbucks while waiting for your next part time gig
Go back to school to get trades certification - discover you are still getting part time gigs
Can't qualify for a mortgage.
Can't buy a house.
Difficult to see a future that would justify tying another person to you in marriage.
Children are expensive and a drag on the environment.
You're destroying the environment.
You're the wrong type of person.

Hard to get motivated to achieve your ambition when that is the background noise.  And isn't ambition related to progress?  Isn't progress bad due to it being unsustainable?

And then along comes the Covid shutdowns to put the last nails in everyone's ambitions and aspirations.  People learned to accept that they could live within their means - rather than struggling to improve their situation and achieve their ambitions.

Boomers retired early.   Youngsters just sucked back.  They stopped aspiring to a corner office.

View Canada's Labour Force Participation Rate from Jan 1976 to Nov 2022 in the chart:​


----------



## daftandbarmy

Kirkhill said:


> I think part of the problem we have with the labour force generally is that AMBITION has been beaten out of the kids -
> 
> Boomers retired early.   Youngsters just sucked back.  They stopped aspiring to a corner office.



Largely rubbish, of course, and a good example of a prevailing Boomer view of 'kids these days'.

Lots of youngsters are entering the labour market in the usual ways, and everyone leaving college is getting snapped up pretty quickly to help fill the 'Boomer Gaps'.

Canadian youth unemployment reported at about 10% in 2022, which is pretty good compared with the rest of the world:






						Youth Unemployment Rate - Countries - List
					

This page displays a table with actual values, consensus figures, forecasts, statistics and historical data charts for - Youth Unemployment Rate. This page provides values for Youth Unemployment Rate reported in several countries. The table has current values for Youth Unemployment Rate...




					tradingeconomics.com


----------



## rmc_wannabe

Canadians, young people included, want to work. What they don't want is to be exploited. That's what's been so apparent with the recent generations. They saw Mom and Dad laid off in 2008, losing the family home to foreclosure, and having to fight to get their pension contributions back.

Coming in on the ground floor and working your way up is extremely rare in most companies in the 21st century, and now the CAF is the outlier in the way we recruit, employ, compensate, promote, and retain workers. Not many folks are coming through the door straight out of High-school anymore; I would reckon a fair few have job, life, and education experience to be much more than Pte Bloggins, Floor Sweeper extraordinaire.

My fellow parents with teens are noticing this more and more. My daughter applied for a part time job, worked one week then quit. Why? Not for lack of work ethic, or ambition, but because the juice wasn't worth the squeeze; she was expected to work outside her availability and with no overtime. Her manager wasn't willing to play ball, so now they're looking to fill another position with someone that "doesn't want to work nowadays."

We are facing a generation that has had the wealth of human knowledge at their fingertips. How many potential recruits have been scared off due to what they have seen and read on Reddit, Facebook, or..hell...even this site?

People want to work. People don't want to get screwed over. The sooner we realize and accept that, the better.


----------



## mariomike

Kirkhill said:


> You go to a job interview and you get asked "where do you see yourself in 5 years?"



"Firing you."


----------



## Kirkhill

For the record - 

I am not blaming youngsters for a "lack of ambition".  I am stating that the circumstances in which they find themselves are less than conducive to ambition.  And that is not their fault.

Encouraging youngsters, creating an optimistic future, giving them hope, should be the basis of any functional society.


----------



## MilEME09

Kirkhill said:


> For the record -
> 
> I am not blaming youngsters for a "lack of ambition".  I am stating that the circumstances in which they find themselves are less than conducive to ambition.  And that is not their fault.
> 
> Encouraging youngsters, creating an optimistic future, giving them hope, should be the basis of any functional society.


What's hope?


----------



## Kirkhill

MilEME09 said:


> What's hope?



The other Course of Action.


----------



## mariomike

Kirkhill said:


> A recently deceased brother-in-law of mine had just started collecting his 40 year pension from CN and was double dipping as a consultant.



My father was a VIA Rail Locomotive Engineer.

Base pay:  $66.77 per hour.




> QUALIFICATIONS & COMPETENCIES:
> *** Qualified Locomotive Engineer
> *** Very good spoken and written communication skills in English
> *** Canadian Rail Operating Rules (CROR) qualified
> *** Operating experience will be evaluated and considered throughout the selection process
> *** No criminal record
> *** Ability to meet the physical requirements of the position
> *** Good technical and mechanical aptitudes
> *** Track experience on the subdivisions for the position is a definite asset
> *** Safety orientation, rigor and attention to detail
> *** Decision making and problem solving abilities
> *** Ability to work under pressure
> *** Accountability
> *** Customer Focus
> *** Flexibility, adaptability and a positive attitude toward change
> *** Teamwork and cooperation


----------



## Dana381

The thing that kept them going was a word you don't here much of these days:

Ambition.

You go to a job interview and you get asked "where do you see yourself in 5 years?"  You don't get asked "what is your ambition?"   There is a difference there.  One is limited.  The other is unlimited.
[/QUOTE said:
			
		

> I currently don't have any employees but when I did ambition was something I didn't want in a candidate. I look for someone who is smart but not ambitious.
> 
> Ambition causes people to move on and training costs too much. And higher pay won't keep them.
> 
> I have also heard the same from other small business owners.
> 
> Side note, I was once asked where I see myself in 5 years. The interviewer was confounded why I was applying for a job beneath my training (there was not much available). At the end of the interview i asked where she saw the company in 5 years. She didn't have an answer. I said "you want to grow the business and expand, you will then have a position I trained for" I think she was upset because I didn't get the job.


----------



## kev994




----------



## OldSolduer

rmc_wannabe said:


> People want to work. People don't want to get screwed over. The sooner we realize and accept that, the better.


And bingo - there is the crux of the matter. Corporations don't exist to please the employees or the public. They exist to make money for the shareholders. And some corporations will screw their employees and their customers.


----------



## mariomike

kev994 said:


> View attachment 75694



I didn't make the world. I barely exist in it.

One negotiated benefit Millennials take for granted now, that our generation never had,

Under their collective agreement,

Following a difficult or critical call - as defined by the paramedic - they are taken out of service and de-briefed by the staff psychologist.

Then sent home.

If they feel the need - and their physician and / or supervisor agree - they can take the next two 12-hour shifts off.
No loss of pay, or deduction from the member's sick bank.

After that, if they still feel the need, and have a note from their doctor, they can go on indefinite modified duty. ie: removal from 9-1-1 operations.

Eventually, if the PTSD is determined to be a Permanent Partial Disability ( PPD ), they are permanently removed from 9-1-1 operations and relocated into a "suitable" job.



> If the pre-injury rate of pay is higher than the relocated position rate, then the pre-injury rate is to be maintained. It is understood that the pre-injury rate is subject to all wage increases negotiated



That's progress. It had to be negotiated.


----------



## Halifax Tar

kev994 said:


> View attachment 75694



Ugh, not this again.


----------



## lenaitch

kev994 said:


> View attachment 75694


How can an entire generation lose every war - somebody has to win.  Oh wait, America is the world.


----------



## mariomike

> Lost every war.



At least the Boomers were the last generation to get drafted in the U.S..


----------



## Halifax Tar

mariomike said:


> At least the Boomers were the last generation to get drafted in the U.S..



Is that a bragging point ? 

How'd that work out for them ?


----------



## Brad Sallows

"Everything's harder now" has not so much to do with prior generations, and quite a bit to do with the rise of much of the rest of the world out of its former relative impoverishment.


----------



## ArmyRick

Don't think of it as "this generation vs that generation"

Think of it as this generation tried to make things better, and made some mistakes (big and small)
The next generation tries to better and makes some new mistakes or unintentionally repeats old mistakes

30s-Depression and Farm Cropping collapse, Farmers try to come up with better solutions (NRCS was created then)
40s-Fought a global war against downright oppressive regimes
50s-Buidling a stronger industrial economy, more mechanical farming methods, continued stand up against oppression, this time communism
60s-Peace movement (kind of needed) to make the governments slow down a bit and start questioning how/when they go to war (Viet Nam)
70s-Disco (puke) and I was born (your welcome world or look the fook out)
80s-Economic ups and downs, Glasnot and the the thawing of the cold war
90s-Cold war sort of ends (or goes dormant), global instability however Military did some good (Bosnia example)
2K-War on terror, one of the major changes. Awareness of "climate change"
10s-Continued war on terror, major economic changes (not sure for the better)
20s-We are still working on it. 

Just a few examples of things that happened that I believe shaped or shifted societal thinking and decision making in terms of policy, actions and how things are done.

As Allan Savory would say "Unintended consequences...lead to more or worse failure"

You can't really blame anyone generation. Context changed every generation.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

mariomike said:


> I didn't make the world. I barely exist in it.
> 
> One negotiated benefit Millennials take for granted now, that our generation never had,
> 
> Under their collective agreement,
> 
> Following a difficult or critical call - as defined by the paramedic - they are taken out of service and de-briefed by the staff psychologist.
> 
> Then sent home.
> 
> If they feel the need - and their physician and / or supervisor agree - they can take the next two 12-hour shifts off.
> No loss of pay, or deduction from the member's sick bank.
> 
> After that, if they still feel the need, and have a note from their doctor, they can go on indefinite modified duty. ie: removal from 9-1-1 operations.
> 
> Eventually, if the PTSD is determined to be a Permanent Partial Disability ( PPD ), they are permanently removed from 9-1-1 operations and relocated into a "suitable" job.
> 
> 
> 
> That's progress. It had to be negotiated.


......and there it is. Just like clockwork.


----------



## mariomike

Fishbone Jones said:


> ......and there it is. Just like clockwork.



I don't know how many times it has to be explained to you, fishbonejones. I've been ordered not to take your bait, or engage with you.

