Government hints at boosting Canada’s military spending

I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[Kirkhill]

We didn't have AEchs per se in the 60s or 70s. Oh, there was the odd mechanic here and there but they weren't part of the establishment. Things were a bit different during the 10/90 days when there was a surplus of folks coming back from CFE but there were only a few 10/90 units and that phase was brief. Same, same with AD. There was an uptick of full-timers in ARes AD regiments but that didn't extend to the rest of the ARes.

Back in the 60s - before the days of the service battalions - we did have Militia RCASC, RCEME, RCAMC and RCOC coys/dets/etc in the districts but those too were small and poorly equipped independent CSS entities and not in the nature of unit A Echs belonging to the units.



The issue is not whether folks are in an ARes service battalion or in an ARes combat arms units A Ech. The issue is that you can't realistically do much CSS on Class A time. It needs full timers.

As long as you do not have ARes combat arms units at full strength, with minimal equipment and with no mission, but are only seen as a pool of augmentees, there is no need for an ARes A Ech - just some type aggregated full-time CSS usually provided through a base support infrastructure. True, the priorities are low and the service spotty but where would you find the PYs to provide that staff for ARes unit A Echs when there aren't enough to fill current RegF PYs properly?


My solution is to aggregate ARes units and meld them with a core of RegF into 30/70 battalions which do have a slice of RegF equipment and A Ech CSS.

The discussion is not about maintainers. It is about transport drivers.

@dapaterson suggested that there was a shortage of drivers and suggested re-roling combat arms units to transport coys. My suggestion was to add a transport platoon to each combat arms unit. Not maintainers, which I agree need to be full timers, but drivers.

Likewise I was suggesting adding a Comms Section to each unit.

And if I had my druthers every unit would also have a Light Anti-Aircraft platoon that could double as a Heavy Weapons platoon.

 

[daftandbarmy]

The discussion is not about maintainers. It is about transport drivers.

@dapaterson suggested that there was a shortage of drivers and suggested re-roling combat arms units to transport coys. My suggestion was to add a transport platoon to each combat arms unit. Not maintainers, which I agree need to be full timers, but drivers.

Likewise I was suggesting adding a Comms Section to each unit.

And if I had my druthers every unit would also have a Light Anti-Aircraft platoon that could double as a Heavy Weapons platoon.

Sure, because we have so much Infantry lying around we're out of room to store them all

 

[Kirkhill]

Sure, because we have so much Infantry lying around we're out of room to store them all

Look, you are short of everything. That doesn't stop us talking about more tanks, guns, subs, ships.....

 

[Brad Sallows]

You show up, you do your job to expectations, you get paid. That's the usual way things work.

You show up, you do your job to expectations, you get paid, and later you get a bonus is bizarre.

 

[FJAG]

The discussion is not about maintainers. It is about transport drivers.

Actually where I entered the discussions it was about CSS folks in A Ech - that includes some truckers but a lot of maintainers. In fact most combat units drive their own vehicles and don't use any or many MSE ops - but maintainers - man we love them folks.

@dapaterson suggested that there was a shortage of drivers and suggested re-roling combat arms units to transport coys. My suggestion was to add a transport platoon to each combat arms unit. Not maintainers, which I agree need to be full timers, but drivers.

See above. Despite the expertise that MSE ops bring to the trucking profession, combat arms don't need them because we have, in general, fairly specialized vehicles - those tanky thingies and the eight wheeled thingies. We generally don't need a MSE ops - we haul our own ammo and fuel and so on and have trucks for that.

I'll give you this though. In turning to a world where all that stuff comes on pallets, we no longer have very many vehicles in the inventory which can haul large numbers of personnel. We do have over a thousand MSVS MILCOTS of which close to 900 are designated as troop carrying versions. My understanding is that the CAF is not too fond of carrying troops loose in the back of such trucks but you'd have to ask @dapaterson about what the rules and regulations are on that.

Lastly, we don't need to reroll anyone. Frankly we do not have enough ARes combat arms or CS as it is. But I'm all in favour of expanding the size of ARes CSS units as well as expanding the HS PRL. You can make CSS bigger without cutting other folks. You just fund more positions then are currently funded. By all means, convert Svc Bns to transport battalions and maintenance battalions and logistics battalions and add in a special troops battalion (we could use one).

Likewise I was suggesting adding a Comms Section to each unit.

