Government hints at boosting Canada’s military spending

I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Compare price/income and rent/income ratios over those years. And you'll see how much worse off young people are today. That DEO today sees a third of that go to taxes and deductions. And more than half of what's left go to rent. Heck, even R&Q is well over 1k these days. Doesn't leave a lot for car payments (not really optional to get around), food, etc. and good luck to them if they happen to have a family at rank. If you have the same income as 1970 (inflation adjusted) and you face this housing situation, it's actually devastating to your quality of life:

What's that blip in disposable income after 2017 ?

 

[Czech_pivo]

Interesting snippet from an article in the NP today about the RMC and SJ -

"
“The other thing a lot of people don’t realize is that one of the policy decisions of the (Pierre) Trudeau government, which in hindsight was a big mistake, was to change the primary mission of the Armed Forces from one of defending Canadian sovereignty to being one of a more like an internal security force.”

It’s a significant point he’s making here; turning the military into another branch of the public service was a major shift.

So, was the son just following in the steps of the father over these last 9yrs? I have to say that I would agree with that.

Canada's esteemed military colleges live to fight another day, but report signals changes coming

Another snippet that is sadly telling -

"In 1962 (at a time when our population was approximately 18.5 million people) the combined strength of Canada’s Armed Forces was over 126,000 people … Today, with a population of 41 million, total regular force strength is around 63,000.”

 

[KevinB]

I think the Army needs to get onboard with that vision and ride it. Fewer dreams of heavy armoured brigades.

The Army doesn’t have an Armoured Bde, and the CMBG’s are neither Fish Nor Fowl.

Too Light (and inadequately equipped) to fight a LSCO, and too heavy to move easily for a COIN or Low threat PSO or NEO.

And more poster boards of how air and sea mobile the army can be. Government wants more ships? Tell them how the army can build a marine regiment to crew an amphib.

Arguably the USMC is even getting out of that game to a large extent.

Government talking about buying more helicopters? The CA should explain to the MND their new concept for an air assault regiment. Etc.

The biggest issue with the CA is that it doesn’t have the size to do anything well.

If you built an Air Assault Bde, that would be 1/3rd of the Regular Army Combat Power and require an exponential expansion of the TacHel community in Canada.
In an environment that is seeing the likelihood of large scale air mobility to be decreasing.

Heck the US Army is currently debating canceling the FLRAA program. Because the speed and range of the Bell 280 Valor while impressive is likely not going to be a factor anywhere due to the threat environment.

 

[Maxman1]

And more than 28 of them.

I'd say:
60-75 AW101 (35 ASW/maritime, 25 cargo/tactical lift, and maybe 15 SAR/SAR Queen)
Minimum 100 AW149

Not sure how many mortars are needed, probably a few thousand, plus Soltam K6 120mm and more L16s.

 

[Czech_pivo]

I'd say:
60-75 AW101 (35 ASW/maritime, 25 cargo/tactical lift, and maybe 15 SAR/SAR Queen)
Minimum 100 AW149

Not sure how many mortars are needed, probably a few thousand, plus Soltam K6 120mm and more L16s.

Again, we need to bring money that folds to the Europeans, not a few rolls of loonies and twoonies, a roll of quarters, a few cases of empty beer bottles and alot of pocket lint.
I think 175-185 AW101 & AW149 would be a decent start.

 

[Czech_pivo]

Interesting snippet from an article in the NP today about the RMC and SJ -

"
“The other thing a lot of people don’t realize is that one of the policy decisions of the (Pierre) Trudeau government, which in hindsight was a big mistake, was to change the primary mission of the Armed Forces from one of defending Canadian sovereignty to being one of a more like an internal security force.”

It’s a significant point he’s making here; turning the military into another branch of the public service was a major shift.

So, was the son just following in the steps of the father over these last 9yrs? I have to say that I would agree with that.

Canada's esteemed military colleges live to fight another day, but report signals changes coming

Another snippet that is sadly telling -

"In 1962 (at a time when our population was approximately 18.5 million people) the combined strength of Canada’s Armed Forces was over 126,000 people … Today, with a population of 41 million, total regular force strength is around 63,000.”

I see ZERO reason why the CAF shouldn't go above 120k again.

 

[KevinB]

I see ZERO reason why the CAF shouldn't go above 120k again.

I do.

Your economy.

Generally the Regular Force gives poor returns unless they are actively deployed. You would be much better suited to vastly expanding the Reserves for all services. Then using the fact that a Reservist costs about 1/10th the Regular Force PY to upgrade your equipment, infrastructure and material holdings.

I’d suggest you want a 2:1 ratio of Reservists to Regulars. Not the inverse pyramid you currently have.

 

[MilEME09]

I do.

Your economy.

Generally the Regular Force gives poor returns unless they are actively deployed. You would be much better suited to vastly expanding the Reserves for all services. Then using the fact that a Reservist costs about 1/10th the Regular Force PY to upgrade your equipment, infrastructure and material holdings.