Don't like it? Take it up with the Site Owner.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

mariomike said:


> I don't know how many times it has to be explained to you, fishbonejones. I've been ordered not to take your bait, or engage with you.


So why do you continue to do it? Emojis are engagement. Poking me with a stick, so to speak. Trying to get a rise. You don't take orders very well, do you? I don't care if you engage or not. I'm not asking you for discussion. I'm not chumming, I'm making observations. I don't require verbal input from you, for that. I don't ask for a response. You do that voluntarily, by self identifying.


----------



## suffolkowner

As far as immigrants go we brought in 430000+ in 2022. Maybe they have the wrong skill sets, maybe those skills are recognized, maybe they are the wrong age distribution but in far as raw numbers go what else can we do?


----------



## Halifax Tar

suffolkowner said:


> As far as immigrants go we brought in 430000+ in 2022. Maybe they have the wrong skill sets, maybe those skills are recognized, maybe they are the wrong age distribution but in far as raw numbers go what else can we do?



Investigate and implement ways to promote parenthood in the current population, and target immigration for stressed and needed professions.


----------



## Quirky

Halifax Tar said:


> Investigate and implement ways to promote parenthood in the current population, and target immigration for stressed and needed professions.



Too expensive to have kids these days and targeted immigration just brain drains countries that need highly skilled workers more than we do. If we take all the doctors and engineers out of Syria, what good does that do?


----------



## Halifax Tar

Quirky said:


> Too expensive to have kids these days and targeted immigration just brain drains countries that need highly skilled workers more than we do. If we take all the doctors and engineers out of Syria, what good does that do?



Do you want my honest answer?


----------



## MilEME09

Quirky said:


> Too expensive to have kids these days and targeted immigration just brain drains countries that need highly skilled workers more than we do. If we take all the doctors and engineers out of Syria, what good does that do?


Well when we make it near impossible for them to get accredited here, it's a waste, that's one of the biggest problems with out immigration systems. I'd bet $100 if you hired an immigrant to the RCAF from Kuwait or Malaysia with hundreds of hours working on F-18s, we wouldn't PLAR a single screw.


----------



## Quirky

MilEME09 said:


> Well when we make it near impossible for them to get accredited here, it's a waste, that's one of the biggest problems with out immigration systems. I'd bet $100 if you hired an immigrant to the RCAF from Kuwait or Malaysia with hundreds of hours working on F-18s, we wouldn't PLAR a single screw.



Well Kuwaitis have ex-US Navy, with a few RCAF guys that released and went back over after OP Impact fixing their f-18s, but I see your point.



Halifax Tar said:


> Do you want my honest answer?



I want the truth!


----------



## mariomike

Halifax Tar said:


> Is that a bragging point ?
> 
> How'd that work out for them ?



Just a statistic.

According to the New York Times,



> 40% of males of the baby boomer generation served in the war. ( Vietnam )



Take it, or leave it, for what it is worth.


----------



## Halifax Tar

mariomike said:


> Just a statistic.
> 
> According to the New York Times,
> 
> 
> 
> Take it, or leave it, for what it is worth.



What's the point of your statistics injection?


----------



## Halifax Tar

Quirky said:


> I want the truth!



I couldn't care less.  I someone has a profession we need, and they want to come here and become a productive citizen, then I'm all for it.


----------



## mariomike

Halifax Tar said:


> Is that a bragging point ?
> 
> How'd that work out for them ?





Halifax Tar said:


> What's the point of your statistics injection?



What is your point?


----------



## Halifax Tar

mariomike said:


> What is your point?



Is your post.  I'm asking you what your point is behind it.


----------



## mariomike

Halifax Tar said:


> Is your post.  I'm asking you what your point is behind it.



I'm asking you why we don't just ignore each other.


----------



## Brad Sallows

Halifax Tar said:


> I couldn't care less.  I someone has a profession we need, and they want to come here and become a productive citizen, then I'm all for it.


Although I've raised the question about what happens in the countries losing people, I agree with this idea: if we decide to have immigrants, with or without a "points" scheme, it's not really given to us to stand in the way of any particular person trying to better himself.


----------



## Halifax Tar

mariomike said:


> I'm asking you why we don't just ignore each other.



I'm trying to figure out what you meant by your post on the draft, do you think it's good, or bad ect; and now you want us to ignore eachother?  I thought this was a discussion forum.

Doesn't seem like a fitting response for a DS and mentor member.  In the spirit of actioning your request; as member in those roles is there a way I can put you on ignore to avoid future interactions ? 

If not, as long as one is respectful, I don't see why one can't engage you on your posts.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Brad Sallows said:


> Although I've raised the question about what happens in the countries losing people, I agree with this idea: if we decide to have immigrants, with or without a "points" scheme, it's not really given to us to stand in the way of any particular person trying to better himself.



Agreed.


----------



## mariomike

Halifax Tar said:


> I'm trying to figure out what you meant by your post on the draft, do you think it's good, or bad ect; and now you want us to ignore eachother?  I thought this was a discussion forum.
> 
> Doesn't seem like a fitting response for a DS and mentor member.  In the spirit of actioning your request; as member in those roles is there a way I can put you on ignore to avoid future interactions ?
> 
> If not, as long as one is respectful, I don't see why one can't engage you on your posts.



Understood. Thank you for your input.


----------



## FormerHorseGuard

I just read a story on CBC  https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/norad-canadian-armed-forces-arctic-russia-1.6702611

Would Canada even know if X country landed troops or aircraft or tourists on some remote Arctic Island? 
If the answer is Yes , How long would it take our Forces or People to respond,  in case of aircraft accident? Actual armed troops? Tourists? 

Does Canada invest the money  to monitor the North? Does it invest the funds to station troops in the North? Permanent posting or Rotating units? (  the Arctic Archipelago consists of *94 major islands (greater than 130 km2) and 36,469 minor islands* covering a total of 1.4 million km2.)
How would we even plan to protect or monitor that much space without huge investments in Monitoring Aircraft, Heavy Ice breakers, helicopters that can fly in the Arctic in year round weather  conditions, troops and support bases.  

I lived there for a winter and the requirements to move a patient from one settlement to a main hospital took hours, and air ambulances ( lear type jets from Montreal to Iqaluit and then to the settlement and back to Montreal took hours) It is a big space on the map, and looks even bigger if you never been there. 

Every government has said they are doing something but nothing happens


----------



## Eye In The Sky

There are ground based radars and space assets that can monitor significant amounts of air and ground.



			https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.6494658
		


Important to remember us we don’t monitor this space independently and our partner has significant space surveillance and other surveillance capabilities.


----------



## Good2Golf

FormerHorseGuard said:


> Would Canada even know if X country landed troops or aircraft or tourists on some remote Arctic Island?
> If the answer is Yes , How long would it take our Forces or People to respond, in case of aircraft accident? Actual armed troops? Tourists?


Some say ‘no.’

PIN-3 Lady Franklin Point for some supports a theme of ‘would we know if an adversary destroyed some of our capability?’


----------



## lenaitch

FormerHorseGuard said:


> Every government has said they are doing something but nothing happens


We've made announcements and are 'monitoring developments', so there's that.


----------



## dimsum

FormerHorseGuard said:


> Every government has said they are doing something but nothing happens


Given that much of the monitoring is done by air and space-based assets like what @Eye In The Sky said, I'm not sure what folks expect to see.


----------



## FormerHorseGuard

With modern day cruise ships wanting to visit the North and some visiting already. If there was an accident, we are looking at hours, if not days to reach anyone because of weather and distance. Forget an armed invasion (that would never happen ;-) ) but a rescue mission. 1991 Boxtop flight rescue took 32 hours before a SAR Tech was dropped due to weather, 21 hours for a ground team team to reach them.  Equipment had to come from Trenton, Edmonton, and  Greenwood.  Time and weather delays will kill people. Is it time they take the Arctic Regional ( makes up 1/3 of Canada ) they take it more serious or just keep it status as it is now, once a a year exercise and photo ops?


----------



## Halifax Tar

FormerHorseGuard said:


> With modern day cruise ships wanting to visit the North and some visiting already. If there was an accident, we are looking at hours, if not days to reach anyone because of weather and distance. Forget an armed invasion (that would never happen ;-) ) but a rescue mission. 1991 Boxtop flight rescue took 32 hours before a SAR Tech was dropped due to weather, 21 hours for a ground team team to reach them.  Equipment had to come from Trenton, Edmonton, and  Greenwood.  Time and weather delays will kill people. Is it time they take the Arctic Regional ( makes up 1/3 of Canada ) they take it more serious or just keep it status as it is now, once a a year exercise and photo ops?



We table topped this exact scenario when I was my previous staff job.  I coordinated the sourcing and moving of pers and material for deployed Naval ops. 

We played the worst case scenario, uninhabited fiord on the north east coast of Canada.  It was actually discussed to drop in a jump company as getting there is going to take a long time.  And they can provide medical and security, predation is a thing up there, and set up to receive air drops until we can get resources on scene.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Halifax Tar said:


> We table topped this exact scenario when I was my previous staff job.  I coordinated the sourcing and moving of pers and material for deployed Naval ops.
> 
> We played the worst case scenario, uninhabited fiord on the north east coast of Canada.  It was actually discussed to drop in a jump company as getting there is going to take a long time.  And they can provide medical and security, predation is a thing up there, and set up to receive air drops until we can get resources on scene.



Any plans for casevac of half the jump company following the parachute insertion? 

