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....

 

[Haggis]

has anyone really examined the toll in hardware in Ukraine? Our entire purchase order of new aircraft would now be so much scrap metal if we were engaged in any kind of peer war.

We have no near peer threats in our hemisphere. Anything combat we do won't be unilateral or local unless Newfoundland and Labrador decide that Joey Smallwood was wrong in 1949 and secede.

 

[Kirkhill]

We have no near peer threats in our hemisphere. Anything combat we do won't be unilateral or local unless Newfoundland and Labrador decide that Joey Smallwood was wrong in 1949 and secede.

On the other hand Haggis, an M72 or the Russian RPG-18 would make a very bad day for a Mountie patrol car.

The downside of all of this effective manportable gear means that you don't have bring Tanks into Canada to disrupt the functioning of government and civil life.

C4, M72s, AT4s, NLAWs and Stingers in the hands of small bands could really do a number on Canada's economy.

 

[Booter]

The eastern most part of Russia lies In the Western Hemisphere. I know it’s a cheap shit- but our house is no longer fireproof

 

[FJAG]

We don't have the personnel to keep our dwindling fighter force flying as it is, ramming more aircraft, of different type no less, into the bases won't do anything. We need to retain, rebuild and recruit, this will take years and Billions. We can double the amount of people in the CAF, but there won't be anywhere to house them. Building new housing is just as important as purchasing new toys.

Actually that has me taking a different tack again. I think we have enough PYs already, just badly distributed. Currently we're understrength so obviously recruiting to get back up to strength is necessary. I would be very hesitant to increase PYs until we've thoroughly examined and enabled our reserve force with equipment and training and proper employer/employee legislation.

All that more PYs do is add more annually recurring expenses which will once again limit the funding of the equipment and O&M components.

My approach is that all new dollars should go into equipping the whole force, Reg and Res, which will double the size of the Army's capabilities. The one PY exception that I would make is adding the necessary PYs to maintain the new equipment and that existing equipment that is currently being inadequately maintained.

Basically I firmly believe that our RegF is big enough to meet Canada's peacetime obligations. What we need to work on is Canada's ability to surge and sustain the size of its force in an emergency. That is fundamentally a ResF function. We need a well organized, trained, equipped and led ResF - that should be our priority.

One thing that I would stop immediately is the divestment of older equipment. You can't grow a force if you are constantly divesting item A and replacing it with the same number, or less, of item B. Much of this equipment should go into reserve stock (and yest here is a maintenance cost involved with that). We're currently looking at divesting perfectly serviceable Bisons and TLAVs while we have a ResF with no equipment. Rather than looking at a way to maintain them, we're tossing them. I have similar thoughts about the F-18s. It costs billions to bring a new aircraft fleet on line while one could also maintain an old fleet for tens or several hundreds of millions if one built in the maintenance structure and and properly organized the reserve component to operate them like the Air National Guard. They may not be the newest thing but they would be an additional capability when the shit hits the fan.

 

[TacticalTea]

We have no near peer threats in our hemisphere. Anything combat we do won't be unilateral or local unless Newfoundland and Labrador decide that Joey Smallwood was wrong in 1949 and secede.

Hm? If the Newfies so decided, and the Feds wanted to force them back in, you can count me out!

 

[Kirkhill]

What were you saying about PYs?

The solution first presented itself in the Diefenbaker era with the 700 km BOMARC.
However that required a nuclear warhead due to lack of precision.

Kratos now offers the 2600 km Mako and the 3400 km Valkyrie that can be launched from fixed bases like the BOMARC and the existing line of Kratos drones.

Kratos to show low-cost Valkyrie and Mako "wingman" combat drones

Defense company Kratos has announced that it will show two low-cost combat drones at the Paris Air Show next week, offering an insight as to what military conflicts might look like in the foreseeable future – a manned combat jet leading dozens of 1,000 km/h lethally-armed unmanned companions.

newatlas.com

 

[dimsum]

View attachment 69596View attachment 69597

What were you saying about PYs?

The solution first presented itself in the Diefenbaker era with the 700 km BOMARC.
However that required a nuclear warhead due to lack of precision.

