• 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....
 
I think the only LPC leadership candidate who would significantly increase our defence industry is Freeland, possibly because of her Ukrainian roots. I’ll give her that.
 
Another reason to look to South Korea, for both their Surface to Surface ordinance (truck, ship and sub launched) and their Surface to Air ordinance


Although the Germans, French, Swedes and Brits all have some good Manpad and Short to Medium range stuff.

LIG Nex1 makes an incredibly wide range of defence capabilities, worthy of consideration.

 
Further to the "rethink" that is going on wrt defence spending internationally...



And in a tangentially related issue

Labour has been a great proponent of the Quangos, NGOs that operate outside of government but tie government's hands. One of those Quangos has just given sentencing advice similar to Canada's, insofar as judges are being required to take into account colour, religion, class, upbringing before coming down with a sentence. This has been decried as two-tier justice. The Justice Secretary, a muslim woman, Shabana Mahmood, agrees and has called for the advice to be withdrawn or she will introduce law over-riding the Quango. This would, IMO, be a good thing. Only the Labour Party can dismantle the Quango system. If it is even marginally contemplating that, while promoting defence, that suggests to me a distinct change in the weather. One of the Quangos is the Climate Change Committee that rules on Net Zero compliance. More and more of their guidance is being set aside.

Another reason to be curious as to what the winner of Sunday's LPC vote has to say for themselves. The carbon tax has already gone with the wind as has open borders immigration.
 
Some of Britain’s biggest pension firms have been accused of blocking Britain’s plans to boost defence in the wake of the Ukraine war.

Aviva, Royal London and the National Employment Savings Trust (Nest) are among a group of pension giants that restrict or block investment in the defence industry on “ethical” grounds.

The companies, which provide pensions to millions of Britons, say the restrictions apply to select funds and offer customers choice.

However, the fact that defence is excluded on claimed ethical grounds has alarmed ministers and is likely to provoke anger among some customers.

Rachel Reeves, the Chancellor, is understood to agree that investment in the British defence sector is ethical. She is working on plans to make it easier for investors to see if environmental, social and governance (ESG) funds exclude military spending.

A Treasury spokesman said on Thursday night: “If opaque ESG ratings are blocking vital private investment to our defence sector, this has to change.”

 
CAF wide used to be 50km, then it was changed in the 90's, I was assuming that there was still some sort of regulation about distance away from ones duty station.
Thought that was the case. Old school stuff.
I lot of units/bases still use 50 km (with some gerrymandering) as the guideline in determining their local area.
interesting considering there are national instructions in regards to local area (geographical boundaries). Regardless that has nothing to do with leave as we are no longer restricted by it. We can travel anywhere in Canada on our own time as long as we are able to make it back on time for work.
Just to be pedantic, 3 PPCLI was never stationed in Chilliwack. They were at Work Point Barracks in Victoria, which was also closed. 1 CER, CFSME, and CFOCS were in Chilliwack at the time of closure. The only remaining military presence in Chilliwack that I am aware of is the HQ of 39 CER which is housed in the former 1 CER HQ building.
39 CER HQ, 54 ES, i forget the infantry unit that expanded there in i think 2014/2015, an MP det, a clothing stores, CMT and real property sect are what I remember there in 2016.

I see some good points made here on this site and truly enjoy reading them. Have to admit some have resulted in me rethinking my stand on things while others have reinforced my own beliefs. Thank you all regardless of if we agree or not.
 
Just to be pedantic, 3 PPCLI was never stationed in Chilliwack. They were at Work Point Barracks in Victoria, which was also closed. 1 CER, CFSME, and CFOCS were in Chilliwack at the time of closure. The only remaining military presence in Chilliwack that I am aware of is the HQ of 39 CER which is housed in the former 1 CER HQ building.
3 PPCLI was based in Chilliwack in the 10/90 years - 94-97
 
3 PPCLI was based in Chilliwack in the 10/90 years - 94-97
Maybe I'm getting old. I was in Chilliwack 93-96 and don't recall seeing any Patricias stationed there (except for staff positions at CFOCS and CFSME). Perhaps it was the reserve element of the 10/90? I would have thought I would have noticed if the whole battalion had showed up. I guess I could have been blinded by the fact that at the time Chilliwack was the home of the Engineers. :unsure:
 
