Justin Trudeau hints at boosting Canada’s military spending

I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[Kirkhill]

I've worked with the Danish Home Guard, and the Norwegian equivalent, on various NATO exercises.

There is no way that they are anything like our reservists, who are trained to the same standards - ish as the Reg F to facilitate augmentation etc.

They are good at what they are intended to do: fight a defensive battle - within about 1 km of their homes - for key points like bridges etc. as a delaying tactic to enable mobilization to successfully take place before the Russians roll through.

We can see some of this playing out in the Ukraine right now, I believe, with their Home Guard equivalent.

A nation without the same threats of invasion and occupation by an overwhelmingly powerful and aggressive neighbour, that happens to have armoured divisions a mere couple of hour's drive from their capital, has no need for such a force.

And thereby hangs our tale....

If there is no need for a Territorial Defence Force then there is no NEED for a professional force to support them.
The professional force becomes merely a nice to have tool of foreign policy.
Tanks fall into the "should have" category.

On the other hand ICBMs, SLBMs, IRBMs, SRBMs, ALCMs, SLCMs, GLCMs, UAVs and LAMs (Extra-Large to Nano-Small, VTOL or launched from runways or ships or subs or fixed or portable launchers, soft launch or JATO or RATO....) are all real threats. Even mortars, which were used in the City of London, let alone in Israel and Ukraine, are real threats.
There is a NEED for an Air Defence Force.
The threat is ubiquitous.
The principle targets at risk are infrastructure, the cities and military bases.
Elint, Satellites, ships, subs, UAVs, LRPAs, Interceptors, GBAD (fixed, relocatable and manoeuverable) all fall into the "must have" category.

The ground threat in Canada is the individual and the small team. Their primary weapons will be man portable systems and whatever they can transport in a car, a van, a truck or a sea-can.

That requires a lot of local eyes, the means of reporting and the means of reacting quickly.
I will agree that three to five bases separated by thousands of miles, and nationally centralized EOD assets, even with long range VTOL aircraft, does not, to me, sound like a recipe for an effective response.

Which is why EOD and Tactical squads are proliferating across Canada in police departments.
Police departments who are also actively engaging volunteers to assist them with eyes on the streets and radios.
Police departments and Fire departments that handle emergencies and are always looking for extra manpower to assist.

RCMP volunteer programs | Royal Canadian Mounted Police

 

[mariomike]

Ontario is proposing a system of certification for VFFs, which departments are concerned will crater their staff. In our area, fire services are having difficulty in attracting volunteers.

No volunteer firefighters in the GTA.
King City to the north, Milton to the west and Bowmanville to the east may, or may not, have vollies.

There are Medical Venturers and Fire Venturers, but they are Scouting organizations.

Regarding vollies outside the GTA,

Attracting, retaining volunteer firefighters a challenge

Attracting and retaining volunteer firefighters is one of the biggest challenges faced by fire departments in Ontario's rural areas, Andrew Torrance ...

www.thestar.com

 

[Furniture]

And thereby hangs our tale....

If there is no need for a Territorial Defence Force then there is no NEED for a professional force to support them.
The professional force becomes merely a nice to have tool of foreign policy.
Tanks fall into the "should have" category.

On the other hand ICBMs, SLBMs, IRBMs, SRBMs, ALCMs, SLCMs, GLCMs, UAVs and LAMs (Extra-Large to Nano-Small, VTOL or launched from runways or ships or subs or fixed or portable launchers, soft launch or JATO or RATO....) are all real threats. Even mortars, which were used in the City of London, let alone in Israel and Ukraine, are real threats.
There is a NEED for an Air Defence Force.
The threat is ubiquitous.
The principle targets at risk are infrastructure, the cities and military bases.
Elint, Satellites, ships, subs, UAVs, LRPAs, Interceptors, GBAD (fixed, relocatable and manoeuverable) all fall into the "must have" category.

Except for the reality that our international partners expect/demand that we provide troops for international missions. We can pretend that doesn't matter, but as a country that manufactures little, and exports a lot of resources, international trade/partnerships are key. If we fall even farther behind our partners expectations, we can expect to be pushed even farther down the line when it comes to trade.

I agree that we need strong air and naval forces, but I absolutely disagree that a standing army is a "nice to have" just because we are unlikely to need to use them at home.

Edit: Apparently someone else agrees with me.
John Keess: Canada ignores the security needs of its European partners at its own peril

 

[Kirkhill]

Except for the reality that our international partners expect/demand that we provide troops for international missions. We can pretend that doesn't matter, but as a country that manufactures little, and exports a lot of resources, international trade/partnerships are key. If we fall even farther behind our partners expectations, we can expect to be pushed even farther down the line when it comes to trade.

