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

[lenaitch]

You don't just buy cell phones and call it a comms plan. 25,000 cell phones bought in Canada could be useless in parts of the world.

A somebody has to remember 25,000 phones numbers.

 

[Kirkhill]

The whole point of picking GM Defense is to have a standard product that has parts compatibility with the civilian vehicles driven all over the country.

I agree with the concept but the Senator is built on top of a civilian vehicle as well, either the Ford F550 or the Dodge Ram 5500. Given that the Ford is made here in Canada and he Ram is made in Mexico I thought it might be a better fit.

And further, if the Senator can be built on top of either the Dodge or Ford product then why not a GM product as well, a Silverado 5500 for example.

We don't need every town making trucks, and we don't need the entire automotive production capacity of the nation dedicated to making army trucks. We just need enough production of each type to keep a small line running.

I agree. I was pointing out that we would be spoiled for choice to have vehicles of this class assembled in Canada without having to have GM set up a line. Given their lines are scaled to produce hundreds of thousands to millions and our requirements are in the thousands I thought we might be looking at a scaling problem there. There are lots of potential competitors to Roshel. We don't need them all. Just a couple, or maybe a handful.

Or just one.

The ISV is 80% standard Colorado ZR2, and Im sure the larger version shares lots of components with the Silverado. Thats the whole point of those GM Defense offerings. I specified GM Defense because we already use their product, and they offer more that we can make future use of. They were also the first NA manufacturer to get serious about getting back into the Defense game.

Seen.

But it won't put Oshawa back to work.

As for small drones, sure spread the love around, have different manufactures for the parts all over the country. There is a lot less complexity in having small shops make small drones than there is in having 30 different shops making your trucks.

As I noted, wrt to the 30 shops, I was misunderstood.

Wrt the drones. We are still in the 1910 to 1940s era of flight when pianomakers were offering novel means of solving problems. Encouraging people to keep offering solutions and allowing service people to play with the offerings seems to work for the Ukrainians as it did for the world in the first half of the 20th Century. When we don't have all the answers then we should be encouraging every answer.

 

[Kirkhill]

A somebody has to remember 25,000 phones numbers.

I regularly get Charlie Charlies over my phone. Weather alerts. Amber alerts. And individuals don't seem to have trouble reaching me nor I them. I have even been involved in group chats that never seem to end.

 

[Kirkhill]

You don't just buy cell phones and call it a comms plan. 25,000 cell phones bought in Canada could be useless in parts of the world.

I can appreciate that but for a domestic security force, one that is designed to take the load off the Army proper, what level of comms would be appropriate?

25,000 personal comms devices, insecure or not, would solve a lot of comms problems in times of emergency. Having said that. I doubt if there are many Canadians that cannot be reached by cell phone these days.

 

[lenaitch]

I regularly get Charlie Charlies over my phone. Weather alerts. Amber alerts. And individuals don't seem to have trouble reaching me nor I them. I have even been involved in group chats that never seem to end.

Great if the goal is have one-way communications from one or a few points. Not so great if you expect any of those 25K to call a significant number of the same 25K. Group calling is limited to a handful of numbers.

One problem with cel phone use during emergencies is the towers can get overwhelmed and can't discriminate between an 'official' call and somebody checking to see if their cat is ok. This was a big problem during the '98 ice storm (that and towers going down for lack of power). Way back in the day of landlines, Bell used to be able to identify certain numbers that would always have service regardless of the 'workload' of the switching gear (emergency services had to provide them updated lists every year). I'm not aware that something similar exists for cel phones.

 

[FJAG]

I agree with the concept but the Senator is built on top of a civilian vehicle as well, either the Ford F550 or the Dodge Ram 5500. Given that the Ford is made here in Canada and he Ram is made in Mexico I thought it might be a better fit.

Quite frankly if Roshel can build the Senator line on a Ford F550 chassis, how hard would it be to dispense with the armour and build an ISV-type light infantry model vehicle based on the stock items they have for the Senator pickup and some additional tubular roll-bars? That way everything in he LUVW-line stays in Canada for decades to come.

