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

[Kirkhill]

Sikorsky Unveils Nomad Family Of Scalable VTOL Drones

Sikorsky’s rotor blown wing proprotor concept has evolved into a proposed family of long-endurance uncrewed aerial systems with VTOL capabilities. Sikorsky’s rotor blown wing proprotor concept has evolved into a proposed family of long-endurance uncrewed aerial systems with VTOL capabilities.

www.twz.com

I posted this in the discussion about the Cyclones but reposting it here to highlight its last paragraph:
"the Nomad family is clearly oriented toward the Pentagon's drive for increasing runway independence".

I think this is going to influence a lot of our acquisition decisions. Perhaps even the F35 buy?

 

[ytz]

I think this is going to influence a lot of our acquisition decisions. Perhaps even the F35 buy?

No.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Sikorsky Unveils Nomad Family Of Scalable VTOL Drones

Sikorsky’s rotor blown wing proprotor concept has evolved into a proposed family of long-endurance uncrewed aerial systems with VTOL capabilities. Sikorsky’s rotor blown wing proprotor concept has evolved into a proposed family of long-endurance uncrewed aerial systems with VTOL capabilities.

www.twz.com

I posted this in the discussion about the Cyclones but reposting it here to highlight its last paragraph:
"the Nomad family is clearly oriented toward the Pentagon's drive for increasing runway independence".

I think this is going to influence a lot of our acquisition decisions. Perhaps even the F35 buy?

The future is just going to be infantry and drone operators.

 

[ytz]

The future is just going to be infantry and drone operators.

For what?

 

[Jarnhamar]

For what?

War in the future.

 

[QV]

The future is just going to be infantry and drone operators.

Id expand a bit on that and say autonomous platforms and AI… and infantry, always infantry.

 

[QV]

The primary military threats to Canada are air, missile and naval. That's clearly defined in our defence policies. There's no defined land threat to defend against. And nor one on the horizon. For those primary threats, the government is basically committing to spend several hundred billion in equipment purchases over the next 20 years between fighters, satellites, ships, subs, radars and whatever happens with Golden Dome.

When there's a case for what exactly (not some vague amorphous idea) the army should be designed to defend against, they'll get a lot more. Otherwise, expect to be treated like the optional force it is. Some years will be good (like right now). And when it is time to cut, expect to be first on the chopping block.

Canada should first and foremost have first rate air and naval defences. Like top 3 or 4 in the world.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Id expand a bit on that and say autonomous platforms and AI… and infantry, always infantry.

Yeah but with our work from home crowd they'll make sure autonomous platforms and AI still need a human operator to hit the space bar ever 42 minutes.

 

[Remius]

Yeah but with our work from home crowd they'll make sure autonomous platforms and AI still need a human operator to hit the space bar ever 42 minutes.

 

[FJAG]

I actually don't disagree with you that our security is tied to what happens in Europe. There's two issues here though.

1) How do you make this easily comprehensible and concrete to a voter who is being asked to pay for it? The 2% of GDP idea is at least somewhat comprehensible as the price to join the club of other peers. That starts getting higher as I fear the backlash.

I don't think we can. Ukraine (and a score of prior Russian interventions) should have been a massive wakeup call but I think that for the most part Canadians are happy to hide behind the Atlantic moat. I don't think it will become real to the average Canadian until the Russians or Chinese start drilling in our part of the Arctic and they fire on the first CCG vessel that comes to stop them. And even then many of our folks will talk of appeasement.

2) How best can we help? Cause while folks like yourself might dream of divisions, there's the question we of what the Europeans want as help and what we can best provide in a mutually beneficial way or leveraging our strengths.

I think brigades and divisions are the easy go-to solution. Like I said - everyone notices the size of the pin on the map. Our open source commitment has been a brigade since forever even though we reached a time after the fall of the CCCP where we couldn't deploy one for love or money. Pre-2004 we could actually have put together a 4 CMBG standard type of one - getting it there and sustaining it - that's another story.

What do Europeans want. IMHO, Latvia needs a division. The current one doesn't impress me much. Based on how much Canada already spends on defence we ought to be able to do much better. Equipment matters as much for the army as the air force and navy. We simply do not have enough.

