Justin Trudeau hints at boosting Canada’s military spending

I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Fixing Defence procurement starts with fixing the officers who know nothing, decide to ignore all advice on the process, and waste a year or two before restarting and following the process in time to be replaced by an officer who knows nothing and ignores all advice on the process...

Isn't one of the reasons they touted for putting Annand 'The Queen of Pandemic Procurement' in the MND's chair was to fix defence procurement?

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

LMAO, a global pandemic and the largest war in Europe since WW2 and people think this Government will still fund the Armed Forces?

It's the same song and dance every year, I wouldn't get my hopes up.

 

[Furniture]

Fixing Defence procurement starts with fixing the officers who know nothing, decide to ignore all advice on the process, and waste a year or two before restarting and following the process in time to be replaced by an officer who knows nothing and ignores all advice on the process...

Churn is definitely one of the problems we face, on top of everything else.

A friend of mine at a HQ in Ottawa has had a new director every year for the last three. Nothing moves forward, because by the time the one in the chair is up to speed they are handing over to another person so that new person gets their "tick in a box" for promotion/advancement.

 

[Jarnhamar]

"look at"

​

 

[suffolkowner]

CAF leadership has never owned responsibility for their own choices. Look at the growth in bloat under CDS Vance while the forces continued to shed operational capabilities. I have a bad feeling you could double the budget and not add one extra fighter jet, truck....

From what I have read smaller purchases under $5M seem to stumble along eventhough they still take too long. The bigger projects just take up too much time and resources right now when we have exhausted our grace period

 

[FormerHorseGuard]

I have always thought for simple things like trucks, Canada should buy the exact same truck as the USA is buying because we could tag a few trucks on to the order and Canada could save a pile of cash. Bigger orders come with cheaper per unit price. Air craft and ships, a lot of countries are building a navy, Canada is looking at some of the exact same ships, 2 or 3 NATO countries come together and get a NATO ship that would have common parts and common supply chain so parts are available at most NATO ports if required. Save huge money. Just because we can build a ship in Canada does not mean we should if it means we can buy them faster and get them to sea faster then going thru the make it Canadian policy. Some of the work could be done here, but not everything has to be done here. Weapons we need to start getting the same ones as used by the rest of NATO, so common training, supply and ammo can be readily accessed world wide as supply runs out when required. Canadian only items like uniforms and Arctic equipment should be Canadian made as we know better what is needed and have companies here who make great winter clothing , just get it in army green colours. I worked up North and the Hospital Evac team all worn Canada Goose, bright red or orange so it would stand out on the snow if there was accident and easy to spot. We can get it in army green , air force blue etc.

But instead the Buyers and TB, the Brass want to study it and restudy it over and over till it is out of date and requires a full rebuild and redesign. Takes years to buy a simple bolt action rifle for the Rangers, even longer to buy a side arm. Trucks are purchased but are not combat ready as they are not built for it. There has to be a new truck to replace the temporary truck purchase. Money wasted. Off the shelf helicopters, then made to look like military grade, made a Canadian Company in Quebec happy they got the deal. Navy helicopters delivered years late and no one seems concerned. Just put more money in the hands of the company to build them. If they Canada does purchase something worth while, they buy in small orders, and wait for it to rust out, break down and wear out from use before consider replacements. Spend too much time being the first one to buy and get hosed in the repairs and defects department.

If they decide to change how they spend money, and increase the budget, they need to learn how to spend it on timely programs and make the programs deliver in a timely matter. Put the cash on the table and get the best equipment possible for the job. One time purchases and then equipment being scrapped or retired has to stop.

Just my opinions

 

[FJAG]

This government is fervently hoping the Canadian military withers on the vine, dries up and blows away. FJAG we both know what his father was like - he detested the military until October 1970 and after that it was hung out to dry. This PM is worse.

At the risk of this being the 237th time I've gone this route on this forum I tend to side with @dapaterson on this.

Whatever the indifference of this government and this particular leader, the one thing you have to admit is that defence spending actually went up under them both in dollars and as a GDP percentage. My problem has always been that for various reasons the investment that Canadian governments make in defence never result in moving the goal posts forward in defence outputs.

While I think poor political direction, and even interference, has a lot to do with that, I tend to put a large part of the blame on a bureaucratic system, both civilian and military, that results in a lot of unnecessary churn that defeats the best of intentions of any one particular individual. I keep whining about the ResF system needing a top to bottom overhaul. That's not the only thing that does. But you're absolutely right. The lack of strong political oversight and accountability is allowing the military to wither on the vine ... a very expensive vine.

 

[Good2Golf]

Integration of the military and civil staffs years before integrating of the three services formed a large part of precisely what you describe, FJAG.

 

[Rifleman62]

No F-35's for sure.

 

[suffolkowner]

An alternative view of the Russia-Ukraine war might suggest that there is no need for large reinvestments in our National Defence capabilities considering how poorly Russia has shown in that endeavour

 

[YZT580]

An alternative view of the Russia-Ukraine war might suggest that there is no need for large reinvestments in our National Defence capabilities considering how poorly Russia has shown in that endeavour

China is the principle problem

 

[tomydoom]

China is the principle problem

For everyone, including the Russians.

 

[Weinie]

Chinas' is the principles are the problem

FTFY.

 

[MilEME09]

Let's face it, we the CAF are broken, we have admitted it too, atleast internally. However we lack the tools and the leadership to do more then band aid solutions. Bloat, red tape, botched procurement the issues go on and on, but we are better at playing shell games then fixing problems.

