Our North - SSE Policy Update Megathread

[daftandbarmy]

Can our arctic patrol vessels currently not operate maritime helicopters at sea?

I understand these choppers will always turn up if you call them

 

[The Bread Guy]

Adm note: Since the SSE/defence vision discussion also generated a lot of juicy discussion a couple of years ago, it's all been merged into a single thread. Back to your regularly scheduled discussion ....

Milnet.ca Staff

 

[dapaterson]

Like everything else in this abortion of an update, in 20-30 years maybe.

Annex A shows what's happening when in the next five years. I am slightly optimistic that there's about a billion in additional infra, beyond things like northern bases, and large chunks for renting a ship (presumably Asterix) and ship repairs, plus a big chunk for NP and Cyber all in the five year horizon.

 

[dapaterson]

I am still reeling that there's not a cent committed for 2024-25 and the bulk coming post Election 2025....

There is in fact over $600M for 24/25, in NP, naval repairs and rentals, and Cyber (and small amounts elsewhere). Annex A has the details.

Also of interest was the Q&A where the PM acknowledged that nuclear subs may be an option. That's an entirely novel idea from the LPC. And a gift to the RCN, as the CPC can't walk back on that.

 

[IKnowNothing]

Disappointment on timelines, lack of firm commitments, excess of exploration aside - what do we think of the... principles? fundamentals? of the review?

Is this something that a serious government could take as a foundational building block to build from and provide more money, tighter timelines, and move some "explores" to "acquires", or is this a two year make work project that will need to be ripped up?

 

[PuckChaser]

Adm note: Since the SSE/defence vision discussion also generated a lot of juicy discussion a couple of years ago, it's all been merged into a single thread. Back to your regularly scheduled discussion ....

Milnet.ca Staff

I think we're merging and splitting posts at the same time!

Annex A shows what's happening when in the next five years. I am slightly optimistic that there's about a billion in additional infra, beyond things like northern bases, and large chunks for renting a ship (presumably Asterix) and ship repairs, plus a big chunk for NP and Cyber all in the five year horizon.

A lot of this is post election money, colour me cynical. After the hack and slash of O&M (to the tune of 40%+ on some bases), $1B in infrastructure is just going to replace everything we broke by not maintaining it this year.

 

[dapaterson]

A lot of this is post election money, colour me cynical. After the hack and slash of O&M (to the tune of 40%+ on some bases), $1B in infrastructure is just going to replace everything we broke by not maintaining it this year.

I'm not saying this is the greatest thing since sliced bread.

But any major spending changes takes time. New buildings need plans. NP is a quick hit to buy things available now.

There are plenty of things I'd like to see sooner. But that they are being discussed as important is at least a step forward.

 

[Fabius]

SSE also discussed things. When SSE was released it planned for the FY 23/24 Budget to be 1.37% of GDP and for FY 24/25 to be 1.4% with our capital budget being 32.2%.

Last year according to NATO our budget was 1.29%. According to the GoC numbers today our budget is around 1.33%, we have not met the standards articulated in SSE.

Going to 4yr National Security Strategies is a good idea but the overall plan to slowly ramp up between now and 2044 doesn’t seem to actually match up with the probable near term threats and challenges in the next 5-10 years.

So Canada is planning on $8 Billion CAD in the next 5, that’s nice but compared to Norway committing $60 Billion USD in the next 12 years, we come off to our allies no different than yesterday.

 

[PuckChaser]

I'm not saying this is the greatest thing since sliced bread.

But any major spending changes takes time. New buildings need plans. NP is a quick hit to buy things available now.

There are plenty of things I'd like to see sooner. But that they are being discussed as important is at least a step forward.

It's hard to see the step forward when most of us will be released when the funding finally kicks in, and we're staring down $1B in cuts per year for the next few years.

I absolutely love some of the capabilities we're buying. They're long overdue. Critical ones are just empty promises without funding (explore submarines, explore artillery, explore tanks) and others are funded so far past the best before dates (Griffon replacement) that they might as well have not been mentioned. Not to mention they punted creating a coherent National Security Strategy making the CAF unable to start divesting capabilities and facilities until at least 2028 so we're stuck throwing all that new NP money at things we don't need.

Much like SSE, I'm underwhelmed. This is hardly a transformative document and reads like throwing cash at whatever has been in the media recently to calm the circling sharks.

 

[dapaterson]

The commitment to four year Defence and four year foreign affairs reviews are very positive.

But I agree that the here and now need more than "Let's look at these problem spaces".

 

[MilEME09]

It's hard to see the step forward when most of us will be released when the funding finally kicks in, and we're staring down $1B in cuts per year for the next few years.

