Justin Trudeau hints at boosting Canada’s military spending

I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[Czech_pivo]

Agreed

The issue is, no one is going to be providing Canada equipment if the shit hits the fan...


I will differ with you there, as ARNG LIB's have Comms, NV, support past the Battalion...
In fact in many ways the ARNG LIB's are much better kitted out than the CA Reg Force LIB's.


Ack

I think it depends who is assigning labels, as a lot may be viewed as RINO's through the MAGA lens.

Of all of the above, what I agree with the most is the area around - 'no one is going to be providing Canada with anything' - If the conflict in Ukraine shows anything, equipment gets chewed up damn fast and replacing it 'like for like' is damn hard to do. Everyone and their brother will be husbanding all of their 'extra' equipment - the good, the bad, the broken, the obsolete - all of it, because replacing it will be very hard.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

The training system absolutely requires investment in terms of people (instructors), equipment (to include the NP for parts) and facilities. This is not to say that all individual training (courses) is done by the training system. The field force and ARes units can and do conduct IT. The backbone, though, is the training system. The Schools should be able to conduct most of their courses without the constant need for augmentation, less low-density specialists that would teach discrete aspects.

 

[GK .Dundas]

I don't think you are far wrong. Despite the pints.

A good portion of the population will say "WTF did the GoC give you billions for? and this is what we get?"
Another portion will say "the GoC has under funded the CAF for decades - the chickens are coming home to roost"
And some of us will say "we have warned all of you of this situation for decades and you would rather have a half ass dental plan - until there is a flood/fire/ice storm in your province - then who answers the call?"

Presuming we have time on

We’ve been over this before. It’s been done.
But the 5% would be temporary to solve all your rust out issues that are pretty much endemic in NATO.




I’d say it’s worse than no plan.
Right now the Reserves have no equipment- so they cannot even be mobilized and used effectively in a LSCO, which let’s face it is the main reason you would need to mobilize…



Embarrassing, but not a joke sadly.

Of all of the above, what I agree with the most is the area around - 'no one is going to be providing Canada with anything' - If the conflict in Ukraine shows anything, equipment gets chewed up damn fast and replacing it 'like for like' is damn hard to do. Everyone and their brother will be husbanding all of their 'extra' equipment - the good, the bad, the broken, the obsolete - all of it, because replacing it will be very hard.

Every time I tell people that if we're purchasing tanks we should be purchasing between 450 and 850 tanks I first get a stunned look and then I'm told that I don't know what I'm talking about.
If the balloon does go where do you think we're going to get get replacement afvs from never mind expanding units to their wartime levels ?

 

[quadrapiper]

I think that we've seen what marginally trained and organized forces can do in Ukraine with a last second infusion of limited modern weaponry.

How much of that is down to home team advantage, between local knowledge and short in-country supply lines?

 

[KevinB]

We can't even really absorb 2% right now. Solving the rust out most definitely doesn't need 5%. Canadian GDP over US$2.1T. 1% of that is US$21B. This is more than Canada is paying for all its F-35s which even at 88 frames has us on track to be the fourth largest customer for that program. Even if South Korea, Australia, the UK and Israel order more that only drops us to 8th. That's an example of what 1% of GDP in one year can do.

Spend 3% over a decade and Canada could comfortably do everything short of fielding aircraft carriers and nuclear submarines. And depending on the economy we might actually be able to do those as well. To simply recapitalize what we currently have 2% spent continuously actually would do that. Getting closer to 2% would also get us out of the criteria that has put us in the NATO quadrant of shame: 20% of defence spending on R&D and procurement. Simply add 0.5% of GDP (~US$10B) to the defence budget and dedicate it mostly to equipment procurement, infrastructure renewal and training budgets and we'd see a massive increase in both capability and readiness over 5 years. And a complete transformation over a decade.

Look at your budget and what you have to work with currently.
57% is currently eaten up by salaries.
Given the PY you are deficient in, it would appear that 1% of GDP would be basically going to get earmarked for that.

You have multibillion dollar infrastructure programs that need to be funded to be able to support the F-35 before it’s even allowed to be based on your soil.

You have some very significant munitions storage issues, that need to be dealt with before the F-35 and CSC come online.

