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

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

RangerRay said:
Back in the 90’s I was on a full time ARes infantry QL2/3 for 12 straight weeks at the PPCLI Battle School in sunny Wainwright. Everyone else in my platoon was from Victoria to Thunder Bay. Although we were at the PPCLI’s school, almost all of our platoon’s instructor cadre, except for the platoon WO and swing NCO, were ARes. They were hard chargers that pushed us hard and trained us like we were all going back to their regiments (some of us were). Talking to troops from other platoons with all RegF instructors sounded like they were phoning it in.

I felt like we had the best of both worlds of doing our training full time at a RegF battle school but being trained by keen and hard charging reservists (and a hard charging RegF platoon WO) who didn’t want to send shitbags back to their units. It was probably one of the best experiences of my life.

I have no idea if this model is still used in ARes combat arms training, or if what I experienced was a one off when the stars align. But I think it worked.
Click to expand...

In an ideal world there standard should be the same.

"Train like you fight. Fight like you trained."
 
  • Like
Reactions: ueo
RangerRay said:
Back in the 90’s I was on a full time ARes infantry QL2/3 for 12 straight weeks at the PPCLI Battle School in sunny Wainwright. Everyone else in my platoon was from Victoria to Thunder Bay. Although we were at the PPCLI’s school, almost all of our platoon’s instructor cadre, except for the platoon WO and swing NCO, were ARes. They were hard chargers that pushed us hard and trained us like we were all going back to their regiments (some of us were). Talking to troops from other platoons with all RegF instructors sounded like they were phoning it in.

I felt like we had the best of both worlds of doing our training full time at a RegF battle school but being trained by keen and hard charging reservists (and a hard charging RegF platoon WO) who didn’t want to send shitbags back to their units. It was probably one of the best experiences of my life.

I have no idea if this model is still used in ARes combat arms training, or if what I experienced was a one off when the stars align. But I think it worked.
Click to expand...

FWIW, the instructors we sent to courses like that learned alot too and came back to the units as much improved leaders. As a result, they were popular courses to instruct on.
 
ytz said:
Lots of big army visions. But I struggle to understand what is the threat this big army is being built for. What's a scenario where Canada is fielding army divisions, but there's no nukes flying.

If we're talking about defending Canada, the investment should be air, sea, cyber and space. Large armies are only applicable in one scenario: prolonged conventional war in Europe. And it's debatable how much priority this should get against our domestic defence needs.
Click to expand...

I said above that the States need soldiers even if they don't need their federal government's Abrams, Bradleys and Paladins. Thus the State Defense Forces and the State National Guards (as opposed the National Guard of the United States).

The Army component of the National Guard is about 325,000.
The Air component is about 105,000.



This review of their 2023 activities suggests that they were called out domestically to handle 400 incidents of various types.

the Guard is equally adept at responding to natural disasters and emergencies on the home front, citing nearly 400 domestic operation responses in 2023.
Click to expand...

This was in additional to Federal tasks

The Air National Guard’s key role in Air Defender 2023 was a notable example. The German-led multinational exercise showcased NATO’s defensive capabilities and marked the largest air force redeployment exercise since NATO’s inception.

“Moving 100 aircraft over the ocean in a matter of four flying days is a monumental feat,” said Air Force Maj. Brandyn Dietman, with the Wisconsin Air National Guard’s 128th Air Refueling Wing, was one of several units providing an “air bridge” to Germany, where the exercise primarily occurred.

The notable efforts of more than 25,000 Guard members deployed during the year reflect what Army Gen. Daniel Hokanson, chief of the National Guard Bureau, cites as a testament to the Guard’s inherent value as a member of the Joint Force and integral part of U.S. military might.

“As a combat reserve of the Army and the Air Force, our Soldiers and Airmen are built to fight our nation’s wars,” said Hokanson. “It’s our primary mission – our reason for existing.”
Click to expand...


