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

[KevinB]

If memory serves, didn't the US do or try to do this during the Reforager series. Even with prepositioned vehs, some CC folks and stores the div never got totally operational befor Endex. Was an LO with 7 Corps and was awed by the disconnects.

POMCUS Depots.
Reforger saw several Divisions airlifted in to bring V Corps above their establishment.
The first few led to a lot of changes in the setup of the depots, to ensure that vehicles and stores were ready to go.

But as you may or may not have noticed in 2022, we had the better parts of 3 Div over inside 72hrs and tracks rolling out to assembly areas.

 

[FJAG]

Its more than just moving the division. You're going to have to sustain that division too.

Yes - much of that gets prepositioned and the continued sustainment you have to plan for. War isn't risk free - just ask the WW2 merchant marine.

And possibly get as much as possible of it out if things go bad.

There won't be any Dunkirk. Neither will there be a retreat west over the Rhine. Russia couldn't make it to Kiev.

People need to look further than just moving into position.

Well . . . that's why we have a professional military that just got a pay raise. Are you saying that they're incapable of planning for the contingencies of a real war with all of the lessons they're learning? One glaringly obvious lesson is that more likely than not one will get involved in a conflict that could drag on and consume resources - that results in a "so what" of we need stockpiles of everything and a way to replenish them. That's staff planning 101.

I don't ever recall having to do an estimate where one of the courses open was: wholly crap, we should just stay home and continue to draw rations and pay.

Sorry. But it's just obvious that a) there are risks, b) one need to plan to minimize the risks, and c) if its in our national interest to do then one gets on with it.

The big question is: Is it in our national interest? That's highly subjective and almost impossible to calculate the bottom line for. We could argue that for decades without a resolution. Sometimes you just have to go with your gut.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Yes - much of that gets prepositioned and the continued sustainment you have to plan for. War isn't risk free - just ask the WW2 merchant marine.

Sustainment is not an implied task.

There won't be any Dunkirk. Neither will there be a retreat west over the Rhine. Russia couldn't make it to Kiev.

Do we need land forces in Europe if Russia is this weak ?

Well . . . that's why we have a professional military that just got a pay raise. Are you saying that they're incapable of planning for the contingencies of a real war with all of the lessons they're learning? One glaringly obvious lesson is that more likely than not one will get involved in a conflict that could drag on and consume resources - that results in a "so what" of we need stockpiles of everything and a way to replenish them. That's staff planning 101.

I don't ever recall having to do an estimate where one of the courses open was: wholly crap, we should just stay home and continue to draw rations and pay.

Sorry. But it's just obvious that a) there are risks, b) one need to plan to minimize the risks, and c) if its in our national interest to do then one gets on with it.

The big question is: Is it in our national interest? That's highly subjective and almost impossible to calculate the bottom line for. We could argue that for decades without a resolution. Sometimes you just have to go with your gut.

I'm not sure what cloud you are yelling at here but I don't see how this connects with me.

 

[FJAG]

Sustainment is not an implied task.

Prior to 2022 I might agree that showing the flag at the border did not imply the need to sustain long term. Post 2022 sustainment, if not an explicit task, must be seen as an implied task or it becomes professional negligence.

Do we need land forces in Europe if Russia is this weak ?

As I said - subjective. IMHO, yes. It won't always be weak and the Baltics are a particulalry touchy point for Russia that puts them very high on the hybrid war risk. A strong NATO force is needed there not just to repel an armoured thrust but to steady the populace in the face of continuing threats and malicious acts.

I'm not sure what cloud you are yelling at here but I don't see how this connects with me.

I wasn't. The "you" is used in the impersonal sense. However, the particular cloud that I'm yelling at in this case is the one that I see that relates to risk aversion and insularity.

 

[richarry]

Political pressure will drive results to achieve big picture global mandates. How those objectives are met may not consider practicality, fiscal responsibility or operational functionality. Growth through mergers and acquisitions without significant capital expenditures is a proven business strategy. Further, a shrinking GDP makes those matrices easier to achieve.

 

[Kirkhill]

A Substack article from Dec. 7, 2024 by a Dougald Lamont came across my feed.

This paragraph stood out.

".... Authorities like police are often unable to cope with .... disturbances, because from a practical point of view, they are not equipped to. Governments and police forces in Canada are not prepared for massive surges in protestors who are also breaking the law."

There used to be an auxiliary force of government (not party but government) supporters that the civil powers could call on to manage these disturbances. It was called the Militia. They got a bad reputation and the duty became unpopular, largely due to poor handling and bad management. However the Aid to the Civil Power role is at least as important as it ever has been.

Do we need to include that in our planning considerations?

Somewhere between a Security Guard and a full fledged combat ready infanteer, what is necessary to train people to assist in crowd control?

.....

And I am aware that this treads close to the US discussion on Trump's use of the National Guard.
I would just reference the Democrats use of the Guard in DC post January 6th, Bush in California in 1992 and Kennedy in Mississippi in 1962,
Hopefully we have moved on from suppressing miners and railway workers strikes but from time to time the police could do with support in the form of a legitimate, disciplined show of force.

 

[YZT580]

Has there been any movement/pressure on developing a government owned, civil operated fleet of RO-RO style ships as available naval auxiliaries? Would definitely come in useful, particularly on the east coast. Should be capable of navigating the complete St. Lawrence seaway. There should be some available on the open market without having to spend the money and time to have them built so the delays and added costs of having them built here could be avoided. Just have them overhauled in Canada.

