Justin Trudeau hints at boosting Canada’s military spending

I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[Halifax Tar]

It wouldn’t be doing away with the army. It would be a restructure to allow surges. Large reserve with cadre of full time specialists, trainers and maybe a small full time combat capability. Like armour or artillery. So when we have an ISAF type situation we can surge the numbers to where they can get to. We already do work up training for that stuff anyways.

So Militia Myth in stone ? I like it!

 

[Kirkhill]

I'd wager we'd be even more a of a joke as a "world leader", or "soft power" if we did that, and we'd get laughed out of the room.

Canada can afford a modern, well killed out army of a reasonable size, alongside a capable air force and navy. The last thing Canada needs is further support for the militia myth...

Right up until the last line....

Why is it always an either or thing with you guys?

Isn't Ukraine demonstration enough that the local defence force and the professional strike force can live side by side and fight effectively.

Fight effectively meaning kill invaders, not brawl with each other.

 

[KevinB]

Since when has that mattered in Canada ?

I remain convinced we do not need a deployable Army. What we do need are big robust air and sea forces.

At the end of the day the Army does the dying - what NATO wants is partners equally committed to that task.

If you said you where shuttering the Army, you'd be laughed out of the room, regardless of what you had with an Air Force or Navy.

The Reserves are a colossal joke - so don't bother saying what the Army could do with them alone.
*not a dig at individual reserves - just the system is set for the Res to be worthless other than individual augments at this point.

Now what Canada should do is have 1 Heavy Bde, and 1 Medium, and 1 Light of Regulars - and revamp the Res structures to support those.
I'd argue that a Heavy and Medium force could be at lower readiness than the Light Force, IF the Reserve system is fixed.

Like the US Army - where you get XVIII Corps in first - the Light - Airborne and AirMobile - then you move your Stryker (Medium) and Abrams/Bradley (Heavy) units in.

 

[Kirkhill]

I fully disagree. If we went to NATO and said we are going to immediately meet or exceed the 2% expenditure on defense BUT our contribution will be solely Naval and Air forces I feel like they would be happy. We should be the go to for ASW/Convoy protection and Air Superiority.

Why do we need a deployable Army ? What we need is territorials with small arms, manpads and hand held antitank capability. And lots of them. They should be solely for DOMOPs and Territorial defense. We need a strong and mobile SOF component for what ever arises. I posted in another thread we could petition the US for them to allow Canadians to join the US Army.



See for your self

RCN:

Commander Royal Canadian Navy - Canada.ca

March 2020 - Essential information to familiarize the Minister with the Department.

www.canada.ca

Army:

Commander Canadian Army - Canada.ca

March 2020 - Essential information to familiarize the Minister with the Department.

www.canada.ca

RCAF:

Commander Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) - Canada.ca

March 2020 - Essential information to familiarize the Minister with the Department.

www.canada.ca

This of course is missing all of the joint stuff. Just the bare bones for each command.

A heliportable brigade with flying tanks capable of launching and landing domestically, on foreign lands or on ships.

Work in abundance for the willing.

 

[Kirkhill]

I like it! Turn the Army into a Marine corps and make them subservient to the RCN

I'd leave CRCN/CCA/CRCAF to fight that out among them.... except that is what has got us here.

 

[Kirkhill]

I love me some Absalon porn.

Absalon Class Combat / Flexible Support Ship, Denmark

The two Absalon Class vessels, built by Odense Steel Shipyard for the Danish Navy, are flexible support ships (combat support ships). The ships can be equipped for naval warfare, land attack, strat…

thaimilitaryandasianregion.wordpress.com

 

[KevinB]

meanwhile in Germany...
germany-to-buy-f-35-warplanes-for-nuclear-deterrence

 

[Halifax Tar]

At the end of the day the Army does the dying - what NATO wants is partners equally committed to that task.

That's not really always true. The highest casualty rates in WW2 were in the German submarine service. What NATO wants is for the USA to quickly move its forces from NA to Europe and sustain both the USA and Europe in the battle. That's all done by sea. Hence why NATOs most important battle ground is under, on and above the North Atlantic.

