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....

 

[KevinB]

LSVW replaced the 5/4 and CUCV’s at a less than 1:1 as well, and the Iltis had replaced the jeep at less than 1:1 and the GWagon replaced the Iltis less than 1:1.

It’s not a great plan. The Army needs to look at shuttering some units.

 

[suffolkowner]

According to Wikipedia we currently have:

591 x HLVW plus 59 x HESV = 650 Heavy vehicles being replaced by 542 heavy trucks (a 16.6% decrease in fleet size)
1333 x LSVW being replaced by 1113 light trucks (a 16.5% decrease in fleet size)

Yep....Canada's Back!

and those are the numbers after years of attrition

LSVW 2879 to 1333 to 1113
HSVW 1212 to 650 to 542

admittedly the military is smaller now and the MSVS are a big truck

 

[Kirkhill]

and those are the numbers after years of attrition

LSVW 2879 to 1333 to 1113
HSVW 1212 to 650 to 542

admittedly the military is smaller now and the MSVS are a big truck

Except, as you suggest in your last line

The HLVW was a 10 ton truck and the LVW-H is a 15 tonne truck and can haul a 15 tonne trailer at the same time.
The MLVW was a 2.5 tonne off road and 5 tonne on highway while the MSVS is 9.5 tonne.
The LSVW was a 1 tonne truck and the LVW-L is a 5 tonne truck.
The new LUV is a 2 tonne truck
Even the LTV-TMP is a 1 tonne truck.

Everything carries more gear.

 

[GR66]

Except, as you suggest in your last line

The HLVW was a 10 ton truck and the LVW-H is a 15 tonne truck and can haul a 15 tonne trailer at the same time.
The MLVW was a 2.5 tonne off road and 5 tonne on highway while the MSVS is 9.5 tonne.
The LSVW was a 1 tonne truck and the LVW-L is a 5 tonne truck.
The new LUV is a 2 tonne truck
Even the LTV-TMP is a 1 tonne truck.

Everything carries more gear.

True...but kinda goes against what you always preach about relying on a small number of high-end platforms vs a larger quantity of more affordable and attritable platforms. Losing a single LVW-H with a trailer is equivalent of losing 3 x HLVW's.

We have a nasty habit of buying "just enough" for our limited peacetime needs and not thinking about either loses or wartime expansion (or of course the Reserves).

 

[FJAG]

LSVW replaced the 5/4 and CUCV’s at a less than 1:1 as well, and the Iltis had replaced the jeep at less than 1:1 and the GWagon replaced the Iltis less than 1:1.

It’s not a great plan. The Army needs to look at shuttering some units.

Or we stop giving every person his own vehicle - The more we go down this road, the more the entire planning process is to have enough equipment for our deployed forces, let's say three battle groups worth, and everyone else gets just enough of a smidgen of gear to train on. The idea of having three combat capable brigades, fully equipped - never mind the reserves - seem to be slipping away.

 

[Kirkhill]

True...but kinda goes against what you always preach about relying on a small number of high-end platforms vs a larger quantity of more affordable and attritable platforms. Losing a single LVW-H with a trailer is equivalent of losing 3 x HLVW's.

We have a nasty habit of buying "just enough" for our limited peacetime needs and not thinking about either loses or wartime expansion (or of course the Reserves).

Not saying that it would be my COA but apparently it is the approved COA.

 

[quadrapiper]

LSVW replaced the 5/4 and CUCV’s at a less than 1:1 as well, and the Iltis had replaced the jeep at less than 1:1 and the GWagon replaced the Iltis less than 1:1.

It’s not a great plan. The Army needs to look at shuttering some units.

Not arguing the overall "there's fewer trucks" point, but wondering how many of the "Jeep" roles are filled today by various ATV-like things?

 

[suffolkowner]

Except, as you suggest in your last line

The HLVW was a 10 ton truck and the LVW-H is a 15 tonne truck and can haul a 15 tonne trailer at the same time.
The MLVW was a 2.5 tonne off road and 5 tonne on highway while the MSVS is 9.5 tonne.
The LSVW was a 1 tonne truck and the LVW-L is a 5 tonne truck.
The new LUV is a 2 tonne truck
Even the LTV-TMP is a 1 tonne truck.

Everything carries more gear.

interesting the difference between the MSVS payload and the new heavy from 9.5 to 15 tonnes. Going from a 9 tonne axle to a 13.5 tonne? Dont think that is a road legal weight though. Not that it matters I guess during wartime

 

[KevinB]

Or we stop giving every person his own vehicle - The more we go down this road, the more the entire planning process is to have enough equipment for our deployed forces, let's say three battle groups worth, and everyone else gets just enough of a smidgen of gear to train on. The idea of having three combat capable brigades, fully equipped - never mind the reserves - seem to be slipping away.

I don't think the Logistical needs have decreased - in fact I'd suggest they have increased.
The Individual Soldier has significantly battery needs - radios, STANO, etc. let along ammo, food, fuel etc,

IMHO unless the CA is planning on getting equipment - real equipment for all units, then one is better off shutting units and decreasing the strength of the Army - a welfare Army isn't going to cut it these days.

 

[Fabius]

Given our policies state we can’t carry fuel, ammo, water, ration and troops all in the same truck at some point increasing the payload in a single vehicle still doesn’t work.
Let alone the fact that a single truck is now a major failure point both for mechanical failure, enemy destruction or simply getting stuck.

