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....

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

I didn’t say we are not AT rust out on many capabilities (I have skin in the game as my son serves on close-to-rusted-out CPFs, and there are clearly others close to, as well) so I’m all too aware of many capabilities in decline/marginal serviceability, however, I noted that the trend is to address shortfalls and to not plan to rust out.

So by your logic, Canada deserves to keep getting assaulted economically until these initially-procured systems are actually delivered? How many F-35s need to be delivered to Canada (or 425th Ftr Trg Wg at Luke AFB, per the plan), and/or how many P-8A Poseidon ASE planes delivered, or how many SPY-7 radar ship sets delivered (and the billions of dollars into the US defense-industrial complex) until Canada gets credit for moving forward?



So what actions would you recommend then to deal with that, if not consideration of alternate defence capability sourcing?

Honestly, we have been ideologically drifting away from the United States for a few decades now. It's now finally come home to roost. Pushing the Americans away is not the answer.

Some ideas of mine:

Immediate policy turn and commit to BMD
Commit to Massive Defence Spending increases
Position ourselves inside the walls of Fortress North America and seek deeper integration with the Americans.

I am in broad agreement with Option #3 in this article:

PressReader.com - Digital Newspaper & Magazine Subscriptions

Digital newsstand featuring 7000+ of the world’s most popular newspapers & magazines. Enjoy unlimited reading on up to 5 devices with 7-day free trial.

www.pressreader.com

 

[Good2Golf]

Honestly, we have been ideologically drifting away from the United States for a few decades now. It's now finally come home to roost. Pushing the Americans away is not the answer.

Some ideas of mine:

Immediate policy turn and commit to BMD
Commit to Massive Defence Spending increases
Position ourselves inside the walls of Fortress North America and seek deeper integration with the Americans.

I am in broad agreement with Option #3 in this article:

PressReader.com - Digital Newspaper & Magazine Subscriptions

Digital newsstand featuring 7000+ of the world’s most popular newspapers & magazines. Enjoy unlimited reading on up to 5 devices with 7-day free trial.

www.pressreader.com

If there was a preponderance of rational conduct and commitment from the US, this would be my preferred COA as well, but there isn’t, and there is no guarantee at all, that it would return post-47.

To go ‘all-in’ and still be treated like a rump State, with no options whatsoever to diversify is not a sound move at this point. America needs to demonstrate (Facta Non Verba like) that it respects Canada’s positive commitment moving forward.

Of course, this is conditional on Canada actually moving forward, like a responsible, contributing at contemporarily required levels of development/investment nation. If we go ‘full past-Canada’ and chose virtue-signaling as the preferred modus operandi, then we deserve to get *beasted as a still unserious nation.

 

[ytz]

The people delivering this messaging wreak of ivory tower elitists. Want mandatory service.... sure.... you first.

It's particularly gross because they wrap themselves in the flag.

They've never served. They would never encourage their kids to serve. But they are happy to volunteer yours and mine.

Also, they love to cite Europe. Often ignored is that Europeans also have an implicit social bargain for their young people. Mandatory service in many countries also comes with free or very low cost post secondary. Take a guess what these people would say, if that kind of deal was proposed here.

I'm not categorically opposed to national service. But if we're going to do that, the deal should be fair and should actually benefit the country. We don't need hundreds of thousands of cheap conscripts. But maybe a few months working disaster relief during a summer between school years, might take the pressure off the CAF.

 

[ytz]

Position ourselves inside the walls of Fortress North America and seek deeper integration with the Americans.

How many countries are as close as Canada and the US are today? Every closer arrangement comes with substantial loss of sovereignty. See the EU.

That trade might be acceptable if, we could get say in some other ways. Again, see the EU. But that can't happen with the US. So really we'd be a de facto American territory. Puerto Rico without the US Dollar. How long before Americans then decide that is not good enough and decide to use our even higher dependence to compel annexation?

Also, suggestions like these show an absolute blind spot for our founding Francophone people. What are they going to get other than cultural genocide?

 

[Remius]

Carney orders review of F-35 fighter jet purchase from U.S.’s Lockheed Martin

Prime Minister Mark Carney has asked for a review of Canada’s plan to purchase a fleet of F-35 fighter jets.

www.ctvnews.ca

Looks like we are only legally committed to buying 16 platforms.

How many would we need to maintain NORAD Commitments? Stick to that number and go get something else to better align with where the world is headed.

 

[suffolkowner]

Carney orders review of F-35 fighter jet purchase from U.S.’s Lockheed Martin

Prime Minister Mark Carney has asked for a review of Canada’s plan to purchase a fleet of F-35 fighter jets.

www.ctvnews.ca

Looks like we are only legally committed to buying 16 platforms.

How many would we need to maintain NORAD Commitments? Stick to that number and go get something else to better align with where the world is headed.

65

 

[Kirkhill]

This article was maddening.

These guys will do anything to actually avoid making service attractive. Not more pay or benefits. Nope. Force young people who haven't had it this bad in decades (per current statistics) to now give up a year of productivity to do something they don't want to do.

And for what? Our ops are mostly expeditionary. And nobody is going to agree, in this day and age, to wars that are seen as optional.

Give the CAF a 25% pay raise. Give CAF families guaranteed daycare and medical access. Give more time off for personnel at remote bases. Recruiting and retention will be substantially solved.

Nope instead we'll become glorified babysitters for college age kids.

Also looking forward to their ignorant plans on how we get conscripts into our most skilled occupations with the highest shortages. Looking forward to my recently naturalized Russian getting access to our networks for his mandatory service as a Cyber Operator.

Absent bullets and guns you have just described a gold plated make work scheme.

 

[Brad Sallows]

America needs to demonstrate (Facta Non Verba like) that it respects Canada’s positive commitment moving forward.

