Justin Trudeau hints at boosting Canada’s military spending

I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[markppcli]

Read my lips SENIOR OFFICERS

And do you think junior officers don’t look at their career prospects?

 

[markppcli]

"What’s your solutions for a 450 person infantry Bn, probably a Lt Col I assume? And if we group several of those together surely a Col commands it? You’re taking your experiences from a small reserve unit and attempting to apply it globally across the CAF. That’s simply not the case."

It was an example, and a very simple one.

It was your argument, and a bad one that falls apart rather quickly when faced with reality.

You can command people of the same rank, its called seniority and position. ie. if an OC is a Capt, he can have Captains under him/her. Its been done for centuries.

You can but it doesn’t work terribly well when your taking a guy and doubling his work load for no pay. Can you give me a historic example of a deliberate structure that has Captains working for Captains ?

 

[Loachman]

Read my lips SENIOR OFFICERS

Yes.

Read mine as well.

If you down-rank positions and pay people less, while maintaining the same workloads and levels of responsibility, you are going to lose all of the ones who are skilled, talented, motivated, trained, and experienced enough to attract the attentions of commercial businesses, who will happily pay them even more.

You won't be left with the quality of people that you really, really want and need.

 

[Gunplumber]

I have had Cpls and Mcpls working FOR me when I was a Cpl. I was senior and in the position. I was a Company Quartermaster SERGEANT as a Cpl. I was given the authority by the CSM, No one had a problem. Why can it work for troops and not officers?

Lt Chard and Lt Bromhead at Rorkes Drift.

 

[dangerboy]

If I was a MCpl and told I was working permanently for a Cpl I would have an issue with that.

 

[markppcli]

I have had Cpls and Mcpls working FOR me when I was a Cpl. I was senior and in the position. I was a Company Quartermaster SERGEANT as a Cpl. I was given the authority by the CSM, No one had a problem. Why can it work for troops and not officers?

Lt Chard and Lt Bromhead at Rorkes Drift.

Well now we’re just shifting from “done for centuries” to “this one time happened to me.” These are advice solutions and not a frame work for how to build anything.

 

[daftandbarmy]

I have had Cpls and Mcpls working FOR me when I was a Cpl. I was senior and in the position. I was a Company Quartermaster SERGEANT as a Cpl. I was given the authority by the CSM, No one had a problem. Why can it work for troops and not officers?

Lt Chard and Lt Bromhead at Rorkes Drift.

That reminds me of another movie too ...

 

[Gunplumber]

If I was a MCpl and told I was working permanently for a Cpl I would have an issue with that.

It wasnt permanant just a tasking. They had a choice but stayed.

 

[Gunplumber]

Im done. You can keep your shitty system and wait for it to die,

 

[markppcli]

It wasnt permanant just a tasking. They had a choice but stayed.

So not a structure then.

 

[QV]

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?

There you go, poking holes in my fantasy again...

 

[McG]

The military gets more than enough money to buy and do what we need with it.

I could put the money it spends on the 1000s of senior Officers who really dont have anything to do but have meetings.

The distinction between vote 1 and vote 5 doesn’t allow that.

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.

CUT ALL GENERALS POSITIONS!

You are all over the map. Are you cutting the positions or reducing the rank? You keep flopping between these.

Last time i checked lower ranks mean lower pay.

Yes but (as was already explained to you) the way military pay is benchmarked to the PS, if you make the CDS a Colonel and then Col pay will jump to match DM levels. If you make CCA a LCol then LCol pay will jump to match ADM levels.

Get rid of all the bureaucracy and make the CDS a Colonel and down grade or fire anyone under that rank.

And yes, I know all about different budgets and all that but fu*k this if we cant fix it then disband the whole s**thole.

Slash and burn would be my motto, lol.

Got it. You are angry at the system but ignorant of how it works. You don’t care enough to understand and formulate constructive suggestions. You are ready to burn the house down if it helps or not.

Im done.

Probably for the best at this point.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Despite being more than just a tad hyperbolic, Gunplumber is NOT 100% wrong. The CF has a C2 superstructure (HQs and very senior officers) suitable, maybe, for a force three or four times as large.

I remain shocked that we "need" brigadier generals to run HQs that command two thirds of five eights of Sweet Fanny Adams but we think it was wise to downgrade the ranks of the officers who actually command formations with troops, tanks and guns.

