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....

 

[Halifax Tar]

Recruitment is not just a military issue. It's a problem in the civilian workforce as well. Simply throwing money at the problem is not the solution. Governments look at the bottom line on costs so more pay simply means less equipment or less people down the road.

Pay and bennies is most certainly part of the solution. Not the whole, but I would argue a 1/3 of the solution.

CAF needs to sort out what its career profiles should be and, quite frankly, its not well served by having old people at high pay rates doing jobs which require only moderate skill levels. Just look at how many folks the CAF has who are restricted from deploying. Yes there are jobs where high skills matter but also many where it does not and where the jobs could and should be done by young, single, moderately skilled folks who have a high turn over rate. The key is retaining just the right amount of long term careerists for those areas where it really matters and having a training system geared to high volume turnover.

I think this is a very non technical and Army way of looking at things. Speaking for the RCN, and I can imagine the RCAF, we have major pieces of machinery that require people to spend decades learning and understanding, and this means on a full time basis and careers.

And our ops tempos also dictate that we set up rotations not only to grow a sailor or naval officers breadth of experience; but also allow them to have some semblance of home work balance.

 

[Brad Sallows]

To summarize, surely we don't need to pound every peg into a commissioned or climbed-the-ranks-from-private hole.

 

[FJAG]

Pay and bennies is most certainly part of the solution. Not the whole, but I would argue a 1/3 of the solution.

It's also a well recognized part of the problem that professional military personnel - and particulalry their lengthy careers and high pay - are pricing themselves out of being able to supply the mass of people, equipment and munitions needed in case of a shooting war. This is why some European countries remain reliant on a certain level of conscripts and other armies are looking at returning to a part conscript structure.

I think this is a very non technical and Army way of looking at things. Speaking for the RCN, and I can imagine the RCAF, we have major pieces of machinery that require people to spend decades learning and understanding, and this means on a full time basis and careers.

And our ops tempos also dictate that we set up rotations not only to grow a sailor or naval officers breadth of experience; but also allow them to have some semblance of home work balance.

I agree on both counts. This is why I said

Yes there are jobs where high skills matter

and

The key is retaining just the right amount of long term careerists for those areas where it really matters and having a training system geared to high volume turnover.

The CAF is out of whack. I think the RCAF is roughly where it should be and the RCN could do with some restructuring (and despite everything could use a US WO concept despite the fact that the USN doesn't use them at all). It's the CA and CAF HQ that really needs to do a rethink. I don't need a 15 or 20 year bombardier earning $73,000 per year to be an ammo number on an M777 when a three-year ARes gunner - who has cost maybe $20,000 for his basic training and maybe $8,000 annually thereafter - will do.

I must admit I was somewhat interested by the 3 RCR honour guard for the King. There were a ton of privates in the rank and nary a medal showing on most of the uniforms i.e. a whole lot of young fresh faces with a few older folks sprinkled around which is what would expect for an infantry battalion.

 

[Remius]

It's also a well recognized part of the problem that professional military personnel - and particulalry their lengthy careers and high pay - are pricing themselves out of being able to supply the mass of people, equipment and munitions needed in case of a shooting war. This is why some European countries remain reliant on a certain level of conscripts and other armies are looking at returning to a part conscript structure.

I agree on both counts. This is why I said


and


The CAF is out of whack. I think the RCAF is roughly where it should be and the RCN could do with some restructuring (and despite everything could use a US WO concept despite the fact that the USN doesn't use them at all). It's the CA and CAF HQ that really needs to do a rethink. I don't need a 15 or 20 year bombardier earning $73,000 per year to be an ammo number on an M777 when a three-year ARes gunner - who has cost maybe $20,000 for his basic training and maybe $8,000 annually thereafter - will do.

I must admit I was somewhat interested by the 3 RCR honour guard for the King. There were a ton of privates in the rank and nary a medal showing on most of the uniforms i.e. a whole lot of young fresh faces with a few older folks sprinkled around which is what would expect for an infantry battalion.

Nit pick. We don’t do honour guards.

 

[FJAG]

Nit pick. We don’t do honour guards.

I think I said on another thread that ceremonial isn't my strong suit. If I had my druthers all parades would be in fighting order.

 

[Blackadder1916]

The CAF is out of whack. I think the RCAF is roughly where it should be and the RCN could do with some restructuring (and despite everything could use a US WO concept despite the fact that the USN doesn't use them at all).

