Justin Trudeau hints at boosting Canada’s military spending

I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[OldSolduer]

There is too much senior level bureaucracy and not enough lower level support with civilian positions.

And focused on "process" over results. The response of a bureaucrat - or a staff officer - should not be a clear "No" but offer ways to assist in the endeavors of the commander or whoever wants what ever it is.

 

[daftandbarmy]

I know that this was the case with Hillier. He wanted to transform the military, so they nodded their heads and waited for him to leave to undo most of his work. This has been shown in report after report, the goal of the organization doesn't matter, goals are changed to suit the bureaucracy. If we need 10 000 new recruits but the bureaucracy can only do 9000, they don't transform the department to increase production, they just set the target under 9000 so it doesn't disrupt them too much.

“The wise remind themselves that ‘This too shall pass’ even when things are good; the foolish, only when things are bad.”

― Mokokoma Mokhonoana

 

[Halifax Tar]

Cute lil video.

 

[Kirkhill]

Some of that work Big Cod did was still severely damaging to the CAF as it’s not big enough to implement some of the “Com” structures. We can do it down here simply because we have a force that is well over 300x the size of the CAF.

Disagree mate.

Hillier's Coms were explicitly designed to stay in line with the US and its reorgs. Canada Com was to align the Defence of Canada with your Homeland Security and North Com. CanSOFCom was to align with your USSOCOM. Canada Expeditionary Force Command was to align with all of your international commands. Which left the Operational Support Command.

The problem is/was not with the Joint structures that he implemented. The problem was with the traditional services. Each service wanted to command its own domain but now it is obvious that all services need to work in all domains.

Hillier was right. Hellyer was righter.

True. There is too much senior level bureaucracy and not enough lower level support with civilian positions.

True.

 

[KevinB]

Disagree mate.

Hillier's Coms were explicitly designed to stay in line with the US and its reorgs. Canada Com was to align the Defence of Canada with your Homeland Security and North Com. CanSOFCom was to align with your USSOCOM. Canada Expeditionary Force Command was to align with all of your international commands. Which left the Operational Support Command.

With the size of force you have, you cannot emulate the organizational structure we have here. That’s a fools errand that will burn up PY’s faster than you can shake a stick.

The problem is/was not with the Joint structures that he implemented. The problem was with the traditional services. Each service wanted to command its own domain but now it is obvious that all services need to work in all domains.

We have subcommands and Element specific structures as part of those Regional Commands.
The CAF’s biggest issue with Joint is the CA spelling is JARMY and the J is silent…
Furthermore we don’t stick rotary wing aviation under the USAF, but the CA is too short sighted to fund it properly.

Hillier was right. Hellyer was righter.

Hillier needed 50-60,000 more PY to be right.
He wasn’t getting it.

True.

 

[Kirkhill]

With the size of force you have, you cannot emulate the organizational structure we have here. That’s a fools errand that will burn up PY’s faster than you can shake a stick.


We have subcommands and Element specific structures as part of those Regional Commands.
The CAF’s biggest issue with Joint is the CA spelling is JARMY and the J is silent…
Furthermore we don’t stick rotary wing aviation under the USAF, but the CA is too short sighted to fund it properly.

Hillier needed 50-60,000 more PY to be right.
He wasn’t getting it.

He didn't need more PYs to be right. He needed fewer GOFOs to be right. In particular he needed a single Marine Corps structure rather than a Navy, Army and Air Force.

 

[daftandbarmy]

With the size of force you have, you cannot emulate the organizational structure we have here. That’s a fools errand that will burn up PY’s faster than you can shake a stick.

But he felt compelled to close the yawning 'me too' gap

 

[Good2Golf]

Disagree mate.

Hillier's Coms were explicitly designed to stay in line with the US and its reorgs. Canada Com was to align the Defence of Canada with your Homeland Security and North Com. CanSOFCom was to align with your USSOCOM. Canada Expeditionary Force Command was to align with all of your international commands. Which left the Operational Support Command.

The problem is/was not with the Joint structures that he implemented. The problem was with the traditional services. Each service wanted to command its own domain but now it is obvious that all services need to work in all domains.

