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....

 

[daftandbarmy]

Bn HQ and admin was definitely in Chilliwack. Each BC Inf Res unit had a 3VP cadre attached (usually 1 x offr and 2-3 snr NCOs and a few NCMs) with an assigned capability. Can Scots in Victoria were supposed to be pioneer, Westies in Van were TOW, RM Rang were recce. Can't remember what the Seaforths were assigned. When 3 VP was stood back up in Edmonton, the cadres departed and only the RSS was left behind.

Correct... because they took all the troops and leaders they had trained with them (on CTs) and we had to rebuild the regiment from scratch, which only took about 5 years

 

[MilEME09]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-army-restructuring-latvia-1.7476793?__vfz=medium%3Dsharebar

 

[Czech_pivo]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-army-restructuring-latvia-1.7476793?__vfz=medium%3Dsharebar

Brutal - 15 lousy tanks and we are struggling in keeping them operational. G7 nation, what a f*cking joke.

 

[MilEME09]

Brutal - 15 lousy tanks and we are struggling in keeping them operational. G7 nation, what a f*cking joke.

To be fair, it's not all due to us, the tanks are barely running because KMW barely makes any spare parts. Support for the original A4 is almost nonexistent. It's why the army long term wants to Ditch the A4 for modern leopard varients that are supported. Like everything it's subject to budget, we would be fine if parts were made. Maybe we can use metal 3D printing in the short term?

 

[KevinB]

Is Industry even allowed to sell sensitive systems without a US intermediary?

There are a few ways for Foreign Governments to buy equipment from us. Everything Defense related need DDTC approval (Department of Defense Trade Control), potentially DOE or Congressional approval for technology or items) and at certain $ figures Congressional approval is required.

Some technology is restricted as well (and there is a large matrix for this but in the interest of simplicity I’ll give a basic layout).

7) Friendly Nations (basically anyone that isn’t barred)
6) Allied Nations
5) NATO
4) 5Y
3) NORAD
2) 5Y Tier 1 SOF or IC, with interoperability requirements from US sponsor unit/element.
1) Congressional Waiver



FMS (Foreign Militarily Sales): This is a Gov to Gov sale. This technically is limited to current contract USG items, but can often be steered around depending on the item, the OEM and the country that wants it. Benefits are usually a lower price per unit (due to USG contract volumes), guaranteed supply (well until 47…) and various other aspect that can get baked into a GTG contract.

Industry Direct: Government deals direct with OEM (sometimes assisted or supported by USG ‘oh you need this, let us setup a meeting with XYZ…). This can be beneficial if the purchaser(s):
1) wish a custom solution, or
2) the OEM has production above USG Monthly contract delivery orders and the acquiring nation has immediate needs. Or
3) Acquisition nation needs may not be as stringent for requirements and are willing to take items that may not pass DCMA inspection criteria - basically buying blemish units (depending on item this can be a very reasonable option).


Note for US subsidiaries of Foreign Defense Companies, or Foreign subsidiaries of US Defense Companies no technical data can flow either way without approval (which may be a mix of DDTC, DOE, DoS or Congressional). TAA’s are required for JV work to isolate aspect that are not covered by licenses or waiver's).

 

[Czech_pivo]

To be fair, it's not all due to us, the tanks are barely running because KMW barely makes any spare parts. Support for the original A4 is almost nonexistent. It's why the army long term wants to Ditch the A4 for modern leopard varients that are supported. Like everything it's subject to budget, we would be fine if parts were made. Maybe we can use metal 3D printing in the short term?

I'd like to suggest that the ditching should be moved up from 'long term' to basically immediate, lol. If we can barely get parts of 15 lousy tanks right now, why would we think that continuing down this path 'long term' would be a good path to take?

 

[Czech_pivo]

To be fair, it's not all due to us, the tanks are barely running because KMW barely makes any spare parts. Support for the original A4 is almost nonexistent. It's why the army long term wants to Ditch the A4 for modern leopard varients that are supported. Like everything it's subject to budget, we would be fine if parts were made. Maybe we can use metal 3D printing in the short term?