The USN have a lot of warrant officers. One of the most recent occupations introduced is Air Vehicle Pilot.

https://www.mynavyhr.navy.mil/Career-Management/Community-Management/Officer/Active-OCM/LDO-CWO/Air-Vehicle-Pilot/

Other occupations.

https://www.mynavyhr.navy.mil/Career-Management/Community-Management/Officer/Active-OCM/LDO-CWO/Career-Pattern-Sheets/

It was the USAF that didn't use warrant officers, though they have recently reintroduced them.

https://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/3756216/air-force-to-begin-accepting-warrant-officer-applications/

 

[Castus]

Yeah IPC's on many ranks need a look at, and I am still a firm believer that the CAF needs a Tech WO area - removing the WO ranks from the NCO stream - and placing the Warrants in a totally different area not NCM and Not Commissioned Officer

I agree on the tech stream, but would counter that this could be started at a more junior level. Re-introduce the rank of Lance Cpl, which becomes an automatic promotion at 4 years but is expected to conduct junior leadership responsibilities. Cpl then becomes a rank that requires Sect Comd training (JLC). At that point, having led a small team and become a subject matter expert, you can elect to become a Master Cpl, which is given 10 pay increments and made a technical expert.

Additionally, we could then re-introduce Staff Sgt to provide a 'one up' tech stream, for SNCOs who do not want to progress into the Sergeant Major role but maintain senior subject matter expertise with likely more leadership responsibilities.

I think the distinction from some of the other proposals is that this requires even junior 'tech specialists' to have some kind of leadership experience. I have spoken to a great deal of pers who want to be technical experts in their fields and are not interested in progressing through the senior ranks, but I think emphasising leadership throughout is going to provide a lot of institutional cushion to the organisation as it grows. It means that tech specialists with lots of pay incentives (the carrot) is something to be offered, by merit of the individual, to those who have muckled down and done their time as a leader.

Additionally, in case of war and large scale mobilisation that could potentially result, this means we have a strong core of instructors & leaders to bring new members online.

What people may not understand here is that the core ranks - MCpl, Sgt and WO - are the worst affected by the current manning crisis, particularly in the Army. We need a way to retain these critical ranks whilst also ensuring that no matter the situation we find ourselves in, whether steady-state pre-war ops as now or actual war, that we are capable of growing or maintaining.

My 2p.

 

[FJAG]

The USN have a lot of warrant officers. One of the most recent occupations introduced is Air Vehicle Pilot.

https://www.mynavyhr.navy.mil/Career-Management/Community-Management/Officer/Active-OCM/LDO-CWO/Air-Vehicle-Pilot/

Other occupations.

https://www.mynavyhr.navy.mil/Career-Management/Community-Management/Officer/Active-OCM/LDO-CWO/Career-Pattern-Sheets/

It was the USAF that didn't use warrant officers, though they have recently reintroduced them.

https://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/3756216/air-force-to-begin-accepting-warrant-officer-applications/

You're absolutely correct. Mea Culpa.

It's the USAF that let the rank go by the wayside in 1959 when they stopped appointing new ones. Some carried on for years until the last ones retired in the 1980s.

Surprisingly I just noted that the USAF has just gone back to making use of the rank - in the field of IT and cyber - and it's only this last December that their first class of 30 new WOs graduated. IT and cyber are exactly the type of fields where the rank is of value allowing college graduates or otherwise specially trained programs to quickly enter the forces at a better pay rate.

 

[daftandbarmy]

I agree on the tech stream, but would counter that this could be started at a more junior level. Re-introduce the rank of Lance Cpl, which becomes an automatic promotion at 4 years but is expected to conduct junior leadership responsibilities. Cpl then becomes a rank that requires Sect Comd training (JLC). At that point, having led a small team and become a subject matter expert, you can elect to become a Master Cpl, which is given 10 pay increments and made a technical expert.

Additionally, we could then re-introduce Staff Sgt to provide a 'one up' tech stream, for SNCOs who do not want to progress into the Sergeant Major role but maintain senior subject matter expertise with likely more leadership responsibilities.

