• 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....
 
Patricia’s don’t know what a proper uniform looks like anyway… so jokes on you.

It's not the properness of the uniform but the identity of the "actor" (high school drama teacher?) wearing the marguerite cap badge that could provoke ire.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ueo
Sincerely hope we get an AEW that is AAR capable. The GlobalEye is not.
But maybe not needed? My understanding is the funding for these comes from the Defence of the Arctic component of the budget, and would not be considered expeditionary assets, but limited to patrolling in the North. The GlobalEye reputedly has an endurance of 11 hours, so AAR may not be strictly necessary. I agree it would be nice to have, however.
 
But maybe not needed? My understanding is the funding for these comes from the Defence of the Arctic component of the budget, and would not be considered expeditionary assets, but limited to patrolling in the North. The GlobalEye reputedly has an endurance of 11 hours, so AAR may not be strictly necessary. I agree it would be nice to have, however.

The GlobalEye is great for Europe where there's always an airfield 15 mins away. In Canada, even in the Arctic, you're creating a notable logistics burden by not having AAR. They means more fuel caching at more locations. If it can be avoided it should be.

In my books, AAR should be a mandatory requirement. But we'll see what the Air Requirements folks put out. Should be noted that a Global with conformal radars can be designed with AAR capabilities. This was offered for the NATO AEW competition:

 
Because: profit.

Alot of war movies bomb at the box office. Even US war movies, which would attract alot more viewers (money) than Canadian films.

Maybe producing the Battle of the Admin Box with a focus on this local lad would be doable, if the Aussie Kokoda film is the template: Charles Ferguson Hoey - Wikipedia. incidentally, I now find myself reading everything on Slim, 14th Army and the Burma Campaign in general.
 
Thats why we have the RCR, to show them what proper is ;)
That's "The RCR".

Kids In The Hall Chicken GIF by CBC
 
a bit of aussie-canuck all though maybe not enough war?


I enjoyed that movie. Lots of things that resonated. Grandad joined the RAF as a fitter. Mum's brother married a girl from Dauphin. Lot of time servicing the dairies in the Manitoba. Brother in law's dad was a BCATP pilot instructor.... yada yada. Great cinematography.

One quibble. Crowe's a Kiwi.
 
Maybe producing the Battle of the Admin Box with a focus on this local lad would be doable, if the Aussie Kokoda film is the template: Charles Ferguson Hoey - Wikipedia. incidentally, I now find myself reading everything on Slim, 14th Army and the Burma Campaign in general.

No better role model in my opinion. He and his Forgotten Army had to make do. They didn't have the benefit of the latest and best from the anybody's factories.
 
No better role model in my opinion. He and his Forgotten Army had to make do. They didn't have the benefit of the latest and best from the anybody's factories.
Like the Lee Grants. Instantly obsolete when the Sherman came out, but better than anything Mutaguchi had. Battle winner at Imphal/Kohima after the DC3s.
 
The GlobalEye is great for Europe where there's always an airfield 15 mins away. In Canada, even in the Arctic, you're creating a notable logistics burden by not having AAR. They means more fuel caching at more locations. If it can be avoided it should be.

In my books, AAR should be a mandatory requirement. But we'll see what the Air Requirements folks put out. Should be noted that a Global with conformal radars can be designed with AAR capabilities. This was offered for the NATO AEW competition:

Not sure if you listen to the Pilot Project podcast, but they had a 3-part interview with Chris McKenna a couple of weeks ago. In part 3, he mentioned a few interesting things about the future AEW aircraft. He talked a mid-2030s target date (although I don't know if that's supposed to be IOC or what) and a fleet size of around 6-8 aircraft. He also said sensor acuity and AAR would be key requirements. I think he was making the same as you -- that there's a scarcity of fuel at FOBs like Inuvik, so he believes the plane will need AAR to conduct patrols in the far north.
 
Why can’t we use both the E7 and GlobalEye. 4 of Each.

That's sacrificing commonality efficiencies for little value in differentiation. The GlobalEye has worse performance than the Wedgetail. So it's not clear what we're doing that for.

Also, those aren't the only two options. As I posted above, L3 Harris bid a Global with an Elbit Conformal radar for the NATO competition:


screenshot_2023-07-16_at_10.32.07_am.png


Israel, Italy and Singapore already use this radar on a Gulfstream. The US will be joining them. This proposal would be AAR capable and at least match the GlobalEye sensor performance. Would probably exceed it.

