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

[dapaterson]

This is correct. And more specifically, we need to develop industrial capacity. We may need a barrel per month in peacetime. But that factory needs to be equipped and have the ability to staff up to a barrel per week in wartime. Unfortunately decades of lean manufacturing have made spare capacity antithetical to industry and government as a customer. These will be big shifts in mindset. Not just for the CAF.

CAF leadership have driven that scarcity of supply mindset. Preservation of shell units lacking in capability, lack of investment in foundational requirements (infra, roads and grounds, utilities, ammunition stocks)... all driven by a CAF that deselects support occupations from institutional leadership at DP3.

 

[daftandbarmy]

CAF leadership have driven that scarcity of supply mindset. Preservation of shell units lacking in capability, lack of investment in foundational requirements (infra, roads and grounds, utilities, ammunition stocks)... all driven by a CAF that deselects support occupations from institutional leadership at DP3.

... and a penchant for driving the car while looking in the rear view mirror

 

[ytz]

CAF leadership have driven that scarcity of supply mindset. Preservation of shell units lacking in capability, lack of investment in foundational requirements (infra, roads and grounds, utilities, ammunition stocks)... all driven by a CAF that deselects support occupations from institutional leadership at DP3.

I'll add that our senior officers are somewhat under educated too. Not a popular opinion on this forum. I know. But I can see the intellectual difference at the same rank level for our senior officers, GOFOs and departmental executives vs American counterparts. Ours lack the education and experience to think deeply to issues right through to second and third order effects. And as warfare becomes more technological and faster paced, the ability to learn and synthesize information is a real limfac. We also don't have anything comparable to the Eisenhower School where military personnel aren't just given staff college but an education in logistics and supply chains.

I came back from my education in the US an advocate for doing more of that. Sometimes that kind of quality is not available at home. I was taught missile aerodynamics by an aerodynamicist who helped put Neil Armstrong on the moon. There's no experience like that in Canada.

 

[Cloud Cover]

I'll add that our senior officers are somewhat under educated too. Not a popular opinion on this forum. I know. But I can see the intellectual difference at the same rank level for our senior officers, GOFOs and departmental executives vs American counterparts. Ours lack the education and experience to think deeply to issues right through to second and third order effects. And as warfare becomes more technological and faster paced, the ability to learn and synthesize information is a real limfac. We also don't have anything comparable to the Eisenhower School where military personnel aren't just given staff college but an education in logistics and supply chains.

I came back from my education in the US an advocate for doing more of that. Sometimes that kind of quality is not available at home. I was taught missile aerodynamics by an aerodynamicist who helped put Neil Armstrong on the moon. There's no experience like that in Canada.

That will change as the army grows from 9 under strength battalions and some combat support, to a force probably 2 or 3 times that size and far more lethal. A Navy going to 15 and then likely 30 or 40 fighting ships and submarines. An Air Force maturing into 5th Gen backed up by a combat force if Gripen. All if these will require exceptional leaders and the GOFO should hopefully rise up with that as well. Hopefully.

 

[dapaterson]

I'll add that our senior officers are somewhat under educated too. Not a popular opinion on this forum. I know. But I can see the intellectual difference at the same rank level for our senior officers, GOFOs and departmental executives vs American counterparts. Ours lack the education and experience to think deeply to issues right through to second and third order effects. And as warfare becomes more technological and faster paced, the ability to learn and synthesize information is a real limfac. We also don't have anything comparable to the Eisenhower School where military personnel aren't just given staff college but an education in logistics and supply chains.

I came back from my education in the US an advocate for doing more of that. Sometimes that kind of quality is not available at home. I was taught missile aerodynamics by an aerodynamicist who helped put Neil Armstrong on the moon. There's no experience like that in Canada.

Best we could do was a chemistry PhD who claimed to be an expert on peacekeeping.

We value and incentivize "professional" degrees, the MDS granted to many CFC (residency) graduates, rather than academic degrees.

The whole question of promotion scrits and what behaviours they incentivize is another huge can of worms.

 

[daftandbarmy]

I'll add that our senior officers are somewhat under educated too. Not a popular opinion on this forum. I know. But I can see the intellectual difference at the same rank level for our senior officers, GOFOs and departmental executives vs American counterparts. Ours lack the education and experience to think deeply to issues right through to second and third order effects. And as warfare becomes more technological and faster paced, the ability to learn and synthesize information is a real limfac. We also don't have anything comparable to the Eisenhower School where military personnel aren't just given staff college but an education in logistics and supply chains.

I came back from my education in the US an advocate for doing more of that. Sometimes that kind of quality is not available at home. I was taught missile aerodynamics by an aerodynamicist who helped put Neil Armstrong on the moon. There's no experience like that in Canada.

Meanwhile, Airborne dudes be like ...

 

[dapaterson]

Meanwhile, Airborne dudes be like ...

There's a need for ariborne leadership.

There's also a need for institutional sustainment leadership. Institutional long term planning. I have heard of a MGen who thought 90 days out was long term / strategic... when personnel generation & equipment acquisition (two easy examples) are measured in years. If the Army wants ten more majors in 2030, they should have been recruited ten years ago (at least).

 

[ytz]

Will add the politics of all this is broken in Canada too. Carney has tried to reinstitute the government internships for mid career industry professionals. This is similar to what we did in WWII with the dollar a year men. Instead of praise for this, the government is getting all kinds of shit from the Opposition to the Editorial columns. How does a government even bring in knowledge and experience when our politics and society is hostile to the idea? Contrast that to the US, where going off to serve a year or two in a government appointment is considered a prestigious thing.

