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

[Underway]

Best five are next five?

100%. This will accelerate when I can retire, but not necessarily when I will retire.

 

[dapaterson]

@dapaterson
Curious to hear your opinion. What are the best and worse parts of this policy?

Some of the incentives look encouraging. Bonuses for years of service would seem to perpetuate the problem of retaining the wrong people too long though (but I guess we have bigger problems than that right now). Posting frequency allowance seems like it could be manipulated too, I’ve already had 6 postings and $27K (x2) sounds generous for a jaunt to Ottawa and back.

I’m surprised how generous this is (acknowledging that some are still struggling with the consequences of PLD/CFHD policy changes). Is this going to help the institution meet GoC objectives?

Cautiously optimistic. Looks like some thought has gone into the design, with articulated goals for outcomes.

Posting allowance is a good thing, in my opinion; delinking it from rank is overdue. And any system can be gamed / played...

 

[MilEME09]

"$300 a month at certain training establishments*, plus $45 a day(max $12000 a year) for CFLRS*, $20 a day (max $4000 a year) for other Trg establishments*

*DP1 training and below"

Its all there.

If youre at a school teaching DP1 and below, you're entitled as such. If you're instructing anything above, no dice. If you're support staff, no dice.

The DP1 and below is only annotated for the $300 a month. Which is why I suggest everyone else gets $20 a day.

 

[CountDC]

The only folks getting 13% or less are:

1) Those above Sailor/Private/Aviator with less than 5 years in.

Slightly incorrect. The 20% is applying only to Pte IPC 1 which means the people in their first year and good chance they are on course for at least most of it. The other IPCs are 13%.

 

[Kirkhill]

Feds need to 'rethink' industrial benefits policy and refocus on defence capabilities, say former senior officials: it 'needs to evolve'

Innovation, Science, and Economic Development Canada needs 'to go back to basics and make sure it's using the policy to build defence capabilities in Canada,' says former senior public servant Clem Srour.

www.hilltimes.com

I'm pretty sure there is no argument on this site over that.

....

Comparison time

Denmark 6,000,000
Norway 5,600,000
Sweden 10,600,000
Finland 5,600,000
Estonia 1,300,000
Latvia 1,900,000
Lithuania 2,800,000
Slovakia 5,600,000

Total 39,400,000

Broadly equal to Canada
Slovakia included because it uses the same/similar equipment set as the others
Equipment list based on the dominant types

Leopard 2A8 541
CV9035 1044
M113 950
BvS10 949

Patria 8x8 729
Patria 6x6 1575
Patria NEMO 137
SkyRanger30 52

Gvozdika 122 74
K9 155 228
Archer 155 166
MLRS 122 35
HIMARS 53
M270 41

Mortars 81 773
Mortars 120 115
D30 122 528
M777 155 193

NASAMS 61
RBS-70 311
Stinger 550
ZSU23-2 1243
GDF-005 16

I think we are a bit short....

 

[daftandbarmy]

Feds need to 'rethink' industrial benefits policy and refocus on defence capabilities, say former senior officials: it 'needs to evolve'

Innovation, Science, and Economic Development Canada needs 'to go back to basics and make sure it's using the policy to build defence capabilities in Canada,' says former senior public servant Clem Srour.

www.hilltimes.com

I'm pretty sure there is no argument on this site over that.

....

Comparison time

Denmark 6,000,000
Norway 5,600,000
Sweden 10,600,000
Finland 5,600,000
Estonia 1,300,000
Latvia 1,900,000
Lithuania 2,800,000
Slovakia 5,600,000

Total 39,400,000

Broadly equal to Canada
Slovakia included because it uses the same/similar equipment set as the others
Equipment list based on the dominant types

Leopard 2A8 541
CV9035 1044
M113 950
BvS10 949

Patria 8x8 729
Patria 6x6 1575
Patria NEMO 137
SkyRanger30 52

Gvozdika 122 74
K9 155 228
Archer 155 166
MLRS 122 35
HIMARS 53
M270 41

Mortars 81 773
Mortars 120 115
D30 122 528
M777 155 193

NASAMS 61
RBS-70 311
Stinger 550
ZSU23-2 1243
GDF-005 16

I think we are a bit short....

Location, location, location...

In NATO, the closer to Russia, the more spent on defence​

Paris (AFP) – While NATO countries living near the Russian border pay well over two percent of their GDP on defence, those further away pay less.