If you said you where shuttering the Army, you'd be laughed out of the room, regardless of what you had with an Air Force or Navy.

I mean that's all you say sure. But your basically using a sound bite here.

The Reserves are a colossal joke - so don't bother saying what the Army could do with them alone.
*not a dig at individual reserves - just the system is set for the Res to be worthless other than individual augments at this point.

No disagreement a restructuring is/would be required.

Now what Canada should do is have 1 Heavy Bde, and 1 Medium, and 1 Light of Regulars - and revamp the Res structures to support those.
I'd argue that a Heavy and Medium force could be at lower readiness than the Light Force, IF the Reserve system is fixed.

Like the US Army - where you get XVIII Corps in first - the Light - Airborne and AirMobile - then you move your Stryker (Medium) and Abrams/Bradley (Heavy) units in.

Why ?

 

[Kirkhill]

meanwhile in Germany...
germany-to-buy-f-35-warplanes-for-nuclear-deterrence

"Ve haff been haffing zecond tots. Ve haff decided to let you sell us your silly planes after all."

 

[Kirkhill]

I actually have no issue with the structure of either the Regs or the Reserves beyond some minor tinkering.

4 Regional commands (5 if you add the North as its own separate commands. Call them Regions, Districts or Narwhals if you like. Designed to organize their territories and proof them against emergencies. Organize Rangers, Reserves and Air Defence as well as Disaster Command and Control, Logistics and Medical Services. May as well be a Major General as a District Commissioner.

1 Strike Division with 3 Field Brigades and One Support Brigade. Armour and Arty to the Rear. Lt Cavalry, Infantry, Engineers and EW to the Fore
Deployable in Brigade Gps and Battle Gps with Atts and Dets. Trains at home as a Div working with the Regional forces.

1 SOF Group (no idea what they do or how they do it but I want some).

 

[Furniture]

Canada having troops on the ground, under fire, provides reassurance to our partners that we mean to stick to our commitment. It also shows solidarity with our partners, which helps discourage others from getting ideas. Using our lack of large commitment to previous missions as proof we should commit less now is exactly the kind of thinking that has lead to the cuts we are struggling with today.

Again, if we aren't being taken seriously now, we should be working to fix that, not reinforce it...

There is no doubt that the Atlantic will be important, but our fleet of seven CPFs even if multiplied by 10 isn't enough for Canada to be a serious naval power that would replace the USN as the main convoy escort. Can Canada sustain 100+ heavies, is that the best use of our resources?

If Canada wants to help Europe, we should have troops on the ground there as a deterrent, and as a show of solidarity with our allies. Right now, and under your proposal, it's far too easy for Canada to decide that maybe we'll let the oceans protect us, and pull our support out on a whim.

Your proposal for Canadians to be allowed in the US Army would essentially be the death knell for the CAF. Why would a Canadian government pay for ships and planes, when Canadians can protect Canada as part of the US military?

@Kirkhill

The militia myth needs to die because it encourages Canadians, and their government to believe that a group of plucky farmers can just grab rifles and be professional, competent soldiers. If you don't need expensive professionals and the kit they need, it's easier to justify a tiny, underequipped army.

In Ukraine they have a core standaing army of 200K supporting the hundreds of thousands of reservists.

 

[Good2Golf]

Not to get too cranky here but when you are part of a mutual defence alliance the other guys expect that you'll contribute something across the board and not just the crap that suits you.

It's an old formula that has pretty much worked for some 70 years now.

Toodles.

You mean like SP 155mm, ATACM, MLRS, ADATS, a handful of towed 155mm, 120mm mortars, 81mm mortars, even less than a hand full of towed 105mm, etc.?

 

[Kirkhill]

@Kirkhill

The militia myth needs to die because it encourages Canadians, and their government to believe that a group of plucky farmers can just grab rifles and be professional, competent soldiers. If you don't need expensive professionals and the kit they need, it's easier to justify a tiny, underequipped army.

In Ukraine they have a core standaing army of 200K supporting the hundreds of thousands of reservists.

