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....

 

[Underway]

If the news is calling attention to any area, it is towards our Arctic and one glaring gap in capability is in ice capable logistics vessels which are well within the purview of Seaspan's mandate. In particular I am thinking of a smaller version of the JSS capable of supplying northern bases with the necessary fuelsm supplies and primary health care.

New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy

The Pohjanma corvette is about 20m longer and almost 2,000 tons heavier, but otherwise ticks all boxes. And most of the extra weight is probably from the ice strengthening. It sounds like the maximum 105m length is a firm requirement as the ships will need to fit in the existing Halifax-class...

army.ca

Come on over, we have a good time in the Navy threads.

 

[Kirkhill]

I'm not getting tricky here, but we've got six LAV mounted and three light RegF battalions and a herd of unmounted ResF ones. My thought is simply that we've got enough LAVs but really need tracked IFV so if we want to keep GDLS producing then - there you go - build an IFV family.

I know, I know. It boggles the CF brain to have two lines of armoured infantry vehicles but - sometimes you feel like a nut and sometimes you don't. IMHO, the LAV is not an armoured all-singing and all-dancing Swiss Army knife. For what we are facing in Latvia I'm all in for a tracked IFV. For other roles a LAV is just fine. GDLS can build both. We've already got the one, let's start working on the other once ACSV runs its course.

Might be useful getting Rheinmetall/BAE to open up another workshop over here and let GDLSC continue to focus on their well-established production lines. I continue to argue for more of the cheaper, lighter earlier models to cover the midfield, the lines of communication and the CS vehicles as well as supplying as much armour as possible to our air-portable forces.

A heavy armoured crust of two LEO/CV90 Combined Arms Battalions/Regiments/Squadrons would be a good starting point.

 

[Underway]

They needn't be. If the money was there then the ca2013 plan of LAVs plus CV90s becomes more viable. Leos plus CV90s for the RCAC. LAVs for the infantry (perhaps with a different turret focusing on the C-UAS role).

So can you do both? Keep the military industrial complex humming for two types of vehicles given the size of our army? Given that GDLS has survived on building ~2000 Strykers for the US, ~900 LAV's for Saudi Arabia and then our own requirements over the years. I don't see Europe buying Canadian built LAV's when they have a plethora of their own armoured vehicle production available.

I think you could do both, if you source the 200 odd artillery vehicles from them and then work on LAV S/M-SHORAD and replacements for older vehicles (and push them into a warstock situation or sell/gift them to other places like Ukraine).

A tracked build for the Medium Cavalry program might work here if you extend the production lines long enough. But to build the industry to do that, you'll also have to commit to a permanent build program, unless the line is flexible enough to switch around.

 

[suffolkowner]

I'm not getting tricky here, but we've got six LAV mounted and three light RegF battalions and a herd of unmounted ResF ones. My thought is simply that we've got enough LAVs but really need tracked IFV so if we want to keep GDLS producing then - there you go - build an IFV family.

I know, I know. It boggles the CF brain to have two lines of armoured infantry vehicles but - sometimes you feel like a nut and sometimes you don't. IMHO, the LAV is not an armoured all-singing and all-dancing Swiss Army knife. For what we are facing in Latvia I'm all in for a tracked IFV. For other roles a LAV is just fine. GDLS can build both. We've already got the one, let's start working on the other once ACSV runs its course.

We're looking at 1000 LAV's without the mortars or ATGM or SHORADs. How many tracked vehicles?

 

[Cloud Cover]

Summation of Carnet defence plan released today: it sucks, we are serious lol, but in no hurry, national defence is a jobs and votes scheme. Canada is headed in the same head in the sand direction.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1904538291719786780

 

[Kirkhill]

Do they have a competent design team put together? I would assume so. Put them to work designing ships for countries such as NZ that don't have a domestic resource. There are always options

Vancouver architects are at the heart of the Kvaerner/Masa/Wartsila/SKT/Aker/Vard/Fincantieri team that has delivered designs such as the Svalbard/AOPS, the Roisin/Leonard J Cowley and the double acting ships.

