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....

 

[Halifax Tar]

Matt Gurney today.
Merry Christmas Canada, we're fucked.

Matt Gurney: Are we lying about our values, or do we just think everything will fix itself?

Fourteen months after Chrystia Freeland went to D.C. to say what the democracies must do, we are not doing those things.

www.readtheline.ca

I have quickly become addicted to the Line and the Hub podcasts.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

The last OS VOR rates I saw for the LAV fleet suggests that one probably can’t field much more than 2 LAV BN’s.

So you have 4 LAV Bn with if troops for 2 BN’s of serviceable vehicles.

That would be my guess as well. Gotta remember LAVs are also distributed to Arty, Engrs and the Armd Corps now as well, with the retirement of the Coyote.

The Armd Corps fleet is a complete mess tbh.

 

[Kirkhill]

The last OS VOR rates I saw for the LAV fleet suggests that one probably can’t field much more than 2 LAV BN’s.

So you have 4 LAV Bn with if troops for 2 BN’s of serviceable vehicles.

So why not 3 brigades, each with one LAV battalion and two light battalions?

 

[OldSolduer]

So why not 3 brigades, each with one LAV battalion and two light battalions?

Why not burn it all to the ground and start anew?

 

[KevinB]

So why not 3 brigades, each with one LAV battalion and two light battalions?

Why not one Mech Bde and 2 Light? Or 3 Light Reg Bde’s with a Bde of Cavalry vehicles that the Light units can use as needed.

 

[Kirkhill]

Why not one Mech Bde and 2 Light? Or 3 Light Reg Bde’s with a Bde of Cavalry vehicles that the Light units can use as needed.

SOLD! To that man in the funny hat!

 

[Kirkhill]

Take into account VOR and I bet it is less than 6 x Bn of vehs. Plus you need repl vehs in Theatre for battle cas, accidents and VOR. Add spare parts depot also.

From a previous posting






82 Tanks with 21% serviceable = 17 tanks
555 LAV 6 with 58% serviceable = 322 LAV 6
500 TAPV with 48% serviceable = 240 TAPV

The expectation seems to be that we need 390 LAV 6s to field 6 LAV 6 Battlegroups at 70% strength (2/3)
Or
We could field 4 LAV 6 Battalions at 100% if we had 390 LAV6s

But we only have 322 runners.
That means 233 in the shop.

In addition the institution eats up 555-390 = 165
So assuming that the institution gets first dibs on the 322 runners that leaves 157 runners for the three field formations.

From the table above the expectation is that a Brigade (each of the Divisions listed only has one Brigade) requires 130 LAV 6.

Net effect - the field army can only field two LAV 6 Battle Groups with enough left over for a Company Combat Team.

And if there are only 17 serviceable MBTs and the institutions require 22 that doesn't leave much left for deployment - not to mention training would be challenging.

 

[KevinB]

From a previous posting

View attachment 81930

View attachment 81931


82 Tanks with 21% serviceable = 17 tanks
555 LAV 6 with 58% serviceable = 322 LAV 6
500 TAPV with 48% serviceable = 240 TAPV

The expectation seems to be that we need 390 LAV 6s to field 6 LAV 6 Battlegroups at 70% strength (2/3)
Or
We could field 4 LAV 6 Battalions at 100% if we had 390 LAV6s

But we only have 322 runners.
That means 233 in the shop.

In addition the institution eats up 555-390 = 165
So assuming that the institution gets first dibs on the 322 runners that leaves 157 runners for the three field formations.

From the table above the expectation is that a Brigade (each of the Divisions listed only has one Brigade) requires 130 LAV 6.

Net effect - the field army can only field two LAV 6 Battle Groups with enough left over for a Company Combat Team.

And if there are only 17 serviceable MBTs and the institutions require 22 that doesn't leave much left for deployment - not to mention training would be challenging.

Also that doesn’t even count wartime establishment.

 

[Kirkhill]

@KevinB

You're right

390 for 4 battalions at 100% or 98 per battalion battle group.

157 runners

1 Battle Group with 59 extras - Make it a Battle Group and a Battle Group (-).

Edit: Of course the first 4 of 360 ACSVs were delivered on Halloween.

 

[WLSC]

From a previous posting

View attachment 81930

View attachment 81931


82 Tanks with 21% serviceable = 17 tanks
555 LAV 6 with 58% serviceable = 322 LAV 6
500 TAPV with 48% serviceable = 240 TAPV

The expectation seems to be that we need 390 LAV 6s to field 6 LAV 6 Battlegroups at 70% strength (2/3)
Or
We could field 4 LAV 6 Battalions at 100% if we had 390 LAV6s

But we only have 322 runners.
That means 233 in the shop.

In addition the institution eats up 555-390 = 165
So assuming that the institution gets first dibs on the 322 runners that leaves 157 runners for the three field formations.

From the table above the expectation is that a Brigade (each of the Divisions listed only has one Brigade) requires 130 LAV 6.

Net effect - the field army can only field two LAV 6 Battle Groups with enough left over for a Company Combat Team.

And if there are only 17 serviceable MBTs and the institutions require 22 that doesn't leave much left for deployment - not to mention training would be challenging.