 

[childs56]

Great if the goal is have one-way communications from one or a few points. Not so great if you expect any of those 25K to call a significant number of the same 25K. Group calling is limited to a handful of numbers.

One problem with cel phone use during emergencies is the towers can get overwhelmed and can't discriminate between an 'official' call and somebody checking to see if their cat is ok. This was a big problem during the '98 ice storm (that and towers going down for lack of power). Way back in the day of landlines, Bell used to be able to identify certain numbers that would always have service regardless of the 'workload' of the switching gear (emergency services had to provide them updated lists every year). I'm not aware that something similar exists for cel phones.

This is why we have the Communications and Electronics Branch. They can set up tower networks for local areas to communicate. Then they can set up larger towers for distance comms. They can use frequency/ cell blockers to keep regular traffic from using the network.

 

[Furniture]

I agree with the concept but the Senator is built on top of a civilian vehicle as well, either the Ford F550 or the Dodge Ram 5500. Given that the Ford is made here in Canada and he Ram is made in Mexico I thought it might be a better fit.

And further, if the Senator can be built on top of either the Dodge or Ford product then why not a GM product as well, a Silverado 5500 for example.

The Senator and ISV/LUVW are entirely different beasts.

I'm not arguing against Rochel making the Senator, I'm arguing that on top of the Senator, we need a boat load of green fleet utility vehicles, and GM already makes them... Just get GM to make them here, on a small line dedicated to making vehicles for the CAF.

I agree. I was pointing out that we would be spoiled for choice to have vehicles of this class assembled in Canada without having to have GM set up a line.

I went with GM because we already operate their vehicles, and they already have done the R&D to produce both Colorado and Silverado based military vehicles. Why pay Rochel extra to develop what GM already makes, and can assemble in Canada easily? In what world does it make sense to have Rochel covert a Colorado or Silverado into a light utility vehicle when GM already makes them?

But it won't put Oshawa back to work.

Nothing will... Mexico is cheaper. America didn't kill Windsor and Oshawa, Mexico did. The best we can hope for is more defense specific builds in Canada.

Wrt the drones. We are still in the 1910 to 1940s era of flight when pianomakers were offering novel means of solving problems. Encouraging people to keep offering solutions and allowing service people to play with the offerings seems to work for the Ukrainians as it did for the world in the first half of the 20th Century. When we don't have all the answers then we should be encouraging every answer.

I agree 100% with drones. Throw money into a R&D pile and let the small companies do what they can do. There will be waste, but there will be innovation as well.

My issue with doing that with vehicles is that 30 different shops using a "standard" kit will have 30 different ways of doing it. That might work for a $500 drone, but it doesn't with a $70K truck. In WWII the auto makers made trucks and other utility vehicles, because they knew what they were doing and already had decades of experience. In 2026, 80+ years on, auto makers know even more about making trucks, so let's let them do their thing.

 

[Ludoc]

Quite frankly if Roshel can build the Senator line on a Ford F550 chassis, how hard would it be to dispense with the armour and build an ISV-type light infantry model vehicle based on the stock items they have for the Senator pickup and some additional tubular roll-bars? That way everything in he LUVW-line stays in Canada for decades to come.

I would go a step further than that. Make Roshel the prime contractor for ISV-style/LUVW trucks. Have the contract give a series of requirements for the trucks (painted in CARC/24V electrical system/blackout lights/etc/etc/etc). Then leave it up to them to figure out where to get the trucks from.

Have the contract run for ten years and require X number of trucks be delivered a year, then deliver another ten year contract to Roschel or whomever bids on it. That way, some percentage of our fleet would always be brand new. Additionally have a clause in the contract to increase to X+% in the event of national emergency.

Whether to stay with the same make would be up to Roschel. Maybe for the first few years they are GMs, and then the next few years Roshel gets a good deal on Toyotas, then a few years later they are Fords. Does any one really care what type of truck we use?

