• 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....
 
I don't understand your logic and yes, I don't wear a uniform. We are maintaining combat arms in Latvia. In the event of either war (hopefully not) or as part of a peace mission in Ukraine, or even as our contribution to the UN it is combat arms that seem to be required. When the floods and fires hit it is the combat forces that are drawn upon to fill sandbags. I understand the need for support functions i.e. air force transport and the need for a robust navy to guard the shorelines and provide a presence and all that but I don't see where you can reduce py's in reg. force combat arms. These are the guys called first and they seem to be rotating out constantly
Is it efficient to have large numbers of troops paid full-time waiting in case there is a deployment or if there is a forest fire? Things like Latvia should be a posting so you have known personnel requirements. The whole purpose of having Reservists is that you can call upon them when something unplanned comes up without needing to pay them full-time waiting to be needed. 100% agree that known requirements should be met with full-time members (or a mix of full-time and planned part-time augmentation).
 
Maybe the total CAF RegF numbers shouldn't be cut but a change in the way they are distributed is likely needed. RegF PY's should be focused on those that regularly deploy and those that support them - largely RCN and RCAF pers along with a core of the CA. Some of these PY's could come from a rationalization of HQ's, etc. and others can come from a shift of a portion of combat arms PY's from the RegF to the ResF.

I don’t think you can harvest much from the Reg Force Combat Arms. The units aren’t fully manned at this point, and more capabilities are required.
But I think one needs to look at the PY’s and be ruthless with who is retained in certain trades. People who can’t deploy need to be replaced, and some positions be changed to Government Civilian from uniformed personnel.
 
Roshel doesn't build vehicles, they modify a Ford 550.
It isn't a viable design for the CA.
just because the base is a F550 does not make it not viable. Being quick and cheap to produce but still meets STANAG requirements makes it worthy of evaluation. The fact an army in an active conflict for the past 3 years loves them, and keeps wanting more also speaks volumes about the design and its reliability. It is easy to produce designs like this that would end up becoming a workhorse if the balloon went up because because it 120 vehicles a month, it can likely keep up with attrition.
 
I don’t think you can harvest much from the Reg Force Combat Arms. The units aren’t fully manned at this point, and more capabilities are required.
But I think one needs to look at the PY’s and be ruthless with who is retained in certain trades. People who can’t deploy need to be replaced, and some positions be changed to Government Civilian from uniformed personnel.
And when when we talk about numbers we need to talk about full authorized strength of the CAF not actual strength. We need to get there as a starting point.

Any discussion on numbers also needs to take into account the number of pers required at each rank level not just total numbers. If the RCN for example is 1,000 pers short simply adding 1,000 Ordinary Seamen doesn't solve the problem and mean they are fine.
 
just because the base is a F550 does not make it not viable. Being quick and cheap to produce but still meets STANAG requirements makes it worthy of evaluation. The fact an army in an active conflict for the past 3 years loves them, and keeps wanting more also speaks volumes about the design and its reliability. It is easy to produce designs like this that would end up becoming a workhorse if the balloon went up because because it 120 vehicles a month, it can likely keep up with attrition.

STANAG Level what…

Look at the loss rate of Infantry Mobility Vehicles in Ukraine, and the breakdowns by type.

Furthermore, in the land of the blind the one eyed man is king. Ukraine ain’t going to shit on anything they can get, because it’s better than nothing.

Canada isn’t in the same situation, and should not situate the estimate to take a half assed platform that will just get a lot of people killed.

Go buy it for domestic airfield security - but don’t fool yourself into thinking that it is a viable combat vehicle.
 
STANAG Level what…
Level II ballastic and level III blast, This isn't some half assed vehicle, and in comparison to some of the other vehicles trying to replace the G wagon only have level 1 with upgrade packages to level 2 ballistic.

Combat vehicle? this never was designed to storm into the enemy head first, if evaluating a vehicle, evaluate its intended role.
 
More details can be found here:


And the Army Recognition website is reporting that South Korea is proposing their K9 SP gun as a candidate for Canada's new SP gun.


Apart from the fact that last week Canadian and South Korean officials got together and talked about future defence ties, I don't think there is anything official about any SK proposal. Plus, the fact that the IFM RFI is written in such a away to favour a wheeled system over a wheeled system.

It will be interesting to see what the future brings.
 
And the Army Recognition website is reporting that South Korea is proposing their K9 SP gun as a candidate for Canada's new SP gun.


Apart from the fact that last week Canadian and South Korean officials got together and talked about future defence ties, I don't think there is anything official about any SK proposal. Plus, the fact that the IFM RFI is written in such a away to favour a wheeled system over a wheeled system.

It will be interesting to see what the future brings.
given they also discussed manufacturing opportunities, especially in light of the trade war, if they want to set up any kind of production in canada, it seems like a no brainer for industrial offsets.
 
