The CAF Post Trump

[GR66]

The World and Canada's place in it has fundamentally changed with the re-election of Trump 47.

The new reality I believe will require a fundamental shift in the aims, role, organization and equipping of the CAF.

I think it would be worthwhile to have a new thread to discuss the response that Canada and the CAF in particular should take to deal with this new reality.

For me personally I'd suggest that going forward the following priorities need to be key for Canada and the CAF:

• While we can't ignore our interests in both Europe and the Pacific our primary focus will need to be on defence of Canada
• We will need to build up our domestic defence industries to supply the critical equipment and munitions we would need in a war
• We must have the capability to effectively control our own territory without US involvement

So, what does a post Trump 47 CAF look like?

 

[GR66]

One additional thing I'd aim for is to have the Kingston-class CMMC preplacement have an ice-strengthened hull for Arctic operations. Maybe something similar to OSK's Arctic Frigate design.

 

[daftandbarmy]

The World and Canada's place in it has fundamentally changed with the re-election of Trump 47.

The new reality I believe will require a fundamental shift in the aims, role, organization and equipping of the CAF.

I think it would be worthwhile to have a new thread to discuss the response that Canada and the CAF in particular should take to deal with this new reality.

For me personally I'd suggest that going forward the following priorities need to be key for Canada and the CAF:

• While we can't ignore our interests in both Europe and the Pacific our primary focus will need to be on defence of Canada
• We will need to build up our domestic defence industries to supply the critical equipment and munitions we would need in a war
• We must have the capability to effectively control our own territory without US involvement

So, what does a post Trump 47 CAF look like?

Pretty much the same as the pre-Trump 47 CAF I'm guessing, except more effort directed towards growing the Military Colleges and NDHQ of course

 

[Haggis]

By the time the CAF is able to adjust to the next two minority governments and figure out what POTUS47 wanted, he will be a distant memory.

 

[FJAG]

Trudeau was in London last week at a major NATO summit meeting (which the US didn't attend). Other than the usual statement of support for Ukraine, I have heard butkus as to what Canada is doing about defence. About the only messaging that I'm getting from the Liberals is that Poilievre is the Antichrist, kisses Trump's ass and will kill of our health system while Carney is God's golden child. OTOH, I've heard butkus from Poilievre on defence other than he'll "work towards meeting the NATO 2%."

We are so screwed.

Wonder if the Brits would re-raise the 49th Foot and the 2/89th Foot and let us borrow them and put them at an outpost near Crysler's farm.

 

[RangerRay]

OTOH, I've heard butkus from Poilievre on defence other than he'll "work towards meeting the NATO 2%."

What do you mean? He said we’d get a couple of icebreakers and an arctic base. That will show everyone we mean business!

 

[PuckChaser]

This is a good thought exercise at what 2% GDP could look like for the CAF. Maybe we can keep the political snipes in the politics zone? I know the word Trump triggers both sides but let's actually have this as a good discussion I don't need to lock up...

- Milnet.ca Staff

 

[dapaterson]

The 2% CAF should probably be today's CAF, but with equipment, materiel, and infrastructure that supports the missions assigned.

 

[FJAG]

The 2% CAF should probably be today's CAF, but with equipment, materiel, and infrastructure that supports the missions assigned.

Agree whole heartedly if you mean the number of PYs and authorized ResF positions. Its re-organization should be up for grabs, however.

 

[Blackadder1916]

Along with a refocusing of the CAF to defending our borders, there should be a grassroots movement to prepare for resistance. While invasion may be a faint possibility, two/three months ago few of us would have conceived that the most immediate threat to our sovereignty is from south of the border. Though resistance movements in territories occupied by the Axis powers did not organize until following defeat on the battlefield (or treachery by quislings), we should take a page from the Cold War playbook and prepare individuals for the (hopefully) unlikely event that portions of are country are occupied.

I googled "resistance to annexation" and along with the thinking pieces that suggested it would be natural that spontaneously raised resistance movements would be the most deadly costly for any foreign invaders, there were some that opined views about how to make Canada preemptively less attractive. And then, this showed up as a suggestion on YouTube, though it's unlikely to be related to my previous search.

