Justin Trudeau hints at boosting Canada’s military spending

I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Excellent podcast

 

[ytz]

You guys aren't going to like this idea. But here goes.

Given what we're seeing from the US, I think the best niche role for Canada is to provide high value enablers and force multipliers in any alliance. Show up with the AEW and SIGINT birds. We can buy more P-8s and E-7s. But we should also build a real SIGINT squadron using Bombardier Globals. Heck the US Army is doing exactly that. Australia did this itself using a Gulfstream. Leverage Telesat Lightspeed to replace not just Starlink but US capabilities like missile warning. MDA is building the satellites for Lightspeed with extra room for extra sensors. This is an area we can genuinely replace a ton of US capability. And do it mostly with Canadian built, owned and operated kit.

I think a lot of this is a lot more valuable than one more armoured brigade in Europe that is hard to transport and doesn't fit perfectly into their ORBAT. But if we're doing army stuff, it's time to think about what will provide value while letting us take longer to get to the fight. Air defence? Long range fires? EW?

The American model was to provide enablers to Europe while the Europeans provided the manpower. We can't replace everything the US provides. But we can provide a lot more than perhaps even the Americans would anticipate, with a focused strategy. As someone who's seen Telesat's plan and been briefed on what they can offer the CAF, I can understand why Musk is whining.

 

[KevinB]

You guys aren't going to like this idea. But here goes.

Given what we're seeing from the US, I think the best niche role for Canada is to provide high value enablers and force multipliers in any alliance. Show up with the AEW and SIGINT birds. We can buy more P-8s and E-7s. But we should also build a real SIGINT squadron using Bombardier Globals. Heck the US Army is doing exactly that. Australia did this itself using a Gulfstream. Leverage Telesat Lightspeed to replace not just Starlink but US capabilities like missile warning. MDA is building the satellites for Lightspeed with extra room for extra sensors. This is an area we can genuinely replace a ton of US capability. And do it mostly with Canadian built, owned and operated kit.

MBDA did a JV with LockMart for the Patriot replacement - MEADS ended up not going forward as the PAC-3 missile was adapted to Patriot - but going to MBDA would give a Non US source for that radar and fire control.

I think a lot of this is a lot more valuable than one more armoured brigade in Europe that is hard to transport and doesn't fit perfectly into their ORBAT. But if we're doing army stuff, it's time to think about what will provide value while letting us take longer to get to the fight. Air defence? Long range fires? EW?

Allies want to see boots and bayonets as well -- preposition an Armored Bde - but you also need those enablers at Div and Corps level - as you can't trust us to supply those anymore.

The American model was to provide enablers to Europe while the Europeans provided the manpower.

Well other than the 100k plus US troops in Europe...

We can't replace everything the US provides. But we can provide a lot more than perhaps even the Americans would anticipate, with a focused strategy. As someone who's seen Telesat's plan and been briefed on what they can offer the CAF, I can understand why Musk is whining.

Starlink should never have been anyones plan after one saw what Musk was doing in Ukraine...

 

[Good2Golf]

You guys aren't going to like this idea. But here goes.

Given what we're seeing from the US, I think the best niche role for Canada is to provide high value enablers and force multipliers in any alliance. Show up with the AEW and SIGINT birds. We can buy more P-8s and E-7s. But we should also build a real SIGINT squadron using Bombardier Globals. Heck the US Army is doing exactly that. Australia did this itself using a Gulfstream. Leverage Telesat Lightspeed to replace not just Starlink but US capabilities like missile warning. MDA is building the satellites for Lightspeed with extra room for extra sensors. This is an area we can genuinely replace a ton of US capability. And do it mostly with Canadian built, owned and operated kit.

I think a lot of this is a lot more valuable than one more armoured brigade in Europe that is hard to transport and doesn't fit perfectly into their ORBAT. But if we're doing army stuff, it's time to think about what will provide value while letting us take longer to get to the fight. Air defence? Long range fires? EW?

The American model was to provide enablers to Europe while the Europeans provided the manpower. We can't replace everything the US provides. But we can provide a lot more than perhaps even the Americans would anticipate, with a focused strategy. As someone who's seen Telesat's plan and been briefed on what they can offer the CAF, I can understand why Musk is whining.

Functionally, I agree. I’ve moved beyond trusting the US, and I would not only stay away from E-7 (which Canada could easily provide a standup capability on a Global Express with a SAAB GlobalEye/Eiereye AEW platform) and even reconsider the P-8 and F-35 purchases. I still like the idea of the Rafale with Dassault production in Canada/Quebec (in return for pipelines through Qc to the Maritimes, of course ).

