Government hints at boosting Canada’s military spending

I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[YZT580]

The thing you need to be careful about is being sure you don't swing too far the other way in hanging on to your "career corporals" because they are good at what they do. While you don't want to lose experience and skill you do also need a steady flow of "new blood" in any trade. Last thing you want is to end up like some skilled trades where all the experienced people that have been filling the jobs for decades are retiring and there aren't enough young tradesmen to fill their places.

No argument from me on that one but if your fleet is expanding and new equipment is being brought in systematically shouldn't the changes provide space for new blood? Something like maintaining your older pilots' competency on the Argus whilst bringing the CP140 on line and then let the Argus crews retire with their aircraft if they wish rather than do the re-training

 

[GR66]

No argument from me on that one but if your fleet is expanding and new equipment is being brought in systematically shouldn't the changes provide space for new blood? Something like maintaining your older pilots' competency on the Argus whilst bringing the CP140 on line and then let the Argus crews retire with their aircraft if they wish rather than do the re-training

Absolutely....as long as you're expanding, but...

21 x CP-140's being replaced by 14-16 x P-8's
138 x CF-188's being replaced by 88 x F-35's
Similar across the board with logistics vehicles, etc.

Fortunately the RCN is the one area that will be seeing growth in platforms so would see the most benefit from a change in personnel management.

 

[YZT580]

Absolutely....as long as you're expanding, but...

21 x CP-140's being replaced by 14-16 x P-8's
138 x CF-188's being replaced by 88 x F-35's
Similar across the board with logistics vehicles, etc.

Fortunately the RCN is the one area that will be seeing growth in platforms so would see the most benefit from a change in personnel management.

which would leave me with the question of why the hell are we not expanding in all areas? We need more transport a/c. If we are going to approach our arctic responsibilities in an intelligent manner we will need dedicated a/c and not just 4 twin otters, northern based Search and Rescue using both fixed wing and rotary, ground crew at all facilities. We should be ordering at least 2 squadrons of reconnaissance a/c. And those are just a few of the more obvious needs.

 

[suffolkowner]

Absolutely....as long as you're expanding, but...

21 x CP-140's being replaced by 14-16 x P-8's
138 x CF-188's being replaced by 88 x F-35's
Similar across the board with logistics vehicles, etc.

Fortunately the RCN is the one area that will be seeing growth in platforms so would see the most benefit from a change in personnel management.

those numbers at the beginning of the phase vs the end. Are we stuck in a neverending cycle of reduction? Look at the CH-147 and CH-148. The recent culmination of the logistics truck replacement

 

[FSTO]

I’m not convinced at all that any of the parties will come through on their defence promises that they’ll make (if any) on this election.

 

[ytz]

21 x CP-140's being replaced by 14-16 x P-8's
138 x CF-188's being replaced by 88 x F-35's
Similar across the board with logistics vehicles, etc.

Maybe. But 1:1 replacements don't always make sense especially with generational change. There's an order of magnitude difference between three CF-18 and the F-35. See the results:

https://theaviationist.com/2017/02/...-most-probably-thanks-to-the-supporting-f-22/

Those 88 F-35s would be able to accomplish substantially more than the 138 Hornets ever could. And that's just technology. In near-peer that Hornet needs to be supported by jammers and escorted by fighter sweeps. The F-35 needs none of that. So 4 F-35s will accomplish what a strike package of a dozen 4th Gen aircraft in dedicated roles would normally do. That's what a paradigm shift is. Imagine, you're in 1917 with a barn if horses. Do you replace them with Model T on a 1:1 basis?

The same idea is true to a lesser extent with the P-8 too. Overall though, on the air side, mass has to come from unmanned systems. And that's where the RCAF is really behind. A real metric used to look at the relative modernity of air forces these days, is to look at the percentage of unmanned aircraft in the total fleet. And we're absolutely behind on this.

 

[Cloud Cover]

I’m not convinced at all that any of the parties will come through on their defence promises that they’ll make (if any) on this election.

