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

[dapaterson]

Is that sarcasm? Because I’m pretty sure that’s a political claim blown to smithereens by reality.

In fiscal 25/26 Canada spent over (just over) 2 % of GDP on defence.

That does not magically translate into new buildings filled with equipment and matériel overnight.

 

[Kirkhill]

On reaching 2%
Sean Phelan via Michelle Rempel Garner.

Creative accounting won't stop a missile.

The claim that Canada has met its two-percent NATO spending target is debatable at best, and extremely dangerous at worst.

open.substack.com

 

[FJAG]

In fiscal 25/26 Canada spent over (just over) 2 % of GDP on defence.

That does not magically translate into new buildings filled with equipment and matériel overnight.

I must admit that some of the reporting on "is anything really changing" is a bit sickening. Especially since it all is being genereated by my old party which pretty much wasn't any better than the old Trudeau mob.

I'm more than prepared to give the new bunch a reasonable time to come to the table with announcements for new acquisitions. IMHO the infrastructure based ones, and even the pay ones, were the right way to go at the beginning while they get their ducks in a row on the heavy metal stuff. I expect more things will get put out on the table this summer and fall when we get the submarine decision made as well a few other things.

If the Yanks would keep their yaps shut and stop being a**holes, the decision for more F-35s ought to be an easy one to make in conjunction with the sub thing.

 

[PrairieFella]

Im wondering if we'll get anything big at CANSEC next week so they can posture to industry they mean business.

 

[MilEME09]

On reaching 2%
Sean Phelan via Michelle Rempel Garner.

Creative accounting won't stop a missile.

The claim that Canada has met its two-percent NATO spending target is debatable at best, and extremely dangerous at worst.

open.substack.com

Only creative accounting is by the critics imo, NATO definitions of defense spending havent changed, and the GoC moving the CG under dnd for example doesnt change that. They rely on public ignorance thinking NATO just looks at the over all dollar, and doesnt dig deeper, which they do.

 

[AvroArrow92]

Im wondering if we'll get anything big at CANSEC next week so they can posture to industry they mean business.

If I was betting man down select FLIT, top off order of LAV 6 or LAV 6 ASCV, down select for ATGM or GBAD or even an order (less likely), potentially an order for LUV from Roshel or GM Defence. The biggest variable is if they announce an order for Global Eye or maybe L3 Harris AWACS off the Global platform. I thin the last one has a lot more trade/ sovereignty issues, the USA is already throwing a fit with us having true independent ISTAR/ AWACS outside of their ecosystem might tip our hand to much. This is just me spit balling of course. This might also have something to do with CUSMA nego, and tangibly connects to the fighter review program.

 

[PrairieFella]

If I was betting man down select FLIT, top off order of LAV 6 or LAV 6 ASCV, down select for ATGM or GBAD or even an order (less likely), potentially an order for LUV from Roshel or GM Defence. The biggest variable is if they announce an order for Global Eye or maybe L3 Harris AWACS off the Global platform. I thin the last one has a lot more trade/ sovereignty issues, the USA is already throwing a fit with us having true independent ISTAR/ AWACS outside of their ecosystem might tip our hand to much. This is just me spit balling of course. This might also have something to do with CUSMA nego, and tangibly connects to the fighter review program.

As unlikely as it is, an early selection for LUV would be a godsend in my little corner of the Army haha. More realistically, I could see some ALAV or ACSV announcements.

 

[Kirkhill]

Only creative accounting is by the critics imo, NATO definitions of defense spending havent changed, and the GoC moving the CG under dnd for example doesnt change that. They rely on public ignorance thinking NATO just looks at the over all dollar, and doesnt dig deeper, which they do.

Pay raises and new barracks increase the budget. Taking on responsibility for veterans pensions likewise.

Those funds, as the article title says, don't stop missiles.

Nor do they put bullets in rifles or rifles in hands. In those areas we are slow off the mark.