Vard Marine Inc. | Naval Architects & Marine Engineers

As a renowned naval architecture and marine engineering firm, Vard Marine stands by the quality, reliability and long-term operability of our vessels. We have operations in Vancouver, Ottawa, and Houston and offer ship design, engineering and shipbuilding technology services.

vardmarine.com

Vessels - Vard Marine

Vard Marine’s extensive design portfolio ranges from offshore construction, supply and patrol ships, to icebreakers, research vessels and ferries. In every design you’ll see the stamp of our tailored approach. Through experience, innovation and collaboration, we deliver practical designs you can...

vardmarine.com

Maritime Tales - Vard Marine

vardmarine.com

With the acquisition of the Finnish yard by Davie Canada has all the necessities to establish itself as a dominant force in the Arctic niche.

 

[Kirkhill]

So can you do both? Keep the military industrial complex humming for two types of vehicles given the size of our army? Given that GDLS has survived on building ~2000 Strykers for the US, ~900 LAV's for Saudi Arabia and then our own requirements over the years. I don't see Europe buying Canadian built LAV's when they have a plethora of their own armoured vehicle production available.

I think you could do both, if you source the 200 odd artillery vehicles from them and then work on LAV S/M-SHORAD and replacements for older vehicles (and push them into a warstock situation or sell/gift them to other places like Ukraine).

A tracked build for the Medium Cavalry program might work here if you extend the production lines long enough. But to build the industry to do that, you'll also have to commit to a permanent build program, unless the line is flexible enough to switch around.

I think we HAVE to do both. Efficiency is over-rated. That is where everybody in NATO has got themselves into trouble, treating their defence industries in peacetime as if they were purely commercial investments.

Ukraine is proving that all our planning assumptions for the past 80 years have been wrong. The planning assumption was that John Lennon was right and that "War is over", or at least wouldn't last more than three weeks before we started trading nukes. Vlad has been threatening to unless the nukes for the last three years and, instead, is fighting from horses, donkeys and bicycles.

We built a civilian auto-industry on planned obsolescence - no car needed to last more than 3 years because new variants were always coming down the pike. Arguably the computer and phone industries are built on the similar model. Software changes demand hardware upgrades every three years. Those are aspects of industry that our governments should be taking on board.

The hardware needs to be constantly renewed and refreshed. And the logistics mob are just going to have make like civilians and figure out how to keep up.

 

[Kirkhill]

PS, with respect to the types of vehicles

If you wanted them to you could have them producing ULAVs (Ultra Light Armoured Vehicles) in the same weight range as Senators and JLTVs with zero bells and whistles, simply armoured transports for, as I have said, the midfield (LoC and CS) that would function for the air-portable force and peace-keeping duties.

 

[PrairieFella]

A tracked build for the Medium Cavalry program might work here if you extend the production lines long enough. But to build the industry to do that, you'll also have to commit to a permanent build program, unless the line is flexible enough to switch around.

AJAX would be an interesting choice for this as the 40CT, GPMG and ATGM combo is a real slugger. However, my main concern is the lack of internal dismount and the three man crew. Dismounts are essential in some cavalry tasks like route/area/zone recces or screens and in cav TTPs like conduct of a harbour as guards, OP det members, etc. Furthermore, as with any tracked vehicle, that fourth man makes the intensive maintenance a whole lot easier.

That said, I can see this mitigated by procuring ARES to go along with AJAX, since they can carry a troops worth of dismounts (4).

I'd envision a 5 car troop with Alpha (Tp WO), Bravo (Tp Sgt), Charlie (CC) and Delta (CC) in AJAX and Troopie in ARES focusing less on fighting individually and more on fighting the troop, he'd also have max control on dismounts and his intent from the Warning, Security, Recce, Plan process for obstacles and the like can be more closely relayed.

