• 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....
 
Or they just abuse the hell out of the Constitution. Just look at them going after judges who oppose them. Traditionally that wasn't seen as acceptable, even if it was legal. Now? Perfectly acceptable. We'll see how much rule of law survives in the US after 4 years of this.

Trump said he would appeal lower court decisions he disagreed with. All perfectly within the law. His first term should be informative on how he will approach this.
 
Trump said he would appeal lower court decisions he disagreed with. All perfectly within the law. His first term should be informative on how he will approach this.
And how the courts will react to his attempts to circumvent the laws.
 
What is the criteria that they need to have to make sure it passes?

From Wikipedia:
To become part of the Constitution, an amendment must be ratified by three-fourths of the states (38 since 1959) by either (as determined by Congress):

The legislatures of three-fourths of the states; or
State ratifying conventions in three-fourths of the states.

So will never get through, since they'd need some blue states signing on.

But why bother with all that when you can just get judges to interpret the law as you want? This seems to be what they are increasingly going for.

I don't think Trump will do a third term though. He'll retire in Florida and just control the party through social media. Way easier. He just needed to run this time to make all the investigations go away. Now he can make sure there will be nobody to investigate him when he's retired in 2029.
 
Trump said he would appeal lower court decisions he disagreed with. All perfectly within the law. His first term should be informative on how he will approach this.

I'm not referring to appeals. I'm talking about:


Or you know just posting details about the family members of judges:


"Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?"
 
I'm not referring to appeals. I'm talking about:


Or you know just posting details about the family members of judges:


"Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?"

That seems like bringing attention to a conflict of interest, no?

Where were you when Schumer actually threatened SCOTUS? Or the protests outside their homes?
 
That seems like bringing attention to a conflict of interest, no?

Where were you when Schumer actually threatened SCOTUS? Or the protests outside their homes?

Was anybody sharing the details of their kids to tens of millions of followers? Or putting bills to the floor to impeach them?

I generally don't get wrapped up in American politics. It's a crazy show. But I don't recall their judges this threatened before. And that seems to me a new direction.
 
Ukraine has shown they still have their place to deliver a large amount of ordinance accurately.
That is not at all what Ukraine has shown.
Hail Mary lobbing unguided rockets at max range isn’t accuracy or effective, unless one is simply counting terror against a civilian population as effective… The ordnance that Russia has used in both ‘precision’ missiles and their unguided rockets far outweighed the results.

EW still takes out 60+ of ukrainian FPV drones. An AH with laser guided missiles wouldn't have that issue. You just need EW to protect from FPVs

Lasers require active illumination throughout the engagement. So you’re limited to direct fire.

Better a NLOS system that uses a hand off from a MMWR lock - use a UAS as the old Loach/Kiowa Warrior for the acquisition process.

Then you can launch missiles from anything be it Helo, Fixed wing, or Ground system.
 
The counter to the 2% target.

Arming Europe​

It’s very rare that I agree with Donald Trump about anything, but in his first term I applauded him for pointing out most European countries weren’t paying their way on defence. Many of them bucked up their ideas and nowadays 23 out of Nato’s 32 members do contribute at least 2 per cent of GDP – in 2014 only three did.

However, now the game has changed. The week’s summit of Europe’s leaders in Paris will, I am sure, result in a commitment to rearm and increase expenditure on defence. But can we please get away from this arbitrary percentage of GDP? Instead, each country should identify what it needs to spend money on to protect itself and wider European nations and calculate accordingly.

This should also be based on what each nation can contribute and specialise in
. It’s not all based on increasing the size of our respective armies, navies and air forces. Britain is particularly good at cyber warfare, intelligence, naval power and global reach. France is good at rapid deployment and amphibious warfare while Germany excels at cyber defence and military hardware.

Poland, which already spends 4 per cent of its GDP on defence, has huge expertise in hybrid warfare and a rapidly expanding munitions and hardware manufacturing capability. I could go on.

If Trump delivers on his pledge (threat?) to decouple America from Europe, then make no mistake, Britain’s defence budget must rise to levels previously unthinkable. This year we will spend around £57 billion on defence (2.33 per cent of GDP). Labour’s strategic defence review, headed by former Nato secretary general Lord Robertson, is due to be published in March. If my sources are correct, he is planning to suggest a massive increase in defence spending, which is being resisted in No 10. That resistance may be weakening, so it would not surprise me at all if the review wasn’t delayed until the second half of the year.
 
Going back over this thread on Canadian military spending and the current government I am struck by how much time is spent wondering about our neighbour's constitutional issues.

....

Fuckem

...

That is the root of our problems. Better if we focused on Canada, and Canada's issues and Canada's interests and what we can do with the many levers we have in our possession.
 
Pretty cool to see today that the Canadian Multinational Brigade contingent is getting Switchblade 300/600. I wonder who it goes to? Arty? Or dispersed amongst the manoeuvre elements?
 
Better a NLOS system that uses a hand off from a MMWR lock - use a UAS as the old Loach/Kiowa Warrior for the acquisition process.

To a point though. Manned platform is still more useful in a heavy jamming environment because you don't need the backhaul control link. We're now doing aggressor training with even GPS jamming. Of course, it's a tradeoff vs the AD risk, for any manned platform.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top