I agree that we need strong air and naval forces, but I absolutely disagree that a standing army is a "nice to have" just because we are unlikely to need to use them at home.

Exactly

It is an expectation or demand by others. It is a trade off. It is not in the same league as foreign tanks in our streets.

There is a difference between defending the Nation and defending the Nation's Interests.

Defending the homeland is different than defending a Canadian mine in Argentina.


.... And I know lots of people agree with you.

 

[TacticalTea]

Except for the reality that our international partners expect/demand that we provide troops for international missions. We can pretend that doesn't matter, but as a country that manufactures little, and exports a lot of resources, international trade/partnerships are key. If we fall even farther behind our partners expectations, we can expect to be pushed even farther down the line when it comes to trade.

I agree that we need strong air and naval forces, but I absolutely disagree that a standing army is a "nice to have" just because we are unlikely to need to use them at home.

Edit: Apparently someone else agrees with me.
John Keess: Canada ignores the security needs of its European partners at its own peril

I completely agree with that.

 

[Kirkhill]

Even if I stipulate that an Expeditionary Army is a necessity we still then run straight into the questions of the nature of that army.

And that is the other problem the Army has.

As an Expeditionary Force, that the government can choose to commit, or not commit, that the government can choose the scale of the commitment, the time of the commitment, the speed of the commitment, the duration of the commitment, the location of the commitment, the season of the commitment, the allies for the commitment, the enemy of the commitment, ... and none of it has any critical impact on the National Defence program, then the Army is left floundering. Especially when it tries to be everything to everyone so it can say "Yes Sir! No Sir! Three bags full Sir!" for fear of losing an opportunity to be useful.

There is no reason why our Army couldn't be a Marine Army or a Heliportable Army or a Light Army or a Heavy Army or even a Medium Army. Or for that matter even the Army we have. It can be whatever it and the government want it to be because its composition, its employment are matters of choice. Not necessity.

 

[mariomike]

Agreed, in Alberta we need to provide 30 days written notice including date we leave and date we will return. Army changes course dates on you less than 30 days out? Well good luck to you cause bow your employer can just say no, and not keep your job.

Alberta,

An eligible employee can take:
up to 20 days each calendar year for annual training
Employers are not required to pay wages or benefits during leave, unless stated in an employment contract or collective agreement.

We only got 14 days each calandar year for annual training, but with wages and benefits.

Problem is training courses aren't two weeks, hell mine were 3 months

Easier to train during summer vacation, than asking an employer for time off.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Except for the reality that our international partners expect/demand that we provide troops for international missions. We can pretend that doesn't matter, but as a country that manufactures little, and exports a lot of resources, international trade/partnerships are key. If we fall even farther behind our partners expectations, we can expect to be pushed even farther down the line when it comes to trade.

I agree that we need strong air and naval forces, but I absolutely disagree that a standing army is a "nice to have" just because we are unlikely to need to use them at home.

Edit: Apparently someone else agrees with me.
John Keess: Canada ignores the security needs of its European partners at its own peril

You're not wrong. The issue lays in the employment of said Army. Do we need to be expeditionary ? Is our small contribution worth much, would it's sacrifice be of value or would our efforts better concentrated else where ?

The people of Canada through the GoC need to answer these questions on what they want us to do.

 

[Kirkhill]

Except for the reality that our international partners expect/demand that we provide troops for international missions. We can pretend that doesn't matter, but as a country that manufactures little, and exports a lot of resources, international trade/partnerships are key. If we fall even farther behind our partners expectations, we can expect to be pushed even farther down the line when it comes to trade.

I agree that we need strong air and naval forces, but I absolutely disagree that a standing army is a "nice to have" just because we are unlikely to need to use them at home.

Edit: Apparently someone else agrees with me.
John Keess: Canada ignores the security needs of its European partners at its own peril

We are looking at the same problem the US (and others) have faced.

The US Army has been looking for a job since the interior of the US was pacified. Until WWI it was a small force. It was again after WWI and up to WWII. Its cause wasn't helped after WWII when it lost control of its United States Army Air Force. Its primary purpose was as a garrison force for Europe. Most of the internal work in the US since all the Federal Territories became States has been handled by the Police and the National Guard with the FBI being the lead Federal Agency.

Foreign policy is the remit of the State Department, with the CIA being its intelligence agency and the US Navy and the US Marines supplying its own Navy, Air Force and Army.

Our Army, as an instrument of foreign policy, in my view, has a lot in common with the USMC in that it is required to serve the nation's foreign interests. It should embrace that. But it also means getting buy in from the Navy. Not because I anticipate forcing beacheads. But because we need to be able to relocate an expeditionary army and also need relocatable bases from which to operate. And a bit of air support would go a long way as well.

