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....

 

[IKnowNothing]

Giving Bradley’s to the the Armor isn’t useful, as it’s not a recce vehicle. Yes the US Army uses them as a Cav vehicle but when you look at the orbat it’s a Recce in force (with tanks, organic 120mm mortar support etc. not surveillance or mud recce roles.

I disagree with Canada’s Tank/Infantry setup - but that’s a whole different story.

I'm meaning to ignore cap badges and set up LdSH as a tank heavy fully tracked CAB.

Set up the bde with 2 doctrinally equipped LAV Bn's up, 1 tracked CAB back for counter punching

 

[FJAG]

I'm meaning to ignore cap badges and set up LdSH as a tank heavy fully tracked CAB.

Set up the bde with 2 doctrinally equipped LAV Bn's up, 1 tracked CAB back for counter punching

Not impossible but tactically and logistically difficult.

I'm wholeheartedly with @KevinB on Canada needing asymmetric brigades - light, mech and armoured. I'm generally agnostic as to combined arms battalions but tend to trend towards a brigade with a pure tank regiment (albeit with a brigade recce squadron) and two pure tracked IFV battalions the three of which can form situationally specific mixed combat teams and battle groups. (Money permitting I would prefer to see a brigade with two tank and two tracked IFV battalions)

I'm also sold on the new US structure for its armored division with two ABCTs and one SBCT. The extra infantry available to the division within the SBCT is very valuable as terrain gets more complex.

 

[rmc_wannabe]

Still doesn’t solve the LAV off road mobility issue.

To me Canada is trying to force the LAV into a role it isn’t suited for. It’s good for a lot of tasks, but IFV in LSCO isn’t one of them.

Giving Bradley’s to the the Armor isn’t useful, as it’s not a recce vehicle. Yes the US Army uses them as a Cav vehicle but when you look at the orbat it’s a Recce in force (with tanks, organic 120mm mortar support etc. not surveillance or mud recce roles.

The CA needs to drop its farcical symmetric Brigades and setup Bde’s for specific tasks.


I disagree with Canada’s Tank/Infantry setup - but that’s a whole different story.

The problem is that the Canadian Army "Brigade" is actually a "Canadian Mechanized Brigade Group" and is in practice a convenient administrative grouping, vice an effective tactical grouping.

We are limited in our Reg F Inf Bns and Armoured/Recce/Cav/whatever Regiments due to pers, eqpt, and funding. This also severely limits the maneuverability of these forces to strictly Battle Group or below.

It also unfortunately sees our Combat Support elements (Artillery, Engineers, Signals) and CSS (Log, Maint, and Medical) spread thin, instead of consolidated and bolstered as Divisional assets.

This makes your exercise of assymetrical Bdes in Canada not work because, well, Bdes are NOT maneuver elements to us: its a Bloated, base-bound Bde with depleted Divisional capabilities (don't get me started on 6 CCSB).

If I recall correctly, one of the COAs for F2025 called for 1 Cdn Armd Bde, 2 Cdn LI Bde, and 5 Cdn Mech Bde to be formed, with the CS and CSS elements remaining. IMHO, it would be a good COA, however, move the CS and CSS up to Division and TACON as needed when required.

Until we actually see Bdes are maneuver elements, its fruitless to argue over LAV vs IFV vs Armd Recce vs MBT roles; as any platform would need to be bespoke to its appropriate Bde role, with supports in place at each relavant Div.

 

[IKnowNothing]

I'm wholeheartedly with @KevinB on Canada needing asymmetric brigades - light, mech and armoured. I'm generally agnostic as to combined arms battalions but tend to trend towards a brigade with a pure tank regiment (albeit with a brigade recce squadron) and two pure tracked IFV battalions the three of which can form situationally specific mixed combat teams and battle groups. (Money permitting I would prefer to see a brigade with two tank and two tracked IFV battalions)

Yes, but F2025 is essentially dead, the LAV is it for the foreseeable future, as is 40 A4M CAN/ A6M CAN + 34 A4s, and we're leading an MN Bde now. The "how things ought to be" and "how can things be made better within current constraints, as a variation of our current plans" are very different discussions

Not impossible but tactically and logistically difficult.