Level II ballastic and level III blast, This isn't some half assed vehicle, and in comparison to some of the other vehicles trying to replace the G wagon only have level 1 with upgrade packages to level 2 ballistic.

Combat vehicle? this never was designed to storm into the enemy head first, if evaluating a vehicle, evaluate its intended role.

Well nothing like setting the bar low.

I’d suggest that a Light Utility Vehicle should mean unarmored, potentially with a small ballistic kit add on. It’s not an MRAP it’s a Jeep like tool.

Or else you end up with a really big honking truck that doesn’t do anything well.

To me if you want an armored rover buy a few JLTV’s, they are enormous, but a dedicated armored vehicle. But for the love of God DO NOT buy a fleet of them like we did down here.
 
Bombardier Iltis enters the conversation.
If the CAF Iltis was a 6cylinder, it wouldn’t have been so bad, but again the issue was it was too small for a lot of the roles it was acquired for.
The body design wasn’t great for 4 troops, especially if anyone in the back was over 5’7” and 140lbs.

It had great off road performance though as it was light and could be fit inside about anything, and two people could flip it back over.

But it sucked for any role that wasn’t a dedicated jeep role - and got pressed into service where a lot of roles would have been better suited to the 5/4 or CUCV type.
 
STANAG Level what…

Look at the loss rate of Infantry Mobility Vehicles in Ukraine, and the breakdowns by type.

Furthermore, in the land of the blind the one eyed man is king. Ukraine ain’t going to shit on anything they can get, because it’s better than nothing.

Canada isn’t in the same situation, and should not situate the estimate to take a half assed platform that will just get a lot of people killed.

Go buy it for domestic airfield security - but don’t fool yourself into thinking that it is a viable combat vehicle.
You're misunderstanding the scope of the project, it's never going to be a combat vehicle. It's going to be at best an A Ech vehicle.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ytz
You're misunderstanding the scope of the project, it's never going to be a combat vehicle. It's going to be at best an A Ech vehicle.
I get the role. What I question is the program definition.
It is asking for two divergent requirements.

It needs to be reviewed and refined.
 
Well nothing like setting the bar low.

I’d suggest that a Light Utility Vehicle should mean unarmored, potentially with a small ballistic kit add on. It’s not an MRAP it’s a Jeep like tool.

Or else you end up with a really big honking truck that doesn’t do anything well.

To me if you want an armored rover buy a few JLTV’s, they are enormous, but a dedicated armored vehicle. But for the love of God DO NOT buy a fleet of them like we did down here.
Kia still makes literal Jeeps.
 
And the Army Recognition website is reporting that South Korea is proposing their K9 SP gun as a candidate for Canada's new SP gun.
The K9 does not meet the RFI's required highway speed of 80kmph.

If the army wants to consider tracked SPs - and I urge them to do so - they need to bring that speed down to around 55 kmph.

If the CAF Iltis was a 6cylinder, it wouldn’t have been so bad, but again the issue was it was too small for a lot of the roles it was acquired for.
The body design wasn’t great for 4 troops, especially if anyone in the back was over 5’7” and 140lbs.

It had great off road performance though as it was light and could be fit inside about anything, and two people could flip it back over.

But it sucked for any role that wasn’t a dedicated jeep role - and got pressed into service where a lot of roles would have been better suited to the 5/4 or CUCV type.
Iltis was basically a replacement for the M151. We had M151 as rovers in the M109 batteries - BC, FOOs and BK. The FOOs never took their out of the compound and I swapped mine out for a 5/4 ton cargo. That left one with the BC for running back and forth to O Gps and shower runs.

The Iltis had slightly more cargo room in it than the M151 - which had zero. If you had radios in the M151 you could squeeze in a driver plus one and their kit and that was all. We had trailers but they were a pain in the ass.

🍻
 
on the trucks whats the plan?
500 Milverado replacements = F250? GM2500?
1500 G wagen replacements = F550? JLTV?
65 Hummer replacements = JLTV? Hawkei?
500 TAPV
1000 LSVS Zetros

are the ratios wrong? wrong roles?
 
on the trucks whats the plan?
500 Milverado replacements = F250? GM2500?
1500 G wagen replacements = F550? JLTV?
65 Hummer replacements = JLTV? Hawkei?
500 TAPV
1000 LSVS Zetros

are the ratios wrong? wrong roles?
I wouldn't trust ratios for replacement, judging from what I heard from the 3 div deputy commander, sounds like we can expect to order more than we need while on the road to 2%.
 
I wouldn't trust ratios for replacement, judging from what I heard from the 3 div deputy commander, sounds like we can expect to order more than we need while on the road to 2%.

I don’t like the term more than one needs. Because the CA rarely accounts for the needs beyond the Regs day to day needs at best.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top