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....

 

[Good2Golf]

To be honest, I served in the REG force when I was 19 years old for roughly 4 years as Armored.

Today, at 39, i'm joining back the PRes as a MSE Op and I can say this from a personel perspective;

At 39, I am more mature, more experienced and more aware of a lot of things that I wasn't aware of at 19 years old.

At 19 years old, I was going out with my buddies in clubs and bars, drinking and getting wasted only to get back to base at 0100H. Next morning, we did PT at 0700H without a problem. Our priorities back then was having nice cars, going into clubs and getting laid.

At 39, having served 4 years with a tours in A-Stan, a family, a house, and all the responsabilites that comes with life, mentality has changed A LOT. I'm more aware that I need to stay fit, to eat well, to sleep well, to get my shit together, in order to live a good life and to be healthy.

I would, without any doubts, recruit myself at 39 rather that the 19 year-old me.

I understand that you need young people in order for themselves to gain experience and go through all the harsh training the CAF offers, but more experienced guys like me is a must as well.

@Aper, so this was you back in the day, then?

 

[Retired AF Guy]

@Aper, so this was you back in the day, then?

View attachment 84229

All of above??

 

[Aper]

@Aper, so this was you back in the day, then?

View attachment 84229

I was stupid enough to buy a '97 Civic @ 10 000$ back then, yes

 

[Fabius]

I’m curious if the CAF has any data tracking those in the field forces for each service with restrictive family situations? Additionally while there may not be anything wrong with single parents, service couples with school age kids etc. they all do reduce the maximum number of deployable personnel.

That may not matter if all we strive for is a BG, a six pack of fighters, a pair of LRP, and a frigate on a rotating basis, but it certainly would if we tried to deploy all our forces in the case of a large scale war.

 

[Kirkhill]

Basically to me we need the shore billets to rotate people through for a proper break from the drills, duty watches, sea/field time, etc. There does need to be a complete revamp training of the leadership as too often the lack of proper planning does have a negative impact that shouldn't happen. I do believe that there may be room for some positions to be changed to civilian vice military which may actually force people to plan better as they can no longer fall back on ordering their staff to work overtime to make up for their short comings. I also believe though that we have to be careful with changing the positions as it doesn't always work to the best. I had one posn that came with 4 hats. A year after I left it the posn was removed, 3 hats distributed to civilian positions along with other stuff for them to do. For 10 years I was still contacted by other countries (mainly USA) asking me if I could help them as they couldn't get help anywhere else. Hat 4 required military as it was for a standing honour guard. On the other hand, don't know how all the reserves feel but when I was posted to one back in 2012 or 2013 I was highly disappointed to find out that the civilian positions had been cut from the units as part of the new establishment. I was told not to worry as they had added 2 more Class B positions. I immediately asked if we could switch them back as I would rather have the civilian positions that were cut. We need a balance between the 2 that will benefit everyone.

Another aspect here maybe points of view. To me every "non-operational" position I have filled was in support of operational members.

What happens if multiple "crews" are used for each hull - assuming that the extra bodies could be recruited, but bear with me.

So some navies have been using two crews on subs, and the Norwegians have been using 3 watches on a 2 watch ship.

Suppose you were using a small crew philosophy for your ships, optionally crewed so that the ship could sail with little to no supervision but standard practice was sailing with a small crew.

On shore you have one or two, maybe three additional small crews. The crews rotate into and out of the ship on and ongoing basis. When the crews come ashore they report to the office and take up the task of filling all the deficiencies that they found and reported while onboard.

The game plan is to ensure that when you get back on board the deficiencies are fixed.

In addition you have a surplus of trained crew familiar with that ship and available to be deployed. The extra crew can be flown out as needed or could join the ship as trained supernumeraries if the tactical situation required it.

You could even put reservists into the rotational mix.

 

[Kirkhill]

And honestly - war, particularly high intensity, ground based warfare, is a young man's game. When led by well trained officers & experienced NCOs & WOs, young men are far more able to sustain the tempo & rigours of warfare than those of us in our mid-thirties and beyond. That isn't to say that we don't have something to contribute; maturity, perspective & experience is an absolute requirement for a real Army. However, the core demographic, particularly of soldiers & JNCOs in combat trades, should be young men.

I am absolutely not capable of doing the same kind of business in my current age as I was when I exited battle school in my mid-20s. I might be able to find creative ways to stretch it, but we are in a dangerous scenario when those approaching or at middle age are the typical soldier in the ranks. Therefore, we should be maximising recruitment of the young & aggressive, temper them with experienced superiors and as mentioned here many times, not assume or even desire everyone to serve 25 years. An initial engagement of three to five years is perfectly acceptable and indeed desirable for a vigorous Army, whilst also planning & accommodating those who wish to stay beyond and form a partial or full career.

On the other hand, "virtual" soldiering is becoming more of a thing. Those 19 year olds that have become 39 year olds with buggered backs might have a lot more opportunities to contribute more directly to supporting new 19 year olds without having to exert themselves to the same extent.

A 39 year old Company Drone Operator might be a thing.

 

[Furniture]

On the other hand, "virtual" soldiering is becoming more of a thing. Those 19 year olds that have become 39 year olds with buggered backs might have a lot more opportunities to contribute more directly to supporting new 19 year olds without having to exert themselves to the same extent.

A 39 year old Company Drone Operator might be a thing.

We don't even need to go that modern.

A 51 year old Met Tech, HRA, Sig, etc., is still a valuable asset, as long as they can actually go and do what the CAF needs them to do, when the CAF needs them to go.

 

[Kirkhill]

We don't even need to go that modern.

A 51 year old Met Tech, HRA, Sig, etc., is still a valuable asset, as long as they can actually go and do what the CAF needs them to do, when the CAF needs them to go.