I hear that SK makes a pretty mean tank, just ask the Poles who bought just under 1,000 - of which roughly 80% of them are being made in Poland, by Poles. So, make a similar deal and look to have the manufacturing of the majority take place in Canada where we can control the spart part flow. Both Poland and us, 2 NATO countries would then have inter-operability with them. We'd have an instant 'on-site' maintenance facility in Europe, very close to Latvia and/or Ukraine if we deploy there.

 

[KevinB]

What NATO (and what I’ll call NOTUS) needs is a common equipment system, which allows for the option of local production under license.

Technical Data sharing and a lessons learned/common improvement board.

 

[Rifleman62]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-army-restructuring-latvia-1.7476793?__vfz=medium=sharebar

Plan, talk, meet.

Cabinet approval: No

New Money: No

Some small items: 10 years of procurement.

= Fuck all.

 

[Czech_pivo]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-army-restructuring-latvia-1.7476793?__vfz=medium=sharebar

Plan, talk, meet.

Cabinet approval: No

New Money: No

Some small items: 10 years of procurement.

= Fuck all.

Strong chance that the Brampton Stellantis (Chrysler) facility is going to be shutdown. Retool it for SK tank production, local workforce continues to have jobs, CDN tool & die shops can supply machined parts and we build in-house capabilities.

 

[Czech_pivo]

Strong chance that the Brampton Stellantis (Chrysler) facility is going to be shutdown. Retool it for SK tank production, local workforce continues to have jobs, CDN tool & die shops can supply machined parts and we build in-house capabilities.

The Brampton facility even has railhead capability, which is very key.

 

[FJAG]

To be fair, it's not all due to us, the tanks are barely running because KMW barely makes any spare parts. Support for the original A4 is almost nonexistent. It's why the army long term wants to Ditch the A4 for modern leopard varients that are supported. Like everything it's subject to budget, we would be fine if parts were made. Maybe we can use metal 3D printing in the short term?

It's been a perpetual issue since David had to find a replacement cord for his sling. When you keep systems well past there useful shelf life and manufacturers have gone on to make new systems, the older parts supply will dry up. Manufacturers won't bind themselves to perpetual ongoing production of relatively small scale parts. I've tried a fast bit of research to find out how long a manufacturer is required to provide parts and, in short, there is no hard and fast universal rule other than some specific issues (like Prairie farm machinery) but one can generalize that around 7 to 10 years or so after last manufacture of the vehicle in question no new parts are made. (but occasionally some parts carry over to the next model)

All that said, 7 to 10 years is not sufficient for fleets that routinely are expected to serve 15 to 20 years (take our M109s which first came into service in 1967 and operated until 2004 before being demiled in 2011/12. While the turret had major upgrades over the years, the automotive components didn't change much over time.)

This isn't a new issue. It only has three viable and logical solutions: turn over equipment more rapidly; buy a 20-30 year supply of parts and warehouse them until needed; or set up your own parts manufacturing enterprise. Solution one and two have a high upfront cost. High upfront costs are frequently an issue in getting government approval which results in contracts that skew towards volume of vehicles purchased at the expense of lifetime system support.

Solution three is prohibitive as to IP rights (which can be dealt with in the contract) and the machinery and technical skill required to run a facility to address all the potential needs. 3D printing helps and I know that there are already some machine shops in the navy and air force capable of production, but, judging by the comments in this forum as to the high parts related VOR rate the CF is not doing enough of this.

