• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Government hints at boosting Canada’s military spending

Status
Not open for further replies.
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....
 
You'd think they would of atleast be given sprc pay though
My understanding is that spec pay is closely watched by TB, and they are already looking at taking it away, they just want a reason.

To paraphrase my source "TB doesn't care if we are short 17K, we aren't going to see massive pay increases".

Edit: In fairness to my source, who may or may not frequent these forums, they weren't taking TB's side, just pointing out the reality in which we live. A reality which has inspired me to look at opportunities outside the CAF.
 
I wonder how many are coming in with skills the CAF desperately needs? Like air crews, pilots, marine engineers, etc...feel like we would want to fast track those individuals. Maybe even offer expedited citizenship for those that serve?

Pilots are aircrew; CAF/RCAF aircrew trades are pilot, ACSO, SAR Tech, Flight Engineer and AES Op.
 
AMOR is imperfect but important. Org design across the enterprise is important too - since we do little lateral entry, rank pyramid is important to have healthy promotion ratios - to select out.

The classic example was Int Op wanting more MCpl than Cpl, more Sgt than MCpl. WO at least was smaller than Sgt - but greater than Cpl.

That's been mostly fixed, but stupidity like "A Cpl can't brief a Col" needs to be stomped out - hard - whenever it recurs.

My trade is suffering now because the pyramid was forced.

I don't want to hear anyone say "but" unless, first, they are going to address the extreme number of GOFOs we have to 'command' our miniscule (semi) Armed Forces.
 
My understanding is that spec pay is closely watched by TB, and they are already looking at taking it away, they just want a reason.

To paraphrase my source "TB doesn't care if we are short 17K, we aren't going to see massive pay increases".

Edit: In fairness to my source, who may or may not frequent these forums, they weren't taking TB's side, just pointing out the reality in which we live. A reality which has inspired me to look at opportunities outside the CAF.

I've been saying recently; the CAF cares that we are short XXXXX people but I'm not entirely convinced the current GoC particularly cares.

When I went thru Cornwallis, we were taught "service before self". For many, many years I tried to live up to that motto.

Now, my motto is slightly different...and I don't feel the least bit guilty for the change, either, as it was born from the actions of successive governments.

They're just asking for more than I can/am willing to give.
 
I've been saying recently; the CAF cares that we are short XXXXX people but I'm not entirely convinced the current GoC particularly cares.

When I went thru Cornwallis, we were taught "service before self". For many, many years I tried to live up to that motto.

Now, my motto is slightly different...and I don't feel the least bit guilty for the change, either, as it was born from the actions of successive governments.

They're just asking for more than I can/am willing to give.
100%

The CAF/GoC has shown it's colours, and I'm done giving more than I get back.
 
I've met a few in my "new" branch...

I've had a couple of people try to take on my briefings. I gave them as polite of a "f**k-off" as I could muster, and proceeded to conduct the brief myself. I may not be great, but I at least understand what I'm talking about better than most people in the room.
Well, there was the one time you told me there was no risk of a thunderstorm, with a CB clearly visible 10 NM off the port bow.

I forgive you ;)
 
The top as in the CDS? MND? PM?
In this case I’d say the PM.

It wasn’t on Gen. Vance, nor is it on Gen. Eyre. (It happened before Eyre was even CDS)

It wasn’t on our current MND, as it was before her time also. And it wasn’t on our former MND, as this wasn’t in his portfolio.

I’m going with the PM.

I’m going to bet that the processing time for the 2 Chinese scientists employed at our National Microbiology Lab was faster than the 2 years the article was suggesting for a PR. (If they were even subject to a background investigator prior to employment, or were they strapped in from elsewhere?)

________


Not to blindly throw hate on the PM (although I’m biased right now, I think he deserves as much as he’s getting right now…)

This is the same PM that wouldn’t ban Weihei until the last moment.

The same PM that allowed planes to land here in Canada that were a direct flight from China.

And a PM that just awarded a contract to a Chinese company who’s parent company is currently charged with 21 espionage…
 
In this case I’d say the PM.

It wasn’t on Gen. Vance, nor is it on Gen. Eyre. (It happened before Eyre was even CDS)

It wasn’t on our current MND, as it was before her time also. And it wasn’t on our former MND, as this wasn’t in his portfolio.

I’m going with the PM.

I’m going to bet that the processing time for the 2 Chinese scientists employed at our National Microbiology Lab was faster than the 2 years the article was suggesting for a PR. (If they were even subject to a background investigator prior to employment, or were they strapped in from elsewhere?)

________


Not to blindly throw hate on the PM (although I’m biased right now, I think he deserves as much as he’s getting right now…)

This is the same PM that wouldn’t ban Weihei until the last moment.

The same PM that allowed planes to land here in Canada that were a direct flight from China.

And a PM that just awarded a contract to a Chinese company who’s parent company is currently charged with 21 espionage…

That’s because he admires them so much…

 
I don't want to hear anyone say "but" unless, first, they are going to address the extreme number of GOFOs we have to 'command' our miniscule (semi) Armed Forces.

Tangent

I was tending to agree, until I realized (and posted in a different thread) the ratio of GOFOs to troops in the Australian Defence Force.

