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

[PrairieFella]

The All-Domain Defence Plan will be very interesting with all the global developments going on.

 

[ytz]

Policy update, but also a few other documents like the all domain defense plan, Naval fleet mix and Army Warfighting concept which will shape the future of the CAF for decades to come.

The All-Domain Defence Plan will be very interesting with all the global developments going on.

100%

I don't think this forum is ready for some of the implications of these plans. If we're more domestic focused and more focused on industrial policy, this means capabilities like missile defence go much higher on the priority list, and domains like space and cyber become way more important to the government. Maybe more important than say thanks, for example. We have an outsized space sector that can take contracts.

 

[PuckChaser]

100%

I don't think this forum is ready for some of the implications of these plans. If we're more domestic focused and more focused on industrial policy, this means capabilities like missile defence go much higher on the priority list, and domains like space and cyber become way more important to the government. Maybe more important than say thanks, for example. We have an outsized space sector that can take contracts.

Is your entire goal just to talk down to people here? That's a pretty trashy generalization and if you think its making you sound smart, I have news for you.

 

[MilEME09]

Is your entire goal just to talk down to people here? That's a pretty trashy generalization and if you think its making you sound smart, I have news for you.

I mean 1 svc is called red necks with wrenches....... seriously though we have a incredibly smart group on this site. We can wrap our heads on these concepts, hell some people here probably influenced these documents. Not me.....no one listens to the class A guy.

 

[ytz]

Is your entire goal just to talk down to people here? That's a pretty trashy generalization and if you think its making you sound smart, I have news for you.

Not at all.

I'm just cautioning people.

I see a lot of excitement and passion over which tank or IFV or artillery or whatever. Meanwhile, I can see that the government is mostly not in that same headspace.

That's a setup for disappointment. Even if a lot of money is being spent.

 

[PrairieFella]

Not at all.

I'm just cautioning people.

I see a lot of excitement and passion over which tank or IFV or artillery or whatever. Meanwhile, I can see that the government is mostly not in that same headspace.

That's a setup for disappointment. Even if a lot of money is being spent.

To couch this, Im a crewman through and through. Mud, blood, green fields etc. RCAC stan. Combined arms enjoyer.

That said, fuck the tanks/AFVs. For now at least. We have generational moolah being poured into the CAF which lets us buy those strategic and operational level assets weve never been able to afford prior. Tactical kit can wait for a bit while we build our figurative "ships" of the future, ie space/cyber/electromagnetic assets that will be it for the next. You go to war with the last war's navy, itll probably be the same for the 21st century enablers.

But also tanks and AFVs please lol.

 

[markppcli]

Not at all.

I'm just cautioning people.

I see a lot of excitement and passion over which tank or IFV or artillery or whatever. Meanwhile, I can see that the government is mostly not in that same headspace.

That's a setup for disappointment. Even if a lot of money is being spent.

Shocker people are interested in what pertains to their specific experiance and interests. Doesnt mean they are blind to the larger picture.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Shocker people are interested in what pertains to their specific experiance and interests. Doesnt mean they are blind to the larger picture.

It's almost as if a coherent, clearly articulated national defence strategy would help us direct the resouces where they're needed based on our strategic priorities versus internal interests scrapping over the cash..

But.. yeah...

 

[PuckChaser]

Not at all.

I'm just cautioning people.

I see a lot of excitement and passion over which tank or IFV or artillery or whatever. Meanwhile, I can see that the government is mostly not in that same headspace.

That's a setup for disappointment. Even if a lot of money is being spent.

It's the same point I made in the Globaleye thread; there's more than enough money to go around if we're a 3.5% GDP military.

Know what gets us more money for the CAF? Normal citizens seeing tanks and IFVs and ships. We all know there's tons of investments to be made in space, cyber, and EW but they're not going to garner the public support that a shiny ship, plane or tank will. Your statement came off as know-it-all and crass. People are going to discount everything you say, even if you're correct, if you continue with that attitude.

 

[Czech_pivo]

It's the same point I made in the Globaleye thread; there's more than enough money to go around if we're a 3.5% GDP military.

Know what gets us more money for the CAF? Normal citizens seeing tanks and IFVs and ships. We all know there's tons of investments to be made in space, cyber, and EW but they're not going to garner the public support that a shiny ship, plane or tank will. Your statement came off as know-it-all and crass. People are going to discount everything you say, even if you're correct, if you continue with that attitude.

That’s why I see benefit in having an expanded RCN training programme/vessels on the GL as a good thing.

 

[Cloud Cover]

Not at all.

I'm just cautioning people.

I see a lot of excitement and passion over which tank or IFV or artillery or whatever. Meanwhile, I can see that the government is mostly not in that same headspace.

That's a setup for disappointment. Even if a lot of money is being spent.

Ok sure, but it has never ever been the case that there are enough infantry soldiers, boots and bayonets. At the end of the day, somebody has to get the other side out of their bunkers so they can be dealt with. One of the big take always from the US-Iran conflict is that all the fancy, stand off, space based gadgets and wizardry didn’t win the war for either side.

 

[PuckChaser]

That’s why I see benefit in having an expanded RCN training programme/vessels on the GL as a good thing.

Probably a similar issue to "proper kitting of the Army Reserve". We have plenty of NavRes stone frigates on the GL that need more than Zodiacs to rip around in.

 

[ytz]

Normal citizens seeing tanks and IFVs and ships. We all know there's tons of investments to be made in space, cyber, and EW but they're not going to garner the public support that a shiny ship, plane or tank will.

It's almost as if a coherent, clearly articulated national defence strategy would help us direct the resouces where they're needed based on our strategic priorities versus internal interests scrapping over the cash..

