Government hints at boosting Canada’s military spending

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....

 

[Czech_pivo]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

*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]

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]

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]

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.