This does not include the State Defense Forces

www.defenseone.com

State defense forces can fill a homeland gap

With just a few changes, these volunteer military units can do much more to help with Army and Guard missions.
www.defenseone.com www.defenseone.com

State Defense Forces are military units authorized under federal law but organized, trained, and led by individual states. Unlike the National Guard, they cannot be federalized, but like the National Guard they are force multipliers, particularly in times of crisis. They are often composed of former active-duty service members, seasoned professionals with deep expertise in military operations, as well as experienced civilian professionals. Skills and experience are abundant. Even better, they operate at a fraction of the cost of National Guard or active-duty forces.

In the past few years, we’ve seen the value of these forces in action:

  • The California State Guard, a component of the California Military Department, was mobilized during recent wildfires to support evacuation efforts, logistics coordination, and emergency operations centers.
  • The Texas State Guard, a component of the Texas Military Department, has supported Operation Lone Star along the U.S.–Mexico border, integrated with the Texas National Guard to provide manpower, infrastructure support, and critical skills.
  • The recently reactivated Florida State Guard stepped up during three back-to-back hurricanes, delivering manpower, logistical support, and emergency response capabilities in devastated communities. They also deployed into Georgia and North Carolina under the authority of an interstate compact, demonstrating how SDFs can operate across state lines when requested by governors.
  • During the national COVID response, SDFs across the country supported testing sites, managed logistics, and bolstered local emergency management operations.
Expanding on the underused Title 32 State Defense Forces, a number of states including Maryland, Tennessee, South Carolina, Ohio, Texas, California, Washington, Louisiana and Virginia are using their civilian cyber professional expertise to improve their state’s cyber defenses.
Click to expand...

...

All of that stuff comes under the management of the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada as well as CAF operations like Boxtop, Cadence, FishPats, Lentus, Limpid, Nanook, Nevus, Palaci and SAR. And in the US NORAD is heavily dependent on the National Guard.

Current Operations list - Canada.ca

Discover where the Canadian Armed Forces are currently deployed on operations in Canada, North America and around the world.
www.canada.ca www.canada.ca

Currently the Guard is (controversially) employed in securing the Mexican border and federal buildings in unfriendly jurisdictions.

But I struggle to understand what is the threat this big army is being built for. What's a scenario where Canada is fielding army divisions, but there's no nukes flying.
Click to expand...

It depends on how you define the purpose of your army.
 
Kirkhill said:
I said above that the States need soldiers even if they don't need their federal government's Abrams, Bradleys and Paladins. Thus the State Defense Forces and the State National Guards (as opposed the National Guard of the United States).

The Army component of the National Guard is about 325,000.
The Air component is about 105,000.



This review of their 2023 activities suggests that they were called out domestically to handle 400 incidents of various types.



This was in additional to Federal tasks




This does not include the State Defense Forces

www.defenseone.com

State defense forces can fill a homeland gap

With just a few changes, these volunteer military units can do much more to help with Army and Guard missions.
www.defenseone.com www.defenseone.com



...

All of that stuff comes under the management of the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada as well as CAF operations like Boxtop, Cadence, FishPats, Lentus, Limpid, Nanook, Nevus, Palaci and SAR. And in the US NORAD is heavily dependent on the National Guard.

Current Operations list - Canada.ca

Discover where the Canadian Armed Forces are currently deployed on operations in Canada, North America and around the world.
www.canada.ca www.canada.ca

Currently the Guard is (controversially) employed in securing the Mexican border and federal buildings in unfriendly jurisdictions.



It depends on how you define the purpose of your army.
Click to expand...

Not sure why you're talking about the US and their National Guard. Their forces are raised, organized and structured differently. They also have a completely different purpose and mandate. The absurdity of trying to use the Americans as an example is proving my point. It's just fantasies of green suiters to keep up with the Joneses.

But also, germane to the discussion we're having here, nobody is really talking about the CA raising several divisions because a portion of the army goes and fights fires every Summer. The argument is that we need a large and heavily equipped army to go play in Europe. And the extent to which that is true, or what we need to field is accurate, is definitely debatable.

When it comes to natural disasters at home, at worst we might a few more engineering battalions. Hardly a whole division.
 
ytz said:
Not sure why you're talking about the US and their National Guard. Their forces are raised, organized and structured differently. They also have a completely different purpose and mandate. The absurdity of trying to use the Americans as an example is proving my point. It's just fantasies of green suiters to keep up with the Joneses.