With the above in mind-
Which is a more tactically and logistically difficult bde to employ?

One with maneuver elements of (reading between the OS lines):

• a Canadian lead Bn consisting of a Leo sqn, a LAV coy, and an x sqn/coy/cbt team from a 3rd country
• a Swedish/Danish lead Bn consisting of 2x Patria AMV/ Piranha V coy's and ..... " "
• a Canadian flyover LIB

One with maneuver elements of:

• a Canadian lead Bn consisting of 2x LAV coy's rounded out by a 3rd country
• a Swedish/Danish lead Bn consisting of 2x AMV/Piranha V Coys rounded out by 3rd/4th country
• a Canadian flyover tracked CAB (2x Tank 1x Armoured Infantry)

We'd be increasing the infrastructure and maintenance required for the flyover Bn, but making the Bde much more effective in doing so. We'd also be increasing consistency and functional interchangeability between the two Bn's and reducing the logistic/fleet complexity - especially if it's the same country rounding out the Bn's in the same way, or better yet wholly Canadian and Swedish/Danish Bn's. With some rearranging of the holdings we could stretch and have 2 squadrons of combat tanks in Latvia, 2 squadrons for training in Canada- if it's a flyover regiment / CAB then the rotational pressure is off and we could use those tanks for 2x dedicated squadrons - leaving the 3rd squadron needing a ride- (and some PY's for the GIB's.

 

[KevinB]

Stick every single CA tank in Latvia.

Run the Armoured school out of there.
Rotate Armoured units every three years (offset ) (making three Leo Squadrons in Latvia). Put 3 LAV BN’s there too (on the same three year rotation).

Take PRes Augmentees for 1-3 year class C’s for that as well.

I’d also predeploy a RCHA (and rotate it on a three year rotation as well as a CER.

1) Canada has no real use for the Leo’s domestically.
2) Set up a H-IFV-T Program to replace the LAV in Latvia - complete with FOO variant, Engineering variants, 120mm Mortar variants, AD Variants (MRAD, SHORAD, C-UAS), CP and Cargo variants
- then rotate 2 BN of LAV’s back home as they get replaced (keeping one for a Emergency flyover task)
3) Buy M109A7 (at least 70)

 

[CBH99]

We are limited in our Reg F Inf Bns and Armoured/Recce/Cav/whatever Regiments due to pers, eqpt, and fufunding.

I've been out for a while now, and I know manning levels are currently a bit of a mess...

But how are the reg force infantry battalions doing these days in terms of manning?



(I've heard recruiting for them hasn't been too bad and they are at a reasonably healthy strength, and that it's the support trades that are hurting for people. I've also heard they are depleted just like everyone else right now - I think we are now 18k short, vice the 16k short we were last year? Sorry, I don't mean to derail the conversation...I figure this is a fairly relevant question tho)

 

[KevinB]

I've been out for a while now, and I know manning levels are currently a bit of a mess...

But how are the reg force infantry battalions doing these days in terms of manning?



(I've heard recruiting for them hasn't been too bad and they are at a reasonably healthy strength, and that it's the support trades that are hurting for people. I've also heard they are depleted just like everyone else right now - I think we are now 18k short, vice the 16k short we were last year? Sorry, I don't mean to derail the conversation...I figure this is a fairly relevant question tho)

Part of the issue seems to be the current structure of the Infantry BN.
I’ve heard it’s at 80% or so of authorized strength, but the authorized strength is a lot lower than what used to be considered a standard CA Inf Bn.

Combat Support Coy used to have:
Armour Defence Platoon (TOW Platoon)
Mortar Platoon
Recce Platoon
Pioneer Platoon
And for the way back machine - MG Platoon which has been replaced in the LIB’s as DFS Platoon but I don’t see an equivalent in the LAV units.

