• 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....
 

View attachment 83629

PBO has reported on the Fiscal Sustainability of the Defence Portfolio on multiple occasions over the past decade.

I'll save you the trouble of reading the report: Current Force Structure is not funded to a level that can sustain it
Alternative take: current and prior CAF leadership are unserious and unwilling to build a force that is sustainable, considering resources as a factor.
 
Alternative take: current and prior CAF leadership are unserious and unwilling to build a force that is sustainable, considering resources as a factor.
I agree. That's why I believe there needs to be a significant reduction in pers #s for one thing.

CAF is basically an extension of public service welfare at this point.
 
I agree. That's why I believe there needs to be a significant reduction in pers #s for one thing.

CAF is basically an extension of public service welfare at this point.
I'm not convinced that the pers numbers are wrong; where they are, what their occupations and ranks are and how they are employed, on the other hand...
 
I agree. That's why I believe there needs to be a significant reduction in pers #s for one thing.

A reduction or redistribution ?

CAF is basically an extension of public service welfare at this point.

I understand you may have some bitterness about the CAF but I think you're letting your emotions cloud your statements.
 
A reduction or redistribution ?
Both
I understand you may have some bitterness about the CAF but I think you're letting your emotions cloud your statements.
Again if your Army has numbers for a small Corps, and can’t field a Bde…
The Navy has holes its surface combatants, and its Subs, well they submerge just fine, it’s the surfacing after that’s in question.
As well as an Air Force flying museum pieces….

It’s certainly not a lean and mean fighting machine.
 

Ok, where ?

Again if your Army has numbers for a small Corps, and can’t field a Bde…
The Navy has holes its surface combatants, and its Subs, well they submerge just fine, it’s the surfacing after that’s in question.
As well as an Air Force flying museum pieces….

It’s certainly not a lean and mean fighting machine.

No, you are correct; things are defiantly broken. My point is cutting positions and people isn't going to make it better.
 
Repurposing, not ‘cutting’.

That makes more sense.

$ wise, the CAF could do a heck lot more with a larger Reserve component, and less Regulars, especially in the Army Cbt Arms.

Sacha Baron Cohen Yes GIF by Amazon Prime Video
 
$ wise, the CAF could do a heck lot more with a larger Reserve component, and less Regulars,

That would mean less Career Managers and pointless postings which kill spousal careers and family stability. Moving around the country needlessly for "experience" is what the CAF is all about!
 
  • Like
Reactions: ueo
A reduction or redistribution ?
Both

I understand you may have some bitterness about the CAF but I think you're letting your emotions cloud your statements.
No bitterness, I make more money, have a more important job with a lot responsibility, and enjoy what I do a lot more now. Cutting the strings was the best decision I ever made.

Woody Harrelson Crying GIF


Although, if I ever get the chance to #### someone over who ticked me off, I will 100% exercise that option 🤣
 

I'm listening, go on.

No bitterness, I make more money, have a more important job with a lot responsibility, and enjoy what I do a lot more now. Cutting the strings was the best decision I ever made.

Woody Harrelson Crying GIF


Although, if I ever get the chance to #### someone over who ticked me off, I will 100% exercise that option 🤣

Ok, I'm happy for you.
 
That I would agree with. More 3 - 5 year hitches. Offer things like the GI bill.

Aim for six and twelve; aligned with the existing VAC benefits.

But to do that, the schools need reinforcement for greater intake. Augmentation through CFTPO tasks should be the exception, not the rule. Unfortunately, as with all things intended to sustain the CAF, the CAF likes to cheap out. The RCN would rather a dozen ships all undermanned than ten ships crewed, with a properly resourced training system. (The Army schools are equally bad).

One contributor to the stress on the training system is the peaks and valleys driven by ROTP students; if we do keep RMC & CMR, we should move away from one intake a year to three, spaced out, and schedule education semesters(three annually) in an asymmetric way to help even out demand on the training institutions. Students could do 1,2,3 or 4 academic semesters in a row, followed by 1 or 2 military training semesters, until they complete their degree.
 
That would mean less Career Managers and pointless postings which kill spousal careers and family stability. Moving around the country needlessly for "experience" is what the CAF is all about!
There are Reserve CMs. NAVRES had (has?) them.

Regarding moving, that is an issue with how our squadrons/bases are spread out, which is due to our geographic location and priorities. You want the RCAF to not post most people? Move every base of a fleet, including schools, into one place. All Transport in Trenton. All fighters in Cold Lake. All LRP in Greenwood. All Maritime Helicopters in Shearwater. All Tac Hel in Gagetown.

The fallout is while there are fewer postings east/west, folks still get posted to staff jobs in Ottawa/Winnipeg, and tons more domestic TD. Due to NORAD commitments, the fighter folks would probably still end up spending 6 months a year in Bagotville to fill that out, the LRP folks would have TD deployments to Comox, and the SAR folks would essentially be TD’d to places other than their home base.

So the choice is either moving your family every 3-4 years, or keeping your family in one place but being gone for 6 months a year. What is worse in the long run?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top