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

[PrairieFella]

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.....

I mean if we're actually about to spend 125BB USD on defence, that money better be used to build domestic industry and not just suck the wealth of Canada into Lockmart and Yank private equity firms. We desperately need investment into the private sector in Canada, this is one way to do it while ensuring they arent poached by the EU/USA or even worse, China.

 

[dapaterson]

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.....

Sovereign defence production capacity is in many ways more important than the standing peacetime CAF.

Our pers gen doctrine (MOB MOCs for the win!) tells us we can create sailors / soldiers / aviators with a focused skillset more quickly than we can start turning out equipment and materiel; the investment focus should be less on "folks waiting on their rucksacks" and more on "national capacity to produce rucksacks, and CAF capacity to train personnel".

The CAF mindset is fixated on "today we must fight" instead of "how do we ensure military readiness for a long fight", and it shows.

 

[Furniture]

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.....

I'd suggest that in serious countries, this is how things have always operated to some extent.

We just got too comfortable being unserious, and buying a few toys on occassion from whoever promised a new french fry plant in return.

 

[ytz]

Fair points all. I guess it's a little uncomfortable for me to have to think more politically than before.

 

[Good2Golf]

Fair points all. I guess it's a little uncomfortable for me to have to think more politically than before.

Yup.

Think of which NATO committee is the senior. NAC over MC.

 

[FJAG]

Our pers gen doctrine (MOB MOCs for the win!) tells us we can create sailors / soldiers / aviators with a focused skillset more quickly than we can start turning out equipment and materiel; the investment focus should be less on "folks waiting on their rucksacks" and more on "national capacity to produce rucksacks, and CAF capacity to train personnel".

I've heard the those arguments for and against many times.

My own view is that it's a bit of a mix. Yes we can turn out a DP1 private and officer (if we get rid of that stupid university requirement) within 4-9 months and heavy equipment takes considerably longer.

But, you can't turn out a company sergeant major or battalion commander quickly at all. They take time to learn and hone their skills before they are proficient at it.

The real question we should be asking is how can we economically turn out enough competent leaders to be available and ready to go when force expansion has to happen. Right now we seem to park lots of them in NDHQ but is there a plan to harvest them for the new units? - and are there enough folks to run things at Carlson to keep the new troops and equipment coming?

One last thought. I don't think that our pers gen doctrine understands how quickly the situation may change and what happens if there aren't enough competent folks "waiting on their rucksacks." You need both. People and rucksacks. And the ability to generate plenty more of each.

 

[Czech_pivo]

Not sure if this has been posted elsewhere or if it belongs here.

Prepare for a world of ad hoc coalitions​

Neither wishful multilateralism nor cold realpolitik will do. Mark Carney and Alexander Stubb suggest a third way​

https://archive.ph/Jeu3s

 

[Kirkhill]

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.....

I wouldn't worry over much.

The US became market leaders, if not necessarily best-in-class, by diverting tax dollars to their domestic industrial base.

After a slowdown and consolidation following the Cold War they are picking up the pace again.

US industrial base is becoming stronger for wartime production, study finds

As recent conflicts consume weapons at a ferocious rate, America’s defense industrial base is becoming more prepared to sustain a major war.

www.defensenews.com

And I would note that US nuclear wareheads are designed and procured by the Department of Energy, as are naval nuclear reactors.

Dual purpose technologies and critical materials.


Britain, France, Italy, Sweden, Finland, Israel, Switzerland, Turkey, Japan, South Korea, India, Russia and China have all operated varianrs of the same economy.

A model arguably found in Venice in 1104 (The Arsenal) with the governmet offering bonds to citizens in 1171 (Prestiti). And they were not the first militarized state.

Venetian Arsenal - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Government bond - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"One of the first assets resembling government bonds were the forced loans, or prestiti, that the Republic of Venice first issued in 1172 to fund wars and defence spending.[9] These paid a nominal interest rate of 5% per year on the face value, in two half-yearly instalments, and could be sold in the open market for a lump sum.[10]'"

...

I suggest it is just part of Canada becoming seriously engaged in defence planning.

 

[Kirkhill]

Further to my last...

Defense industrial base boosts production for US and Europe

The United States and Europe made several defense contract announcements totaling approximately $3 billion that will improve their capabilities.

www.washingtonexaminer.com