Government hints at boosting Canada’s military spending

I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[PrairieFella]

Let’s talk about this scenario - 65 F35’s and 3+ squadrons of something else, insert your preference here.

A wing of Typhoons or Rafales that specialize in European tasks while the F35's primary mission is the defence of the homeland?

Honestly the Americans have no one to blame but themselves in this. Stop acting like fascists and threatening to Anchluss us and maybe we'd never be in this mess.

I bet Dassault likes this though.

 

[Kirkhill]

Nobody is suggesting that.

Problem with responding with blurbs. Sorry.

Suppose I leave nomenclature out of it and try to describe things this way:

The vehicle needs to be appropriate to the area of operations.

First requirement - mobility or it isn't a vehicle.

Second requirement - protection if crewed.

Third requirement - firepower when appropriate.

....

If the vehicle is to be crewed then it needs to provide protection appropriate to the environment.

A - In a dry environment protection is required from dust and gravel as well as heat and cold.
B - In a wet environment protection is required from snow, sleet, hail and rain as well as heat and cold

C - In a contested environment protection is required against blast and projectiles including shrapnel and bullets as well as A and B.

In Canada the threat level demands a minimum of B. We live in a relatively hostile natural environment that demands a portable shelter. Common civilian construction practices meet those requirements.

The army is expected to be able to operate in contested environments and therefore it needs to be able to manage C. The closer to the front the greater the concentration of projectiles and bullets, the larger their size and the greater the blasts therefore the greater the protection required - and the greater the cost of the vehicle.

In Latvia it should be anticipated that the force will be seeking out and engaging the enemy and that it should therefore be as heavily armoured as possible. It should also be expected that anything in country will be in artillery range (given 70 km guns and 300 km missiles) and thus any TCV needs to be protected.

Given that everything costs money and money is finite then we need to allocate money appropriately.

My allocations

For vehicles in the close fight, the most heavily protected vehicles with the most complex systems then budget something the 5-10,000,000 CAD per vehicle.

For vehicles in artillery range, and at risk of insurgent and partisan activity set a budget of 500,000 to 1,000,000 CAD.

For vehicles beyond artillery range, and even though they are still at a low level risk of insurgent and partisan activity set a budget of 50-100,000 CAD.

All things plus or minus, just to establish the order of magnitude.

We all seem to agree that tanks, if deployed, need to be fit for purpose and as well protected as technically possible. The only real discussion is how many of them we can afford.

We all seem to agree that there is a role for civilian vehicles beyond artillery range......

Beyond that I've got bupkis.

Because we have got twenty years on this site alone, not to mention the professional debates, discussing how to shade that grey zone between a van and a tank and convert it into a useful fleet of vehicles. Regardless of the vehicle selected it could always be better, it could always be lighter, it could always be cheaper, it could always be employed differently.

With respect to Latvia in particular, and Eastern Europe in general it does seem to me that there is a bit of a mis-match between Leos and ISVs especially when the support vehicles are being equipped with armoured cabs.

The Roshel Senator would be a closer match than the ISV. The closest match would, in my opinion, be the CV90 fleet.

LAVs are better match than the Senator but not as good as the CV90s

Then we have the debate about what is a LAV because some of the earlier LAVs were closer to Senators while the later LAVs have tended towards the CV90 end of the spectrum. And we are not alone. Every western army has tended to build bigger and bulkier and heavier and more expensive vehicles chasing some sort of ideal - presumably zero casualties.

As I said, I have got bupkis.

It all comes down to your budget and your risk assessment and whether you are equipping a small force of professionals or a national mass army.

....

I do know, from following these discussions over a couple of decades I have developed my own notions.

I feel the LAV family jumped the shark with the 6.0/ACSV series, just as the Euros did with the Boxers. Even the Strykers stretched the limits.

I like the idea of some portion of the force being air portable and given the preponderance of C130s out there it seems reasonable to me to make that a defining limit. The difference I have is that where the Stryker managers opted to use 95% of the C130 as upper limit I would have stuck to 70% and maintained an upper limit of about 14 tonnes, or roughly a LAV II equivalent. That would have become my Medium.

The heavy would have not had any reference to air transport at all even though the C17 exists. The heavy fleet would be in 40 to 60 tonne range because that seems to be the limits of most road systems.

The light fleet would essentially be civilian vehicles.

....

Latvia demands a heavy fleet. The two questions that fall out from that are:

how close to the front can a 14 tonne Medium vehicle operate?
how close to the front can a light civilian vehicle operate?

