• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Government hints at boosting Canada’s military spending

Status
Not open for further replies.
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....
 
Related, retired general Leslie asks if we are buying for Ukraine, why are we not buying for us too? Which is a fair question

Well admittedly the UAF has a bit more of an urgent need - and due to Canada’s neglect (negligence) with the Armed Forces the CAF can’t just do a draw down of AA system to send over.
Too bad the ADATS and Skyguards were not just put into storage.
 
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.
You know it was the side that lost WWII that though along those lines...

They imagined the next Wunderwaffe would be the one that gave them the upper hand over the masses of the Soviets and Western Allies.
 
"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.
NLAW isn’t nearly as user friendly as purported.
Heck they bolt a Trijicon ACOG to it as the ranging optic.

If you want user friendly- Javelin says hold my beer, it was designed for the lowest common denominator down here to reliably kill an enemy tank.


Guns and tanks and F35s aren't.

But UAVs and Missiles are.
UAS in poorly trained hands are exceptionally dangerous to friendly forces.
There is no substitute for a well trained and well equipped team.
 
Related, retired general Leslie asks if we are buying for Ukraine, why are we not buying for us too? Which is a fair question



The minister doesn’t want to answer because the answer is “by some bureaucratic sorcery; we are in a position where for us to arm another nation is more streamline, efficient, and has fewer hoops to jump through.”
 
The minister doesn’t want to answer because the answer is “by some bureaucratic sorcery; we are in a position where for us to arm another nation is more streamline, efficient, and has fewer hoops to jump through.”
There's already a funded project for GBAD. We could work quicker too with a UOR but that leaves out all the in service issues. Effectively this purchase is even easier than a UOR because we have no need to figure out where to get manning from and can even go light on sustainment leaving that to the Ukrainians.

Not defending the procurement system here. It's indefensible. But buying for Ukraine is dead simple compared to a project to revive a capability. It's just a political statement.

🍻
 
The minister doesn’t want to answer because the answer is “by some bureaucratic sorcery; we are in a position where for us to arm another nation is more streamline, efficient, and has fewer hoops to jump through.”
I imagine the treasury board submission is a whole lot shorter when you don’t have to do the PSPC checklist.

Look on the bright side…we will have a contract with Konigsberg/Raytheon. We could leverage that in the future to deliver us “X“ battery sets…
 
There's already a funded project for GBAD. We could work quicker too with a UOR but that leaves out all the in service issues. Effectively this purchase is even easier than a UOR because we have no need to figure out where to get manning from and can even go light on sustainment leaving that to the Ukrainians.

Not defending the procurement system here. It's indefensible. But buying for Ukraine is dead simple compared to a project to revive a capability. It's just a political statement.

🍻
That GBAD procurement had a 9 year time line. Maybe I’m just a simple minded man but I can’t imagine how it takes nine years to procure air defence.
 
That GBAD procurement had a 9 year time line. Maybe I’m just a simple minded man but I can’t imagine how it takes nine years to procure air defence.
If you are asking for an explanation - you are asking the wrong guy. It simply boggles my mind.

😖
 
That GBAD procurement had a 9 year time line. Maybe I’m just a simple minded man but I can’t imagine how it takes nine years to procure air defence.
I'll sing my same old song...

What's the US using? Is there any legitimate reason the same system won't work for us? No?...let's buy it for the sake of interoperability and logistics.
 
NLAW isn’t nearly as user friendly as purported.
Heck they bolt a Trijicon ACOG to it as the ranging optic.

If you want user friendly- Javelin says hold my beer, it was designed for the lowest common denominator down here to reliably kill an enemy tank.



UAS in poorly trained hands are exceptionally dangerous to friendly forces.
There is no substitute for a well trained and well equipped team.


Fair enough.

But

If it takes time for people to learn to read English, and more time to learn to drive, gun, load and command, and more time to learn how to work as a team, and more time to learn how to work in a troop, and more time to learn how to work as a squadron, and more time to learn how to work as a combat team, and more to learn how to work as a battlegroup .... how effective are a few squadrons/companies of tanks going to be in changing the rules of the game.

I agree that the best solution is the well trained and well equipped team. Neither the Russians nor the Ukrainians have that option.

So what "toys" are going to be the most effective in the hands available?
 
There's already a funded project for GBAD. We could work quicker too with a UOR but that leaves out all the in service issues. Effectively this purchase is even easier than a UOR because we have no need to figure out where to get manning from and can even go light on sustainment leaving that to the Ukrainians.

Not defending the procurement system here. It's indefensible. But buying for Ukraine is dead simple compared to a project to revive a capability. It's just a political statement.

🍻

We could speed up if we got rid of 10 levels of people asking "what if...?" The Ukrainians aren't asking "what if?"
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top