I know the question everyone is asking: How do we deal with having parts different parts for different trucks?
1. Standardize makes by Bdes overseas. If you deploy you will trade all your trucks in to get one type truck (probably what ever is newest). That way each deployed Bde's Service Battalion only needs to stock parts for one type of truck.

2. In Canada we can have infinitely large warehouses to hold parts for each. To hedge against that free up the LPO pers to buy OEM parts. The North Battleford Rifle Grenediers have a truck with a broken control arm? They contacted their Bde's G4 staff and their are none in the system, or at least none close enough to arrive in a timely manner? Go to the dealership and buy one.

3. Stop caring about trucks so much. They aren't fighter jets, or submarines, or tanks. They are cheap and can be built quickly. We should order enough that we have replacements. Lots of replacements. If a part breaks and it isn't on hand, ship the vehicle to rear and dispatch a new one. It is important to have these trucks but they aren't armoured vehicles or logistic support vehicles. They are rovers, mobility aides, and runners. If your Ford breaks and the unit only has GM parts, there should be enough GMs around the unit to trade off and cover tasks as a you wait for Bde to release and deliver a new GM.

 

[Ludoc]

I went with GM because we already operate their vehicles, and they already have done the R&D to produce both Colorado and Silverado based military vehicles. Why pay Rochel extra to develop what GM already makes, and can assemble in Canada easily? In what world does it make sense to have Rochel covert a Colorado or Silverado into a light utility vehicle when GM already makes them?

Because we have to get away from buying 2000 trucks (all the numbers in this post are made up and for illustrative purposes only, don't get hung up on the numbers) one year and driving them into the ground for 20 years so the entire fleet is clapped out at the same time. We need to buy 100 trucks a year for 20 years so some are still new by the end of the contract.

It isn't worth GM's time to re-role part of their line every year to build so few trucks. Roshel, being a smaller company that makes almost bespoke builds can do so.

If we write the contract right it should be like the new combats contract. Where we can go to Roschel and say "Hey, we got feed back from the troops, we want the weapons racks adjusted six inches forward. Here is some engineering money make it happen." That kind of thing is probably not worth GM's time. Would it be more expensive? Yes, but I think it would be worth it.

 

[PuckChaser]

I can appreciate that but for a domestic security force, one that is designed to take the load off the Army proper, what level of comms would be appropriate?

25,000 personal comms devices, insecure or not, would solve a lot of comms problems in times of emergency. Having said that. I doubt if there are many Canadians that cannot be reached by cell phone these days.

Have you ever been in rural Canada? Moderate town during a power outage? We're not Europe, we struggle with cellular coverage outside major cities and dropping even 1000 phones onto a tower in an emergency situation where the civilian population is trying to contact family or EMS is a recipe to deny both groups use of the phones due to tower saturation.

There are tactical cellular towers that can be purchased, but they're expensive and a niche skillset to maintain. If we buying phones we need to bring our own towers which means we're only talking to ourselves. Terrain is also a significant limfac for those tactical towers if we're talking LENTUS.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Just give me a new C8A4, annual ammo allotment and some other bits, let me keep it at home, and I'll happily train on my spare time and be a part of the 300 (thousand). Oh... and build a few flat ranges in my area for easy access. I might even do some cardio again...

 

[KevinB]

So it sounds as if the Homeguard are going to be getting their own first-run rifles in any event. And the rest will go to inventory.

By the way. I see a lot of snow and ice there.

I seem to recall one of the reasons why the Rangers ended up with a delaminating stock on their rifles was because of concern over the polymer stocks on the Colt products. It doesn't seem to be an issue for the Danes on Greenland or the Yanks in Alaska. Or even for our own troops when they operate up north.

The Ranger rifle got a laminated wooden stock - as some idiot seemed to believe that would be better than a composite stock -- despite composite stocks being used on bolt action sniper rifles since the 80's in all sorts of environments across the world.

Prime example of a improperly written SOR/SOW and lack of testing.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

The Ranger rifle got a laminated wooden stock - as some idiot seemed to believe that would be better than a composite stock -- despite composite stocks being used on bolt action sniper rifles since the 80's in all sorts of environments across the world.

