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....

 

[daftandbarmy]

And they are quoting Alan Williams...............

Tangentially, I <heart> Gordon Ramsay.

He'd make a great full screw at Depot PARA

 

[Genetk44]

Meanwhile, no one is quite sure what the new frigates will cost it seems...

Why is the naval destroyer program wrapped in secrecy? The F-35 saga offers insights​

Experts say politics is getting in the way of informing taxpayers​

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/naval-destroyer-contract-cost-secrecy-1.7486101?cmp=newsletter_Morning%20Headlines%20from%20CBC%20News_1613_1875176

This was an obvious and predictable outcome of the choice to build a paper only, never built ship rather than an already built in-service, known product.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Closest fit I could find for this "survey says" ....

Three-in-five support Canada sending peacekeepers if Ukraine-Russia ceasefire reached; half as many oppose -

Half of would-be CPC voters (51%) are opposed to Canada sending peacekeepers March 18, 2025 – The ball is “in Russia’s court” according to American officials, after Ukraine accepted a tentative agreement for a 30-day ceasefire last week during negotiations in Saudi Arabia. The world now watches...

angusreid.org

Interesting breakdown re: who's saying Canada's done too much for UKR ...

... although the "too much" group seems to be growing over time overall.

 

[Kirkhill]

Based on the non-response from Europe to our non-elected Prime Minister designate I get the strong sense that we are on our own.

No joint conference with Starmer. A firm gladhand with Macron. An offer from Zelensky to teach us how to make drones. The Liberal's Designate proclaiming we don't need help anyway. We're Canada.

The result of too much convening and rejecting people when they were asking for help (Germans, Japanese, Scandinavians, Greeks....)?

The Euro factories are overstretched to meet their requirements - hence building new ones in a war zone (Ukraine).

Even if the Brits and the French wanted to patrol our Arctic for us they don't have the ships and subs to get the job done. They certainly don't have the bodies or transport to put anything more than a provocation on the ground.

Starmer and Macron are trying to manage a weak hand as it is. The last thing they need is to aggravate Trump any more than he already is.

....

Meanwhile, everything we do, militarily and economically, will be scrutinized by Washington. We will do what we are allowed to do. We will get the weapons we are allowed to have. Failure to comply, striking out on our own, will result in additional economic punishment. Or simple denial of US supplied systems.

....

We have left if kind of late to start being assertive.

 

[Czech_pivo]

Based on the non-response from Europe to our non-elected Prime Minister designate I get the strong sense that we are on our own.

No joint conference with Starmer. A firm gladhand with Macron. An offer from Zelensky to teach us how to make drones. The Liberal's Designate proclaiming we don't need help anyway. We're Canada.

The result of too much convening and rejecting people when they were asking for help (Germans, Japanese, Scandinavians, Greeks....)?

The Euro factories are overstretched to meet their requirements - hence building new ones in a war zone (Ukraine).

Even if the Brits and the French wanted to patrol our Arctic for us they don't have the ships and subs to get the job done. They certainly don't have the bodies or transport to put anything more than a provocation on the ground.

Starmer and Macron are trying to manage a weak hand as it is. The last thing they need is to aggravate Trump any more than he already is.

....

Meanwhile, everything we do, militarily and economically, will be scrutinized by Washington. We will do what we are allowed to do. We will get the weapons we are allowed to have. Failure to comply, striking out on our own, will result in additional economic punishment. Or simple denial of US supplied systems.

....

We have left if kind of late to start being assertive.

Alright enough of that Scotch doom and gloom!

I think that we announce something this morning/afternoon that is related to French arms - be it subs, planes, both or something else. I think Starmer is quite frankly scare of Trump and the 'destroying' of their special relationship and other than the announcement of the joint BAE/Irving shipbuilding news (which really does not go into much detail), they won't be doing much for us.

Plenty of things that we can begin to do inhouse to show that we are getting our house in order. First off, a substantially large order to the facility in London, Ontario to begin expanding our AFV numbers, both for RegF and ResF. Second, getting off our ass and signing/expanding our ability to produce arty shells, add to that a fast tracked agreement to add 80-98 new arty that we've already begun. Third, move forward the Kingston replacement programme, outsource the hull builds to SK or Romania and use these to begin offsetting the retirement of the Halifax's ASAP.

The glass can be half empty if you look at it in a certain light and just keep chipping away at the tasks at hand and don't pull back and look at the whole of the issues.

Just keep swimming!

 

[KevinB]

This was an obvious and predictable outcome of the choice to build a paper only, never built ship rather than an already built in-service, known product.

Regardless if you where to build AB’s with handholding from us, you had no shipbuilding experience or capability.

The cost of the Rivers will be what it will be, as you have to consider the cost of rebuilding a shipbuilding industry for Combatants in it.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

This was an obvious and predictable outcome of the choice to build a paper only, never built ship rather than an already built in-service, known product.

