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

[Good2Golf]

The Arrow is an interesting piece of the puzzle. But even the most staunch defender of the program has to admit there where a lot of ‘fitted for not with’ aspects to the Arrow that tend to get glossed over.

Canada made a decision at that time to hobble itself. Rather than either invest into the radar and fire control needed for it - or encourage a JV with an American partner like Raytheon to work the side of things Canada didn’t have for it.

Looking back in time, it is a fairly Canadian tragedy that basically sold out the defense sector to America. There is a lot of he said she said about pressures applied to the Avro Arrow cancellation, of which I have no doubt occurred — but the end of the day aspect is it was not a viable platform in a sole Canadian environment.

Canada to had three options, and honestly chose the worst IMHO.

COA 1: Dump a pile of GoC effort and money into radar, missiles and fire control for the Arrow. All of which had little domestic infrastructure at the time, and a relatively high risk for the program.

COA 2: Stand up a true North American consortium to deliver the entire program.

COA 3: Fold the tent and take an American umbrella.

COA 3 was picked, and as one can see the brain drain that occurred in those fields.

To me as I said above I think that was the worse option available, and I think COA 1 was the riskiest, and given the situation likely to be a dry hole with immense economic investment for zero return. It may have resulted in an Airframe that was either not viable - or required a huge American effort resulting in loss of control. I believe it would have been however preferable in hindsight than the fold the tent.

I try to be a realist in my looking back as a CAN/AM dual citizen. I think had Canada pushed the COA 2 that the relationship between both Canada and America would be vastly different and much more of a partnership that what it has unfortunately become.

My lenses have colored a bit recently as an American tax payer, as well as a former CAF member. For years the CAF was neglected by Canada (not just the GoC) that neglect also drained in Defence Infrastructure.

@Good2Golf when one talked about the US Defense Budget and how much goes to NATO, I know you are annoyed at America currently (and our current Administration certainly deserves a lot of anger). One need to understand that what placing an American soldier in Europe does. While POTUS and his clowns may talk about leaving (and have a history of poor decisions) Congress decides what really occurs in DoD, and as long as one American soldier sits in Europe it means that the entire weight of the US Military might will rein fire and brimstone on anyone that fucks with that.

Historically we have a bad habit of showing up late - those forward deployed troops ensure that we won’t do that again.

Agree COA 2 would have been the best option. When it comes to Canada own-goaling itself, turning down P5 membership remains ‘Peak Canuckvirtue.’

Congress controlling things?

 

[KevinB]

Agree COA 2 would have been the best option. When it comes to Canada own-goaling itself, turning down P5 membership remains ‘Peak Canuckvirtue.’

Congress controlling things?
View attachment 100426

I have more faith in the Senate, and I hope mid terms result in more adulting.

 

[Underway]

The Arrow is an interesting piece of the puzzle. But even the most staunch defender of the program has to admit there where a lot of ‘fitted for not with’ aspects to the Arrow that tend to get glossed over.

Canada made a decision at that time to hobble itself. Rather than either invest into the radar and fire control needed for it - or encourage a JV with an American partner like Raytheon to work the side of things Canada didn’t have for it.

There is a school of though that points to combat aerospace as being the "most expensive" of defence investments. It takes an enormous amount of resources to design and build fighter aircraft of quality. The reasoning is similar to the boom bust cycle of warship building in Canada. To keep that industry going you always need the next project, and countries at some point have to decide if they want to pay that cost.

 

[Good2Golf]

I have more faith in the Senate, and I hope mid terms result in more adulting.

Agree, upper house is slightly more adultish, and I think Trump’s 1776 Fund has made more than a few Sen(R) reconsider their past fealty…

 

[FJAG]

To keep that industry going you always need the next project, and countries at some point have to decide if they want to pay that cost.

I think that applies to most defence sector industries. The problem with the "next project" is Canada's reliance on orgy purchasing. Not 300 trucks per year but 2,000 as fast as possible with no "next contract" for twenty years thereafter. You couldn't build a better system to destroy an ongoing industry with. Sustainment and expansion capability of the domestic armaments industry needs to be built into each and every project.

