Justin Trudeau hints at boosting Canada’s military spending

I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[MacNav63]

There is some precedence for this - I believe a fair amount of our initial kit for Korea came from US stores....

We were also sitting on a lot of left over Second World War kit at that point.

 

[QV]

Well, you can be part of the solution, or the impact area...

I think it was last year, or maybe the year before, when the Cdn Gov was briefed on that subject and the shock... what do you think is going to happen as a free-loader?

 

[KevinB]

It kinda is when you get into crazy ideas like 5% of GDP. A country with a $40B defence budget

cough 39

is not going to suddenly just jump to spending $150B annually, outside of war time.

As I noted, the rhetoric isn't designed to get NATO allies to spend 5%, it is to get them at 3.5%, you never bargain from you desired goal - you set a higher position and negotiate down.

Heck, we had a Conservative government and even they didn't see the need, during an actual shooting war with troops down range.

The Conservatives in Canada haven't been great stewards of the National Defense (my keyboard refuses to accept the c in defense without multiple retyping and then it is still wanting to autocorrect), and the shooting war didn't have a large amount of CAF personnel deployed - so the whole BattleGroup-Itis for gear, and it not being a fought like a LSCO against a Peer or Near Peer lead to a lot of equipment and personnel divestiture of that sort of equipment.

I don't know where you're getting 40k personnel. But even your absolute worst case scenario here means that if we go up by 1% of GDP from current levels, we'd have C$20B in additional funds aside from full manning. That is a lot. Probably more than we can absorb. And if run for the better part of a decade, would see complete recapitalization of most of the force outside the RCN.

When you look at the (theoretical) manning of the CA, you should be able to field 2 full Divisions, if not a third (inc the PRes).

https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/114th-congress-2015-2016/reports/51535-fsprimerlite.pdf

If you see what it costs the US Army to operate a Regular Army Brigade, and Canada has 3 Regular Bde's and a CSS Bde, plus the PRes, you can see quickly that an ABCT or SBCT took around 2.6 USB in 2017 funds to operate.
So I'm not seeing that 20B extra would actually be more than you can absorb.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

As I noted, the rhetoric isn't designed to get NATO allies to spend 5%, it is to get them at 3.5%, you never bargain from you desired goal - you set a higher position and negotiate down.

Jeez, where have I heard that before?

 

[Retired AF Guy]

Gripen for the win!!!!

Beat me to it!!

 

[Furniture]

There is some precedence for this - I believe a fair amount of our initial kit for Korea came from US stores....

RoK also realized that was a bad plan and developed their own arms industry.

We don't have to start at square one. We can leverage partnerships with like minded nations, and not be as beholden to US domestic politics.

 

[PrairieFella]

RoK also realized that was a bad plan and developed their own arms industry.

We don't have to start at square one. We can leverage partnerships with like minded nations, and not be as beholden to US domestic politics.

Which brings us back to Korea haha. They're down for anything too. They'd probably build factories in Canada.

 

[FJAG]

We were also sitting on a lot of left over Second World War kit at that point.

We did buy M4A3E8 Shermans and halftracks and trucks from the US because much of that was already overseas. The howitzers were 25 pdrs, however and small arms and uniforms were all Canadian. Concurrent with that we did a fairly large rearmament building jeeps, 3/4 2 1/2 tons and M2 pattern 105 mm howitzers domestically.

 

[GK .Dundas]

We did buy M4A3E8 Shermans and halftracks and trucks from the US because much of that was already overseas. The howitzers were 25 pdrs, however and small arms and uniforms were all Canadian. Concurrent with that we did a fairly large rearmament building jeeps, 3/4 2 1/2 tons and M2 pattern 105 mm howitzers domestically.

