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....

 

[rmc_wannabe]

Arguably SSE allows the CAF to field a very robust force.
I’d argue it’s tunnel vision inside the CAF that is the biggest issue, or no one wanting to sacrifice their careers on that hill

I think that's part of it. Another part that gets overlooked is that it is, in typical Canadian government fashion, open ended enough to promise everything and nothing in no concrete timelines.

Yes, it does give promises of gradual increases and new capital investment into capabilities... but it doesn't mesh with any concrete "effects" they want out of the CAF.

"Protect us both at home and abroad." OK? In what capacity?

"Provide for our commitments with NATO and NORAD." ... in the same half-assed manner we have been for 70 years or actually do something tangible?

We, as in the CAF, need to explain better and more realistixally what we need to fulfill those roles. We also need to provide an adequate costing of these effects, and stop throwing money into "project development." The solutions we need exist out there. We are not that unique of a military. We should be able to look across our allies and find SOMETHING that works, relatively affordible, and can be complete from "need>fielded" in 5-10 years.

 

[Kirkhill]

"Protect us both at home and abroad." OK? In what capacity?

"Provide for our commitments with NATO and NORAD." ... in the same half-assed manner we have been for 70 years or actually do something tangible?

At home - NORAD - RCAF (working with the USAF)
Abroad - NATO - RCN (high seas and convoys and working with the USN and the RN)

Do we want a NORAD Army or a NATO Army? The Army itself, in my opinion, sees itself more as a NATO Army. And has done since the Berlin Airlift and the Korean War.

 

[GR66]

At home - NORAD - RCAF (working with the USAF)
Abroad - NATO - RCN (high seas and convoys and working with the USN and the RN)

Do we want a NORAD Army or a NATO Army? The Army itself, in my opinion, sees itself more as a NATO Army. And has done since the Berlin Airlift and the Korean War.

Realistically the conventional land-based military threats to Canada are minimal. Our Army must be focused on being expeditionary (I'd include the far North of Canada in that), but there are a lot of options of how we could choose to be expeditionary. The traditional, mechanized NATO vs Russia Cold War type role is only one possible option.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Aptitude testing is limited in assessing retention, practical learning, and emotional intelligence.

Aptitude testing measures potential. You're measuring it against things it's not meant to measure. If the suite of tests administered is incomplete, it doesn't mean there's a problem with aptitude testing. A bit like blaming the hammer if you try to fasten two boards together without a nail.

 

[Brad Sallows]

You do know that carriers provide their own air defence and strike capability ?

Yes, but one CVBG is fuck-all. An enemy coming to make a serious attempt on us is going to look like the combined US fleets present during the various Pacific operations in 1944-45. One CVBG will be rolled over.

the Brits started an ex to prove to the world that the RAF and the Army could reinforce Singapore by Air

We don't need to reinforce Canada by air. We're already here. Use examples that make sense, starting with the fact we own the ground.

 

[dapaterson]

My simple way to spend $1B annually: an infrastructure fund to permit remote, mostly northern communities to upgrade roads, bridges and especially airfields.

Channelling it through Defence means there can a some degree of filter to privilege locations that are militarily useful, or to expand beyond community needs (so for example getting Iqaluit an airfield that could support an A330), but using the military as a source of public works funding would be an easy win / win.

 

[Underway]

Yes, but one CVBG is fuck-all. An enemy coming to make a serious attempt on us is going to look like the combined US fleets present during the various Pacific operations in 1944-45. One CVBG will be rolled over.

I agree but I think this is beside Aliens Invade when developing possible COA's over the next 20 years. No one is going to challenge US security by way of Canada.

You do know that carriers provide their own air defence and strike capability ?
And historically relying on land based aircover has at best been farcical and it's worst suicidal .

For home security, if you really want to protect Canada then invest in submarines and land based aircraft not carriers. Submarines and aircraft like the MPA's are far better in a defensive posture then a carrier.