....

I know. This was a waste of space.

 

[dapaterson]

Twin Otters with twin C6s in an open rooftop cupola for homeland defence.

 

[PrairieFella]

Twin Otters with twin C6s in an open rooftop cupola for homeland defence.

Deadly. The funny thing is that might actually have some practical applications for drone defence, they're using something similar in Ukraine.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Interesting

Canada has far too few soldiers. Here's a radical fix — mandatory service

Mandatory service is a path to military readiness: "It’s good to serve your country. We’ve never pushed that to the extent that we should."

nationalpost.com

If national service is "good", then people who want to do it ought to be able to. I suppose we already have that.

If national identity is a goal, start in QC by not electing people for whom "is it good for QC?" is a yardstick for national policy.

If we want people to fight for our values, make the values worth fighting for. Hint: start by broadening individual freedoms and ripping the weasel clauses out of the constitution.

 

[Brad Sallows]

One can’t work in todays new transactional world without transacting.

QC has been transactional for decades. We should be proficient practitioners by now.

 

[Good2Golf]

QC has been transactional for decades. We should be proficient practitioners by now.

Indeed. Ontario is transitioning too, albeit with much less (if any) of a “what’s in it for us, from the rest of Canada” flavour.

 

[ytz]

Bill Blair on CBC saying we may not buy all 88 F35s and may look at other options…

I hate to say it. But as a negotiating tactic there's value. But it only works if we genuinely show a real diversion of spending. It's not just enough to cut back on the order. We have to show a willingness to buy something else. And I hope it's not something laughable (Gripen).

Maybe negotiate entry into FCAS or GCAP with a firm 40 frame commitment. And then cut the Panther to 65 frames.

 

[Genetk44]

If national service is "good", then people who want to do it ought to be able to. I suppose we already have that.

If national identity is a goal, start in QC by not electing people for whom "is it good for QC?" is a yardstick for national policy.

If we want people to fight for our values, make the values worth fighting for. Hint: start by broadening individual freedoms and ripping the weasel clauses out of the constitution.

THIS!!!!!

 

[ytz]

Let’s talk about this scenario - 65 F35’s and 3+ squadrons of something else, insert your preference here.

65 F-35s.

40 FCAS is my choice. Future capability. And maximum distance from ITAR. We'll get them after 2040. But that's fine.

 

[ytz]

Interesting

Canada has far too few soldiers. Here's a radical fix — mandatory service

Mandatory service is a path to military readiness: "It’s good to serve your country. We’ve never pushed that to the extent that we should."

nationalpost.com

This article was maddening.

These guys will do anything to actually avoid making service attractive. Not more pay or benefits. Nope. Force young people who haven't had it this bad in decades (per current statistics) to now give up a year of productivity to do something they don't want to do.

And for what? Our ops are mostly expeditionary. And nobody is going to agree, in this day and age, to wars that are seen as optional.

Give the CAF a 25% pay raise. Give CAF families guaranteed daycare and medical access. Give more time off for personnel at remote bases. Recruiting and retention will be substantially solved.

Nope instead we'll become glorified babysitters for college age kids.

Also looking forward to their ignorant plans on how we get conscripts into our most skilled occupations with the highest shortages. Looking forward to my recently naturalized Russian getting access to our networks for his mandatory service as a Cyber Operator.

 

[markppcli]

Let’s talk about this scenario - 65 F35’s and 3+ squadrons of something else, insert your preference here.

Why ? That’s not realistic. What would the benefit be?

Yes, but I would also say “weren’t.” Room to go yes, but F-35, P-8, SPY-7 doesn’t say “unreliable” for today and tomorrow.

Any reasonable person would assess these capabilities as those of a serious nation.

Would we all like to see more? Shorter timelines? Yes. However, it’s not the past “let it rust out.”

If the US continues to treat Canada as though it isn’t taking any action, then Canada is right to consider other nations that acknowledge and want to collaborate with Canada to increase Canada’s and by association, Alliance capability.

We are still not. You’re looking at future capabilities that aren’t online yet, one of which we’re trying to back out of to almost certainly dither for another ten years on.

Not at Rust Out? We work in very different CAFs my friend.

Trump is wrong about a lot. He isn’t wrong about our defence capabilities, and our taking advantage of the US’s goodwill to defend our sovereignty.