Prime example of a improperly written SOR/SOW and lack of testing.

Or a project officer with firmly held beliefs, vice evidence. It happens.

 

[Furniture]

I would go a step further than that. Make Roshel the prime contractor for ISV-style/LUVW trucks. Have the contract give a series of requirements for the trucks (painted in CARC/24V electrical system/blackout lights/etc/etc/etc). Then leave it up to them to figure out where to get the trucks from.

Have the contract run for ten years and require X number of trucks be delivered a year, then deliver another ten year contract to Roschel or whomever bids on it. That way, some percentage of our fleet would always be brand new. Additionally have a clause in the contract to increase to X+% in the event of national emergency.

Whether to stay with the same make would be up to Roschel. Maybe for the first few years they are GMs, and then the next few years Roshel gets a good deal on Toyotas, then a few years later they are Fords. Does any one really care what type of truck we use?

I know the question everyone is asking: How do we deal with having parts different parts for different trucks?
1. Standardize makes by Bdes overseas. If you deploy you will trade all your trucks in to get one type truck (probably what ever is newest). That way each deployed Bde's Service Battalion only needs to stock parts for one type of truck.

2. In Canada we can have infinitely large warehouses to hold parts for each. To hedge against that free up the LPO pers to buy OEM parts. The North Battleford Rifle Grenediers have a truck with a broken control arm? They contacted their Bde's G4 staff and their are none in the system, or at least none close enough to arrive in a timely manner? Go to the dealership and buy one.

3. Stop caring about trucks so much. They aren't fighter jets, or submarines, or tanks. They are cheap and can be built quickly. We should order enough that we have replacements. Lots of replacements. If a part breaks and it isn't on hand, ship the vehicle to rear and dispatch a new one. It is important to have these trucks but they aren't armoured vehicles or logistic support vehicles. They are rovers, mobility aides, and runners. If your Ford breaks and the unit only has GM parts, there should be enough GMs around the unit to trade off and cover tasks as a you wait for Bde to release and deliver a new GM.

That sort of plan makes the job of logistics significantly harder. Logistics is hard enough already, we should be looking for ways to make it easier. The more effort we waste on the simple things, like upper control arms, the less time we have for the complex tasks.

Because we have to get away from buying 2000 trucks (all the numbers in this post are made up and for illustrative purposes only, don't get hung up on the numbers) one year and driving them into the ground for 20 years so the entire fleet is clapped out at the same time. We need to buy 100 trucks a year for 20 years so some are still new by the end of the contract.

It isn't worth GM's time to re-role part of their line every year to build so few trucks. Roshel, being a smaller company that makes almost bespoke builds can do so.

If we write the contract right it should be like the new combats contract. Where we can go to Roschel and say "Hey, we got feed back from the troops, we want the weapons racks adjusted six inches forward. Here is some engineering money make it happen." That kind of thing is probably not worth GM's time. Would it be more expensive? Yes, but I think it would be worth it.

I agree, we need continuous replacement of fleets. That doesn't mean we need to pay a third party to make us bespoke toys when a major manufacturer makes what we need. Even if GM doesn't make the ISV/LUVW in Canada, but keeps Canadian plants running for other products we are gaining a working fleet, and keeping jobs in Canada. It makes it easier to justify the spending when we keep money in the country.

I doubt GM would turn down money to make changes we want.

Again, I'm not anti-Rochel, but what they make and an ISV/LUVW aren't the same thing. We don't need every green vehicle to be armoured, and we don't need every green vehicle to be a 1 ton truck.

 

[KevinB]

I would go a step further than that. Make Roshel the prime contractor for ISV-style/LUVW trucks. Have the contract give a series of requirements for the trucks (painted in CARC/24V electrical system/blackout lights/etc/etc/etc). Then leave it up to them to figure out where to get the trucks from.

You will end up with a lot of variants of that truck - as the OEM of the chassis isn't going to sit on a design unless there is a gov contract requiring it.

Have the contract run for ten years and require X number of trucks be delivered a year, then deliver another ten year contract to Roschel or whomever bids on it. That way, some percentage of our fleet would always be brand new. Additionally have a clause in the contract to increase to X+% in the event of national emergency.