 

[YZT580]

Vancouver architects are at the heart of the Kvaerner/Masa/Wartsila/SKT/Aker/Vard/Fincantieri team that has delivered designs such as the Svalbard/AOPS, the Roisin/Leonard J Cowley and the double acting ships.

Vard Marine Inc. | Naval Architects & Marine Engineers

As a renowned naval architecture and marine engineering firm, Vard Marine stands by the quality, reliability and long-term operability of our vessels. We have operations in Vancouver, Ottawa, and Houston and offer ship design, engineering and shipbuilding technology services.

vardmarine.com

Vessels - Vard Marine

Vard Marine’s extensive design portfolio ranges from offshore construction, supply and patrol ships, to icebreakers, research vessels and ferries. In every design you’ll see the stamp of our tailored approach. Through experience, innovation and collaboration, we deliver practical designs you can...

vardmarine.com

Maritime Tales - Vard Marine

vardmarine.com

With the acquisition of the Finnish yard by Davie Canada has all the necessities to establish itself as a dominant force in the Arctic niche.

except I read that the Finnish yard has been stripped of much of its infrastructure which implies a rebuild there as well before any significant output can be realised if it is true

 

[suffolkowner]

PS, with respect to the types of vehicles

If you wanted them to you could have them producing ULAVs (Ultra Light Armoured Vehicles) in the same weight range as Senators and JLTVs with zero bells and whistles, simply armoured transports for, as I have said, the midfield (LoC and CS) that would function for the air-portable force and peace-keeping duties.

maybe not ULAV but just LAVs instead of getting heavier and heavier and leave the 35 tonnes to tracked. If you built a new LAV2/LAV3/LAV6/LAV7 I wonder where the sweet spot would be for the triangle. Whats the mobility comparison of a LAV6 vs LAV3?

 

[Kirkhill]

except I read that the Finnish yard has been stripped of much of its infrastructure which implies a rebuild there as well before any significant output can be realised if it is true

True about the Finnish yard but the knowledge base is still relatively current. Europeans don't tend to move far from home.

 

[suffolkowner]

except I read that the Finnish yard has been stripped of much of its infrastructure which implies a rebuild there as well before any significant output can be realised if it is true

True about the Finnish yard but the knowledge base is still relatively current. Europeans don't tend to move far from home.

where did it go?

 

[Kirkhill]

Piranha 7 tonnes combat loaded (5.83 curb) Grizzly 10,7 tonnes combat loaded Bison 14.4 tonnes combat loaded (13 curb)

...



LAV III 17 tonnes combat loaded (13.7 curb)

....



LAV 6.0 28.6 tonnes combat loaded (20.6 curb)

....



LAV ACSV 29.4 tonnes combat loaded

...

My own thought is that the Bison hits the sweet spot for an LOC/CS/Peace-Keeping vehicle. And if you wanted to give GDLSC additional work have them build something in the weight range of the Roshel Senator in 4x4 or 6x6.

As to the 30 tonne stuff - put tracks on it and prepare it to handle weights up to 40 tonnes and high recoil forces.

 

[Kirkhill]

where did it go?

I dunno but presumably that is what Davie purchased.

Although we may have had it already.

Aker Arctic Provides Ice Expertise For Canadian Polar Icebreaker

The Canadian Polar Icebreaker project, originally initiated in 2012, resumed two years ago. Aker Arctic has continued to provide its expertise in Arctic ship design to ensure the vessel meets the latest technical developments in icebreaking.

workboat365.com

Part of the design team

When the Canadian government awarded the design contract to STX Canada Marine in 2012, Aker Arctic was part of the design team developing the Polar Icebreaker for the Canadian Coast Guard and providing support on icebreaking-related issues.