Right now if I am correct
Recce Platoon and the Sniper Platoon(-) is the only CBT SPT platoons in a LAV unit, and has been absorbed into a HQ Coy (like the US Army does), with the LIB’s having the DFS Platoon, I assumed under HQ Coy too?

I gather there is an effort to man Mortars and eventually stand up a ADP again - but there doesn’t seem to be any inertia for Pioneers.

 

[Fabius]

The Infantry Bns right now are authorized just short of 600 pers. The 3rd Bns are authorized slightly less than the others by around 20-30 pers.
Most all Bns for the last 5 years or so have been managing to deploy to the field with numbers in the high 300s to low 400s to include all support trades but not attachments.

Sub Units are typically running some where between 50-70 pers deploying on exercise.

NCOs are a shortage with subunits averaging 3 WOs and 3-5 Sgts.

Edited to add. All the above is occurring while the Bns are also basically at 100% REMAR strength, it’s just at the wrong ranks and the % of non deployable is high.

 

[rmc_wannabe]

I've been out for a while now, and I know manning levels are currently a bit of a mess...

But how are the reg force infantry battalions doing these days in terms of manning?



(I've heard recruiting for them hasn't been too bad and they are at a reasonably healthy strength, and that it's the support trades that are hurting for people. I've also heard they are depleted just like everyone else right now - I think we are now 18k short, vice the 16k short we were last year? Sorry, I don't mean to derail the conversation...I figure this is a fairly relevant question tho)

Second hand info (as I am a Siggie working in a HQ in Kingston) but my good friend is working in an Inf Bn at the moment as a Coy OC.

Recruiting is healthy, trg is kind of the weird point. They are running trials of pushing DP1 to the Bns so that there are more opportunities for OJE in the interim, vice the PAT Pl rot we all know and love.

Some guys are either bored, because they are not being employed to their full potential (leadership issue) or they're burnt out from over employment on multiple High Readiness tasks (also, leadership issue). Again, second hand info

 

[FJAG]

Stick every single CA tank in Latvia.

Run the Armoured school out of there.
Rotate Armoured units every three years (offset ) (making three Leo Squadrons in Latvia). Put 3 LAV BN’s there too (on the same three year rotation).

I won't pull out that old chestnut about how you'd never get government agreement for the reformation of 4 CMBG (minus). I'm more of a "what should be done" rather than "what will the government do" type of guy.

I'm not so hot on the armoured school idea nor all the tanks.

I do think that we should move CMTC to Latvia and make it a full-time element of the NCE for Latvia. Make the core of a brigade headquarters, a tank battalion headquarters, a mechanized infantry battalion, a service battalion headquarters and maintenance company and an artillery battalion headquarters full-time positions on a three-year posting basis.

Preposition the equipment for 3 x Cdn Leo 2 tank squadrons and 1 x recce squadron to Latvia. Concentrate the remaining tanks at a single convenient location in Canada - probably the Armour School in Gagetown for individual training. 1 tank squadron and one recce troop for full-time rotations and the remainder for fly-over augmentation manning.

Preposition the equipment for a 3 company LAV bn in Latvia - 1 for full-time rotations and 2 for fly-over augmentation manning - with the aim to replace these with a future IFV (at which time the LAVs return to Canada.

Preposition the equipment for a 3 x 6-gun battery M777 bn in Latvia - 1 for full-time rotations and 2 for fly-over augmentation manning - with the aim to replace these with a future 155mm SP system at which time the M777s return to Canada.

Preposition the equipment for a svc bn - provide sufficient personnel on full-time rotations to maintain the brigade with the remainder as fly-over augmentation manning.

Annually allocate one Cdn brigade to provide the full-time inf, armd, arty, and svc sp rotation personnel.

Annually require each of the remaining brigades to prepare and fly-over the required augmentation pers to conduct a Maple Resolve type of exercise of appx 1 months duration under the direction of the CMTC. This includes one (preferably two) summer rotation of two weeks of ResF companies, squadrons and batteries.

