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....

 

[MilEME09]

According to their site

M107 HE
M485 Ill

Presumably the M107 might come in handy but haven't the Yanks move on from that?

M795?

M107 rounds have been spotted in Ukraine, if we can deliver, I'd say ramp up production ASAP.

 

[brihard]

M107 rounds have been spotted in Ukraine, if we can deliver, I'd say ramp up production ASAP.

I suspect Ukraine’s fire support requirements are such that pretty much any compatible and serviceable ammunition will be welcomed. Not everything needs the high end warheads; sometimes you just need to make a BTG’s life suck as it tries to close with and destroy your friends, and you just gotta pump out rounds.

 

[Fabius]

Canada’s artillery production capabilities are largely extinct. The lines have not been used in over 20 years and tech both shell and production line have moved on as have the needed ancillary industrial capabilities.
Bottom line is we can’t start new or old shell design manufacturing inside of a 5 year timeframe and for the newest shells we would need the US etc to allow for production licenses.
This is a large issue for the RCA that has largely been ignored or kept relatively quiet.

 

[McG]

Canada’s artillery production capabilities are largely extinct. The lines have not been used in over 20 years and …

It hasn’t been more than 15 years since I visited the GD-OTS facility, and they were doing artillery then.

 

[Fabius]

Interesting then. Perhaps I miss read something or maybe it was fuzes.

 

[dapaterson]

Unfortunately, too often the cost of maintaining a capability today is deemed excessive, only to discover later that the cost of not maintaining it is even greater.

Militaries require effectiveness, which frequently runs counter to efficiency.

 

[rmc_wannabe]

Unfortunately, too often the cost of maintaining a capability today is deemed excessive, only to discover later that the cost of not maintaining it is even greater.

Militaries require effectiveness, which frequently runs counter to efficiency.

Let alone the cost of divesting a capability only to realise how much more it costs to replace it down the road.

It was depressing doing a CAFJOD on Joint Operations and reading that future conflicts are "most likely going to occur between non state actors in a proxy/COIN environment" while watching a peer force-on-force conflict occur in real time.

COIN and PSO certainly are light on the hardware requirements; but it's hard as hell to get back what you got rid of.

 

[FJAG]

Let alone the cost of divesting a capability only to realise how much more it costs to replace it down the road.

It was depressing doing a CAFJOD on Joint Operations and reading that future conflicts are "most likely going to occur between non state actors in a proxy/COIN environment" while watching a peer force-on-force conflict occur in real time.

COIN and PSO certainly are light on the hardware requirements; but it's hard as hell to get back what you got rid of.

I've always thought that our military approach to proxy/COIN operations used the least developed and armed force in the world as the model to base on thus divesting ourselves of most modern weapon systems that would remain relevant and necessary for even a modestly armed country.

It did not raise a lot of confidence that even there we had to develop our equipment holdings reactively to what our opponents brought to the table and that some of the really useful equipment (Predator, CAS, helicopters, road clearance packages etc) had to be supplied by our allies.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Unfortunately, too often the cost of maintaining a capability today is deemed excessive, only to discover later that the cost of not maintaining it is even greater.

Militaries require effectiveness, which frequently runs counter to efficiency.

Some time in the 70-80's, the First Sea Lord and C.N.S. (either Adm Sir Leach, Fieldhouse or Staveley - but IIRC it was Staveley) gave an interview (in an episode of the TV documentary series Sea Power: A Global Journey) where he said, and I quote: "Navies are expensive, but a damn sight cheaper than not having them".

You may recall it was the era the U.K. wanted to divest itself of aircraft carriers rather than replace the INVINCIBLE class, just to be suddenly faced with the invasion of the Falklands. Decision reversed in a hurry!

 

[MilEME09]

Some time in the 70-80's, the First Sea Lord and C.N.S. (either Adm Sir Leach, Fieldhouse or Staveley - but IIRC it was Staveley) gave an interview (in an episode of the TV documentary series Sea Power: A Global Journey) where he said, and I quote: "Navies are expensive, but a damn sight cheaper than not having them".

You may recall it was the era the U.K. wanted to divest itself of aircraft carriers rather than replace the INVINCIBLE class, just to be suddenly faced with the invasion of the Falklands. Decision reversed in a hurry!

Conflict causes priorities to change, our own Force 2025 shift has been changed because of the war in Ukraine

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

Unfortunately, too often the cost of maintaining a capability today is deemed excessive, only to discover later that the cost of not maintaining it is even greater.