Leave National Defence, per se, to NORAD and the RCAF, the RCN, the RCMP, the Coast Guard and Border Services as well as the Rangers. There is also a role for the Royal Regiment of Canadian Artillery there in Air Defence.

The Reserves then get a choice.
Which path do they want to follow?
Support of National Defence?
Or Support of the Expeditionary Force?
Or can they walk and chew gum?

Edit Again (keep forgetting stuff - forgot the Navy)

 

[Kirkhill]

The Navy needs to do a bit of bending as well. Both in accepting an inshore role and a transport role.

 

[Kirkhill]

Is the Whitehouse guarded by the US Marines, rather than the US Army, because it is the first port of call for foreigners? The President as the first ambassador for These United States? A State Department enclave, isolated from the rest of the States. Kind of like a glorified Ellis Island.

 

[Halifax Tar]

The Navy needs to do a bit of bending as well. Both in accepting an inshore role and a transport role.

I see the RCN as an institutional Logistics FP organization. I also think it should be the preferred taxi for the Army.

I don't think you'd find resistance to this. We just need to the people and the ships.

 

[KevinB]

The Navy needs to do a bit of bending as well. Both in accepting an inshore role and a transport role.

I see the RCN as an institutional Logistics FP organization. I also think it should be the preferred taxi for the Army.

I don't think you'd find resistance to this. We just need to the people and the ships.

Bending isn't the word I would use -- expansion is.
The Navy needs more assets - as having a bunch of RORO transports doesn't do anyone any good if they are unguarded.

 

[Kirkhill]

Bending isn't the word I would use -- expansion is.
The Navy needs more assets - as having a bunch of RORO transports doesn't do anyone any good if they are unguarded.

If only we could afford, per capita, the Danish Navy

The Navy would end up with

15x Iver Huitfeldt Air Defence Frigates (ABM/Tomahawk Capable) - vs 12x CPF
10x Absalon ASW/Support Frigates (Tank Transport Capable) - vs 0x
20x Thetis Class Frigates - vs 0x
15x Knud Rasmussen Patrol Vessels - vs 14x AOPV/MCDV

 

[MarkOttawa]

And consider this: this government is planning to buy 88 new fighters for the RCAF (most likely the F-35A, which the Germans have now also decided to acquire, note the role they are for), with the endlessly postponed decision supposed to be announced this year. Knock on wood. That will be just over one-third the modern fighter forces the four Nordic countries combined will be deploying well before our air force can deploy its new planes. That is being done with a total population just under three quarters of Canada’s and with a very much smaller area to cover compared to this country:

…In the future Denmark and Norway will have a total of 79 F-35s. The Nordic fighter aircraft force will be at 243 if a coalition is expanded to include 64 F-35s from Finland and 100 Gripen from Sweden.

POLICY BRIEF: Nordic Airpower Cooperation and Finland’s F-35 decision: Towards a New Era? | NUPI

Finland’s F-35 decision enhances the airpower collaboration between the Nordic states.

www.nupi.no

‘Twould be nice to see the Canadian media point out those numbers–if they are even aware of them. Of course different countries procure different amounts and types of kit for their various services. Still the numbers are striking.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Good2Golf]

The people of Canada through the GoC need to answer these questions on what they want us to do.

Not sure that is ever going to happen, Canadians haven’t substantively cared since 1945, and I don’t think they will, because aside from some higher gas and food prices, their happy with their comfortable lives in secure Fortress (North) America.

The CAF has been traditionally weak on the whole regarding assessing and pitching that formula to Government of what it believes best represents what politicians believe it is that Canadians are willing to begrudgingly accept as a necessary evil to contribute to, that doesn’t materially impact their aforementioned cushy comfortable lives.

 

[Halifax Tar]

‘Twould be nice to see the Canadian media point out those numbers–if they are even aware of them. Of course different countries procure different amounts and types of kit for their various services. Still the numbers are striking.

Mark
Ottawa

I'm not sure the MSM in Canada supports the F35. They championed pretty hard against it under Harper.

I also dont think you will find much media support for showing Canadians that we need to rebuild the CAF.

 

[KevinB]

I'm not sure the MSM in Canada supports the F35. They championed pretty hard against it under Harper.

I also dont think you will find much media support for showing Canadians that we need to rebuild the CAF.

I think that is mostly because they don't know what absolute dire straights the CAF is in.
I think when a CFP snaps in half - and a CF18 drops out of the sky there will be huge complaints of why things where not fixed before that.

 

[suffolkowner]

The surprise is that they can get the job done for less than 2% of GDP.

The solution suggests itself. Hire Danish CDS to run CAF

 

[McG]

So, 2% or maybe more … ?

https://twitter.com/x/status/1504179716563034114