• 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....
 

A recent executive order from the White House, "Achieving Efficiency Through State and Local Preparedness,” calls on state and local agencies to take greater responsibility in building resilience to cyber threats, natural disasters, and other emerging hazards. This emphasis on “local forces for local missions” is timely—and essential. Yet, as the Department of Defense reportedly considers cutting 90,000 active-duty Army soldiers, with an inevitable workload increase for the National Guard, a critical question arises: who will fill the gap?

One answer has been hiding in plain sight: Title 32 State Defense Forces, or SDFs.

State Defense Forces are military units authorized under federal law but organized, trained, and led by individual states. Unlike the National Guard, they cannot be federalized, but like the National Guard they are force multipliers, particularly in times of crisis. They are often composed of former active-duty service members, seasoned professionals with deep expertise in military operations, as well as experienced civilian professionals. Skills and experience are abundant. Even better, they operate at a fraction of the cost of National Guard or active-duty forces.

A call for volunteers?

Current organization

ABCTs - 11 Regulars, 3 National Guard
SBCTs - 6 Regulars, 2 National Guard
IBCTs - 14 Regulars, 18 National Guard

Divisional HQs - 11 Regulars, 8 National Guard

Some discussion about converting IBCTs to L(ight) and M(otorized) BCTs. The difference between the two seems to be that the MBCTs are LBCTs with ISVs issued to them.

I suggest that all of the IBCTs and SBCTs are essentially LBCTs with some form of transport assigned to them, whether it be helicopters, ISVs, Strykers, or Bandvagons, or for that matter MRAPs. The basic organization seems to remain the same, and the intent seems to be to establish a common structure, even as the army modernizes to meet the dictates of the current battle field.

To my way of looking at the organization there are 14 Combined Arms Brigades (Heavy with tracks) and 40 Combined Arms Brigades (Light with and without assigned transport).

The National Guard troops are largely (20/23) Light troops.

The future seems light.
 



A call for volunteers?

Current organization

ABCTs - 11 Regulars, 3 National Guard
SBCTs - 6 Regulars, 2 National Guard
IBCTs - 14 Regulars, 18 National Guard

Divisional HQs - 11 Regulars, 8 National Guard

Some discussion about converting IBCTs to L(ight) and M(otorized) BCTs. The difference between the two seems to be that the MBCTs are LBCTs with ISVs issued to them.

I suggest that all of the IBCTs and SBCTs are essentially LBCTs with some form of transport assigned to them, whether it be helicopters, ISVs, Strykers, or Bandvagons, or for that matter MRAPs. The basic organization seems to remain the same, and the intent seems to be to establish a common structure, even as the army modernizes to meet the dictates of the current battle field.

To my way of looking at the organization there are 14 Combined Arms Brigades (Heavy with tracks) and 40 Combined Arms Brigades (Light with and without assigned transport).

The National Guard troops are largely (20/23) Light troops.

The future seems light.

And yet the US military is moving away from light to heavy... AD 2030

Delivering the Army of 2030​

The U.S. Army is transforming how it prepares to fight and win the nation’s wars. Senior Army leaders developed fresh concepts and logic to guide the Army’s most significant transformation in the past 40 years to ensure the service retains the capability to defeat current and future adversaries. The Army plans to do this by maintaining an advantage in speed of decision-making, an ability to create a shared understanding of the battlefield, and an overmatch in lethality in time and space. Army leaders bear a moral obligation to ensure our Army, as part of the joint force, is ready to fight and win the nation’s wars now and in the future.

Secretary of the Army Christine Wormuth charged Army leaders to establish a sustainable strategic path to transform from a counter-insurgency–optimized force toward a force prepared for the challenges of any major power conflict. Unveiled last fall as the organizing theme of the Association of the United States Army’s annual meeting, Army 2030 is the service’s deliberate, budget-informed, multiyear plan that prioritizes people and balances maintaining warfighting readiness with the need to adapt our equipment, organization, and training to meet an evolving threat by major competitors. We believe the Army must adjust the way it is organized to fight to meet the challenges of the future battlefield. The experience of fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan led the Army to favor building small units, capable of operating independently from their parent organizations in a counter-insurgency environment.