 

[ytz]

Functionally, I agree. I’ve moved beyond trusting the US, and I would not only stay away from E-7 (which Canada could easily provide a standup capability on a Global Express with a SAAB GlobalEye/Eiereye AEW platform) and even reconsider the P-8 and F-35 purchases. I still like the idea of the Rafale with Dassault production in Canada/Quebec (in return for pipelines through Qc to the Maritimes, of course ).

The first F-35 is getting delivered next year. There's no point cancelling now. I'd argue, if we're going down this path, cut the order down to the original 65 requirement. Maybe even lower.

Adding the Rafale or Typhoon or Gripen to compensate is just pointless at this stage. Instead join FCAS or GCAP with a pledge of 65 frames right out of the gate and EIS in 2040. We'll still have more capability than we have now for 10 years and optionality to even retire the Panthers early if the FCAS or GCAP work out.

Personally, for Canada, I think the risk is less on spares getting cut off. I think the bigger risk is that Americans not allow re-export as aid or secondary sales. And where that is a real problem isn't aircraft. It's army kit and ordinance of all types. Keep the F-35. But let's talk about getting rid of all the American missiles, bombs, etc

 

[Furniture]

The first F-35 is getting delivered next year. There's no point cancelling now. I'd argue, if we're going down this path, cut the order down to the original 65 requirement. Maybe even lower.

Adding the Rafale or Typhoon or Gripen to compensate is just pointless at this stage. Instead join FCAS or GCAP with a pledge of 65 frames right out of the gate and EIS in 2040. We'll still have more capability than we have now for 10 years and optionality to even retire the Panthers early if the FCAS or GCAP work out.

Personally, for Canada, I think the risk is less on spares getting cut off. I think the bigger risk is that Americans not allow re-export as aid or secondary sales. And where that is a real problem isn't aircraft. It's army kit and ordinance of all types. Keep the F-35. But let's talk about getting rid of all the American missiles, bombs, etc

You think Trumpists wouldn't cut off our supply of spare parts, then use or lack of serviceable aircraft to try to force us to allow USAF fighters to be based in Canada?

I'm not saying it will happen tomorrow, but I think that Trumpism is here to stay for some time, and that makes America an extremely unreliable partner.

 

[ytz]

You think Trumpists wouldn't cut off our supply of spare parts, then use or lack of serviceable aircraft to try to force us to allow USAF fighters to be based in Canada?

I'm not saying it will happen tomorrow, but I think that Trumpism is here to stay for some time, and that makes America an extremely unreliable partner.

I think their defence industry will be terrified of losing sales going forward. And that will be the line they draw. They can cut off parts right now. They haven't.

 

[ytz]

Excellent podcast

Most realistic accounting to date. Closest perspective to those of us still in.

When talked about being behind on software and automation. That hit hard.

I'm in space. The operational wing has massive software needs. Couldn't trust the procurement system or the rest of the CAF. The Wing started its own in-house software shop. Developed tools that we needed and replaced popular commercial software. Full control. But the contractors hired all cost more than most generals make. The rest of the team was students and two young Captains. The software is so good, we get tours coming through to just to see it. The USSF Commander apparently had it playing in his office for a bit. But again, all of this only happened because they completely bypassed most current processes. Startup mindset basically. And none of it would have happened, if the Wing Commander at the time wasn't willing to go to bat for this young and small team. All this is to say, we shouldn't be relying on a Colonel, some Captains, contractors and students basically skipping normal processes.

 

[Seyek]

The first F-35 is getting delivered next year. There's no point cancelling now. I'd argue, if we're going down this path, cut the order down to the original 65 requirement. Maybe even lower.

Adding the Rafale or Typhoon or Gripen to compensate is just pointless at this stage. Instead join FCAS or GCAP with a pledge of 65 frames right out of the gate and EIS in 2040. We'll still have more capability than we have now for 10 years and optionality to even retire the Panthers early if the FCAS or GCAP work out.