Just wondering


----------



## kev994

FormerHorseGuard said:


> ,  in case of aircraft accident? Actual armed troops? Tourists?


this one I can answer. 2 hours to launch out of Winnipeg with as many SARTechs as you can get in that time, you can get most places in the arctic within 5 hours. Trenton has a MAJAID kit that’s supposed to launch within 24 hours with more STs and some generic jumpers for GDs. The much, much bigger problem are the huge cruise ships going through there with 3-5000 people.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

daftandbarmy said:


> Any plans for casevac of half the jump company following the parachute insertion?
> 
> Just wondering



Lots of thoughts and prayers I'm certain 🤣









kev994 said:


> this one I can answer. 2 hours to launch out of Winnipeg with as many SARTechs as you can get in that time, you can get most places in the arctic within 5 hours. Trenton has a MAJAID kit that’s supposed to launch within 24 hours with more STs and some generic jumpers for GDs. The much, much bigger problem are the huge cruise ships going through there with 3-5000 people.


There are contingencies for MAJAID in the North.  I don't think they are particularly good but it is what it is....


----------



## Quirky

Note to self, stay off boats with thousands of people that traverse in Canadian northern waters. No one is coming to rescue you.


----------



## Fabius

I wonder how long to request and deploy the LC130s from the NY ANG 109th Airlift Wing? 

I have worked with them before in the Arctic and they are basically the only way we have to get large bulky and/or heavy stuff into austere areas via air quickly.


----------



## Halifax Tar

daftandbarmy said:


> Any plans for casevac of half the jump company following the parachute insertion?
> 
> Just wondering



It was an idea lol.  I'm not a jumper but I'm sure the terrain they would jump into would be taken into account.


----------



## Navy_Pete

FormerHorseGuard said:


> With modern day cruise ships wanting to visit the North and some visiting already. If there was an accident, we are looking at hours, if not days to reach anyone because of weather and distance. Forget an armed invasion (that would never happen ;-) ) but a rescue mission. 1991 Boxtop flight rescue took 32 hours before a SAR Tech was dropped due to weather, 21 hours for a ground team team to reach them.  Equipment had to come from Trenton, Edmonton, and  Greenwood.  Time and weather delays will kill people. Is it time they take the Arctic Regional ( makes up 1/3 of Canada ) they take it more serious or just keep it status as it is now, once a a year exercise and photo ops?


The lack of external rescue support is factored into the ships design though, so they are a fair bit more redundant compared to a normal cruise ship.

It's all driven by insurance, and being sued into oblivion by rich people drives a lot of additional equipment, and they actually have to get certified by class societies before sailing, and don't have the RCN option of a 'risk assessment'.

I still wouldn't go on a cruise personally for various other reason.


----------



## childs56

Any large disaster in the Artic would have to be a coordinated response from our International Partners. We do not have the capabilities with in our Forces to deploy and sustain a high casualty situation up North. If we did then we would be leaving response elsewhere with little to no ability. 

One thing up North is the local people would respond with what they have. They may have more initial resources then the Government could supply. 
I do not know if we have disaster response kits set up in the north, where in case of one the locals could access the gear to supply as required until relieved by the Military.


----------



## kev994

Fabius said:


> I wonder how long to request and deploy the LC130s from the NY ANG 109th Airlift Wing?
> 
> I have worked with them before in the Arctic and they are basically the only way we have to get large bulky and/or heavy stuff into austere areas via air quickly.


I worked with those PJs in my OUTCAN, the jumpers can be ready pretty quick and they’re happy to jump out of anything, I’ve dropped PJs from a Canadian C130. Getting a plane to go with you’re looking at 24-48 hrs minimum plus any diplo delays. I don’t think this is something JRCC normally deals with so there’s that too.


----------



## kev994

Quirky said:


> Note to self, stay off boats with thousands of people that traverse in Canadian northern waters. No one is coming to rescue you.


They’re coming, just with insufficient capacity to deal with the problem.


----------



## Brad Sallows

Cradle-to-grave security doesn't really produce a society of people prepared to survive on their own for a while in an emergency situation.  And a country this sparsely populated has a lot of places like that.


----------



## Fabius

kev994 said:


> I worked with those PJs in my OUTCAN, the jumpers can be ready pretty quick and they’re happy to jump out of anything, I’ve dropped PJs from a Canadian C130. Getting a plane to go with you’re looking at 24-48 hrs minimum plus any diplo delays. I don’t think this is something JRCC normally deals with so there’s that too.


The nice thing is that their C130s are ski equipped so they can air land stuff directly once the initial jumpers have set up an austere strip and verified the snow/ice.


----------



## Quirky

kev994 said:


> They’re coming, just with insufficient capacity to deal with the problem.



Canada in a nutshell, we like to think our shit don’t stink.


----------



## lenaitch

Quirky said:


> Note to self, stay off boats with thousands of people that traverse in Canadian northern waters. No one is coming to rescue you.


I take a broader view.  Not a fan of floating petri dishes.


----------



## kev994

For reference, a cruise ship ran aground in the Canadian Arctic in 2018 but managed to free itself. It apparently only had 162 POB. 








						Arctic Cruise Ship Runs Aground in Canada’s Northwest Passage
					

The Russian-flagged passenger ship Akademik Ioffe ran aground along Canada’s Arctic Northwest Passage with 162 people aboard early on Friday, August 24th.




					www.highnorthnews.com


----------



## daftandbarmy

Halifax Tar said:


> It was an idea lol.  I'm not a jumper but I'm sure the terrain they would jump into would be taken into account.



Winds are usually the big injury maker, and the arctic has alot of that stuff!


----------



## kev994

daftandbarmy said:


> Winds are usually the big injury maker, and the arctic has alot of that stuff!


The wind or the wind blowing you into obstacles? I’m not at all familiar with round chutes.


----------



## daftandbarmy

kev994 said:


> The wind or the wind blowing you into obstacles? I’m not at all familiar with round chutes.



Well, both.

Any wind over about 12-13 knts can be a disaster for 'dumb' canopy enabled troops as it tends to smash you into the ground and drag you a fair distance before you manage to get a capewell activated... if you're conscious


----------



## kev994

daftandbarmy said:


> Well, both.
> 
> Any wind over about 12-13 knts can be a disaster for 'dumb' canopy enabled troops as it tends to smash you into the ground and drag you a fair distance before you manage to get a capewell activated... if you're conscious


Oh wow.  Square chutes have ~20 kts forward sped so they tell me it’s harder with anything less than ~10.


----------



## KevinB

kev994 said:


> Oh wow.  Square chutes have ~20 kts forward sped so they tell me it’s harder with anything less than ~10.


You can control those too. Not just ineffectual slipping with the CT-1 to try to make yourself feel better before to smack something.    
    Down here even the standard chutes are semi steerable (like the CT-2).


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Winds and the LZ surface.   Nice soft fields or soft snow would be nicer to land in than something rough with hard pack snow ledges,
Ice and rocks etc. 

I got 100% messed up on DZ Buxton (close to where CFB Edmonton is now) in early April; frozen ground, winds 10 IIRC, came in set for a left front and ended up doing a “heels ass” instead.   Wasn’t much fun.


----------



## KevinB

Eye In The Sky said:


> Winds and the LZ surface.   Nice soft fields or soft snow would be nicer to land in than something rough with hard pack snow ledges,
> Ice and rocks etc.
> 
> I got 100% messed up on DZ Buxton (close to where CFB Edmonton is now) in early April; frozen ground, winds 10 IIRC, came in set for a left front and ended up doing a “heels ass” instead.   Wasn’t much fun.


Heels --> Ass --> Head, the important three point of contact


----------



## SeaKingTacco

KevinB said:


> Heels --> Ass --> Head, the important three point of contact


Or the alternate: Toes—-Reserve—-face….


----------



## Eye In The Sky

SeaKingTacco said:


> Or the alternate: Toes—-Reserve—-face….


----------



## Halifax Tar

Why would anyone get in an airplane ?  Why would any jump out of an airplane ? 

Lol this thread is triggering me now


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Because GULAPs are fun!!  (Both Norwegian P-3s)


----------



## kev994

Eye In The Sky said:


> Winds and the LZ surface.   Nice soft fields or soft snow would be nicer to land in than something rough with hard pack snow ledges,
> Ice and rocks etc.
> 
> I got 100% messed up on DZ Buxton (close to where CFB Edmonton is now) in early April; frozen ground, winds 10 IIRC, came in set for a left front and ended up doing a “heels ass” instead.   Wasn’t much fun.


The difficult part of the arctic is that there’s nothing around to gauge size and distance, so it might look like a big flat field with some small rocks when in fact it’s a gigantic field with very large boulders.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

kev994 said:


> The difficult part of the arctic is that there’s nothing around to gauge size and distance, so it might look like a big flat field with some small rocks when in fact it’s a gigantic field with very large boulders.



I would not want to bail up there…

“Crew, prepare to bailout”


----------



## KevinB

kev994 said:


> The difficult part of the arctic is that there’s nothing around to gauge size and distance, so it might look like a big flat field with some small rocks when in fact it’s a gigantic field with very large boulders.


Oh it's very easy to gauge it, but that gauging often comes too late  

The good news is those ice boulders do stop run away toboggan groups (or a runaway Pl WO) quiet well.


----------



## kev994

KevinB said:


> Oh it's very easy to gauge it, but that gauging often comes too late


Yeah, I know a couple guys who did a night jump into a large open field… then on final realized the first 2/3 was “break-your-femur-stumps-and-deadfall”. At least they had steerable chutes. They had done numerous observation passes under flare before jumping.


----------



## KevinB

kev994 said:


> Yeah, I know a couple guys who did a night jump into a large open field… then on final realized the first 2/3 was “break-your-femur-stumps-and-deadfall”. At least they had steerable chutes. They had done numerous observation passes under flare before jumping.


Droppable UAS for DZ recce is the nicest tech toy for insertions --


----------



## PPCLI Guy

kev994 said:


> Yeah, I know a couple guys who did a night jump into a large open field… then on final realized the first 2/3 was “break-your-femur-stumps-and-deadfall”. At least they had steerable chutes. They had done numerous observation passes under flare before jumping.


