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....

 

[GR66]

The easiest way to picture air defence is small umbrellas under larger umbrellas under yet larger umbrellas and so on, all of which interlock under a common command and control system.

The SHOR in SHORAD stand for short range which makes it the smallest umbrella and very dependent on what the other systems are that work with it. For example our old Javelins worked within and expanded the capability of ADATS.

The big question, which I don't know the answer to, is how the GBAD project envisions their particular solution will operate vis a vis its own resources and our allies'. There needs to be a very clear doctrine of use that GBAD slots into. Because AD is always a system of systems, that requires a very high degree of integration and interoperability. We had that for 4 AD. the GBAD requirements statement is very broad and generic.

To me its a bit vague right now because of the wide mix of equipment across the "New" NATO. Latvia apparently has RBS-70, Stinger, Giraffe, Sentinel and AN/TPS-77 but I don't see any medium or long range missiles. Lithuania does have some NASAMs and some eFP countries could deploy medium and above range.

I presume, that the definition phase of this project will start setting out more concrete elements. In fact my guess is that they are already pretty far along with that process.

According to this article on The Drive, the British Sky Sabre (Land Ceptor CAMM Missiles - same missiles as being procured for the CSC) is already integrated into the US Systems:

"Realistically, however, the British Army would be working closely with allies, primarily the United States, in most potential large-scale conflicts that would require extended air defense coverage. No doubt with this in mind, the CAMM became the first foreign missile to be integrated within the U.S. Army’s Integrated Air and Missile Defense Battle Command System (IAMD IBCS). This is the service’s new missile defense network, and the integration work was completed back in 2019 by MBDA and Northrop Grumman."

 

[YZT580]

The easiest way to picture air defence is small umbrellas under larger umbrellas under yet larger umbrellas and so on, all of which interlock under a common command and control system.

The SHOR in SHORAD stand for short range which makes it the smallest umbrella and very dependent on what the other systems are that work with it. For example our old Javelins worked within and expanded the capability of ADATS.

The big question, which I don't know the answer to, is how the GBAD project envisions their particular solution will operate vis a vis its own resources and our allies'. There needs to be a very clear doctrine of use that GBAD slots into. Because AD is always a system of systems, that requires a very high degree of integration and interoperability. We had that for 4 AD. the GBAD requirements statement is very broad and generic.

To me its a bit vague right now because of the wide mix of equipment across the "New" NATO. Latvia apparently has RBS-70, Stinger, Giraffe, Sentinel and AN/TPS-77 but I don't see any medium or long range missiles. Lithuania does have some NASAMs and some eFP countries could deploy medium and above range.

I presume, that the definition phase of this project will start setting out more concrete elements. In fact my guess is that they are already pretty far along with that process.

appreciate the lesson, thanks

 

[Blackadder1916]

The easiest way to picture air defence is small umbrellas under larger umbrellas under yet larger umbrellas and so on, all of which interlock under a common command and control system.

Sorta like this.

 

[FJAG]

Or like this:

My guess is DAP will get the reference.

 

[TacticalTea]

Or like this:

My guess is DAP will get the reference.

I was thinking more like this. (disregard the labels, just look at the umbrellas)

 

[GK .Dundas]

Or like this:

My guess is DAP will get the reference.

I am not a numbers ,I am a free man !

 

[McG]

This starts discussing spending at the 17:10 mark:

https://www.cbc.ca/radio/thehouse/cbc-the-house-april-2-1.6405292

 

[BirdGunner96]

I don't know much about GBAD but I used to work with one of the few surviving AD Artillery Sgt's years back. Those folks deploy far out from the formation in interlocking layers of coverage. But that was in the days of ADAT's and I assume GBAD for the Stykers is a different animal. The ADATs had a 10km range. The Stinger is around 4-5km in range.

A SHORAD LAV would likely be using the Reconfigurable Integrated Weapons platform and would provide tactical AD for the army, but something else is needed I think for the longer range punch.

I'll go with what I know and that's the Sky Sabre. It's replacing the Sky Rapier in the UK inventory. It uses the Giraffe AMB radar (a large amount of commonality to the SG-AMB on the frigates and JSS) and the CAMM which is selected as the CIAD missile for the CSC. 25km range with 100km range radar.

I don't think we need LRAD as a military, the Short and Medium RAD would go a long way to being able to do local protection of our own units.

Its all the same animal (GBAD), you are either conducting VP, Area or Route defence. The size of your AD bubbles depends on your systems abilities and more importantly, the platforms used. A layered Air Defence is required, but Canada will never see it. We already own the EL/M-2084 which with much bullshit (probably) could be compatible with the CAMM, easy solution for medium range. VSHORAD is an even easier onion to peel , MANPADS are easy to acquire throughout NATO ( not Stinger, the Polish Piorun system is superior) and all that the units would require is a crapload of AD/AFV Recognition as well as a compound of Bv 206, COTS side by sides, TLAV's and some helicopter rappel training. A couple of RegF units trained first, then use the exact same weapons systems and vehicles to train the reserve units ( same can be said for anti-tank systems imo). Lol, rant over!

 

[BirdGunner96]

Its all the same animal (GBAD), you are either conducting VP, Area or Route defence. The size of your AD bubbles depends on your systems abilities and more importantly, the platforms used. A layered Air Defence is required, but Canada will never see it. We already own the EL/M-2084 which with much bullshit (probably) could be compatible with the CAMM, easy solution for medium range. VSHORAD is an even easier onion to peel , MANPADS are easy to acquire throughout NATO ( not Stinger, the Polish Piorun system is superior) and all that the units would require is a crapload of AD/AFV Recognition as well as a compound of Bv 206, COTS side by sides, TLAV's and some helicopter rappel training. A couple of RegF units trained first, then use the exact same weapons systems and vehicles to train the reserve units ( same can be said for anti-tank systems imo). Lol, rant over!

