Government hints at boosting Canada’s military spending

I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[PrairieFella]

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.

 

[calculus]

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.

Your comment re. reflexive anti-Americanism is bang on. Here's a really good write up, by Richard Shimooka, about why pivoting to European defence contractors might not be a great idea, given our close relationship to the US:

Richard Shimooka: Switching from the American to the European defence market sounds good—but it’s a terrible idea in practice

Doing so would leave Canada’s military and economy much worse off

thehub.ca

 

[PrairieFella]

Five more graduating yesterday, five more starting Monday, beds don't even have time to get cold at CFLRS.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1913224110273855562

Man we can graduate a couple of battalions worth a year at the rate their cranking them out. Well done St Jean! Next I would to see a surge in the summers at local TCs. No reason they couldn't be cranking out basics at places like Wx, Pet or Gagetown. Hell, for basics use places like 17 Wing or 8 Wing.

 

[MJP]

Man we can graduate a couple of battalions worth a year at the rate their cranking them out. Well done St Jean! Next I would to see a surge in the summers at local TCs. No reason they couldn't be cranking out basics at places like Wx, Pet or Gagetown. Hell, for basics use places like 17 Wing or 8 Wing.

We are pretty resource constrained and the LIMFAC besides people would be clothing/equipment. They are concentrating BMQs to a few locations so they can have all the resources in one place rather than spread out. We also want to be careful that we don't replicate the late 2000s and early 2010s where we got tons of people through basic only to have them sit in bn sized PAT Pls because the training system couldn't keep up.

 

[GR66]

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.

It's not like Raytheon doesn't already produce missiles outside the US.

According to ChatGPT:

Yes, Raytheon does produce missiles and missile components outside the United States, primarily through international subsidiaries, partnerships, and licensed production agreements with allied countries. This international production supports local defense industries, enhances interoperability with allies, and fulfills offset obligations tied to foreign military sales.

• Raytheon co-produces the Naval Strike Missile (NSM) with Kongsberg Defence & Aerospace, a Norwegian defense company.
• The NSM is primarily manufactured in Norway, with Raytheon handling U.S. integration and marketing.
• Used by: Norway, U.S. Navy, Poland, Romania, and others.

• Raytheon is a partner in the IRIS-T missile program, originally led by Diehl Defence in Germany.
• While Raytheon does not directly produce the IRIS-T in Germany, it acts as the U.S. partner for integration and support.

• Raytheon has entered partnerships to localize production of missile defense systems (e.g., Patriot components) through Saudi Arabian Military Industries (SAMI).
• Includes manufacturing, training, and maintenance capabilities within the kingdom.

• Raytheon Australia has partnered with the Australian government to develop a sovereign guided weapons and explosive ordnance enterprise.
• Plans include local production, maintenance, and potentially export of missile systems like NASAMS and others.

• Raytheon has partnered with Polish defense firms (e.g., WZL and Mesko) to produce components for the Patriot system and NSM coastal defense system.
• Supports local employment and industrial participation.

Also, when I say "production" it's not like any of these missiles are actually built in a single facility. Just like automobiles, the various components are produced at a variety of locations both internal and external to the parent company. What I'm talking about is potentially final assembly of at least a couple of those key listed systems and development of a domestic sub-component production ecosystem.

Combine that with establishing a large stockpile of these missiles (beyond our own national stockpile) specifically earmarked as NATO reserves which we would produce and safely store as part of our NATO contribution. NATO could request release of these war stocks during a conflict which would reduce the need for the US to draw down its own national reserves to supply other NATO members. You could perhaps also have an agreement that the US could access those stocks if required for a non-NATO conflict (China for example).

 

[ytz]

Your comment re. reflexive anti-Americanism is bang on. Here's a really good write up, by Richard Shimooka, about why pivoting to European defence contractors might not be a great idea, given our close relationship to the US:

Richard Shimooka: Switching from the American to the European defence market sounds good—but it’s a terrible idea in practice

Doing so would leave Canada’s military and economy much worse off

thehub.ca

We're going to be diversifying. And some of it isn't even bad. There's weapons like the Naval Strike Missile and the CAMM which we could use easily and across multiple services.

One of the problems with the CAF is that we've not really had a unified strategy for weapons and ordinance that is multi-platform or multi-service. We simply buy whatever usually works with the platform being procured. This is a practice that I expect will finally change.

 

[MilEME09]

We are pretty resource constrained and the LIMFAC besides people would be clothing/equipment. They are concentrating BMQs to a few locations so they can have all the resources in one place rather than spread out. We also want to be careful that we don't replicate the late 2000s and early 2010s where we got tons of people through basic only to have them sit in bn sized PAT Pls because the training system couldn't keep up.

Yeah that was a big issue at RCEMES, when max course load is 10 for wpns techs for example, and they can run a max of 3 or 4 in house, it shows. There was a year for reserve training they rented two portable class rooms to expand capacity, i don't see why they couldn't do it again for the reg force if they push additional instructors come APS

 

[PuckChaser]

You mean instructors from RegF units who are running flat out to support 2500 person deployments every 6 months plus a couple hundred for UNIFIER, and a handful of ships deployed from each coast? The cupboard is bare until our political and strat leaders start turning off tasks.

 

[MilEME09]

We're going to be diversifying. And some of it isn't even bad. There's weapons like the Naval Strike Missile and the CAMM which we could use easily and across multiple services.