Wx and 3VP?


----------



## kev994

PPCLI Guy said:


> Wx and 3VP?


SARTechs on a mission in Northern Ontario


----------



## daftandbarmy

Halifax Tar said:


> Why would anyone get in an airplane ?  Why would any jump out of an airplane ?
> 
> Lol this thread is triggering me now



Dude, if you knew anything about the people flying the airplane you'd have no hesitation in bailing out


----------



## Halifax Tar

daftandbarmy said:


> Dude, if you knew anything about the people flying the airplane you'd have no hesitation in bailing out



I know all about them, that's why I avoid getting into them in the first place; like a sailor avoids mass on shore leave.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

daftandbarmy said:


> Dude, if you knew anything about the people flying the airplane you'd have no hesitation in bailing out


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

kev994 said:


> Yeah, I know a couple guys who did a night jump into a large open field… then on final realized the first 2/3 was “break-your-femur-stumps-and-deadfall”. At least they had steerable chutes. They had done numerous observation passes under flare before jumping.


3RCR in an attempt to relive the glory days of Airborne!!!!! Conducted a night jump on the Mattawa in full battle rattle about 12 years ago and had 19 jumpers injured.

My pal, who was one of the platoon commanders, shattered his femur in 3 places.  He now walks with a limp and has a bunch of screws in his leg.

He did have the sense of humour to crawl to his rucksack, get on the radio and let the Company Commander know he was proceeding to the ORV as planned at 6 meters per hour and that they should carry on without him if they thought he was crawling too slowly.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Humphrey Bogart said:


> 3RCR in an attempt to relive the glory days of Airborne!!!!! Conducted a night jump on the Mattawa in full battle rattle about 12 years ago and had 19 jumpers injured.
> 
> My pal, who was one of the platoon commanders, shattered his femur in 3 places.  He now walks with a limp and has a bunch of screws in his leg.
> 
> He did have the sense of humour to crawl to his rucksack, get on the radio and let the Company Commander know he was proceeding to the ORV as planned at 6 meters per hour and that they should carry on without him if they thought he was crawling too slowly.



Jesus…brutal.  

Is Canada still jumping CT-1s at “whatever CABC is called now” and in the Para Coys?


----------



## rmc_wannabe

Eye In The Sky said:


> Jesus…brutal.
> 
> Is Canada still jumping CT-1s at “whatever CABC is called now” and in the Para Coys?



From what I have heard from folks in the Bns and at CAAWC in Trenton, it's still CT-1 for static line.


----------



## OldSolduer

Eye In The Sky said:


> Jesus…brutal.
> 
> Is Canada still jumping CT-1s at “whatever CABC is called now” and in the Para Coys?


Non jumper here but I have a question:

Is the age of en masse Airborne operations kinda over? And are there safer chutes to use?

Ok so two questions.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Humphrey Bogart said:


> 3RCR in an attempt to relive the glory days of Airborne!!!!! Conducted a night jump on the Mattawa in full battle rattle about 12 years ago and had 19 jumpers injured.


The Mattawa Massacre  🧑‍🦽


----------



## KevinB

OldSolduer said:


> Non jumper here but I have a question:
> 
> Is the age of en masse Airborne operations kinda over? And are there safer chutes to use?
> 
> Ok so two questions.


Firstly Canada and MASS Airborne never was a thing.
  Mass means a Div 
If you have never jumped down here with the 82nd it's an alternate reality compared to jumping a few planes double door mass in Canada.
  Walking over canopies is a typical thing and it's fairly unnerving the first few times.


Years ago (like pre my Basic Para at CABC in Edmonton) the US Army had transitioned to semi-steerable chutes - basically a CT-2, which is a CT-1 without 2 back panels and steering toggles - it gives you frontal airspeed and the ability to actually maneuver (nothing like a rectangular chute, but way better than dope on a rope "slip away, slip away).
  For reasons that I still can't fathom Canada had (maybe still has) a requirement for IIRC 15 CT-1 jumps before using CT-2's, and often likes to screw jumpers on friendship jumps with allied who use semi steerable chutes if you don't have the required number CT-1 jumps (can't let those plebeian Red Leaf Jumpers get other wings...)

 Having jumped both CT-1 and CT-2 chutes, the CT-2 is a way better method and is a lot more intuitive (IMHO) than trying to pull ineffectual slips to spill air in certain directions.   But still not nearly as pleasant as Freefall chutes (I'ver never jumped a rectangular chute via static line - I think the SAR Tech's are the only folks who do that, which was the CT-3) as you can control the true steerable chutes, and flair them to decrease speed and decent rates (and most .MIL chutes are near impossible to stall unlike the smaller civilian ones) - and while you can get into a lot of trouble with the forward speed if you don't know what you're doing, it's really not rocket science if I can do it.


----------



## Spencer100

OldSolduer said:


> Non jumper here but I have a question:
> 
> Is the age of en masse Airborne operations kinda over? And are there safer chutes to use?
> 
> Ok so two questions.


Hmmmm with all the other areas divested or let rot in the CAF the forces are still in the Parachute business? 

I would understand SAR, pilots, aircrew but then jumping infantry is something  to think we need?  Helicopter airborne I still get( but then the VDV is not covering themselves in glory either)  but jumping not so more today.  Horse borne cavalry of the 21 century.


----------



## Good2Golf

Spencer100 said:


> Helicopter airborne I still get( but then the VDV is not covering themselves in glory either) but jumping not so more today. Horse borne cavalry of the 21 century.


‘Air Assault’

Part of the reason the US army re-roled the 101st from an airborne to an air assault division. 82nd remains airborne, but the Screaming Eagles are predominantly heliborne/air assault.


----------



## torg003

Que Wagner's "Ride of the Valkyries".


----------



## daftandbarmy

OldSolduer said:


> Non jumper here but I have a question:
> 
> Is the age of en masse Airborne operations kinda over? And are there *safer *chutes to use?
> 
> Ok so two questions.



'Safe' and 'Airborne' are not words that are to be used in the same sentence


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Spencer100 said:


> Hmmmm with all the other areas divested or let rot in the CAF the forces are still in the Parachute business?
> 
> I would understand SAR, pilots, aircrew but then jumping infantry is something  to think we need?  Helicopter airborne I still get( but then the VDV is not covering themselves in glory either)  but jumping not so more today.  Horse borne cavalry of the 21 century.



Pilots are aircrew.  

Aircrew do not train parachuting much if at all.


----------



## dapaterson

Eye In The Sky said:


> Pilots are aircrew.
> 
> Aircrew do not train parachuting much if at all.



Aircrew who are forced to parachute become members of the Caterpillar Club.









						Caterpillar Club - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## FJAG

dapaterson said:


> Aircrew who are forced to parachute become members of the Caterpillar Club.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Caterpillar Club - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org


I'd like to get one of those. My sister-in-law's husband had to punch out of a CF-104 when it decided it had flown enough for the day.

🍻


----------



## dapaterson

Had an old family friend (who passed away a number of years ago) who joined the Caterpillar Club and the Royal Air Forces Escaping Society both on the same day in 1944.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

FJAG said:


> I'd like to get one of those. My sister-in-law's husband had to punch out of a CF-104 when it decided it had flown enough for the day.
> 
> 🍻


He should have got one when he became a member of the club, not long after the incident Also the Safety Systems tech that packed the chute gets one. I had a childhood friend who was a pilot. Put his VooDoo into the Pacific. Both him and his Scope Wizard as well as the SS tech in my shop got caterpillars.


----------



## FJAG

Fishbone Jones said:


> He should have got one when he became a member of the club, not long after the incident Also the Safety Systems tech that packed the chute gets one. I had a childhood friend who was a pilot. Put his VooDoo into the Pacific. Both him and his Scope Wizard as well as the SS tech in my shop got caterpillars.


I'll have to ask him. I never knew this existed.

🍻


----------



## daftandbarmy

It's like he follows this forum 

More than a decade ago, the army had a plan to rebuild. It went nowhere​Canada is still standing in line for equipment it planned to buy 12 years ago​
Ottawa is a city of plans. Many plans. Sometimes you find there are plans to have a plan. But as the old Scottish poem says, "The best laid schemes o' mice an' men often go awry."

More than a decade ago, as Canada's war in Afghanistan was grinding to its conclusion, a plan was drawn up to rebuild, refresh and re-equip the army for the future.

It withered and died over several years — a victim of changing defence fashions, budgets, inter-service and inter-departmental bureaucratic warfare and political indifference.

Parts of the plan were resurrected, but in true bureaucratic fashion, those elements have languished somewhere in the dark recesses of the Department of National Defence and Public Services and Procurement Canada.

Several of the key weapons systems in the 2010 plan — ground-based air defence, modern anti-tank systems and long-range artillery — are among the items the Liberal government is now urgently trying to buy, just as other allied nations also scramble to arm themselves against a resurgent Russia.

