• 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....
 
Interested Canadians and their Allies are still waiting for the Defence Policy update that was announced in the Canadian Federal Budget 2022

In Budget 2022 the Government of Canada committed to conduct a review of our defence policy Strong, Secure, Engaged (SSE) in order to update it for a world that has become less secure and less predictable.

I think that we already know what this gov't will say. It will make noise about the following:
  • the current unstable international environment
  • climate change threats
  • indirect and direct threats to Canada's interest, national defence and security
  • make grandiose statements about upgrading and improving the CAF's ability to deter these threats
  • make grand announcements about capital equipment purchases that are already in place: J35 fighters; NSSP; Aurora replacement - Boeing buy; Armoured Combat Support Vehicle (ACSV); Medium Support Vehicle System (MSVS) and so forth
  • reforming national procurement program to make more responsive (this actually has been going on since I first heard Mr. Alan Williams talk about it when he was ADM(MAT in 1999 until 2005(?).
  • solve the recruiting and retention crisis
  • solve the sexual harassment problem
  • make grandiose statements like Canada's strong commitment to national defence, NORAD and NATO
    • participation to train and equipment UKR
    • participation in Latvia
    • rearmament of the CAF to replace weapons, vehicles and material donated to UKR
    • NORAD modernization funding
It then will make further statements like future equipment requirements (long range patrol submarine, development of war stocks / reserves and so forth) without attaching any commitment (political or financial) or intention to buy. This will be hidden in political speak to make like the gov't will buy, much like the language it uses for reaching 2% of GDP for defence spending.

Bottom line:
  • no massive increase in baseline funding
  • no significant procurement policy / regulation changes to make the system more responsive and effective unless the gov't orders TSB to find solutions
  • no massive increase in the modernization and the rearmament of the CAF
  • no major investment to personnel to resolve recruitng, retention and quality of life challenges
 
A petty individual who has never been told "NO JUSTIN YOU CANNOT GET HANDSY WITH YOUNG WOMEN". We have a word for guys like him here and they are segregated for a reason.
Sophie probably also had a word for guys like him, but then remembered she had a mug in her hand and just said..."Ah, fuck it!"
 
Interested Canadians and their Allies are still waiting for the Defence Policy update that was announced in the Canadian Federal Budget 2022



I think that we already know what this gov't will say. It will make noise about the following:
  • the current unstable international environment
  • climate change threats
  • indirect and direct threats to Canada's interest, national defence and security
  • make grandiose statements about upgrading and improving the CAF's ability to deter these threats
  • make grand announcements about capital equipment purchases that are already in place: J35 fighters; NSSP; Aurora replacement - Boeing buy; Armoured Combat Support Vehicle (ACSV); Medium Support Vehicle System (MSVS) and so forth
  • reforming national procurement program to make more responsive (this actually has been going on since I first heard Mr. Alan Williams talk about it when he was ADM(MAT in 1999 until 2005(?).
  • solve the recruiting and retention crisis
  • solve the sexual harassment problem
  • make grandiose statements like Canada's strong commitment to national defence, NORAD and NATO
    • participation to train and equipment UKR
    • participation in Latvia
    • rearmament of the CAF to replace weapons, vehicles and material donated to UKR
    • NORAD modernization funding
It then will make further statements like future equipment requirements (long range patrol submarine, development of war stocks / reserves and so forth) without attaching any commitment (political or financial) or intention to buy. This will be hidden in political speak to make like the gov't will buy, much like the language it uses for reaching 2% of GDP for defence spending.

Bottom line:
  • no massive increase in baseline funding
  • no significant procurement policy / regulation changes to make the system more responsive and effective unless the gov't orders TSB to find solutions
  • no massive increase in the modernization and the rearmament of the CAF
  • no major investment to personnel to resolve recruitng, retention and quality of life challenges
Does anyone have a window into how much of a headless chicken affair writing / developing / etc. the Update is?

Second, feels like a commitment to tanks would be a tell that someone's actually paying attention to the file.
 
We have so far increased production of 155mm by 2k a month. Not bad, Interesting bit that we found that howitzer ammo in Ukraine isn't 100% interchangeable

To put that into context...from the article:
There is a movement afoot to invest significantly in the munition supply program, to ramp up our production of 155 ammunition in particular, to the point that we are working with the United States to establish a North American industrial base, to augment what the Americans are doing. I can’t say much more than that, but we have already made one investment. We were producing 3,000 rounds a month, we’re now up to 5,000 rounds a month, and we’re looking at going well beyond that.
Meanwhile in the real world...

Amid their counteroffensive, Ukrainian guns are firing up to 6,000 rounds daily, Ukrainian MP Oleksandra Ustinova told CNN, but the military wants to shoot more than 10,000. Even that is a fraction of the 60,000 shells that Russia was using at the peak of its barrages this year, per an Estonian and Ukrainian government analysis.
 
Hmm. Firing up a North America manufacturing base for 155 shells.

Just when Ukraine is complaining about a shortage.🫤
 

MGen Dundon may be content with the CA ammunition situation but I don’t think it’s the correct assessment nor does much of the army.

There is some good news in the article about how we could do procurement if we allow it and follow through but there is some concerning items as well. 84mm Carl G for example, why would you be looking at other manufacturers and other systems when you could just order 2000 new M4s with Aimpoint FCS?

In terms of M777 and Leo I just see indecision and paralysis on the part of the CA and the CAF.
The UK has already started to replace donated artillery with Swedish Archers and are experimenting with them.
 
For MSVS replacement, the smart move would be just buy 5 ton FMTVs, since those are basically the same as the HLVW, and have an armour package.

So obviously we won't do that.
No but we have - the CAF and GoC that is - have other more urgent priorities. Readiness is not one of them, nor is properly equipping the military.
 
MGen Dundon may be content with the CA ammunition situation but I don’t think it’s the correct assessment nor does much of the army.

There is some good news in the article about how we could do procurement if we allow it and follow through but there is some concerning items as well. 84mm Carl G for example, why would you be looking at other manufacturers and other systems when you could just order 2000 new M4s with Aimpoint FCS?

In terms of M777 and Leo I just see indecision and paralysis on the part of the CA and the CAF.
The UK has already started to replace donated artillery with Swedish Archers and are experimenting with them.

Yeah. I caught that.

Carl Gustaf rocket launchers are another piece of equipment that isn’t fabricated anymore, so we are looking at more modern systems from multiple firms.

Apparently Saab Bofors Dynamics has ceased production of the Carl Gustaf. Or do they just not want to sell to Kanada?


FMG.

Dindon.
 
Yeah. I caught that.



Apparently Saab Bofors Dynamics has ceased production of the Carl Gustaf. Or do they just not want to sell to Kanada?


FMG.

Dindon.
Just stopped making obsolete ones. Historically Canada does its best to buy what was already in the system.
 
It’s a peculiar phenomenon that we have of wanting to replace our old equipment that we donated with the exact same old system and sort of complain when we can’t because industry and other forces have moved on.

The 84mm is a simple example where it should be easy to replace the entire active inventory with new M4s snd move the M3 and M2s to war stocks. If we can’t do that with a simple weapon system it doesn’t bode well for the more complex weapons.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top