Whether to stay with the same make would be up to Roschel. Maybe for the first few years they are GMs, and then the next few years Roshel gets a good deal on Toyotas, then a few years later they are Fords. Does any one really care what type of truck we use?

Except for maintenance and spares -- or do you think it is practical to kit out an Army like a Bosnian hit squad?

I know the question everyone is asking: How do we deal with having parts different parts for different trucks?
1. Standardize makes by Bdes overseas. If you deploy you will trade all your trucks in to get one type truck (probably what ever is newest). That way each deployed Bde's Service Battalion only needs to stock parts for one type of truck.

A Bde is not a realistic employment level -- you need to look at a Div at least - and even at the Div level, it needs Corps and beyond support.

2. In Canada we can have infinitely large warehouses to hold parts for each. To hedge against that free up the LPO pers to buy OEM parts. The North Battleford Rifle Grenediers have a truck with a broken control arm? They contacted their Bde's G4 staff and their are none in the system, or at least none close enough to arrive in a timely manner? Go to the dealership and buy one.

A yes the Milverado concept -- the problem is the civilian truck line is not going to have 24V etc from the Militarized line -- it can work for the Civilian pattern base "runabouts" but not a green fleet.

3. Stop caring about trucks so much. They aren't fighter jets, or submarines, or tanks. They are cheap and can be built quickly. We should order enough that we have replacements. Lots of replacements. If a part breaks and it isn't on hand, ship the vehicle to rear and dispatch a new one. It is important to have these trucks but they aren't armoured vehicles or logistic support vehicles. They are rovers, mobility aides, and runners. If your Ford breaks and the unit only has GM parts, there should be enough GMs around the unit to trade off and cover tasks as a you wait for Bde to release and deliver a new GM.

Trucks are but an example -- do you field 4 different versions of a dismounted tactical radio?


Canada and the CAF has serious problems thinking of scale (the CA specifically beyond the BG).
You need to buy a lot more equipment than what you think you need, oh and the PRes needs equipment too.
There needs to be extras for any sort of planned mobilization - as well as replacements for the operational stock in both peacetime and war.
PRes units will become real full units in war, and Reg BN/Reg'ts will likely need massive expansion as well.
Kitting gear for a Bde is just the CA (and CAF) fooling itself -- it has a Corps worth of Personnel -- it needs the kit for 3 Corps.

Having 4th line Depots to refurbish equipment and being able to rotate stocks in and out of use is a National Security Requirement.

Stop the "fitted for, not with" mentality.

Need 20k trucks -- set a contract for 60k, it keeps lines open - allows for fleets to mature and doesn't end up having everything run out at once.

Mothball unused equipment.

 

[Halifax Tar]

You will end up with a lot of variants of that truck - as the OEM of the chassis isn't going to sit on a design unless there is a gov contract requiring it.

Except for maintenance and spares -- or do you think it is practical to kit out an Army like a Bosnian hit squad?

A Bde is not a realistic employment level -- you need to look at a Div at least - and even at the Div level, it needs Corps and beyond support.


A yes the Milverado concept -- the problem is the civilian truck line is not going to have 24V etc from the Militarized line -- it can work for the Civilian pattern base "runabouts" but not a green fleet.


Trucks are but an example -- do you field 4 different versions of a dismounted tactical radio?


Canada and the CAF has serious problems thinking of scale (the CA specifically beyond the BG).
You need to buy a lot more equipment than what you think you need, oh and the PRes needs equipment too.
There needs to be extras for any sort of planned mobilization - as well as replacements for the operational stock in both peacetime and war.
PRes units will become real full units in war, and Reg BN/Reg'ts will likely need massive expansion as well.
Kitting gear for a Bde is just the CA (and CAF) fooling itself -- it has a Corps worth of Personnel -- it needs the kit for 3 Corps.

Having 4th line Depots to refurbish equipment and being able to rotate stocks in and out of use is a National Security Requirement.

Stop the "fitted for, not with" mentality.