In November, a senior defence planner told a conference that it could take up to 18 months to land some of the less complex items on Ottawa's wish list. In the meantime, Canadian troops in Latvia staring across the border at a wounded, unpredictable Russian Army will have to make do — or rely on allies.



			https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadian-armed-forces-equipment-procurement-ukraine-latvia-1.6706444


----------



## Edward Campbell

daftandbarmy said:


> It's like he follows this forum
> 
> More than a decade ago, the army had a plan to rebuild. It went nowhere​Canada is still standing in line for equipment it planned to buy 12 years ago​
> Ottawa is a city of plans. Many plans. Sometimes you find there are plans to have a plan. But as the old Scottish poem says, "The best laid schemes o' mice an' men often go awry."
> 
> More than a decade ago, as Canada's war in Afghanistan was grinding to its conclusion, a plan was drawn up to rebuild, refresh and re-equip the army for the future.
> 
> It withered and died over several years — a victim of changing defence fashions, budgets, inter-service and inter-departmental bureaucratic warfare and political indifference.
> 
> Parts of the plan were resurrected, but in true bureaucratic fashion, those elements have languished somewhere in the dark recesses of the Department of National Defence and Public Services and Procurement Canada.
> 
> Several of the key weapons systems in the 2010 plan — ground-based air defence, modern anti-tank systems and long-range artillery — are among the items the Liberal government is now urgently trying to buy, just as other allied nations also scramble to arm themselves against a resurgent Russia.
> 
> In November, a senior defence planner told a conference that it could take up to 18 months to land some of the less complex items on Ottawa's wish list. In the meantime, Canadian troops in Latvia staring across the border at a wounded, unpredictable Russian Army will have to make do — or rely on allies.
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadian-armed-forces-equipment-procurement-ukraine-latvia-1.6706444


Leslie is right on two counts:

"*Liberals and Conservatives both have found a neat trick of telling Canadians that they are increasing defence spending, that the capabilities are on the horizon, but then somehow never getting around to fine-tuning the various procurement systems so that the money gets out the door*;" and
On the issue of readiness and Gen (ret'd )Lawson's contention that Gen Eyre 'was simply doing his job and advocating for the military,' "*The world is now much more dangerous than it's been at any other time during my lifetime ... Far more dangerous than the Cold War. So I believe Gen. Eyre's comments are balanced and reasonable, and I think general Lawson is completely and utterly wrong.*"
But Gen Lawson is correct to note that it is the government of the day, NOT the defence establishment, that decides what Canada needs. Gen Eyre's advice is offered and received ... and then treated as just one - not always either important or even trusted - factor in a complex *political *equation.

When, as I agree with Andrew Leslie there exists today, a very dangerous strategic situation we hope that we can see something like the first image: when we have a dangerous situation the public becomes aware and will, sooner or later, tell their elected representatives too take action. But, history - not just Canadian history - says that doesn't happen too often. More often we need some "actors" to make the blue arrow into reality (second image).

Now, the leaders who warn of danger are not rare; Churchill was not _sui generis_; people like him have existed for centuries, for sure, even for millennia. But, very often, they are "voices in the wilderness." What is needed is an amplifier for the voices of the political leader and his team. That is the role of the opinion makers - the bards and minstrels in ancient times, the pamphleteers in the 18th century and the media and the "chattering classes," today.

I'm going to argue that Churchill had that in 1938/39 and again in the 1950s; Truman, in the 1940s, and Eisenhower, St Laurent and Menzies in the 1950s had it, too. I suspect that Canada may have had the right leaders in the early 2000s but there was almost no-one to amplify their voice, and there still isn't. The "chattering classes" are almost totally unified in their reaction to any warnings ... third image.


----------



## Brad Sallows

I doubt the world is more dangerous in military terms.  At one time some believed that if the Warsaw Pact chose to attack, we'd be forced to use tactical nuclear weapons within a few days, and still might fail.  Now the Warsaw Pact is gone and we believe that Russia is barely capable of invading eastern Ukraine.  I'd be surprised if any "war games" situated anywhere resulted in commanders begging for authority to release tactical nukes.

If the world is more dangerous, I'd list the likely contenders for blame as biologists first, AI researchers second, and climate engineering enthusiasts third.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Brad Sallows said:


> I doubt the world is more dangerous in military terms.  At one time some believed that if the Warsaw Pact chose to attack, we'd be forced to use tactical nuclear weapons within a few days, and still might fail.  Now the Warsaw Pact is gone and we believe that Russia is barely capable of invading eastern Ukraine.  I'd be surprised if any "war games" situated anywhere resulted in commanders begging for authority to release tactical nukes.
> 
> If the world is more dangerous, I'd list the likely contenders for blame as biologists first, AI researchers second, and climate engineering enthusiasts third.


_I think_ the danger of East Asia exploding into a full blown nuclear war is at least as serious as NATO vs WP in the 1950s and '60s.


----------



## Kirkhill

Edward Campbell said:


> Leslie is right on two counts:
> 
> "*Liberals and Conservatives both have found a neat trick of telling Canadians that they are increasing defence spending, that the capabilities are on the horizon, but then somehow never getting around to fine-tuning the various procurement systems so that the money gets out the door*;" and
> On the issue of readiness and Gen (ret'd )Lawson's contention that Gen Eyre 'was simply doing his job and advocating for the military,' "*The world is now much more dangerous than it's been at any other time during my lifetime ... Far more dangerous than the Cold War. So I believe Gen. Eyre's comments are balanced and reasonable, and I think general Lawson is completely and utterly wrong.*"
> But Gen Lawson is correct to note that it is the government of the day, NOT the defence establishment, that decides what Canada needs. Gen Eyre's advice is offered and received ... and then treated as just one - not always either important or even trusted - factor in a complex *political *equation.
> 
> When, as I agree with Andrew Leslie there exists today, a very dangerous strategic situation we hope that we can see something like the first image: when we have a dangerous situation the public becomes aware and will, sooner or later, tell their elected representatives too take action. But, history - not just Canadian history - says that doesn't happen too often. More often we need some "actors" to make the blue arrow into reality (second image).
> 
> Now, the leaders who warn of danger are not rare; Churchill was not _sui generis_; people like him have existed for centuries, for sure, even for millennia. But, very often, they are "voices in the wilderness." What is needed is an amplifier for the voices of the political leader and his team. That is the role of the opinion makers - the bards and minstrels in ancient times, the pamphleteers in the 18th century and the media and the "chattering classes," today.
> 
> I'm going to argue that Churchill had that in 1938/39 and again in the 1950s; Truman, in the 1940s, and Eisenhower, St Laurent and Menzies in the 1950s had it, too. I suspect that Canada may have had the right leaders in the early 2000s but there was almost no-one to amplify their voice, and there still isn't. The "chattering classes" are almost totally unified in their reaction to any warnings ... third image.



As we've noted before - this Canada is not the Canada of even the Cold War, much less WW2 and WW1.

A diminishing portion of the population feels any direct ties to Europe, let alone France and the United Kingdom.   A good chunk of our population has arrived here since 1970 and they didn't come here because of the weather.  In many cases Canada was seen as the safest place on the planet and a place where money could be made.

Soldiering just doesn't come into it.


----------



## Good2Golf

Kirkhill said:


> In many cases Canada was seen as the safest place on the planet and a place where money could be made.


…which will ramp up as it becomes the planet’s first post-nation (vassal) state, just like Fils Trudeau prognosticates…he and his cabal team members just don’t appreciate that they’re going to be handing Canada over to Uncle Sam as the Vassal Overlord…


----------



## ArmyRick

FJAG said:


> I'd like to get one of those. My sister-in-law's husband had to punch out of a CF-104 when it decided it had flown enough for the day.
> 
> 🍻


Tell us more! Did he make it ok? What happened?


----------



## rmc_wannabe

Good2Golf said:


> …which will ramp up as it becomes the planet’s first post-nation (vassal) state, just like Fils Trudeau prognosticates…he and his cabal team members just don’t appreciate that they’re going to be handing Canada over to Uncle Sam as the Vassal Overlord…



"Those who beat their swords into plowshares usually end up plowing for those who kept their swords." - Benjamin Franklin

I imagine a lot of the folks who come here seeking refuge and potential prosperity would say the same. My family lost everything in the Old Country first to Mussolini, then the Nazis, then the Allies confiscated what was left because "well everyone here is a Fascist so...." Canada was a place where people were protected and free.

I imagine for as many immigrants that came to Canada to enjoy a seat at that table, there are just as many that know how easily that table gets flipped when you don't have someone there protecting it. 

I have met many folks in my years in uniform from former Soviet nations, Warsaw Pact, Iran, the Middle Eaat, Korea, and all over Africa that have held strong the belief that "if not me, who else?" 

I find the most reluctant of Canadians when it comes to anything military are those that stand the most to lose from a weakened Canada; the wealthiest and most powerful, who conversely lobby and set policy for these governments that favour stimulus over security. 

It's mind boggling to be honest.


----------



## Good2Golf

It is…until you consider they are protecting their interests with constructs that are not directly threatened by potential adversaries’ influences (consider the mix of the Power Corp.’s investments…not in Canada, etc.).  The middle class and below Canadians have a dependence to the good faith trust they place in those in power, but the reciprocity of respect to the rank and file of Canadian society by the power brokers/political masters is quite reasonably questioned…


----------



## FSTO

Edward Campbell said:


> The "chattering classes" are almost totally unified in their reaction to any warnings ... third image.


They are too busy talking about Danielle Smith and the Sovereignty Act, Doug Ford and the Green Belt, a myriad of other provincial topics the feds are sticking their fingers into, or staring into the US Craziness to be bothered looking North/East or West at what the world is up to.


----------



## FSTO

Written by:
_Robert Smol is a retired military intelligence officer who served in the Canadian Armed Forces for more than 20 years. He is completing a PhD in military history._



			Smol: Was Pierre Trudeau really the enemy of the Canadian Armed Forces?
		


I would argue that every decision to purchase the Frigates, F18s, and CP 140 were brought about because the current gear (Steamers, Starfighters, and Argus's) were so worn out something had to be done and the absolute minimum (after a lot of kicking and screaming) was acquired.


----------



## FJAG

Fishbone Jones said:


> He should have got one when he became a member of the club, not long after the incident Also the Safety Systems tech that packed the chute gets one. I had a childhood friend who was a pilot. Put his VooDoo into the Pacific. Both him and his Scope Wizard as well as the SS tech in my shop got caterpillars.


I've heard back from him and he says that he got a lovely club membership card and a gold caterpillar pin from Irvin Company.  He added that he was quite happy to receive them "in person". The landing was not silky smooth and somewhat abrupt as the chute did not have much time to open from the altitude he was at.


