• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Government hints at boosting Canada’s military spending

Status
Not open for further replies.
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....
 
With how long they've been in dry dock, I think they're closer to being monuments/museum pieces vice boats.

My 5 year old daughter's inflatable Lobster ride on has spend more time patrolling our shores than some of our subs...
Don't tell the "Submariners" you might hurt their feelings.

#tipofthespearintheirownminds

I make that joke as someone who wanted to be a submariner because IMO, they will be a way more useful weapon of war when WW3 breaks out.
 
Without a experience and credible field force, it means longer and more expansive training for CANSOFCOM.

Oddly enough, they have designed their courseware to take suitable candidates from zero to 100 with an almost BMQ/SQ like (without the yelling and theatrics) package of instruction on small arms, marksmanship, fieldcraft and small unit tactics. They have also done this for a while, a good chunk of SFC and SOAC is spent on getting candidates all onto the same baseline of field soldering with little care to the background of the individual candidates.

Hell, now with the creation of the hard Special Operations Officer trade group they're truly locking in their pers to the SOF world and seem to be cutting as many of the trifling strings of the greater CAF as they can for better or worse.
 
Oddly enough, they have designed their courseware to take suitable candidates from zero to 100 with an almost BMQ/SQ like (without the yelling and theatrics) package of instruction on small arms, marksmanship, fieldcraft and small unit tactics. They have also done this for a while, a good chunk of SFC and SOAC is spent on getting candidates all onto the same baseline of field soldering with little care to the background of the individual candidates.

Hell, now with the creation of the hard Special Operations Officer trade group they're truly locking in their pers to the SOF world and seem to be cutting as many of the trifling strings of the greater CAF as they can for better or worse.

Could they second a couple of bodies to CADTC?
 
Do you want people to kill themselves?! 😄

If you're a young, fit, dynamic and ambitious person.... CADTC is not the place to be.
Season 5 Owntv GIF by Queen Sugar
 
I say that because I worked there for a couple of years. Did a stint as an Aide and then had to mark time there for a bit. I wanted to kneecap myself 😄

A substantial portion of people there fall in the Q1 quadrant. Low Engagement/Low Results

View attachment 79368

I'm more convinced that the CAF is all about Q3, which leads to suggest deeper failings in Q1 ;)
 
The truth, is we are a broken shell of an organization, with senior leaders to busy on vanity/retirement/empire building projects to actually want to engage in the drastic changes we need in order to recover and properly reconstitute. Look at Force 2025, we picked the least risky option, that may not even deliver what we desire. Why? We are too risk adverse now
 
The truth, is we are a broken shell of an organization, with senior leaders to busy on vanity/retirement/empire building projects to actually want to engage in the drastic changes we need in order to recover and properly reconstitute. Look at Force 2025, we picked the least risky option, that may not even deliver what we desire. Why? We are too risk adverse now
Agreed.

We are too risk adverse across the spectrum, and it's being that risk adverse which negatively affects the options we can present to government when a crisis arises, negatively affects the opinions of our allies, and turns away potential recruits at a time when we NEED THEM... (Just my opinion)

I haven't deployed since 2010 so it would be out of my lane to comment on whether or not our operations are too risk adverse or not, both in choice of missions a d execution.
 
Agreed.

We are too risk adverse across the spectrum, and it's being that risk adverse which negatively affects the options we can present to government when a crisis arises, negatively affects the opinions of our allies, and turns away potential recruits at a time when we NEED THEM... (Just my opinion)

I haven't deployed since 2010 so it would be out of my lane to comment on whether or not our operations are too risk adverse or not, both in choice of missions a d execution.

The CAF is not alone:

Your Company Is Too Risk-Averse​

Here’s why and what to do about it.


In theory, companies create value for stakeholders by making risky investments. In practice, however, managers in large corporations routinely quash risky ideas in favor of marginal improvements, cost-cutting, and “safe” investments.

Why are managers in large, hierarchical organizations so risk-averse? Corporate incentives and control processes actively discourage managers from taking risks. Whereas CEOs consider each investment in the context of a greater portfolio, managers essentially bet their careers on every investment they make—even if outcomes are negligible to the corporation as a whole.

This article explains how loss aversion works, presents an analysis of just how much value manager attitudes toward investment risk leave on the table, and offers suggestions for changes in practices and systems.

 

The most important thing from Peter McKay is his suggestion to depoliticize defence spending.

Snip:
The first thing that must be done is to call for a détente. The government and opposition must come together to work on de-politicizing defence generally and procurement specifically. This doesn’t mean that the government should be absolved of responsibility for legitimate shortcomings, nor that the opposition stop asking questions, but rather that all parties should agree that the fundamentals of defence and procurement must have continuity between governments and must be defined by interparty co-operation rather than political competition.

If defence can be de-politicized, even in part, much more progress can be made toward cutting bureaucratic processes designed to insulate politicians, allowing us to reduce costly delays and finally get our men and women in uniform the tools and resources they most need, much more quickly than is currently possible. The spectacular failures of the Sea King helicopter, Victoria class submarine and ongoing and escalating CF-18 Fighter replacement programs, costing billions and causing long delays for short-term political gain, highlight this pressing need. Partisan political games and broken promises have devastating implications for those who risk their lives in the CAF.
 
We've had this thread for over a year now and I haven't seen any concrete evidence that Trudeau is boosting military spending. Every time I click on this thread I'm dissapointed.

Perhaps we should use truth in advertising principles and rename the thread "Justin Trudeau still has done nothing about boosting Canada's military spending."

:unsure:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top