Carriers are for power projection away from home shores. I've advocated for a small helicopter carrier or escort carrier in the past. Helicopter carriers using both small UAVs and rotary wing to do AEW, Surface picture compilation, and our own 24/7 ASW presence.

Let the US and UK do the supercarrier thing. We could watch their backs while they go to work.

 

[Underway]

My simple way to spend $1B annually: an infrastructure fund to permit remote, mostly northern communities to upgrade roads, bridges and especially airfields.

Channelling it through Defence means there can a some degree of filter to privilege locations that's are militarily useful, or to expand beyond community needs (so for example getting Iqaluit an airfield that could support an A330, for example), but using the military as a source if public works funding would be an easy win / win.

US Army Corps of Engineers style. I like this idea quite a bit. Just go around improving airfields, ports, other infrastructure etc...

 

[GR66]

My simple way to spend $1B annually: an infrastructure fund to permit remote, mostly northern communities to upgrade roads, bridges and especially airfields.

Channelling it through Defence means there can a some degree of filter to privilege locations that's are militarily useful, or to expand beyond community needs (so for example getting Iqaluit an airfield that could support an A330, for example), but using the military as a source if public works funding would be an easy win / win.

I get your point...get something useful done that isn't really purely military but ultimately ends up having some strategic value for the CF, but it sure is a stupid way to go about getting things done. If something is needed and useful then it should be funded through the proper channels. Not doing some accounting acrobatics to use up someone else's slice of the budget.

 

[KevinB]

I think that's part of it. Another part that gets overlooked is that it is, in typical Canadian government fashion, open ended enough to promise everything and nothing in no concrete timelines.

Yes, it does give promises of gradual increases and new capital investment into capabilities... but it doesn't mesh with any concrete "effects" they want out of the CAF.

"Protect us both at home and abroad." OK? In what capacity?

"Provide for our commitments with NATO and NORAD." ... in the same half-assed manner we have been for 70 years or actually do something tangible?

We, as in the CAF, need to explain better and more realistixally what we need to fulfill those roles. We also need to provide an adequate costing of these effects, and stop throwing money into "project development." The solutions we need exist out there. We are not that unique of a military. We should be able to look across our allies and find SOMETHING that works, relatively affordible, and can be complete from "need>fielded" in 5-10 years.

Canada needs a new white paper - a non partisan one that will be followed by governments for 20+ years.

SSE allows for the CAF to acquire pretty much anything they want.
Full Spectrum from low to high intensity.

I don’t blame the Cdn Gov for the fact that the Army doesn’t have a variable ATGM
I blame the Cdn Gov for the 1 million LAV Army - but no one in the Army ever stood up and said - that’s really stupid.
The RCAF wanted the Blackhawk years ago and MM boned them with the Griffon - yet no one resigned in disgust

Governments generally always Pork Barrel if allowed too, and rarely does anyone kick up a stink that the item doesn’t meet the specifications.
Look at the LSVW standard got dropped repeatedly until it passed / no one resigned or leaked anything to the press.

While the GOFOs do have a duty to the Civilian leadership, they also have a duty to the CAF and the Canadian public at large not to let the government foist POS on them.

 

[dapaterson]

Iqaluit does not need, for its own use, an airfield that supports an A330. The CAF, buying A330 MRTTs and transports, would benefit from Iqaluit having an A330 airfield.

Multiply that by thousands of locations across Canada, give DND a billion in vote 10 to support construction and ongoing operations, and voila.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Canada needs a new white paper - a non partisan one that will be followed by governments for 20+ years.

SSE allows for the CAF to acquire pretty much anything they want.
Full Spectrum from low to high intensity.

I don’t blame the Cdn Gov for the fact that the Army doesn’t have a variable ATGM
I blame the Cdn Gov for the 1 million LAV Army - but no one in the Army ever stood up and said - that’s really stupid.
The RCAF wanted the Blackhawk years ago and MM boned them with the Griffon - yet no one resigned in disgust

Governments generally always Pork Barrel is allowed too, and rarely does anyone kick up a stink that the item doesn’t meet the specifications.
Look at the LSVW standard got dropped repeatedly until it passed / no one resigned or leaked anything to the press.

