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....

 

[KevinB]

People laugh at "Reconstitution" while at the same time keeping the same operational schedule that we have now. The fact though is that "Reconstitution" IS required. We actually have to follow through though and take the short-term hit to operational capacity in order to fix the problems. Of course though the objective should be to rapidly increase training capacity (as well as recruitment and retention measures) so that we can re-man our existing units/equipment ASAP then work towards expansion of capability.

When you look at the CAF Operational Schedule - versus numerical strength, it should be very easy to do both.
It isn't as the Numerical Strength has a lot of dead weight hidden in it.
I'm not well versed in the RCN, but I do know of a lot of RCN types here talking about jumping from ship to ship to keep them sailing.
Which does seem to show that for the #'s side of the RCN, the actual deployable numbers are significantly well below it.

I am also of the opinion that modern well maintained equipment is a great motivator to having job satisfaction - which improves both retention, and recruiting.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Just a reminder about how much more money we're talking here...

https://twitter.com/x/status/1534916447402700801

$75 B over 10 years isn't that hard. But there's competition:

Federal government giving Volkswagen up to $13B in subsidies to secure St. Thomas EV battery plant (CBC.ca).

 

[KevinB]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1648880438348267520

 

[daftandbarmy]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1648880438348267520

 

[JLB50]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1648880438348267520

Much of the western world is on to JT and his lack of commitment. Many political and military experts are saying a major war is coming if not already here. I just wonder if most Canadians will awaken before it’s too late.

 

[FJAG]

I don't know if those are the best comparisons due to country (and AOR) size. I'd say that Australia is the best comparison based on money and size.

Italy and Israel don't have bases that far from each other. If the Italian Air Force needs to get Part X from one base to another, it's likely not going to be the distance between Gagetown and Edmonton.

Also, Italy and Israel's defence industries have contracts, etc that would make Irving salivate.

Let me say that I generally consider the Australians as being a bit of an underperformer as well, but I think tha they are not a good comparison for us. Their strategic situation favours a navy and air component and while I consider their navy decent for its role the air element could be better. My real issue is with their army which to their detriment follows our structure too much. They have the fortune of having their CSS and health services as part of the army which allows for a decent medical brigade and CSS brigade and CS brigade which is a structure superior to ours. I don't like their reserve structure much more than ours although it is more compact. All that said, their army does not have the same NATO commitment that ours does. We have a strong alliance commitment which should strengthen our army to more than it is.

All that said, there are things that the Australians do which we should definitely take on board in Canada. I just think our aspirations should be higher than that.

I've heard many times on here that Canada is 'an island' and that as 'an island' it should focus on maintaining its shipping lanes. If this is correct, how does a fleet of 5 frigates and 2 subs achieve this?

In your suggestion, the RCN gets completely gutted and the Army gets vastly expanded. All this suggests that we will be fighting a land war in Europe again.

You missed the boat there, mate. I didn't say this should be our total defence force. I said that this would be an example of what we should commit, out of our total force structure, as a standing force dedicated to NATO. We should clearly have additional forces for the defence of Canada and North America as a whole. And I agree, these should be heavily tilted towards an Air Force and Navy.

I'm not suggesting that Canada make additional $ investments on non-equipment items without first coming up with a force structure plan to work toward (or that none of the additional funds be spent on actual new equipment/weapons).

The non-equipment/weapon investments should all be based on being the foundational steps required to achieve the end goal.
Things like:

• additional/improved training facilities, ranges, etc.,
• expansion of CFAD sites to hold more war stocks,
• pre-deployment of equipment to Latvia and improvements/expansion to accommodations/training facilities there,
• replacement of existing outdated equipment (optics, comms, etc.),
• funding for schools to increase capacity (I'd rather have a school with the dedicated staff & facilities to run 100 pers through a course at a time at regular intervals and have it only 1/3 full for a couple of years until we have the ability/need to fill the course for example).
• upgraded/expanded on-base accommodations and services to help with retention,
• etc.