At point we were training the special service force raised for Korea at Fort Lewis and early on they were going to convert to American small arms .
But during the first phase of training they came to the conclusion that it was actually undermining the unit effectiveness. Most of the officers and I believe all the NCO's had combat experience.
And this introduction of new weapons required changes to tactics that reduced their effectiveness as a unit.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

We also equipped all the troops with US equipment to fight in the Aleutians. As I understand it, the big push to get US equipment was when the Forces in Europe where transferred from the British Command to American Command?

 

[daftandbarmy]

Sigh...

https://twitter.com/x/status/1884563492914561446

 

[MacNav63]

We also equipped all the troops with US equipment to fight in the Aleutians. As I understand it, the big push to get US equipment was when the Forces in Europe where transferred from the British Command to American Command?

All the Commonwealth forces slated to take part in the invasion of the Japanese home islands were to be equipped with US material. In the case of the Canadian division at least, it was being organized on the US model, although Hoffmeister insisted on using unit names from 1 Div.

 

[ytz]

https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/114th-congress-2015-2016/reports/51535-fsprimerlite.pdf If you see what it costs the US Army to operate a Regular Army Brigade, and Canada has 3 Regular Bde's and a CSS Bde, plus the PRes, you can see quickly that an ABCT or SBCT took around 2.6 USB in 2017 funds to operate.
So I'm not seeing that 20B extra would actually be more than you can absorb.

Read the document:

“Total” personnel and costs also include the “indirect” personnel and costsassociated with units that support the major combat unit and the “overhead” personnel and costs associated with the major combat unit’s share of administrative or overhead activities.

That cost includes things like pay (which are already counted in part of that $9B that is going towards an increase of 40 000 personnel). You're double counting quite a few things here and ignoring all existing spending. This is the handwaving I am talking about.

 

[Fabius]

The CBO estimates do not include capital or infrastructure costs though.

Additionally the CBO estimates are based on Direct, Indirect and Overhead sub estimates for each type of formation, each sub estimate includes what we would call O&M, SWE, and Mil Pay.

Does Canada have any estimates on what it costs for a CMBG vs a CCSB vs a CBG?

 

[FJAG]

We also equipped all the troops with US equipment to fight in the Aleutians. As I understand it, the big push to get US equipment was when the Forces in Europe where transferred from the British Command to American Command?

I'm not sure if there was cause and effect. Aside from the 20 Shermans for Korea, Canada had already purchased some 294 of them in 1946 (for all you sceptics out there, they were purchased primarily for the Militia). The acquisition of new jeeps, 3/4 tons, 2 1/2 and 5 tons happened in conjunction with the Korean war and the deployment of a brigade to Europe under a large defence expenditure increase that was adopted in 1951 which raised the budget from around $200 million in the late 40s to an infusion of $5 billion over three years. When I joined in 1965 until well into the 70s, we were operating vehicles with CFR number starting with 52- and 54-.

27 Bde was originally to be equipped with US weapons, but this became difficult and it ended up with a mix. Even the artillery, which was expected to have 105s ended up deploying 25 pdrs. The brigade went into temporary accommodation in the vicinity of Hanover in 1951 and served under BAOR. In 1953, when accommodation in Soest was ready, the brigade moved there and remained under BAOR. 27 Bde was rotated back to Canada to be followed with rotations of 1 CIB, 2 CIBG and finally 4 CIBG (eventually 4 CMBG). In 1968 concurrent with unification etc, the Canadian posture in Germany was reviewed and the force cut to less than half. Included was a move to centralize from Soest to Lahr and transfer of the brigade from BAOR to CENTAG acting as a reserve for VII (US) Corps and II (GE) Korps. By that time there was still a mix of equipment. Infantry and artillery had recently been equipped with M113s and M109s (while they were still part of BAOR), but the armoured corps still ran Centurions.

I think the equipping program ran quite independent of who the brigade in Germany served with. It was more dictated by need and availability.

 

[Kirkhill]

RoK also realized that was a bad plan and developed their own arms industry.

