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....

 

[PuckChaser]

Our hotel in Waikiki was out of hard boiled eggs for breakfast once. I almost had to file a grievance.

Really though, all our new Air Force and Navy gear will need some sort of force protection for it's bases, the current WASF model isn't going to cut it for the F-35s and P-8s. Using permeant and dedicated Army folks for airfield and dock(?) domestic security forces seems like a viable option.

Not interested, figure it out yourselves if you're too good to stand guard.

 

[QV]

Our hotel in Waikiki was out of hard boiled eggs for breakfast once. I almost had to file a grievance.

Really though, all our new Air Force and Navy gear will need some sort of force protection for it's bases, the current WASF model isn't going to cut it for the F-35s and P-8s. Using permeant and dedicated Army folks for airfield and dock(?) domestic security forces seems like a viable option.

Not army folks. This is where a restructure of the CFMP Group comes in. Get rid of all "domestic policing" functions by that group and focus entirely on Force Protection (become the operational arm of DGDS). Own the entire security function; airfield security, convoy security, PW handling, securing FOBs, base D&S in and out of theatre, dog handling, VIP protection, air marshal, all of that. No army/air/navy pers need to be utilized for this as a secondary duty. Maintain a small NIS contingent for serious investigations along with RCMP secondments. Military chain of command manage all unit disciplinary matters.

Radical thought - I know.

 

[Loachman]

Our hotel in Waikiki was out of hard boiled eggs for breakfast once. I almost had to file a grievance.

Really though, all our new Air Force and Navy gear will need some sort of force protection for it's bases, the current WASF model isn't going to cut it for the F-35s and P-8s. Using permeant and dedicated Army folks for airfield and dock(?) domestic security forces seems like a viable option.

Eggs? In 444 Squadron, during Fallexes, those of us in the two flying flights had to hard-boil all of our own eggs on Sunday evenings before deploying forward on Monday mornings (German law banned all military noise during weekends) lest they all be crushed during our twice-daily speed-packs and moves. Successive COs decreed that "My men will not eat hard rations in the field. They'll eat fresh rations". That was nice for those in the echelon, because they had two cooks (and showers) and didn't move. We out front had Coleman stoves to process our share of the fresh rations - boxes of cabbages and flats of eggs and fifty-serving tins of cake mix powder etcetera - between everything else. Fortunately, we were able to trade that junk, including the onions that the echelon wankers customarily wore on their belts, with local Germans for edible food.

You want force protection for your bases? Form your own R(C)AF Regiment, which would have the side benefit of giving Canadian families ironclad excuses for disowning daughters for their marital choices as well.

If the enemy punches through the mechanized brigade group because of inadequate equipment and training and makes a fast drive your way, you're likely to be hooped as well.

Seriously, though, short-change somewhere, and that will be the area that suddenly and unexpectedly becomes the absolute most important one in the next serious conflict.

 

[Loachman]

I only spent 4 years in a mech group

If that was post-1989, it wasn't really.

 

[Fabius]

Seriously, though, short-change somewhere, and that will be the area that suddenly and unexpectedly becomes the absolute most important one in the next serious conflict.

How does that help develop priorities and align limited resources to the various tasks in line with strategic objectives and threat assessments?

 

[Gunplumber]

The military gets more than enough money to buy and do what we need with it. Just compare the money we get with other countries who are similar and see what they have in the inventory i.e. Australia and Spain. They seem too be able to buy equipment.

 

[Loachman]

How does that help develop priorities and align limited resources to the various tasks in line with strategic objectives and threat assessments?

Don't buy an extra squadron of F35s . . . ?

 

[Furniture]

The military should not get a cent of money till it can clean up the mess that it has become. Get rid of all the bureaucracy and make the CDS a Colonel and down grade or fire anyone under that rank. We need a proper fighting force and actual Brigades (with equipment) so get rid of anyone who gets in the way of that. Or just disband the whole thing and start over.

Back in the real world...

The military is in the state it's in because the GoC created the conditions. The GoC allowed those conditions to exist because Canadians don't care about big picture problems like global security/defence. Canadians don't care because we live in a safe corner of the world, and the GoC likes having money for modern "bread and circuses"(social programmers, environmental special interests, "cultural" spending, etc.).

Until the GoC gets serious about its primary function, Canadians won't get serious on defence, and the CAF will continue to exist in a directionless, bloated, and ineffective form.

 

[Gunplumber]

Yes the GOC had a lot to do with what has happened but the Military is just as guilty. It could put a stop to the bloat at NDHQ etc. I could put the money it spends on the 1000s of senior Officers who really dont have anything to do but have meetings. Why does the Infantry have no bullets or fuel to go on ex but can have a Lt General in charge of culture change. The job could be done by a major. And dont tell me about rank having power, that only exists for officers. The military is a glorified welfare system and WE have let it happen! We should have a quota for senior positions. Got a 100 troops you get 3 officer positions. Etc. Dont have the troops then you dont need leaders to control them. Very simplified but you get my drift. In WW1 we had 475000 troops and how many generals did we have......?

