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....

 

[Cloud Cover]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1813174111549472853

speaking of Scandinavia. Im sure we'll be right behind them on our replacements

In addition, the FMI states that it has concluded a loan agreement with the Canadian Ministry of Defence, which should enable the Danish troops to use Wisent-2 tanks for training until the now ordered Wisent 2 tanks enter the Danish army.

We have those? Why? How do they fight climate change and promote gendered superiority?

 

[suffolkowner]

We have those? Why? How do they fight climate change and promote gendered superiority?

they dont thats why we are giving them to Ukraine and Denmark

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Trudeau is just doing trudeau. Seeking appeasement with lies he has no intention of keeping. If he can shift the heat, even a little bit, he'll say whatever you want to hear. However, that's where it always ends.

 

[Quirky]

Seeking appeasement with lies he has no intention of keeping.

The biggest problem with Trudeau is that he can't adapt to his politics, he doesn't see that he's crippling this country and it's worse off now than it was 9 years ago. If anything he's doubling down on spending and immigration, both of which need to be throttled back.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

The biggest problem with Trudeau is that he can't adapt to his politics, he doesn't see that he's crippling this country and it's worse off now than it was 9 years ago. If anything he's doubling down on spending and immigration, both of which need to be throttled back.

Oh, he sees alright. He's crippling Canada on purpose. He never had any intention of helping the country. His loyalty doesn't lay with us.

 

[Kirkhill]

In the US, what is the sum total of leos, ems, guard, dod and doe as a percent of GDP?

In Europe there is a considerable degree of overlap between agencies complicating the 2% discussion.

Further to (and following suitable relocation - I hope)

The Trump Event seems to have occurred in large due to C4I failures. Different agencies, different silos, different expectations, training, standards, comms... yada yada yada.

To secure the US US citizens pay for bucket loads of inspectors, wardens, agents, LEOs, firemen, EMS, paramedics, Emergency Rooms, FEMA, Guardsmen, Coasties, Sailors, Soldiers, Marines and Airmen. Some defend locally and some are deployable. All are supposed to work together.

The Euros have much the same situation but their silos are different. Responsibilities bleed over from silo to silo. Eg - Border Guards may only be authorized pistols most of the time but sometimes they find themselves beefed up with 90 and 105mm SP Rifles and tasked to hold ground and patrol minefields. Air crew may drop fire retardant on wild fires this summer and bombs, or commando teams, next summer. Medics may be working on heart attacks and strokes this weekend and quadruple amputations the next. Cops may be chasing speeders or saboteurs and assassins. The local militia may be supplying crowd control at a football match or local air defence against UAVs and missiles.

When the Euros apply 2% of their GDP to homeland security all of it also applies to the defence of NATO because every minute of time bought in holding a border station on the Polish - Belarus border benefits Madrid and Dover, and ultimately Vancouver and Seattle.

So, in Canada, 2% - Are we talking about an expeditionary force of 2% of GDP? Or are we just talking about beefing up our national, homeland security?

Through the Cold War neither the Euros nor Canadians would have seen money spent defending our Arctic as a legitimate contribution to solving their problem.

My sense is that these days the Euros, and the Americans, would be quite happy to have us spend that 2% entirely within Canadian territory and territorial waters if it meant that they could count on their flanks, and supply chains, being secure.

2% of GDP on Defence. An additional 2% on Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness. 0.7% on Foreign Aid (civil and military).

And an interlocking plan for the full 4.7%.

 

[Quirky]

Oh, he sees alright. He's crippling Canada on purpose.

I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt - he's just incompetent. No way he's willfully doing everything on purpose for some WEF agenda, he truly believes he's doing a good job. The scary part that no one around him is stopping this train wreck.

 

[Czech_pivo]

I was chatting with a Dane fairly recently. He said that he, in the middle class, pays 52% income tax.

Ask him about his medical specialist wait times, ER times and what his kids pay for University?

I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt - he's just incompetent. No way he's willfully doing everything on purpose for some WEF agenda, he truly believes he's doing a good job. The scary part that no one around him is stopping this train wreck.

Whatever he is or whatever he thinks, I really don't believe that in 20-30yrs Canadians will look back and say that his time in office or his policies were a 'golden era' of Canadian leadership or policy implementation.

 

[Czech_pivo]

Further to (and following suitable relocation - I hope)

The Trump Event seems to have occurred in large due to C4I failures. Different agencies, different silos, different expectations, training, standards, comms... yada yada yada.

To secure the US US citizens pay for bucket loads of inspectors, wardens, agents, LEOs, firemen, EMS, paramedics, Emergency Rooms, FEMA, Guardsmen, Coasties, Sailors, Soldiers, Marines and Airmen. Some defend locally and some are deployable. All are supposed to work together.

The Euros have much the same situation but their silos are different. Responsibilities bleed over from silo to silo. Eg - Border Guards may only be authorized pistols most of the time but sometimes they find themselves beefed up with 90 and 105mm SP Rifles and tasked to hold ground and patrol minefields. Air crew may drop fire retardant on wild fires this summer and bombs, or commando teams, next summer. Medics may be working on heart attacks and strokes this weekend and quadruple amputations the next. Cops may be chasing speeders or saboteurs and assassins. The local militia may be supplying crowd control at a football match or local air defence against UAVs and missiles.

When the Euros apply 2% of their GDP to homeland security all of it also applies to the defence of NATO because every minute of time bought in holding a border station on the Polish - Belarus border benefits Madrid and Dover, and ultimately Vancouver and Seattle.