They absolutely will not. Never have, never will and never intended to come through.

You guys will be lucky to have half of what you’ve got right now, in 10 years or less.

And anybody who is a realist knows that even if we lose an extremely large chunk of Canada, this country will not grow and equip its military forces to scale.

They’ll write off the loss of territory rather than defend it with their elbows.

Deep down you all know this to be true.

 

[Halifax Tar]

They absolutely will not. Never have, never will and never intended to come through.

You guys will be lucky to have half of what you’ve got right now, in 10 years or less.

And anybody who is a realist knows that even if we lose an extremely large chunk of Canada, this country will not grow and equip its military forces to scale.

They’ll write off the loss of territory rather than defend it with their elbows.

Deep down you all know this to be true.

You are correct, but you cant just blame the politicians. They are reading the tea leaves only worried about their own. To me its a fat, lazy, complacent citizenry that is an at least equal part of the problem.

 

[Gunplumber]

They are reading the tea leaves only worried about their own. To me its a fat, lazy, complacent GOFOs that is an at least equal part of the problem.

FTFY

 

[ytz]

FTFY

What do you think GOFOs (who owe their loyalty to the Crown) are supposed to do?

 

[ueo]

What it started as and what it is today is very different. 11-12 years of combined primary/secondary is pretty much the goal norm these days.

Nope. 4yrs subsidized uni in BA in folk lore angels.

 

[Gunplumber]

What do you think GOFOs (who owe their loyalty to the Crown) are supposed to do?

They could stop growing the officer corps at a rate higher than ORs. Do the right thing and "fall on your swords" if the government wont "fix" the military.

 

[KevinB]

The pilot scale also needs to account for the fact that those pilots are all likely hitting Capt while not being OFP and still needing 5 years to get to OFP.

I would think that every officer should be an OCdt UNTIL hitting OFP.
The same way the NCM trade should be PTE(R) then PTE(B) and when hitting OFP PTE(T)
Since Recruit and Basic aren’t separated anymore, I guess one doesn’t need a middle pay grade - but the point stands that the CAF inflates ranks during the training pipeline as pay increases - which has caused issues down the pipe.

You could very well have 10 years in the training system currently. Then once in a SQN they are still very inexperienced and I would expect that you could make an argument that a pilot is a officer position that needs more technical knowledge than leadership (in an equivalent army sense) in the Capt rank. So is that pay for leadership or technical skill.

Just saying.

2Lt’s should be able to fly…

 

[Good2Golf]

2Lt’s should be able to fly…

They do, or at least did.

 

[Czech_pivo]

Absolutely....as long as you're expanding, but...

21 x CP-140's being replaced by 14-16 x P-8's
138 x CF-188's being replaced by 88 x F-35's
Similar across the board with logistics vehicles, etc.

Fortunately the RCN is the one area that will be seeing growth in platforms so would see the most benefit from a change in personnel management.

Still would like the JSS go from 2 old with 2 new to be 2 old with 4/5 new. Maybe we'll get there once we confirm 12 new corvettes and 12 new subs someone will be able to make, successfully, the argument for more JSS.

 

[Czech_pivo]

I’m not convinced at all that any of the parties will come through on their defence promises that they’ll make (if any) on this election.

I think alot will hinge on the Europeans. IF they continue down their own path of re-arming and IF they allow us to be apart of the new defense spending package, then they will force us to expand our numbers in real terms.

If we say, politely in our uniquely cheap CDN way, 'thanks but no thanks', then they will turf us and put us 100% at the mercy of Trump. No one will view us as a reliable Ally.

 

[YZT580]

I think alot will hinge on the Europeans. IF they continue down their own path of re-arming and IF they allow us to be apart of the new defense spending package, then they will force us to expand our numbers in real terms.