On the military side, the Americans will give more points to STEM degrees on their SCRITs. We treat all degrees the same and your French profile is worth 4x the Masters degree. I've got two STEM Masters. My second one might be worth a point if I make COL apparently. Lol. With SCRITs like that how are you going to get leadership that has the intellectual ability to both understand technological change and exploit it?

 

[childs56]

I'll add that our senior officers are somewhat under educated too. Not a popular opinion on this forum. I know. But I can see the intellectual difference at the same rank level for our senior officers, GOFOs and departmental executives vs American counterparts. Ours lack the education and experience to think deeply to issues right through to second and third order effects. And as warfare becomes more technological and faster paced, the ability to learn and synthesize information is a real limfac. We also don't have anything comparable to the Eisenhower School where military personnel aren't just given staff college but an education in logistics and supply chains.

I came back from my education in the US an advocate for doing more of that. Sometimes that kind of quality is not available at home. I was taught missile aerodynamics by an aerodynamicist who helped put Neil Armstrong on the moon. There's no experience like that in Canada.

I would partly disagree with them being under educated. ( I would say many of our Officer Corps are well/over educated but untrained in the roles they are expected to work in) they lack depth of experience for the roles and responsibilities they are expected to fulfill along with try and grow their areas of expertise.
We have a lot of industries with tons of experience and knowledge in various cross skills that would benefit our Military. But it will neve happen due to the politics of the process we have.

We can not compare ourselves to the US just due to the shear size of their resources. It would be an interesting endeavor if Canada opened their minds to gaining more experience.

 

[brihard]

Will add the politics of all this is broken in Canada too. Carney has tried to reinstitute the government internships for mid career industry professionals. This is similar to what we did in WWII with the dollar a year men. Instead of praise for this, the government is getting all kinds of shit from the Opposition to the Editorial columns. How does a government even bring in knowledge and experience when our politics and society is hostile to the idea? Contrast that to the US, where going off to serve a year or two in a government appointment is considered a prestigious thing.

Someone listens to The Line.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Will add the politics of all this is broken in Canada too. Carney has tried to reinstitute the government internships for mid career industry professionals. This is similar to what we did in WWII with the dollar a year men. Instead of praise for this, the government is getting all kinds of shit from the Opposition to the Editorial columns. How does a government even bring in knowledge and experience when our politics and society is hostile to the idea? Contrast that to the US, where going off to serve a year or two in a government appointment is considered a prestigious thing.

On the military side, the Americans will give more points to STEM degrees on their SCRITs. We treat all degrees the same and your French profile is worth 4x the Masters degree. I've got two STEM Masters. My second one might be worth a point if I make COL apparently. Lol. With SCRITs like that how are you going to get leadership that has the intellectual ability to both understand technological change and exploit it?

And if you're a good hockey player...

 

[FJAG]

There are people in CS units & bde HQ who are operating out of Cougar MRAP, TAPV, and LSVW when they should be in LAV but they are not because we don’t have enough of the LAV FoV (which includes ACSV)

I agree entirely on ACSV. In fact here's what I said just up thread.

By the way I'm fine with more ACSVs and even a few hundred turretless LAV infantry section carriers with RWS guns and ATGMs, but no more pseudo IFVs please. Let's put our money into building eight to ten battalions worth of CV90 or a Redback here and issue the current LAV turreted ISV's to the second tier forces.

It's the IFV where I have issues. We purchased some 278 infantry section carriers which at roughly enough (together with the CP versions etc) to outfit some 6 Mech battalions plus schools and operational stock. There may be a lot down but those should be fixable with parts, mechanics and time

IMHO six battalions of medium LAV 6 battalions is enough. I want to see those 8 to 10 mech battalions of tracked IFVs before we even consider more ISVs. OTOH, ACSVs? Sure. Especially if they carry AD systems and mortars and ATGMs for the 6 LAV battalions.

Contrast that to the US, where going off to serve a year or two in a government appointment is considered a prestigious thing.

OTOH. Sometimes you get what you pay for. Look at the current crop. Albeit I expect this gang has their snouts firmly in the trough.

I take your point though. Canada needs to put a large number of both our military and acquisition folks through schools and experience gaining programs such as internships with countries that are more entrepreneurial and manufacturing focused. We have more than enough social sciences engineers.

 

[Furniture]

I would partly disagree with them being under educated. ( I would say many of our Officer Corps are well/over educated but untrained in the roles they are expected to work in) they lack depth of experience for the roles and responsibilities they are expected to fulfill along with try and grow their areas of expertise.
We have a lot of industries with tons of experience and knowledge in various cross skills that would benefit our Military. But it will neve happen due to the politics of the process we have.

We can not compare ourselves to the US just due to the shear size of their resources. It would be an interesting endeavor if Canada opened their minds to gaining more experience.

I think this hits a key point. Education isn't the shortfall, education relevant to the job is.

Having a masters in art history isn't going to make one officer better at managing procurement better than another without a masters. Targeted education in specific fields is important.

The CAF has too broadly accepted the "more letters is better" when it comes to education, and hasn't been good at getting the right people in the right schools at the right times. Why is having any masters the benchmark, when we need people with specific skills and knowledge?

The same applies to SLT... How does being proficient in French make me better at institutional leadership and policy? I know lots of profiled "leaders" who can't even do their jobs, let alone be the SME when it comes to policy discussions, but we have to let them bet at the table because they scored two points higher in French grammar than someone else.