Reallocate the major international commitments to eFP Latvia elements as follows:

1) Denmark provides the core of the Danish battlegroup including: a full-time rotational tank Polish tank company and a full-time rotational Slovakian infantry company as well as two Danish fly-over augmentation mech inf companies;

2) Italy provides a full-time rotational mech inf/tank combat team to the Cdn armoured bn; and


3) Spain provides a full-time rotational mech inf/tank combat team to the Cdn LAV bn.

(Note that I'm not to sure of how past international commitments will be effect by the restructuring) The target solution is to have a brigade with 1 x Cdn tank battalion, 1 x Cdn mech inf bn, 1 x Danish mech inf bn, 1 x Cdn arty bn, an 1 x Cdn Svc bn. Each unit will be manned and equipped with two x full-time rotational sub units and will be equipped for the further fly-over augmentation of up to two more Cdn subunits. There will be no Cdn Light bn tasked to Latvia.

The overall outputs are: 1) a brigade that is at approximately 66% strength of a full brigade through full-time rotational deployments; 2) a system of prepositioned equipment and designated fly-over personnel to bring the brigade to 133% strength; 3) a shift in the CMTC structure to allow fly-over sub-units to annually exercise and be certified with their designated receiving units in their designated theatre of operations.

There are some equipment weaknesses vis a vis the armor and artillery which will have little equipment (Leos & M777s) to train on in Canada until reequipping projects kick in. This may require the use of ersatz training equipment in Canada and, perhaps, short term rotations to Latvia for courses requiring the use of the actual tanks and guns. Cdn infantry should have little problem as only 1/6th of the LAV fleet is allocated to Latvia.

 

[CBH99]

Thanks for the update guys, much appreciated.

Running DP1 at battalion level in addition to the regularly scheduled DP1 courses (for infantry, anyway) makes so much sense its kind of blowing my mind right now...

 

[PrairieFella]

I won't pull out that old chestnut about how you'd never get government agreement for the reformation of 4 CMBG (minus). I'm more of a "what should be done" rather than "what will the government do" type of guy.

I'm not so hot on the armoured school idea nor all the tanks.

I do think that we should move CMTC to Latvia and make it a full-time element of the NCE for Latvia. Make the core of a brigade headquarters, a tank battalion headquarters, a mechanized infantry battalion, a service battalion headquarters and maintenance company and an artillery battalion headquarters full-time positions on a three-year posting basis.

Preposition the equipment for 3 x Cdn Leo 2 tank squadrons and 1 x recce squadron to Latvia. Concentrate the remaining tanks at a single convenient location in Canada - probably the Armour School in Gagetown for individual training. 1 tank squadron and one recce troop for full-time rotations and the remainder for fly-over augmentation manning.

Preposition the equipment for a 3 company LAV bn in Latvia - 1 for full-time rotations and 2 for fly-over augmentation manning - with the aim to replace these with a future IFV (at which time the LAVs return to Canada.

Preposition the equipment for a 3 x 6-gun battery M777 bn in Latvia - 1 for full-time rotations and 2 for fly-over augmentation manning - with the aim to replace these with a future 155mm SP system at which time the M777s return to Canada.

Preposition the equipment for a svc bn - provide sufficient personnel on full-time rotations to maintain the brigade with the remainder as fly-over augmentation manning.

Annually allocate one Cdn brigade to provide the full-time inf, armd, arty, and svc sp rotation personnel.

Annually require each of the remaining brigades to prepare and fly-over the required augmentation pers to conduct a Maple Resolve type of exercise of appx 1 months duration under the direction of the CMTC. This includes one (preferably two) summer rotation of two weeks of ResF companies, squadrons and batteries.