Sorry, I forgot to add that we could use the oversized/useless/ annoying, always N/S TAPV's as targets. Win.Win.

 

[MilEME09]

Sorry, I forgot to add that we could use the oversized/useless/ annoying, always N/S TAPV's as targets. Win.Win.

Don't sell them short yet, every new system has issues, and the army already has new plans for them in the long term.

 

[Good2Golf]

Don't sell them short yet, every new system has issues, and the army already has new plans for them in the long term.

Like welding two together as a BTR trainer?

 

[RedFive]

Don't sell them short yet, every new system has issues, and the army already has new plans for them in the long term.

They're gonna have to stop them from catching fire on road moves, collapsing road shoulders, rolling over and find some spare parts for them before they can make any use of them whatsoever.

Once that's all sorted out, the fact that they're a badly designed armoured vehicle designed for airfield security and bastardized by the CAF to be MRAPs for the last war we found ourselves in will have to be reckoned with. Nobody asked for them, nobody wants them, and a handful of corps in the army have been made to make do with them because there's nothing else on offer. Eat your dinner or go hungry, mom and dad don't care.

I wish the them good luck in fixing those problems.

 

[FJAG]

Don't sell them short yet, every new system has issues, and the army already has new plans for them in the long term.

I can think of at least a dozen useful things that the TAPV could do.

The negativity reminds me of the initial reaction to the Bison ... and then the RegF army snaffled them all up because they proved very useful.

 

[KevinB]

I can think of at least a dozen useful things that the TAPV could do.

The negativity reminds me of the initial reaction to the Bison ... and then the RegF army snaffled them all up because they proved very useful.

It’s legit trash.

 

[GK .Dundas]

I can think of at least a dozen useful things that the TAPV could do.

The negativity reminds me of the initial reaction to the Bison ... and then the RegF army snaffled them all up because they proved very useful.

Yes , but the difference was the reserves never even saw the Bison. With the TAPV ( Funny how after all this time it still doesn't have a name.?) When the programme began there was great excitement in the reserve force.
Because ,well because it's an armoured vehicle !
At this point and over the course of manufacture the Regular Force kept telling the Reserve Force that they weren't entitled to any . And they wouldn't be able to operate them and several other reasons. Basically it would a cold day in hell before the Reserves saw one.
And after about a year or eighteen months I guess what ? Apparently hell froze over . And while at first they were delighted. And now after couple of years of use . Most of the end user I have been talked to are less then delighted by them.
There's some who get the feeling that the reserves got them primarily because the regulars didn't want them.

 

[McG]

There's some who get the feeling that the reserves got them primarily because the regulars didn't want them.

Yeah, that is exactly why the PRes got them, and the PRes got fewer in those divisions where Reg F units wanted more TAPV.

 

[Navy_Pete]

What I find weird in the announcements is that we still don't have people to buy normal spares with and everyone is focused on the capitol side of new equipment.

We have a backlog of requisitions out that is probably in the tens of millions just for the Navy side, but don't have the people to process the buys and walk them through buy&sell.

Shiny new equipment is cool, but how about basic widgets to keep our current stuff going? Some of it has a lead time meausured in years as well, so it's not like it will show up tomorrow, but without enough procurement staff really doesn't matter how many TSORs we pump out.

Not really sexy, but 1000s of different items at lower dollar values adds up, and still has a high LOE even with the most basic procurement rules.

 

[dimsum]

Not really sexy

I think you answered your own question.

Announcing new stuff is always sexier than announcing spares for current stuff. The CAF is (rightly) being lambasted for having old equipment, so from a PR perspective I'd totally see why they'd want to focus on new procurement.

 

[McG]

We have a backlog of requisitions out that is probably in the tens of millions just for the Navy side, but don't have the people to process the buys and walk them through buy&sell.

The supply managers and LCMMs are supposed to ensure this happens. These people exist.

 

[Navy_Pete]

The supply managers and LCMMs are supposed to ensure this happens. These people exist.

I'm working in the LCMM section; right now we are hurting for people on both sides, so routine things are only being looked at between daily crises and the supply managers only have capacity to buy HPRs. My subsection is at 1/3 manning trying to figure out the technical side, and SMs are even shorter for people.

A lot of people come in to the grinder, learn a bit, then jump to a different department where things aren't insanely short staffed so they don't get worked to burnout, so it's a vicious cycle.

We could easily keep another 20 supply managers busy for six months filling bins though just bringing empty shelves up to minimum stock levels, but because of the relative low dollar values of the items, doesn't get pushed up to PSPC to do the procurement for us.

And if someone wants to buy new equipment, still need project staff for it, so not really sure where they are coming from either. Has been a pretty significant retirement wave in the last decade without new people coming in, so huge amount of experience is just gone. Usually a posting cycle is just long enough to learn the processes and get good at them, and things take a lot longer when you don't have that experience, so even if we surged people things would be really slow for a while.

Having funding available is awesome, but we need a lot more people to use it effectively. HR is our number 1 risk risk now at the status quo, so already working beyond capacity to try and keep the wheels on. The BGHs can increase the demand all they want, but without bodies we're not really going to even catch up, let alone get ahead.