----------



## FJAG

ArmyRick said:


> Tell us more! Did he make it ok? What happened?


He made it just fine and went on to a full career ending up as Comd of 2 CFFTS in Moose Jaw, retired as a colonel and went to the Transportation Safety Board after retirement where he did the investigation into the SwissAir Flt 111 off Peggy's Cove investigation. Still has his hand in a bunch of things and works as a consultant.

🍻


----------



## Kirkhill

FSTO said:


> Written by:
> _Robert Smol is a retired military intelligence officer who served in the Canadian Armed Forces for more than 20 years. He is completing a PhD in military history._
> 
> 
> 
> Smol: Was Pierre Trudeau really the enemy of the Canadian Armed Forces?
> 
> 
> 
> I would argue that every decision to purchase the Frigates, F18s, and CP 140 were brought about because the current gear (Steamers, Starfighters, and Argus's) were so worn out something had to be done and the absolute minimum (after a lot of kicking and screaming) was acquired.



Interesting premise:  He wasn't that bad.  He may have been the worst at the time but we've had 40 years of worse candidates.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

FSTO said:


> Written by:
> _Robert Smol is a retired military intelligence officer who served in the Canadian Armed Forces for more than 20 years. He is completing a PhD in military history._
> 
> 
> 
> Smol: Was Pierre Trudeau really the enemy of the Canadian Armed Forces?
> 
> 
> 
> I would argue that every decision to purchase the Frigates, F18s, and CP 140 were brought about because the current gear (Steamers, Starfighters, and Argus's) were so worn out something had to be done and the absolute minimum (after a lot of kicking and screaming) was acquired.



I think the Argus had lots of life left in them but they weren’t that modern at the end, and they were becoming severely expensive to fly (fuel cost).


----------



## Will M

I thought my last few years  (years ago) were somewhat sad for the forces but I see now they are worse today.  Only a new govt. with new leader and ministers can reverse the negatives and produce a robust CAF.  I see previously mention of immigrants. Govt has always wanted more immigrants, the more people the more stuff you sell. It's not about our quality of life but how much the rich can become richer with more people to sell to. The average Canadian citizen is mined as a resource. I can complain as well as the next person but for real change we need change in leadership.


----------



## Brad Sallows

If "the more people the more stuff you sell" were true, the nations with the world's largest populations would be outstripping us.

What does generally work, though, is: the freer the people are to apply their ingenuity to their own benefit, the more prosperity.  That's why allowing high-aptitude immigrants into Canada produces results.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Will M said:


> I thought my last few years  (years ago) were somewhat sad for the forces but I see now they are worse today.  Only a new govt. with new leader and ministers can reverse the negatives and produce a robust CAF.  I see previously mention of immigrants. Govt has always wanted more immigrants, the more people the more stuff you sell. It's not about our quality of life but how much the rich can become richer with more people to sell to. The average Canadian citizen is mined as a resource. I can complain as well as the next person but for real change we need change in leadership.


I've been through two cycles between LPC-Conservative back to LPC, and there was no real difference for the CAF.

For Afg the Harper govt used existing policies to push forward some procurements, which makes perfect sense, but the rest of them were the same old.

I think the colour of the election signs matters a lot less than the populace, and no one wants GoC to cut other projects to spend more on the CAF (nor do we have the capacity to sustainably spend 2% of GDP).


----------



## Edward Campbell

Navy_Pete said:


> I've been through two cycles between LPC-Conservative back to LPC, and there was no real difference for the CAF.
> 
> For Afg the Harper govt used existing policies to push forward some procurements, which makes perfect sense, but the rest of them were the same old.
> 
> I think the colour of the election signs matters a lot less than the populace, and no one wants GoC to cut other projects to spend more on the CAF _(nor do we have the capacity to sustainably spend 2% of GDP)._


I agree with most of what you said, but I disagree, quite vehemently, with the last bit. Even though we were (a year ago) projected to be at the bottom of the OECD heap in economic growth terms for the next decade, we can and can in the future sustain 2% of GDP IF there is enough national will. 

There is no will, now, and has not been since the late 1960s. Most Canadians, a rock solid majority, _I think_, want to spend on almost anything except defence (and symphony orchestras and the PM's official residence).

Can that change? Yes, if the current threat (which_ I believe_ is real, especially in East Asia) becomes worrisome to enough Canadians. But no-one is sounding the alarm - what has Pierre Poilievre said, publicly, about the need to rebuild Canada's foreign and defence policy establishments? Nothing. Why? Because no-one wants to hear that and he's not in the business of serving Canada; he wants to gain power for his own sake.


----------



## TacticalTea

Edward Campbell said:


> I agree with most of what you said, but I disagree, quite vehemently, with the last bit. Even though we were (a year ago) projected to be at the bottom of the OECD heap in economic growth terms for the next decade, we can and can in the future sustain 2% of GDP IF there is enough national will.
> 
> There is no will, now, and has not been since the late 1960s. Most Canadians, a rock solid majority, _I think_, want to spend on almost anything except defence (and symphony orchestras and the PM's official residence).
> 
> Can that change? Yes, if the current threat (which_ I believe_ is real, especially in East Asia) becomes worrisome to enough Canadians. But no-one is sounding the alarm - what has Pierre Poilievre said, publicly, about the need to rebuild Canada's foreign and defence policy establishments? Nothing. Why? Because no-one wants to hear that and he's not in the business of serving Canada; he wants to gain power for his own sake.


The Party really missed the mark by rejecting both O'Toole and then Charest. There was potential for some serious, constructive work to be done., not just whatever is politically attractive. 

Now, whether the PMO wants to admit it or not, it seems to me all the left has to do to maintain its stranglehold on power is to rotate Prime ministers.


----------



## Navy_Pete

@Edward Campbell, just from an HR perspective, we don't have capacity right now to get up to 2% spending consistently.

That's ballpark around $40B/year, and even with the capitol projects I think we're lucky to get up to $25-30B in surges.

It's a fairly arbitrary target, but unless we can actually recruit up to the 70 odd thousand we're supposed to have, and go beyond that (100k?) plus expand our LCMM/procurement side of things it's just not going to happen.

There are a lot of potential obsolescence projects but all those take bodies in projects to do, and they are in short supply. 

To get to 2% we would need a plan to expand first, and a credible track record of recruiting/retaining people, which we don't have either of.


----------



## Brian Lowe

Edward Campbell said:


> A couple of points:
> 
> First: *don't blame Justin Trudeau*. He's just doing what most Canadians have wanted done for the past half century.
> 
> Political parties, Conservative, Liberal and NDP and all the others poll assiduously, and they ask good questions, too, because they really do want to know what Canadians think. Why do you think that Pierre Poilievre doesn't talk a lot about doubling the defence budget and getting serious abut global peace and security? The answer is because CPC pollsters have heard, loud and clear, from Canadians, that it is NOT an issue. Support for increased national defence is on about the same level as support for more symphony orchestras and ballet companies and increased MPs' pensions.​​It doesn't matter why Canadians think that way; the simple fact is that they do ... and they have done since before 1970.​​In the last 1940s Louis St Laurent gave a speech at the University of Toronto in which he laid out a plan for Canada to adopt a leadership role - politically, diplomatically, economically and militarily - in the world. It secured broad general public support for a number of reasons -​​1. We had just come out of a huge and costly war and most people understood that it could have been prevented by bold action;​2. Canada was looking forward to a fairly bright economic future; and​3. Although this was slightly after Kennan's 'long telegram,' St Laurent, himself, and many Canadian opinion makers - including the media - were now worried about Soviet aims and aggression.​​The Canadian Political Landscape was different in the late 1940s. Canadians had come out of the Great Depression and the Second World War is remarkably good form. The country was confident. Even though the Liberal Party was old and tired, St Laurent, who became prime minister in 1948, was popular with both the general public and the media and he seemed fresh and very, very able. That's all changed.​​It began to change in the mid 1960s. The welfare state was growing, world-wide. St Laurent had been a very cautious fiscal conservative and Canada was actually lagging behind many Western nations, including the USA and especially Scandinavia, in implementing a welfare state. Canadians wanted to spend less on defence and more own themselves.​​If you want to blame some it should be Pierre Trudeau, not his son, because he understood what Canadians wanted and he offered it to them, lock, stock and barrel.​
> Second: *don't blame the media*. It, also, is just giving Canadians what they want.
> 
> The media is a consumer driven service. The media - print, TV, radio and the Internet - "sell" eyes and ears to advertisers. If the media doesn't give Canadians what they want to see, hear and read then they will look/listen elsewhere and advertisers will follow.​​Canadians are *uninterested* in defence, despite the War in Ukraine and despite the _Rise of China_ and so on for a whole bunch of reasons that others have mentioned but, mainly, because they have been led to believe that they live under the American security umbrella, even though many experts have explained that isn't true.​
> If you want to blame someone, it needs to be someone like your spouse or your parents or your siblings or your neighbours. They all *expect *to have an efficient and effective military force but they don't want to spend any more than they do now - and preferably less - to get it.


----------



## Brian Lowe

until someone rolls over our own borders, this attitude will only continue.......ignorance is bliss in the minds of most of our compatriots.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Remind me again why we bought those Aussie F-18's?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Navy_Pete said:


> @Edward Campbell, just from an HR perspective, we don't have capacity right now to get up to 2% spending consistently.
> 
> That's ballpark around $40B/year, and even with the capitol projects I think we're lucky to get up to $25-30B in surges.
> 
> It's a fairly arbitrary target, but unless we can actually recruit up to the 70 odd thousand we're supposed to have, and go beyond that (100k?) plus expand our LCMM/procurement side of things it's just not going to happen.
> 
> There are a lot of potential obsolescence projects but all those take bodies in projects to do, and they are in short supply.
> 
> To get to 2% we would need a plan to expand first, and a credible track record of recruiting/retaining people, which we don't have either of.