 

[Furniture]

Yes the GOC had a lot to do with what has happened but the Military is just as guilty. It could put a stop to the bloat at NDHQ etc. I could put the money it spends on the 1000s of senior Officers who really dont have anything to do but have meetings. Why does the Infantry have no bullets or fuel to go on ex but can have a Lt General in charge of culture change. The job could be done by a major. And dont tell me about rank having power, that only exists for officers. The military is a glorified welfare system and WE have let it happen! We should have a quota for senior positions. Got a 100 troops you get 3 officer positions. Etc. Dont have the troops then you dont need leaders to control them. Very simplified but you get my drift. In WW1 we had 475000 troops and how many generals did we have......?

Except the government caused the HQ bloat with extra layers of regulation, reporting.

You can't cut the CAF HQ load from within the CAF alone. The GoC needs to get serious about defence, and cut the regulations/reporting.

Making the CDS a Col won't save a penny either, as Col pay will just rise to what the CDS makes now.l, and cascade down to junior-middle officers making as much as Cols do now.

There is no simple solution to the problems the CAF is facing. If it was simple we would have been fixed decades ago. The CAFs issues are complex, and interwoven with society as a while, as well as the GoC's own disfunction.

 

[dapaterson]

Don't forget the CAF's own dysfunction...

 

[Gunplumber]

Making the CDS a Col won't save a penny either, as Col pay will just rise to what the CDS makes now. l, and cascade down to junior-middle officers making as much as Cols do now.

But then there will be a hell of a lot less of the of the Snr Officers and we still save money to use on other things! win win.

 

[QV]

There is no problem too complex. All that is required is the will.

 

[Rd651]

Except the government caused the HQ bloat with extra layers of regulation, reporting.

You can't cut the CAF HQ load from within the CAF alone. The GoC needs to get serious about defence, and cut the regulations/reporting.

Making the CDS a Col won't save a penny either, as Col pay will just rise to what the CDS makes now.l, and cascade down to junior-middle officers making as much as Cols do now.

There is no simple solution to the problems the CAF is facing. If it was simple we would have been fixed decades ago. The CAFs issues are complex, and interwoven with society as a while, as well as the GoC's own disfunction.

The CDS should only be a LGen, based on numbers of the CAF, maybe less...With that said, the CDS needs "Rank" to have credibility on the world stage..IE: NATO counterparts, NORAD, etc...expect to deal with an equal General....So yes the position is very over ranked but what is your solution to fix this....

 

[Gunplumber]

I have heard that so many times it makes me sick. My first "command" in 1987 was as a no hook regforce Craftsman. I had the skills, so I was in charge and had 2 Cpls and 4 Ptes under me. Also was a CQMS as a Cpl. No one ever had a problem. I know lots of other instances of similar. Why is it an officer thing? oh yah because it's a scam. Same reason a Reserve unit with 30 guys in it needs a Lt Col.

 

[Gunplumber]

How many troops do we have now? 60 to 70 thousand? That doesn't need a Lt General.

 

[KevinB]

How many troops do we have now? 60 to 70 thousand? That doesn't need a Lt General.

Pray tell why?
A DIV gets a MG, and that’s IVO of 15k personnel.
A Corps rates a LTG, and that’s between 45-60k personnel.

So the CA has IVO of that for a LTG.

Then RCN and RCAF Commanders won’t be MG or BG’s with the Army at a LTG.

So there is some justification for a Gen as CDS.


Yes there is some bloat, and it needs to be cut down, but while I can see the rationale to cutting the CDS to a LTG, it does not really matter in the grand scheme and the whole Allied rank issues pop up if you down rank everyone.

As well it was pointed out repeatedly that down ranking won’t affect the pay aspect anyway as it’s a job junction that forces that - not simply the rank.

 

[SupersonicMax]

Not interested, figure it out yourselves if you're too good to stand guard.

The Army already does it when we deploy operationally. We have a cadre of Army Reserve folks doing security for our Airfield High Security Zones. It is not a stretch to give that function to the Army. Our aircraft conduct ops (not training) on a daily basis. They are better employed fixing those aircraft conducting ops than holding a rifle to secure said aircraft.

 

[PuckChaser]

The Army already does it when we deploy operationally. We have a cadre of Army Reserve folks doing security for our Airfield High Security Zones. It is not a stretch to give that function to the Army. Our aircraft conduct ops (not training) on a daily basis. They are better employed fixing those aircraft conducting ops than holding a rifle to secure said aircraft.

Figure it out yourselves didn't necessarily mean make your techs do it. It's piss poor planning to assume CA is going to force gen your security, those PYs already have tasks and are better employed elsewhere. What you need is PY growth that some smart bean counters will figure out where it'll come from.

 

[KevinB]

The Army already does it when we deploy operationally.

But should it…

We have a cadre of Army Reserve folks doing security for our Airfield High Security Zones. It is not a stretch to give that function to the Army. Our aircraft conduct ops (not training) on a daily basis. They are better employed fixing those aircraft conducting ops than holding a rifle to secure said aircraft.

Maybe a RCAF Regiment…
Or funnel the meatheads into actual security.