Kratos now offers the 2600 km Mako and the 3400 km Valkyrie that can be launched from fixed bases like the BOMARC and the existing line of Kratos drones.

View attachment 69598

Kratos to show low-cost Valkyrie and Mako "wingman" combat drones

Defense company Kratos has announced that it will show two low-cost combat drones at the Paris Air Show next week, offering an insight as to what military conflicts might look like in the foreseeable future – a manned combat jet leading dozens of 1,000 km/h lethally-armed unmanned companions.

newatlas.com

I'll say that despite the glossy brochure, none of those aircraft (Loyal Wingman, the Kratos products, Project Mosquito in the UK, etc) are anywhere near production ready.

In 10 years? Maybe.

 

[Kirkhill]

Actually that has me taking a different tack again. I think we have enough PYs already, just badly distributed. Currently we're understrength so obviously recruiting to get back up to strength is necessary. I would be very hesitant to increase PYs until we've thoroughly examined and enabled our reserve force with equipment and training and proper employer/employee legislation.

All that more PYs do is add more annually recurring expenses which will once again limit the funding of the equipment and O&M components.

My approach is that all new dollars should go into equipping the whole force, Reg and Res, which will double the size of the Army's capabilities. The one PY exception that I would make is adding the necessary PYs to maintain the new equipment and that existing equipment that is currently being inadequately maintained.

Basically I firmly believe that our RegF is big enough to meet Canada's peacetime obligations. What we need to work on is Canada's ability to surge and sustain the size of its force in an emergency. That is fundamentally a ResF function. We need a well organized, trained, equipped and led ResF - that should be our priority.

One thing that I would stop immediately is the divestment of older equipment. You can't grow a force if you are constantly divesting item A and replacing it with the same number, or less, of item B. Much of this equipment should go into reserve stock (and yest here is a maintenance cost involved with that). We're currently looking at divesting perfectly serviceable Bisons and TLAVs while we have a ResF with no equipment. Rather than looking at a way to maintain them, we're tossing them. I have similar thoughts about the F-18s. It costs billions to bring a new aircraft fleet on line while one could also maintain an old fleet for tens or several hundreds of millions if one built in the maintenance structure and and properly organized the reserve component to operate them like the Air National Guard. They may not be the newest thing but they would be an additional capability when the shit hits the fan.

I'll say that despite the glossy brochure, none of those aircraft (Loyal Wingman, the Kratos products, Project Mosquito in the UK, etc) are anywhere near production ready.

In 10 years? Maybe.

I'll take that bet. 2 years.

And the Turks or Israelis will be first.

 

[KevinB]

I'll take that bet. 2 years.

And the Turks or Israelis will be first.

Bad bet IMHO

 

[TacticalTea]

I'll take that bet. 2 years.

And the Turks or Israelis will be first.

It's always those guys!

How does Israel do procurement? Naturally, military issues are much more pressing and critical to them, but if we can import some good ideas that'd be great...

 

[dimsum]

How does Israel do procurement? Naturally, military issues are much more pressing and critical to them, but if we can import some good ideas that'd be great...

They make damn near everything at home. What isn't made at home, the US provides because of their geopolitical location.

 

[KevinB]

It's always those guys!

How does Israel do procurement? Naturally, military issues are much more pressing and critical to them, but if we can import some good ideas that'd be great...

They get a slew of kit from us.
They developed things for their needs that doesn’t alway make sense for the rest of us.

But they have been surrounded by enemies since the creation of Israel, so they had a little bit of focus.

IMHO most of Israeli kit isn’t a great choice for Western ‘Expeditionary’ Forces.

 

[Kirkhill]

Also: "Don't you know there's a war on!"

Yes, they will beg, borrow and steal whatever they can get their hands on to protect themselves.

Their first priority is devising methods to eliminate threats. Even if inefficiently.
Their next priority is to make their kit more efficient.
Their third priority is to accommodate Civil Airspace Rules. - If they accommodate them at all. They can always do what Ukraine has done and shut down the airspace.

As to the 10 years - that was then, this is now.
Consider 5 years during WW2.
Consider 5 years at the beginning of the Cold War.

