Justin Trudeau hints at boosting Canada’s military spending

I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[Brad Sallows]

144 subs?!

Yes. 12 warfighters, and 132 small submersibles to charge multi-millionaires exhorbitant fees to view the Titanic site, thereby generating revenues to pay for the warfighters.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Yeah, it may seem that way to you but I think in reality, the Europeans want to see a Canadian flag on the maps of their borders so that they can see that the Canadians are in it for at least a penny, if not a pound.

No problem. They deed me a mansion on the shores of Lake Como, and I'll keep a Canadian presence and flag flying there year round.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Yes, I was trying to highlight the differences - both very high taxation - but what they get in return is much much better value for money

How do we know the return is better for the higher taxes? They might be in the wrong part of a diminishing returns curve.

 

[Kirkhill]

Of course not. The bulk of the budget for the Navy and Air Force is mostly for the homeland. Yes, we do deploy some naval and air forces to NATO missions but the bulk stay here.

The army is our primary expeditionary force and only a small fraction of that is deployed in support of NATO at any given time. The bulk is here in Canada training for missions that could be anywhere including Canada. Add to all of that the heavy administrative overhead presence safely ensconced in the Ottawa Valley.

2% is everything, lock stock and barrel.

Yeah, it may seem that way to you but I think in reality, the Europeans want to see a Canadian flag on the maps of their borders so that they can see that the Canadians are in it for at least a penny, if not a pound. There's a lot of symbolism in that both to the Europeans and as one of deterrence to the Russians. More importantly, it gives you a measure of street cred when other issues such as trade, come up.

Let's be honest. A mostly fly-over brigade is cheap in the long run and adds a significant benefit in focusing training and providing a positive morale issue to enhance recruiting and a raison d'etre. (and no! I'm not considering six month rotations as a positive morale issue. - That needs adjusting)

To be honest I would be content to see, for the army, something more like the1964-1967 version.

Something predicated on light, air portable forces.

3x 2 Battalion Brigades with Cavalry and Artillery (light scale) with one on standby for North America.

A flyover Brigade doesn't hurt - as long as you have the means on hand to fly the brigade over and sustain it in the fight.

A training centre for conversion of the NorAm Brigades to flyover duties.

But priority 1, should be, should always be, operating effectively everywhere with Canada's territories, urban, rural, remote and waters.

Gaining brownie points with the Euros... nice to have if we can afford it. Other than that leave the Brits and the Euros to their own devices.

Charity begins at home.

 

[Kirkhill]

As we can see from the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Material stocks in NATO countries are needed to sustain a war effort

PS - what do helicopters have in common with APCs and LAVs? They are first and foremost All Terrain Vehicles.

 

[suffolkowner]

Heres all the technical data, 4x4 is 13t Axle load, 8x8 is a 16t load

Mercedes-Benz Defence Trucks – Technical Data

Find out about the technical data for Unimog, Zetros, Arocs and FGA defence trucks from Mercedes-Benz.

special.mercedes-benz-trucks.com

speaking of Zetros

Mercedes-Benz Special Trucks: Zetros 8x8 and not only - EDR Magazine

Announced officially on Day 4 at Eurosatory, the Mercedes-Benz Special Trucks contract for Canada was expected, the selection having been

www.edrmagazine.eu

The new Zetros 3851A 8×8 has a gross vehicle mass of 38 tonnes, with a payload up to 25 tonnes. It is powered by a Mercedes-Benz OM 460 Euro V 6-cylinders in line engine with a 12.8 litres displacement providing 510 hp, coupled to an Allison 4500 transmission. It is fitted with 14.00 R 20 tires and is 11.15 metres long, 2.6 metres wide and 3.7 metres high, and is equipped with an LHS hooklift system with container-handling unit.

Ill post in LVM too where it belongs lol

 

[OldSolduer]

I said what????

 

[Kirkhill]

My problem with the Senator is it's too damned big for a large share of it intended distribution. The 10 seater IMV would be wicked for PRes infantry and RegF/PRes CSS usage but it would hugely detrimental to the PRes Armoured which will be receiving a large minority of these vehicles. 80% capability for some will be 40-50% or less for other.

Fine as kind.

Buy Ford F550s for the LUV programme and use them for base utility, CSS, every Reserve unit in Canada regardless of Call Sign or Trade.

Make sure that every soldier every where has the ability to respond to any situation along with her kits and mates. With the money not spent on silly bugger SMP stuff then buy helicopters, cargo aircraft and boats.

Then you can start buying specialty kit specific to trade.

A Tank has more in common these days with Percy Hobart's Funnies - they have about as much utility as an AVRE. Nice to have on hand but expensive to run and maintain. And not much value in a flood.

 

[PPCLI Guy]

144 subs?!

If we buy 12 subs that will honestly not see Bluewater until 2040, and we have failed to invest in a feet of ancillary Uncrewed submersibles that can work in tandem with the mother boats, then we deserve to be the laughing stock of NATO, and irrelevant to our Allies, Government, and citizens.

 

[McG]

Buy Ford F550s for the LUV programme and use them for base utility, CSS, every Reserve unit in Canada regardless of Call Sign or Trade.

We buy civilian vehicles for “base utility.” The LUV project should buy absolutely nothing for on-base administrative functions.

 

[daftandbarmy]

We buy civilian vehicles for “base utility.” The LUV project should buy absolutely nothing for on-base administrative functions.

on base vehicles should be like ...