Personally, for Canada, I think the risk is less on spares getting cut off. I think the bigger risk is that Americans not allow re-export as aid or secondary sales. And where that is a real problem isn't aircraft. It's army kit and ordinance of all types. Keep the F-35. But let's talk about getting rid of all the American missiles, bombs, etc

I think the F-35 is the best aircraft available, and until a month or so ago I would have argued that depending on where future discussions within NATO land on what % to spend on defence we should look at acquiring more but I genuinely do not believe we can trust the US going forward to not mess around with cutting support off, or even simply threatening to. The recent actions by the current US admin demonstrate we can not trust the US to provide the level of trust and stability in our relationship needed to rely on US origin systems for our most critical capabilities. Refusing transfers or sales down the road I don't think as much of an issue, given how few planes we'd have and our general trend of running systems into the ground before replacement, but that's definitely a consideration for other equipment. I think our best investment in increased defence spending would be building up the industrial base needed for much of our equipment, maintain low rate production of armour, munitions, parts, so we can have suitable stockpiles and rapidly expand production in times of crisis.

Given Musk's comments about the F-35 we might even be able to leverage a cancellation as a good thing in trade negotiations. We've considered the words of his trusted advisor and as part of our plan to boost defence we'll invest in, say, the minimum number of Rafales needed, join some of the European sixth-gen programs, and buy up some cruise missiles and drones to supplement until they become available.

Even when the current president switches out I think the Republican party has gone too down the path of MAGA/Trumpism/whatever you want to call it to be a trusted partner, we should continue to work as closely as possible on things like defence and security, but at the same time we need to divest systems that are reliant on the US to function.

Different matter if we could get some kind of assurance that we could still support F-35s through alternate means (Italy is building them, is there enough of a supply chain to cover all the spares between them and other countries building parts?). That would still leave software an issue though.

 

[Quirky]

It's pretty hilarious to assume Canada can operate two modern generational fighter fleets, we still can't get our ass in line to accept the first JSF. Infrastructure, security requirements, training for pilots and support crew, housing on bases, etc. These are all things we are behind in. How about we figure out how to operate 88 F-35s effectively first, PLUS whatever is left of the CF-18 fleet, before we throw in a completely different airframe in the mix just because orange man is bad.

 

[KevinB]

Make Friends with Israel.

I think the F-35 is the best aircraft available, and until a month or so ago I would have argued that depending on where future discussions within NATO land on what % to spend on defence we should look at acquiring more but I genuinely do not believe we can trust the US going forward to not mess around with cutting support off, or even simply threatening to. The recent actions by the current US admin demonstrate we can not trust the US to provide the level of trust and stability in our relationship needed to rely on US origin systems for our most critical capabilities. Refusing transfers or sales down the road I don't think as much of an issue, given how few planes we'd have and our general trend of running systems into the ground before replacement, but that's definitely a consideration for other equipment. I think our best investment in increased defence spending would be building up the industrial base needed for much of our equipment, maintain low rate production of armour, munitions, parts, so we can have suitable stockpiles and rapidly expand production in times of crisis.

Given Musk's comments about the F-35 we might even be able to leverage a cancellation as a good thing in trade negotiations. We've considered the words of his trusted advisor and as part of our plan to boost defence we'll invest in, say, the minimum number of Rafales needed, join some of the European sixth-gen programs, and buy up some cruise missiles and drones to supplement until they become available.

Musk will eventually fall out of DJT's graces -- only so many oligarchs can fit on the head of a pin, or in the mind of a megalomaniac pinhead...

Even when the current president switches out I think the Republican party has gone too down the path of MAGA/Trumpism/whatever you want to call it to be a trusted partner, we should continue to work as closely as possible on things like defence and security, but at the same time we need to divest systems that are reliant on the US to function.

Different matter if we could get some kind of assurance that we could still support F-35s through alternate means (Italy is building them, is there enough of a supply chain to cover all the spares between them and other countries building parts?). That would still leave software an issue though.

Unless we invade you guys, the F-35 in Canada will be unfettered, as it's got a NORAD mission.
If you are really concerned talk to the Israelis about software stuff.

 

[GR66]

You think Trumpists wouldn't cut off our supply of spare parts, then use or lack of serviceable aircraft to try to force us to allow USAF fighters to be based in Canada?

I'm not saying it will happen tomorrow, but I think that Trumpism is here to stay for some time, and that makes America an extremely unreliable partner.

I certainly agree that an antagonistic US government might restrict supply if they disapprove of any military action we might take but frankly just the general supply issue is likely to affect us negatively.

The F-35 is achieving 80%+ availability in USAF operations but outside that the availability rates are much lower. You can be sure that the US will prioritize its own fleets for any spare parts so I would expect that our fleet availability will be lower than the US even without any intentional parts restriction by the US.

It's obviously too late to completely cancel our F-35 order but I agree that we should cut back the order to the original 65 aircraft and begin looking now for their replacement.