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....

 

[PrairieFella]

I think the key issue is you will never have one swiss army vehicle that meets all needs. Even if it was possible it would end up being overly complex and overly expensive. Consequently, that great bugbear of the Canadian command structure rears its head: decisions.

Somebody has to decide how many of what and how, where and when they should be utilized.

....

Straight up question, do you feel you need your F echelon vehicle on the floor of your armoury all the time? Or could you manage with a local training center fully equipped and a squadron's worth of B vehicles in the armouries for admin and training?

It would be perfectly acceptable to depot the vehicles at a training area to draw them like they used to with the AVGP or Lynx. Have one at the armoury for training and maintain the Echelon at the armoury. Simple as.

 

[FJAG]

Straight up question, do you feel you need your F echelon vehicle on the floor of your armoury all the time? Or could you manage with a local training center fully equipped and a squadron's worth of B vehicles in the armouries for admin and training?

That's a tremendously broad question that depends on many factors. The easy answer is - it depends. How much equipment is there? What are the arrangements for its maintenance? What is the amount and type of training expected to be done at the armouries v at the training centre? What type of unit and associated equipment is it? What is the configuration of the armouries and its storage facilities?

As a quick shot, if we look at today's ARes structure and the amount of equipment dedicated to them (even if increased) then the only logical system is one where the few number of F Ech vehicles is held and serviced at a training centre for pool usage while, at best we can hope for a few simulation trainers on the armoury floor.

The problem becomes even bigger if equipment for the ARes is issued at anywhere near baseline levels (i.e. the full TOE for an LSCO mobilization capability) so as to make them a mobilizable force. A Class A force and a 19th century armory system is not suitable for on-site storage or training.

 

[Kirkhill]

That's a tremendously broad question that depends on many factors. The easy answer is - it depends. How much equipment is there? What are the arrangements for its maintenance? What is the amount and type of training expected to be done at the armouries v at the training centre? What type of unit and associated equipment is it? What is the configuration of the armouries and its storage facilities?

As a quick shot, if we look at today's ARes structure and the amount of equipment dedicated to them (even if increased) then the only logical system is one where the few number of F Ech vehicles is held and serviced at a training centre for pool usage while, at best we can hope for a few simulation trainers on the armoury floor.

The problem becomes even bigger if equipment for the ARes is issued at anywhere near baseline levels (i.e. the full TOE for an LSCO mobilization capability) so as to make them a mobilizable force. A Class A force and a 19th century armory system is not suitable for on-site storage or training.

Most of those armouries that I have seen have adjacent parking lots with room for a secure compound for 20 or so vans. Enough for a sub-unit's admin vehicles. Maybe enough room on the parade square for a training aid.

 

[markppcli]

It would be perfectly acceptable to depot the vehicles at a training area to draw them like they used to with the AVGP or Lynx. Have one at the armoury for training and maintain the Echelon at the armoury. Simple as.

Only issue is making sure there’s a reasonable ability to access them. This would only be an issue for a few units, BC or NFLD really, but probably doable for most.

 

[dapaterson]

Only issue is making sure there’s a reasonable ability to access them. This would only be an issue for a few units, BC or NFLD really, but probably doable for most.

So... Unit roles and tasks could be set based on proximity to adequate training facilities?

 

[McG]

But regardless of nomenclature - Forwards = (F) lots of armour, Mid = (A) some armour, Rear = (B) no armour.

Keep in mind, that echelon system is internal to a fighting unit. At formation level, we start using different terminology. So, the B Ech should not be in gun fights against tanks & dismounted infantry (though, on a bad day it happens), but you are probably still worried about protecting crew from snipers & arty frag.

Most of those armouries that I have seen have adjacent parking lots with room for a secure compound for 20 or so vans. Enough for a sub-unit's admin vehicles. Maybe enough room on the parade square for a training aid.

You may find unintended consequences from repurposing the parking spots init members use to attend the armoury.

 

[Good2Golf]

F-35 reconsideration up to PM level now.

Carney Reviews Canada’s Order of F-35 Jets Amid Rift With US — Bloomberg

Canada’s new Prime Minister Mark Carney ordered a review of the country’s contract with the US’s Lockheed Martin Corp for F-35 fighter jets, a new front in the dispute between the two sides in response to tariffs and expansionist rhetoric from President Donald Trump.

apple.news

In the diplomatic world, responsible adults would consider it ‘signaling.’

Who knows how the Artist of the Deal will see it.

I would be interested to see if Carney visits Istres when he’s in France next week…

 

[Kirkhill]

Keep in mind, that echelon system is internal to a fighting unit. At formation level, we start using different terminology. So, the B Ech should not be in gun fights against tanks & dismounted infantry (though, on a bad day it happens), but you are probably still worried about protecting crew from snipers & arty frag.


You may find unintended consequences from repurposing the parking spots init members use to attend the armoury.

Fair. On both counts.

WRT protection though is it reasonable to expect all risk to be reduced everywhere? Even with the budget levels being discussed?