You need to identify a lot of the small projects where the funds are then set not to expire each year and the buy size stays the same for that contract, regardless of inflation. So if we identify that 2023 we are buying 75 Manpad systems and the procurement office finally gets started on it in March 2024, the funds are not expiring, so they don't have to jump through more hoops and they can focus on the details of the contract and the army knows it's getting 75 AD systems, so it can start planning for it. Let's say the same for a RWS for the Kingstons, you order enough for each ship, spares and training aids. That number does not change, you hope to get them for 2024, but maybe they also get to it March 2025. 
Eventually they can work through the pile on the smaller contracts, build experience and then those PW/DND staff support the bigger projects. Bringing in a decent baseline of knowledge.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Navy_Pete said:


> @Edward Campbell, just from an HR perspective, we don't have capacity right now to get up to 2% spending consistently.
> 
> That's ballpark around $40B/year, and even with the capitol projects I think we're lucky to get up to $25-30B in surges.
> 
> It's a fairly arbitrary target, but unless we can actually recruit up to the 70 odd thousand we're supposed to have, and go beyond that (100k?) plus expand our LCMM/procurement side of things it's just not going to happen.
> 
> There are a lot of potential obsolescence projects but all those take bodies in projects to do, and they are in short supply.
> 
> To get to 2% we would need a plan to expand first, and a credible track record of recruiting/retaining people, which we don't have either of.


Understand and agree with your analysis - but I have to say that argument continues to perpetuate the 'paralysis by analysis' situation that we seem to be in.  
The substantial numbers of PR's that came forward showing genuine interest in joining the CAF when the restrictions were lifted shocked a lot of people but it certainly looked like nothing was done to prepare for possible large (by Canadian standards, lol) numbers of new recruits  coming forward to be selected prior to the restrictions being lifted.  Did the CAF do ANYTHING proactively to prepare for this prior to the restrictions being lifted?  
Again with the ringing of hands, 'what do we do with all these new recruits', and throwing up of road blocks in terms of the 'burden' of providing background checks on all these people before allowing them in. Having a wife who is a PR (for the last 20yrs), I'm fully aware of all the paperwork and background checks that are done when it comes time to renew the PR card every 5yrs - what sort of extra security screening is necessary for the CAF?  I mean, is the RCMP/CSIS/GoC not doing background checks and security checks on these PR's when they submit the required paperwork for a renewed PR card?? If not, why does it currently take 80 days for a renewed PR card to be processed??


----------



## daftandbarmy

Czech_pivo said:


> Understand and agree with your analysis - but I have to say that argument continues to perpetuate the 'paralysis by analysis' situation that we seem to be in.
> The substantial numbers of PR's that came forward showing genuine interest in joining the CAF when the restrictions were lifted shocked a lot of people but it certainly looked like nothing was done to prepare for possible large (by Canadian standards, lol) numbers of new recruits  coming forward to be selected prior to the restrictions being lifted.  Did the CAF do ANYTHING proactively to prepare for this prior to the restrictions being lifted?
> Again with the ringing of hands, 'what do we do with all these new recruits', and throwing up of road blocks in terms of the 'burden' of providing background checks on all these people before allowing them in. Having a wife who is a PR (for the last 20yrs), I'm fully aware of all the paperwork and background checks that are done when it comes time to renew the PR card every 5yrs - what sort of extra security screening is necessary for the CAF?  I mean, is the RCMP/CSIS/GoC not doing background checks and security checks on these PR's when they submit the required paperwork for a renewed PR card?? If not, why does it currently take 80 days for a renewed PR card to be processed??



Glass Half Full: Those PAT Platoons probably needed to be bulked up


----------



## Booter

Spending is a nonstarter to me unless the first plan is to set up a training pipeline that can produce trained people. We need to produce people before new sets of kit- produce people that can do the basics well.  Ground pounders, sailors (and things to sail), and “aviators” that are proficient in the basics. 

Proper footwear and New cold weather tents- and all the shit that actually lets people be the places that fighting can happen and in a state to fight. 

Back to basics. Then with a system that can produce people- say what can 80 thousand Canadians reliably contribute to NATO well? If it’s cyber psychos and drone “pilots” we can start specializing that way. But first comes walking hard, sailing into harms way, and screaming towards the horizon.


----------



## KevinB

Navy_Pete said:


> @Edward Campbell, just from an HR perspective, we don't have capacity right now to get up to 2% spending consistently.
> 
> That's ballpark around $40B/year, and even with the capitol projects I think we're lucky to get up to $25-30B in surges.
> 
> It's a fairly arbitrary target, but unless we can actually recruit up to the 70 odd thousand we're supposed to have, and go beyond that (100k?) plus expand our LCMM/procurement side of things it's just not going to happen.
> 
> There are a lot of potential obsolescence projects but all those take bodies in projects to do, and they are in short supply.
> 
> To get to 2% we would need a plan to expand first, and a credible track record of recruiting/retaining people, which we don't have either of.


Honestly a lot of programs on the Army side could be done with very limited project staff -- IF the CAF was to buy systems that are in use with NATO allies.


----------



## YZT580

In 1939 we started with practically nothing.  Within two years we had a solid START on a navy, a major training system capable of turning out hundreds of aircrew per year and the airports to fly them from, we had 5000 soldiers preparing to invade Dieppe and 2000 more in Hong Kong.  By wars end we had 1.1 million people in uniform so there is absolutely nothing we can't achieve if we are given the leadership and green light to do it.


----------



## Kirkhill

Edward Campbell said:


> I agree with most of what you said, but I disagree, quite vehemently, with the last bit. Even though we were (a year ago) projected to be at the bottom of the OECD heap in economic growth terms for the next decade, we can and can in the future sustain 2% of GDP IF there is enough national will.
> 
> There is no will, now, and has not been since the late 1960s. Most Canadians, a rock solid majority, _I think_, want to spend on almost anything except defence (and symphony orchestras and the PM's official residence).
> 
> Can that change? Yes, if the current threat (which_ I believe_ is real, especially in East Asia) becomes worrisome to enough Canadians. But no-one is sounding the alarm - what has Pierre Poilievre said, publicly, about the need to rebuild Canada's foreign and defence policy establishments? Nothing. Why? Because no-one wants to hear that and he's not in the business of serving Canada; he wants to gain power* for his own sake*.



FTFY.  

I don't know Pierre or Justin's mind.  I do know that nothing happens without power.


----------



## KevinB

YZT580 said:


> In 1939 we started with practically nothing.  Within two years we had a solid START on a navy, a major training system capable of turning out hundreds of aircrew per year and the airports to fly them from, we had 5000 soldiers preparing to invade Dieppe and 2000 more in Hong Kong.  By wars end we had 1.1 million people in uniform so there is absolutely nothing we can't achieve if we are given the leadership and green light to do it.


Everything equipment and troops oriented this day and age takes a lot more efforts and time. 

Kirkhill likes to remind us what Rummy mentioned about going to war with the Army you have, not the Army you want.


----------



## RangerRay

YZT580 said:


> In 1939 we started with practically nothing.  Within two years we had a solid START on a navy, a major training system capable of turning out hundreds of aircrew per year and the airports to fly them from, we had 5000 soldiers preparing to invade Dieppe and 2000 more in Hong Kong.  By wars end we had 1.1 million people in uniform so there is absolutely nothing we can't achieve if we are given the leadership and green light to do it.


But Hong Kong and Dieppe were still disasters in large part due to our unpreparedness in 1939.  I would rather we be ready for Day 1 and avoid those types of disasters.


----------



## rmc_wannabe

Using  WWII or WWI mobilization as a "we'll be fine..." for current state of affairs is not in the least reassuring. 

Read some accounts of what transpired in 1914 and 1939 when we actually started, we were severely behind the 8 Ball in terms training capability and equipment. We were blessed to have the run up time we did to get our house in order.

Like @KevinB  said, the cost and complexity of modern warfare doesn't lend itself to "just in time" procurement and training.


----------



## Halifax Tar

rmc_wannabe said:


> Using  WWII or WWI mobilization as a "we'll be fine..." for current state of affairs is not in the least reassuring.
> 
> Read some accounts of what transpired in 1914 and 1939 when we actually started, we were severely behind the 8 Ball in terms training capability and equipment. We were blessed to have the run up time we did to get our house in order.
> 
> Like @KevinB  said, the cost and complexity of modern warfare doesn't lend itself to "just in time" procurement and training.



I think our weapons systems are to complicated to be replicated en masse and replace combat losses fast enough.  I propose that if the, non nuclear, ball ever drops we will be reverting to something more akin to WW2 or Korea very quickly as highly technical and complicated equipment is expended and lost and then replaced with easy to produce en masse materials and equipment. 

_Quantity has a quality all its own_
Joe Stalin


----------



## ueo

YZT580 said:


> In 1939 we started with practically nothing.  Within two years we had a solid START on a navy, a major training system capable of turning out hundreds of aircrew per year and the airports to fly them from, we had 5000 soldiers preparing to invade Dieppe and 2000 more in Hong Kong.  By wars end we had 1.1 million people in uniform so there is absolutely nothing we can't achieve if we are given the leadership and green light to do it.


Sorta think you also need an imminent threat.


----------



## YZT580

RangerRay said:


> But Hong Kong and Dieppe were still disasters in large part due to our unpreparedness in 1939.  I would rather we be ready for Day 1 and avoid those types of disasters.


Too true.  We are long overdue to re-equip and rejuvenate our forces


----------



## lenaitch

The low tech nature of WWII has no comparison to today.  Turning 'prairie farm boys' into soldiers, sailors and pilots in mere month would be like what we see with many Russian troops in Ukraine.  Flower Class corvettes were based on a fishing boat and turned out in a matter of months, which is whole lot longer than the time they would last today in action.