 

[ueo]

Along with a refocusing of the CAF to defending our borders, there should be a grassroots movement to prepare for resistance. While invasion may be a faint possibility, two/three months ago few of us would have conceived that the most immediate threat to our sovereignty is from south of the border. Though resistance movements in territories occupied by the Axis powers did not organize until following defeat on the battlefield (or treachery by quislings), we should take a page from the Cold War playbook and prepare individuals for the (hopefully) unlikely event that portions of are country are occupied.

I googled "resistance to annexation" and along with the thinking pieces that suggested it would be natural that spontaneously raised resistance movements would be the most deadly costly for any foreign invaders, there were some that opined views about how to make Canada preemptively less attractive. And then, this showed up as a suggestion on YouTube, though it's unlikely to be related to my previous search.

Wrote a paper on this back when Staff school still existed. Caused great discussions at Happy Hour and predicated unofficial visits to several PRes armories to allow a better idea of resources avail. Net feeling after it all was, "We are totally screwed". Not much seems to have changed.

 

[GR66]

Along with a refocusing of the CAF to defending our borders, there should be a grassroots movement to prepare for resistance. While invasion may be a faint possibility, two/three months ago few of us would have conceived that the most immediate threat to our sovereignty is from south of the border. Though resistance movements in territories occupied by the Axis powers did not organize until following defeat on the battlefield (or treachery by quislings), we should take a page from the Cold War playbook and prepare individuals for the (hopefully) unlikely event that portions of are country are occupied.

I googled "resistance to annexation" and along with the thinking pieces that suggested it would be natural that spontaneously raised resistance movements would be the most deadly costly for any foreign invaders, there were some that opined views about how to make Canada preemptively less attractive. And then, this showed up as a suggestion on YouTube, though it's unlikely to be related to my previous search.

Militarily effective or not I think that just the act of actually training Canadians to resist a potential US military occupation would be a significant political signal and also potentially change the mindset of the public regarding military spending in general.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Along with a refocusing of the CAF to defending our borders, there should be a grassroots movement to prepare for resistance. While invasion may be a faint possibility, two/three months ago few of us would have conceived that the most immediate threat to our sovereignty is from south of the border. Though resistance movements in territories occupied by the Axis powers did not organize until following defeat on the battlefield (or treachery by quislings), we should take a page from the Cold War playbook and prepare individuals for the (hopefully) unlikely event that portions of are country are occupied.

I googled "resistance to annexation" and along with the thinking pieces that suggested it would be natural that spontaneously raised resistance movements would be the most deadly costly for any foreign invaders, there were some that opined views about how to make Canada preemptively less attractive. And then, this showed up as a suggestion on YouTube, though it's unlikely to be related to my previous search.

Having served in NI, where improvised mortars (and other improvised explosives and guns of various types) were all the rage, no.

Just no.

They caused as much damage to the operators and innocent bystanders as they did to their intended targets, and they didn't stop us in the least from doing what we needed to do to enforce the rule of law. Only a political solution was able to restore any kind of normalcy, as history shows.

But thanks for the video link! I'll send that off to a couple of people I know who'll enjoy it

 

[daftandbarmy]

A nice little summary...

 

[ArmyRick]

My views? Lets say Canada practically threatens to lynch all parliamentarians and thus a new magical age of 2+% GDP spent on defence

We now view USA as an ally (that we must keep a cautious eye on)

With a focus on HOME defence as top priority (meaning LOTS of ground to cover and limited resources)

Regulars
-Target 80,000 total
-Need at least 3 air wings of fighter/attacks (multirole aircraft I think is best)
-A decent refueling air fleet to keep arctic covered
-More MQ9 Reapers or similar to surveillance and limited attack capability
-Real air defence capability similar to NASAAM or Patriot (manned by Arty but stationed on air force bases)
-EW air capability?
-Ensure we have adequate P8 Poseidons to watch the oceans
-For Navy ensure we have attack nuclear submarines, enough multi-role combatant ships and would like a sea lift capability
-3 Fully manned brigades with 3 Mech infantry battalions (over manned with 5 rifle companies for depth coverage), FULL size armour regiments, SP arty regiment, armour combat engineers, etc, etc.
-Keep and enhance the CSSB
-Get an full size Helicopter Air wing/group/whatever with more chinooks, a suitable light helicopter and ATTACK helicopters (All with in flight refueling capability to extend their range)