Sorry. Maybe I'm loosing the bubble here but my view is simply that one needs a holistic plan with a clear end-state vision and then spend and build towards that. My vision includes a bigger more capable force. That means more equipment and better trained people but not necessarily one requiring more people (I think I've said often enough that I consider the ResF manpower a wasted resource that needs to be exploited more - hence - we don't need more people, just fill up the ranks to the authorized strengths as they are and distribute them according to need)

Within that are all the things you say. I think where we disagree has to do with the how we spend the delta that gets us to that notional 2%. You suggested infrastructure, maintenance, additional capabilities, war stocks and suggested we could reduce deployable units. To me new equipment/capabilities, new war stacks, maintenance of equipment is all "equipment". I think we need to aim for more deployable units, not less.

Infrastructure investment doesn't need to mean more bases, buildings and overhead. I'm personally in favour of consolidation but much of our existing infrastructure needs to be improved. And if you're wanting the Reserves to play a larger role in the CAF then you're going to need better/closer training and range facilities for them to use and improved armouries to handle the equipment they'll eventually need.

I do not agree that a better trained reserve needs more infrastructure. There will be some needs but nowhere near what I think most people do. The first thing is the ResF that I contemplate is a Class A force. let's say one weekend a month and a summer training exercise. That doesn't even need a new permanent armoury. Why have a building that stands empty 28 days out of 30/31? An armoured unit does not need an armoury capable of holding a squadron of tanks as long as there is a base within a two-three hour bus drive of where the soldiers live. Even if we move a company of full-timers into a city to be part of a 30/70 battalion, do we need to have their equipment at an armoury? Or do we arrange things so that training equipment is there and the exercises are done at that base a bus-drive away?

I don't disagree that we may need some infrastructure, but we don't fight in our infrastructure. One needs to realign our priorities to creating capable forces. Simply put to me that means we need equipment (including munitions and simulators). The old saying of "the Navy and Air Force man equipment but the Army equips men" went out with the bolt action rifle. The Army mans equipment just as much as the Navy and Air Force do. After that comes maintaining the equipment. If you don't have the equipment or, if its not maintained, then you simply don't have an army, air force or navy. After that comes training. Personally, I think the CAF has more than enough training facilities and infrastructure to train a force its size. That's not to say that some won't need modification to accommodate new simulators etc but that's all part and parcel to the equipping process.

I agree with the sentiment but the brutal reality is that we don't currently have the trained (and deployable) personnel required to man the units we have. 100% agree that there is significant administrative overhead that can be chopped but you can't just take those people and put them in LAVs, aircraft and ships instead. It will take time to generate personnel with the required skills and training to fill the required positions.

I might not put a full-time major in Ottawa in a LAV but I would have no problems in sending him to Brantford ON to become the BC of a ResF battery there if he's a trained gunner. But I do agree. It will take time and effort to create a system which will generate on a continuous basis the trained personnel the Army needs.

People laugh at "Reconstitution" while at the same time keeping the same operational schedule that we have now. The fact though is that "Reconstitution" IS required. We actually have to follow through though and take the short-term hit to operational capacity in order to fix the problems. Of course though the objective should be to rapidly increase training capacity (as well as recruitment and retention measures) so that we can re-man our existing units/equipment ASAP then work towards expansion of capability.

I don't know enough about Reconstitution's details to be critical of it. However, I'm firmly convinced that Reconstitution requires a massive effort and I do not see the signs of that massive effort at work. The first sign should be a major campaign of billboards and TV advertising for recruiting. All I see are signs of business as usual. One should be seeing signs of major changes to recruiting policies and staffing and associated manning of training facilities or temporary pauses on selected units so that they can take up recruit and DP1 training and I don't see that either.

For Reconstitution to be successful it needs a major business transformation and communications plan. I don't see that, and if, as a member of the public, if I can't see it than neither can the potential recruits. What I do see is that our recruiting and training system needs to be operating at fire hose levels but continues to operate with a leaky garden hose.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Much of the western world is on to JT and his lack of commitment. Many political and military experts are saying a major war is coming if not already here. I just wonder if most Canadians will awaken before it’s too late.