I fear that this is becoming less about what we need than what creates the most jobs. The DIS is much more naked in ambition than previous IRB and ITB policies. And now we have an entire procurement agency that has that mindset as foundational. So I'm not sure we're getting more space and cyber because we need it, so much as we have a sector that is outsized in Canada and is telling the government they can make a lot of jobs.

I want the CA to have good kit too. And it kinda sucks if their entire priority stack is being written by industry. A real possibility that any fighting vehicle is listed to the GDLS London catalog. That kind of scenario sucks.

Your statement came off as know-it-all and crass. People are going to discount everything you say, even if you're correct, if you continue with that attitude.

Not my intent. Apologies if it came off that way.

 

[ytz]

Ok sure, but it has never ever been the case that there are enough infantry soldiers, boots and bayonets. At the end of the day, somebody has to get the other side out of their bunkers so they can be dealt with. One of the big take always from the US-Iran conflict is that all the fancy, stand off, space based gadgets and wizardry didn’t win the war for either side.

100% agree.

But what if the government thinks of defence spending as mostly a way to create industrial jobs and they don't actually care what capability falls out of the CAF?

That's my point.

I am not sure they care if we end up with ineffective fancy widgets. As long as jobs were created along the way.

The only caveat to this are the few capabilities we genuinely need domestically like air and drone defence. Those they might actually be serious when buying.

 

[Cloud Cover]

100% agree.

But what if the government thinks of defence spending as mostly a way to create industrial jobs and they don't actually care what capability falls out of the CAF?

That's my point.

I am not sure they care if we end up with ineffective fancy widgets. As long as jobs were created along the way.

The only caveat to this are the few capabilities we genuinely need domestically like air and drone defence. Those they might actually be serious when buying.

Agreed

 

[Kirkhill]

Interesting phraseology here

Prevent defeat vs deliver victory.

Britain excelled because it had no need to deliver victory. It sufficed to prevent defeat.

 

[Kirkhill]

100%

I don't think this forum is ready for some of the implications of these plans. If we're more domestic focused and more focused on industrial policy, this means capabilities like missile defence go much higher on the priority list, and domains like space and cyber become way more important to the government. Maybe more important than say thanks, for example. We have an outsized space sector that can take contracts.

I found this article on the A-OTHR project today. It has some interesting tidbits in it. But I couldn't find any place to post it.

Australia, Canada announce $4B over horizon radar agreement - Breaking Defense

This may be "the single biggest defense industry export from Australia in our history. So this is a really, really big opportunity for the nation," Australian Defense Minister Richard Marles said today.

breakingdefense.com

In this sense I concur with YTZ on the readiness of this site to discuss these developing plans.
I have similar problems with the mult-domain application of drone technologies, with multi-domain warfare generally.
I have problems with IAMD and the changing definitions of Littoral warfare.
I have problems with the military domains (land, air, sea, space, cyberspace) and the PEMSII domains (political, economic, military, social, institutional and informational) that together consistitue the hybrid warfare battlefield.
I have problems with the overlaps between civil and police authorities and military authorities.

None of these elements fit cleanly into the discussion structure of this forum.

That is not a fault of the forum, or its members or its architect.
It is a reflection of the inflection point at which we find ourselves.

Crystal balls have been shattered and no new ones are in sight.
We'll just have to continue to grope our way forwards.

 

[ytz]

Stuff like this is growing in profile pretty quickly:

DND advances innovation in drone detection technology - Canada

DND successfully concluded drone detection trials over to test urban counter uncrewed aircraft system (CUAS) capabilities

canadiandefencereview.com

From the government's perspective:

1) Easy domain to give a Canadian vendor some business.
2) Nobody is going to complain about investments that boost domestic security.
3) Still works towards NATO spending targets.

If you take the above viewpoint, the priority investments become Cyber, Space, IAMD (including BMD), anything Arctic, a lot of sensor stuff, etc. More shipbuilding because jobs. Just imagine what the Corvette project does for say Vard in St. Catharines. I think the CA is out of luck on anything outside the GDLS London catalog unless they can convince somebody else to come build here. How many Leopards do we have to order to get a Rheinmetall assembly line? And you can absolutely bet that a lot of staff officers are quietly contemplating how to rejig their project requirements to make it fit this new regime.

 

[Kirkhill]

Stuff like this is growing in profile pretty quickly:

DND advances innovation in drone detection technology - Canada

DND successfully concluded drone detection trials over to test urban counter uncrewed aircraft system (CUAS) capabilities

canadiandefencereview.com

From the government's perspective:

1) Easy domain to give a Canadian vendor some business.
2) Nobody is going to complain about investments that boost domestic security.
3) Still works towards NATO spending targets.

If you take the above viewpoint, the priority investments become Cyber, Space, IAMD (including BMD), anything Arctic, a lot of sensor stuff, etc. More shipbuilding because jobs. Just imagine what the Corvette project does for say Vard in St. Catharines. I think the CA is out of luck on anything outside the GDLS London catalog unless they can convince somebody else to come build here. How many Leopards do we have to order to get a Rheinmetall assembly line? And you can absolutely bet that a lot of staff officers are quietly contemplating how to rejig their project requirements to make it fit this new regime.

Effectively Canada is writing something novel for Canada: a National Defence plan.

 

[ytz]

I think a way to think about this. Whatever project is planned, try and make a case for an order/lot size that is big enough to get production in Canada. Otherwise, there's a risk that said project drops down on the priority list. Doctrine will be rejigged to fit whatever is bought. Unfortunate reality.

For example. If the CA wants tanks. Put in a project for say 120 tanks and you'll end up stalled forever because that's just a proposal that vendors will offer to build at home. Ask for 300 and you might get production in Canada. All of a sudden the government thinks tanks are sexy and the minister is in the news arguing about why the CA needs lots of tanks.

I really hate that this is what the job is now.....