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....

 

[Booter]

I suspect the next relationship with the way politicians on the right are courting the anti government vote is that you’ll see less desire on their part to make strong “government forces”. Strong security isn’t in line with “draining the swamp”.

 

[rmc_wannabe]

I think that the only way they'll sell rebuilding the CAF is on the back of losing trade partnerships. Money talks, and we make more keeping the U.S and E.U. partners happy than we do with the Chinese.

 

[Rifleman62]

If we ever rebuild the CAF, possibly the UK method may make sense.

Minister of State (Minister for Defence Procurement) - GOV.UK

www.gov.uk

Minister of State (Minister for Defence Procurement)​

Organisations: Ministry of Defence

Contents​

1. Responsibilities
2. Previous holders
3. Announcements

Responsibilities​

The Minister for Defence Procurement is responsible for the Defence Equipment Plan, relations with defence industry and exports, science and technology.
Responsibilities include:

• delivery of the Equipment Plan
• nuclear enterprise
• defence exports
• innovation
• defence science and technology including Dstl
• information computer technology
• the Single Source Regulations Office (SSRO)
• DIO estates and investment
• environment and sustainability
• Defence Supply Chain and Defence Estate monitoring, engagement and resilience in the context of COVID-19.

Britain’s military procurement agency gets new management

A former defense industry executive is taking over the British government’s multibillion-pound defense procurement effort.

www.defensenews.com

Britain’s military procurement agency gets new management​

Defence Procurement Minister Jeremy Quin said Start’s appointment comes at an important time for U.K. defense. “I am pleased that DE&S will be led by a CEO with extensive commercial experience,” Quin said.

 

[daftandbarmy]

If we ever rebuild the CAF, possibly the UK method may make sense.

Minister of State (Minister for Defence Procurement) - GOV.UK

www.gov.uk

Minister of State (Minister for Defence Procurement)​

Organisations: Ministry of Defence

But without the Ajax disaster, right?

Inside Britain's £5.5 billion military disaster​

The Ajax tank was meant to revolutionise modern warfare – but after a succession of setbacks, is it now destined for the scrap heap.

There is a saying in the arms business about how some deals get done: ‘a conspiracy of optimism’. It’s a term for the bargains that are struck when military men dreaming of revolutionary new kit meet manufacturers desperate to land what might be the only contract for decades.
Neither side wants to dwell on limitations of design or problems that have derailed past procurements. Instead, the soldiers ask for the earth and manufacturers promise they can deliver it, on time and on budget.

It tends not to work that way. This year the Infrastructure and Projects Authority, which evaluates the Government’s major spending plans, analysed 52 projects underway at the MoD, worth a total of £194.7 billion – about one and a half times the entire NHS budget. Of those 52, just three were given the green rating suggesting that ‘successful delivery appears highly likely’. Most, in the amber zone, are freighted with difficulties. And nine are flagged red, where ‘the project appears to be unachievable’.

These now include critical programmes like the Crowsnest helicopter surveillance programme; the production capability which builds the nuclear reactors for our Navy subs; a futuristic anti-ship weapon known as FCASW; the F35B Lightning combat jet; the Sea Venom anti-surface missile; and a communications system known as MoDnet Evolve.

In all, notes a recent Defence Select Committee report, attempts to equip Britain’s armed forces in the last two decades amount to ‘a woeful story of bureaucratic procrastination, military indecision, financial mismanagement and general ineptitude’. As a result, it goes on, if British soldiers had to go to war today, they would have to rely on ‘obsolete armoured vehicles… [be] very heavily outgunned by more modern missile and artillery systems and [be] chronically lacking in adequate air defence’.

Even amid this blizzard of failure, however, a single programme stands out, symbolising the nation’s procurement failings: Ajax.

Ajax, a type of light tank, has been repeatedly delayed. It was supposed to provide unparalleled protection to its crew, while delivering devastating fire through a 40mm cannon and hitting top speeds of 45mph. When one was finally delivered for trial in 2019 it shook so violently and was so noisy that it injured not the enemy but the personnel using it, with the vibrations also affecting the automatic loading of the cannon. Meanwhile billions of pounds of public money have so far been spent in return for not a single tank that the Army deems acceptable. According to a National Audit Office report, the project was ‘flawed from the start’.

Inside Britain's £5.5 billion military disaster

The Ajax tank was meant to revolutionise modern warfare – but after a succession of setbacks, is it now destined for the scrap heap?

www.telegraph.co.uk

 

[Rifleman62]

Want to start a list of Cdn military disasters?

 

[Halifax Tar]

Want to start a list of Cdn military disasters?

I'll start. The MacAdam Shield Shovel.

MacAdam Shield Shovel - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Good2Golf]

My opinion - worth exactly what you're paying for it - is that no matter what President Biden (and, indeed, other world leaders say or (in the cases of e.g. Kim Jong-un and Ali Khamenei) do) Canadian voters will find it very hard to support any substantial action to make Canada more powerful ... militarily. It is also my opinion that that overwhelming majority of Canadian does not understand that there is an important, unbreakable nexus between hard and soft power. It is great to have soft power - the more the better - but Joseph Nye himself pointed out that soft power works only when the country wielding it has demonstrated that it has and is wiling to use enough hard power to make its voice heard.

