Government hints at boosting Canada’s military spending

I have long said that you could fund the CAF to 4 percent of GDP, but we would still lag behind in NATO and be much the same where we are.

It's never the money, it's politics. It's procedures. It's the pork-barreling in our defence spending that makes us a paper tiger in NATO.

My only hope in all of this for the CAF and the GoC, whatever the political stripe that may be, is that it will rouse them out of the "Peace Dividend" slumber. The world has been unstable since 1945. We have used geography, proximity, and association as a Defence Policy ever since. ICBMs don't care how close to the U.S. or how far from Russia/China we are.

Don't give us a dime more, but let us spend money on defence like it matters. The fact we follow the same rules for purchasing a fighter aircraft as we do for buying office furniture for a Service Canada office is disgraceful. Don't treat defense procurement as a stimulus package for Canadian Industry. There I said it.

We spend so much money, time, and effort trying to get that money to stay in Canada; be it by awarding contracts to companies with no capability to produce items without first "retooling" and"developing the production lines", or by hamstringing perfectly competent and competitive bidders by forcing the project to be made in St. Margaret de Poutain de Champignon, QC because the ruling government either lost the seat in the election, or won it with promises.

We spend so much money and staff hours jumping through TBS regulations that are great for other departments, but are terrible for defence procurement. Some items you have to sole source, because there are technologies and capabilities no one else makes. By doing the bid process, you get companies clamoring for a project they can't deliver on, but because they tick the bright boxes on the score sheet....

I truly and honestly belief we need to split from PSPC and legislate that its not beholden to TBS, only to the PBO/PCO. The guiding principles of this new Defence Procurement department should be "Off the shelf, from somewhere else" if there isn't an industry in Canada.

BOOTFORGEN has demonstrated how well we do when we are able to actually get what we need, instead of lining the pockets of a Canadian company that got lucky.

That, but with tanks, fighters, ships, weapons systems....

 

[Kirkhill]

I'll sing my same old song...

What's the US using? Is there any legitimate reason the same system won't work for us? No?...let's buy it for the sake of interoperability and logistics.

In this instance the US isn't necessarily the best mentor. It has let its GBAD game atrophy. Most of NATO did. But some countries have better residual capabilities than others. Norway leads in many respects.

 

[Furniture]

Fair enough.

But

If it takes time for people to learn to read English, and more time to learn to drive, gun, load and command, and more time to learn how to work as a team, and more time to learn how to work in a troop, and more time to learn how to work as a squadron, and more time to learn how to work as a combat team, and more to learn how to work as a battlegroup .... how effective are a few squadrons/companies of tanks going to be in changing the rules of the game.

I agree that the best solution is the well trained and well equipped team. Neither the Russians nor the Ukrainians have that option.

So what "toys" are going to be the most effective in the hands available?

The 80-90% solution is likely to be what works.

The M4 Sherman was not the best tank made by the Allies, but the Allies could make a lot of them, and train people to drive them quickly. It was too tall because the best engine available was a radial aviation engine, and the armour was just at the minimum to stop the most common AT rounds because more armour meant it would be too heavy to handle easily with dock cranes.

I suspect the Javelin would be dumbed down a bit (Atlatl? I want credit lol), but something along those lines would be made. UAVs would keep coming out, but I suspect remote ground armour would wither on the vine, as it's all expensive and unproven.

 

[Kirkhill]

The 80-90% solution is likely to be what works.

The M4 Sherman was not the best tank made by the Allies, but the Allies could make a lot of them, and train people to drive them quickly. It was too tall because the best engine available was a radial aviation engine, and the armour was just at the minimum to stop the most common AT rounds because more armour meant it would be too heavy to handle easily with dock cranes.

I suspect the Javelin would be dumbed down a bit (Atlatl? I want credit lol), but something along those lines would be made. UAVs would keep coming out, but I suspect remote ground armour would wither on the vine, as it's all expensive and unproven.

I agree with everything except this....

remote ground armour would wither on the vine, as it's all expensive and unproven.

That depends on what we mean by remote ground armour - if we are talking about fitting into my battlegroup above then I agree with you.

If we are talking about mules for the infantry, artillery and the service battalions then I think we will see them fairly soon.

 

[Good2Golf]

In this instance the US isn't necessarily the best mentor. It has let its GBAD game atrophy. Most of NATO did. But some countries have better residual capabilities than others. Norway leads in many respects.

