• 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....
 
Upgraded C2 battle management system using SITAWARE architecture for the Cdn led multinational Bde in Latvia?
Would have thought that would’ve been included in the other announcement though.
🤷‍♂️
 
Unless it’s about the Spanish who are junk.
ACTUALLY holy shit...it WAS actually about the Spanish. Like actually.

(Sorry Italy...I took half a nanosecond to think of a continental map of Europe, saw a part on the south sticking down, and couldn't be bothered to go beyond that apparently...)


I always found the Portuguese to be impressive. By far the best field kitchens in NATO, they have to be...I don't think I could even dream of food that good. Super squared away, knew their stuff, good kit, leaders seemed solid - only crossed paths a few times (like 3) but each time they were impressive


My 2 cents anyway
 
I’d also draw your attention to Annex C; MOTS was not the only option being considered during the OA phase.

IMG_9026.jpeg
“Buy COTS and develop into MOTS” is sort of a tell me you don’t understand the “OTS” part of those acronyms without saying it.

Wasn't the F-35 on order when the Liberals took office? Isn't that the deal we paid big penalties on when they cancelled it and Trudeau said we would never buy them?
No. Your memory has failed you here. The Liberals did promise to never buy it and to run a competition, but the Conservative deferred the actual decision until they lost power. Conservatives had announced an intent to buy F35 as early as 2011, but they never put it in the budget and they never committed through a contract.

General Dynamics Mission Systems Canada
view-all-products-programs-and-services
So that means comms systems, sensor systems, computer systems, software, or some combination of the above. Not uniforms, vehicles, nor machine guns.
 
“Buy COTS and develop into MOTS” is sort of a tell me you don’t understand the “OTS” part of those acronyms without saying it.
It really depends on what you think Off The Shelf means ;)

No. Your memory has failed you here. The Liberals did promise to never buy it and to run a competition, but the Conservative deferred the actual decision until they lost power. Conservatives had announced an intent to buy F35 as early as 2011, but they never put it in the budget and they never committed through a contract.
As per SOP for Canadian Government regardless of party.
So that means comms systems, sensor systems, computer systems, software, or some combination of the above. Not uniforms, vehicles, nor machine guns.
Well I suspect it means something from GD, not necessarily just Mission Systems.

The location of GSMS-C HQ is in Ottawa, so a nicer commute for Ottawa based politicians, Military, and Reporters.
 
UOR for light forces mobility would make sense if we’re expecting to expand that capability for Latvia.
Everyone else seems to have come to the understanding that their forward presence in Europe should be Heavy Armor - but hey Canada just keep beating to your own drummer, it must be everyone else that is out of step...
 
  • Humorous
Reactions: ueo
Everyone else seems to have come to the understanding that their forward presence in Europe should be Heavy Armor - but hey Canada just keep beating to your own drummer, it must be everyone else that is out of step...

Oh no I’m 100 percent with you in that. Although I think a light Bn could effectively defend some dense Baltic forests, I’d prefer they be in an ifv of some kind. Frankly that we can deploy a full Bg is shocking, even in the 90s we had Bgs in the Balkaans.
 
Oh no I’m 100 percent with you in that. Although I think a light Bn could effectively defend some dense Baltic forests, I’d prefer they be in an ifv of some kind. Frankly that we can deploy a full Bg is shocking, even in the 90s we had Bgs in the Balkaans.
Multiple BG's
In fact the 92-93 period was just about as thing as there CA was stretched, as the CAR was in Somalia, and 2 RCHA was in Cyprus, as well as the FYR deployments coming and going...
 
Oh no I’m 100 percent with you in that. Although I think a light Bn could effectively defend some dense Baltic forests, I’d prefer they be in an ifv of some kind. Frankly that we can deploy a full Bg is shocking, even in the 90s we had Bgs in the Balkaans.
How close/far are we from being able to commit full Bn's to the mech roto, even if it's 2 line coy's + a spare platoon or 2 chopped to the CS coy (to be used to make a semi-permanent combat team with the tanks and/or use the UOR Spikes as an AT platoon)?
 