Because that course of action is working out well for the USN

 

[KevinB]

Alright enough of that Scotch doom and gloom!

I think that we announce something this morning/afternoon that is related to French arms - be it subs, planes, both or something else. I think Starmer is quite frankly scare of Trump and the 'destroying' of their special relationship and other than the announcement of the joint BAE/Irving shipbuilding news (which really does not go into much detail), they won't be doing much for us.

Plenty of things that we can begin to do inhouse to show that we are getting our house in order. First off, a substantially large order to the facility in London, Ontario to begin expanding our AFV numbers, both for RegF and ResF. Second, getting off our ass and signing/expanding our ability to produce arty shells, add to that a fast tracked agreement to add 80-98 new arty that we've already begun. Third, move forward the Kingston replacement programme, outsource the hull builds to SK or Romania and use these to begin offsetting the retirement of the Halifax's ASAP.

The glass can be half empty if you look at it in a certain light and just keep chipping away at the tasks at hand and don't pull back and look at the whole of the issues.

Just keep swimming!

You don’t need more LAV’s.

You need domestic industry to build Tracked AFV’s (both Tanks and IFV’s) as well as Artillery.

You need to speed up the Rivers and get more of them, as well as a smaller surface combatant.

You need your F-35’s faster and a support infrastructure for them as well as domestic munitions industry for them.

I can go on and on.

 

[KevinB]

Because that course of action is working out well for the USN

Mission creep enters the chat. I beleive that most of the Naval folks here have pointed out that virtually every country has bespoke requirements. You just need to ensure the base platform can accommodate the modifications. That program missed that point altogether.

 

[ytz]

Based on the non-response from Europe to our non-elected Prime Minister designate I get the strong sense that we are on our own.

Not sure what you were expecting. But I wouldn't have expected major commitments on either side days out from an election call.

 

[lenaitch]

the facility in London, Ontario

GDLS is an American company. Local jobs for sure but still a US company for those who argue against it.

 

[KevinB]

GDLS is an American company. Local jobs for sure but still a US company for those who argue against it.

BAE would be my choice for Canada at this junction for land systems. Not discounting Korea either.

 

[Czech_pivo]

Anyone know what time Carney is expected to talk today in Iqaluit?

 

[ytz]

BAE would be my choice for Canada at this junction for land systems. Not discounting Korea either.

I don't think it's much of an issue if it's an American company building in Canada. The dependency scare is getting cut off from spares, software, etc. Less risk of that for anything made in Canada.

 

[Kirkhill]

Alright enough of that Scotch doom and gloom!

I think that we announce something this morning/afternoon that is related to French arms - be it subs, planes, both or something else. I think Starmer is quite frankly scare of Trump and the 'destroying' of their special relationship and other than the announcement of the joint BAE/Irving shipbuilding news (which really does not go into much detail), they won't be doing much for us.

Plenty of things that we can begin to do inhouse to show that we are getting our house in order. First off, a substantially large order to the facility in London, Ontario to begin expanding our AFV numbers, both for RegF and ResF. Second, getting off our ass and signing/expanding our ability to produce arty shells, add to that a fast tracked agreement to add 80-98 new arty that we've already begun. Third, move forward the Kingston replacement programme, outsource the hull builds to SK or Romania and use these to begin offsetting the retirement of the Halifax's ASAP.

The glass can be half empty if you look at it in a certain light and just keep chipping away at the tasks at hand and don't pull back and look at the whole of the issues.

Just keep swimming!

No scotch involved. Pure caffeine this morning.

Keep swimming is good.

I am just minded that:

We walk a very narrow path.
Our domestic facilities for conventional arms are very limited.

For example - can we produce a medium calibre autocannon (20-40mm)?
Our American owned GDOTS-Canada can manufacture 20 and 25mm rounds in small quantities, as well as some 40 mm grenades. To my knowledge we have no domestic supplier of 30 and 35mm rounds, or 40mm Bofors and no suppliers of the necessary guns. And those are the calibres that appear to be best suited to the drone rich environment being encountered out there.

Here is one appreciation of the non-conventional systems that could be fielded in 3-5 years:

The technologies are well known and based on massive swarms of air, sea and land drones;

AI, command, computer, communications, surveillance, targeting, decision-making and control systems;
land and sea mines;
anti-air, land and sea stand-off weapons;
electronics, jamming and counter-jamming systems;
reserve low earth orbiter satellites;
3D printing and advanced and additive manufacturing logistics and other related systems.
Sufficient long range firepower for follow on forces attack/deep strike will disrupt enemy logistics and decapitate senior leaders.

In my opinion the good news is that Ukraine managed to build those systems starting from a very weak position, using domestic manufacturers that did not interfere with the production of conventional weapons.

On the other hand they have had to beg, borrow and steal guns, bullets, bombs and missiles.