…while it keeps up to speed on SRBM and ICBM Défense, etc. As well, one could note that the US adjusted its GBAD (not including Patriot and CRAM, of course) effort based on a general situation of their having a fair bit of air presence, so it’s not like they didn’t have other capabilities in the battle space. Norway doesn’t exactly have a huge global footprint to protect…

 

[Kirkhill]

…while it keeps up to speed on SRBM and ICBM Défense, etc. As well, one could note that the US adjusted its GBAD (not including Patriot and CRAM, of course) effort based on a general situation of their having a fair bit of air presence, so it’s not like they didn’t have other capabilities in the battle space. Norway doesn’t exactly have a huge global footprint to protect…

And Norway has spare bucks to spend which they have chosen to focus on a couple of major industries, much the same way the Swedes have.

I like the Yanks but there are other niche players out there doing interesting stuff.

 

[KevinB]

Fair enough.

But

If it takes time for people to learn to read English, and more time to learn to drive, gun, load and command, and more time to learn how to work as a team, and more time to learn how to work in a troop, and more time to learn how to work as a squadron, and more time to learn how to work as a combat team, and more to learn how to work as a battlegroup .... how effective are a few squadrons/companies of tanks going to be in changing the rules of the game.

I agree that the best solution is the well trained and well equipped team. Neither the Russians nor the Ukrainians have that option.

So what "toys" are going to be the most effective in the hands available?

Canada isn’t in the same situation as Ukraine.

In some ways, Canada’s rust out and entirely devoid categories of equipment are somewhat advantageous at this point.
The CAF can use some of the LL’s from Ukraine to inform and structure new programs — of course the issue is long lines of others looking for the same - and the lack of political/national will to support the CAF with proper support.

 

[Edward Campbell]

I think the danger of East Asia exploding into a full blown nuclear war is at least as serious as NATO vs WP in the 1950s and '60s.

From the Council on Foreign Relations: Conflicts to Watch in 2023

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

From the Council on Foreign Relations: Conflicts to Watch in 2023

Ukraine is giving almost everyone tunnel vision IMO, especially with the Sino-Russian-Iranian "Axis of Convenience" forming.

 

[Spencer100]

Canada isn’t in the same situation as Ukraine.

In some ways, Canada’s rust out and entirely devoid categories of equipment are somewhat advantageous at this point.
The CAF can use some of the LL’s from Ukraine to inform and structure new programs — of course the issue is long lines of others looking for the same - and the lack of political/national will to support the CAF with proper support.

As I get older and in this world everyday I see myself wanting to throw Hanlon's razor out the window. I have tried to also live by it. But I think problem is we are living in the movie "Brazil"

One thing I would most (All) of the people on this site are people of action and result orientation. I put to people maybe the results "we" are looking for are not really the ones the "powers" that be are looking for?

 

[Edward Campbell]

Ukraine is giving almost everyone tunnel vision IMO, especially with the Sino-Russian-Iranian "Axis of Convenience" forming.

My guess is that Russia remains containable using the tried and true mix of socio-economic and military methods of the 1950s and '60s. But, Putin is a problem. I read something a few weeks (months?) ago by a Brit who said there were three Putins in his experience:

• The Putin of the 1990s who actually wanted to join with the West because he believed they had common enemies - especially militant Islam;
• The Putin of the 2000s who was disillusioned and even insulted by the West's reaction which was to treat Russia as something less than an equal, great power; and
• The Putin who has, pretty clearly, gone off the deep end because, in his view, there is nothing else available to him: Russia must be a great power - the strategic equal of Chinese-led Afro-Asia and the US-led West or ... or Götterdämmerung.

I think that is a reasonable reading of the current situation. Russia can be, fairly readily, contained but Putin must be eliminated - preferably by an accidental fall from a window in the Kremlin.

Asia is quite another matter, in my opinion. Xi Jinping is in socio-political trouble, largely of his own making, but he's neither senile nor demented. He might, however, be willing to take a serious gamble if he calculates that the US-led West is too busy in Eastern Europe and he needs a war to solidify his hold on power.

The West must not get tunnel-vision over Ukraine. China is a bigger problem than Russia can ever hope to be.

If Putin does something really, really stupid we can, fairly simply, bomb the Russians back into the sixth century; China can be defeated only if it decides to leave its own shores.

Taiwan is the key to global peace and security for the next decade.