We’re already at war? I’ll call the Ops O and let him know right away!!

 

[Brad Sallows]

A cynic might observe that the war you prepare for is never the one you have to fight, so why bother making specific preparations?

 

[KevinB]

A cynic might observe that the war you prepare for is never the one you have to fight, so why bother making specific preparations?

The Price of Peace is Eternal Vigilance...

 

[KevinB]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1648795491423997952

 

[Brad Sallows]

The Price of Peace is Eternal Vigilance...

In Canada the price of peace is simply sharing a border with the US. For Europe, it's allowing the US to base forces in Europe. For much of the world, it's tolerating US port visits by the forces that at least occasionally discourage modern piracy. Really, for most countries, the price of peace is quite cheap because so much of it is not at their direct expense.

 

[Kirkhill]

A cynic might observe that the war you prepare for is never the one you have to fight, so why bother making specific preparations?

This cynic is inclined towards "in omnia paratus" - ready for everything. Look around and keep asking "how can I make that work for me?"

 

[Brad Sallows]

Not quite paranoid and opportunistic enough, but getting there.

 

[OldSolduer]

We’re already at war? I’ll call the Ops O and let him know right away!!

Not in the conventional sense. What China is doing is laying the groundwork so they don't have to fight a "conventional" war. Sun Tzu mentioned this somewhere in his writings. Cyber war and the intimidation of foreign nationals in Canada in my mind is a prelude to war.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Most likely the one that goes "the supreme excellence is winning without fighting".

 

[suffolkowner]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1648795491423997952

Better make it the G10

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Not in the conventional sense. What China is doing is laying the groundwork so they don't have to fight a "conventional" war. Sun Tzu mentioned this somewhere in his writings. Cyber war and the intimidation of foreign nationals in Canada in my mind is a prelude to war.

Ok. We will download the torps and send the crews home…

 

[WLSC]

Better make it the G10

I would say before going to G10, make sure that the actual G7 do is share. Very publicly if need be.

 

[GR66]

In Canada the price of peace is simply sharing a border with the US. For Europe, it's allowing the US to base forces in Europe. For much of the world, it's tolerating US port visits by the forces that at least occasionally discourage modern piracy. Really, for most countries, the price of peace is quite cheap because so much of it is not at their direct expense.

That's fine as long as the US is willing (and able) to continue to enforce PAX AMERICANA on their own.

 

[Kirkhill]

I love the man - a throw back to the era of the Great Victorians

Elon Musk seemed largely undeterred by the latest setback to the project, which is proving stubbornly resistant to get – and keep – off the ground.

The unflappable billionaire congratulated the SpaceX team for an "exciting" test launch adding that the company had “learned a lot” for the next attempt in a few months.

A calm Elon Musk cheered the SpaceX team for an ‘exciting’ launch

Unlike risk-averse organisations such as Nasa, SpaceX is known for operating a ‘fail fast’ approach to space, swapping lengthy design processes for quickfire testing which irons out problems on the launchpad rather than the drawing board.

The company suffered multiple setbacks when testing its falcon and crew dragon system, but both are now reliable methods of travelling to the International Space Station (ISS).

Musk had predicted that the Starship test flight could end in a fireball, and had previously said getting the vehicle off the ground without destroying the launch pad infrastructure would be considered "a win".

Why Elon Musk’s exploding Starship rocket will be counted as a success

The billionaire's mantra is ‘fail fast’ – and this flight is a crucial step towards his drive to reach Mars

www.telegraph.co.uk

Edit - more detail

25 miles high before it went into a spin and self-destructed.

How Elon Musk’s Starship launch – and explosion – will reignite the quest for the stars

SpaceX test reminds us of the drama in mankind's determination to leave earth behind

www.telegraph.co.uk