 

[McG]

WRT protection though is it reasonable to expect all risk to be reduced everywhere?

Nobody is suggesting that.

 

[daftandbarmy]

So... Unit roles and tasks could be set based on proximity to adequate training facilities?

Of course not...

They should continue to assign Armoured Infantry roles, complete with APCs, to units based on Vancouver Island where the vehicles can't leave pavement and where courses and other specialized support is located hundreds of kms away, and Airborne Infantry roles to units hundreds of kms away from the nearest Herc and appropriate specialized training resources.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Interesting

Canada has far too few soldiers. Here's a radical fix — mandatory service

Mandatory service is a path to military readiness: "It’s good to serve your country. We’ve never pushed that to the extent that we should."

nationalpost.com

 

[markppcli]

F-35 reconsideration up to PM level now.

Carney Reviews Canada’s Order of F-35 Jets Amid Rift With US — Bloomberg

Canada’s new Prime Minister Mark Carney ordered a review of the country’s contract with the US’s Lockheed Martin Corp for F-35 fighter jets, a new front in the dispute between the two sides in response to tariffs and expansionist rhetoric from President Donald Trump.

apple.news

In the diplomatic world, responsible adults would consider it ‘signaling.’

Who knows how the Artist of the Deal will see it.

I would be interested to see if Carney visits Istres when he’s in France next week…

This is not good

 

[PrairieFella]

Only issue is making sure there’s a reasonable ability to access them. This would only be an issue for a few units, BC or NFLD really, but probably doable for most.

Seems like perfect places for the guys to be mountain ops specialists.

 

[Good2Golf]

This is not good

The whole situation hasn’t been good for almost two months now…

One can’t work in todays new transactional world without transacting.

 

[dapaterson]

F-35 reconsideration up to PM level now.

Carney Reviews Canada’s Order of F-35 Jets Amid Rift With US — Bloomberg

Canada’s new Prime Minister Mark Carney ordered a review of the country’s contract with the US’s Lockheed Martin Corp for F-35 fighter jets, a new front in the dispute between the two sides in response to tariffs and expansionist rhetoric from President Donald Trump.

apple.news

In the diplomatic world, responsible adults would consider it ‘signaling.’

Who knows how the Artist of the Deal will see it.

I would be interested to see if Carney visits Istres when he’s in France next week…

Much like tariffs on Bourbon, this is signalling and working to get other organizations / politicians on side to pressure leadership.

Bourbon is irrelevant, but Senator McConnell is from Kentucky, so it's political leverage.

Threatening the JSF purchase? Leverage with LockMart, who have the ear of many politicians (lots of the waste in the JSF program is by design to curry political favour).

 

[Rifleman62]

Bill Blair on CBC saying we may not buy all 88 F35s and may look at other options…

Carney reviews Canada's order of F35 ........

To be realistic, this is just the Liberals continuing on their path of not ever reaching 2% of GDP. They need that money to continue to buy votes with some sort of Social program. What the Cdn electorate never seems to realize it is their own money taken from their pay and redistributed.

 

[markppcli]

Seems like perfect places for the guys to be mountain ops specialists.

If the army determines that’s a realistic need then sure. I’d prefer not to have self picked roles to make people feel special, like zodiac based amphibious operations.

The whole situation hasn’t been good for almost two months now…

One can’t work in todays new transactional world without transacting.

Sure however we also have to balance transaction with ur actual real national security requirements. If anyone legitimately expects a US Canada military conflict the F35 flying or not is probably the least of our problems. This is signalling, and it will be used as an example of Canada not being a reliable security partner, which we aren’t.

 

[Czech_pivo]

This

To be realistic, this is just the Liberals continuing on their path of not ever reaching 2% of GDP. They need that money to continue to buy votes with some sort of Social program. What the Cdn electorate never seems to realize it is their own money taken from their pay and redistributed.

Let’s talk about this scenario - 65 F35’s and 3+ squadrons of something else, insert your preference here.

 

[Good2Golf]

This is signalling, and it will be used as an example of Canada not being a reliable security partner, which we aren’t.

Yes, but I would also say “weren’t.” Room to go yes, but F-35, P-8, SPY-7 doesn’t say “unreliable” for today and tomorrow.

Any reasonable person would assess these capabilities as those of a serious nation.

Would we all like to see more? Shorter timelines? Yes. However, it’s not the past “let it rust out.”

If the US continues to treat Canada as though it isn’t taking any action, then Canada is right to consider other nations that acknowledge and want to collaborate with Canada to increase Canada’s and by association, Alliance capability.

 

[PrairieFella]

Let’s talk about this scenario - 65 F35’s and 3+ squadrons of something else, insert your preference here.

A wing of Typhoons or Rafales that specialize in European tasks while the F35's primary mission is the defence of the homeland?

Honestly the Americans have no one to blame but themselves in this. Stop acting like fascists and threatening to Anchluss us and maybe we'd never be in this mess.

I bet Dassault likes this though.