In NATO, the closer to Russia, the more spent on defence

While NATO countries living near the Russian border pay well over two percent of their GDP on defence, those further away pay less.

www.france24.com

 

[KevinB]

Feds need to 'rethink' industrial benefits policy and refocus on defence capabilities, say former senior officials: it 'needs to evolve'

Innovation, Science, and Economic Development Canada needs 'to go back to basics and make sure it's using the policy to build defence capabilities in Canada,' says former senior public servant Clem Srour.

www.hilltimes.com

I'm pretty sure there is no argument on this site over that.

....

Comparison time

Denmark 6,000,000
Norway 5,600,000
Sweden 10,600,000
Finland 5,600,000
Estonia 1,300,000
Latvia 1,900,000
Lithuania 2,800,000
Slovakia 5,600,000

Total 39,400,000

Broadly equal to Canada
Slovakia included because it uses the same/similar equipment set as the others
Equipment list based on the dominant types

Leopard 2A8 541
CV9035 1044
M113 950
BvS10 949

Patria 8x8 729
Patria 6x6 1575
Patria NEMO 137
SkyRanger30 52

Gvozdika 122 74
K9 155 228
Archer 155 166
MLRS 122 35
HIMARS 53
M270 41

Mortars 81 773
Mortars 120 115
D30 122 528
M777 155 193

NASAMS 61
RBS-70 311
Stinger 550
ZSU23-2 1243
GDF-005 16

I think we are a bit short....

Slovakia is a land locked country -- bordered by Ukraine, Hungary (and lots of bad blood there), Austria, Czechia, and Poland.
It does not have a Navy, and it's Air Force is 7 L39 Albatros 14 F-16's, and 11 UH-60 Helicopters, 12 AH-1Z and 2 C-27J Spartans.
About 95% of it's Defense Spending goes to the Army, and the Air Defense section of their Air Force.

As one can see from the various RCN programs (and other Navies programs) Ships, Submarines and the required infrastructure is very expensive -- Canada has Ocean on three sides, and hasn't been invaded or occupied in the last 100 years even once - so the comparison to Slovakia is like an Granny Smith Apple to a Phillips Screwdriver.

 

[Kirkhill]

Slovakia is a land locked country -- bordered by Ukraine, Hungary (and lots of bad blood there), Austria, Czechia, and Poland.
It does not have a Navy, and it's Air Force is 7 L39 Albatros 14 F-16's, and 11 UH-60 Helicopters, 12 AH-1Z and 2 C-27J Spartans.
About 95% of it's Defense Spending goes to the Army, and the Air Defense section of their Air Force.

As one can see from the various RCN programs (and other Navies programs) Ships, Submarines and the required infrastructure is very expensive -- Canada has Ocean on three sides, and hasn't been invaded or occupied in the last 100 years even once - so the comparison to Slovakia is like an Granny Smith Apple to a Phillips Screwdriver.

And every other country on the list has a land mass, a coastline and airspace.

What is your point again?


...

And we don't have Russian issues?

The Russians seem to think that our area of interest bumps up against theirs.

...

We can keep making all the excuses we like. It doesn't matter.
Slack ostriches, us.

 

[Kirkhill]

We are a victim of Mercator.

 

[KevinB]

And every other country on the list has a land mass, a coastline and airspace.

What is your point again?


...

And we don't have Russian issues?

The Russians seem to think that our area of interest bumps up against theirs.

...

We can keep making all the excuses we like. It doesn't matter.
Slack ostriches, us.

My point is while Canada definitely is a laggard in Defense, you have picked out countries that have all (except Denmark who felt the Nazi jackboot) felt the Soviet boot in the last 100 years (as well as others boots).

Yes Canada should have a larger Army, but it really needs a larger RCN and RCAF.

 

[brihard]

My point is while Canada definitely is a laggard in Defense, you have picked out countries that have all (except Denmark who felt the Nazi jackboot) felt the Soviet boot in the last 100 years (as well as others boots).

Yes Canada should have a larger Army, but it really needs a larger RCN and RCAF.

Eff that. We need a space force that has its own marine corps with an organic air wing. At our rate of progress we need to start future proofing for the year 2360 now.

 

[Czech_pivo]

My point is while Canada definitely is a laggard in Defense, you have picked out countries that have all (except Denmark who felt the Nazi jackboot) felt the Soviet boot in the last 100 years (as well as others boots).

Yes Canada should have a larger Army, but it really needs a larger RCN and RCAF.

