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]

I’d argue that field units in the Army, especially now, are being made for nthe fact they’re essentially on call for Op Lentus for 6 months of year at least now. While that’s not the intent of LDA, that wa saving money in an era of 8 week long work up exercises, it what’s happening now. I can do 23 hour long field exercises and have the troops back to sleep in their beds for six hours on repeat and they all wouldn’t receive a dime. Awesome.

Being home doesn't have to be the criteria. Anything over 6hrs in the field could count. So a range day or whatever. X number of days per month could count. Or just a re-examination of billets that have a reasonable chance of spending X amount of time in the field on a regular basis could be identified as LDA positions.

If the army thinks that being on call is a hardship then that's for them to argue. I would argue that nope, that's not what LDA is for. We're all on call all the time. I'm not getting SDA even though tomorrow my CO could tell me I'm flying to Cardiff to get on HMCS Montreal and backfill a sick CSEO on OP REASURANCE.

 

[Halifax Tar]

At this moment in time and negative play with SDA/LDA is fixing a problem that doesn't exist and will only work to exacerbate our current issues.

I hope we are smart enough to leave this alone.

 

[Furniture]

At this moment in time and negative play with SDA/LDA is fixing a problem that doesn't exist and will only work to exacerbate our current issues.

I hope we are smart enough to leave this alone.

Except the SDA/LDA thing is also causing problems.

People request postings to units that get the allowance, then malinger their way out of going to sea/the field with the unit.

In a large trade or large section it might not be a major problem, but when you're in small dets of 1-4, it's damn near a crisis. Now add in an occupation that's only 70-80% to start, and it becomes even worse.

The CAF created an incentive system that has negative consequences, so the CAF needs to find ways to fix the system.

 

[Underway]

It's not such a big deal with the RCN. There are obvious "sea going billets" that get SDA. Either through potential to go to sea a lot or the risk associated with keeping a ship floating whether that be alongside or doing the business.

There are edge cases (as there always will be) but I would call that normal organizational friction/waste that will occur no matter what the policy looks like. They aren't problems.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Except the SDA/LDA thing is also causing problems.

People request postings to units that get the allowance, then malinger their way out of going to sea/the field with the unit.

In a large trade or large section it might not be a major problem, but when you're in small dets of 1-4, it's damn near a crisis. Now add in an occupation that's only 70-80% to start, and it becomes even worse.

The CAF created an incentive system that has negative consequences, so the CAF needs to find ways to fix the system.

Then manage the current structure so that you have to be fit alongside; and fit sea while posted to a sea going billet to get sea pay.

Taking away the current benefit for the masses because of the minority that are abusing it is not the right move.

If the incentive system is being abused, correct the abuse. Don't burn down the incentive system.

 

[PuckChaser]

The CAF created an incentive system that has negative consequences, so the CAF needs to find ways to fix the system.

You don't fix it by punishing the majority. The policy can change, 180 days is too long to wait to pull allowances for those folks. If you're going casual as a change, then it needs to reflect any time spent in the field or at sea, regardless of where you sleep. Working someone on a range till 0200 should be compensated (does RCN do day sails?), the "didn't sleep in the field/on ship" rule is stupid.

 

[Underway]

You don't fix it by punishing the majority. The policy can change, 180 days is too long to wait to pull allowances for those folks. If you're going casual as a change, then it needs to reflect any time spent in the field or at sea, regardless of where you sleep. Working someone on a range till 0200 should be compensated (does RCN do day sails?), the "didn't sleep in the field/on ship" rule is stupid.

Sea days are calculated based on 8hrs at sea including the day you leave and the day you return (even if those are partial days). But that only changes the amount of SDA you get.

SDA pay itself is based on your billet. Each billet is either sea going or not. If its a sea going billet you get SDA. So if you are unfit sea you can't usually get SDA because you can't be posted to one of those billets (there are some exceptions of course).

 

[MilEME09]

Dozens of lay offs from London’s General Dynamics Land Systems

Dozens of salaried workers have been let go from London’s General Dynamics Land Systems.

www.ctvnews.ca

Speaking of military spending, GD has beening warning they needed more orders

 

[PrairieFella]

Dozens of lay offs from London’s General Dynamics Land Systems

Dozens of salaried workers have been let go from London’s General Dynamics Land Systems.

www.ctvnews.ca

Speaking of military spending, GD has beening warning they needed more orders

Tbh I thought they were bluffing. Good news for the Army folk here though, expect some new LAVs being announced haha.

In all seriousness, my heart goes out to those that lost their jobs. Hopefully they can be rehired if more orders come in.

 

[KevinB]

Dozens of lay offs from London’s General Dynamics Land Systems

Dozens of salaried workers have been let go from London’s General Dynamics Land Systems.

www.ctvnews.ca

Speaking of military spending, GD has beening warning they needed more orders

The CAF isn’t a welfare agency.

I’d argue that the CA has more LAV than they can reasonably justify. Perhaps GDLSC should float a tracked IFV and variants to support an Armoured Bde…

 

[PuckChaser]

Sea days are calculated based on 8hrs at sea including the day you leave and the day you return (even if those are partial days). But that only changes the amount of SDA you get.

SDA pay itself is based on your billet. Each billet is either sea going or not. If its a sea going billet you get SDA. So if you are unfit sea you can't usually get SDA because you can't be posted to one of those billets (there are some exceptions of course).