But also, germane to the discussion we're having here, nobody is really talking about the CA raising several divisions because a portion of the army goes and fights fires every Summer. The argument is that we need a large and heavily equipped army to go play in Europe. And the extent to which that is true, or what we need to field is accurate, is definitely debatable.

When it comes to natural disasters at home, at worst we might a few more engineering battalions. Hardly a whole division.
Click to expand...

As I said, it depends on how you define the purpose of the Army and what you expect soldiers to do.

Our Army is defined by its soldiers. In the States the "armies" (plural) are defined by their politicians. Their soldiers back stop federal soldiers, local law enforcement officers, firefighters and emergency workers. Those are primary roles and not just photo ops.
 
www.cigionline.org

Canada Needs a Climate Emergency Reaction Force

Relying on military resources for routine disaster response risks straining these forces and potentially compromising their primary mission of defence.
www.cigionline.org www.cigionline.org

If you don't go the National Guard route then you risk the raising of a separate department (Emergency Preparedness) raising its own force and competing for the same tax dollars you want. And many of those dollars will supply logistics that you are already short of.

Alternately, as in the US, you get federal tax dollars to buy you more logistical gear than you need for daily training and ops and hold it in reserve to handle emergencies. And to do that you need to get more out of your part-time volunteers.

That is greatly assisted if the reserve is organized in Areas and Districts rather than tactical Divisions and Brigades.
 
ytz said:
But also, germane to the discussion we're having here, nobody is really talking about the CA raising several divisions because a portion of the army goes and fights fires every Summer. The argument is that we need a large and heavily equipped army to go play in Europe. And the extent to which that is true, or what we need to field is accurate, is definitely debatable.
Click to expand...
Im sure the soldiers that have served in Latvia supporting our ally who is constantly under some sort of threat of invasion by Russia and in Poland teaching Ukrainians how to not be genocided are glad you categorize being away from home for months as play.

Our main threat is Russia, especially post Ukraine War. If they win there, they will consolidate and continue the war machine westwards. Theyve said as much. They dont have the capability to send troops over the North so we expect to fight them in Europe if things pop off. Simple as.
 
Kirkhill said:
www.cigionline.org

Canada Needs a Climate Emergency Reaction Force

Relying on military resources for routine disaster response risks straining these forces and potentially compromising their primary mission of defence.
www.cigionline.org www.cigionline.org

If you don't go the National Guard route then you risk the raising of a separate department (Emergency Preparedness) raising its own force and competing for the same tax dollars you want. And many of those dollars will supply logistics that you are already short of.

Alternately, as in the US, you get federal tax dollars to buy you more logistical gear than you need for daily training and ops and hold it in reserve to handle emergencies. And to do that you need to get more out of your part-time volunteers.

That is greatly assisted if the reserve is organized in Areas and Districts rather than tactical Divisions and Brigades.
Click to expand...
Freeing the CAF from OP LENTUS isn't really much of a threat, since it cuts into the CAF's ability to train soldiers for actual soldiering. An emergency preparedness force that is mustered every summer would likely cost far less than the CAF as well.

We can't just import solutions from other nations without first addressing the cultural/political aspects that support those solutions.
 
PrairieFella said:
Im sure the soldiers that have served in Latvia supporting our ally who is constantly under some sort of threat of invasion by Russia and in Poland teaching Ukrainians how to not be genocided are glad you categorize being away from home for months as play.
Click to expand...

Your attempt at a guilt trip is cute. And evasive. It doesn't answer the question. What obligation do we have to field the substantially larger force for ops over there that some imagine?

PrairieFella said:
Our main threat is Russia, especially post Ukraine War. If they win there, they will consolidate and continue the war machine westwards. Theyve said as much. They dont have the capability to send troops over the North so we expect to fight them in Europe if things pop off. Simple as.
Click to expand...