 
Last edited:
Not sure if you listen to the Pilot Project podcast, but they had a 3-part interview with Chris McKenna a couple of weeks ago. In part 3, he mentioned a few interesting things about the future AEW aircraft. He talked a mid-2030s target date (although I don't know if that's supposed to be IOC or what) and a fleet size of around 6-8 aircraft. He also said sensor acuity and AAR would be key requirements. I think he was making the same as you -- that there's a scarcity of fuel at FOBs like Inuvik, so he believes the plane will need AAR to conduct patrols in the far north.

Missed this. Will listen. But I agree. AAR and next gen sensors have to be high on the list. Even the Wedgetail radar is getting old now.

We also hopefully get something like the Australian Peregrine to replace MAISR eventually:


Would be nice to see a wing of Globals at YOW with a squadron is CAEW, a squadron of Peregrines and a squadron of VVIP Globals.
 
Carrying over a thought from the Indirect Fires Modernization thread about onshoring key munitions production to Canada and building up safe production facilities and stockpiles for use by both ourselves and our NATO allies in a conflict. Essentially taking some pressure off the US as the arsenal for NATO or if required to some limited extent replacing them in that role in a conflict in which they are not involved.

If we could get over our reflexive anti-Americanism reaction to Trump and his cronies and take a longer term view I think it would be ideal to partner with Raytheon Canada to build a missile and systems production facility in Canada.

Raytheon produces the following systems that we currently use or might potentially use in the future:

  • AIM-9X (CF-18, F-35 and NASAMS)
  • AIM-120 AMRAAM (CF-18, F-35, NASAMS, Aegis Ashore)
  • RIM-162 ESSM Block II (River-class, NASAMS, Aegis Ashore)
  • RIM-116 RAM (River-class)
  • RIM-66 SM-2 (River-class, Aegis Ashore)
  • RIM-161 SM-3 (River-class, Aegis Ashore)
  • RIM-174 SM-6 (River-class, Aegis Ashore, planned for F-35)
  • Naval Strike Missile (River-class, Aegis Ashore, P-8, planned for F-35)
  • Tomahawk Land Attack Cruise Missile (River-class)
  • FIM-92 Stinger (M-SHORAD)
  • FGM-148 Javelin (possible LAV-AT, dismounted)
  • NASAMS AD system
  • Patriot AD system
A Canadian Raytheon missile/system production facility would provide domestic production of the key missiles used by the RCAF, RCN and CA as well as potentially our GBAD and NORAD BMD systems.

These missiles are also used extensively by all our NATO (and non-NATO) allies and building up a significant stock of these key munitions that could be drawn on by our allies in a conflict could be a significant contribution toward our goal of 3% of GDP without adding additional infrastructure or personnel stress on the CAF. It would also have the benefit of bringing high-tech jobs and manufacturing to Canada.
 
Carrying over a thought from the Indirect Fires Modernization thread about onshoring key munitions production to Canada and building up safe production facilities and stockpiles for use by both ourselves and our NATO allies in a conflict. Essentially taking some pressure off the US as the arsenal for NATO or if required to some limited extent replacing them in that role in a conflict in which they are not involved.

If we could get over our reflexive anti-Americanism reaction to Trump and his cronies and take a longer term view I think it would be ideal to partner with Raytheon Canada to build a missile and systems production facility in Canada.

Raytheon produces the following systems that we currently use or might potentially use in the future:

  • AIM-9X (CF-18, F-35 and NASAMS)
  • AIM-120 AMRAAM (CF-18, F-35, NASAMS, Aegis Ashore)
  • RIM-162 ESSM Block II (River-class, NASAMS, Aegis Ashore)
  • RIM-116 RAM (River-class)
  • RIM-66 SM-2 (River-class, Aegis Ashore)
  • RIM-161 SM-3 (River-class, Aegis Ashore)
  • RIM-174 SM-6 (River-class, Aegis Ashore, planned for F-35)
  • Naval Strike Missile (River-class, Aegis Ashore, P-8, planned for F-35)
  • Tomahawk Land Attack Cruise Missile (River-class)
  • FIM-92 Stinger (M-SHORAD)
  • FGM-148 Javelin (possible LAV-AT, dismounted)
  • NASAMS AD system
  • Patriot AD system
A Canadian Raytheon missile/system production facility would provide domestic production of the key missiles used by the RCAF, RCN and CA as well as potentially our GBAD and NORAD BMD systems.

These missiles are also used extensively by all our NATO (and non-NATO) allies and building up a significant stock of these key munitions that could be drawn on by our allies in a conflict could be a significant contribution toward our goal of 3% of GDP without adding additional infrastructure or personnel stress on the CAF. It would also have the benefit of bringing high-tech jobs and manufacturing to Canada.
I think it may be a bold assumption thinking that the Americans would allow us to build basically of their missiles in a separate country. That would undercut a lot of their FMS.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top