 
And yet the US military is moving away from light to heavy... AD 2030

Delivering the Army of 2030​

The U.S. Army is transforming how it prepares to fight and win the nation’s wars. Senior Army leaders developed fresh concepts and logic to guide the Army’s most significant transformation in the past 40 years to ensure the service retains the capability to defeat current and future adversaries. The Army plans to do this by maintaining an advantage in speed of decision-making, an ability to create a shared understanding of the battlefield, and an overmatch in lethality in time and space. Army leaders bear a moral obligation to ensure our Army, as part of the joint force, is ready to fight and win the nation’s wars now and in the future.

Secretary of the Army Christine Wormuth charged Army leaders to establish a sustainable strategic path to transform from a counter-insurgency–optimized force toward a force prepared for the challenges of any major power conflict. Unveiled last fall as the organizing theme of the Association of the United States Army’s annual meeting, Army 2030 is the service’s deliberate, budget-informed, multiyear plan that prioritizes people and balances maintaining warfighting readiness with the need to adapt our equipment, organization, and training to meet an evolving threat by major competitors. We believe the Army must adjust the way it is organized to fight to meet the challenges of the future battlefield. The experience of fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan led the Army to favor building small units, capable of operating independently from their parent organizations in a counter-insurgency environment.


Authored by Christine Wormuth, reporting to Lloyd Austin October 2022.
Current Secretary of the Army Daniel Driscoll, reporting to Pete Hegseth.

Having said that, even in Wormuth's day the numbers still showed a predilection for light forces, especially in the National Guard.

A lot more IBCTs (Abn, Air Asslt, Mtn etc) than ABCTs.
 

a boost for a Global 6500 based airframe?
I would think that it might allow us to increase the number we are looking to purchase since Boeing will be desperate to offset the loss of 26 to the US Airforce and might cut us a deal on price if we pick up another 4-6 frames
 
New secretary of state for Defence procurement, a retired CF18 pilot (Stephen Fuhr).

I wonder if his role in defence procurement would have anything to do with the opinion he held according to an op-ed he wrote in 2014.

I am a retired military officer and fighter pilot for the Royal Canadian Air Force. I am a business leader. I am a Christian. I was born in Tory-blue Alberta and grew up in the B.C. Interior. I have never smoked a joint in my life, and I always voted Conservative. You could say I’m not your typical candidate to be a Liberal member of Parliament. Given the conduct of Prime Minister Stephen Harper, however, the choice was clear.
Here’s how I got here.

My journey “out of the blue” began in 2010 with the Harper government’s decision to purchase 65 F-35 fighter jets for Canada’s air force. Stephen Harper said these planes would replace our aging CF-18s and provide great benefits to Canadian industry. Plus, they would only cost $14.7 billion.

What he said was also completely untrue. I was floored that our government could be so irresponsible with our tax dollars.
The F-35 is technically risky, ill-suited to Canada’s priorities, and comes with no guarantees. Its real price will be far greater than what Harper claims. The F-35 fiasco awakened me to the ugly truth that I had supported a government that has completely lost sight of everything it said it stood for. The deeper I looked the more disappointed I became.
. . .
 
I wonder if his role in defence procurement would have anything to do with the opinion he held according to an op-ed he wrote in 2014.


The F-35 fiasco awakened me to the ugly truth that I had supported a government that has completely lost sight of everything it said it stood for.

The irony.
 
I wonder if his role in defence procurement would have anything to do with the opinion he held according to an op-ed he wrote in 2014.

Question is where are we now on that opinion. Lots of people write op eds that don't age well, or their opinions evolve. Also the F-35 project evolved well beyond what it was in 2014.

Also does it really matter? They have their marching orders from Cabinet. Whatever that looks like in their letter of appointment.
 

a boost for a Global 6500 based airframe?
the-office-michael-scott.gif
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top