How many real deployable CMBG are really deployable with a Tac and a main HQ? I think that we can’t deploy more than BG.

 

[KevinB]

How many real deployable CMBG are really deployable with a Tac and a main HQ? I think that we can’t deploy more than BG.

I suspect 3, and perhaps 4 if 6CSBG is included. That being the regular force.

Now if you want them with modern C6ISR, my answer would be different

 

[WLSC]

I suspect 3, and perhaps 4 if 6CSBG is included. That being the regular force.

Now if you want them with modern C6ISR, my answer would be different

Well, I suppose the question answer the question

 

[MJP]

Just a word of caution about using the G4 Maint VOR Stats from that JCSP paper or any other domestic report on VOR should be taken with a grain of salt. 1) It is a snapshot in time and more importantly 2)domestically there are a ton of reasons why a vehicle is VOR'd where it would just be outstanding usable in any operational theater. A broken/missing mirror or headlight domestically can be a grounding fault (outside of a training area) as it is a safety issue. Bit of an extreme example but VOR'd doesn't always mean can't run/gun.

Don't get me wrong there are lots of broken vehicles but for outsiders looking in making literal interpretations it could look like the sky is falling when in reality it is just low cloud cover.

 

[dapaterson]

I suspect 3, and perhaps 4 if 6CSBG is included. That being the regular force.

Now if you want them with modern C6ISR, my answer would be different

None. The CAF lacks the CSS to sustain a deployed CMBG, so all CMBG commanders are administrative, not operational.

 

[Kirkhill]

@MJP

So there are some standards that matter and some that don't.

 

[MilEME09]

Just a word of caution about using the G4 Maint VOR Stats from that JCSP paper or any other domestic report on VOR should be taken with a grain of salt. 1) It is a snapshot in time and more importantly 2)domestically there are a ton of reasons why a vehicle is VOR'd where it would just be outstanding usable in any operational theater. A broken/missing mirror or headlight domestically can be a grounding fault (outside of a training area) as it is a safety issue. Bit of an extreme example but VOR'd doesn't always mean can't run/gun.

Don't get me wrong there are lots of broken vehicles but for outsiders looking in making literal interpretations it could look like the sky is falling when in reality it is just low cloud cover.

Also how many vehicles are VOR because, due to just in time delivery, we gotta wait for a part to be made and shipped to us.

 

[MJP]

We don't use a Just In Time delivery model, that would imply a level of sophistication we don't have. We leverage the same model we always have, with parts at each level with scaling. Generally though scaling is ad hoc, locally managed, doesn't follow any recognized model and largely useless.

 

[McG]

We don't use a Just In Time delivery model, that would imply a level of sophistication we don't have. We leverage the same model we always have, with parts at each level with scaling. Generally though scaling is ad hoc, locally managed, doesn't follow any recognized model and largely useless.

… and not based in data. Maybe adjusted on anecdotes, but not guided by data.

 

[MilEME09]

We don't use a Just In Time delivery model, that would imply a level of sophistication we don't have. We leverage the same model we always have, with parts at each level with scaling. Generally though scaling is ad hoc, locally managed, doesn't follow any recognized model and largely useless.

As per the AG report, many stock items are set to 0, meaning we carry none on hand, si they need to be made(sometimes), then shipped to us from the OEM. Some of these items were locked at 0, despite parts scaling and usage demanding they be held at higher quantities.

Your not wrong, but our supply system isn't helping our VOR rates.

 

[MJP]

As per the AG report, many stock items are set to 0, meaning we carry none on hand, si they need to be made(sometimes), then shipped to us from the OEM. Some of these items were locked at 0, despite parts scaling and usage demanding they be held at higher quantities.

Your not wrong, but our supply system isn't helping our VOR rates.

Having no min/max set doesn't mean we don't hold stock for any particular item. It just means that automatic system replenishment won't occur if stock is drawn down to zero at a particular location. That system setting is known as planned demand (PD) which means as needed, stock will be ordered and there is no attempt to manage holdings and keep a set amount at any one level. Most stock in the system has no stock levels set at any level, it is our norm.

If a PD occurs for an item that has no stock at 1st/2nd or 3rd line it then creates a purchase req to the relevant Equipment Management Team (EMT) within ADM(MAT). That demand is then rolled up by the Supply Manager & Technical Authority who will in turn work with procurement authority to get parts from vendors through some form of contracting (call up on standing offer, FMS, new contract etc). In most cases for CA equipment there is no automatic message going from DND/CAF to manufacturers telling them we need something. The TAPV does have that feature and technically has a modern parts scaling model. I have my suspicions why it isn't working well but it is ironically the most modern parts strategy the CA utilizes.

and not based in data. Maybe adjusted on anecdotes, but not guided by data.

Lost a quote in the copy paste. Definitely not based in data, it is usually the control office or ETQMS saying "hey spare parts set a min of x and max of y for that part" usually done after some oh my gawd we don't have that part "emergency". DGLEPM/LEMS has really dropped the ball getting the CA properly oriented when it comes to spare parts scaling IMHO.