Reserves
-At least 100,000 (possibly 150,000) Wolf's right in my view, big on the reserves
-Build Infantry, engineers, light arty, up (armour will be limited)
-Lots of air defence arty (near every major airport, a ARes Air defence unit)
-Air reserves go heavy on helicopters
-Also Air Reserves develop their own force protection squadrons
-Also have air res go heavy on C295 tactical airlift (same aircraft as the Kingfisher) especially for artic surge deployments
-Have NAV RES get CB90 or MKVI Patrol boat or similar fast, well armed small patrol boats for oceans, great lakes and large water bodies
-I am sure NAV RES would be suitable for other shit just not sure how best to do it
-Expand Canadian Rangers for ALL of rural Canada

Thats this old senile grunts point of view

 

[Brad Sallows]

• While we can't ignore our interests in both Europe and the Pacific our primary focus will need to be on defence of Canada

Against what (whom)?

• We will need to build up our domestic defence industries to supply the critical equipment and munitions we would need in a war

What kinds of wars, and where?

• We must have the capability to effectively control our own territory without US involvement

We already have that (control, which is different from defence).

Along with a refocusing of the CAF to defending our borders, there should be a grassroots movement to prepare for resistance.

Devil's Advocate: to resist whom, and given that, what would be the point of resistance movements - what would an occupier change that merits loss of life and sabotage (which presumably would include sabotage of our own infrastructure)?

I ask these questions because unless we're about to abandon NATO and become isolationist ourselves, we already are pointed in the direction we should continue moving with our commitments and capabilities. And I don't see much point fighting a war to restore anything that falls under the heading "nostalgic attachments", or for particular social programs or wealth transfer schemes.

Trump's juvenile verbal provocations (51st state, Governor Trudeau, etc) don't move me. They might move others, but don't constitute reasons to throw out the baby.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Go into a immediate build program with the KS-111's with South Korean weapon systems and setup facilities to make the torpedo's and missiles here. Conserve our CFP's by declining any exercise with the USN for the next while. Beef up the naval budget (without taking from the other arms) and keep the MCDV in operational condition and arm them with the Lionfish gun till they are replaced. Basically use them as a spare training ship for the CFP crews which the CFP will spend more time tied up to the wall getting caught up on maintenance and are kept more as war stock and for training than operational. I know some will hate that, but it means if a conflict breaks out the CFP's will be in better shape to deploy and will have proper crewing and in the meantime the operational demand on the sailors is lessened so they can focus on training the next generation. Plus we are going to need man the KS-III's, which would be the main oversea tasking in the Pacific. Perhaps station one CFP in Europe to train there and rotate crews through it, with the vessel maintained over there and lessen the number of ocean crossings. If we get 12 or even 8 subs we will need a submarine repair facility on the East Coast as well.

Start negotiations now on AFV's (MBT's, SPG, SHORAD and IFV) from Korea with the intent of increasing our ability to maintain them and make spare parts and ammunition for them. Lease some M101's from them as we figure out the next gun for the Reserves, including the truck mounted version on a deployable skid.

For the Air Force, buy a new non-American trainer that works with being a good stepping stone to the F35 in the term of skillsets, but has hardpoints for weapons, sensor pods, possibly a gun as well. These would belong to the RCAF, whether they are manned and maintained by the RCAF or on contract, I am not sure. Replace our current fleet of Twin Otters with twice as many new ones. Have our old ones refreshed and donated to an ally or even Ukraine if they want them. Look at having our own EW or intelligence gathering aircraft. It would make sense to use the same airframe as the P8, but perhaps lessen how much ITAR stuff is on them. Replace the Griffons with Merlin HC3 and then the Cyclones with Merlins.

 

[Kirkhill]

Militarily effective or not I think that just the act of actually training Canadians to resist a potential US military occupation would be a significant political signal and also potentially change the mindset of the public regarding military spending in general.

Don't need to make it that pointed.

Raise Guardsmen on the same basis the US does. They are there to serve their local communities in emergencies. They are organized. They have a command structure. They have comms and transportation. They have access to reserve stocks of supplies (beans, blankets and bandages).

And they have small arms. Necessary to keep criminal and anti-social elements in line. And useful otherwise.

 

[GR66]

Against what (whom)?

There are significant valuable resources in the Arctic and in the waters surrounding the Arctic. The Russians aren't the only threat there. China has declared itself a "Near Arctic" nation and we've already seen what their military-backed fishing fleets do on other nations' waters where countries don't have the capability of standing up to them. With the US talk of "renegotiating" borders, etc. there is also the possibility of conflicting claims over resources. If we don't have the ability to assert our sovereignty everywhere in our territory (including offshore) then we will potentially have challenges to that sovereignty.