Especially if there are more of these types of things in the system.



More motors and less muscles.

 

[Brad Sallows]

In the event of a "big one", there will be plenty of jobs in the Comm Z and at home that won't need the best fit young people.

 

[Fabius]

Interestingly it’s likely that the 18-25 and 50-65 year olds likely have greater mobility with fewer family responsibilities on average than the 25-50 year olds.
Purely due to the lack of children and spouses in the first group and the fact that for the second, their children are grown.

Another factor in recruiting older people with families into the regular force is that the CAF entry point is still at the bottom with pay scales that are more in line with expenses incurred by a single person vs a family.

A single income family with 3 kids and the 25-50 year old breadwinner is making Pte or 2Lt pay is not ideal .

 

[KevinB]

Oof Canada buckle up.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1775864832320844135

 

[Kirkhill]

Interestingly it’s likely that the 18-25 and 50-65 year olds likely have greater mobility with fewer family responsibilities on average than the 25-50 year olds.
Purely due to the lack of children and spouses in the first group and the fact that for the second, their children are grown.

Another factor in recruiting older people with families into the regular force is that the CAF entry point is still at the bottom with pay scales that are more in line with expenses incurred by a single person vs a family.

A single income family with 3 kids and the 25-50 year old breadwinner is making Pte or 2Lt pay is not ideal .

On the other hand a 25 year old reservist with 2 to 5 years reg service would be no bad thing. Especially if it came with a stipend and perqs in exchange for a 2 week paid refresher every 3 years or so.

 

[Cloud Cover]

Oof Canada buckle up.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1775864832320844135

65 Billion CAD$.
Never. Gonna. Happen.

 

[rmc_wannabe]

Oof Canada buckle up.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1775864832320844135

Meanwhile at the PMO:

 

[Fabius]

Makes sense, we’re up to what… north of $25 Billion in new federal spending ( all in areas of provincial constitutional jurisdiction) in under 2 weeks.
Chances of the Defence Policy refresh happening or being released and any new DND funding is highly unlikely in my opinion.

 

[dimsum]

Oof Canada buckle up.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1775864832320844135

Again, that only works if there is a concurrent % to spend on actual capability.

We can double/triple salaries to reach 3%, but that means zilch to NATO.

 

[Navy_Pete]

I said 1–3. So some for 1 and some single folks who maybe want the money or adventure (or to pay off a divorce).

I don't think you appreciate the depth and stupidity of the travel cuts, and how arbitrary it is. We don't actually have enough to pay for FSR support trips. We aren't doing training that requires TD (even if it's sending a SME out to run a course for 20 people). We aren't doing NATO working group trips (which only partially works remotely because every country has different IT rules and NATO is a shit show for having things like shared documents at the unclass level). Even core trade training is touch and go.

Travel was already pretty low because it's such a miserable ass pain of admin, now it's basically down to really bare minimum. I'm sure it will result in things getting missed that will cost us millions (or tens of millions) on the various billion dollar projects on the go, have direct operational impacts and all sorts of other stupidity.

The only LCMM travel we're doing at all this year is something we're mandated by federal law to check annually in person; the rest is cut. Things like in person acceptance of contract deliverables for infrastructure etc all not funded, and even normal maintenance won't get funded because they involve some FSR travel.

 

[Cloud Cover]

Again, that only works if there is a concurrent % to spend on actual capability.

We can double/triple salaries to reach 3%, but that means zilch to NATO.

yep.

Gov: Here's a billion dollars, come back in 6 months with new tanks.
DND: here's your billion dollars back.

It's not just about money, it's about political capacity to justify the structural repositioning of an ice cream cake economy to industrial scale arms production at a sustainable pace.
Canada is simply never going to do that again even if it means losing Europe and especially Ukraine, Poland or Asia (Taiwan or Korea) to monsters.

 

[Navy_Pete]

What happens if multiple "crews" are used for each hull - assuming that the extra bodies could be recruited, but bear with me.

So some navies have been using two crews on subs, and the Norwegians have been using 3 watches on a 2 watch ship.

Suppose you were using a small crew philosophy for your ships, optionally crewed so that the ship could sail with little to no supervision but standard practice was sailing with a small crew.

On shore you have one or two, maybe three additional small crews. The crews rotate into and out of the ship on and ongoing basis. When the crews come ashore they report to the office and take up the task of filling all the deficiencies that they found and reported while onboard.

The game plan is to ensure that when you get back on board the deficiencies are fixed.

In addition you have a surplus of trained crew familiar with that ship and available to be deployed. The extra crew can be flown out as needed or could join the ship as trained supernumeraries if the tactical situation required it.

You could even put reservists into the rotational mix.

lol, we don't have multiple crews per hull, we have multiple hulls per crew. That's even with ships in DWPs that run 2-3 years, and others being tied up.

Having people do shore postings has all kinds of benefits other than a break as well; people that understand how things work ashore know how to get actual support at sea a lot better. You can't work the system if you don't understand it, and you can't understand it really if you only ever see it as a black box you occasionally send demands to.

Having people on the ships in logistics and engineering side that have worked in the shore support organizations is a massive advantage to actually getting shit done. Having XOs and COs that worked on the operational HQ side is a massive advantage for feeding that beast. See the impact of people cycling pack to HOD and CHOD positions now without seeing much support side now because they don't tell people what is broken and what they need and it constantly comes up at the 11th hour when it's way too late to do anything about it. The ships where people have worked ashore or the NCR get much better support because they actually understand who the stakeholders are to actually talk to IOT get support. Ideally you have a mix of all of it.

 

[Castus]

EDIT: Rolled into a bigger post.