Sadly (vis-a-vis Canadians becoming less and less the masters of their own destiny), they won’t have much of a say about it, as the Govermnent of the day will put whatever appeasing, Maskirovkaic coverings on “their own” defense investment policies, onto their direction from South of the border. It could be that Canada leads the World in becoming, as Trudeau says, the first post-nation state (for as long as the US doesn’t accept the role of ‘Benevolent Annexer.’

I know I'm repeating myself, but both the Conservative and Liberal parties know that Canadians oppose rebuilding our military - they poll assiduously and they ask hard question; they want to know what we think; and we, most Canadians (my guess is 60%+ of us) tell them, over and over again, that we don't like the idea of Canada using military power and, therefore, don't want Canada to have much military power; they certainly, by and even larger percentage, don't want to see their taxes go up our their entitlements go down not pay for it.

Perhaps one day a poll will ask, “Do you support Canada equipping its own moderate military force, if the alternative was accepting US military ‘assistance’ leveraged against Canada’s existing bi-lateral agreement with the U.S.?”

I don't know how Pierre Poilievre could sell rebuilding Canada's military to his own party, much less to the country at large. I'm about 99.9% certain that Justin Trudeau and Chrystia Freeland would find the notion totally impossible.

I don’t think any (of the) mainstream political parties in Canada give a fig about defence…so someone will ensure defense that affects their own country is effected…

 

[OldSolduer]

I'll start. The MacAdam Shield Shovel.

MacAdam Shield Shovel - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Ross rifle.

 

[Rifleman62]

Perhaps one day a poll will ask, “Do you support Canada equipping its own moderate military force, if the alternative was accepting US military ‘assistance’ leveraged against Canada’s existing bi-lateral agreement with the U.S.?”

Yes, super idea.

 

[YZT580]

I'll start. The MacAdam Shield Shovel.

MacAdam Shield Shovel - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Add in the Ross rifle

 

[Halifax Tar]

The Ross rifle.

The Ross Rifle was a great sporting rifle, but too sensitive for the trenches.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

The Ross Rifle was a great sporting rifle, but too sensitive for the trenches.

More like to sensitive to crappy British ammunition not made to spec. But better to blame the Colonials right? Also there was not a lot of other options at the time. The Ross continued in the trenches often preferred by snipers.

 

[Brad Sallows]

There are a couple of routes by which Canadians might be convinced to spend more. One, other countries start ignoring our claims in the north. Two, other countries start cutting us out of things from which we benefit. In both cases, it'd have to be stated bluntly that it's a consequence of not carrying enough weight.

 

[FSTO]

Could you just imagine the howls of outrage from the chattering classes if a Democrat Administration, one who the Liberal Party loves to emulate lets it be known that if Canada doesn't pull its weight in the defence of North America that the US will pull its support of keeping Canada in the G7.

There isn't enough beer and popcorn in the world to satisfy that amount of entertainment!

 

[Quirky]

Could you just imagine the howls of outrage from the chattering classes if a Democrat Administration, one who the Liberal Party loves to emulate lets it be known that if Canada doesn't pull its weight in the defence of North America that the US will pull its support of keeping Canada in the G7.

There isn't enough beer and popcorn in the world to satisfy that amount of entertainment!

What would be worse, Canada getting booted from the G7 or US troops on Canadian soil manning our their bases?

 

[GK .Dundas]

Since the average Canadian neither knows nor cares about any these matters
I actually wonder how long it would take for them to react to a complete loss of sovereignty ?
A good month or two at least.

 

[OldSolduer]

Since the average Canadian neither knows nor cares about any these matters
I actually wonder how long it would take for them to react to a complete loss of sovereignty ?
A good month or two at least.

As long as curling was on Tv or maybe HNIC most would not notice

 

[YZT580]

There are a couple of routes by which Canadians might be convinced to spend more. One, other countries start ignoring our claims in the north. Two, other countries start cutting us out of things from which we benefit. In both cases, it'd have to be stated bluntly that it's a consequence of not carrying enough weight.

next group photo of the NATO leaders put Trudeau on the outer edge and then crop him out in the press release

 

[Brad Sallows]

Just photoshop it to show him in kiddie short pants.

 

[Edward Campbell]

The problem is NOT Justin Trudeau; the problem wasn't Jean Chrétien nor was it Pierre Trudeau. The problem was and remains that we, the people of Canada, wanted and still want what our American neighbours and our European allies had and have: an advanced welfare state, but we didn't and still don't want to allow the sort of open, highly competitive, red in tooth and claw capitalism that characterizes the USA nor did we want pay European level taxes. We want something for nothing. We told the market researchers (pollsters) that in the early to mid 1960s. Neither John Diefenbaker nor Mike Pearson paid much attention; Jim Coutts and Keith Davey did and they advised Pierre Trudeau that his instinct - to try to abandon the US-led West and lead Canada, somehow, into the non-aligned group of nations, while politically naive was, essentially, what Canadians wanted ... this was the 1960s and '70s, remember, and Vietnam dominated the global narrative.

Nothing much has changed.

Partisan party politics isn't the problem.