Well kill the farmer's myth and figure out how to get hundreds of thousands of Canadians to offer free labour to manage crises.

You'll not get the job done with just the professionals.

No better than trying to chop down an oak with a spear.

I am a fan of professionals. Equally I am a fan of volunteers and enthusiastic amateurs. Just take a look at those charts above. It isn't the equipment or the infrastructure that is killing us. Its the salaries and the training.

Even operations only account for some 3000 or so professionals annually. And even that number includes augmentations from the part-time auxiliaries of the Reserve.

7 frigates won't command the Atlantic. How much of the North German Plain, or the Ukrainian Steppes, will a single understrength Mech Brigade command? Canadians are likely to die in both places. And now we're debating how much respect those dead Canadians will buy when negotiating the next trade and climate deal.

 

[MilEME09]

You mean like SP 155mm, ATACM, MLRS, ADATS, a handful of towed 155mm, 120mm mortars, 81mm mortars, even less than a hand full of towed 105mm, etc.?

Or our obsession with doing more with less, thus buying bigger trucks, and less of them? Russias losses in Ukraine is essentially taking the whole Canadian army and making in combat ineffective in two weeks.

 

[Halifax Tar]

I assume this was all to me.

Canada having troops on the ground, under fire, provides reassurance to our partners that we mean to stick to our commitment. It also shows solidarity with our partners, which helps discourage others from getting ideas. Using our lack of large commitment to previous missions as proof we should commit less now is exactly the kind of thinking that has lead to the cuts we are struggling with today.

Has it ? Or are we just doing this this way because reasons ? People die at sea and in the Air. But why is the the preeminent proof of payment how many soldiers have died ? Do Canadians think this is a worthy alter ? If were going to sacrifice people I would rather it be for a better reason than to say we were there too.

Again, if we aren't being taken seriously now, we should be working to fix that, not reinforce it...

This we agree on.

There is no doubt that the Atlantic will be important, but our fleet of seven CPFs even if multiplied by 10 isn't enough for Canada to be a serious naval power that would replace the USN as the main convoy escort. Can Canada sustain 100+ heavies, is that the best use of our resources?

The North Atlantic isn't important its everything. If we don't have the freedom to move men an material across it Europe is finished all stop. You are right, our current fleet isn't big enough. Hence why it needs a massive expansion. We don't need to over take the the USN, as we did in WW2 for escort duties, but we can take enough pressure off them to allow them to conduct other operations or raise the amount of convoys at sea. Ultimately Canada will decide regardless of what you and I think is the best use of our resources.

If Canada wants to help Europe, we should have troops on the ground there as a deterrent, and as a show of solidarity with our allies. Right now, and under your proposal, it's far too easy for Canada to decide that maybe we'll let the oceans protect us, and pull our support out on a whim.

Yeah no thank you. Sacrificing a BG in Latvia to say we were there is a waste. Do it right and be big and scary or don't do it all. Otherwise you're just wasting lives.

Our oceans do protect us and we need to get some nasty sleek greyhounds of death on those seas to keep them protecting us.

Your proposal for Canadians to be allowed in the US Army would essentially be the death knell for the CAF. Why would a Canadian government pay for ships and planes, when Canadians can protect Canada as part of the US military?

Its just an idea to appease those who really want to be in the Army.

 

[suffolkowner]

Its not obvious to me what the solution is or that things are going to change too much for the better even simpler things like some army reorganization. Its also not obvious to me that we really have a personnel problem in the CAF or even just the Army. We don't get bang for the buck and no one has held CAF leadership or should I say management to account. We are over managed. Our procurement is over managed. There should be a way to get better performance out of the CDS etc.. But yes the RCN and RCAF seem to be the organizations that are easiest to see the path forward

 

[Halifax Tar]

Its not obvious to me what the solution is or that things are going to change too much for the better even simpler things like some army reorganization. Its also not obvious to me that we really have a personnel problem in the CAF or even just the Army. We don't get bang for the buck and no one has held CAF leadership or should I say management to account. We are over managed. Our procurement is over managed. There should be a way to get better performance out of the CDS etc.. But yes the RCN and RCAF seem to be the organizations that are easiest to see the path forward

Agreed. If we're going to play the Army game then let's do it and do it right.

