• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Government hints at boosting Canada’s military spending

Status
Not open for further replies.
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....
 
PPS -

The Pathways Alliance Carbon Capture and Storage system has to be part of the cover he needs to justify more development. Industry needs to know that he will accept the trade-off before investing in it.

I don't know if this has been looked at but CO2 is a relatively inert gas. It has been used as a propellant. If they are going to capture CO2 in pipelines and pressurise it that CO2 could also be used as motive power.
 
PPS -

The Pathways Alliance Carbon Capture and Storage system has to be part of the cover he needs to justify more development. Industry needs to know that he will accept the trade-off before investing in it.

I don't know if this has been looked at but CO2 is a relatively inert gas. It has been used as a propellant. If they are going to capture CO2 in pipelines and pressurise it that CO2 could also be used as motive power.

PPPS

Those lines carrying CO2 would also make for conduits for both the fibre-optics and the electrical lines. Oxygen-free environments are both beneficial and safer in both cases.
 
Crazy question from your resident crayon eater:

What’s the Golden Dome? Like an Iron Dome? But better and more beautiful?
A latter day "Star Wars". A keystone would be the means to intercept missiles during boost phase. That probably means deploying assets in space, which is the focal point of Chinese criticism. Whether the Chinese object to the militarization of space or the existence of an effective ballistic missile defence, we can't know. I suppose that if they held the upper technology hand, they'd have no objections to doing it themselves.
 
New Treasury Board 25-26 Main Estimates for GoC:

Expectations is that defence is going to be ~$35 billion next year. 2024 Main Estimate had ~30 billion but the actual numbers are closer to ~$33 billion.

Of note that's if nothing changes and things carry on as per right now. Any policy changes, pers changes, pay or benifits changes etc... change this math.
 
New Treasury Board 25-26 Main Estimates for GoC:

Expectations is that defence is going to be ~$35 billion next year. 2024 Main Estimate had ~30 billion but the actual numbers are closer to ~$33 billion.

Of note that's if nothing changes and things carry on as per right now. Any policy changes, pers changes, pay or benifits changes etc... change this math.
Main estimates are followed by supplementary estimates A, B and C; I have a sneaking suspicion that there may be additional resources flowing to Defence in the Supps.
 
When are supplementaries tabled?

Supplementary Estimates are published throughout the year; each release is identified alphabetically (A, B, C, etc.). In general, Supplementary Estimates (A) are tabled in May and the associated appropriation act is granted royal assent and becomes law in June. These provide federal organizations with the funding they need early in the year. Supplementary Estimates (B) are tabled in late October or early November and the associated appropriation act is granted royal assent in December. Supplementary Estimates (C) are tabled in February and the associated appropriation act is granted royal assent in March.

 
Are we getting our L101 back or another slight of hand into procurement money we can't spend?
 
And speaking of the LVM project; todays press release:

Also something I read that can't be published here regarding the cost estimate for IDF modernization combined with the Rocket artillery purchases combined would end up being $7.7 billion.

Feeling mildly optimistic so far.
There is some reason to be. CANSEC is where you go to tell people what your plan is and have all those industry meetings. The Minister was very blunt I heard.
 
Also something I read that can't be published here regarding the cost estimate for IDF modernization combined with the Rocket artillery purchases combined would end up being $7.7 billion.


There is some reason to be. CANSEC is where you go to tell people what your plan is and have all those industry meetings. The Minister was very blunt I heard.
I don't think IDF is commonly used as an abbreviation for Indirect Fires.

I do however think that the paradigm has changed, and that folks who were planning to enjoy a slow, leisurely posting to a project not going anywhere are about to start googling "more hours in the day".
 
Hopefully the Logistic Vehicle Modernization program is tripled or quadrupled, because 500 heavy trucks and 1,000 "light" (2 ½ton) trucks isn't even close to enough.
is that all the Light LVM are going to be good for 2.5 tonnes?
 
It's supposed to replace the LSVW, despite being twice the size.
its a big one. What happens when you build it off a class 8 + truck. Do you know what axles are on it?
Maybe we should be getting way more LUVups to fill the gap?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top