If we say, politely in our uniquely cheap CDN way, 'thanks but no thanks', then they will turf us and put us 100% at the mercy of Trump. No one will view us as a reliable Ally.

sad but true

 

[Czech_pivo]

sad but true

There's been alot of news reports about Canada in talks with the Euro's about entering into their defense pact rearming/spending programme. We can't be seen to join this and not carry our own weight in terms of purchases and investment. We've seen the recent HIMARS news released and its alleged 5$ billion price tag and we've seen the recent 6$ billion price tag of the Arctic radar system with Australia. That's 11$ billion in a week. No European involvement in either of those.

What's next? The next biggest on the table is the Sub programme and its 12 potential sub purchase. Safe money was being placed on the South Korea's winning this due to our stated, firm date of when we need the first available. The Germans and then the French were viewed as 2nd/3rd choices, with the leading reason due to timelines and the believed belief that they can't meet our timeline requirements. This may in fact change because of our desire to join the Euro defense pact.

The F35's is next up. Legally we have to take the first 16 of the 88, after that its up for grabs. Buying the remaining 72 or 49 or a number somewhere in between is actively being discussed. This is mostly likely where a large European purchase will be made.

Next is the open RFI to replace our Arty/Mortars, outside of Europe, the South Koreans are leading the pack. Again, if we are to be allowed into the Euro defense procurement pact we'll need to spend more money than on just some French jets. This could very well go to the Europeans, though I won't venture a guess as to who will get it.

Not sure if there is an open RFI for replacing our tanks or IFV's at the moment, but again this could be another area where the Europeans say, 'spend on European kit' as part of the price of entry.

I don't see any viable European replacement for the P8's. I think that will stand as is.

Helo's is another potential European pivot, both maritime and non-maritime replacements. I'd be willing to bet that this capability will go to the Euros.

The need for replace the Kingston's with a 'corvette like' ship hasn't reached the stage of a RFI but I'd venture a guess that one is spun up in 2025 after the election settles. This could be a combined Euro/CDN venture, with maybe the hulls made in Romania using a European design and then fitted out in Canada.

In short, I think planes, arty and helo's are on the agenda for Canada to seek Europeans products. Tanks/IFV's and maybe the Corvettes are other big ticket items. Yes there are other areas that need to be kitted out, anti-tank weapons in large scale is one area as an example, but that's not going to be a multi-billion dollar package.

Will those items be enough for the Europeans to nod their heads and allow us to join with them? If its a 'yes' I'd expect that the alot of the items are 'fast tracked' and approved after the election and more than likely by summer/fall at the latest.

The South Koreans are the ones that stand to potentially lose out the most with us. They seem to be a willing, able, new ally that has kit that looks to meet alot of our needs and other than the subs, we may be turning away from them. It very well could be the case that we completely turn away from them and don't even purchase the subs from them, thus shutting a door/option off that we may not want to shut. If we shut that door and hitch our wagon to the Europeans are we not doing the same as what we have done with the US in the past? Trading one dominant partner for another?

 

[Furniture]

Up and out would gut your leadership too.
The leadership in the CA is seeing their professional knowledge shrink and their professional skills erode.
Adding up and out to 2 year Command billets, 1 year postings etc. would likely make things worse.

In terms of CA Capts; what other rank has the same experience spread? 1st year DEO Capt in their first unit to a Capt with 14 years experience and is the unit Ops O with AOC and Cbt Tn Comd.

From Pte to WO, how many years does the Army intend for progression to the next rank to take on average?

The pilot scale also needs to account for the fact that those pilots are all likely hitting Capt while not being OFP and still needing 5 years to get to OFP. You could very well have 10 years in the training system currently. Then once in a SQN they are still very inexperienced and I would expect that you could make an argument that a pilot is a officer position that needs more technical knowledge than leadership (in an equivalent army sense) in the Capt rank. So is that pay for leadership or technical skill.

Just saying.