For example, we build an alternative to Starshield that the rest of NATO can use? That removes leverage the US and Musk have.

That's an idea that I could get behind. Armaments production as well. But neither puts a pin in a map nor gets you a seat at the table where decisions are made by the big boys. NATO wants more armoured forces and also wants you to have skin in the game - that's the whole point behind the eFP. And yes, more air and naval forces for Europe are a part of that.

Or.. divisions are hard to move. Ships and airplanes? Not so much.

That's if you look at the bloated divisions that have become fashionable. One can build a very effective armoured division with around 10,000 people and 2,000 vehicles. The vehicles only need to be shipped once and at 300 folks in a C330 chalk, you can ramp up on prepositioned equipment in a few days. Such a division is very agile as against its peers.

The concept of a rapidly air-deployed, medium-weight forces with its equipment (like a LAV or Stryker brigade) was always a fiction. The USAF, with all its resources, proved that decades ago. The answer has always been-and still is-heavy equipment prepositioned in peacetime.

The point though is that soldiers, ships and air craft operate in different domains with significantly different capabilities. The thing is that spending isn't enough. You have to show up to get credit. Having a well defended moat around your country isn't good enough in an alliance.

 

[Quirky]

Canada should first and foremost have first rate air and naval defences. Like top 3 or 4 in the world.

I can’t imagine why. It’s not like we’re sitting on resources or anything….

 

[Kirkhill]

I don't think we can. Ukraine (and a score of prior Russian interventions) should have been a massive wakeup call but I think that for the most part Canadians are happy to hide behind the Atlantic moat. I don't think it will become real to the average Canadian until the Russians or Chinese start drilling in our part of the Arctic and they fire on the first CCG vessel that comes to stop them. And even then many of our folks will talk of appeasement.

I think brigades and divisions are the easy go-to solution. Like I said - everyone notices the size of the pin on the map. Our open source commitment has been a brigade since forever even though we reached a time after the fall of the CCCP where we couldn't deploy one for love or money. Pre-2004 we could actually have put together a 4 CMBG standard type of one - getting it there and sustaining it - that's another story.

What do Europeans want. IMHO, Latvia needs a division. The current one doesn't impress me much. Based on how much Canada already spends on defence we ought to be able to do much better. Equipment matters as much for the army as the air force and navy. We simply do not have enough.

That's an idea that I could get behind. Armaments production as well. But neither puts a pin in a map nor gets you a seat at the table where decisions are made by the big boys. NATO wants more armoured forces and also wants you to have skin in the game - that's the whole point behind the eFP. And yes, more air and naval forces for Europe are a part of that.

That's if you look at the bloated divisions that have become fashionable. One can build a very effective armoured division with around 10,000 people and 2,000 vehicles. The vehicles only need to be shipped once and at 300 folks in a C330 chalk, you can ramp up on prepositioned equipment in a few days. Such a division is very agile as against its peers.

The concept of a rapidly air-deployed, medium-weight forces with its equipment (like a LAV or Stryker brigade) was always a fiction. The USAF, with all its resources, proved that decades ago. The answer has always been-and still is-heavy equipment prepositioned in peacetime.

The point though is that soldiers, ships and air craft operate in different domains with significantly different capabilities. The thing is that spending isn't enough. You have to show up to get credit. Having a well defended moat around your country isn't good enough in an alliance.

My opinion:

More important than the Division is the Division enablers found at Division and Corps. They are more expensive and harder to find trained users. The locals can find lots of trigger pullers.

An Artillery Brigade with LRPF, AD and AT units might be more welcome.

 

[lenaitch]

They aren't fairly recent pressures. Wages and cost of living have been diverging for a while now. Worse more recently. But the trend is long running. The housing crisis has been easily going for two decades. And again, exploded post COVID. How many people in this country don't have a family physician or can't find childcare?

I suppose my perspective of three scope and 10 + is a little longerthan some. Sure, wages and prices have probably had a disparity since Ork chiseled the first stone coin. The 'housing crisis' (however defined) is, at best, 10 years old. Similarly, I comfortably derostered from my doctor about 10 years ago (because he was a dick) and quickly found another. I would even think about doing that now. All anecdotal for sure, but I'm not convinced the current economic pressures have been enduring.