 

[ytz]

My sense is that these days the Euros, and the Americans, would be quite happy to have us spend that 2% entirely within Canadian territory and territorial waters if it meant that they could count on their flanks, and supply chains, being secure.

This was mentioned by Prof Justin Bronk during his keynote at the RCAF Centennial symposium in May. He suggested that building up an air force what can free up Americans in Alaska to focus on the Pacific and offering genuine air policing for Iceland, freeing up British and Italian Typhoons for NATO's Eastern flank could be the most valuable realistic contribution the RCAF could make in the next 5 years. I assume similar logic for the RCN as well. Not sure what the CA could do. And that may well be a wider question of the value of the army, if we're g going to be less expeditionary or at least act a lot closer to home.

along with another squadron of F35's,

There's open questions whether we'll take 88 F-35s. The original requirement was for 65. The Liberals cap up with their capability gap nonsense to try and justify a Super Hornet buy. When that didn't work they couldn't back away from the lie. A new government has no such narrative to commit to.

20 P8's

We're buying 14 P-8s. We have options for 2 more. We should be buying 20 frames. But we're not.

 

[suffolkowner]

This was mentioned by Prof Justin Bronk during his keynote at the RCAF Centennial symposium in May. He suggested that building up an air force what can free up Americans in Alaska to focus on the Pacific and offering genuine air policing for Iceland, freeing up British and Italian Typhoons for NATO's Eastern flank could be the most valuable realistic contribution the RCAF could make in the next 5 years. I assume similar logic for the RCN as well. Not sure what the CA could do. And that may well be a wider question of the value of the army, if we're g going to be less expeditionary or at least act a lot closer to home.



There's open questions whether we'll take 88 F-35s. The original requirement was for 65. The Liberals cap up with their capability gap nonsense to try and justify a Super Hornet buy. When that didn't work they couldn't back away from the lie. A new government has no such narrative to commit to.



We're buying 14 P-8s. We have options for 2 more. We should be buying 20 frames. But we're not.

seems a little ironic to suggest we need 20 P8's after suggesting 88 F35's is more than we need. 65 fighters just meets the minimum number mandated by NORAD

Is there a minimum number of MPA mandated by NORAD as well?

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt - he's just incompetent. No way he's willfully doing everything on purpose for some WEF agenda, he truly believes he's doing a good job. The scary part that no one around him is stopping this train wreck.

We'll have to agree to disagree on his motives and their causes.

 

[McG]

seems a little ironic to suggest we need 20 P8's after suggesting 88 F35's is more than we need. 65 fighters just meets the minimum number mandated by NORAD

Is there a minimum number of MPA mandated by NORAD as well?

The NORAD mandate is in the air. Don’t confuse it for NORTHCOM. It would not require land or maritime commitments from Canada.

 

[FSTO]

Yes, we do deploy some naval and air forces to NATO

Our commitments to the Indo-Pacific would indicate Expeditionary Naval and Air assets to that region as well.

 

[ytz]

Is there a minimum number of MPA mandated by NORAD as well?

No there isn't. But 14 MPAs isn't enough for the AOR we have. On SAR alone our AOR goes to 30° W. So less than 1:1 replacement of the Aurora isn't ideal when that fleet was probably already too small.

 

[McG]

No there isn't. But 14 MPAs isn't enough for the AOR we have. On SAR alone our AOR goes to 30° W. So less than 1:1 replacement of the Aurora isn't ideal when that fleet was probably already too small.

That is correct. NORAD is not responsible for maritime approaches, so it would not impose a maritime requirement on Canada. But the absence of a NORAD maritime obligation does not demonstrate a lesser Canadian requirement (as suggested in post #6,813); it just reflects the lack of NORAD nexus.

 

[Cloud Cover]

Thus confirming that not a single leader of a province, territory or the feds understands what defending the country is. It’s all about Jobs!Jobs!Jobs! and cheques flying everywhere but into the present day needs of the existing CAF. And if the country’s defences end up a tiny little bit better off, then that’s the secondary lowest priority collateral benefit.

Defence spending in the North could be 'generational opportunity': Nunavut premier

Nunavut Premier P.J. Akeeagok says the federal government's commitments to boosting defence spending, specifically in the North, could be a 'generational opportunity' for the people who live there.

www.ctvnews.ca

 

[Halifax Tar]

+ Expanded tactical airlift. More Hercs (Australia has ordered another 20), more Chinooks, more helicopters such as BlackHawks. Those 3 alone are useful domestically and internationally.
Ammunition, trucks, trailer, small arms, mortars, APC, LAV’s, ATGM, SAM all in continuous but dependable, scalable production in ever improving marks and versions. These things we can and should do because we can use them and we can stockpile and supply to allies.

Nothing moves Armies, faster than sealift.

This was mentioned by Prof Justin Bronk during his keynote at the RCAF Centennial symposium in May. He suggested that building up an air force what can free up Americans in Alaska to focus on the Pacific and offering genuine air policing for Iceland, freeing up British and Italian Typhoons for NATO's Eastern flank could be the most valuable realistic contribution the RCAF could make in the next 5 years. I assume similar logic for the RCN as well. Not sure what the CA could do. And that may well be a wider question of the value of the army, if we're g going to be less expeditionary or at least act a lot closer to home.

Careful saying that kind of stuff around here isn't really appreciated.