Justin Trudeau hints at boosting Canada’s military spending

I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[KevinB]

The Army already does it when we deploy operationally.

But should it…

We have a cadre of Army Reserve folks doing security for our Airfield High Security Zones. It is not a stretch to give that function to the Army. Our aircraft conduct ops (not training) on a daily basis. They are better employed fixing those aircraft conducting ops than holding a rifle to secure said aircraft.

Maybe a RCAF Regiment…
Or funnel the meatheads into actual security.

 

[SupersonicMax]

But should it…

Maybe a RCAF Regiment…
Or funnel the meatheads into actual security.

It is in our doctrine so from that sense, yes it should.

Creating the 2-3000 positions an RCAF Regiment would need is easy. Recruiting those would be impossible in the current climate.

 

[Quirky]

Creating the 2-3000 positions an RCAF Regiment would need is easy. Recruiting those would be impossible in the current climate.

OT from the Army .

 

[daftandbarmy]

It is in our doctrine so from that sense, yes it should.

Creating the 2-3000 positions an RCAF Regiment would need is easy. Recruiting those would be impossible in the current climate.

Only if you do a bad job at marketing the Air Force to teenagers...

.... which means you would really, really suck

 

[Kirkhill]

Not army folks. This is where a restructure of the CFMP Group comes in. Get rid of all "domestic policing" functions by that group and focus entirely on Force Protection (become the operational arm of DGDS). Own the entire security function; airfield security, convoy security, PW handling, securing FOBs, base D&S in and out of theatre, dog handling, VIP protection, air marshal, all of that. No army/air/navy pers need to be utilized for this as a secondary duty. Maintain a small NIS contingent for serious investigations along with RCMP secondments. Military chain of command manage all unit disciplinary matters.

Radical thought - I know.

So the MPs are going to be issued mortars, ATGMs, SAMs and LAA?

Are they also going to get into EOD, patching runways and erecting temporary power generators and control towers?

 

[FJAG]

Creating the 2-3000 positions an RCAF Regiment would need is easy.

 

[lenaitch]

But then there will be a hell of a lot less of the of the Snr Officers and we still save money to use on other things! win win.

This assumes TB would let the military keep the money that would no longer be spent on salaries.

 

[dimsum]

Yes the GOC had a lot to do with what has happened but the Military is just as guilty. It could put a stop to the bloat at NDHQ etc. I could put the money it spends on the 1000s of senior Officers who really dont have anything to do but have meetings. Why does the Infantry have no bullets or fuel to go on ex but can have a Lt General in charge of culture change. The job could be done by a major. And dont tell me about rank having power, that only exists for officers. The military is a glorified welfare system and WE have let it happen! We should have a quota for senior positions. Got a 100 troops you get 3 officer positions. Etc. Dont have the troops then you dont need leaders to control them. Very simplified but you get my drift. In WW1 we had 475000 troops and how many generals did we have......?

That “X number of troops means Y number of officers” is a very Army-centric view.

A squadron of aircraft has about 200 people but the costs, budgets, and capabilities are very different than a few companies of infantry. So, the rank requirements would also be very different.

I remember when 3 Cdn Space Div was formed and people were wondering why 200 folks needed a BGen as Comd. Well, bc the job isn’t person-intensive but the effect and cost of those systems is orders of magnitude greater than the typical combat arms unit or ship’s company.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Only if you do a bad job at marketing the Air Force to teenagers...

.... which means you would really, really suck

Ummmm….that is the Navy….

 

[Gunplumber]

Pray tell why?
A DIV gets a MG, and that’s IVO of 15k personnel.
A Corps rates a LTG, and that’s between 45-60k personnel.

So the CA has IVO of that for a LTG.

Yes, but the Army dont have an actual Div do we? We certainly dont have a Corps. Our "Div" is an HQ and doesn't have 15000 in it. I am talking about the real number of Troops we have in the Army, not paper. We should rank people for reality. You could run the Army with a Colonel.

We had Brevet ranks in the past so bring it back. When you go overseas you get bumped up "whilst so employed" and go back down again when you're done. Custer was a BGen in the ACW but in reality, he was a LCol, there are a lot others the same.

If TB doesn't let the Military keep the unused money, then at least it's not wasted and maybe our taxes will go down....lol

We HAVE to do something or in a few years there won't be any troops to command, just a bunch of Officers. And yes, you might notice I am a bit bitter. Had to Retire as it just wasn't worth staying in longer from all the stupidity. I know a lot of others the same. If we dont try and fix things it will die a horrible death, and it will deserve it. I, as a taxpayer want accountability for the money that's spent.

 

[SupersonicMax]

I learned that when there is will, everything is easy. But that’s was also to highlight how difficult recruiting 3,000 people would be.