What kinds of wars, and where?

With the US taking a much more isolationist stance the chance of further Russian aggression in Europe is increased. Also, as we push to find more diverse international markets for our resources (and potentially alternate sources for some of our imports) we won't necessarily be able to depend on the US to keep the sea lanes open. We may have to rely much more on our own Air and Naval forces to ensure safe passage of commercial shipping carrying our trade goods.

We already have that (control, which is different from defence).

The ONSAF plan to procure AEW aircraft is an excellent step in the right direction and while I don't suggest pulling out of NORAD or stopping our current cooperative response to potential threats I think we need increased capability to respond to incursions into our territory independent of US assets. That to me means more national satellite surveillance capabilities and likely an increase in both crewed/uncrewed MPA systems and surface/sub-surface monitoring capabilities, possibly more fighters and certainly greater AD capabilities.

Devil's Advocate: to resist whom, and given that, what would be the point of resistance movements - what would an occupier change that merits loss of life and sabotage (which presumably would include sabotage of our own infrastructure)?

Personally I think the chance of an actual US invasion of Canada is exceedingly small (which to be fair is up somewhat from my previous opinion of it being totally unthinkable) so I think it would be a waste of resources to try and design our forces to face an extremely unlikely threat. That being said I think the generally antagonistic attitude from the US Government presents an opportunity to turn our renewed nationalism into greater participation in and support of our military in general.

I ask these questions because unless we're about to abandon NATO and become isolationist ourselves, we already are pointed in the direction we should continue moving with our commitments and capabilities.

I think that the US becoming more isolationist and potentially abandoning Europe should make us re-examine our roles and capabilities in working with our Allies. As @Kirkhill noted in the Tariff thread:

Donald Tusk put it this way:

500 million Europeans are asking 340 million Americans to defend them from 140 million Russians.

Currently our response to Russia's potential threat to Eastern Europe is to put boots on the ground to show our flag in solidarity with our Allies. But as the quote above shows it's not numbers that NATO lacks against the Russians if the US pulls back, it's certain capabilities that they lack. I think that for Canada rather than simply increasing the size of our Army presence in Europe we should instead focus on filling the gap left by the Americans in some of the strategic capabilities. In many cases these are the same capabilities that are important in our domestic defence - satellite communications and surveillance, AEW and EW capabilities, strategic airlift, AD capabilities, domestic munition production at a safe distance from the front lines and robust Naval forces to be able to deliver munitions and other resources safely across the ocean.

As for your last comments:

And I don't see much point fighting a war to restore anything that falls under the heading "nostalgic attachments", or for particular social programs or wealth transfer schemes.

Trump's juvenile verbal provocations (51st state, Governor Trudeau, etc) don't move me. They might move others, but don't constitute reasons to throw out the baby.

It comes across that you would view US annexation of Canada as more of a changing of landlords than a loss of independence and sovereignty - with the added benefit of throwing off the shackles of useless socialist policies. Others may take a very different view.

 

[Kirkhill]

Currently our response to Russia's potential threat to Eastern Europe is to put boots on the ground to show our flag in solidarity with our Allies. But as the quote above shows it's not numbers that NATO lacks against the Russians if the US pulls back, it's certain capabilities that they lack. I think that for Canada rather than simply increasing the size of our Army presence in Europe we should instead focus on filling the gap left by the Americans in some of the strategic capabilities. In many cases these are the same capabilities that are important in our domestic defence - satellite communications and surveillance, AEW and EW capabilities, strategic airlift, AD capabilities, domestic munition production at a safe distance from the front lines and robust Naval forces to be able to deliver munitions and other resources safely across the ocean.

I have been a longtime proponent of this course of action. But I think we have a problem with that now.

Will the current administration in the US allow us to arm ourselves with those "enablers" because it is those enablers that would enable our CAF to become effective both in offence and defence. Would the US administration welcome an effective armed force on its northern border? A force that would permit our government to act in a sovereign manner and in our national interest?

Would they sell us Long Range Precision Fires? Effective GBAD?
Would they allow us to buy third party weapons over which they had no control?

Canada's empty warehouses have served the US well.