I'll believe it when I see it.
I don't know if those are the best comparisons due to country (and AOR) size. I'd say that Australia is the best comparison based on money and size.On the other hand, when you go to capability outputs, we lag tremendously. Just consider Italy and what their forces look like. Israel is interesting as well. Both countries spend close to what we do; have distinctly different service models but end up with twice the number of full timers, robust defence industries and very large and modern fleets of equipment.
But the 2% isn't a bunch of money going to a NATO pot. It's an amount to (presumably) pay for defence in each country, which then contributes to NATO with stuff and/or money.Mate - you are justifying.
2% is a tax on the nations of NATO. No matter which way you slice it we are a wealthy country, with a small population that is not under stress.
We can afford to contribute more to the pot.
And if we aren't going to exceed 1.3% of GDP then we should take the (equally nominal) Foreign Aid budget of 0.7% of GDP and allocate it to the Support of NATO.
I'm pretty sure I said this before but the Aussies have a similar thing called the Gap Year program, for all three services.You're over expecting for the aboriginal programs. See link:
Programs for Indigenous Peoples | Canadian Armed Forces
Educational programs and entry plans for Indigenous peoples who are interested in working with the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF).forces.ca
They are 3 week and 6 week programs.
Remember NEP is NCM only.
The ultimate goal, I think, is to get people in and expose them to a life a sea, and provide some adventure. No one is expecting 100% rate of continuation, no one is even hoping for that. We will have kids who wash out and quit before completion and we will have kids who hate it and we will have kids who say thanks and move on and we will have kids who decide to go on to the CA and RCAF. Like I said before I think 20-30 continuing on after a year should be considered a success.
Our recruiting and retention issues wont be solved in 1 FY. This is a generation task, IMHO. And I think the NEP is one excellent approach to that.
I'll side with @FJAG and say that an arbitrary number without considering what that gives in a particular country due to its unique factors means pretty much nothing, except that it's an easy metric for NATO to use. The CAF theoretically could hire a ton more office workers and pad out to 2% GDP, but that's not really what NATO is looking for.
I'm pretty sure I said this before but the Aussies have a similar thing called the Gap Year program, for all three services.
It's been going for a while so, clearly they think it's worth keeping. It would be an easy thing to turn off otherwise.
Never underestimate the power of inertia and anecdotes masquerading as data in sustaining the status quo.It's been going for a while so, clearly they think it's worth keeping. It would be an easy thing to turn off otherwise.
I'm pretty sure I said this before but the Aussies have a similar thing called the Gap Year program, for all three services.
It's been going for a while so, clearly they think it's worth keeping. It would be an easy thing to turn off otherwise.
ILOY is 1 year in lengthYou're over expecting for the aboriginal programs. See link:
Programs for Indigenous Peoples | Canadian Armed Forces
Educational programs and entry plans for Indigenous peoples who are interested in working with the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF).forces.ca
They are 3 week and 6 week programs.
Potentially. It needs to be studied. Remember I said it's "promising". I don't think words like "wildly successful" should be thrown around just yet.Remember NEP is NCM only.
The ultimate goal, I think, is to get people in and expose them to a life a sea, and provide some adventure. No one is expecting 100% rate of continuation, no one is even hoping for that. We will have kids who wash out and quit before completion and we will have kids who hate it and we will have kids who say thanks and move on and we will have kids who decide to go on to the CA and RCAF. Like I said before I think 20-30 continuing on after a year should be considered a success.
Our recruiting and retention issues wont be solved in 1 FY. This is a generation task, IMHO. And I think the NEP is one excellent approach to that.
It's actually a public/private partnership called Defence Force Recruiting. So basically, ADF members and contractors.In Aus are the services responsible for their own recruiting or its more like us pan CAF ?
ILOY is 1 year in length
Potentially. It needs to be studied. Remember I said it's "promising". I don't think words like "wildly successful" should be thrown around just yet.
I think a lot of things are good ideas but that doesn't mean they will actually work or stand up to scrutiny when properly tested.
