Government hints at boosting Canada’s military spending

I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[KevinB]

And don't forget European bridges which no one is upgrading from 60T (or even 45T in Eastern Europe) to 80T.

I’m actually not that concerned about European bridges. Europe doesn’t have a lot of large wide rivers - really you are looking at the Dnipro and the Volga as very significant crossings. You should be assuming that any crossings will be opposed by fires, and you will need to bring your own bridge.

Rail, road and other transportation doesn’t do well with large vehicles, and adding Up Armor packages with ERA and/or Slat armor to vehicles will extend their width, length and height to make them a lot more awkward in that respect. Unfortunately you are pretty much with those at this point due to threats.

Smaller Armies cannot afford to not be on the cutting edge - but also can’t afford to misjudge the knife’s edge of modernization and force balance mix.

 

[DBNSG]

Knowing the luck of the Armoured Corps, we'll get 8 of these, 12 Leopard 2A7 and 30 LAV MGS to replace the Leo fleet lol.

You do know some Liberals can read eh?

 

[Cloud Cover]

So looking at the LPC web page, they are definitely aiming to change the mandate of the Coast Guard to orient expenditures as part of the 2% target.

 

[dapaterson]

Knowing the luck of the Armoured Corps, we'll get 8 of these, 12 Leopard 2A7 and 30 LAV MGS to replace the Leo fleet lol.

The Army's internal regimental politics are profoundly dysfunctional and result in sub-optimal decisions for equipment. See: the CCV plan.

 

[daftandbarmy]

So looking at the LPC web page, they are definitely aiming to change the mandate of the Coast Guard to orient expenditures as part of the 2% target.

Now that we have more unarmed, than fully armed, ships they should fit in well

 

[MilEME09]

Now that we have more unarmed, than fully armed, ships they should fit in well

Fully semi armed ship?

 

[Maxman1]

So looking at the LPC web page, they are definitely aiming to change the mandate of the Coast Guard to orient expenditures as part of the 2% target.

Called it.

 

[ytz]

So looking at the LPC web page, they are definitely aiming to change the mandate of the Coast Guard to orient expenditures as part of the 2% target.

Controversial opinion here. But I think it's a good idea. When working on FWSAR, it became obvious to me that there were certain roles and functions better suited for the CCG than the CAF. But because they weren't a paramilitary force, they couldn't take on more. If they were more like the USCG (where our SAR community does exchanges with), they could take on more and free up the CAF to do real military things.

As for counting towards the 2%, NATO has definitions. Countries can't simply claim whatever they want. And if they do, NATO staff just rebaseline numbers.

 

[Maxman1]

Or, how about expand the maritime assets of agencies with an enforcement mandate.

 

[lenaitch]

So if they create one or two 'armed' CG icebreakers, or gather some of the CG under the military umbrella to satisfy the NATO guideline, do they get to move the entire CG budget to be included in our 2%?

 

[YZT580]

Controversial opinion here. But I think it's a good idea. When working on FWSAR, it became obvious to me that there were certain roles and functions better suited for the CCG than the CAF. But because they weren't a paramilitary force, they couldn't take on more. If they were more like the USCG (where our SAR community does exchanges with), they could take on more and free up the CAF to do real military things.

As for counting towards the 2%, NATO has definitions. Countries can't simply claim whatever they want. And if they do, NATO staff just rebaseline numbers.

Won't likely happen. Either the CG union will walk out or the employees themselves will walk out permanently. There are lots of maritime positions available in Canada to accommodate every single coast guard employee that wants one. For those few occasions where weapons are required a detachment of RCMP can fulfill the role I would suspect.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Won't likely happen. Either the CG union will walk out or the employees themselves will walk out permanently. There are lots of maritime positions available in Canada to accommodate every single coast guard employee that wants one. For those few occasions where weapons are required a detachment of RCMP can fulfill the role I would suspect.

Meanwhile, the US Coast Guard....

 

[Cloud Cover]

Controversial opinion here. But I think it's a good idea. When working on FWSAR, it became obvious to me that there were certain roles and functions better suited for the CCG than the CAF. But because they weren't a paramilitary force, they couldn't take on more. If they were more like the USCG (where our SAR community does exchanges with), they could take on more and free up the CAF to do real military things.

As for counting towards the 2%, NATO has definitions. Countries can't simply claim whatever they want. And if they do, NATO staff just rebaseline numbers.

I agree. For example if the CCG vessel has a suite of RCN radars and sensors installed, and the data is plugged into the wider defence surveillance networks, why isn’t that a subset of the 2%. And why would they CCG walk off the job over that? It would be a highly contributory piece of the surveillance network without the burden of being a combat platform.

Elbow up and were all in this together, so to speak.

 

[Halifax Tar]

I agree. For example if the CCG vessel has a suite of RCN radars and sensors installed, and the data is plugged into the wider defence surveillance networks, why isn’t that a subset of the 2%. And why would they CCG walk off the job over that? It would be a highly contributory piece of the surveillance network without the burden of being a combat platform.

Elbow up and were all in this together, so to speak.

Some people in the CCG just want to tend buoys and drive scientists around.

 

[Cloud Cover]

Well Carney is right about this. Some things need to change.

 

[Czech_pivo]

Some people in the CCG just want to tend buoys and drive scientists around.

Transport Canada then?

 

[ytz]

Some people in the CCG just want to tend buoys and drive scientists around.

Like us, they serve at the pleasure of the Crown. Any restructuring of the organization will also come with substantial staffing changes.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Like us, they serve at the pleasure of the Crown. Any restructuring of the organization will also come with substantial staffing changes.

I'd go full send and make them a sub component of the CAF similar to the USCG being and Armed Service.

 

[Maxman1]

Won't likely happen. Either the CG union will walk out or the employees themselves will walk out permanently. There are lots of maritime positions available in Canada to accommodate every single coast guard employee that wants one. For those few occasions where weapons are required a detachment of RCMP can fulfill the role I would suspect.

Just like when Customs and Revenue turned into CBSA and received pistols, some agents resigned, because that wasn't what they signed up for.

 

[Czech_pivo]

Just like when Customs and Revenue turned into CBSA and received pistols, some agents resigned, because that wasn't what they signed up for.

Was that number greater than or less than 10% of those newly required to carry a pistol?