Hillier was right. Hellyer was righter.



True.

I have it on decent authority that Hillier was aiming to recreate the CF Command of the late-70s.

Navy pushed back hard (FU!), Army followed the Navy, albeit in a head lowered mopey way, Air Force said ‘Sure, we already collapsed our command into a single layer eight years ago. Hillier wanted to bust the elements down to 2* Force Generators and have essentially a single 3* force commander (like the IDF ironically). Rank-wise he was signing his own death warrant, but he believed the force wasn’t large enough to keep playing the grandiose game the majority of the CAF GOFO cabal did. Long story short, the ECs (principally the Navy with Army bumping at its heels) kept the middle fingers up to Hillier, Air Force played neutral (long game was to keep DCINC NORAD, but even a slide back to 2* was acceptable to Pennie if need be), so the Big Cod countered with an “All right dare b’ys…I’ll match your three 3* and raise you three 3* and a COL [to become a 2* in the future when people realized the ROI for SOF investment]!!!” Hence, CEFCOM, Canada COM, CANOSCOM *and CANSOFCOM. I dare say it was almost a bit of Harper reducing GST from 7% to 5%…knowing that some to follow would find it difficult to live with, particularly if they wanted to stay bloated…

$0.02

 

[PPCLI Guy]

I have it in decent authority that Hillier was aiming to recreate the CF Command of the late-70s.

Navy pushed back hard (FU!), Army followed the Navy, albeit in a head lowered mopey way, Air Force said ‘Sure, we already collapsed our command into a single layer eight years ago. Hillier wanted to bust the elements down to 2* Force Generators and have essentially a single 3* force commander (like the IDF ironically). Rank-wise he was signing his own death warrant, but he believed the force wasn’t large enough to keep playing the grandiose game the majority of the CAF GOFO cabal did. Long story short, the ECs (principally the Navy with Army bumping at its heels) kept the middle fingers up to Hillier, Air Force played neutral (long game was to keep DCINC NORAD, but even a slide back to 2* was acceptable to Pennie if need be), so the Big Cod countered with an “All right dare b’ys…I’ll match your three 3* and raise you three 3* and a COL [to become a 2* in the future when people realized the ROI for SOF investment]!!!” Hence, CEFCOM, Canada COM and CANOSCOM. I dare say it was almost a bit of Harper reducing GST from 7% to 5%…knowing that some to follow would find it difficult to live with, particularly if they wanted to stay bloated…

$0.02

Truth

 

[daftandbarmy]

I have it on decent authority that Hillier was aiming to recreate the CF Command of the late-70s.

Navy pushed back hard (FU!), Army followed the Navy, albeit in a head lowered mopey way, Air Force said ‘Sure, we already collapsed our command into a single layer eight years ago. Hillier wanted to bust the elements down to 2* Force Generators and have essentially a single 3* force commander (like the IDF ironically). Rank-wise he was signing his own death warrant, but he believed the force wasn’t large enough to keep playing the grandiose game the majority of the CAF GOFO cabal did. Long story short, the ECs (principally the Navy with Army bumping at its heels) kept the middle fingers up to Hillier, Air Force played neutral (long game was to keep DCINC NORAD, but even a slide back to 2* was acceptable to Pennie if need be), so the Big Cod countered with an “All right dare b’ys…I’ll match your three 3* and raise you three 3* and a COL [to become a 2* in the future when people realized the ROI for SOF investment]!!!” Hence, CEFCOM, Canada COM and CANOSCOM. I dare say it was almost a bit of Harper reducing GST from 7% to 5%…knowing that some to follow would find it difficult to live with, particularly if they wanted to stay bloated…

$0.02

So kind of like this then, but in 3D?

 

[Halifax Tar]

We've played so many reindeer games with structures and commands since the creation of the CAF in 1968 that what we have now is a rats nest of an organization.

Since Feb 1 1968 its a testament to the iron will of the Cpls and S1s that we have been able to accomplish anything with success.

 

[rmc_wannabe]

We've played so many reindeer games with structures and commands since the creation of the CAF in 1968 that what we have now is a rats nest of an organization.

Since Feb 1 1968 its a testament to the iron will of the Cpls and S1s that we have been able to accomplish anything with success.

