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....

 

[KevinB]

Given that drones are knocking out tanks, for this threat it may not matter how heavily we armour the logistical vehicles.

Very few UAS systems are knocking out tanks.

Most vehicles that get ‘taken out’ by FPV vehicles are already Mobility Kills that have been abandoned, and the FPV simply goes inside via open hatches and detonates the ammo (easily done on the T-series Russian tanks).

 

[YZT580]

Dozens of lay offs from London’s General Dynamics Land Systems

Dozens of salaried workers have been let go from London’s General Dynamics Land Systems.

www.ctvnews.ca

There is a common trend on display within this article posted earlier. In the last year we have seen Colt Canada, GDLS Canada, SeaSpan all expressing the same concern. They all needed firm commitments and contracts to maintain their current capacity and capabilities.

If Canada wants a domestic defence industry it needs to pay for it. There needs to be consistent R&D program money, continuous build programs and routine rebuild/upgrade programs.

Buying everything from C6s to Ships once every 30 years is not compatible with maintaining a domestic defence industry.

If anything the lessons of UKR is likely that industrial capacity and R&D ability is as important if not much much more so than the exact weapons and vehicles your army is equipped with year to year during peacetime.

and the built in capability of scaling up production very quickly

 

[PrairieFella]

Very few UAS systems are knocking out tanks.

Most vehicles that get ‘taken out’ by FPV vehicles are already Mobility Kills that have been abandoned, and the FPV simply goes inside via open hatches and detonates the ammo (easily done on the T-series Russian tanks).

It is important to note a Western tank is a lot more survivable than an Eastern Bloc tank. An FPV drone that takes out a T72 or T64 won't necessarily kill an Abrams, Chally 2, etc. I think that the drone phenomenon will have one major see change for tankers - commanders can no longer be hatches up. Most crew commanders are hatches up constantly so you can see what the fuck is going on. Perhaps a hybrid solution is needed where the cupola is raised a bit with ballistic glass so the CC can still be technically hatches up but still under armour. It's hard to overstate how hard it can be to maintain SA whilst fighting and commanding the AFV, especially in close terrain or on complex maneouvres.

 

[Underway]

Anyone else see the video of the GDLS-C built ACSV surviving 5 drone hits and still going. Lost 4 wheels and kept on motoring. Ukranians had added drone cage to it was the only mod I could see.

 

[PrairieFella]

Ladies and gents, while we chat about our institution's future on this thread, let's take a moment to reflect on our past. Today is the 81st anniversary of the Day of Days, D-Day. D-Day as you all know, was and probably will always be, the largest amphibious invasion in human history. Hundreds of Canadian boys died during Overlord and their sacrifice was not in vain. Probably not the right thread, but fuck it - im putting this here haha. Lest we forget.

 

[MilEME09]

Anyone else see the video of the GDLS-C built ACSV surviving 5 drone hits and still going. Lost 4 wheels and kept on motoring. Ukranians had added drone cage to it was the only mod I could see.

no but now i want to, if thats true it reinforces how robust they are, the only confirmed loss of one as well was in pretty good shape still and the crew survived after a mine and lancet strike

 

[daftandbarmy]

Ladies and gents, while we chat about our institution's future on this thread, let's take a moment to reflect on our past. Today is the 81st anniversary of the Day of Days, D-Day. D-Day as you all know, was and probably will always be, the largest amphibious invasion in human history. Hundreds of Canadian boys died during Overlord and their sacrifice was not in vain. Probably not the right thread, but fuck it - im putting this here haha. Lest we forget.

View attachment 93713

And not a single US Marine in sight

 

[PrairieFella]

And not a single US Marine in sight

Lucky for them the Royal Marines were covering the for them lol

 

[Maxman1]

It is important to note a Western tank is a lot more survivable than an Eastern Bloc tank. An FPV drone that takes out a T72 or T64 won't necessarily kill an Abrams, Chally 2, etc. I think that the drone phenomenon will have one major see change for tankers - commanders can no longer be hatches up. Most crew commanders are hatches up constantly so you can see what the fuck is going on. Perhaps a hybrid solution is needed where the cupola is raised a bit with ballistic glass so the CC can still be technically hatches up but still under armour. It's hard to overstate how hard it can be to maintain SA whilst fighting and commanding the AFV, especially in close terrain or on complex maneouvres.

or how about a full on mini-turret.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Lucky for them the Royal Marines were covering the for them lol

As well as Army Commandoes

 

[PrairieFella]

or how about a full on mini-turret.

