Justin Trudeau hints at boosting Canada’s military spending

I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[rmc_wannabe]

Using WWII or WWI mobilization as a "we'll be fine..." for current state of affairs is not in the least reassuring.

Read some accounts of what transpired in 1914 and 1939 when we actually started, we were severely behind the 8 Ball in terms training capability and equipment. We were blessed to have the run up time we did to get our house in order.

Like @KevinB said, the cost and complexity of modern warfare doesn't lend itself to "just in time" procurement and training.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Using WWII or WWI mobilization as a "we'll be fine..." for current state of affairs is not in the least reassuring.

Read some accounts of what transpired in 1914 and 1939 when we actually started, we were severely behind the 8 Ball in terms training capability and equipment. We were blessed to have the run up time we did to get our house in order.

Like @KevinB said, the cost and complexity of modern warfare doesn't lend itself to "just in time" procurement and training.

I think our weapons systems are to complicated to be replicated en masse and replace combat losses fast enough. I propose that if the, non nuclear, ball ever drops we will be reverting to something more akin to WW2 or Korea very quickly as highly technical and complicated equipment is expended and lost and then replaced with easy to produce en masse materials and equipment.

Quantity has a quality all its own
Joe Stalin

 

[ueo]

In 1939 we started with practically nothing. Within two years we had a solid START on a navy, a major training system capable of turning out hundreds of aircrew per year and the airports to fly them from, we had 5000 soldiers preparing to invade Dieppe and 2000 more in Hong Kong. By wars end we had 1.1 million people in uniform so there is absolutely nothing we can't achieve if we are given the leadership and green light to do it.

Sorta think you also need an imminent threat.

 

[YZT580]

But Hong Kong and Dieppe were still disasters in large part due to our unpreparedness in 1939. I would rather we be ready for Day 1 and avoid those types of disasters.

Too true. We are long overdue to re-equip and rejuvenate our forces

 

[lenaitch]

The low tech nature of WWII has no comparison to today. Turning 'prairie farm boys' into soldiers, sailors and pilots in mere month would be like what we see with many Russian troops in Ukraine. Flower Class corvettes were based on a fishing boat and turned out in a matter of months, which is whole lot longer than the time they would last today in action.

 

[YZT580]

Using WWII or WWI mobilization as a "we'll be fine..." for current state of affairs is not in the least reassuring.

Read some accounts of what transpired in 1914 and 1939 when we actually started, we were severely behind the 8 Ball in terms training capability and equipment. We were blessed to have the run up time we did to get our house in order.

Like @KevinB said, the cost and complexity of modern warfare doesn't lend itself to "just in time" procurement and training.

Didn't you read the last line? The previous discussion was all handwringing with regards to the 2% and no one will come and we can't get our training in gear. Frankly it was all why we couldn't. Well, we can and we must but it will require leadership.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

I think the danger of East Asia exploding into a full blown nuclear war is at least as serious as NATO vs WP in the 1950s and '60s.

I feel like many/most of our political & military leadership have a fundamental misunderstanding of how war and also great power competition is going to be fought in the 21st Century.

It's actually surprising to me because "Hybrid Warfare" is all we've been hearing about since 2014, but our leadership (many of whom supposedly have big brains) can't seem to wrap their heads around the concept.

Conventional Military Power is but one aspect of a Hybrid Warfare Strategy, but one finger from many different hands if you will:

The problem space that I don't think the Collective West has wrapped its head around is the fact that Russia's Conventional Military Power isn't there for us, it's for its client states and those States it has Strategic Interests in, Ukraine being one of.

Any discussion about the superiority of NATO Forces vs the Russian Armed Forces is stupid because the Russian Armed Forces doesn't really exist to fight NATO in a conventional war. The Russians know they aren't strong enough and that they would lose, they've even admitted as much. They have nuclear weapons though, which is the ace in their sleeve and they know it.

On the eve of the Ukrainian Invasion, Vladimir Putin actually mentioned this in a speech (the clip of which has since disappeared and I cannot find it). The gist of it though was that Russia knows NATO would win in a conventional war but it's irrelevant because Russia has nuclear weapons and any conventional exchange becomes a nuclear exchange, at which point we both lose.

This isn't to say it isn't important to have conventional military capability, on the contrary it's important for us for two reasons:

1. To be able to provide support to our partners against our adversaries, with weapons and military capability, as us being done in Ukraine; and

2. To be able to carry out our own operations in areas of the globe where we have strategic interests.

Where Canada fails massively in this regard is that we can't really do either of the above because a) we have no excess of weapons or military capability to give anyone and b) we have let our standing forcss atrophy to the point we also really can't do #2 in a meaningful way either.

The Russians also aren't doing badly or as badly at the strategic level as we are led to believe. They are currently having a lot of success running France out of their former Colonial Empire and they are sowing dissension in Europe & Elsewhere through the considerable control that they wield on commodities markets. The World is also interconnected to the point that things we have tried to do, like our sanctions regime, has been shown to be essentially toothless because we've allowed our diplomatic and economic capital to erode in many parts of the World.

See the following:











I could write an entire thread on each of the other fingers of hybrid war strategy but I'll save it.

The point I'm trying to make is that conventional rearmament is but one aspect of how wars are going to be conducted in the 21st century.

Much of our wealth in the West is tied to the "Liberal World Order" we've built Post WWII but I believe we've rested on our laurels for the most part over the past few decades. We've deluded ourselves in to a false sense of security with an illusion of economic and supposed military superiority.

Our adversaries have not been idle, they've been developing new strategies for confrontation with us and they've shown ability to synchronize efforts and leverage multiple areas of State Power that we have not.