 

[MarkOttawa]

Meanwhile the Aussies, concerned about PRC not Russia--will anyone dare tell PM Trudeau what they're doing? Unlike Canada big defence spending seems good electoral politics down under. Different strokes for...but still pork galore:

Australia to invest $38B to surge troop strength by 30 percent ​

"In their last three years in Government, Labor cut Defence spending by 10.5 per cent in real terms," while the current government says "Our Government has increased investment in defence to more than two per cent of GDP."​

SYDNEY: In a decision that has been in the making for some time, Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison and Defense Minister Peter Dutton announced a huge increase Wednesday to the island state’s force structure.

Morrison said in a press release that “we need a bigger ADF with more soldiers, sailors and airmen and women to operate the cutting-edge capabilities we’re getting to protect Australia.”

The uniformed military, currently 60,000 strong, will see an increase of 18,500 troops by 2040. The ministry estimates the cost will be at least $38 billion over the period of 2024-40.

“This growth in workforce and expertise will enable us to deliver our nuclear powered submarines, ships, aircraft and advanced weapons. It will mean we can build warfighting capabilities in the domains of space, and information and cyber,” Defense Minister Peter Dutton said in the release. “It will also build the resilience we need in critical areas and enable our people to increase intelligence, information and communications capacity.”

Much of the growth is likely to come for troops — “diggers,” in local parlance — trained for space, nuclear sub and cyber duty, but a press release says the growth “will be even higher when workforce requirements for the nuclear-powered submarines are finalised.”

Industry sources here have flagged the need for a significant growth in troops trained as space specialists to cope with the substantial increase in ground stations, launch and satellites expected over the next 15 years

The timing of the release is interesting and there are clear indications from the press release that it is closely tied to the upcoming federal election, where Morrison’s Liberal Party is fighting off a challenge from the opposition Labor Party. The release notes the review was launched as part of the 2020 Force Structure Plan, which committed Australia to a range of new weapons and capabilities, and the main decisions were approved on November 17 last year.

The release notes that: “the Labor Party’s “defense spending as a share of GDP dropped to 1.56 per cent in the 2012-13 Budget – the lowest level of funding since 1938. In their last three years in Government, Labor cut Defence spending by 10.5 per cent in real terms. Our Government has increased investment in defence to more than two per cent of GDP.”

It points out that “ADF personnel will be increased in every state and territory (emphasis added), with a particular focus on capabilities associated with our trilateral security partnership between Australia, United Kingdom and United States (AUKUS), as well as air, sea, land, space and cyber.” The release also notes that “a majority of the growth” will occur in Queensland, New South Wales, South Australia and Western Australia...

Australia to invest $38B to surge troop strength by 30 percent - Breaking Defense

"In their last three years in Government, Labor cut Defence spending by 10.5 per cent in real terms," while the current government says "Our Government has increased investment in defence to more than two per cent of GDP."

breakingdefense.com

Mark
Ottawa

 

[dimsum]

Meanwhile the Aussies, concerned about PRC not Russia--will anyone dare tell PM Trudeau what they're doing? Unlike Canada big defence spending seems good electoral politics down under. Different strokes for...but still pork galore:

For context, they have a centre-right govt which has been the most hawkish in decades, and they have an election in a few months.

 

[FSTO]

Okay, I'll admit my bias by stating that our current PM is pretty vacuous at the best of times. But this magical mystery tour has to be one of the most empty of realism I've ever seen. The breathless voice, the non answers, the empty statements. Admittedly the the Ukrainian President is staring death in the face every day but when you put our lad against Zelenskyy the lack of sand in our hero is quite stark.

 

[suffolkowner]

For context, they have a centre-right govt which has been the most hawkish in decades, and they have an election in a few months.

The election down under should be interesting with respect to the submarine issue. Continuity is imperative if the Aussies have any hope at succeeding there. The proposed new Eastern submarine base should add some spice

Okay, I'll admit my bias by stating that our current PM is pretty vacuous at the best of times. But this magical mystery tour has to be one of the most empty of realism I've ever seen. The breathless voice, the non answers, the empty statements. Admittedly the the Ukrainian President is staring death in the face every day but when you put our lad against Zelenskyy the lack of sand in our hero is quite stark.

Same old same old with Trudeau lots of talk and posing but very little substance. Maybe if trialed by fire he would stand out as well but I look at the lack of real response with regard to our own defence priorities as damming. What moves to secure our own nationality has he even broached? None as far as I know. We sit on our hands on the fighter replacement. I mean we lie our way to whatever measly GDP percentage we are currently at by including non CAF expenditures like the CCG when the CCG has very little constabulary ability. That being taken up mostly by our Kingston Class. Even from a non kinetic standpoint you think we could be helping out with the refugee situation in Poland unless they dont want or need it but I find that hard to believe

 

[Good2Golf]

One can’t be seen as a true leader of a nation if one ‘leads’ by seeing how his Millenial-staffed Star Chamber reacts to his friend Nick Nanos’ latest polls and going from there…

 

[OldSolduer]

Okay, I'll admit my bias by stating that our current PM is pretty vacuous at the best of times. But this magical mystery tour has to be one of the most empty of realism I've ever seen. The breathless voice, the non answers, the empty statements. Admittedly the the Ukrainian President is staring death in the face every day but when you put our lad against Zelenskyy the lack of sand in our hero is quite stark.

Truer words have never been spoken - empty headed lunch bucket is my preferred way of describing him. But I am biased.