I absolutely love some of the capabilities we're buying. They're long overdue. Critical ones are just empty promises without funding (explore submarines, explore artillery, explore tanks) and others are funded so far past the best before dates (Griffon replacement) that they might as well have not been mentioned. Not to mention they punted creating a coherent National Security Strategy making the CAF unable to start divesting capabilities and facilities until at least 2028 so we're stuck throwing all that new NP money at things we don't need.

Much like SSE, I'm underwhelmed. This is hardly a transformative document and reads like throwing cash at whatever has been in the media recently to calm the circling sharks.

I would not even call it a policy document, its more a spending wish list. Nothing really screams "this is what we want the CAF to accomplish"

 

[Happy Guy]

Our North, Strong and Free: A Renewed Vision for Canada’s Defence​

Hmm. The way I'm reading this is the major capital projects will get funded or at least receive sufficient funding to open a project and start the project definition and perhaps define the requirements.

No serious increases for the baseline budget. Remember the budget does not take into account inflation and there was no mention of any adjustment for in

The government is committing to explore not committing to buy:

We will explore options to acquire new vehicles adapted to ice, snow and tundra.

We will explore options for enabling our Arctic and Offshore Patrol Vessels to embark and operate our maritime helicopters at sea.

ADATS 2.0?

We will also explore options for acquiring ground-based air defences to defend critical infrastructure from a diverse array of incoming airborne attacks, including drones, missiles and artillery.

SP Arty? MLRS?

We will explore options for modernizing our artillery capabilities.

We will explore options for upgrading or replacing our tank and light armoured vehicle fleets.

This one I think that a good likelihood of becoming true. Got to keep GDLS London open for jobs.

Canada will explore establishing a light armoured vehicle production program to replenish our fleet while also enabling industry to invest in a sustainable defence production capacity to support Canada and our NATO allies.

We will explore options for acquiring a suite of surveillance and strike drones and counter-drone capabilities.

The previous gov't also made commitments to defence the north, but nothing substantial was done except study after study.

we will establish northern operational support hubs.

No commitment to submarine replacement.

We commit to vastly improving the Canadian Armed Forces' ability to surveil and control our underwater and maritime approaches. We will explore options for renewing and expanding our submarine fleet to enable the Royal Canadian Navy to project a persistent deterrent on all three coasts, with under-ice capable, conventionally powered submarines.

Defence investments into infrastructure can be very costly. Given the political talk this could be mean building more fencing or just renovating current buildings - new electrical wiring, plumbing, HVAC.

we will invest in current and new Defence infrastructure from coast to coast to coast.

The first thought was AWACs, but is could be just partnering with the USAF or other Allies to share data. New aircraft capability such as AWACS is expensive will require training for pers, infrastructure and so on. Knowing political speak, this could just mean discussions with NORAD, other Allies to "explore" requirement

To detect and manage airborne threats, we will acquire airborne early warning aircraft.

Project funding over 20 years to ease drain on the budget. This means many people will be retired when the project starts to deliver a product.

Sorry, but I cannot help but be cynical. Of course there is no indication that the CPC, if it becomes the next gov't, will remain committed to this plan.

 

[suffolkowner]

I am guessing you will be getting new Griffons.

I think thats all it is. The Griffon life extension

 

[dapaterson]

I think thats all it is. The Griffon life extension

Look at the cash lines. It's a replacement project (likely including infrastructure) and not GLLE.

 

[suffolkowner]

Look at the cash lines. It's a replacement project (likely including infrastructure) and not GLLE.

The Right Capabilities for Canada
millions of dollars, accrual basis

	2024-2025	2025-2026	2026-2027	2027-2028	2028-2029	5-year total	20-year total 2024-2025 to 2043-2044
Tactical Helicopters	0	1	5	6	5	17	18,383

right you are I was making up some other numbers in my head that turned it into 1.8383 Billion dollars

 

[Brad Sallows]

Explore options...does this mean the industrial establishment should dig in deep for a forthcoming barrage of whatever the government calls a request for proposal?

Our North, in the middle of our street...

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Anyone on the naval side noticed this one in the "Sustaining naval vessels" section, though: "Including [...] preserving the Royal Canadian Navy’s interim at-sea replenishment capability."

I can only read this as meaning we'll be refitting and keeping the Asterix going.

 

[dapaterson]

Anyone on the naval side noticed this one in the "Sustaining naval vessels" section, though: "Including [...] preserving the Royal Canadian Navy’s interim at-sea replenishment capability."

I can only read this as meaning we'll be refitting and keeping the Asterix going.

Refit? Or just extending the contract?

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

At the end of the current contract, she will be due (some would say overdue) for a good refit. I don't think Federal Services would want to go another contract term without one, that they would bill the government for in any event.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Bottom line?

They are trudeau liberals.

Consumate liars and grifters who never intend to keep their promises. Once the vote is cast, the promises will be forgotten or a million excuses why it can't be done will be rolled out.

If anyone thinks theses guys will ever buy nuclear anything, especially subs, I have a bridge in Brooklyn for sale.