 

[Kirkhill]

Non-conventional thinking. No time. No spare capacity.

The Navy needs a 180-degree pivot: Embracing autonomy and AI for maritime dominance - Breaking Defense

The Navy should drop manned aircraft and pivot the majority of surface vessels to drones, argues John Ferrari of AEI.

breakingdefense.com

The United States Navy stands at a critical juncture, and as the global maritime landscape evolves, so too must our approach to maintaining naval supremacy. As it stands now, the navy is incapable of being active in three simultaneous theaters, lacks the depth in munitions, ships, and personnel for sustained combat operations, and struggles to produce the necessary warships, using outdated concepts from World War II and the Cold War.

Which is to say, almost every part of the system is flawed. To address these challenges, the Navy must pivot away from large, costly platforms and embrace mass production and customizability. The service’s guiding philosophy should focus on autonomous systems, AI, cyber, electronic warfare, and distributed lethality, and include a cultural shift toward viewing software programmers as key partners for sailors.

UK Royal Navy receives first autonomous mine countermeasures system - Breaking Defense

"Developments in sensor technology, data analytics, and machine learning have all significantly contributed to this innovation, allowing vessels to operate either fully autonomously or remote controlled by operators in a portable operations centre," said the UK MoD.

breakingdefense.com

DIU picks four companies, including two Ukrainian teammates, for one-way drone prototypes - Breaking Defense

“We are excited about the non-traditional companies who are providing low-cost, adaptable, long-range, UAS platforms with the potential to maximize operational flexibility for the Joint force,” said DIU’s Trent Emeneker.

breakingdefense.com

Army taps Textron’s Ripsaw M3 for Robotic Combat Vehicle program, sources say - Breaking Defense

If the service's previous RCV plans hold true, the company will begin finalizing designs ahead of additional prototype deliveries next year.

breakingdefense.com

Combat engineering evolves with autonomy and robotics - Breaking Defense

Robotic combat engineering will reduce risk to soldiers in the breach while maintaining or increasing the tempo of movement for maneuver forces.

breakingdefense.com

....

Thinking about the engineering side of things, how is that Common Heavy Equipment Replacement programme coming? Have optionally manned capabilities been added to the list of musts or shoulds?

...

While I think we may struggle to produce guns domestically I think we have a solid grounding to rapidly scale up rocket production. Now if only we could find some computer chips.

 

[KevinB]

@Kirkhill I think you’re ignoring the fact that Ukraine was the USSR’s aviation and armored vehicle design and production center. Additionally NATO countries and (just as importantly) companies have lent deeply in to helping Ukraine develop a lot of systems, by parts, and technology.

Canada isn’t going to get the same kind of support, so it will need to either 1) Go Alone (risky and expensive) or 2) JV with allied nations or allied companies.

But neither 1 or 2 is viable without the Government committing to buying stuff.

 

[KevinB]

I don't think it's much of an issue if it's an American company building in Canada. The dependency scare is getting cut off from spares, software, etc. Less risk of that for anything made in Canada.

Agreed, but my GDLS aspect for the London plant is more that Canada doesn’t need more LAV. It needs a more diverse Army equipment plan.

If GDLS wanted to build M1A3’s and their MICV candidate vehicles in Canada I’d be thrilled for that.

But…

 

[ytz]

Agreed, but my GDLS aspect for the London plant is more that Canada doesn’t need more LAV. It needs a more diverse Army equipment plan.

If GDLS wanted to build M1A3’s and their MICV candidate vehicles in Canada I’d be thrilled for that.

But…

GDLS London can be spun up to build whatever we want them to build.

 

[Kirkhill]

@Kirkhill I think you’re ignoring the fact that Ukraine was the USSR’s aviation and armored vehicle design and production center. Additionally NATO countries and (just as importantly) companies have lent deeply in to helping Ukraine develop a lot of systems, by parts, and technology.

Canada isn’t going to get the same kind of support, so it will need to either 1) Go Alone (risky and expensive) or 2) JV with allied nations or allied companies.

But neither 1 or 2 is viable without the Government committing to buying stuff.

Far from ignoring those limitations Kevin, I am keenly aware of them. Which is why I suggest that we will have a very hard, and narrow, row to hoe.

We do have access to European and Israeli technology through Rheinmetall in Quebec, and that includes a lot of Canadian produced autonomous navigation systems. How long before we could start producing 30mm Skyranger turrets complete and entire? We might be able to buy the EOS Slinger RWS systems from Australia but would we get permission to buy 30x113 Bushmasters if the US decided it was not in their interest to have us so equipped?

Those are my points.

If Canada were denied access to modern weaponry, if we were embargoed by an unsympathetic neighbour and erstwhile allies occupied elsewhere and unwilling to agitate our neighbour what could we do other than filling molotovs. (Image courtesy of Radio Free Europe).