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

[FJAG]

Fredericton NB is the far end of the world ?

Yes.

It is better connected to most of the country than Kingston.

Not exactly true most of the time.

The key is to go to Kingston by train. The trip is roughly two hours from Toronto. To get to Fredericton by plane from Toronto is just short of two hours (and then there's the time to get through security etc etc.) There are very few direct links to Fredericton from anywhere else in Canada. Most need a stop over in Toronto. For anyone in southern Ontario the train trip to Kingston is far easier. Same for folks from further west (including the need to transfer from YYZ or to Union station). Neither is easily accessible. I'll grant you Air Canada is slightly more dependable than Via. But Via its cheaper.

For those in Ottawa or Petawawa, the train is 2 hours (Ottawa <-> Kingston) and the flights (Ottawa <-> Fredericton) are 1 1/2 hours (to which you need to add the preboarding times) - so easier to Kingston as well.

For folks in the armoured corps, infantry and loggies, Borden was a lot more accessible pre 1970. On the other hand, my train trip from the CFOCS in Victoria via Vancouver and the railroad to the RCSA in Shilo in the first week of December 1969 was a journey to remember.

Halifax must be a distant solar system to @FJAG

Another world maybe.

 

[PPCLI Guy]

I thought DRDC priorities were driven directly from CAF priorities and requirements.

That has not always been my experience.

Left alone scientists will study what interests them, and will be offended if redirected. The CAF often struggles to articulate problems that need to be solved, which leaves the scientists to study what they want.

Moreover, the science is often for its own sake, in that there is less than ideal focus on being able to deploy the solution they develop. They don't make fruits and vegetables and grains that can survive outside the lab. They often make hothouse flowers that cannot survive in the wild

A lot of the.blame for this rests on the CAF, but not all of it

 

[AmmoTech90]

That has not always been my experience.

Left alone scientists will study what interests them, and will be offended if redirected. The CAF often struggles to articulate problems that need to be solved, which leaves the scientists to study what they want.

Moreover, the science is often for its own sake, in that there is less than ideal focus on being able to deploy the solution they develop. They don't make fruits and vegetables and grains that can survive outside the lab. They often make hothouse flowers that cannot survive in the wild

A lot of the.blame for this rests on the CAF, but not all of it

Agreed. I have encountered DS who seem to think they should be able to work on what they want. They are a minority. At the same time I've encountered DS who go out door knocking to see what is needed. They too are a minority. Most are skilled public servants who want direction, and most importantly, resources to do the jobs they are given.

The CAF is terrible at giving the jobs, because the job givers change up every couple years. The projects that thrive are often, unfortunately, the ones that have a desk officer in Ottawa who has been there for a decade.

Science, especially classified science, takes time. The CAF doesn't give people time.

 

[Halifax Tar]

It’s right beside Uranus.

Sorry, had to…

That's a strange way to spell Dartmouth

 

[Kirkhill]

Agreed. I have encountered DS who seem to think they should be able to work on what they want. They are a minority. At the same time I've encountered DS who go out door knocking to see what is needed. They too are a minority. Most are skilled public servants who want direction, and most importantly, resources to do the jobs they are given.

The CAF is terrible at giving the jobs, because the job givers change up every couple years. The projects that thrive are often, unfortunately, the ones that have a desk officer in Ottawa who has been there for a decade.

Science, especially classified science, takes time. The CAF doesn't give people time.

Do the soldiers and the scientists know how to talk to each other? Do they know enough about each other's worlds to be able to ask the right questions and get full benefits from the transactions?

At the same time though, does all the experimentation need intervention by scientists? Or could some of those funds be better spent if placed directly in the hands of soldiers, sailors and aviators wanting to apply available technologies, or even more amorphously, new tactics and procedures, to the problems they are encountering?

 

[PrairieFella]

Do the soldiers and the scientists know how to talk to each other? Do they know enough about each other's worlds to be able to ask the right questions and get full benefits from the transactions?

At the same time though, does all the experimentation need intervention by scientists? Or could some of those funds be better spent if placed directly in the hands of soldiers, sailors and aviators wanting to apply available technologies, or even more amorphously, new tactics and procedures, to the problems they are encountering?