 

[Kirkhill]

Milrem Robotics to deliver Over 150 THeMIS unmanned ground vehicles to Ukraine in Dutch-led defence initiative

Milrem Robotics, Europe’s leading developer of robotics and autonomous systems, will deliver more than 150 THeMIS unmanned ground vehicles (UGVs) to Ukraine under a Dutch-funded defence support package.

defence-industry.eu

150 of these .....

"Designed for supporting dismounted troops, logistics, reconnaissance, and combat operations, THeMIS has been adopted by 19 countries, making it the most widely used UGV in its class worldwide."

"The upcoming vehicles will add to the 15 THeMIS UGVs already in Ukrainian service, where they have been deployed for logistics and support missions since 2022."

 

[FJAG]

A Substack article from Dec. 7, 2024 by a Dougald Lamont came across my feed.

This paragraph stood out.

".... Authorities like police are often unable to cope with .... disturbances, because from a practical point of view, they are not equipped to. Governments and police forces in Canada are not prepared for massive surges in protestors who are also breaking the law."

There used to be an auxiliary force of government (not party but government) supporters that the civil powers could call on to manage these disturbances. It was called the Militia. They got a bad reputation and the duty became unpopular, largely due to poor handling and bad management. However the Aid to the Civil Power role is at least as important as it ever has been.

Do we need to include that in our planning considerations?

Somewhere between a Security Guard and a full fledged combat ready infanteer, what is necessary to train people to assist in crowd control?

.....

And I am aware that this treads close to the US discussion on Trump's use of the National Guard.
I would just reference the Democrats use of the Guard in DC post January 6th, Bush in California in 1992 and Kennedy in Mississippi in 1962,
Hopefully we have moved on from suppressing miners and railway workers strikes but from time to time the police could do with support in the form of a legitimate, disciplined show of force.

Up until the 1970s we routinely dealt with training in riot control. The graphic examples of what was going on in the race and anti-Vietnam riots across the border gave impetus to that. Our training manuals, however, were more oriented to the British situation in Aden or Northern Ireland.

At some point - I can't quite recall the exact year (albeit I remember doing it right up the the 1976 Olympics) - government policy changed and the army was removed from the overt riot control baton and shield type of operations which were placed squarely on police forces of various levels. All police forces of any size then started forming riot control reaction forces while the army ceased training for that role.

I don't believe that government policy has changed and I'm quite sure the military in Canada has no desire to go back to being employed in riot control.

 

[Kirkhill]

Up until the 1970s we routinely dealt with training in riot control. The graphic examples of what was going on in the race and anti-Vietnam riots across the border gave impetus to that. Our training manuals, however, were more oriented to the British situation in Aden or Northern Ireland.

At some point - I can't quite recall the exact year (albeit I remember doing it right up the the 1976 Olympics) - government policy changed and the army was removed from the overt riot control baton and shield type of operations which were placed squarely on police forces of various levels. All police forces of any size then started forming riot control reaction forces while the army ceased training for that role.

I don't believe that government policy has changed and I'm quite sure the military in Canada has no desire to go back to being employed in riot control.

Got it. Another job that the Army doesn't want to do.

 

[ytz]

Got it. Another job that the Army doesn't want to do.

And one that is terrible for civil-military relations. Particularly given what Canadians are seeing from the US and their use of militarized forces at home. What a surefire way to kill all the goodwill and support the CAF is getting these days.

 

[FJAG]

Got it. Another job that the Army doesn't want to do.

Yes but this was first and foremost a GoC imitative for political reasons.

I was out of it by then, but I think that some limited crowd control training remained for forces deploying on peacekeeping missions. Others here might know better than I.

 

[Kirkhill]

Would we want to hire anyone that wanted to do crowd control?

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Would we want to hire anyone that wanted to do crowd control?

That's why you need a Gurkha Battalion......

 

[KevinB]

Would we want to hire anyone that wanted to do crowd control?

LEO role.
These days there are a lot of good less lethal options that cannot be used OUTCAN, as they are prohibited by conventions to be used against any hostile force.
Yes it’s sort of silly that you can’t use an LRAD or CN/CS/OC systems or even a Taser, but you can shoot them with a 5.56mm or 7.62mm round, but hey, since when have International Protocols ever made a lot of sense.

There are a lot of LE in Canada, and Public Order roles are best to be left to them.
Use the Military for legit reasons that will likely have lethal encounters, or use SOF for more discretionary purposes.

 

[daftandbarmy]

LEO role.
These days there are a lot of good less lethal options that cannot be used OUTCAN, as they are prohibited by conventions to be used against any hostile force.
Yes it’s sort of silly that you can’t use an LRAD or CN/CS/OC systems or even a Taser, but you can shoot them with a 5.56mm or 7.62mm round, but hey, since when have International Protocols ever made a lot of sense.

There are a lot of LE in Canada, and Public Order roles are best to be left to them.
Use the Military for legit reasons that will likely have lethal encounters, or use SOF for more discretionary purposes.

If needed, depending on what you're up to, it takes about a week or two to train up a rifle company, or just about any group of CAF members, to do crowd/ riot control.

The C&C and justice systems? That's whole other training program that will be needed before the military gets deployed to crack heads in Canada

Just make sure you learn the 'Molotov Mamba'

 

[MacNav63]

I seem to recall that the CA also used to get called out to deal with prison riots, at least at the Kingston Pen in '71.

I can well imagine though that after a different event in Quebec in 1990 the CA would want to stay well away from LEO types of aid to the civil power activity. Just rife with the potential for bad PR regardless of actual outcomes.