I’d suggest you want a 2:1 ratio of Reservists to Regulars. Not the inverse pyramid you currently have.

I'd argue 3:1, namely because the regular force harps on the reserves being self sufficient and training them selves. With our current service model thsts a challenge. A larger pool to pull instructors would potentially make it more possible to do so, and better response to natural disaster and augmentation the regular force at the same time.

 

[IKnowNothing]

I'd argue 3:1, namely because the regular force harps on the reserves being self sufficient and training them selves.

Something something sacred cows

 

[Czech_pivo]

I do.

Your economy.

Generally the Regular Force gives poor returns unless they are actively deployed. You would be much better suited to vastly expanding the Reserves for all services. Then using the fact that a Reservist costs about 1/10th the Regular Force PY to upgrade your equipment, infrastructure and material holdings.

I’d suggest you want a 2:1 ratio of Reservists to Regulars. Not the inverse pyramid you currently have.

In the CAF that I would see it would be RCN and RCAF heavy, with the Army playing 3rd fiddle.

The RCN and RCAF would be actively deployed around the world, showing the flag wherever it went. Where the flag goes, trade will follow.

 

[KevinB]

I'd argue 3:1, namely because the regular force harps on the reserves being self sufficient and training them selves. With our current service model thsts a challenge. A larger pool to pull instructors would potentially make it more possible to do so, and better response to natural disaster and augmentation the regular force at the same time.

Agreed, but right now it’s like 1:2, so it will take time to flip.

I don’t believe the Reserves should be set to augment the Regular Force, at least not at the individual level.

The RCAF (and CANSOF) uses their Reserves much more effectively - but again most of their are former Reg pilots - which if the CAF have a higher throughput, and changes to education and pensions to make the Res more attractive after a Reg period would be a viable option for all services. CANSOF’s reserves are all former Reg SNCO’s or SO’s (I believe WO and Maj are the min ranks) and able to be used for training cadre or deployments in certain positions seamlessly.

 

[KevinB]

In the CAF that I would see it would be RCN and RCAF heavy, with the Army playing 3rd fiddle.

The RCN and RCAF would be actively deployed around the world, showing the flag wherever it went. Where the flag goes, trade will follow.

At the end of the day you need all of them. Army boots on the ground are the form of commitment that nations in threat really want to see.

 

[Fabius]

We're quickly seeing how things integrate in unpredictable ways. Your need drones at every level and echelon from section to division level assets. And you need cyber operators to accompany SOF to break into enemy networks. Every division level organization or carrier/amphib group in the US now needs space liaisons in their operations shop to synchronize space effects (most of my class mates went to these billets from the exchange program I was on). We're not even close to that level of integration. Likewise, we're so far behind on air defence and EW, which again have to be much more organic these days. So the idea that all we need are training programs to pump out rifle carriers in 6 months is quite the stretch.

Also, I'm going to bet that any coming policy review will face a hard choice between maximizing a land force or an air and naval force and choose the latter. This is the sense I get watching some of the priorities develop around me.

The interesting thing in Canada is that policy reviews and even internal restructuring plans rarely focus on the capabilities of the various force structures to fight and win Canada’s wars.

There is some consideration to NATO remits and NORAD remits but only as contributions.

There is a difference between structuring your forces to contribute and structuring your forces to fight to win as an independent joint force.

Canada has historically always preferred to contribute via air and naval power for domestic political reasons until circumstances force otherwise. I don’t see anything indicating that Canada has changed.

 

[Czech_pivo]

At the end of the day you need all of them. Army boots on the ground are the form of commitment that nations in threat really want to see.

I agree, boots on the ground are always going to be needed but I feel the emphasis should be on maintaining open sea lanes, keep the skies open and free and then being able to put feet on the ground.

 

[KevinB]

I agree, boots on the ground are always going to be needed but I feel the emphasis should be on maintaining open sea lanes, keep the skies open and free and then being able to put feet on the ground.

My belief is that some pre deployed ground forces are needed for Europe.

For the Army I’d have an Armoured Bde (true Armoured) in Europe - with equipment for a (Reserve) Mech Bde prepositioned as well.
1 (30/70) Armoured Bde
2 (30/70) Mech Bde’s
Call that 1 Cdn Armoured Division

Then 2 Canadian Light Division
Para Bde for Continental Defense and Global QRF.
2 Light (30/70) Bde’s for Domestic Defense and sustainment of the Regular Para Bde.

Then the break in case of war
3 Cdn Div
3 LAV Bde’s (10/90)

30k Reg PY for the Army
80k ARes

30k Reg PY for the Navy
- don’t know enough about their structures to give a good idea.

40k Reg PY for the AirForce
20k AFRes

 

[Fabius]

I agree, boots on the ground are always going to be needed but I feel the emphasis should be on maintaining open sea lanes, keep the skies open and free and then being able to put feet on the ground.