My point regarding the 10 IPCs for Capt. was more that NCMs cap out at the working rank much sooner than their officer counterparts. Which leads to a need to get promoted to get pay increases. That incentivises moving past the level they should stay at to gain experience, and coach/mentor the new personnel coming in. 2-3 years as a Cpl before getting your leaf (also tied to Cpl pay incentive levels) is not really enough time to both master your actual job and develop as a leader.

I don't care how long the army wants people to go from Pte to WO, I care how long it takes to make a proficient technician, then develop them into a leader as well.

 

[Underway]

There's been alot of news reports about Canada in talks with the Euro's about entering into their defense pact rearming/spending programme. We can't be seen to join this and not carry our own weight in terms of purchases and investment. We've seen the recent HIMARS news released and its alleged 5$ billion price tag and we've seen the recent 6$ billion price tag of the Arctic radar system with Australia. That's 11$ billion in a week. No European involvement in either of those.

What's next? The next biggest on the table is the Sub programme and its 12 potential sub purchase. Safe money was being placed on the South Korea's winning this due to our stated, firm date of when we need the first available. The Germans and then the French were viewed as 2nd/3rd choices, with the leading reason due to timelines and the believed belief that they can't meet our timeline requirements. This may in fact change because of our desire to join the Euro defense pact.

The F35's is next up. Legally we have to take the first 16 of the 88, after that its up for grabs. Buying the remaining 72 or 49 or a number somewhere in between is actively being discussed. This is mostly likely where a large European purchase will be made.

Next is the open RFI to replace our Arty/Mortars, outside of Europe, the South Koreans are leading the pack. Again, if we are to be allowed into the Euro defense procurement pact we'll need to spend more money than on just some French jets. This could very well go to the Europeans, though I won't venture a guess as to who will get it.

Not sure if there is an open RFI for replacing our tanks or IFV's at the moment, but again this could be another area where the Europeans say, 'spend on European kit' as part of the price of entry.

I don't see any viable European replacement for the P8's. I think that will stand as is.

Helo's is another potential European pivot, both maritime and non-maritime replacements. I'd be willing to bet that this capability will go to the Euros.

The need for replace the Kingston's with a 'corvette like' ship hasn't reached the stage of a RFI but I'd venture a guess that one is spun up in 2025 after the election settles. This could be a combined Euro/CDN venture, with maybe the hulls made in Romania using a European design and then fitted out in Canada.

In short, I think planes, arty and helo's are on the agenda for Canada to seek Europeans products. Tanks/IFV's and maybe the Corvettes are other big ticket items. Yes there are other areas that need to be kitted out, anti-tank weapons in large scale is one area as an example, but that's not going to be a multi-billion dollar package.

Will those items be enough for the Europeans to nod their heads and allow us to join with them? If its a 'yes' I'd expect that the alot of the items are 'fast tracked' and approved after the election and more than likely by summer/fall at the latest.

The South Koreans are the ones that stand to potentially lose out the most with us. They seem to be a willing, able, new ally that has kit that looks to meet alot of our needs and other than the subs, we may be turning away from them. It very well could be the case that we completely turn away from them and don't even purchase the subs from them, thus shutting a door/option off that we may not want to shut. If we shut that door and hitch our wagon to the Europeans are we not doing the same as what we have done with the US in the past? Trading one dominant partner for another?

Its seems that Carney at least is signaling that Canada wants in on the defence supply line for the big expenditures. There is a push to make Canada the safe harbour for manufacturing and supply chain for many things, as we are generally beyond reach of sustained Russian (and Chinese) attack, unlike Europe. Not to mention the US is likely to get irritated should someone attack NA.

There is a reason that Canada was also the only non-European state to be invited (Norway and UK of course were invited though they are not EU).

That doesn't mean we are going to buy everything European ourselves. There are a lot of hoops to jump through. Germany isn't going to let us build Leopards here no matter what our order number is.

Conversely South Korea could see the same with Canada (they do with Australia). (crosses fingers that Canada wants to help with the Hyunmoo 4-4 project. I'm going full nerd research on ballistic missiles right now).