 

[KevinB]

To keep that industry going you always need the next project, and countries at some point have to decide if they want to pay that cost.

Everyone pays the cost somehow. Sometimes it is paid in spades by future generations.

 

[GR66]

About the only thing that stood out from WKBW was the extraordinary number of house fires each day in Buffalo North Tonawanda at the time (tarpaper covered wooden houses burn fiercely).

FTFY

 

[Kirkhill]

Cheap, fast, good. You can have two of the above.

Liberty ships were the first two. They were disposable. Many barely survived their first voyages due to shoddy workmanship. They took a ton of risks in building them. Their life cycle was expected to be 5 years max before the breakers yard. That's a blink of an eye for a ship. But they were built for an attrition war. They were the right tool at the right time.

If the government today were to do the equivalent of Liberty Ships for projects, many of the same people above who are swooning over their amazingness would be screaming about crappy gov't contracting or corruption. You at least wouldn't need a maintenance contract as essentially all our armoured vehicles would be disposable.

The current problem is we need to get out of the slow, expensive and adequate lane. CPSP is an example to point to where we up until now have demonstrated the correct speed, and quality. CANSOF is another place where things move quickly.

In fairness CANSOF isn't buying aircraft carriers. Its purchases are relatively low cost and few in number. The financial otlay nd risk is low.

And WW2 didn'rt just consume ships as if they were disposable. Shermans, Flying Fortresses and Lancasters were also consumed in numbers, along with the crews that served them.

We have an opportunity to build comparable consumables without the crew wastage. But only if we build small, simple and fast, not big, complex and slow. Those need to be pursued on a separate timeline.

 

[Kirkhill]

The other wrinkle I would say on top of your cheap, good, fast triangular matrix is also Domestic production.

My response about the Arrow above tries into this as well.

I am a firm believer that Canada with its relatively low needs, is often better suited buying into Allied programs. Initially fielding items manufactured by allies, and standing up domestic production of the items and their consumables (parts, munitions etc).

It won’t necessarily be the cheapest method — but it will ensure domestic depth at a strategic level to support the CAF in times of conflict.

The counterpoint to that is Sweden. It has a smaller land mass and a smaller population yet it has made an export economy for itself by creating goods that work and sell well domestically, using the home nation as a test market.

Yes it has some clunkers. It has some poor but adequate knockoffs that were necessary because of its self-imposed neutrality. But it also managed to produce a fair number of export successes, both on the military and civil fronts. SKF Bearings, Alfa Laval centrifuges and Ikea. Bv202/206/S10, CV90 and CB90.

I don't know what it is that hinders Canadian investors beyond some innate reluctance to take a considered gamble.

 

[Kirkhill]

FTFY

Another 5-Alarm fire. News at 11.

 

[FJAG]

I don't know what it is that hinders Canadian investors beyond some innate reluctance to take a considered gamble.

A mercurial defence procurement process.

 

[Kirkhill]

A mercurial defence procurement process.

I would agree with you except I have seen the same hesitation in the civvy world.

That hesitation doesn't seem to exist in the US private sector.

 

[Kirkhill]

This is a totally different time than your previous post. If Canada should be blamed for anything, it is trusting America, or at least believing they wouldn’t be ‘America’s interests’ed again in the free trade era after the ‘neighborly technological and human skills’ pillaging of the 50s/60s. That Canada is now appreciating a GWesque awakening about America looking out only for America, is not something that should be held against it now…
View attachment 100421

242K views · 5.6K reactions | How World War II Reshaped British–American Financial Power #SovereignDebt #FiscalPolicy #gold #Debt #finance Disclaimer Default Finance explores the fascinating stories of financial history and dynastic power. My cont

How World War II Reshaped British–American Financial Power #SovereignDebt #FiscalPolicy #gold #Debt #finance Disclaimer Default Finance explores the fascinating stories of financial history and...

www.facebook.com

Disregard the AI graphics. The tale is one familiar to me.

Hence a degree of personal ambivalence to the US and its State Department and a lack of surprise at Trump.