Militaries require effectiveness, which frequently runs counter to efficiency.

It's almost like Industrial Capacity is important

 

[MilEME09]

It's almost like Industrial Capacity is important

You mean we should always be producing munitions, put them into war stocks and slowly release the older stuff for use by user units? No way

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

You mean we should always be producing munitions, put them into war stocks and slowly release the older stuff for use by user units? No way

The real issue the entire Russia-Ukraine conflict has exposed is how the "Arsenal of Democracy" isn't as much of an arsenal as it used to be.

 

[MilEME09]

The real issue the entire Russia-Ukraine conflict has exposed is how the "Arsenal of Democracy" isn't as much of an arsenal as it used to be.

It's more a reserve armoury

 

[Fabius]

Its interesting that we maintain some recognition that industrial capacity is important, I mean we still have a Munition Supply Program, that on the surface seems to be maintained ie. we can manufacture ammo. Then you dig into the details and realize its a disaster of mismanagement and lack of understanding.
I don't think you can describe the maintenance of national industrial capacity as a success if you can only make two out of the three components of an artillery muntion ( ie. Shell and Charge but no fuzes of any type for either 105 or 155) and you can't manufacture any of the latest rounds introduced in the last 30 years as your production line technology can't do it, meaning that while Wikipedia may say your Artillery's range is 40km with the muntions you can produce its barely 15km.
Nor can you manufacture anything but basic HE, no smoke, no illum, no SMART/BONUS etc.

That doesn't seem like any sort of competent well put together planning.

 

[rmc_wannabe]

That doesn't seem like any sort of competent well put together planning.

Remember that we don't plan , we react. This has been a Canadian military tradition since the first boat crossed the Niagara in 1812.

Most of our "new kit" from the Afghan War was bought in a panic because we were underequipped for the job being asked. We almost ran our of ammunition in 2006 because we grossly underestimated both what a combat load is and also how many rounds are used in a fire fight.

The second we have a ramp ceremony in the next conflict is the second we see the purse strings loosen; a day late and a dollar short.

As is tradition.

 

[McG]

The second we have a ramp ceremony in the next conflict is the second we see the purse strings loosen; a day late and a dollar short

If NATO finds itself in a shooting war with Russia, Canada won’t have the luxury of doing ramp ceremonies.

 

[rmc_wannabe]

If NATO finds itself in a shooting war with Russia, Canada won’t have the luxury of doing ramp ceremonies.

Obviously.

I was merely stating the risk of casualties isn't even enough of a political incentive to properly equip or maintain readiness within the CAF. It's only when casualties happen and voters get upset that we see a proper response on Defense and Foreign policy matters.

 

[CBH99]

Remember that we don't plan , we react. This has been a Canadian military tradition since the first boat crossed the Niagara in 1812.

Most of our "new kit" from the Afghan War was bought in a panic because we were underequipped for the job being asked. We almost ran our of ammunition in 2006 because we grossly underestimated both what a combat load is and also how many rounds are used in a fire fight.

The second we have a ramp ceremony in the next conflict is the second we see the purse strings loosen; a day late and a dollar short.

As is tradition.

As someone who deployed in 2006, I’ll just say this - General Fraser was NOT the right guy for the job.

He’d genuinely have been better employed a few ranks lower, where he could still heavily influence policy for the Task Force Commander.

But he should not have been the TFC, in my humble opinion. The ammo issues experienced at the beginning of Medusa was just sheer incompetence on his behalf.

Regardless of his personal decisions in his own affairs, Gen. Vance was a much better boss sort of speak.



The CAF is absolutely a reactive organization. No doubt about it.

On the one hand, ideally, we’d be equipped to be able to deploy quickly, smash some bad guys, and sustain ourselves sufficiently in an allied environment where other countries are doing the same.

On the other, preparing for future conflicts is inherently risky, as you may be preparing for the wrong type of operations. Having well trained, general purpose forces helps one to mitigate those risks. (

(We had just finished designing a new combat uniform & associated kit for operations in low threat environments like Bosnia & Kosovo when all of a sudden we found ourselves conducting offensive operations in the Afghan desert. Wait, wtf?)



Sometimes I feel like our attitude of “Let’s first see what kicks off and where, and against who…then go buy a bunch of stuff we need for that specific theatre!” isn’t just an attitude, it’s an unofficial policy

 

[Fabius]

All while trumpeting the mantra of readiness that the General officers have favoured for the last 5 or so years, yet failed to define outside of do your DAG and have a family care plan.