 

[PrairieFella]

It's been a perpetual issue since David had to find a replacement cord for his sling. When you keep systems well past there useful shelf life and manufacturers have gone on to make new systems, the older parts supply will dry up. Manufacturers won't bind themselves to perpetual ongoing production of relatively small scale parts. I've tried a fast bit of research to find out how long a manufacturer is required to provide parts and, in short, there is no hard and fast universal rule other than some specific issues (like Prairie farm machinery) but one can generalize that around 7 to 10 years or so after last manufacture of the vehicle in question no new parts are made. (but occasionally some parts carry over to the next model)

All that said, 7 to 10 years is not sufficient for fleets that routinely are expected to serve 15 to 20 years (take our M109s which first came into service in 1967 and operated until 2004 before being demiled in 2011/12. While the turret had major upgrades over the years, the automotive components didn't change much over time.)

This isn't a new issue. It only has three viable and logical solutions: turn over equipment more rapidly; buy a 20-30 year supply of parts and warehouse them until needed; or set up your own parts manufacturing enterprise. Solution one and two have a high upfront cost. High upfront costs are frequently an issue in getting government approval which results in contracts that skew towards volume of vehicles purchased at the expense of lifetime system support.

Solution three is prohibitive as to IP rights (which can be dealt with in the contract) and the machinery and technical skill required to run a facility to address all the potential needs. 3D printing helps and I know that there are already some machine shops in the navy and air force capable of production, but, judging by the comments in this forum as to the high parts related VOR rate the CF is not doing enough of this.

Parts honestly seems to be the main sticking point in our VOR woes from my understanding. The Leos, TAPVs and LAVs all have major parts deficiencies and some of vehicles like the LUVW can't even get some parts new anymore, just refurbished (from what I've heard). Any maintainer or supply types here that can explain what the heck is broken in our parts system? Are the logistics chains over complex? Shifty contracting? OEM scumbaggery?

 

[MilEME09]

Parts honestly seems to be the main sticking point in our VOR woes from my understanding. The Leos, TAPVs and LAVs all have major parts deficiencies and some of vehicles like the LUVW can't even get some parts new anymore, just refurbished (from what I've heard). Any maintainer or supply types here that can explain what the heck is broken in our parts system? Are the logistics chains over complex? Shifty contracting? OEM scumbaggery?

microchips good sir, when those have supply issues, everything has a knock down effect. With how high tech our kit has become, with not enough chips, you get this.

 

[PrairieFella]

microchips good sir, when those have supply issues, everything has a knock down effect. With how high tech our kit has become, with not enough chips, you get this.

Brutal. Maybe we can dust off the plans for the UC and Centurion...not a chip in sight. Has there been good positive movement on parts contracts like senior officers have been saying lately?



If I had a billion bucks I'd start a chip foundry in MB. All of the minerals are right here.

 

[ytz]

I'd suggest looking at a hypothetical of a long war. Imagine that you've expended all of your glitzy, expensive toys. What are the absolute must-haves that you need to keep in the fight? 155mm arty shells? Carl G's? SHORAD missiles? Unguided rockets? FPV drones? All the things you'll continue to need to use in bulk. That should be our first focus for domestic production in my mind.

Depends on the war.

 

[PrairieFella]

.

 

[YZT580]

Strong chance that the Brampton Stellantis (Chrysler) facility is going to be shutdown. Retool it for SK tank production, local workforce continues to have jobs, CDN tool & die shops can supply machined parts and we build in-house capabilities.

lots of other auto factories to choose from. Oshawa is a ghost town, don't think there is anything happening in the old St. Thomas plant which would allow it to draw on experienced labour from London. Idea definitely has merit

 

[Czech_pivo]

lots of other auto factories to choose from. Oshawa is a ghost town, don't think there is anything happening in the old St. Thomas plant which would allow it to draw on experienced labour from London. Idea definitely has merit

St Thomas has been destroyed a number of years ago.

 

[KevinB]

The Brampton facility even has railhead capability, which is very key.

Better off a clear plot of land. The equipment needed to make 50-70t tanks isn’t anything like the stuff in an auto plant, and the building pretty much need to be built to plan around certain production/assembly items.

Then make a rail head to the staging lot.