So, in Canada, 2% - Are we talking about an expeditionary force of 2% of GDP? Or are we just talking about beefing up our national, homeland security?

Through the Cold War neither the Euros nor Canadians would have seen money spent defending our Arctic as a legitimate contribution to solving their problem.

My sense is that these days the Euros, and the Americans, would be quite happy to have us spend that 2% entirely within Canadian territory and territorial waters if it meant that they could count on their flanks, and supply chains, being secure.

2% of GDP on Defence. An additional 2% on Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness. 0.7% on Foreign Aid (civil and military).

And an interlocking plan for the full 4.7%.

To your point, a RCN with 15 CSC, a 12 dozen subs, a robust Kingston class replacement and 4/5 AOR's, along with another squadron of F35's, 20 P8's and an expanded RCAF tanker capability would go along way in making the US and the western Euro's happy - as it would help lighten their respective loads.

 

[Maxman1]

12 dozen subs

144 subs?!

 

[Czech_pivo]

144 subs?!

Lol, 12 (dozen) subs - my typing skills are lacking and proof reading failing...

 

[FJAG]

So, in Canada, 2% - Are we talking about an expeditionary force of 2% of GDP? Or are we just talking about beefing up our national, homeland security?

Of course not. The bulk of the budget for the Navy and Air Force is mostly for the homeland. Yes, we do deploy some naval and air forces to NATO missions but the bulk stay here.

The army is our primary expeditionary force and only a small fraction of that is deployed in support of NATO at any given time. The bulk is here in Canada training for missions that could be anywhere including Canada. Add to all of that the heavy administrative overhead presence safely ensconced in the Ottawa Valley.

2% is everything, lock stock and barrel.

Through the Cold War neither the Euros nor Canadians would have seen money spent defending our Arctic as a legitimate contribution to solving their problem.

My sense is that these days the Euros, and the Americans, would be quite happy to have us spend that 2% entirely within Canadian territory and territorial waters if it meant that they could count on their flanks, and supply chains, being secure.

Yeah, it may seem that way to you but I think in reality, the Europeans want to see a Canadian flag on the maps of their borders so that they can see that the Canadians are in it for at least a penny, if not a pound. There's a lot of symbolism in that both to the Europeans and as one of deterrence to the Russians. More importantly, it gives you a measure of street cred when other issues such as trade, come up.

Let's be honest. A mostly fly-over brigade is cheap in the long run and adds a significant benefit in focusing training and providing a positive morale issue to enhance recruiting and a raison d'etre. (and no! I'm not considering six month rotations as a positive morale issue. - That needs adjusting)

 

[Cloud Cover]

To your point, a RCN with 15 CSC, a 12 dozen subs, a robust Kingston class replacement and 4/5 AOR's, along with another squadron of F35's, 20 P8's and an expanded RCAF tanker capability would go along way in making the US and the western Euro's happy - as it would help lighten their respective loads.

+ Expanded tactical airlift. More Hercs (Australia has ordered another 20), more Chinooks, more helicopters such as BlackHawks. Those 3 alone are useful domestically and internationally.
Ammunition, trucks, trailer, small arms, mortars, APC, LAV’s, ATGM, SAM all in continuous but dependable, scalable production in ever improving marks and versions. These things we can and should do because we can use them and we can stockpile and supply to allies.

 

[suffolkowner]

Ammunition, trucks, trailer, small arms, mortars, APC, LAV’s, ATGM, SAM all in continuous but dependable, scalable production in ever improving marks and versions. These things we can and should do because we can use them and we can stockpile and supply to allies.

As we can see from the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Material stocks in NATO countries are needed to sustain a war effort

 

[lenaitch]

Ask him about his medical specialist wait times, ER times and what his kids pay for University?

I don't know about their healthcare but post secondary for Danish and EU citizens is free.

 

[MilEME09]

I think I was just putting together that its exactly the same truck minus 2 drive axles. Which is a little strange but maybe not lol.
The MSVS are running 9 tonne axles and the LVM's are both running 13 tonne axles?

Heres all the technical data, 4x4 is 13t Axle load, 8x8 is a 16t load

Mercedes-Benz Defence Trucks – Technical Data

Find out about the technical data for Unimog, Zetros, Arocs and FGA defence trucks from Mercedes-Benz.

special.mercedes-benz-trucks.com

 

[Czech_pivo]

I don't know about their healthcare but post secondary for Danish and EU citizens is free.

Yes, I was trying to highlight the differences - both very high taxation - but what they get in return is much much better value for money

 

[suffolkowner]

Heres all the technical data, 4x4 is 13t Axle load, 8x8 is a 16t load

Mercedes-Benz Defence Trucks – Technical Data

Find out about the technical data for Unimog, Zetros, Arocs and FGA defence trucks from Mercedes-Benz.

special.mercedes-benz-trucks.com

thats some insane numbers especially for a single axle truck, minus running single tires of course

 

[PrairieFella]

They also went from no name to one of the top 100 defense companies in Canada, and are now bidding to replace the G-wagon. A major win for a Canadian company

My problem with the Senator is it's too damned big for a large share of it intended distribution. The 10 seater IMV would be wicked for PRes infantry and RegF/PRes CSS usage but it would hugely detrimental to the PRes Armoured which will be receiving a large minority of these vehicles. 80% capability for some will be 40-50% or less for other.

 

[Brad Sallows]

144 subs?!

Yes. 12 warfighters, and 132 small submersibles to charge multi-millionaires exhorbitant fees to view the Titanic site, thereby generating revenues to pay for the warfighters.