While the GOFOs do have a duty to the Civilian leadership, they also have a duty to the CAF and the Canadian public at large not to let the government foist POS on them.

Even more importantly, the CAF needs the right kind of strategic leadership as opposed to a bunch of 'Yes Men and Women'.

Where everything has the same level of importance, and there are no clear goals that everyone is working towards, you're not being strategic.

You're setting the organization up for failure.

 

[YZT580]

US Army Corps of Engineers style. I like this idea quite a bit. Just go around improving airfields, ports, other infrastructure etc...

For what purpose if you have no military to go there. There are plenty of departments in the government for roads and airstrips. It has been said here before, first the major parties have to sit down behind closed doors with no press and no press releases and come to an agreement: defense is too important to permit politics. Now the same group agree on an image of our armed forces and the personnel and equipment required and then just do it whatever it may be. Don't invite any generals or experts. Highest rank a colonel or an active commander. Clean up the hiring process 'cause it doesn't work and get rid of at least two stages in the procurement process. That is my 2 cents

 

[MilEME09]

I agree but I think this is beside Aliens Invade when developing possible COA's over the next 20 years. No one is going to challenge US security by way of Canada.

For home security, if you really want to protect Canada then invest in submarines and land based aircraft not carriers. Submarines and aircraft like the MPA's are far better in a defensive posture then a carrier.

Carriers are for power projection away from home shores. I've advocated for a small helicopter carrier or escort carrier in the past. Helicopter carriers using both small UAVs and rotary wing to do AEW, Surface picture compilation, and our own 24/7 ASW presence.

Let the US and UK do the supercarrier thing. We could watch their backs while they go to work.

Crazy idea but what about say an assault ship online with the Australian loyal wingman unmanned fighter, and create a floating drone carrier?

 

[Underway]

Crazy idea but what about say an assault ship online with the Australian loyal wingman unmanned fighter, and create a floating drone carrier?

I think that I love crazy ideas. But if you build a drone carrier you are just really building a carrier and filling it with drones are you not? Why limit the flexibility of a small flattop.

Frankly though I think we need to flesh out our capabilities along the lines of the Australians with the notable exception of amphibious forces. They aren't necessary in our context like it is for them with all those island chokepoints etc... they need to secure in event of a war with a northern power.

 

[MilEME09]

I think that I love crazy ideas. But if you build a drone carrier you are just really building a carrier and filling it with drones are you not? Why limit the flexibility of a small flattop.

Frankly though I think we need to flesh out our capabilities along the lines of the Australians with the notable exception of amphibious forces. They aren't necessary in our context like it is for them with all those island chokepoints etc... they need to secure in event of a war with a northern power.

I was thinking of ways around our man power issues, so Essentially yes, but smaller in size, more endurance potentially.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Iqaluit does not need, for its own use, an airfield that supports an A330. The CAF, buying A330 MRTTs and transports, would benefit from Iqaluit having an A330 airfield.

The CAF would benefit from a lot of things. Rank them and start at the top of the list instead of willy-nilly throwing money around. Why bother reforming procurement if we're just going to find another rathole to pour money down?

 

[dapaterson]

Providing infra funds to communities where the CAF benefits lets the communities deal with contracting and maintenance, and avoids ADM IE / DCC and other sinkholes of inefficiency.

 

[Haggis]

The CAF would benefit from a lot of things. Rank them and start at the top of the list instead of willy-nilly throwing money around. Why bother reforming procurement if we're just going to find another rathole to pour money down?

Nobody in government cares what the CAF would benefit from. They care about what the government needs to stay in power. Defense spending at the expense of other vote getting spending doesn't get you re-elected.

 

[MilEME09]

Providing infra funds to communities where the CAF benefits lets the communities deal with contracting and maintenance, and avoids ADM IE / DCC and other sinkholes of inefficiency.

Or instead of being reactionary let's create 10 and 20 year strategic growth and infrastructure plans for bases, and other areas. Prioritize them and provide the funding