Once again comms is no stranger to combat arms and CS units. The comms and radio structures within ARes units, at the level they work at are easily managed by the units. If they cobble together a TF that needs rear links etc, they always have the sigs regiments to draw on.

And if I had my druthers every unit would also have a Light Anti-Aircraft platoon that could double as a Heavy Weapons platoon.

I'm sorry have we gone off ARes units? Why would an ARes unit - whose role is to provide augmentees to the RegF want an AD platoon? They already have troubles training the folks they need to have. Reform 1 AD Regt and 18 AD Regt and 58 AD Bty so as to augment 4 AD Regt (if they ever reform it)? - absolutely. They can provide light AD support to anyone - if the big boys ever figure out what we can afford.

 

[Maxman1]

I'm sorry have we gone off ARes units? Why would an ARes unit - whose role is to provide augmentees to the RegF want an AD platoon? They already have troubles training the folks they need to have. Reform 1 AD Regt and 18 AD Regt and 58 AD Bty so as to augment 4 AD Regt (if they ever reform it)? - absolutely. They can provide light AD support to anyone - if the big boys ever figure out what we can afford.

Would we be mounting the guns on building rooftops?

 

[ytz]

I was being facetious.

Nevertheless, money isn't at the forefront of what we should want to be reasons for joining the Res F.

Sure. But if it's not money, then it's things like a sense of adventure or fun. In that case, real life will intrude. People cut back on hobbies during hard times.

 

[Remius]

You show up, you do your job to expectations, you get paid. That's the usual way things work.

The CAF does not do the usual things though.

You show up, you do your job to expectations, you get paid, and later you get a bonus is bizarre.

The problem is that the CAF is one of those organizations that just can’t hire laterally from anywhere else. Yes other very specific trades or what not or maybe from some peer state militaries but overall we are predominately an organisation that builds its workforce from the bottom up.

So you need to try and find ways of keeping the talent you have. It takes a long time to replace them especially when we don’t have a lot of depth.

 

[Brad Sallows]

The problem is that the CAF is one of those organizations that just can’t hire laterally from anywhere else. Yes other very specific trades or what not or maybe from some peer state militaries but overall we are predominately an organisation that builds its workforce from the bottom up.

Bonuses for regulars? I meant the Res F exclusively. Looking at the Res F as an organization that "hires" is an incorrect model.

Many people start with the Res F "for the money", particularly late secondary and post-secondary students (whether academic or trades-oriented). It takes long enough to accumulate training that they become useful mammals at approximately the same time schooling ends and their lives have to adjust to a new pattern - work. Many depart.

A model that attracts and retains young people in the first phase (five to ten years) of their working life would be ideal. "Something different". "Something challenging". "Something purposeful". "Something complementary to work". "Something that teaches useful skills". An interest in the profession of arms. Sense of duty and civic responsibility.

The Res F competes with all other volunteer organizations, not with conventional enterprises.

Nevertheless, until the organization and purpose of the ARes is revised to fit the needs of the country - which means supporting the Reg F in peacetime, and executing and filling an actual mobilization plan in wartime - there isn't much point spending too much money trying to attract and hold more people right now. There's no point building the next generation of resistant-to-change reservists.

 

[Remius]

Bonuses for regulars? I meant the Res F exclusively. Looking at the Res F as an organization that "hires" is an incorrect model.

Except it does hire.

Many people start with the Res F "for the money", particularly late secondary and post-secondary students (whether academic or trades-oriented).

That’s an antiquated view. And a misunderstanding of the current generations and their motivations that we are targeting.

It takes long enough to accumulate training that they become useful mammals at approximately the same time schooling ends and their lives have to adjust to a new pattern - work. Many depart.

Correct. For various reasons. Some that could be mitigated with retention incentives.

A model that attracts and retains young people in the first phase (five to ten years) of their working life would be ideal. "Something different". "Something challenging". "Something purposeful". "Something complementary to work". "Something that teaches useful skills". An interest in the profession of arms. Sense of duty and civic responsibility.

I don’t disagree.

The Res F competes with all other volunteer organizations, not with conventional enterprises.

Disagree. It competes with entry level experiential employment. Not things like a soup kitchen or a scout leader job.

Nevertheless, until the organization and purpose of the ARes is revised to fit the needs of the country - which means supporting the Reg F in peacetime, and executing and filling an actual mobilization plan in wartime - there isn't much point spending too much money trying to attract and hold more people right now.