That concept can match the concept of a 3:1 Res to Reg army.

Part of the uniqueness of the Canadian military problem is that internally the military is used to being starved for money, personnel, equipment and attention. Hence when there is discussion about a certain segment getting more of those things the automatic response of the other segments is to fight and protest, as the historical perspective is that one only grows at the expense of others.

The size of the CAF pie does not grow but stays the same. Therefore a growth in the RCAF and RCN must come at the expense of the Army. That mindset even exists here.

For Canada to become a serious country and to repair the military that cannot be true anymore. The pie needs to grow, not simply be redistributed.

 

[Czech_pivo]

My belief is that some pre deployed ground forces are needed for Europe.

For the Army I’d have an Armoured Bde (true Armoured) in Europe - with equipment for a (Reserve) Mech Bde prepositioned as well.
1 (30/70) Armoured Bde
2 (30/70) Mech Bde’s
Call that 1 Cdn Armoured Division

Then 2 Canadian Light Division
Para Bde for Continental Defense and Global QRF.
2 Light (30/70) Bde’s for Domestic Defense and sustainment of the Regular Para Bde.

Then the break in case of war
3 Cdn Div
3 LAV Bde’s (10/90)

30k Reg PY for the Army
80k ARes

30k Reg PY for the Navy
- don’t know enough about their structures to give a good idea.

40k Reg PY for the AirForce
20k AFRes

You're numbers numbers are not really a large stretch above my 120k, at 100k. I'd just add another 10k to the Navy, so maybe my number comes down to 110k.

 

[Czech_pivo]

That concept can match the concept of a 3:1 Res to Reg army.

Part of the uniqueness of the Canadian military problem is that internally the military is used to being starved for money, personnel, equipment and attention. Hence when there is discussion about a certain segment getting more of those things the automatic response of the other segments is to fight and protest, as the historical perspective is that one only grows at the expense of others.

The size of the CAF pie does not grow but stays the same. Therefore a growth in the RCAF and RCN must come at the expense of the Army. That mindset even exists here.

For Canada to become a serious country and to repair the military that cannot be true anymore. The pie needs to grow, not simply be redistributed.

Agree, the size of the pie must grow.

 

[ytz]

I'd say:
60-75 AW101 (35 ASW/maritime, 25 cargo/tactical lift, and maybe 15 SAR/SAR Queen)
Minimum 100 AW149

Not sure how many mortars are needed, probably a few thousand, plus Soltam K6 120mm and more L16s.

Close. But a real frustration has been how much we've skimped and lost organizational efficiency with the helo fleets.

We have 25 Cyclones right now. Those basically support 12 frigates, 6 AOPS and 12 MCDVs. We should be closer to 1:1 between ships and helicopters. And there needs to be enough to fill the maintenance pipeline and an attrition reserve. So 35 is pretty accurate for the 15 River Class.

The SAR side is low. We have 5 operational SAR squadrons. Each of them should have 3x helos. And then the OTU needs inventory and the maintenance pipeline. This fleet should be about 20 frames. But this doesn't address the Base rescue squadrons at the three fighter bases. Those could be upgraded to full SAR squadrons or they get contracted. But that could then add another 10 frames if they become full SAR squadrons.

The Tactical Helicopter piece is interesting. There's about 70 Griffons assigned to tactical airlift. On paper replacing that total lift capacity requires only 27 frames. But that number of frames becomes too little when spread out across 5 operational squadrons and an OTU. If we're saying at least one TALH squadron per division + SOF + OTU, we're talking about 6 squadrons with 10 frames each at least. Add on another 10 more for the maintenance pipeline and attrition reserve. That's 70 frames.

Add all that up and the fleet should be closer to 135 frames.

Personally, I think all regular squadrons should be total force (mixed reg/res) and based near major airline hubs (Vancouver, Calgary, Toronto, Montreal, Halifax) using a lot more reserve pilots. But that would bump up the TH number to 80 frames (6 TH squadrons + SOF + OTU + attrition/maintenance) and total fleet for medium helicopters to 145 frames.

That's not a crazy number given that we now have 81 Griffons, 25 Cyclones and 16 Cormorants. 145 medium lift helicopters of a single type to replace the mix of 122 medium and light helos we have now would be a substantial increase in capability for very little increase in manning and logistics burden.

 

[Maxman1]

The Tactical Helicopter piece is interesting. There's about 70 Griffons assigned to tactical airlift. On paper replacing that total lift capacity requires only 27 frames. But that number of frames becomes too little when spread out across 5 operational squadrons and an OTU. If we're saying at least one TALH squadron per division + SOF + OTU, we're talking about 6 squadrons with 10 frames each at least. Add on another 10 more for the maintenance pipeline and attrition reserve. That's 70 frames.

Is that for the 101 or 149? Because I was thinking the 149 to replace the Griffon, augmented by 101s.