We don't have to start at square one. We can leverage partnerships with like minded nations, and not be as beholden to US domestic politics.

Like minded nations?

Like the Germans and the Japanese that asked for our help to manage their energy problems with LNG today?
Or the Nordics (Denmark, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Greenland, Faroes, Aaland) that asked us to join with them?
Or NATO that asked us to meet our pledged obligations?
Or even the Brits whose hand is constantly extended?

Any other country and they would likely be described as isolationist.

We can't even decide if we want to work with or against Mexico.

....

When You Sit on the Fence, You Get Splinters in Your Ass! - Stephen Shapiro

This article was published on the American Express OPEN Forum. The title you see here on this blog was rejected by them and replaced with “The Art of Decision Making.” I decided to retain the original. This has been updated slightly since the original post. A recent Wall Street Journal...

stephenshapiro.com

 

[KevinB]

Read the document:

I have, maybe you should re-read it.

That cost includes things like pay (which are already counted in part of that $9B that is going towards an increase of 40 000 personnel). You're double counting quite a few things here and ignoring all existing spending. This is the handwaving I am talking about.

I guess we just found out why the CAF never can support anything, because you seem to refuse to count some things at all.

You cannot solely have end user units, there needs to be backbone support for that.

I’m not saying that the CBO documents, are 100% transferable to the CAF without adjusting for other factors. My point is that you criticized me for hand waving things away, but you are the one ignoring so many missing capabilities and requirements from the CAF that are major $ sink items.

 

[ytz]

I guess we just found out why the CAF never can support anything, because you seem to refuse to count some things at all.

This is just trite now.

You cannot solely have end user units, there needs to be backbone support for that.

You must not have read the document. The figure literally includes a share of overhead, which is the support that goes in to enabling that combat unit.


This is just silly now. You want to whine and be right. That's fine. But it's absolutely silly to argue that a 50% increase in the defence budget today would somehow be insufficient to field 6-7 fully equipped and trained worth of equipment and brigades (with supports) while also proceeding with current plans for the other services. And it's particularly ridiculous that your argument is based on you not understanding the figures/document that you posted.

Will also add that none of this even includes a consideration of whether that many brigades are actually useful. It's an army centric forum so lots of you daydream about being able to keep a division deployed for years. There hasn't been a defence policy in literally generations that has ever committed to something like that. You don't need several divisions worth of personnel and kit to comfortably sustain one brigade in Europe continuously. 1.5 divisions is probably enough. And guess what? The more Arctic focused the defence policy becomes, the less it's going to be about sending armoured brigades overseas and the more it will focus on the navy, air force, space, cyber, EW, etc.

 

[Kirkhill]

I have, maybe you should re-read it.


I guess we just found out why the CAF never can support anything, because you seem to refuse to count some things at all.

You cannot solely have end user units, there needs to be backbone support for that.

I’m not saying that the CBO documents, are 100% transferable to the CAF without adjusting for other factors. My point is that you criticized me for hand waving things away, but you are the one ignoring so many missing capabilities and requirements from the CAF that are major $ sink items.

And, much of that backbone that is missing is exactly the kit that is both necessary to sustain operations and the most valuable kit for domestic operations, emergency response, disaster relief and humanitarian assistance. The very stuff that makes the National Guard so useful and that justifies both their budget and their existence in peacetime.

The National Guard conducts expeditionary operations, when federalized.

Why can't the Canadian Army fully embrace a similar posture? (not directed at anyone - rhetorical question).

 

[ytz]

Why can't the Canadian Army fully embrace a similar posture? (not directed at anyone - rhetorical question).

Money. Mostly.

There's institutional resistance as well. But the CAF is literally led by generations of leaders who have spent their entire career above Lt scrounging for every penny they can. Ever work at a higher HQ? New fiscal year starts and two months in, they are already canvassing on what funds can be returned. If you were raised in that kind of environment, organizational flexibility can be seen as expensive frivolity.