 

[McG]

If TB doesn't let the Military keep the unused money, then at least it's not wasted and maybe our taxes will go down....lol

Your proposal does not produce any change in spending.

I, as a taxpayer want accountability for the money that's spent.

Your proposal does nothing for accountability either.

 

[Gunplumber]

If you downgrade the CDS from General to Colonel you downgrade all ranks below that. Thats is getting rid of hundreds of LGens MGens and BGens. If there is no position, then there is no need for anyone to occupy it. You would reduce the amount of senior Officer postions by a thousand, How does that not reduce spending?

Accountability means not paying senior Officers to do jobs that dont need to be done. We have a lot of bureaucrats and officers who dont have real jobs. There is way too much "overhead" to blue collars. Show me any other military in the world that has as much officer to troop percentages as we do.

 

[CT57]

https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=pfbid02Rb8ngiHMgX2jX8TZa3wyb6cEuqaJCMe3kagyF19swhuSJ9cK5qRez97yFz5GSS79l&id=100080280707588

I am interested to find out what members of this site think regarding Canada’s ability to face the international security situation in three years time. The UK Chief of the General Staff stated that the British army should be ready to fight a war in three years. Will the CAF be able to do its part if or when war emerges?
To those who think I am trying to disrespect the CAF, nothing could further from the truth. Coming from a military family and having been a proud member for a time, I am very interested in the development within the CAF.

 

[McG]

If you downgrade the CDS from General to Colonel you downgrade all ranks below that. Thats is getting rid of hundreds of LGens MGens and BGens. If there is no position, then there is no need for anyone to occupy it. You would reduce the amount of senior Officer postions by a thousand, How does that not reduce spending?

Accountability means not paying senior Officers to do jobs that dont need to be done. We have a lot of bureaucrats and officers who dont have real jobs. There is way too much "overhead" to blue collars. Show me any other military in the world that has as much officer to troop percentages as we do.

You have not proposed cutting any positions. Your proposal is just reducing the rank, which would just result in pay inflation of lower ranks that would then be doing the same jobs. I understand you are just doing the angry man rants thing, but can you even name the positions or organizations that you think the CAF can eliminate?

 

[dapaterson]

You have not proposed cutting any positions. Your proposal is just reducing the rank, which would just result in pay inflation of lower ranks that would then be doing the same jobs. I understand you are just doing the angry man rants thing, but can you even name the positions or organizations that you think the CAF can eliminate?

Goat tender at the Citadel.

 

[PPCLI Guy]

Goat tender at the Citadel.

Ego wrangler at Snowbirds....and said egos

 

[markppcli]

The military should not get a cent of money till it can clean up the mess that it has become. Get rid of all the bureaucracy and make the CDS a Colonel and down grade or fire anyone under that rank. We need a proper fighting force and actual Brigades (with equipment) so get rid of anyone who gets in the way of that. Or just disband the whole thing and start over.

You want the CDS to be the same rank as the commanders of their Brigades?

 

[Gunplumber]

You want the CDS to be the same rank as the commanders of their Brigades?

We dont have real brigades, we have hollowed out ones that cannot do a brigades work. I am saying that we have to put the money into getting the brigades up to real numbers. Until a brigade is full strength you dont get a BGen to run it. If it only has enough troops to be a Company then its run by a Captain/Major. If a division only has troops to be a Regt then it can be commanded by a LCol. Why spend all the money on "managers" when there is nothing to manage. We have to have an incentive to have a quota of officers to what troops they have to command. No troops then no promotions.

The example I used is for a reserve Regt of 30 guys, no need for a LCol just a Lt. If you add 30 more troops then the OC can be a Capt. Do that for the whole Army.

 

[Gunplumber]

You have not proposed cutting any positions. Your proposal is just reducing the rank, which would just result in pay inflation of lower ranks that would then be doing the same jobs. I understand you are just doing the angry man rants thing, but can you even name the positions or organizations that you think the CAF can eliminate?

CUT ALL GENERALS POSITIONS! We do not have the manpower to need even one general. You reduce positions as the lower the rank of the CO is you reduce the number of underlings.

Why do you need 1 Div HQ AND CJOC? Why do you need social media to be 100s of organizations when it should be one pyramid and not 30? All you are doing is creating jobs for hundreds of bureaucrats when it should be reduced by reducing the pyramids that these people want to fill.

Example. Fictional Canadian light brigade of 2000 WO/SGT/CPL/PTE is command by a LCol. and everyone below him/her is a Major/Capt/Lt. For 2000 troops why does it need to be commanded by a BGen? If the Brigade fills up to 10000 troops then you get to have a BGen.

How is this so hard to figure out? Reduce the number/rank of officers to how many troops you have.