Canada moves to 2% GDP end of FY25/26 - PMMC

[Remius]

Well, there was this guy.

The most compelling threats to Canada have always been internal....

View attachment 95994

Hardly existential. And was defeated by militia and some mounted police.

 

[MilEME09]

years in the making doesn't mean items can't be rerouted to another location as the government decides. I will not be surprised if some of this does get sent there just like so much others have.

highly unlikely, Ukraine has a lot of launchers, their problem is ammo

 

[daftandbarmy]

Hardly existential. And was defeated by militia and some mounted police.

Good point.

This one was a real 'barn burner' in comparison

Rebellions of 1837–1838 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[YZT580]

It's more than that. HIMARS is also important for coastal defence to Australia. We don't have the same issue in Canada. Or the same solution. Also, people need to stop getting worked up over initial purchases. Once a system is inducted, it's much easier to convince the government to buy more. Especially in an environment where money is flowing. Getting over the first buy is the biggest hurdle for the staff.

We may have a very long coast but aren't there really only 4 areas to really be concerned about? I find it hard to envision any attack focusing on Labrador and the western approaches are blocked by Vancouver Island. So Port Hardy and Sooke would cover the west with Louisburg and St. Anthony guarding the east. For a naval attack nothing has really changed in 200 years at least from my point of view.

 

[Kirkhill]

Not with DLR but was a project director for three years on a computer/information management project and the last three years worked hand in hand with a guy who was at DLR.


We do. It's slightly different but it's definitely an issue that we've ignored with the delusion that our coastlines are too far away from hostile actors, that they are of little importance, and too long and costly to defend.

I don't think there is a plan for more because the open tap for additional spending is only a very recent thing while the LRPR project (in its various iterations) has been a line item in army procurement for almost five decades (two decades seriously) that's been kicked down the road repeatedly. It's only ever been in the range of two batteries worth during all that time mostly because in the army there have been competition for capital spending dollars which generally means try to keep costs reasonable regardless of actual needs. Two batteries of HIMARS are reasonable when the army's vision was we'll only ever need to deploy a single brigade in low level conflict.

The army has had credibility problems with cabinet for years with bifurcating projects with "add on" purchases.

I expect their strategic plan calls for a widely spread deployment on numerous islands. That's more feasible for them considering their climate zone. I'm still pondering how to do that in the north.


I think the key questions are: How many divs can/should the army be forming? How many does it deploy at one time? What are the needs for the homeland? I'm still pondering this but I'm pretty sure we need four divisions of 10,000 each rather than two of 20,000 each. The main difference between the way that I think and the way that the army thinks is that I consider these divisions as tactical force employment elements rather than as mere force generators. That means that I want a division that can be picked up and used as is rather than one where you cobble together a grouping from building block pieces.

Good lord, yes. For every nature of ammo we use.

And HEMTT.

There were a lot of advantages for going in with the wide line of off-the-shelf SMP variants that Oshkosh already has.

While the Expedtionary Force rightfully prioritises manoeuvre can the same be said of the DoC Force?

While it needs its manoeuvre elements perhaps it needs to prioritise positional warfare?

Long range air and coastal defences.
Infrastructure and VP CUAS.
Infrastructure and VP Security.
Emergency Response and Recovery.
Logistics.
Comms.

And, of course, surveillance and intelligence.

 

[ytz]

We do. It's slightly different but it's definitely an issue that we've ignored with the delusion that our coastlines are too far away from hostile actors, that they are of little importance, and too long and costly to defend.

Not quite. A good chunk of our coastline is far from major population settlements and a good chunk of it is covered in ice for a large chunk of the year. A coastal battery is less important to us than robust maritime surveillance from air and space the aviation options to deliver a kinetic response. And a lot of the domestic defence focus is centered around the RCAF and RCN.

I don't think there is a plan for more because the open tap for additional spending is only a very recent thing while the LRPR project (in its various iterations) has been a line item in army procurement for almost five decades (two decades seriously) that's been kicked down the road repeatedly. It's only ever been in the range of two batteries worth during all that time mostly because in the army there have been competition for capital spending dollars which generally means try to keep costs reasonable regardless of actual needs. Two batteries of HIMARS are reasonable when the army's vision was we'll only ever need to deploy a single brigade in low level conflict.

The army has had credibility problems with cabinet for years with bifurcating projects with "add on" purchases.

You're going by what was. Not what is or will be. Not only is procurement changing. But the CA and RCAF are planning major reorgs. There's joint doctrine being redone. And of course, defence policy is basically being developed on the fly while SSE and ONSAF become obsolete, but are still funded. In this environment, the smartest thing to do is make sure your project is just a signature away from buying something. The less complicated it is, the higher it gets prioritized. There's been open callouts to staff up proposals that are ready to go to RFP/tender. Especially because the government wants to meet 2%.

Not with DLR but was a project director for three years on a computer/information management project and the last three years worked hand in hand with a guy who was at DLR.

Then you should be able to understand the utter madhouse that every staff office is at the moment as the government basically flips years of austere practices on its head. What's getting staffed is what is ready to go. Change the numbers and you will have to start your TBS sub over. You may be army, but I am sure even most CA staff officers are smarter than that. I expect follow on orders for practically everything we're now buying after they IOC. Every single project is doing the above.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Well, there was this guy.

The most compelling threats to Canada have always been internal....

View attachment 95994

Not quite existential, though, given (by some narratives) he was just an alienated Westerner representing a minority fucked over by Ottawa, wanting to do their own thing in peace. Sound vaguely familiar?

Wait - was he a Freedom Fighter or a Terrorist?

Another pattern in Canadian history: that depends on whose votes you're Jonesing for

Also depends on whether they end up in government or not, right?

Gerry Adams - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[ytz]

he was just an alienated Westerner representing a minority fucked over by Ottawa, wanting to do their own thing in peace. Sound vaguely familiar?

That dude wanted to be left alone. Today's westerners are very much insistent they should be able to impose on other provinces. That's the difference.

 

[The Bread Guy]

That dude wanted to be left alone. Today's westerners are very much insistent they should be able to impose on other provinces. That's the difference.

As Yoda would say, young you be for one so cynical ....