----------



## YZT580

rmc_wannabe said:


> Using  WWII or WWI mobilization as a "we'll be fine..." for current state of affairs is not in the least reassuring.
> 
> Read some accounts of what transpired in 1914 and 1939 when we actually started, we were severely behind the 8 Ball in terms training capability and equipment. We were blessed to have the run up time we did to get our house in order.
> 
> Like @KevinB  said, the cost and complexity of modern warfare doesn't lend itself to "just in time" procurement and training.


Didn't you read the last line?  The previous discussion was all handwringing with regards to the 2% and no one will come and we can't get our training in gear.  Frankly it was all why we couldn't.  Well, we can and we must but it will require leadership.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Edward Campbell said:


> _I think_ the danger of East Asia exploding into a full blown nuclear war is at least as serious as NATO vs WP in the 1950s and '60s.


I feel like many/most of our political & military leadership have a fundamental misunderstanding of how war and also great power competition is going to be fought in the 21st Century.

It's actually surprising to me because "Hybrid Warfare" is all we've been hearing about since 2014, but our leadership (many of whom supposedly have big brains) can't seem to wrap their heads around the concept.

Conventional Military Power is but one aspect of a Hybrid Warfare Strategy, but one finger from many different hands if you will:







The problem space that I don't think the Collective West has wrapped its head around is the fact that Russia's Conventional Military Power isn't there for us, it's for its client states and those States it has Strategic Interests in, Ukraine being one of.

Any discussion about the superiority of NATO Forces vs the Russian Armed Forces is stupid because the Russian Armed Forces doesn't really exist to fight NATO in a conventional war.  The Russians know they aren't strong enough and that they would lose, they've even admitted as much.  They have nuclear weapons though, which is the ace in their sleeve and they know it.

On the eve of the Ukrainian Invasion, Vladimir Putin actually mentioned this in a speech (the clip of which has since disappeared and I cannot find it). The gist of it though was that Russia knows NATO would win in a conventional war but it's irrelevant because Russia has nuclear weapons and any conventional exchange becomes a nuclear exchange, at which point we both lose.

This isn't to say it isn't important to have conventional military capability, on the contrary it's important for us for two reasons:

1.  To be able to provide support to our partners against our adversaries, with weapons and military capability, as us being done in Ukraine; and

2.  To be able to carry out our own operations in areas of the globe where we have strategic interests.

Where Canada fails massively in this regard is that we can't really do either of the above because a)  we have no excess of weapons or military capability to give anyone and b) we have let our standing forcss atrophy to the point we also really can't do #2 in a meaningful way either.

The Russians also aren't doing badly or as badly at the strategic level as we are led to believe.  They are currently having a lot of success running France out of their former Colonial Empire and they are sowing dissension in Europe & Elsewhere through the considerable control that they wield on commodities markets.  The World is also interconnected to the point that things we have tried to do, like our sanctions regime, has been shown to be essentially toothless because we've allowed our diplomatic and economic capital to erode in many parts of the World.

See the following:











I could write an entire thread on each of the other fingers of hybrid war strategy but I'll save it.

The point I'm trying to make is that conventional rearmament is but one aspect of how wars are going to be conducted in the 21st century.

Much of our wealth in the West is tied to the "Liberal World Order" we've built Post WWII but I believe we've rested on our laurels for the most part over the past few decades.  We've deluded ourselves in to a false sense of security with an illusion of economic and supposed military superiority.

Our adversaries have not been idle, they've been developing new strategies for confrontation with us and they've shown ability to synchronize efforts and leverage multiple areas of State Power that we have not.


----------



## Good2Golf

Humphrey Bogart said:


> Any discussion about the superiority of NATO Forces vs the Russian Armed Forces is stupid because the Russian Armed Forces doesn't really exist to fight NATO in a conventional war. The Russians know they aren't strong enough and that they would lose, they've even admitted as much. They have nuclear weapons though, which is the ace in their sleeve and they know it.


Which puts Russia in with the Pakistan, Indian, North Korean (and Israeli) grouping.  Second/third-rate aspirational nations with nukes.


----------



## Navy_Pete

KevinB said:


> Honestly a lot of programs on the Army side could be done with very limited project staff -- IF the CAF was to buy systems that are in use with NATO allies.



I agree, but that's still a lot of cumulative projects, and individually they aren't really worth a lot per year.

Was part of a six person team on a $100M project, which went from concept to award within 2 years, and is now fully up and running, but that $100M is spread over 20 years, so really isn't a big impact on spending $20B more a year.

If we are currently spending around $18B a year with about 100k people (military plus civilians), as well as a whole whack of other department pers involved, hitting $40B won't happen with 'leadership and effort'.

Don't forget, the same people that would be doing the projects would also be responsible for maintaining existing gear, and most are already beyond capacity.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Good2Golf said:


> Which puts Russia in with the Pakistan, Indian, North Korean (and Israeli) grouping.  Second/third-rate aspirational nations with nukes.


Considerably more powerful than any of those Countries unfortunately.  Absolute scoundrels and criminals but they are really good at it.  

Vlad and his Cronies are basically the Juiced up version of "Pepe" Pablo Escobar except they have nukes, way more money & industrial capacity and a security council seat.


----------



## Good2Golf

More powerful in a quantitative sense yes.  Qualitative?  Not really.

At some point, little Vlad continuously trotting out his nukes for show-and-tell will grow old (if not already)…his entire structure is built in ooor faith interactions with others.  One could almost have more respect for Kim Jong Un…


----------



## daftandbarmy

Good2Golf said:


> More powerful in a quantitative sense yes.  Qualitative?  Not really.
> 
> At some point, little Vlad continuously trotting out his nukes for show-and-tell will grow old (if not already)…his entire structure is built in ooor faith interactions with others.  One could almost have more respect for Kim Jong Un…



They don't look too good in the lineup that really counts....














						Chapter 4. Global Balance of Power
					

Publics around the world believe the balance of power between the U.S. and China is tipping in favor of China. While the U.S. is still viewed as the




					www.pewresearch.org


----------



## ArmyRick

YZT580 said:


> Too true.  We are long overdue to re-equip and rejuvenate our forces


That was true in 1975, 1983, 1988, 1994, 2000, 2004, etc.


----------



## Spencer100

Colin Parkinson said:


> Remind me again why we bought those Aussie F-18's?


To give the required Quebec Inc. revenge.  That is all


----------



## Colin Parkinson

lenaitch said:


> The low tech nature of WWII has no comparison to today.  Turning 'prairie farm boys' into soldiers, sailors and pilots in mere month would be like what we see with many Russian troops in Ukraine.  Flower Class corvettes were based on a fishing boat and turned out in a matter of months, which is whole lot longer than the time they would last today in action.


Not to mention those ships were sent to sea from our yards, missing equipment and with crews were only one person onboard had any deep sea experience. We were far luckier than we deserved.


----------



## FJAG

YZT580 said:


> Too true.  We are long overdue to re-equip and rejuvenate our forces


Technically and realistically we are. Canada has committed to a new fleet and has just signed on for brand new state of the art fighter aircraft. 

There are many areas where we are lagging, particulalry in the army, but its the most spending on new, major equipment in a long time.


Humphrey Bogart said:


> The point I'm trying to make is that conventional rearmament is but one aspect of how wars are going to be conducted in the 21st century.


One can't argue with that but, conventional rearmament is, nonetheless "one" aspect and as such must be continuous. It's interesting to note that we have just agreed to buy NASAMs for the Ukrainians while we still have none of our own.



> https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-purchase-missile-system-1.6709115



🍻


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Colin Parkinson said:


> Remind me again why we bought those Aussie F-18's?


----------



## Kirkhill

Halifax Tar said:


> I think our weapons systems are to complicated to be replicated en masse and replace combat losses fast enough.  I propose that if the, non nuclear, ball ever drops we will be reverting to something more akin to WW2 or Korea very quickly as highly technical and complicated equipment is expended and lost and then replaced with easy to produce en masse materials and equipment.
> 
> _Quantity has a quality all its own_
> Joe Stalin



All true - but there is a peculiarity with manufacturing.

If someone says they want 100 items - that is a bespoke order.

If someone says they want 100,000 of the same items - that becomes a competitive opportunity.  People will figure out how to get the job done cheaper and faster and will manufacture jigs and get sub-suppliers to do more so the contractor has to do less.

My take is that missile launchers are starting to look the same regardless of which missile and which platform.  The key element to me is the cheap manufacture of precise missiles.

And lots of PS5 controllers.


----------



## Kirkhill

lenaitch said:


> The low tech nature of WWII has no comparison to today.  Turning 'prairie farm boys' into soldiers, sailors and pilots in mere month would be like what we see with many Russian troops in Ukraine.  Flower Class corvettes were based on a fishing boat and turned out in a matter of months, which is whole lot longer than the time they would last today in action.



Flowers - 85 men in 1000 tonnes.

I can float 1000 tonnes with a crew of zero and position all 225 that were built in a permanent conveyor from Halifax to Derry with torps, missiles, sonars and UAVs.  Add some SSNs underneath and you have a much more secure highway to Europe than was possible in 1943.

Satellites, UAVs and LRPAs over head all the way across.   Tankers and Fighters launching from Norway, UK, Iceland, Greenland, Canada and the US.

The modern game looks nothing like the old game with its Condor Gap and Wolf Packs.

"User Friendly" means something.  And a lot of technology is geared towards making "User Friendly" kit.  That means kit that doesn't require much training.  

NLAW and Javelin are popular because they are user friendly.

Guns and tanks and F35s aren't.

But UAVs and Missiles are.


----------