I remember learning in marketing 3 different strategies for advertising a product.

One of them, which successful companies like Coca-Cola or McDonalds uses, is "brand familiarity". You know what you're getting and it will always be XYZ across the world. It allows them that safety net to experiment, because customers will still come in for what they have always had/wanted. This would be, in military layman's terms, the USMC. This was Heyller's original intent, however, he tried to do this with established brands (CA/RCN/RCAF) and customers didn’t exactly bite.

Another is "brand loyalty, " in which companies, like Molson or Heinz, pride themselves on maintaining the consistency and longevity of a product and rely on generational adoption of the brand, rather than innovate or cater to new markets. You might see the occasional niche product come out from time to time, but it is usually a fad that fizzles away after a limited time. This is essentially the British Armed Forces and the brand we "grew up with" as a former colony.

The other type is called "keep the customer guessing." This is an extremely risky strategy that can very rarely yield success (Amazon and Apple come to mind) or can completely throw people for a loop (apparently NutriNinja makes meat smokers now?). It sometimes is the result of jumping on the latest craze and hoping it's popularity is enough of a risk/reward to justify the expense. Done poorly, you alienate your customer base and you have to spend time and money on R&D to win them back. This has always been the CAF structure-wise and it is to our own detriment.

The CAF essentially needs to build brand familiarity. It needs consistent structure, logical hierarchies, and to do that well for a few decades before it tries to make "improvements." That cannot be held to the whims of the GoC de jure nor the CDS de jure.

 

[Halifax Tar]

I remember learning in marketing 3 different strategies for advertising a product.

One of them, which successful companies like Coca-Cola or McDonalds uses, is "brand familiarity". You know what you're getting and it will always be XYZ across the world. It allows them that safety net to experiment, because customers will still come in for what they have always had/wanted. This would be, in military layman's terms, the USMC. This was Heyller's original intent, however, he tried to do this with established brands (CA/RCN/RCAF) and customers didn’t exactly bite.

I will relent that the idea of an all dancing and singing service somewhat like the USMC (They don't have tanks or independent blue ocean capability) makes logical sense. All streamlined. And if we were starting from scratch it would probably be the best route. The problem is as you explain later on. We had established service cultures and branding and pride, and our omnipotent leadership killed that. And we've never recovered, IMHO.

The Log branch is a good example of the GoCs approach to unification. But instead of robust and strong organization we have a homeless and mismanaged group of people who are trying to hold all the spokes together while simultaneously being pulled in all directions as well.

Another is "brand loyalty, " in which companies, like Molson or Heinz, pride themselves on maintaining the consistency and longevity of a product and rely on generational adoption of the brand, rather than innovate or cater to new markets. You might see the occasional niche product come out from time to time, but it is usually a fad that fizzles away after a limited time. This is essentially the British Armed Forces and the brand we "grew up with" as a former colony.

The other type is called "keep the customer guessing." This is an extremely risky strategy that can very rarely yield success (Amazon and Apple come to mind) or can completely throw people for a loop (apparently NutriNinja makes meat smokers now?). It sometimes is the result of jumping on the latest craze and hoping it's popularity is enough of a risk/reward to justify the expense. Done poorly, you alienate your customer base and you have to spend time and money on R&D to win them back. This has always been the CAF structure-wise and it is to our own detriment.

The CAF essentially needs to build brand familiarity. It needs consistent structure, logical hierarchies, and to do that well for a few decades before it tries to make "improvements." That cannot be held to the whims of the GoC de jure nor the CDS de jure.

We are so disorganized, I am not sure we are worth the boosting of funds. We cannot be all singing and dancing, we should be concentrating our lines of effort.

 

[GR66]

We are so disorganized, I am not sure we are worth the boosting of funds. We cannot be all singing and dancing, we should be concentrating our lines of effort.

This. We'd be much more use to our allies if we were really good at a few things rather than mediocre at most things.

 

[OldSolduer]

We cannot be all singing and dancing,

Could we at least lip synch correctly? And learn at least one dance?