Need 20k trucks -- set a contract for 60k, it keeps lines open - allows for fleets to mature and doesn't end up having everything run out at once.

Mothball unused equipment.

Do you think outside of an existential threat to Canada, which other than from the USA isn't really possible, we have the will or desire to commit more than Bde sized rotational forces to any future conflict ?

I agree with your whole post. But I just don't think is a reality for Canada. Id love to be wrong though.

 

[Halifax Tar]

You will end up with a lot of variants of that truck - as the OEM of the chassis isn't going to sit on a design unless there is a gov contract requiring it.

Except for maintenance and spares -- or do you think it is practical to kit out an Army like a Bosnian hit squad?

A Bde is not a realistic employment level -- you need to look at a Div at least - and even at the Div level, it needs Corps and beyond support.


A yes the Milverado concept -- the problem is the civilian truck line is not going to have 24V etc from the Militarized line -- it can work for the Civilian pattern base "runabouts" but not a green fleet.


Trucks are but an example -- do you field 4 different versions of a dismounted tactical radio?


Canada and the CAF has serious problems thinking of scale (the CA specifically beyond the BG).
You need to buy a lot more equipment than what you think you need, oh and the PRes needs equipment too.
There needs to be extras for any sort of planned mobilization - as well as replacements for the operational stock in both peacetime and war.
PRes units will become real full units in war, and Reg BN/Reg'ts will likely need massive expansion as well.
Kitting gear for a Bde is just the CA (and CAF) fooling itself -- it has a Corps worth of Personnel -- it needs the kit for 3 Corps.

Having 4th line Depots to refurbish equipment and being able to rotate stocks in and out of use is a National Security Requirement.

Stop the "fitted for, not with" mentality.

Need 20k trucks -- set a contract for 60k, it keeps lines open - allows for fleets to mature and doesn't end up having everything run out at once.

Mothball unused equipment.

Do you think outside of an existential threat to Canada, which other than from the USA isn't really possible, we have the will or desire to commit more than Bde rotational forces to any future conflict ?

I agree with your whole post. But I just don't think its a reality for Canada. Id love to be wrong though.

 

[KevinB]

Do you think outside of an existential threat to Canada, which other than from the USA isn't really possible, we have the will or desire to commit more than Bde rotational forces to any future conflict ?

I agree with your whole post. But I just don't think its a reality for Canada. Id love to be wrong though.

You do not need to use the force to be a deterrent -- but you have to have the availability of that force.

For example: XVIII Airborne Corps -- lets face it the likelihood of 82nd ABN doing a Div jump into combat supported by 11th ABN, and the 101st Air Assault/Airmobility is really low these days. However it gives a rapid ability for us to project ground forces into an AO with Joint Forcible Entry.

The CA sending a BG doesn't really project much other than weakness and lack of resolve.

At 3.5% the CA definitely can have the ability to have a Corps and deploy a Div on a rotational basis, and should be able to field a Field Army of 3 Corps on Mobilization.

 

[Halifax Tar]

You do not need to use the force to be a deterrent -- but you have to have the availability of that force.

For example: XVIII Airborne Corps -- lets face it the likelihood of 82nd ABN doing a Div jump into combat supported by 11th ABN, and the 101st Air Assault/Airmobility is really low these days. However it gives a rapid ability for us to project ground forces into an AO with Joint Forcible Entry.

The CA sending a BG doesn't really project much other than weakness and lack of resolve.

At 3.5% the CA definitely can have the ability to have a Corps and deploy a Div on a rotational basis, and should be able to field a Field Army of 3 Corps on Mobilization.

The CA isn't the sole recipient of that 3.5%.

Canadian politicians think in elections and electoral cycles. I am not sure there is a domestic political advantage for deploying a Div in a hot war, maybe the defence industrial knock on effects ? Maybe I am wrong and Canadians suddenly find their fighting spirit and answer the call en masse.

I agree with your post though. We should be able to do a lot more. I am just not sure Canadians are able to be motivated enough to fill those ranks. And Canada's history with conscription isn't great.