A view popular among many Americans is that Canada has to move first.

What facts would persuade them otherwise?

 

[Good2Golf]

A view popular among many Americans is that Canada has to move first.

What facts would persuade them otherwise?

As I have said to others, Canada has commenced action. Payment for the first 16 F-35s was provided to the US.

What is your # as to how much real $ must be received by the US, before America’s rhetoric of annexing Canada as the 51st State stops?

 

[Brad Sallows]

As I have said to others, Canada has commenced action. Payment for the first 16 F-35s was provided to the US.

What is your # as to how much real $ must be received by the US, before America’s rhetoric of annexing Canada as the 51st State stops?

Find out what grievances against Canada have built up over the past couple of decades. Those are what would have to be addressed. Start by taking the bluster out of our current politicians' mouths, even if the policies remain hard-nosed. Both sides are being irresponsible; we only control one.

 

[ytz]

Find out what grievances against Canada have built up over the past couple of decades. Those are what would have to be addressed. Start by taking the bluster out of our current politicians' mouths, even if the policies remain hard-nosed. Both sides are being irresponsible; we only control one.

I can't believe people are still treating Trump like a rational actor.

Let's be clear. There's Trump and there's the actual American policy establishment. The latter may have grievances we can discuss. The former is driven by his id.

Addressing real American concerns will only go so far, if the Americans keep electing more leaders like Trump.

 

[ytz]

What is your # as to how much real $ must be received by the US, before America’s rhetoric of annexing Canada as the 51st State stops?

Some folks want more defence spending so badly they are willing to throw Canada under the big orange bus.

 

[Good2Golf]

Find out what grievances against Canada have built up over the past couple of decades. Those are what would have to be addressed. Start by taking the bluster out of our current politicians' mouths, even if the policies remain hard-nosed. Both sides are being irresponsible; we only control one.

Briefs well, but whose grievances do we address? How do we validate those grievances? How do we assure ourselves that those grieves can effect the financial attacks?

 

[ytz]

Carney orders review of F-35 fighter jet purchase from U.S.’s Lockheed Martin

Prime Minister Mark Carney has asked for a review of Canada’s plan to purchase a fleet of F-35 fighter jets.

www.ctvnews.ca

Looks like we are only legally committed to buying 16 platforms.

How many would we need to maintain NORAD Commitments? Stick to that number and go get something else to better align with where the world is headed.

65

Buying 65 doesn't meet the moment on defence spending. But it does create room for a second fleet. How we use that room matters, if we want to send a message.

Buying Gripens, Rafales, Typhoons or KF-21s all send different messages. As would joining one of the Euro next gen programs (FCAS or GCAP).

 

[Maxman1]

Seems like perfect places for the guys to be mountain ops specialists.

Speaking of, maybe convert the shuttered CFS Kamloops into a mountain warfare training centre.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Briefs well, but whose grievances do we address? How do we validate those grievances? How do we assure ourselves that those grieves can effect the financial attacks?

If it's that difficult and every possible complaint can be "akshullyed" away as being unreasonable - our force sizes and capabilities, for example - just give up. Let our anti-American politicians beak off as much as they care to. Lump all Americans together and antagonize them instead of persuading the persuadable. Don't think about the future past the next year.

 

[ytz]

Briefs well, but whose grievances do we address? How do we validate those grievances? How do we assure ourselves that those grieves can effect the financial attacks?

I get my OJE's to write down their SMART goals at the beginning of every summer. And I hold them to it.

I'd like to see a single example of something like this that could genuinely negotiated with the Trump Administration. Not America. The Trump Administration. Cause that is who we are negotiating with.

 

[Maxman1]

I keep going back to my time on exchange in the US and the discussions I had with all the young enlisted there on why they signed up.

5 years there gets them:

1) VA Healthcare for life. In a country with no real universal healthcare that's attractive.

2) GI Bill. Four years of post-secondary paid for. No dollar limit. Four years. Can be shared with spouse. Or even split between kids.

3) VA Home Loan. Reduced credit requirements. No mortgage insurance required. Lower rates.

4) Valuable trade skills.

The conversation that stuck with me was a young sailor in the IT shop. Happy to do his time. And was looking forward to leaving the Navy and working in IT while in College on the GI Bill.

Meanwhile in Canada, we are searching for ways to ensure that our technicians are always short of just transferring their qualifications to Main Street.

Ask yourself, what does 5 years in the CAF get you, relative to peers? 10 years? 20 years? And there's your answer to why recruiting and retention is a problem.

And base housing. They receive free housing on base and a housing allowance for living off base, not being charged market rent that can increase by any amount.

Housing

Housing in the Army offers great accommodations similar to what you're used to in your hometown. Plus, the Army gives you the chance to live in multiple places.

www.goarmy.com

 

[Maxman1]

Yes, but I would also say “weren’t.” Room to go yes, but F-35, P-8, SPY-7 doesn’t say “unreliable” for today and tomorrow.

Any reasonable person would assess these capabilities as those of a serious nation.

Would we all like to see more? Shorter timelines? Yes. However, it’s not the past “let it rust out.”

If the US continues to treat Canada as though it isn’t taking any action, then Canada is right to consider other nations that acknowledge and want to collaborate with Canada to increase Canada’s and by association, Alliance capability.

Waffling on whether to continue with an already decided purchase is fundamentally unserious.

 

[MilEME09]

Buying 65 doesn't meet the moment on defence spending. But it does create room for a second fleet. How we use that room matters, if we want to send a message.

Buying Gripens, Rafales, Typhoons or KF-21s all send different messages. As would joining one of the Euro next gen programs (FCAS or GCAP).

I mean the euro 6th gen does look pretty sexy, but estimated at over 70ft long, it's as large as the Avro Arrow was