Reallocate the major international commitments to eFP Latvia elements as follows:

1) Denmark provides the core of the Danish battlegroup including: a full-time rotational tank Polish tank company and a full-time rotational Slovakian infantry company as well as two Danish fly-over augmentation mech inf companies;

2) Italy provides a full-time rotational mech inf/tank combat team to the Cdn armoured bn; and


3) Spain provides a full-time rotational mech inf/tank combat team to the Cdn LAV bn.

(Note that I'm not to sure of how past international commitments will be effect by the restructuring) The target solution is to have a brigade with 1 x Cdn tank battalion, 1 x Cdn mech inf bn, 1 x Danish mech inf bn, 1 x Cdn arty bn, an 1 x Cdn Svc bn. Each unit will be manned and equipped with two x full-time rotational sub units and will be equipped for the further fly-over augmentation of up to two more Cdn subunits. There will be no Cdn Light bn tasked to Latvia.

The overall outputs are: 1) a brigade that is at approximately 66% strength of a full brigade through full-time rotational deployments; 2) a system of prepositioned equipment and designated fly-over personnel to bring the brigade to 133% strength; 3) a shift in the CMTC structure to allow fly-over sub-units to annually exercise and be certified with their designated receiving units in their designated theatre of operations.

There are some equipment weaknesses vis a vis the armor and artillery which will have little equipment (Leos & M777s) to train on in Canada until reequipping projects kick in. This may require the use of ersatz training equipment in Canada and, perhaps, short term rotations to Latvia for courses requiring the use of the actual tanks and guns. Cdn infantry should have little problem as only 1/6th of the LAV fleet is allocated to Latvia.

Makes sense for all the combat trades honestly. In my perfect world there would be a guaranteed summer serial for the reserves so they have to train to the standard of their 1 CMBG equivalent. I'd also open the floor to reservists on the Reg courses throughout fall to spring since the demographics of the reserves are changing and summer is working for less and less people, a lot easier for a carpenter or crane operator to get Jan-Feb off vis a vis Jul-Aug.

 

[CountDC]

HR, Garrison IT support, RP Ops, non-Operational Logistics Support,

Sure, take away all the shore billets so everyone is operational all the time.
I mentioned before, this all goes sideways when they want someone to work after hours and all the civvies tell them to pound sand. Need that report for the Comd tomorrow, do it yourself. Emergency advance for deployment, too bad. 24 hours to deploy and need kit issued on the weekend, too bad. I will happily slide my job into a civilian position, collect my pension and civilian pay while not having to deal with all the military stuff but do realize at the end of the day we need these positions to rotate people through.

Take PRes Augmentees for 1-3 year class C’s for that as well.

Nope - get rid of that and use the FPS instead. Always did hate the Class C as a TOS and the system needs to be fixed so we don't have it anymore. FPS is the same thing just that you are Reg F instead of PRes.

 

[MilEME09]

Makes sense for all the combat trades honestly. In my perfect world there would be a guaranteed summer serial for the reserves so they have to train to the standard of their 1 CMBG equivalent. I'd also open the floor to reservists on the Reg courses throughout fall to spring since the demographics of the reserves are changing and summer is working for less and less people, a lot easier for a carpenter or crane operator to get Jan-Feb off vis a vis Jul-Aug.

I've been saying this for years, especially for CRT/CRTT for techs, it's the exact same course reg and ARes, about a dozen ran every year. Two are in the summer as all ARes courses, but we aren't allowed to put a ARes soldier on a open spot on RegF courses.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Thanks for the update guys, much appreciated.

Running DP1 at battalion level in addition to the regularly scheduled DP1 courses (for infantry, anyway) makes so much sense its kind of blowing my mind right now...

It's almost like a Real Army again

 

[KevinB]

I don’t think it necessarily needs to be done in the actual BN, but at least at the same base.

 

[PrairieFella]

I've been saying this for years, especially for CRT/CRTT for techs, it's the exact same course reg and ARes, about a dozen ran every year. Two are in the summer as all ARes courses, but we aren't allowed to put a ARes soldier on a open spot on RegF courses.