 

[Kirkhill]

Given our policies state we can’t carry fuel, ammo, water, ration and troops all in the same truck at some point increasing the payload in a single vehicle still doesn’t work.
Let alone the fact that a single truck is now a major failure point both for mechanical failure, enemy destruction or simply getting stuck.

Unless they are in a LAV6, a MRZR, a GWagen, a TAPV, a Leo or a Gun Tractor?

Why wouldn't you load up 3 days worth of fuel, ammo, water, rations, batteries and stores on a single pallet and have a PLS drop it off at a company cache?

 

[Fabius]

Hey I don’t make policies , I just try to roughly align with them.

 

[KevinB]

Given our policies state we can’t carry fuel, ammo, water, ration and troops all in the same truck at some point increasing the payload in a single vehicle still doesn’t work.
Let alone the fact that a single truck is now a major failure point both for mechanical failure, enemy destruction or simply getting stuck.

Peacetime safety restrictions. Which will be thrown out as soon as the first shots are fired.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Fewer vehicles carrying heavier payloads, while retaining modest off-road capability - even if it's barely more than a walking pace - are acceptable for pretty much everything in the B ech and behind it.

Provision of light transport/utility vehicles ought to be based on requirements of roles. If a job requires flitting about and can't depend on a pool, dedicated transport is needed. If a platoon's worth of stores has to be divisible and employable in four different places, four vehicles are needed.

 

[QV]

Peacetime safety restrictions. Which will be thrown out as soon as the first shots are fired.

Not necessarily true. I left grenades and flashbangs all over Afghanistan because though I could take them on any other coalition flight, if I caught a Canadian bird to fly back to home camp the Canadians wouldn't let me bring that on board. So I had to often ditch grenades and flash with whomever I was working with on departure.

 

[KevinB]

Except, as you suggest in your last line

The HLVW was a 10 ton truck and the LVW-H is a 15 tonne truck and can haul a 15 tonne trailer at the same time.

The HL was a 10t off road truck, the body could carry more on road, the LVH-H is going to have a tough time carrying more than 10t off road.

The MLVW was a 2.5 tonne off road and 5 tonne on highway while the MSVS is 9.5 tonne.

The CA derated the M35 as it was a 5t down here even off road (allier the US Army ones had two erat tires for each rear axle)

The LSVW was a 1 tonne truck and the LVW-L is a 5 tonne truck.

This is the area that I find very odd - and perhaps the only creative aspect of the acquisition, the LSVW wasn't really much of a logistics vehicle, most of it's roles where really better done by LUV, LTV's etc but for some that need more capacity than that - the LVW-L offers that and more - which means that their distribution will need to be managed differently.
The LVSW wasn't really a Logistics Vehicle at all.

The new LUV is a 2 tonne truck
Even the LTV-TMP is a 1 tonne truck.

Plus ATV's and MRZR's

Everything carries more gear.

Including the Dismounted Soldier...

 

[KevinB]

Not necessarily true. I left grenades and flashbangs all over Afghanistan because though I could take them on any other coalition flight, if I caught a Canadian bird to fly back to home camp the Canadians wouldn't let me bring that on board. So I had to often ditch grenades and flash with whomever I was working with on departure.

The RCAF wasn't at war in Afghanistan (outside of the rotary wing side).
I have lots of rants about the RCAF and transits to operational areas.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

Given our policies state we can’t carry fuel, ammo, water, ration and troops all in the same truck at some point increasing the payload in a single vehicle still doesn’t work.
Let alone the fact that a single truck is now a major failure point both for mechanical failure, enemy destruction or simply getting stuck.

As far as I am concerned, all our logistics should be palletized and containerized. A standardized intermodal container is a proven method of doing this.

They come in many variations and one exists for all the applications above. All our trucks we buy should be capable of carrying or towing an intermodal container.

All of the parts we use should be standardized as well with simplicity and commonality being the primary concern. This greatly simplifies repair and maintenance. It also allows for the stockpile of large numbers of replacement parts.

The CAF is way behind the 8-Ball in this regard and our Armed Forces ways of satisfying its logistics requirements is positively archaic.

Another beautiful thing about palletized containers is they can all be tracked relatively simply with scanner tags on every single container. A truck picks up a container and when it leaves the depot, it is detected by a scanner that automatically updates a database so we know automatically, where and when containers are leaving and what our volume is. Individual shipments can also be tracked and prioritized accordingly using classification systems and modern technology like SAP based databases.

 

[Good2Golf]

The RCAF wasn't at war in Afghanistan (outside of the rotary wing side).
I have lots of rants about the RCAF and transits to operational areas.

O/T alert:

C-130s were there too. I had one spicy landing into Khar where the aircraft captain thought he was still on an ERE posting to the Snowbirds. Folks were puking in the back it was so violent. Ironically, when we landed, and I was walking through ops, a RAF C-130 pilot pulled me aside and asked “what was all that then? I chuckled a bit and told him the guy had done a non-Op tour in the Snowbirds…he laughed and told me they had a guy like that too, one short tour on the Red Arrows and he flew like an ass thereafter.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

As far as transporting different variations of goods in the same containers/trucks... I deal with this all the time in my current line of work. It's called Marshalling and it can be done safely by applying certain principles that could be adapted to the Military sphere.