Yes. But we are at a breaking point CAF wide That if nothing is done the risk is permanent loss.

There's no point building the next generation of resistant-to-change reservists

Out of touch yet again. There has never been a better time for change as this generation is actually very open to change but the top keeps failing and disappointing . That goes to your first part about the CAF actually defining what it does.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Except it does hire.

That’s an antiquated view. And a misunderstanding of the current generations and their motivations that we are targeting.

Correct. For various reasons. Some that could be mitigated with retention incentives.

I don’t disagree.

Disagree. It competes with entry level experiential employment. Not things like a soup kitchen or a scout leader job.

Yes. But we are at a breaking point CAF wide That if nothing is done the risk is permanent loss.


Out of touch yet again. There has never been a better time for change as this generation is actually very open to change but the top keeps failing and disappointing . That goes to your first part about the CAF actually defining what it does.

If you ever feel the need to recharge your stores of patriotism and professional optimism, hang out with a PRes rifle company for awhile.

Those teenagers will keep you trying to catch up with them, in more ways than one

 

[Remius]

If you ever feel the need to recharge your stores of patriotism and professional optimism, hang out with a PRes rifle company for awhile.

Those teenagers will keep you trying to catch up with them, in more ways than one

Exactly. Money is not a the motivator people think it is these days for those types

 

[dapaterson]

Exactly. Money is not a the motivator people think it is these days for those types

Money is not necessarily a motivator, but can become a demotivator.

 

[Remius]

https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/whats-britains-strategic-defence-review-2025-06-01/

What the Brits are looking at…

 

[FJAG]

The Review is here.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/683d89f181deb72cce2680a5/The_Strategic_Defence_Review_2025_-_Making_Britain_Safer_-_secure_at_home__strong_abroad.pdf

2 Pager here

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/683dbe63d23a62e5d32680de/The_Strategic_Defence_Review_2025_-_two-pager.pdf

 

[Kirkhill]

The CAF does not do the usual things though.

The problem is that the CAF is one of those organizations that just can’t hire laterally from anywhere else. Yes other very specific trades or what not or maybe from some peer state militaries but overall we are predominately an organisation that builds its workforce from the bottom up.

Cubs, Brownies, Boys Brigade, Scouts, Cadets, Volunteers, Territorials, Regulars, Reserves. - The pathway to the colours. Only the last two were paid. Only the Regulars were full time. And they were paid less than civilians. Of course they got good boots, warm clothes and three hots and a cot.

So you need to try and find ways of keeping the talent you have. It takes a long time to replace them especially when we don’t have a lot of depth.

 

[Brad Sallows]

That’s an antiquated view. And a misunderstanding of the current generations and their motivations that we are targeting.

There are survey findings that back that up (people asked to rank reasons they joined the Res F)?

Disagree. It competes with entry level experiential employment. Not things like a soup kitchen or a scout leader job.

Soft examples. How about volunteer firefighter or search-and-rescue?

Yes. But we are at a breaking point CAF wide That if nothing is done the risk is permanent loss.

We're at risk of permanently losing the Res F? Based on what evidence?

Out of touch yet again. There has never been a better time for change as this generation is actually very open to change but the top keeps failing and disappointing . That goes to your first part about the CAF actually defining what it does.

Find a generation that wasn't open to change while young and didn't think the old fogies at the top were failling and disappointing. You're describing people in general. LFRR started with optimism for change even among older members, although it didn't finish with it.

 

[Czech_pivo]

The Review is here.



2 Pager here

Continuous submarine production: up to 12 conventionally armed, nuclear-powered attack submarines through the AUKUS programme.

From the 2 pager:
Is that correct? It can't be, can it? I thought that their Nuke subs carried their nuclear deterrent missiles in them and that 1 was always at sea. Is that not the case?

 

[Haggis]

Correct. For various reasons. Some that could be mitigated with retention incentives.

You get a $6000 tax break for being a volunteer firefighter or search and rescue team member. You get a tax break on income earned while deployed in many cases. So, why not make Res F earnings tax exempt?

 

[PrairieFella]

You get a $6000 tax break for being a volunteer firefighter or search and rescue team member. You get a tax break on income earned while deployed in many cases. So, why not make Res F earning tax exempt?

There's a fat pay raise right there for the CAF generally, tax-free service.