 

[Czech_pivo]

My guess is that Russia remains containable using the tried and true mix of socio-economic and military methods of the 1950s and '60s. But, Putin is a problem. I read something a few weeks (months?) ago by a Brit who said there were three Putins in his experience:

• The Putin of the 1990s who actually wanted to join with the West because he believed they had common enemies - especially militant Islam;
• The Putin of the 2000s who was disillusioned and even insulted by the West's reaction which was to treat Russia as something less than an equal, great power; and
• The Putin who has, pretty clearly, gone off the deep end because, in his view, there is nothing else available to him: Russia must be a great power - the strategic equal of Chinese-led Afro-Asia and the US-led West or ... or Götterdämmerung.

I think that is a reasonable reading of the current situation. Russia can be, fairly readily, contained but Putin must be eliminated - preferably by an accidental fall from a window in the Kremlin.

Asia is quite another matter, in my opinion. Xi Jinping is in socio-political trouble, largely of his own making, but he's neither senile nor demented. He might, however, be willing to take a serious gamble if he calculates that the US-led West is too busy in Eastern Europe and he needs a war to solidify his hold on power.

The West must not get tunnel-vision over Ukraine. China is a bigger problem than Russia can ever hope to be.

If Putin does something really, really stupid we can, fairly simply, bomb the Russians back into the sixth century; China can be defeated only if it decides to leave its own shores.

Taiwan is the key to global peace and security for the next decade.

My money is on availability of fresh water in China over the next decade or two - that to me is the sleeping giant of possible 'casus belli' for conflict between the West (and its proxies) and China.

 

[Good2Golf]

Taiwan is the key to global peace and security for the next decade.

This x 10!

Edit to add: Does anyone think there’s an evac plan for TSCM’s high-end 5/7nm chip fabrication eqpt, or would it be a BIP if China were to try to cross the Strait?

 

[SeaKingTacco]

This x 10!

Edit to add: Does anyone think there’s an evac plan for TSCM’s high-end 5/7nm chip fabrication eqpt, or would it be a BIP if China were to try to cross the Strait?

I read someplace that the whole building is rigged with demolitions, in the event of CCP “friskiness”…

 

[Good2Golf]

I read someplace that the whole building is rigged with demolitions, in the event of CCP “friskiness”…

Same here. Hmmm

 

[Spencer100]

This x 10!

Edit to add: Does anyone think there’s an evac plan for TSCM’s high-end 5/7nm chip fabrication eqpt, or would it be a BIP if China were to try to cross the Strait?

Its been whispered that the plan is to destroy them in place. In that the means of doing that are on site already.

Would not take much the facilities are large but super fragile. the clean rooms etc.

 

[GR66]

The West must not get tunnel-vision over Ukraine. China is a bigger problem than Russia can ever hope to be.

Agree here 100% and I think that any discussions about the future of our military need to take this into account.

It may not be a popular opinion here, but in my mind there are lots of players as big or bigger than Canada right in the Russian neighbourhood that can do much of the heavy lifting there while there is much more work that needs to be done in relation to the China situation.

 

[GR66]

Its been whispered that the plan is to destroy them in place. In that the means of doing that are on site already.

Would not take much the facilities are large but super fragile. the clean rooms etc.

Just as important as destroying the physical infrastructure is ensuring that the know how of the technology (i.e. the data and key personnel) do not fall into Chinese hands.

Remember how Operation Paperclip was able to give the US the lead in the space race (and other key technologies).

 

[Spencer100]

Just as important as destroying the physical infrastructure is ensuring that the know how of the technology (i.e. the data and key personnel) do not fall into Chinese hands.

Remember how Operation Paperclip was able to give the US the lead in the space race (and other key technologies).

in the end its the people and the data/knowledge that is the important part.

Example is you can look at right now is the Biden ban on chip manufacturing equipment, help and data with China. They are having huge problems.

 

[Spencer100]

Agree here 100% and I think that any discussions about the future of our military need to take this into account.

It may not be a popular opinion here, but in my mind there are lots of players as big or bigger than Canada right in the Russian neighbourhood that can do much of the heavy lifting there while there is much more work that needs to be done in relation to the China situation.

At this point Russia is of little direct concern to Canada. Just to Canada's friends. We just just need to say we are with you and offer some support.

China is the current and future problem. And new White paper should focus there.

 

[FJAG]

Weapons makers say Ottawa is leaving them in the dark on its plans to aid Ukraine​

​

'No one in industry has a clue' about what the federal government has in mind, says industry spokesperson​

Murray Brewster · CBC News · Posted: Jan 12, 2023

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ukraine-russia-weapons-cianfarni-eyre-anand-1.6710882