I don't believe adding TB2 software, or even Hero-120 software, to a Kratos Target Drone is beyond the capability of either the Turks or the Israelis. Or for that matter the Swedes, Finns, Poles, Ukrainians, Iranians, Indians or Chinese. Or Singapore or Taiwan. Or Japan or Korea.

And one F35 will by you 30 or more of the Mako/Valkyrie beasts. Lots of opportunities to experiment and losses won't break the bank.

Definitely not 10 years.

Congress might hold things up for 10 years. Canada for 20 years or so. But not the rest of the world.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Russian media highlights the fact that Canada is scrapping the bottom of the barrel

Canada says aiding Ukraine has ‘exhausted’ its stock of weapons

Canada has depleted its own stock of weapons in a bid to assist Ukraine during its conflict with Russia, Defense Minister Anita Anand says

www.rt.com

 

[YZT580]

We don't have the personnel to keep our dwindling fighter force flying as it is, ramming more aircraft, of different type no less, into the bases won't do anything. We need to retain, rebuild and recruit, this will take years and Billions. We can double the amount of people in the CAF, but there won't be anywhere to house them. Building new housing is just as important as purchasing new toys.

absolutely agree, but you had better have the other products on order because lead time is measured in years and years. Decide what is needed, start the recruitment programme to operate it, order the gear, start your training programme. That is the sequence that needs to be followed. Oh, and one last thing, stop with the wringing of hands in despair.

 

[MilEME09]

Russian media highlights the fact that Canada is scrapping the bottom of the barrel

Canada says aiding Ukraine has ‘exhausted’ its stock of weapons

Canada has depleted its own stock of weapons in a bid to assist Ukraine during its conflict with Russia, Defense Minister Anita Anand says

www.rt.com

I mean they do know what that looks like right now.....

 

[Haggis]

On the other hand Haggis, an M72 or the Russian RPG-18 would make a very bad day for a Mountie patrol car.

Is this meant to infer that we are capable only of seeing an insurgency or terrorist attack as "near peer"?

The downside of all of this effective manportable gear means that you don't have bring Tanks into Canada to disrupt the functioning of government and civil life.

All you need is big trucks and a bouncy castle or two, apparently

C4, M72s, AT4s, NLAWs and Stingers in the hands of small bands could really do a number on Canada's economy.

The possession of which - except for the C4 - has been banned under the May 1st, 2020 OIC... no one would dare!

 

[Kirkhill]

Is this meant to infer that we are capable only of seeing an insurgency or terrorist attack as "near peer"?

No. Not at all. Just that the quality of the threat continues to evolve and may require a different range of responses.

All you need is big trucks and a bouncy castle or two, apparently

The possession of which - except for the C4 - has been banned under the May 1st, 2020 OIC... no one would dare!

Sorry. Forgot. Canada. No lawbreakers here.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Is this meant to infer that we are capable only of seeing an insurgency or terrorist attack as "near peer"?

All you need is big trucks and a bouncy castle or two, apparently

The possession of which - except for the C4 - has been banned under the May 1st, 2020 OIC... no one would dare!

god forbid you bought a empty LAW tube back in the day from the surplus store, because fibreglass are to dangerous in the public hands.

 

[Retired AF Guy]

The difference is, if our chicken coop shits the bed - everyone is FUBAR.

We share a land border - it is much easier to get stuff to Canada in a time of need that way - as opposed to getting stuff from Europe.

I think the concern is more that political games could see us denied access to support and parts. A softwood lumber dispute could turn into no more spares for any of our kit as a way to force us to do what the USA wants.

Furniture beat me to it! Six-seven years ago I would have said we can trust the United States to help us out, but then Donald Trump** came along and kicked over the apple cart. And unfortunately, Joe Biden in my opinion isn't much better. Right now, it appears the US is going through a "US first" phase and like Furniture said its not inconceivable that a future US President (a re-elected Trump!!) using defence procurement as trade tool against Canada. That is why I say diversify our defence procurement, just like we should diversify our economy.

** Actually, it might have started with Obama; there was no reason to cancel Keystone XL then to sharpen his credentials among the progressive wing of the Democratic Party.