Well said

 

[daftandbarmy]

Eff that. We need a space force that has its own marine corps with an organic air wing. At our rate of progress we need to start future proofing for the year 2360 now.

Don't forget the GBA+ assessment

 

[markppcli]

@dapaterson
Curious to hear your opinion. What are the best and worse parts of this policy?

Some of the incentives look encouraging. Bonuses for years of service would seem to perpetuate the problem of retaining the wrong people too long though (but I guess we have bigger problems than that right now).

How so? The really shit ones already aren’t giving up on the best job they can’t get. This will help us retain some people that could be employable outside the CAF.

Posting frequency allowance seems like it could be manipulated too, I’ve already had 6 postings and $27K (x2) sounds generous for a jaunt to Ottawa and back.

Depends on where the jaunt is from.

I’m surprised how generous this is (acknowledging that some are still struggling with the consequences of PLD/CFHD policy changes). Is this going to help the institution meet GoC objectives?

 

[YZT580]

Well said

almost all of the original NATO countries are in the same boat. None of them maintained a semblance of a military force with the possible exception of France who always seemed to be involved with trying to keep peace in their former colonies. If the Falklands had happened in 2000 Argentina probably would have one because Britain wouldn't have had sufficient forces effectively drive them out. A lot of our 2% is going to be spent/wasted on trying to catch up on maintenance and on replacing resources that have been ignored for so long that they are beyond repair. The AORs, our previous destroyer fleet, our F18's should been replaced a decade ago but our allies in NATO are the same. Going cheap doesn't work.

 

[FJAG]

Yes Canada should have a larger Army, but it really needs a larger RCN and RCAF.

Fully agree on the larger navy and air force - not so sure about the army. We're established at around 22,500 RegF and authorized at roughly 30,000 ResF although restricted below that number.

I've been toying with an armoured divisional structure (with 2 manoeuvre brigades, a fires brigade and a sustainment brigade) that comes in at around 10,590 folks (about 10,000 army and the rest health services, MPs etc). As a hybrid force it has 3,310 RegF and 7280 ResF. At that rate, and assuming we recruit the ResF up to its full strength) you could form three such divisions with 22,000 army personnel left over to form an additional homeland defence division (with a RegF light brigade, two coastal anti access/area denial brigades, a small fires brigade, a small engineer brigade, a CS bde, and a CSS bde) as well as the army's HQ, schools etc.

A few extra numbers would be fine but the real problem with the army is that the army's full-timers are a dreadfully expensive component of the overall CAF's pay budget (especially after the pay raises) and the whole thing is dreadfully underequipped.

Even at 2% (and maybe 3.5%) substantially more full-time army are costs which are hard to justify. Even with more money available we still need to be able to account for the army's value and that means being able to demonstrate real defence outputs. A partial brigade for Latvia simply doesn't cut it.

I would expect Canada, at the high end, could be prepared to commit one of the proposed armoured division to Europe, on a partial forward deployed/partial flyover basis. The other two would sustain it and provide depth to support the homeland division. I frankly do not see a need for any further army organizations although I see a desperate need to equip the four divisions fully, to refocus the army into making the ResF a viable element of the total army, and to recruit and train the ResF up to its full authorized compliment. If the army wants to have any hope of being relevant for the future then it needs to look at equipping a force beyond it's current three and one half brigades to four divisions and in leveraging its part-time personnel to man a large part of it.

The air force and navy, on the other hand, need to be significantly more robust in both people and equipment.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Yes Canada should have a larger Army, but it really needs a larger RCN and RCAF.

 

[Kirkhill]

My point is while Canada definitely is a laggard in Defense, you have picked out countries that have all (except Denmark who felt the Nazi jackboot) felt the Soviet boot in the last 100 years (as well as others boots).

Yes Canada should have a larger Army, but it really needs a larger RCN and RCAF.

My purpose was to demonstrate what is reasonable and possible given an economy like ours.

I am not bothered if we swapped tanks for ships and IFVs for aircraft but we didn't.

And regardless of platforms we did nothing to supply them with munitions.

 

[Furniture]

My purpose was to demonstrate what is reasonable and possible given an economy like ours.

I am not bothered if we swapped tanks for ships and IFVs for aircraft but we didn't.

And regardless of platforms we did nothing to supply them with munitions.

As @KevinB pointed out, we weren't(and still aren't) facing the same direct threat. Now that the international order is starting to fray at the seams, we are waking up to the threat and attempting to build.