I don't know if those are the best comparisons due to country (and AOR) size. I'd say that Australia is the best comparison based on money and size.
Italy and Israel don't have bases that far from each other. If the Italian Air Force needs to get Part X from one base to another, it's likely not going to be the distance between Gagetown and Edmonton.
Also, Italy and Israel's defence industries have contracts, etc that would make Irving salivate.
But the 2% isn't a bunch of money going to a NATO pot. It's an amount to (presumably) pay for defence in each country, which then contributes to NATO with stuff and/or money.
I'll side with @FJAG and say that an arbitrary number without considering what that gives in a particular country due to its unique factors means pretty much nothing, except that it's an easy metric for NATO to use. The CAF theoretically could hire a ton more office workers and pad out to 2% GDP, but that's not really what NATO is looking for.
Flyby Technology CEO Jon Parker said: "If you want to win you have to be a step ahead and everybody else is racing ahead and we need to be able to either catch up or overtake. Jackal is the start of that process.
Pentagon asks Congress for right to launch new tech programs before it has a budget
"One of the reasons it hasn't happened in the past is because Congress is reluctant to give up even this much authority," Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall said today. "I think it's a minimal amount of authority to give up for a very high return."
“We’re in a very aggressive contest for military technology superiority,” which necessitates changing how the department gets its funding, Kendall told reporters in the margins of the Space Foundation’s annual Space Symposium.
He noted that the Department of the Air Force alone has 12 new starts that it’s been waiting to initiate for over a year, a delay caused by the use of continuing resolutions. “That’s a lot to give away, and it’s totally unnecessary,” he said.
We’re in a very aggressive contest for military technology superiority
If you want to win you have to be a step ahead and everybody else is racing ahead
I've heard many times on here that Canada is 'an island' and that as 'an island' it should focus on maintaining its shipping lanes. If this is correct, how does a fleet of 5 frigates and 2 subs achieve this?No I'm not. I'm saying that there is little sense in spending Nickel One until there is a realistic plan on reform using the right measures.
2% spending is wrong as a measure. A measure of one sustainable armoured brigade in Europe, another flyover mechanized brigade, a fleet of 5 frigates and two submarines, and three fighter/bomber squadrons, all fully sustainable, would be an example of an output based measure that would be far more meaningful than 2%.
That's the problem with taxes. They leave a level of discretion that favours bums in cubicles rather than in turrets or cockpits.
I fully agree that we can and should spend more. I'm just saying not until we get our rotten house in order.
That's just a meaningless tangent. Both programs are necessary. One may argue the ratios but its a mug's game at the best of times.
That might be reasonable if we actually had the healthcare system we pretend to have.That should bother Canadians, but it doesn’t as the majority prefer to have healthcare etc and moan on the sidelines.
I haven't come across a single person arguing for 2% spending starting TOMORROW.
So I'm curious as to why that's the strawman you chose to dismantle. Everyone understands that the R22P (road to 2 percent) would be incremental and holistic. We all saw what happened when Scholz dramatically announced a 100B euros for the 'Swehr: nothing.
The point of the 2% is that all NATO countries contribute their fair share to our collective security, based on what they can afford. I appreciate FJAG's focus on capabilities output. That said, even if it took less than 2% to produce the output he desires, I don't see that as a reason to stop there.
The gap can be used to improve working conditions for the troops, or build surplus capability in such domains that are of great benefit to our allies (especially those for whom 2% would not produce sufficient capabilities) such as strategic transport, intelligence gathering, stockpiling, etc.
The Soviets were masters at this.Never underestimate the power of inertia and anecdotes masquerading as data in sustaining the status quo.
In your suggestion, the RCN gets completely gutted and the Army gets vastly expanded. All this suggests that we will be fighting a land war in Europe again.