Tech infrastructure
Most folks have C6ISR, and adding the L for land tends to mean one hasn't embraced Joint MultiDomain aspects...
 
How close/far are we from being able to commit full Bn's to the mech roto, even if it's 2 line coy's + a spare platoon or 2 chopped to the CS coy (to be used to make a semi-permanent combat team with the tanks and/or use the UOR Spikes as an AT platoon)?
I’m out of the Bns right now and have been for a year. So grain of salt and I won’t get into specifics. That being. Said the infantry is actually doing okay for manning (ie it’s a green trade) however the Bns are only authorized at 70% their full strength. Which means that even at 90 odd percent full the Bns are actually at 65-67 percent of what they should be for a deployment. So for a Bn to go over you need to pull 1-2 companies worth of people from somewhere. Deploying two companies + a tank Squadron is an option but isn’t really doctrine, not that 15 tanks is either mind you.
 
I’m out of the Bns right now and have been for a year. So grain of salt and I won’t get into specifics. That being. Said the infantry is actually doing okay for manning (ie it’s a green trade) however the Bns are only authorized at 70% their full strength. Which means that even at 90 odd percent full the Bns are actually at 65-67 percent of what they should be for a deployment. So for a Bn to go over you need to pull 1-2 companies worth of people from somewhere. Deploying two companies + a tank Squadron is an option but isn’t really doctrine, not that 15 tanks is either mind you.
Thanks.

Bold, might not be doctrine, but you'd have to think it would be closer than that grab bag from 4-5 countries- and would certainly look better if the Canadian lead Bde had a homogenously Canadian unit.
 
Just spitballing here. Latvia is the primary theatre where we expect to require our mechanized forces. We currently have 6 x LAV battalions at 65-67% of full pers levels. That means you basically have 6 x Battalions of vehicles but only 4 x Battalions of personnel.

Let's say you reorganize to have 4 x LAV Battalions at full pers levels in Canada. Pre-position 1 x Battalion of LAVs in Latvia with our eFP Brigade. That leaves you with 1 x Battalion worth of LAVs as spares/war stocks to draw on if necessary.

The four LAV Battalions rotate as a fly-over Battalion to crew the eFP Latvia LAVs or can be tasked for Battle Group sized deployments elsewhere if/when required. That still leaves you with 3 x full LAV Battalions for the primary Latvia mission.
 
Just spitballing here. Latvia is the primary theatre where we expect to require our mechanized forces. We currently have 6 x LAV battalions at 65-67% of full pers levels. That means you basically have 6 x Battalions of vehicles but only 4 x Battalions of personnel.

Let's say you reorganize to have 4 x LAV Battalions at full pers levels in Canada. Pre-position 1 x Battalion of LAVs in Latvia with our eFP Brigade. That leaves you with 1 x Battalion worth of LAVs as spares/war stocks to draw on if necessary.

The four LAV Battalions rotate as a fly-over Battalion to crew the eFP Latvia LAVs or can be tasked for Battle Group sized deployments elsewhere if/when required. That still leaves you with 3 x full LAV Battalions for the primary Latvia mission.
Make the 4th Lav battalion a 2 year posting to Latvia, with it and the Bde it's a part of separate from the 3x CMBG construct.
 
Everyone else seems to have come to the understanding that their forward presence in Europe should be Heavy Armor - but hey Canada just keep beating to your own drummer, it must be everyone else that is out of step...
In fairness, the eFP battlegroup is heavy armour. There is a strong mix of tanks and IFVs (and LAVs) in it. The second battle group is a Danish mech one. The Danes are equipping with a battalion of Leo2A7s and I haven't heard one way or the other as to whether or not they will deploy a squadron or two to Latvia, but I'd be surprised if eventually they didn't. And then there are the Swedes.

The light component is merely the flyover add on. While my personal preference is a prepositioned heavy battle group I can see where some of the tactical lessons from Ukraine might result in a decision for a light battalion. Like you, I think that the simplicity of a preposition light v heavy battalion has a lot to do with it - I can still see the other rationale.

🍻
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top