 

[Kirkhill]

• DND’s Main Estimates 2023-24 are $26.5 billion, comprised of various votes as well as statutory funding (mainly comprised of funding related to employee benefit plans totalling approximately $1.7 billion). The votes are:
  • Vote 1 – Operating ($17.9 billion);
  • Vote 5 – Capital ($6.1 billion);
  • Vote 10 – Grants and Contributions ($320 million);
  • Vote 15 – Payments in respect of the long-term disability and life insurance plan for members of the Canadian Forces ($447 million);

• The largest portion of the budget is allocated to Personnel (34%), Operating (34%) and Capital (22%).

Defence Budget - Canada.ca

Transition of the Associate Deputy Minister of National Defense – June 12, 2023

www.canada.ca

2023-24

Operations - 824,979,602 CAD and 2201 FTE

Ready Forces - 10,775,809,423 CAD and 43,946 FTE
Defence Team - 3,814,885,600 CAD and 20,716 FTE
Future Force Design - 887,051,786 CAD and 1890 FTE
Procurement of Capabilities - 4,177,769,659 CAD and 2541 FTE
Infrastructure -

....

This contentious question again

Coming at it from a different angle:

If we stopped buying bullets and things that make an army an army how much would we still be spending on National Defence?

Regulars
Reserves
Civilians
Clothes
Food
Accommodations
Training Facilities
Infrastructure and Support.

So, not just the personnel budget but those portions of the budget that support the personnel and keep them engaged.

I feel that that number is a lot higher than the 34% described for the Personnel.

If the Army (and Air Force and Navy) ceased operations entirely and everybody were told to continue reporting to their work stations and remain on the payroll, their offices and training grounds are retained, their vehicles are retained, their civilian supports are all retained, how much would the Canadian Armed Forces still cost the taxpayer?

 

[FJAG]

Interesting

Canada has far too few soldiers. Here's a radical fix — mandatory service

Mandatory service is a path to military readiness: "It’s good to serve your country. We’ve never pushed that to the extent that we should."

nationalpost.com

In a way we already have that legislatively. The NDA stipulates that

Obligation to serve

• 23 (1) The enrolment of a person binds the person to serve in the Canadian Forces until the person is, in accordance with regulations, lawfully released.

It is therefore the regulations that determine when a person is legally released from the obligations of service. The regulations are made by the GoC and are basically fairly straightforward. The "loopholes" on the other hand are introduced through policies. To enable more control over the release process the military merely needs to tighten up on the policies that govern the release regulations.

For reservists, there are regulations determining their obligation to attend training.

9.04 (2) Subject to any limitations prescribed by the Chief of the Defence Staff, a member of the Primary Reserve may be ordered to train each year on Class "B" Reserve Service prescribed under subparagraph (1)(b) of article 9.07 (Class "B" Reserve Service) for a period not exceeding 15 days and on Class "A" Reserve Service (see article 9.06 - Class "A" Reserve Service), for a period not exceeding 60 days.

The simple problem is that the CAF is not using the tools that are available to it under the legislation to maximize the obligations of service that it could out of those who volunteer to serve. The usual argument against that is that people will stop volunteering. We're down 15,000 and reserve battalions parade platoons. How much worse can it get?

I can think of dozens of ways to make service more effective as well as attractive, however, I doubt that there would ever be consensus on my CoAs. The CAF is basically run by committees of civilians and military who are highly inefficient at making difficult decisions. One shouldn't consider conscripted national service until one has explored and implemented how to get the most out of volunteers.

 

[ytz]

The simple problem is that the CAF is not using the tools that are available to it under the legislation to maximize the obligations of service that it could out of those who volunteer to serve. The usual argument against that is that people will stop volunteering. We're down 15,000 and reserve battalions parade platoons. How much worse can it get?

If you take away all optionality, it will get worse. At that point, it's basically the Roman Legion. You sign up for life. And if the suggestion is that it will be a life in Cold Lake, recruiting will absolutely drop. The only leverage members have right now, is the threat to release.

Again, can we actually listen to every fucking release survey and try giving people what they ask for before conscription or indentured servitude (CAF edition)?

 

[FJAG]

Trump is wrong about a lot. He isn’t wrong about our defence capabilities, and our taking advantage of the US’s goodwill to defend our sovereignty.

Just because our capabilities are low, doesn't mean we are taking advantage of the US's goodwill.

Essentially North America has a pretty strong moat around it. Threats against Canada since the 1860s have been low and based primarily on the over-the-pole bomber and missile threats starting in the mid 20th century. Canada is the neutral ground between the US and the USSR/Russia and the US has for a very long time relied on Canada as the area to do intercepts before the enemy could hit the US homeland. NORAD was the result. Using Canada as the "intercept terrain" is not US goodwill; its US practical necessity.