I'm not sure why you think we're disagreeing here. I'm not saying that we shouldn't spend more or change how things are doing. What I'm saying is that just going Leeroy Jenkins with 2% might not be the best way to do it.You can take the very Canadian, very Clerical, very Legal route of debating number of angels dancing on the head of a pin or continue the practice of debating where the last penny is going to be spent or you can get off the pot and do something.
Listen to the first words of this video
Jackal drone used to launch Martlet missiles for first time during trials
Royal Air Force firing trial breaks new ground with lightweight multi-role missile weapons and the unmanned Jackal drone.www.forces.net
Or refer to this article
Pentagon asks Congress for right to launch new tech programs before it has a budget - Breaking Defense
"One of the reasons it hasn't happened in the past is because Congress is reluctant to give up even this much authority," Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall said today. "I think it's a minimal amount of authority to give up for a very high return."breakingdefense.com
The people that are racing ahead are, first and foremost, the Ukrainians.
They are rapidly being followed by the Taiwanese. And draughting both of them are the Japanese and the South Koreans, the Poles, the Slovakians, Czechs, Estonians, Latvians, Lithuanians, Finns, Swedes, Norwegians and Danes. Also in the race are the Turks and the Israelis.
All of them are looking at the Ukrainians as they face the Alternate WW1 History.
World War I brought you Mills Bombs and Mortars, Machine Guns and Gas Masks, Tanks and Aircraft, Radios and Indirect Fire Support. Your armies still look like they did in 1919.
The Ukrainians haven't had the luxury of playing that game. So they are doing whatever they can, with whatever they have, as quickly as possible, regardless of rules in order to evict the Russians.
Meanwhile - we tie ourselves up in legal ribbons and sealing wax.
2% is stupid. We could spend 2% GDP and expend the entire sum on committees, studying how to spend 2%.... I wouldn't put it past the current lot.I'm not sure why you think we're disagreeing here. I'm not saying that we shouldn't spend more or change how things are doing. What I'm saying is that just going Leeroy Jenkins with 2% might not be the best way to do it.
Specifically, what can we do with that 2% that packs the most punch, or helps out the alliance the best? It might not be equipment - it may be training staff or whatever.
What I would really want to know is how the old YTEP did.
Yeah, not exactly current but it is literally what NEP is basing itself on. If YTEP worked, great. If YTEP didn't, why not?
I'm not suggesting that Canada make additional $ investments on non-equipment items without first coming up with a force structure plan to work toward (or that none of the additional funds be spent on actual new equipment/weapons).That's a fallacy and leads to a lack of vision. You always need to build a force concurrently. Plan for the equipment and manning you need together. Right now we have equipment for less than one half of the army because the reserve half is unequipped and looked at solely as a manpower pool. And that's not because individual reservists are bad but because the reserve system is designed to underperform.
Infrastructure investment doesn't need to mean more bases, buildings and overhead. I'm personally in favour of consolidation but much of our existing infrastructure needs to be improved. And if you're wanting the Reserves to play a larger role in the CAF then you're going to need better/closer training and range facilities for them to use and improved armouries to handle the equipment they'll eventually need.Canada already has more infrastructure (by which I mean bases and buildings and runways) than it needs. More importantly we have much more bureaucratic overhead infrastructure than is necessary.
I agree with the sentiment but the brutal reality is that we don't currently have the trained (and deployable) personnel required to man the units we have. 100% agree that there is significant administrative overhead that can be chopped but you can't just take those people and put them in LAVs, aircraft and ships instead. It will take time to generate personnel with the required skills and training to fill the required positions.I agree on the output but not the input. We definitely need to spend money on and PYs on the training infrastructure. I do not think that this needs to come from deployable units/ships/aircraft. There are other sources that must be addressed and reformed. Deployable units/ships/aircraft are the entities that need to grow.
I'm not sure why you think we're disagreeing here. I'm not saying that we shouldn't spend more or change how things are doing. What I'm saying is that just going Leeroy Jenkins with 2% might not be the best way to do it.
Specifically, what can we do with that 2% that packs the most punch, or helps out the alliance the best? It might not be equipment - it may be training staff or whatever.