One of the problems with the CAF is that we've not really had a unified strategy for weapons and ordinance that is multi-platform or multi-service. We simply buy whatever usually works with the platform being procured. This is a practice that I expect will finally change.

. 50s for everyone! Let's do it

 

[Remius]

. 50s for everyone! Let's do it

Sad state of affairs that if I want to get my hands on a .50 that I have to go to a navres unit to do it…

 

[MilEME09]

Sad state of affairs that if I want to get my hands on a .50 that I have to go to a navres unit to do it…

Depends where you are, our ARVs now have them. However if we wanna put it on other things, we got a bit if R&D to do. I'd like to see any future vehicles have mounts that can handle a 50.

 

[Good2Golf]

Sad state of affairs that if I want to get my hands on a .50 that I have to go to a navres unit to do it…

Or a door gunner at a tac hel unit.

 

[MilEME09]

You mean instructors from RegF units who are running flat out to support 2500 person deployments every 6 months plus a couple hundred for UNIFIER, and a handful of ships deployed from each coast? The cupboard is bare until our political and strat leaders start turning off tasks.

Maybe so but even then it's going to require short term pain for long term gain. 10 MCpl/Sgt wpns techs can train 50 techs through a DP1. Those 50 techs then go out for OJT packages which starts eating at our backlog, you the cycle then through for DP2 14 months later. Vehicle tech course sizes are 20, run 5 courses at once and that's 100 techs out to do OJT. To pull this off we would need to temporarily strip field units or the CDSGs of people. The school also found in a recent survey a lot of techs in non tech positions to the point the mandated the people "hiding" in airforce and navy positions must teach at the school once if they want DP3 or DP4.

We can pull this off but we gotta keep our eyes on the long term goal

 

[KevinB]

Depends where you are, our ARVs now have them. However if we wanna put it on other things, we got a bit if R&D to do. I'd like to see any future vehicles have mounts that can handle a 50.

The M2 is so last century.
GAU-19 is what you want now.

You can put a heavy pintel mount on stuff as light as MRZR’s, just needs an upgraded frame mount.

 

[Furniture]

Maybe so but even then it's going to require short term pain for long term gain. 10 MCpl/Sgt wpns techs can train 50 techs through a DP1. Those 50 techs then go out for OJT packages which starts eating at our backlog, you the cycle then through for DP2 14 months later. Vehicle tech course sizes are 20, run 5 courses at once and that's 100 techs out to do OJT. To pull this off we would need to temporarily strip field units or the CDSGs of people. The school also found in a recent survey a lot of techs in non tech positions to the point the mandated the people "hiding" in airforce and navy positions must teach at the school once if they want DP3 or DP4.

We can pull this off but we gotta keep our eyes on the long term goal

Who supervises the OJT, when the capable staff are either quitting because they don't want to move their family to Borden, or are at the school and not at the unit to supervise OJTs?

There is no magic bullet for training, it takes time and resources.

 

[PuckChaser]

Maybe so but even then it's going to require short term pain for long term gain. 10 MCpl/Sgt wpns techs can train 50 techs through a DP1. Those 50 techs then go out for OJT packages which starts eating at our backlog, you the cycle then through for DP2 14 months later. Vehicle tech course sizes are 20, run 5 courses at once and that's 100 techs out to do OJT. To pull this off we would need to temporarily strip field units or the CDSGs of people. The school also found in a recent survey a lot of techs in non tech positions to the point the mandated the people "hiding" in airforce and navy positions must teach at the school once if they want DP3 or DP4.

We can pull this off but we gotta keep our eyes on the long term goal

Our troops aren't robots and running a course isn't a break. When do you strip the field force? Committed Other Year or the Reconstitution Year? What do you do when you shatter the Snr NCO corps by running them hard for 5 years to create a handful of Cpls (all while they're on TD at schools away from families or you've cut their pay by $700 a month and posted to a high CoL area)? Our recruiting and CFLRS is doing a great job at creating large PAT Platoons for tech trades. Maybe they'll be a good option for LENTUS while they wait for training spots.

I'm not sure you understand that this isn't just a throw troops at it problem. We have allowed the CAF to push beyond "do more with less" into "catastrophic structural issues" territory and keep pushing the accelerator down.

 

[Cloud Cover]

The M2 is so last century.
GAU-19 is what you want now.

You can put a heavy pintel mount on stuff as light as MRZR’s, just needs an upgraded frame mount.

All together now….

 

[PrairieFella]

The M2 is so last century.
GAU-19 is what you want now.

You can put a heavy pintel mount on stuff as light as MRZR’s, just needs an upgraded frame mount.

Tough to use without a reliable power supply though.

 

[KevinB]

Tough to use without a reliable power supply though.

The vehicle…

 

[MilEME09]

Who supervises the OJT, when the capable staff are either quitting because they don't want to move their family to Borden, or are at the school and not at the unit to supervise OJTs?

There is no magic bullet for training, it takes time and resources.

You can do it without destroying OJT cells or units. You also don't need to do a 4 year posting to the school, make it a tasking. If i need 10 wpns techs, pick 10 organizations to give up 1 tech. I'm not suggesting up every tech out of a single organization. Ditto for vehicle, after the initial serge of DP1 they go back to their home units.

You're right it takes time and resources, and right now we are losing techs faster than we can train them, we need to solve this. We get two options, strip units like i suggest or find a way to bring in civilian instructor augmentation at the schools.