That's great generic analysis. It's not really a threat statement. And a country that has lost a million troops in Ukraine, with a shrinking and aging population, and a basket case of an economy is going to suddenly take on Europe? I don't think so.

Let's be clear what the threat is. It's not some insane prolonged conventional war with Russia. They'd get creamed. It's about them making a quick land grab and then threatening nukes to try and break NATO resolve. This is not a problem where a second brigade from Canada does much.
 
Remius said:
If not Russia then who?
Click to expand...

Increasingly China. And that's not just my opinion. But that of our intelligence and strategic analysis communities too.

But focusing on China isn't going to end up with a bunch of divisions. It means more ships, planes, subs, satellites, drones, and server farms. Not so many tanks and LAVs though.
 
ytz said:
Increasingly China. And that's not just my opinion. But that of our intelligence and strategic analysis communities too.

But focusing on China isn't going to end up with a bunch of divisions. It means more ships, planes, subs, satellites, drones, and server farms. Not so many tanks and LAVs though.
Click to expand...
No doubt.

But militarily we are most likely to be in a kinetic war with Russia than we are with China.
 
ytz said:
A limited invasion of the Baltics doesn't require the CAF to contribute several divisions.

Let's be honest here. There's a lot of wannabe generals who just want more GI Joes to play with.

If we're talking about the defence of Canada itself, the priorities are abundantly clear.
Click to expand...
Because if you can’t fight or deter the enemy conventionally, it leaves one little choice but to go nuclear.

Personally, I’d rather try to avoid that.

Secondly saying Division is somewhat like Army folks saying “planes” or “ships”.
Is it a Light Division, an Armoured Division or some typically Canadian shmedium setup that makes absolutely no fucking sense to anyone but it keeps the capbadges equally spread out.

No one expects the CC-130 to do everything for the RCAF, and no one expects the AOPS to do everything for the RCN, so perhaps consider that a formation will not be all singing or dancing for the Army either.
 
Remius said:
No doubt.

But militarily we are most likely to be in a kinetic war with Russia than we are with China.
Click to expand...
Quite likely we could end up having to deal with one or both and not just overseas, but in the Arctic approaches and the North/ Near North mineral rich land mass itself. But realistically it will start out asymmetrically here before any direct military confrontation and anyway we have no credible way on our own to eject a well equipped land force that manages to occupy a part of the Arctic that they might seize from us. (At least without taking 5 years to equip and train to get there.) Neither do our European allies, really. What price would the current POTUS extort from us if we requested his help, bearing in mind current and even future treaties are unlikely to be respected by the United States.

And what real evidence is there when cards are called that our fickle civilian population will put themselves at risk for a fight. Theres already growing backlash to funding 2%.
 
Cloud Cover said:
Quite likely we could end up having to deal with one or both and not just overseas, but in the Arctic approaches and the North/ Near North mineral rich land mass itself. But realistically it will start out asymmetrically here before any direct military confrontation and anyway we have no credible way on our own to eject a well equipped land force that manages to occupy a part of the Arctic that they might seize from us. (At least without taking 5 years to equip and train to get there.) Neither do our European allies, really. What price would the current POTUS extort from us if we requested his help, bearing in mind current and even future treaties are unlikely to be respected by the United States.

And what real evidence is there when cards are called that our fickle civilian population will put themselves at risk for a fight. Theres already growing backlash to funding 2%.
Click to expand...
A long hard look at continuing to have in our top 5 or top 10 list of countries that our immigrants come from be some of the very countries that we are in competition with today and may very well be on the other side of the front in a shooting war.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Kirkhill
    • Like
G7 Kananaskis 2025
2 3 4
Replies
69
Views
3K
Kirkhill
Kirkhill
KevinB
    • Like
The Reconnaissance Brigade
2
Replies
37
Views
4K
FJAG
FJAG
R
2 Men Charged for Online Death Threats
Replies
6
Views
3K
brihard
B
Oldgateboatdriver
    • Like
Type 31 for Canada?
Replies
18
Views
7K
FJAG
FJAG
B
Making an Effective Case for Co-op During a Subsidized Education Degree
Replies
4
Views
530
MJP
MJP
Back
Top