Which defeats the whole purpose of being hatches up, you can't see shit haha.

 

[FSTO]

Ladies and gents, while we chat about our institution's future on this thread, let's take a moment to reflect on our past. Today is the 81st anniversary of the Day of Days, D-Day. D-Day as you all know, was and probably will always be, the largest amphibious invasion in human history. Hundreds of Canadian boys died during Overlord and their sacrifice was not in vain. Probably not the right thread, but fuck it - im putting this here haha. Lest we forget.

View attachment 93713

If it weren't for the Minesweepers, it would have been pretty dicey getting ashore.

 

[KevinB]

or how about a full on mini-turret.

ITV's (Independent Thermal Viewers) and CSAM (Commander/Crew Situational Awareness Modules) should have replaced the need for any Cupola systems - as the sensors on the vehicle can provide an extremely accurate picture of the world outside the Armored Vehicle, and when overlayed on Tak can provide knowledge of other Blue Force vehicles and personnel as well as Enemy and unknown material.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Anyone else see the video of the GDLS-C built ACSV surviving 5 drone hits and still going. Lost 4 wheels and kept on motoring. Ukranians had added drone cage to it was the only mod I could see.

So after everyone posts their spot observations, I still lean in the direction of "lightly-armoured, wheeled" is good enough for forward logistical platforms. We could buy, maintain, and employ more of them more widely, for less cost than heavier and/or tracked alternatives.

 

[PrairieFella]

ITV's (Independent Thermal Viewers) and CSAM (Commander/Crew Situational Awareness Modules) should have replaced the need for any Cupola systems - as the sensors on the vehicle can provide an extremely accurate picture of the world outside the Armored Vehicle, and when overlayed on Tak can provide knowledge of other Blue Force vehicles and personnel as well as Enemy and unknown material.

The problem with that is screens don't give you the 360° SA that an open hatch and the Mk1 eyeball gives you. Hence why most tankers are hatches up when possible.

 

[Kirkhill]

What kind of "under fire"? If you're describing efforts to remove casualties in the middle of a firefight, ambs aren't intended to retrieve wounded under fire. I'd expect the F Ech to use its F Ech vehicles to do so. They're already at risk.

If doctrinal guidelines and terrain studies show tracks are needed, then fine: tracks. If the same for heavy armour, then also fine. The discussion should be very clear, though, about where ambulances (or recovery vehicles, or replenishment vehicles) actually should be going and how secure that area should be. If schools are teaching that these vehicles should expect to join a firing line during a mad minute in order to perform their functions, things have changed.

If, however, the supporting vehicles are expected to come forward into a relatively secure situation/location (eg. during consolidation), then it might not be necessary to buy IFVs to move people and combat supplies.

What happened to "maintaining momentum"?

I don't know if you remember an old vet of the Italian campaign that was on this site a number of years ago, @parkie. One of his lasting regrets was that he hadn't stopped to help all his buddies that had fallen around him. But the order of the day was the same as that reiterated to me and my generation 35 years later - keep moving forwards, the medics will pick them up.

 

[McG]

The problem with that is screens don't give you the 360° SA that an open hatch and the Mk1 eyeball gives you. Hence why most tankers are hatches up when possible.

Have you driven a new car in the year? Screens are reaching the point of showing more than “MK I eyeball”.

 

[PrairieFella]

Have you driven a new car in the year? Screens are reaching the point of showing more than “MK I eyeball”.

Driving a car is bit different from commanding an AFV using our tactics haha.

 

[McG]

Driving a car is bit different from commanding and AFV using our tactics haha.

I have done both. What we can do with screens is outpacing advancements of the human eyeball.

 

[Brad Sallows]

But the order of the day was the same as that reiterated to me and my generation 35 years later - keep moving forwards, the medics will pick them up.

Which is essentially an example of one of the factors of my assessment. In most cases the fight ought to be won, or moved further on, before risking the assets that are bringing resupply and evacuating casualties. Sure, I've read innumerable anecdotes of company medics taking risks under fire, and there are times resupply is needed while the fight is still on and someone has to bring forward cases of ammo. But mostly what I'm talking about happens during a more secure window in time and space than winning a firefight or clearing the trenches. That's what experience has taught; that's what doctrine says; that's what the equipment choices should be based on.