 

[Good2Golf]

Any discussion about the superiority of NATO Forces vs the Russian Armed Forces is stupid because the Russian Armed Forces doesn't really exist to fight NATO in a conventional war. The Russians know they aren't strong enough and that they would lose, they've even admitted as much. They have nuclear weapons though, which is the ace in their sleeve and they know it.

Which puts Russia in with the Pakistan, Indian, North Korean (and Israeli) grouping. Second/third-rate aspirational nations with nukes.

 

[Navy_Pete]

Honestly a lot of programs on the Army side could be done with very limited project staff -- IF the CAF was to buy systems that are in use with NATO allies.

I agree, but that's still a lot of cumulative projects, and individually they aren't really worth a lot per year.

Was part of a six person team on a $100M project, which went from concept to award within 2 years, and is now fully up and running, but that $100M is spread over 20 years, so really isn't a big impact on spending $20B more a year.

If we are currently spending around $18B a year with about 100k people (military plus civilians), as well as a whole whack of other department pers involved, hitting $40B won't happen with 'leadership and effort'.

Don't forget, the same people that would be doing the projects would also be responsible for maintaining existing gear, and most are already beyond capacity.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

Which puts Russia in with the Pakistan, Indian, North Korean (and Israeli) grouping. Second/third-rate aspirational nations with nukes.

Considerably more powerful than any of those Countries unfortunately. Absolute scoundrels and criminals but they are really good at it.

Vlad and his Cronies are basically the Juiced up version of "Pepe" Pablo Escobar except they have nukes, way more money & industrial capacity and a security council seat.

 

[Good2Golf]

More powerful in a quantitative sense yes. Qualitative? Not really.

At some point, little Vlad continuously trotting out his nukes for show-and-tell will grow old (if not already)…his entire structure is built in ooor faith interactions with others. One could almost have more respect for Kim Jong Un…

 

[daftandbarmy]

More powerful in a quantitative sense yes. Qualitative? Not really.

At some point, little Vlad continuously trotting out his nukes for show-and-tell will grow old (if not already)…his entire structure is built in ooor faith interactions with others. One could almost have more respect for Kim Jong Un…

They don't look too good in the lineup that really counts....

Chapter 4. Global Balance of Power

Publics around the world believe the balance of power between the U.S. and China is tipping in favor of China. While the U.S. is still viewed as the

www.pewresearch.org

 

[ArmyRick]

Too true. We are long overdue to re-equip and rejuvenate our forces

That was true in 1975, 1983, 1988, 1994, 2000, 2004, etc.

 

[Spencer100]

Remind me again why we bought those Aussie F-18's?

To give the required Quebec Inc. revenge. That is all

 

[Colin Parkinson]

The low tech nature of WWII has no comparison to today. Turning 'prairie farm boys' into soldiers, sailors and pilots in mere month would be like what we see with many Russian troops in Ukraine. Flower Class corvettes were based on a fishing boat and turned out in a matter of months, which is whole lot longer than the time they would last today in action.

Not to mention those ships were sent to sea from our yards, missing equipment and with crews were only one person onboard had any deep sea experience. We were far luckier than we deserved.

 

[FJAG]

Too true. We are long overdue to re-equip and rejuvenate our forces

Technically and realistically we are. Canada has committed to a new fleet and has just signed on for brand new state of the art fighter aircraft.

There are many areas where we are lagging, particulalry in the army, but its the most spending on new, major equipment in a long time.

The point I'm trying to make is that conventional rearmament is but one aspect of how wars are going to be conducted in the 21st century.

One can't argue with that but, conventional rearmament is, nonetheless "one" aspect and as such must be continuous. It's interesting to note that we have just agreed to buy NASAMs for the Ukrainians while we still have none of our own.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-purchase-missile-system-1.6709115

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Remind me again why we bought those Aussie F-18's?

 

[Kirkhill]

I think our weapons systems are to complicated to be replicated en masse and replace combat losses fast enough. I propose that if the, non nuclear, ball ever drops we will be reverting to something more akin to WW2 or Korea very quickly as highly technical and complicated equipment is expended and lost and then replaced with easy to produce en masse materials and equipment.

Quantity has a quality all its own
Joe Stalin

All true - but there is a peculiarity with manufacturing.

If someone says they want 100 items - that is a bespoke order.

If someone says they want 100,000 of the same items - that becomes a competitive opportunity. People will figure out how to get the job done cheaper and faster and will manufacture jigs and get sub-suppliers to do more so the contractor has to do less.

My take is that missile launchers are starting to look the same regardless of which missile and which platform. The key element to me is the cheap manufacture of precise missiles.

And lots of PS5 controllers.

 

[Kirkhill]

The low tech nature of WWII has no comparison to today. Turning 'prairie farm boys' into soldiers, sailors and pilots in mere month would be like what we see with many Russian troops in Ukraine. Flower Class corvettes were based on a fishing boat and turned out in a matter of months, which is whole lot longer than the time they would last today in action.

Flowers - 85 men in 1000 tonnes.

I can float 1000 tonnes with a crew of zero and position all 225 that were built in a permanent conveyor from Halifax to Derry with torps, missiles, sonars and UAVs. Add some SSNs underneath and you have a much more secure highway to Europe than was possible in 1943.

Satellites, UAVs and LRPAs over head all the way across. Tankers and Fighters launching from Norway, UK, Iceland, Greenland, Canada and the US.

The modern game looks nothing like the old game with its Condor Gap and Wolf Packs.

"User Friendly" means something. And a lot of technology is geared towards making "User Friendly" kit. That means kit that doesn't require much training.

NLAW and Javelin are popular because they are user friendly.

Guns and tanks and F35s aren't.

But UAVs and Missiles are.

 

[markppcli]

I’m

added training time for AVS Techs ….