The CA could absorb that 10b acquisition $ for several years before it was outfitted, and that isn’t even noting the fact that the RCAF and RCN have other modernization programs that are currently unfunded.


2% doesn’t get you nearly what you think it will get you at this stage of the game.


No one is expecting anyone to get to 5% (well maybe Poland) but 3-4% will be required before the world will settle back into a new rhythm.

 

[FJAG]

The issue is, no one is going to be providing Canada equipment if the shit hits the fan...

Yeah. Hopefully we'll have stocks before it does. I do think that the only way to guarantee that is to set up local factories. I don't know about anyone else, but I would think defence firms in Canada (and elsewhere) should be seeing a healthy future for weapon production as everyone is restocking at more reasonable consumption figures. The market will be hot for a while.

I agree on the 2% issue that we should be able to spend that easily, assuming we can get past the red tape. Two more joint support ships would be a no brainer, as would sub replacements and expansion; More F-35 and MQ-9B and transport aircraft. The shopping list for the army is a mile long and can start with HIMARS, AD, tanks, IFVs, a doubling of the logistics vehicle order, all the stuff that you mentioned - One could go on but. . .

 

[McG]

The Schools should be able to conduct most of their courses without the constant need for augmentation, less low-density specialists that would teach discrete aspects.

I tend to find such low-density specialist communities are most likely to recognize they cannot impose on operational units to deliver their own IT.

 

[Czech_pivo]

Presuming we have time on



Every time I tell people that if we're purchasing tanks we should be purchasing between 450 and 850 tanks I first get a stunned look and then I'm told that I don't know what I'm talking about.
If the balloon does go where do you think we're going to get get replacement afvs from never mind expanding units to their wartime levels ?

The exact same thing I've been saying about the 88 F35's - what a bloody joke - we KNOW that between Day 1 and Year X into the future that we are going to LOSE planes due to accidents and such. We SHOULD be buying another 18-24 for certain and please don't tell me about the lack of pilots or whatever, these planes will be needed so that we have the ability to 'surge' and have a proper reserve for when the inevitable write offs/accidents happen.

 

[Quirky]

The exact same thing I've been saying about the 88 F35's - what a bloody joke - we KNOW that between Day 1 and Year X into the future that we are going to LOSE planes due to accidents and such. We SHOULD be buying another 18-24 for certain and please don't tell me about the lack of pilots or whatever, these planes will be needed so that we have the ability to 'surge' and have a proper reserve for when the inevitable write offs/accidents happen.

I'm sure there will be a second-hand purchase in the future, similar to the aussie F-18s.

 

[daftandbarmy]

No one is expecting anyone to get to 5% (well maybe Poland) but 3-4% will be required before the world will settle back into a new rhythm.

Meanwhile, the new rhythm...

 

[Czech_pivo]

I'm sure there will be a second-hand purchase in the future, similar to the aussie F-18s.

LOL - and just how many of those Aussie F-18's are actually operational for us? How much did that cluster f*uck of a purchase cost us?

 

[Rifleman62]

Military falls short of minimum strength by nearly 20,000 members​

An initiative to bolster enlistment by targeting immigrants enrolled only 111 volunteers.
Jen Hodgson - Western Standard - 28 Jan 25

The Department of National Defence (DND) says the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) are bereft of thousands of members required for minimum military strength.

A DND briefing note details the critical lack of fully trained soldiers, sailors and air crew, according to Blacklock’s Reporter.

The brief further showed a CAF program designed to bolster enlistment by targeting immigrants enrolled just over a hundred volunteers.

“People are at the core of everything the Canadian Armed Forces does to deliver on its mandate,” said the September 26 note on CAF readiness.

“We recognize personnel and staffing issues combined with a changing demographic and expectations of our workforce continue to challenge the Forces’ strength and readiness.”

Minimum strength in the regular force is 71,500. “As of July 31, 2024 the trained effective strength” was 52,539, said the note. Figures included 28,270 in the Canadian Army.

Defence Minister Bill Blair in 2023 remarks in Senate Question Period said low enlistment was a problem.

“There is a real challenge in the Canadian Armed Forces,” he said.