 

[suffolkowner]

Agreed. If we're going to play the Army game then let's do it and do it right.

Right now I might argue what is the right way for the army lol. But we've had a long time to realize that we needed to upgrade our anti tank and air defence games. An actual real commitment to recapitalize the CAF just as they are would be a start. As we sit here waiting to find out whether we are going to get F-35's or Gripens, what is going to replace the Auroras, and the Polaris. 3 easy slam dunk replacements

 

[Halifax Tar]

Well kill the farmer's myth and figure out how to get hundreds of thousands of Canadians to offer free labour to manage crises.

You'll not get the job done with just the professionals.

No better than trying to chop down an oak with a spear.

I am a fan of professionals. Equally I am a fan of volunteers and enthusiastic amateurs. Just take a look at those charts above. It isn't the equipment or the infrastructure that is killing us. Its the salaries and the training.

Even operations only account for some 3000 or so professionals annually. And even that number includes augmentations from the part-time auxiliaries of the Reserve.

7 frigates won't command the Atlantic. How much of the North German Plain, or the Ukrainian Steppes, will a single understrength Mech Brigade command? Canadians are likely to die in both places. And now we're debating how much respect those dead Canadians will buy when negotiating the next trade and climate deal.

I would also argue some plucky farmers are proving to be pretty nasty little opponents for what was 3 weeks ago a much feared country's Army.

 

[Furniture]

Well kill the farmer's myth and figure out how to get hundreds of thousands of Canadians to offer free labour to manage crises.

They won't, so we need to be prepared to pay for it, and given the overall labour shortages in Canada, we need to pay handsomely.

You'll not get the job done with just the professionals.

No better than trying to chop down an oak with a spear.

I am a fan of professionals. Equally I am a fan of volunteers and enthusiastic amateurs. Just take a look at those charts above. It isn't the equipment or the infrastructure that is killing us. Its the salaries and the training.

I'd love to see a massive increase in the number of reservists, but just like the full time forces, we need to pay them well, and offer other bonuses to get people to show up. Canadian's aren't into "God, Queen, and Country" these days, and even back in the WWII they weren't... The money was good if you signed up to fight, and were from a poor area.

Even operations only account for some 3000 or so professionals annually. And even that number includes augmentations from the part-time auxiliaries of the Reserve.

We send that many away, and struggle to do it now. How do you propose we fix that by cutting down on the number of full time people we have? For every person deployed we need someone on career training, someone on deployment training, someone on rest/leave, someone teaching the career courses, someone teaching the deployment training, someone doing planning for training, someone planning the missions, someone feeding the planners and trainers, someone paying the planners, trainers, and feeders, etc... Some of those jobs can be civilian, but you also need places for people to work as a break from training, and deploying.

7 frigates won't command the Atlantic. How much of the North German Plain, or the Ukrainian Steppes, will a single understrength Mech Brigade command? Canadians are likely to die in both places. And now we're debating how much respect those dead Canadians will buy when negotiating the next trade and climate deal.

That is always part of the calculation... It's not pretty, but if you aren't "in" the game, you don't get as much say at the end of the game when the spoils are being divided.

@Halifax Tar

If Canadians aren't willing to have Canadian troops die on the ground in Latvia, they aren't willing to have Canadians die at sea, or in the air over the Atlantic either. Divesting the ability to fight on the ground, just so we can "take pressure" off the USN is never going to be enough to make our NATO allies happy, and Canada won't spend the money to achieve it.

Also, your East Coast is showing... The Pacific theater is just as vital to our national interests if China gets squirrely. NATO isn't our only concern, we are a Pacific Ocean bordering country, with interests in Asia.

I think you are seriously underestimating how much it matters to be in the fight alongside your allies. If the best we can do is some planes, and ships, why would anyone send their army here to help us if we need it?