We're a G7 country. We can afford to fund defence science done by trained scientists.

 

[Kirkhill]

We're a G7 country. We can afford to fund defence science done by trained scientists.

That is not really the question. Agreed we have lots of wealth and agreed we can afford to do many things and agreed we should be doing things we aren't.

But that research, is it being done to the immediate benefit of the forces? Supplying them with answers they need? Or is it supplying answers that politicians and accountants need?

For example

Can I use this piece of equipment in a way that helps me win battles?

Vs

Can you quantify how many fewer 60mm mortar rounds I will need to buy for the army if I buy this equipment instead?

 

[Underway]

That has not always been my experience.

Left alone scientists will study what interests them, and will be offended if redirected. The CAF often struggles to articulate problems that need to be solved, which leaves the scientists to study what they want.

Moreover, the science is often for its own sake, in that there is less than ideal focus on being able to deploy the solution they develop. They don't make fruits and vegetables and grains that can survive outside the lab. They often make hothouse flowers that cannot survive in the wild

A lot of the.blame for this rests on the CAF, but not all of it

You are not wrong, however... DRDC work that I personally have seen lead directly to improved CAF missions or equipment:

Flight deck management system for RCN/RCAF helicopter operations: No country in the world has a flight deck management system for helicopters operations on small ships (carriers yes). We know because we looked. DRDC developed one, and now have began "industrializing" it (aka got a civi company to produce it). Other NATO countries are interested, particularly the Dutch, as its a new device on the markety.

New Watch Rotation System for RCN Ships: Thanks to HMCS MONTREAL and having the crew wear sleep/rest monitoring gear DRDC used modern sleep research to develop optimized watch rotations to keep crew rested. I sailed with some of their new rotations and it was glorious. Increased safety and and moral at lower readiness states.

New Sonar Processing System: it integrated the Hull Mounted and Towed Array, doubled the CANTASS frequency range and vastly improved the operators ability to focus less on noise (pun intended) and more on potential contacts. This thing was a game changer.

New Towed Array Systems: TRAPS, twin tailed long range towed array, and other trials. Some excellent research here, particularly with the twin tails, that look quite promising.

Armoured Vehicle Harness and Seating systems: Canada pioneered a number of seating and seatbelt arrangements for armoured vehicles that allowed them to better protect crew from "IED/land mine" detonations. DRDC worked directly with industry and did a large number of crash test dummy explosive tests on various setups.

Shock mounted server racks: These were developed and trialed in conjunction with Naval Engineering Test Establishment. Essentially allowing the usage of off the shelf computer/server systems on special shock absorbing mounts/racks, instead of specialized ruggedized equipment. Same results when resisting shock and battle damage, much much lower cost.

 

[AmmoTech90]

Do the soldiers and the scientists know how to talk to each other? Do they know enough about each other's worlds to be able to ask the right questions and get full benefits from the transactions?

Yes, that is what Tech Staff/WO programs are for, at least as far as the Army goes. Unfortunately the CA does not support employment of such pers at the research centres. My experience has the Master Gunners being underemployed at the centers and not supported by the CA when they try to influence the work at the centre. There is a RCAF tech staff program, not sure about the RCN; also not sure how those pers are employed.

At the same time though, does all the experimentation need intervention by scientists? Or could some of those funds be better spent if placed directly in the hands of soldiers, sailors and aviators wanting to apply available technologies, or even more amorphously, new tactics and procedures, to the problems they are encountering?

The CA generally doesn't match degrees with employment. This means that, often, the officers who are tasked with experiments don't know how to conduct them. Sometimes the CA brings in CORA or other DRDC units to assist in trials/experiments. The CA then complains about the rigour that is applied to the trial/experiment. The Tech Staff/WO program give a very few members the training to understand what the scientists saying, not their expertise. Also, not all graduates of such programs are equal.

I'm not sure why you are so antagonistic towards a R&D organization embedded in DND.
/s Having an non-scientificly trained soldier providing good ideas gave us excellent field rifles and shovels in the past. /s