“Over the last three years we’ve actually seen greater attrition, more people leaving the Forces than the Canadian Armed Forces has been able to recruit.”

“I think that may be the greatest challenge I face as the new defence minister, to do everything I can to support the Armed Forces in their efforts to recruit the talent we need and just as importantly to retain the excellent people they already have.”

“I have asked them to look very carefully at some of the impediments to recruitment and how long things have taken.”

“Does your biggest concern lie in recruitment?” asked Sen. Tony Loffreda.

“My concern is not only for recruitment, because we have to get the best talent coming in the door, but I am also concerned about retention,” replied Blair.

“I want to make sure we provide them with the appropriate support.”

 

[QV]

Anyone with one iota of common sense can see why this is. An LPC government will double down on everything that has brought the CAF, and Canada for that matter, to this point. Good luck!

 

[ytz]

Look at your budget and what you have to work with currently.
57% is currently eaten up by salaries.
Given the PY you are deficient in, it would appear that 1% of GDP would be basically going to get earmarked for that.

You have multibillion dollar infrastructure programs that need to be funded to be able to support the F-35 before it’s even allowed to be based on your soil.

You have some very significant munitions storage issues, that need to be dealt with before the F-35 and CSC come online.

The CA could absorb that 10b acquisition $ for several years before it was outfitted, and that isn’t even noting the fact that the RCAF and RCN have other modernization programs that are currently unfunded.


2% doesn’t get you nearly what you think it will get you at this stage of the game.


No one is expecting anyone to get to 5% (well maybe Poland) but 3-4% will be required before the world will settle back into a new rhythm.

A billion here. A billion there.

You're hand-waving a lot in what should be a much more precise discussion.

1) 1% of GDP is not some small numbers. It's US$21B. That's over CA$30B at current exchange rates.

2) Personnel costs don't scale anything like you assume. And certainly not to the point where a whole percentage of GDP is eaten up. An additional 20 000 in the Regular Force is maybe $3B more per year.

3) Anybody can WAG what can be absorbed looking at unit prices on Wikipedia and daydreaming of what can be absorbed. In reality, we don't have the institutional capacity for each element to suddenly add $10B worth of equipment per year. Heck, where you getting all the vehicle techs alone to manage these billions of dollars worth of kit you want to buy for the army? Right now we have techs who are regularly flying between Gagetown and Wainwright just to keep the Leopards from falling apart and we're burning these folks out.

4) Feast or famine is a massive problem for the CAF and industry. It means we pay more, get less and industry takes a hit too. So you will not find much political or institutional to have this massive $100B surge over 5 years that you imagine. You can find a ton more support to make sure the procurement budget goes up by $10B indefinitely. Added benefit that we avoid another wave of obsolescence in the future, like the one we have now.

 

[Quirky]

LOL - and just how many of those Aussie F-18's are actually operational for us? How much did that cluster f*uck of a purchase cost us?

More than zero. Purchase and getting them to flyable status for Canada was a clusterfuck, as is tradition. However they are flying in RCAF colors which is a success in political terms.

 

[Halifax Tar]

More than zero. Purchase and getting them to flyable status for Canada was a clusterfuck, as is tradition. However they are flying in RCAF colors which is a success in political terms.

A clusterfuck and it should have been terribly embarrassing.

 

[OldSolduer]

A clusterfuck and it should have been terribly embarrassing.

Clint Eastwood said something like that in Heartbreak Ridge.

 

[Good2Golf]

More than zero. Purchase and getting them to flyable status for Canada was a clusterfuck, as is tradition. However they are flying in RCAF colors which is a success in political terms.

They were never truly about capacity, just a holding pattern type activity to make it look like the government was doing something while it assessed just how ill-informed Trudeau’s promise to cancel the F-35 procurement truly was…

 

[Halifax Tar]

Clint Eastwood said something like that in Heartbreak Ridge.

Such a great movie

 

[ytz]

A clusterfuck and it should have been terribly embarrassing.

Agreed. But in the end the RCAF is getting 88 Block IV Panthers. That's quite the gain. It's a 103% increase on magazine capacity alone, over the originally planned 65 Block II/III frames. Now if only we can convince the Americans to give us the new radar. And hope all of this doesn't fall apart in the coming trade war .....