Maybe I'm getting old. I was in Chilliwack 93-96 and don't recall seeing any Patricias stationed there. Perhaps it was the reserve element of the 10/90? I would have thought I would have noticed if the whole battalion had showed up. I guess I could have been blinded by the fact that at the time Chilliwack was the home of the Engineers. :unsure:
The Bn HQ (and Adm?) were in Chilliwack. The sub units were the Reserve units. I was in Kamloops with the RMRang through some of that
 
Bn HQ and admin was definitely in Chilliwack. Each BC Inf Res unit had a 3VP cadre attached (usually 1 x offr and 2-3 snr NCOs and a few NCMs) with an assigned capability. Can Scots in Victoria were supposed to be pioneer, Westies in Van were TOW, RM Rang were recce. Can't remember what the Seaforths were assigned. When 3 VP was stood back up in Edmonton, the cadres departed and only the RSS was left behind.
 
If anyone is interested in more information on the 10/90 concept of the 1990s as experienced by the artillery and the infantry then this PhD thesis written by a student at the City University Business School in London in 1996 provides some good detail. It touches specifically on the 3 PPCLI experience.

🍻
 
Meanwhile - on the subject of arming our new defence force

Lithuania wants “to buy AMRAAMS for their NASAMS,” he stated. “Five-year wait. I talked to the Bulgarian CHOD [Chief of Defense]. They want to buy Javelins for their Strykers. Seven-year wait. I talked to some of the big allies who want to buy Patriots. 10-year wait. That needs to get fixed.”

 
The old story of 'when war comes, you have what you've got onhand' rings true.

We're looking right now at wars and rumours of wars - Ukraine has had us send a bunch of gear overseas, but little if any has actually been replaced in our stocks yet. Have we replaced the Leos that we sent over? Have we actually got replacement guns for the M777s that have gone over?

Our cupboard is getting more and more bare, and if we had to actually go to war tomorrow, we'd have some pretty sparse capabilities.

Long Lead Times is, sadly, the norm for major weapons systems. Part of the problem with super techie stuff - how long does it take to build and launch a satellite to get improved comms - let alone some form of camera/surveillance?

It's not WW2 anymore where we can go from concept to flying fighter in 120 days like they did with the P-51.

The integration of supply chains and dependence upon computer chips from places like Taiwan makes us that much more behind the curve.

Yes - there is a domestic production capability of some stuff - Senator, Small Arms, LAV, Warships (almost...) but do we have, in Canada, the ability to punch out a production line of our own Javelins? Or NASAMS?

If not, maybe we should have started working on that 3 years ago, as there appears to be a global need.
 
Meanwhile - on the subject of arming our new defence force




Those are FMS buys. Going direct to Industry could get them much faster but with a significant increase in prices.

Most US Defense firms aren’t expanding heavily as the looming specter of Elon Musk’s random cuts has folks nervous.
 
Whats the deal with the McAlester Ammo Plant firings
Those are FMS buys. Going direct to Industry could get them much faster but with a significant increase in prices.

Most US Defense firms aren’t expanding heavily as the looming specter of Elon Musk’s random cuts has folks nervous.
 
Those are FMS buys. Going direct to Industry could get them much faster but with a significant increase in prices.

Most US Defense firms aren’t expanding heavily as the looming specter of Elon Musk’s random cuts has folks nervous.

I wonder what it would take to build some production in Europe where there's a potential market for their products.
 
First battalion, RCR. Maybe B Sqn, RCD and the various supporters. Borden is the place the Armoured Corps was founded so it has a history as a manoeuvre training

Those are FMS buys. Going direct to Industry could get them much faster but with a significant increase in prices.

Most US Defense firms aren’t expanding heavily as the looming specter of Elon Musk’s random cuts has folks nervous.
Is Industry even allowed to sell sensitive systems without a US intermediary?
 
There's certain high-end systems that are difficult for us to produce on our own or simply might not be worth the squeeze (think Patriot missiles for example) but we should definitely initiate a crash course on munitions production.

I'd suggest looking at a hypothetical of a long war. Imagine that you've expended all of your glitzy, expensive toys. What are the absolute must-haves that you need to keep in the fight? 155mm arty shells? Carl G's? SHORAD missiles? Unguided rockets? FPV drones? All the things you'll continue to need to use in bulk. That should be our first focus for domestic production in my mind.

Build up our stocks and production capacity for those items so that when the other things run out you've still got domestic production (and war stocks) for the basic necessities. Once that's in place work your way up from there.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top