The one hang up in see in my world would be PCF driver courses. I can't see the Regs being too keen on using their kit to teach a reserve tpr TAPV or LAV but I suppose they could either a) send them home early or b) give them the qual anyways and now they're investing a cadre of trained troops who will eventually be able to be called in for augmentation.

 

[rmc_wannabe]

Sure, take away all the shore billets so everyone is operational all the time.

Essentially, yeah.

I mentioned before, this all goes sideways when they want someone to work after hours and all the civvies tell them to pound sand.

Or pay them, or get those operational folks to backfill if needed. I do not subscribe to the belief that Cpl Bloggins FSA needs to be posted to CF School X because it might possibly need someone to work extra innings.

Need that report for the Comd tomorrow, do it yourself.

Yes.... and? Sounds like Staff Officer 101 to me.

Emergency advance for deployment, too bad.

Agreed. Perhaps if our Claims system was not archaic and cumbersome, pers wouldn't be wary of not having an advance. Members could.. you know.... receive their reimbursement after the crisis in a timely manner instead of the latter

24 hours to deploy and need kit issued on the weekend, too bad.

So plan for it? Ensure members have kit prior to loading them in a HRU postion?

I will happily slide my job into a civilian position, collect my pension and civilian pay while not having to deal with all the military stuff but do realize at the end of the day we need these positions to rotate people through.

We very clearly don't because we very clearly need more personnel to fill operational gaps than the "I fucked up my planning" gaps.

I very swiftly will blame our "DND/CAF Defence Team" bullshit mentality in poisoning the well for CAF members believing a garrison/NCR/shore billet is something to aspire to. Perhaps peoe wouldn't burn out so fast in the Bns, Wings, and Fleets if they had sufficient personnel to do a proper managed readiness cycle. Instead, we use Garrison Support as a means to "give Bloggins a rest."

The only reason he needs a rest is because there aren't enough folks on the operational side to ensure Bloggins isn't getting double or triple tapped.

 

[QV]

Essentially, yeah.


Or pay them, or get those operational folks to backfill if needed. I do not subscribe to the belief that Cpl Bloggins FSA needs to be posted to CF School X because it might possibly need someone to work extra innings. Appropriately funding civilians is part of the solution. Can't have a critical support role 1 deep and the employee goes on sick leave. Same with OT, fund it and they will do it.


Yes.... and? Sounds like Staff Officer 101 to me.


Agreed. Perhaps if our Claims system was not archaic and cumbersome, pers wouldn't be wary of not having an advance. Members could.. you know.... receive their reimbursement after the crisis in a timely manner instead of the latter


So plan for it? Ensure members have kit prior to loading them in a HRU postion?


We very clearly don't because we very clearly need more personnel to fill operational gaps than the "I fucked up my planning" gaps.

I very swiftly will blame our "DND/CAF Defence Team" bullshit mentality in poisoning the well for CAF members believing a garrison/NCR/shore billet is something to aspire to. Perhaps peoe wouldn't burn out so fast in the Bns, Wings, and Fleets if they had sufficient personnel to do a proper managed readiness cycle. Instead, we use Garrison Support as a means to "give Bloggins a rest." Exactly

The only reason he needs a rest is because there aren't enough folks on the operational side to ensure Bloggins isn't getting double or triple tapped. And imagine if you could take routine admin and secondary duty crap off the table for the CAF.

 

[MilEME09]

The one hang up in see in my world would be PCF driver courses. I can't see the Regs being too keen on using their kit to teach a reserve tpr TAPV or LAV but I suppose they could either a) send them home early or b) give them the qual anyways and now they're investing a cadre of trained troops who will eventually be able to be called in for augmentation.

Skill fade happens regardless reg or reserve. I've had reg force techs posted in from 1 RCHA, after 4 years at a reserve unit doing small arms, get posted back I bet they aren't proficient any more on m777. That's okay but a reserve tech getting the course and using it maybe once a year isn't. Training to the same level means we can shorten the delta on work up training.