So CLDA is the only one that requires an overnight somewhere, the remainder is the same as LDA for us. Can you have a non sea going billet on a ship (not stone frigate)? LDA is either full unit gets it or not.

 

[Czech_pivo]

The CAF isn’t a welfare agency.

I’d argue that the CA has more LAV than they can reasonably justify. Perhaps GDLSC should float a tracked IFV and variants to support an Armoured Bde…

Wasn't there an earlier thread on here (or on another forum on here) arguing that the CAF has a large short fall of field ambulances? If so, can't this be put forward as a 'stop gap' to keep thing moving at GDLSC? Put in an order for 100+ of these? Maybe even bump it up to 150 and send another 50 off to Ukraine.

 

[MilEME09]

Wasn't there an earlier thread on here (or on another forum on here) arguing that the CAF has a large short fall of field ambulances? If so, can't this be put forward as a 'stop gap' to keep thing moving at GDLSC? Put in an order for 100+ of these? Maybe even bump it up to 150 and send another 50 off to Ukraine.

a lot of the support variants we could use a lot more of, as for gun trucks, creating a decent operation stock and warstock would be a good idea as well, as ukraine has shown we would blow through vehicles quickly in a conflict. We could also potentially upgrade all LAV6 to the 2.0 turret to add ATGM capabilities.

 

[Czech_pivo]

a lot of the support variants we could use a lot more of, as for gun trucks, creating a decent operation stock and warstock would be a good idea as well, as ukraine has shown we would blow through vehicles quickly in a conflict. We could also potentially upgrade all LAV6 to the 2.0 turret to add ATGM capabilities.

Even adding some stock to the larger reserve units would make sense.

But I think that what's happening should be a 'warning' to all attempts to 'on-shore' military production here in Canada. Unless we commit from here on out to a continuous build/replacement of all material AND looking to increase our global footprint in the export market, this situation will only continue.

I can't see the business case for us getting the CV90 or any variants AND at the same time continue to have the GDLSC facility functioning as well. They seem to 'cancel each other out', in terms of product offerings - I'm not saying capability - I'm taking about overlap of product offerings or potential product offerings.

Same with things like tracked/mobile artillery/supply vehicles. I just don't see the business case to set up a production facility here when the grand total of related vehicles we are considering purchasing sits at a range of 80-110 in total. Is your total annual run going to be 10-15 systems? Even at that tiny, insignificant amount it means that every 8-9yrs you cycle through and replace ALL systems.

 

[markppcli]

Being home doesn't have to be the criteria. Anything over 6hrs in the field could count. So a range day or whatever. X number of days per month could count. Or just a re-examination of billets that have a reasonable chance of spending X amount of time in the field on a regular basis could be identified as LDA positions.

If the army thinks that being on call is a hardship then that's for them to argue. I would argue that nope, that's not what LDA is for. We're all on call all the time. I'm not getting SDA even though tomorrow my CO could tell me I'm flying to Cardiff to get on HMCS Montreal and backfill a sick CSEO on OP REASURANCE.

We certainly aren’t all on call to deploy for three weeks at a time all the time. That’s why we cycle through IRU. And guess which units do that? The one who receive LDA.

 

[dapaterson]

The CAF isn’t a welfare agency.

I’d argue that the CA has more LAV than they can reasonably justify. Perhaps GDLSC should float a tracked IFV and variants to support an Armoured Bde…

If only there was an ally we could support by providing more armoured vehicles...

 

[Kirkhill]

Wasn't there an earlier thread on here (or on another forum on here) arguing that the CAF has a large short fall of field ambulances? If so, can't this be put forward as a 'stop gap' to keep thing moving at GDLSC? Put in an order for 100+ of these? Maybe even bump it up to 150 and send another 50 off to Ukraine.

Ambulances need to be right forward with the troops they are supporting, surely?

CV90s? Then you need a CV90 ambulance/carrier.
LAVs? A LAV ambulance.
Trucks? A truck ambulance...

If the troops are foot borne then I would think foot borne medics and helicopters are likely the best bet.

 

[GK .Dundas]

O

The CAF isn’t a welfare agency.

I’d argue that the CA has more LAV than they can reasonably justify. Perhaps GDLSC should float a tracked IFV and variants to support an Armoured Bde…

Of course it's a welfare agency , the Ross Rifle , Oliver load carrying equipment, the Bobcat , the Buffalo, the CF 5 . .....

 

[Kirkhill]

a lot of the support variants we could use a lot more of, as for gun trucks, creating a decent operation stock and warstock would be a good idea as well, as ukraine has shown we would blow through vehicles quickly in a conflict. We could also potentially upgrade all LAV6 to the 2.0 turret to add ATGM capabilities.

Or down grade the LAVs to LAV II Carriers, with a full array of support vehicles and spend the LAV6 money on a tracked brigade with the 2.0 turret and ATGM/LM capabilities.

....

The original Loitering Munition, circa 1986, was the TOW missile with a 15 km Fiber Optic tether.
Rather than looking at the Javelin as a basic form factor for turreted missiles maybe there is life in the old TOW, as used on the Bradley Turret, yet.

 

[AmmoTech90]

The EFOGM is not a TOW variant and is significant larger in every dimension and in its cannister weighs over 100 lbs more than a TOW. It used a TOW launch motor, probably to save on development costs.

Please stop considering them interchangable.