I think the distinction from some of the other proposals is that this requires even junior 'tech specialists' to have some kind of leadership experience. I have spoken to a great deal of pers who want to be technical experts in their fields and are not interested in progressing through the senior ranks, but I think emphasising leadership throughout is going to provide a lot of institutional cushion to the organisation as it grows. It means that tech specialists with lots of pay incentives (the carrot) is something to be offered, by merit of the individual, to those who have muckled down and done their time as a leader.

Additionally, in case of war and large scale mobilisation that could potentially result, this means we have a strong core of instructors & leaders to bring new members online.

What people may not understand here is that the core ranks - MCpl, Sgt and WO - are the worst affected by the current manning crisis, particularly in the Army. We need a way to retain these critical ranks whilst also ensuring that no matter the situation we find ourselves in, whether steady-state pre-war ops as now or actual war, that we are capable of growing or maintaining.

My 2p.

I still find it astonishing that there are more rank levels in a rifle company than are represented in most major corporations …

 

[dapaterson]

I still find it astonishing that there are more rank levels in a rifle company than are represented in most major corporations …

How often do we call on IBM to close with and destroy the enemy?

 

[Cloud Cover]

How often do we call on IBM to close with and destroy the enemy?

I’m pretty sure IBM tried to kill as many people as possible with PC DOS to OS Warp upgrade downloads in the late 90’s.

 

[daftandbarmy]

How often do we call on IBM to close with and destroy the enemy?

Because victory in battle hinges on critical personnel related details like 10 levels of Captains

 

[dapaterson]

Because victory in battle hinges on critical personnel related details like 10 levels of Captains

Victory in battle depends on properly trained and motivated soldiers of all tanks and trades working together.

Some of that is developing and keeping important skillsets like sustainment when the institution has deliberate biases for "operators" over sustainers, including selection for senior roles. So expanded pay scales for those the institution deliberately discriminates against is important.

 

[McG]

I am still a firm believer that the CAF needs a Tech WO area - removing the WO ranks from the NCO stream - and placing the Warrants in a totally different area not NCM and Not Commissioned Officer

What problem would this be intended to fix?

 

[daftandbarmy]

What problem would this be intended to fix?

Ego

 

[Kirkhill]

Well the King just announced that we'll be a part of the 'ReArm Europe' initiative, so I guess that's official.

Keep in mind the Liberals signed on to the F35 project at its inception.

An opportunity to make money, not to defend Canada.

The project is called ReArm Europe, not ReArm Canada.

 

[Halifax Tar]

It's also a well recognized part of the problem that professional military personnel - and particulalry their lengthy careers and high pay - are pricing themselves out of being able to supply the mass of people, equipment and munitions needed in case of a shooting war. This is why some European countries remain reliant on a certain level of conscripts and other armies are looking at returning to a part conscript structure.

Are you advocating that we introduce conscription?

I agree on both counts. This is why I said


and


The CAF is out of whack. I think the RCAF is roughly where it should be and the RCN could do with some restructuring (and despite everything could use a US WO concept despite the fact that the USN doesn't use them at all). It's the CA and CAF HQ that really needs to do a rethink. I don't need a 15 or 20 year bombardier earning $73,000 per year to be an ammo number on an M777 when a three-year ARes gunner - who has cost maybe $20,000 for his basic training and maybe $8,000 annually thereafter - will do.

What do you think the RCN should be doing ?

I agree most combat arms do not need to be on full time employment. If were going to make cuts it should be coming from them.

What problem would this be intended to fix?

I think the idea is that's where your career technical SMEs go. I stand to be corrected though.

 

[KevinB]

What problem would this be intended to fix?

Being able to place some Technical SME’s into positions that can be paid higher than a NCO band may pay, and be able to keep them in certain positions without them “outranking” or needing to be moved for promotions etc.

 

[PrairieFella]

Being able to place some Technical SME’s into positions that can be paid higher than a NCO band may pay, and be able to keep them in certain positions without them “outranking” or needing to be moved for promotions etc.

So spec pay and a cease progress?

 

[MJP]

Being able to place some Technical SME’s into positions that can be paid higher than a NCO band may pay, and be able to keep them in certain positions without them “outranking” or needing to be moved for promotions etc.

We had a low-key version of this with the Tech CWO folks. Lots of reasons they got reduced in number but it was pretty apparent to most folks it was just a place to put people that weren't gonna progress so they just sat there blocking everyone and for many provided marginal value to the CAF. I suspect any new Tech WO+ stream would fall victim to the same issue