There are very few other areas where the US "cares" about Canada as an entity worth spending money on. We are a benign neighbour. We are not, and never have been, a drain on the US's defence budget. We're not the contributor that they want in defending their homeland and their expeditionary initiatives, but that's another issue completely. Canada is a mere rounding error in the US defence budget.

Canada does not rely on the US's "goodwill." Canada is taking advantage of its own geographic reality and the limited real threats existing against it. Canada chooses to involve itself militarily in the world as much or as little as it wants to. The fact that we choose to not involve ourselves as much as the US might want us to is not a reliance on their goodwill, its a sovereign decision. Their contribution to the "defence of Canada" is an illusion.

 

[ytz]

I keep going back to my time on exchange in the US and the discussions I had with all the young enlisted there on why they signed up.

5 years there gets them:

1) VA Healthcare for life. In a country with no real universal healthcare that's attractive.

2) GI Bill. Four years of post-secondary paid for. No dollar limit. Four years. Can be shared with spouse. Or even split between kids.

3) VA Home Loan. Reduced credit requirements. No mortgage insurance required. Lower rates.

4) Valuable trade skills.

The conversation that stuck with me was a young sailor in the IT shop. Happy to do his time. And was looking forward to leaving the Navy and working in IT while in College on the GI Bill.

Meanwhile in Canada, we are searching for ways to ensure that our technicians are always short of just transferring their qualifications to Main Street.

Ask yourself, what does 5 years in the CAF get you, relative to peers? 10 years? 20 years? And there's your answer to why recruiting and retention is a problem.

 

[daftandbarmy]

A little perspective... if you squint, you can see Canada in there

Infographic: Army Sizes of NATO, Russia, and Ukraine

Compare the number of active military personnel among NATO allies, Russia, and Ukraine in this data-driven breakdown.

www.visualcapitalist.com

 

[Good2Golf]

We are still not. You’re looking at future capabilities that aren’t online yet, one of which we’re trying to back out of to almost certainly dither for another ten years on.

Not at Rust Out? We work in very different CAFs my friend.

I didn’t say we are not AT rust out on many capabilities (I have skin in the game as my son serves on close-to-rusted-out CPFs, and there are clearly others close to, as well) so I’m all too aware of many capabilities in decline/marginal serviceability, however, I noted that the trend is to address shortfalls and to not plan to rust out.

So by your logic, Canada deserves to keep getting assaulted economically until these initially-procured systems are actually delivered? How many F-35s need to be delivered to Canada (or 425th Ftr Trg Wg at Luke AFB, per the plan), and/or how many P-8A Poseidon ASE planes delivered, or how many SPY-7 radar ship sets delivered (and the billions of dollars into the US defense-industrial complex) until Canada gets credit for moving forward?

Trump is wrong about a lot. He isn’t wrong about our defence capabilities, and our taking advantage of the US’s goodwill to defend our sovereignty.

So what actions would you recommend then to deal with that, if not consideration of alternate defence capability sourcing?

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

This article was maddening.

These guys will do anything to actually avoid making service attractive. Not more pay or benefits. Nope. Force young people who haven't had it this bad in decades (per current statistics) to now give up a year of productivity to do something they don't want to do.

And for what? Our ops are mostly expeditionary. And nobody is going to agree, in this day and age, to wars that are seen as optional.

Give the CAF a 25% pay raise. Give CAF families guaranteed daycare and medical access. Give more time off for personnel at remote bases. Recruiting and retention will be substantially solved.

Nope instead we'll become glorified babysitters for college age kids.

Also looking forward to their ignorant plans on how we get conscripts into our most skilled occupations with the highest shortages. Looking forward to my recently naturalized Russian getting access to our networks for his mandatory service as a Cyber Operator.

I wholeheartedly agree.

I shat in some prominent CANDEF people's cornflakes the other day about this very topic on another social media platform. They of course had no retort other than "that attitude isn't going to fix anything!".

We have plenty of value added programs already that are struggling for talent and human resources: Wildland Firefighting, Tree planting, civic organizations, etc.

I live and work beside Ontario Fire Rangers HQ and they are struggling to get bodies to do the work and are chronically short. There is no affordable housing for them, their pay is shit and their job is dangerous and thankless.

They all end up coming to work for me eventually because I pay the bills and put the bread on the table for their families.

The people delivering this messaging wreak of ivory tower elitists. Want mandatory service.... sure.... you first.