 

[rmc_wannabe]

I will relent that the idea of an all dancing and singing service somewhat like the USMC (They don't have tanks or independent blue ocean capability) makes logical sense. All streamlined. And if we were starting from scratch it would probably be the best route. The problem is as you explain later on. We had established service cultures and branding and pride, and our omnipotent leadership killed that. And we've never recovered, IMHO.

Agreed

The Log branch is a good example of the GoCs approach to unification. But instead of robust and strong organization we have a homeless and mismanaged group of people who are trying to hold all the spokes together while simultaneously being pulled in all directions as well.

I think where Heyller's exercise failed was finding efficiencies where there weren't any. We did need to consolidate on the commonalities (logistics being one of them) however, things went off the deep end when it came to frivolous things like dress, rank structure, and functional structures.

We are so disorganized, I am not sure we are worth the boosting of funds. We cannot be all singing and dancing, we should be concentrating our lines of effort

I would offer that being almost singing and all dancing is not the goal, but being consistency. We can maintain a diverse set of capabilities (including a Blue water Navy, an Air Force with Strat lift and a sizeable fighter capability, and an Army with mech/LIB/and Amph capacity) IF:

-We commit to being consistent in the structure, size, and capability of those forces

-Accept cultural differences exist with the various branches, units, trades exist within the CAF and that we cannot force a blue square into a green circle or black triangle.

- Leave it the fuck alone for at least 30 years and let the structure settle into its role, accepting that growing pains will exist without them being a necessary thing to change.

We have the best trained personnel in any military force and I will fight anyone who says otherwise. Where we fall down is trying to reshape the clay with every turn of the potter's wheel. Sometimes we need to leave it alone and let it settle before we scrap it and try to start again.

 

[KevinB]

Meanwhile in Poland

https://twitter.com/x/status/1681010529429594121

When they have Star Destroyers, the CAF will probably be rolling around in a Scooby Doo van.

 

[GR66]

Meanwhile in Poland

https://twitter.com/x/status/1681010529429594121

When they have Star Destroyers, the CAF will probably be rolling around in a Scooby Doo van.

Maybe the Poles are looking at the weakness of their neighbours and are planning on re-creating the Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth? Maybe not in the literal sense by military conquest, but in terms of being the politically dominant power in the region.

Russia beaten and turning inward/Eastward, Germany weak and insular, the US shifting its focus to China, Ukraine and the Baltic States needing a protector while the US is focused elsewhere and Belarus potentially ripe for realignment with Russia weakened and Lukashenko's legitimacy in question.

 

[KevinB]

Maybe the Poles are looking at the weakness of their neighbours and are planning on re-creating the Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth? Maybe not in the literal sense by military conquest, but in terms of being the politically dominant power in the region.

Russia beaten and turning inward/Eastward, Germany weak and insular, the US shifting its focus to China, Ukraine and the Baltic States needing a protector while the US is focused elsewhere and Belarus potentially ripe for realignment with Russia weakened and Lukashenko's legitimacy in question.
View attachment 78892

Coupled to concern that Trump may get back in the WH…

 

[Halifax Tar]

I think where Heyller's exercise failed was finding efficiencies where there weren't any. We did need to consolidate on the commonalities (logistics being one of them) however, things went off the deep end when it came to frivolous things like dress, rank structure, and functional structures.

System and development/training yes commonality is good. But employment and management should have remained in place as Pre Feb 1 1968.

I would offer that being almost singing and all dancing is not the goal, but being consistency. We can maintain a diverse set of capabilities (including a Blue water Navy, an Air Force with Strat lift and a sizeable fighter capability, and an Army with mech/LIB/and Amph capacity) IF:

-We commit to being consistent in the structure, size, and capability of those forces

-Accept cultural differences exist with the various branches, units, trades exist within the CAF and that we cannot force a blue square into a green circle or black triangle.

- Leave it the fuck alone for at least 30 years and let the structure settle into its role, accepting that growing pains will exist without them being a necessary thing to change.

We have the best trained personnel in any military force and I will fight anyone who says otherwise. Where we fall down is trying to reshape the clay with every turn of the potter's wheel. Sometimes we need to leave it alone and let it settle before we scrap it and try to start again.

Can I be your campaign manager for CDS ?