The IDF has 150,000+ men and women on full time service and nearly 500,000 in the reserves. The CDS is a lieutenant general ... tell me why they're wrong, please. The Indians have a four star CDS and a 4 star Chief of the General Staff but they have over 1 million men and women on active service in the army and nearly another million in the reserve army so I can't complain that they are overhanded. But Canada ... a four star CDS for less than 70,000 full time and less than 30,000 reserve members?

 

[Remius]

I have had Cpls and Mcpls working FOR me when I was a Cpl. I was senior and in the position. I was a Company Quartermaster SERGEANT as a Cpl. I was given the authority by the CSM, No one had a problem. Why can it work for troops and not officers?

Lt Chard and Lt Bromhead at Rorkes Drift.

I would argue that that is more out necessity than something that should be done on a sustainable basis. Plenty of times I’ve seen underranked folks doing things above their rank level.

The solution to that is promote them if they are that capable. Make it acting lacking or ASWE or whatever.

 

[MilEME09]

Figure it out yourselves didn't necessarily mean make your techs do it. It's piss poor planning to assume CA is going to force gen your security, those PYs already have tasks and are better employed elsewhere. What you need is PY growth that some smart bean counters will figure out where it'll come from.

its literally written in multiple doctrine that using Techs not as techs is directly supporting enemy action by not getting our equipment back in the fight

 

[Edward Campbell]

From The Economist; the Brits talk about doing more wth less:

----------​

Britain’s army chief fears war may come sooner than anyone thinks​

Could the army cope without more money and troops?​

The hall of Church House, nestled next to Westminster Abbey, is full of pious exhortations to peace and love. On July 22nd-23rd it was filled with military officers debating how to kill people more efficiently. General Sir Roly Walker, who became chief of the general staff in June, was one of those addressing the army’s annual land-warfare conference, run by the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), a think-tank. In his speech he set out his aim “to double our fighting power in three years and triple it by the end of the decade”.

In the past that might have been seen as a cynical ploy to pitch for more money and troops. Unusually, General Walker said he was not asking for either. Instead his plan reflects a fear that war might come sooner than anyone thinks. General Walker sees 2027-28 as a moment in which Russian rearmament, China’s threat to Taiwan and Iran’s nuclear ambitions might come together in a “singularity”. (Admiral Sir Tony Radakin, the chief of the defence staff and General Walker’s boss, is more relaxed: he argues that Russia would need five years to rebuild its army to the pre-2022 standard, and another five to fix deeper problems.)

Before the war in Ukraine, the British Army’s aim was to modernise slowly in the hope of building a battle-ready force by the early 2030s. That timeline has been shredded. General Walker’s plan is to eke out more combat power from the force at his disposal now. His idea is to create an “internet of military things” in which any sensor (a satellite or drone, say) can funnel data to any weapon, the entire process fuelled by artificial intelligence. “We will sense twice as far, decide in half the time, deliver effects over double the distance with half as many munitions,” he says, pointing to Ukraine’s military ingenuity.

Sceptics retort that the army is running on fumes. On July 23rd John Healey, the new defence secretary, reaffirmed Britain’s commitment to offer NATO a corps in any war with Russia—roughly, three divisions’ worth of troops, comprising six combat brigades plus enablers such as engineering and artillery units. That is fanciful. The army currently has around 75,000 regular troops. In April General Sir Nick Carter, an ex-army chief, told Parliament that the army had calculated it would need 82,000 troops just to generate a single “warfighting” division. Manpower is not the only issue. RUSI estimates that deploying a single armoured brigade would absorb 70-80% of the army’s engineering capabilities for crossing rivers or minefields.

“The British Army has been handed a policy commitment by wider government that it is not resourced to deliver,” says Jack Watling, a RUSI expert whose writing has acquired cult status among generals. It is not the army’s place to set policy, he acknowledges. “But the rest of government needs to realise that demanding the impossible is grossly irresponsible.” The idea of a corps is a “fantasy”, says an American general who has worked closely with the British Army. “They could project maybe two understrength brigades.” He suggests that Britain look to the us Marine Corps and do away with tanks entirely in favour of a smaller and lighter force that could “plug in” to an American division.

The task of advising on military priorities will fall to three outsiders undertaking a “root-and-branch” defence review announced by Mr Healey on July 16th. Lord Robertson, a NATO secretary-general in 1999-2003, will take the lead, supported by Sir Richard Barrons, a retired general, and Fiona Hill, a British-American expert on Russia who served in Donald Trump’s national-security council. That may lead to more resources for General Walker. But he isn’t banking on it. ■

----------

I think General (ret'd) Carter is correct when he suggests that 80,000+ troops are required to "generate" 1 division of 20,000+ soldiers. A full corps - three divisions, 75,000+ soldiers - requires an Army of 250,000 to 350,000 all ranks.