Long story short, they have 205 Reg F GOFOs for 58k Reg F mbrs, and 400+ Res F GOFOs for about 30k Res F mbrs. We have 137 GOFOs, Reg and Res, for about 90k mbrs. I haven't taken a look at the UK or NZ ratios.

A Reddit thread comment says this:

in WW2, the yanks had a 1:6000 GOFO:soldier ratio, in 2017 the US military had about 1:1400 ratio, while the ADF is currently running a 1:180 ratio. The US army is about half a million personnel, they have recently had their GOFO number reduced to 220, which is only 15 more than what we have in the ADF, which numbers less than 60000 full time. We are currently employing nearly 10 times the number of flag officers vs the US army. Clearly, the rank bloat at the higher levels goes beyond needing experts in key areas.
 
In this case I’d say the PM.

It wasn’t on Gen. Vance, nor is it on Gen. Eyre. (It happened before Eyre was even CDS)

It wasn’t on our current MND, as it was before her time also. And it wasn’t on our former MND, as this wasn’t in his portfolio.

I’m going with the PM.

I’m going to bet that the processing time for the 2 Chinese scientists employed at our National Microbiology Lab was faster than the 2 years the article was suggesting for a PR. (If they were even subject to a background investigator prior to employment, or were they strapped in from elsewhere?)

________


Not to blindly throw hate on the PM (although I’m biased right now, I think he deserves as much as he’s getting right now…)

This is the same PM that wouldn’t ban Weihei until the last moment.

The same PM that allowed planes to land here in Canada that were a direct flight from China.

And a PM that just awarded a contract to a Chinese company who’s parent company is currently charged with 21 espionage…
I fully agree. The PM was the one that said he admired China. I took that as a warning but it seems that the chattering class went gaga over it.
 
Tangent

I was tending to agree, until I realized (and posted in a different thread) the ratio of GOFOs to troops in the Australian Defence Force.

Long story short, they have 205 Reg F GOFOs for 58k Reg F mbrs, and 400+ Res F GOFOs for about 30k Res F mbrs. We have 137 GOFOs, Reg and Res, for about 90k mbrs. I haven't taken a look at the UK or NZ ratios.

A Reddit thread comment says this:
Just because someone else is worse doesn’t make the CAF situation with GOFO’s reasonable.
 
Tangent

I was tending to agree, until I realized (and posted in a different thread) the ratio of GOFOs to troops in the Australian Defence Force.

Long story short, they have 205 Reg F GOFOs for 58k Reg F mbrs, and 400+ Res F GOFOs for about 30k Res F mbrs. We have 137 GOFOs, Reg and Res, for about 90k mbrs. I haven't taken a look at the UK or NZ ratios.

A Reddit thread comment says this:

They also have…F-35s, P-8s, AWACS…the list is likely longer for their navy and army for actual forces that exist in comparison to ours.

They are more Armed than semi-armed which I believe is the accurate name for the CAF. Maybe their ratios are equally as bad but at least those GOFOs command more potent forces. Combat capability should be a more important metric overall than ratios.
 
Last edited:
They also have…F-35s, P-8s, AWACS…the list is likely longer for their navy and army for actual forces that exist in comparison to ours.

They are more Armed than semi-armed which I believe is the accurate name for the CAF. Maybe their ratios are equally as bad but at least those GOFOs command more potent forces. Combat capability should be a more important metric overall than ratios.
Since we're all about bows, ribbons and signaling over substance then I propose we make EITS' naming suggestion official....:cdn:CSAF:salute:
 
Sure, there are definitely some cases where we can look at the civvy world and say "close enough for government work".

The problem is, we don't offer anything competitive enough to draw most of the civvy collage people we want... To the average 20-30 year old, a pension after 25 years isn't much incentive when compared against more take-home money now, and no silly military BS.
Maybe one of the mistakes is that we have a service model where want everyone to stick around for 25 years. Maybe its good enough if the bulk stays for 3 or 4 years full-time and another 5 years part-time.

Make the incentive that we provide one group with adventure while they are youth (I'm thinking the usual infantry and so on) and the others a paid for education in a civilian trade and some experience with a full period of summer employment to make some cash. Target high school students by paying tuitions for colleges and universities but pay them a salary only when they attend their military skills conversion courses in the summer. Enforce "obligatory service" provisions for several years of pay-back and then incentivise re-enlistment for further terms of obligatory service.

If turnover is a fact of life, then learn to live with turnover. Not everyone needs to stay the full course. We only need the vast number of middle and senior managers that we do because we have built a constipated system that needs them. Even as it is, in an infantry battalion (from an establishment a few years out of date) we have 594 all ranks of which 519 are of the rank of sergeant and below. That feeds 36 NCMs of the rank of WO and above. That means that you only need to keep 7% of the base to generate the NCM leadership needed within a given battalion. Let's double that to 15% to keep a reasonable ERE base. The trouble is that we've created an artificially high ERE base within our numerous headquarters above brigade level that takes leadership away from the battalions and converts them into middle management for marginally useful administrative functions. To compound things we have created a system where it is nigh on impossible to bring skilled retirees back to the colours in time of need.

We need to massively prune the tree, reduce that ERE need and then ensure that line units--the real defence outputs--are properly filled by young and still interested and motivated troops. And yes - that applies to the officer corps as well. We have to stop looking at the careerist as our role model and develop a system of how to still make use of those that leave the CF for a civilian career.

🍻
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top