“As the original vessel design was developed nearly a decade ago, technology has since taken leaps forward, particularly in propulsion systems and hull construction,” says Mika Hovilainen, head of ship design at Aker Arctic Technology.

In 2021, Aker Arctic’s experts teamed up with Seaspan Vancouver Shipyards and another Finnish design company, Elomatic, for a thorough design check and update of the Polar Icebreaker design.

Design check of concept

The overall aim is to build a modern and effective icebreaker which responds to future requirements and fulfils its complex mission profile.

The project thus began with a review of the vessel concept, aiming to investigate possible improvements in the design and to ensure that the vessel incorporates the latest technology.

“Essential parts of this investigation were identifying possibilities to reduce technical risks and evaluating improvement opportunities,” Hovilainen explains.

An additional target was optimising the design for construction.

 

[Czech_pivo]

Summation of Carnet defence plan released today: it sucks, we are serious lol, but in no hurry, national defence is a jobs and votes scheme. Canada is headed in the same head in the sand direction.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1904538291719786780

I heard him say what I think are 2 key things - 1) CAF troops not deployed from Canada will "have the same equipment capabilities as those defending our Allies abroad" and 2) "We will give the CCG a new mandate and the right equipment to conduct Maritime surveillance to secure our coast." He also specifically said ''expand the reach of the CCG and 'expand them into our NATO capability".
He also talked about delivering 8 AOPS and 15 River class destroyers. He also talked about eliminating the 14,000 troops shortfall, pay rises, housing and child care. Talked about CDN companies earning CDN defense dollars and spending the money at home.

 

[suffolkowner]

View attachment 92188 View attachment 92190 View attachment 92191
Piranha 7 tonnes combat loaded (5.83 curb) Grizzly 10,7 tonnes combat loaded Bison 14.4 tonnes combat loaded (13 curb)

...

View attachment 92193

LAV III 17 tonnes combat loaded (13.7 curb)

....

View attachment 92194

LAV 6.0 28.6 tonnes combat loaded (20.6 curb)

....

View attachment 92195

LAV ACSV 29.4 tonnes combat loaded

...

My own thought is that the Bison hits the sweet spot for an LOC/CS/Peace-Keeping vehicle. And if you wanted to give GDLSC additional work have them build something in the weight range of the Roshel Senator in 4x4 or 6x6.

As to the 30 tonne stuff - put tracks on it and prepare it to handle weights up to 40 tonnes and high recoil forces.

and if you drive them through the soft terrain do they all handle it the same or does it get progressively harder as the weight goes up? Taking suspension improvements into account

 

[GR66]

I heard him say what I think are 2 key things - 1) CAF troops not deployed from Canada will "have the same equipment capabilities as those defending our Allies abroad"

So, we're going to remove equipment capabilities from our Multinational Brigade in Latvia to match our equipment capabilities at home???

 

[OldSolduer]

I heard him say what I think are 2 key things - 1) CAF troops not deployed from Canada will "have the same equipment capabilities as those defending our Allies abroad" and 2) "We will give the CCG a new mandate and the right equipment to conduct Maritime surveillance to secure our coast." He also specifically said ''expand the reach of the CCG and 'expand them into our NATO capability".
He also talked about delivering 8 AOPS and 15 River class destroyers. He also talked about eliminating the 14,000 troops shortfall, pay rises, housing and child care. Talked about CDN companies earning CDN defense dollars and spending the money at home.

Talk is cheap.

Action costs dollars

 

[Underway]

Summation of Carnet defence plan released today: it sucks, we are serious lol, but in no hurry, national defence is a jobs and votes scheme. Canada is headed in the same head in the sand direction.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1904538291719786780

Don't jump to soon. The full Liberal defence policy will be in their election platform. Both them and the Conservatives will slow roll this thing as that seems to be the standard. Make all the announcements then release the policy. I feel like there is more here to read.

Of course I think Carney proposed 2030 in his Liberal leadership campaign? Or was it 2028?