As to using AI to "multiply" combat power: I love the concept but I worry that in most military operations there is a weak link: telecommunications. Most military operations are mobile to a very great or lesser degree. Mobile means radio. I'm to an expert on operations but I do know a whole helluva lot about radio-communication, more than 95% of the population I would guess, and I know how vulnerable it is is to a vast array of "threats" - natural and manmade.

 

[PPCLI Guy]

If, for example, we downrank the CDS to a 1*, then we have a Col in Colorado Springs supposedly having the same duties of a US 3*. We might think it’s fine but the US certainly won’t.

Given that the Comd NORAD has two Bosses - US SECDEF and CAN CDS - I think it very unlikely that a US 4 star would work for a Canadian one star...

 

[KevinB]

Despite being more than just a tad hyperbolic, Gunplumber is NOT 100% wrong. The CF has a C2 superstructure (HQs and very senior officers) suitable, maybe, for a force three or four times as large.

I remain shocked that we "need" brigadier generals to run HQs that command two thirds of five eights of Sweet Fanny Adams but we think it was wise to downgrade the ranks of the officers who actually command formations with troops, tanks and guns.

Oh I agree that there is HQ bloat - I

The IDF has 150,000+ men and women on full time service and nearly 500,000 in the reserves. The CDS is a lieutenant general ... tell me why they're wrong, please.

The IDF also doesn't have LO's all over NATO and other allied Militaries to the same extent.
Furthermore the IDF isn't an expeditionary force -- while I've previously argued that the CDS could be a LTG, it has been pointed out to me that it would cause ripple down issues in the OutCan forces - and wouldn't solve the pay issue anyway.

The Indians have a four star CDS and a 4 star Chief of the General Staff but they have over 1 million men and women on active service in the army and nearly another million in the reserve army so I can't complain that they are overhanded. But Canada ... a four star CDS for less than 70,000 full time and less than 30,000 reserve members?

I don't disagree - but I think the larger issues isn't the rank itself, but the staff bloat and imaginary commands that have been created.

4* as CDS is fine if the structure below makes sense.
3* CCA, CCRCAF, CCRCN, VCDS - beyond that I fail to see a need for any more 3* save for 3* on OUTCAN positions with I thin is only NORAD correct? so that would be 5.
That should allow the services to have 3 2* each plus CANSOFCOM, and then OUTCAN (there are 4 of those correct?), and given the size of the CAF that is being fairly generous, but
Then let's say 12 1* each plus 2 for CANSOFCOM and OUTCAN (9 correct?) -- which would be a total of 66 GOFO, which to me is overly generous - but still significantly under what exists now.

SO let the services get a little more aggressive looking at exactly what they NEED versus what empires like to get built.

 

[daftandbarmy]

“The British Army has been handed a policy commitment by wider government that it is not resourced to deliver,” says Jack Watling, a RUSI expert whose writing has acquired cult status among generals. It is not the army’s place to set policy, he acknowledges. “But the rest of government needs to realise that demanding the impossible is grossly irresponsible.” The idea of a corps is a “fantasy”, says an American general who has worked closely with the British Army. “They could project maybe two understrength brigades.” He suggests that Britain look to the us Marine Corps and do away with tanks entirely in favour of a smaller and lighter force that could “plug in” to an American division.

The task of advising on military priorities will fall to three outsiders undertaking a “root-and-branch” defence review announced by Mr Healey on July 16th. Lord Robertson, a NATO secretary-general in 1999-2003, will take the lead, supported by Sir Richard Barrons, a retired general, and Fiona Hill, a British-American expert on Russia who served in Donald Trump’s national-security council. That may lead to more resources for General Walker. But he isn’t banking on it. ■

I watched Walker's speech at RUSI.

It smelled strongly of yet another cop out to 'muddle through' while not upsetting their political masters, IMHO.

If the UK, a European country of 66+ million, can't field a military larger than 70,000 all ranks, Uncle Sam (and others) will gladly usurp their sovereignty in various ways while they're attending yet more 'do more with less' conferences...

At least Wayne Eyre was clear all along that the CAF isn't big enough, which puts the country in peril, and said so in public.

 

[OldSolduer]

Im done. You can keep your shitty system and wait for it to die,

A bit testy aren't we?

Because YOUR solution isn't acceptable to this forum?