Justin Trudeau hints at boosting Canada’s military spending

I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[FJAG]

The whole concept of globalization of trade is that buying your products where they are most efficiently (and cost effectively) produced leaves you with more money to spend on other things.

But you lose the local multiplier effect within the Canadian economy that would be gained by spending the money internally where it ends up in the hands of Canadian workers and a Canadian company.

The important thing is to develop the industry in such a way that rather than having bursts of production and then done (like our current vehicle fleets are), the business becomes a permanent one that turns out a continuous stream of products (even if in smaller annual amounts) so that all the peripheral industries and services also become permanent.

 

[Spencer100]

You are correct wrt goods but services are supplied with human capital and hiring 100 taxpayers to make ammunition for inventory, or another thousand to train to react to emergencies also contributes to the defence effort but the money basically comes from the public service and welfare budgets.

That money can be pumped up with little or no effect on the domestic economy. Using those resources leaves foreign exchange in the kitty to buy equipment overseas or to buy licences that would allow more Canadians to be put to work domestically.

Estonia can spend 4% of GDP on defense and have 90% of the funds spent on the domestic economy with 100% of the benefit being domestic.

The 10% (0.4% of GDP) that they spend externally can all be spent on foreign equipment.

And any equipment that they produce domestically, guns, bullets or batteries, can all be sold internationally to offset the costs of the foreign exchange loss.

People focus on the capital sales but as I learned working for a capital equipment supplier the profits all came from the consumables and after sales parts. Services, such as design and training were also profitable.

If I were in power I wouldnt be building tanks or howitzers in Canada. I would be manufacturing bullets and small calibre missiles and rockets. Radios and Optics. Small arms and UAVs and UUVs.

I would also be building fuel cells and selling fuels, Coal, Diesel, LNG and even Hydrogen from whatever source we can get it economically.

100%

No OEM has every lost money on service parts.

 

[FJAG]

If I were in power I wouldnt be building tanks or howitzers in Canada. I would be manufacturing bullets and small calibre missiles and rockets. Radios and Optics. Small arms and UAVs and UUVs.

I agree. It's hard to create a continuing production line for such things as tanks and howitzers but things like trucks, which we need in the thousands could become a continuing industry if produced in smaller lots of several hundred per year.

OTOH, we have an existing production facility for armoured vehicles in London. Conceivably a part of that line could be used to turn out say a squadron's worth of tanks under licence per year without disrupting its other lines. That could keep the line running for a decade on initial production and longer on upgrades.

 

[Grimey]

I could be wrong, but think we include some other departments (like the Coast Guard), because of how our general org chart breaks down compared to other countries, and other things like the procurement side of things the cost for the other departments is rolled into it as well, as there is a weird billing arrangement to 'cover' the SWE (even though regardless of what lower line items say people will still get paycheques from the GoC).

I think if you looked at some things from a functional viewpoint, we have a few agencies outside DND doing similar things to what the US does under the DoD umbrella.

They are definitely reaching though, and trying to tie the Canadarm to defence spending is a bit of a stretch.

It is pretty embarassing though when the PR lines are you are sailing on a modernized warship with all the bells and whistles, and then you pull into a port and go around seeing if anyone has an electric switch to keep your 30 year old black water collection system running so the toilets work (and then Command staff not letting you buy the part off Amazon for next day delivery). Nothing quite like being in Jacksonville getting port-o-potties on the jetty for the weekend (and then waiting for CTG staff to go ashore before sending someone with some goodies to visit the USN ships to get a part on the down low and modifying it).

FFS. I’d ask if you’re joking but we know you’re not.

 

[Grimey]

@KevinB on the plus side, both the USN and USCG are great to work with, and provide a huge amount of support when we ask. Usually go over looking for a simple part or help machining/fabricating something, come back with a box of other stuff and/or techs to help fix things, and then host them for beers afterwards to say thanks. It's a bit of a form of lower deck/juniour officer diplomacy I guess but do get the feeling that there is some pity and headshaking involved and 'you guys are nuts, lol' kind of reactions.

A bottle of Bailey’s in Sub Base Pearl once got me 4 start pack hoses made from scratch with fittings and pressure tested in less than an hour.

 

[lenaitch]

Trudeau lectures CAF troops in Latvia about climate change, disinformation

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau took the opportunity to talk to Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) troops stationed on a NATO mission in Latvia to lecture them about his government’s actions on fighting climate change and disinformation.

tnc.news

​

Trudeau lectures CAF troops in Latvia about climate change, disinformation​

Extract:


The Centre of Excellence for Climate Security in Montreal = add to the -2%

Maybe he'll ask the members for the receipts for their personal purchases to add them into the mix as well.

 

[GR66]

If I were in power I wouldnt be building tanks or howitzers in Canada. I would be manufacturing bullets and small calibre missiles and rockets. Radios and Optics. Small arms and UAVs and UUVs.

I would also be building fuel cells and selling fuels, Coal, Diesel, LNG and even Hydrogen from whatever source we can get it economically.

Agree 100%. I'd focus on the consumables and quickly replaceable items needed to fight a war. We don't purchase enough of the major capital items like tanks, howitzers and aircraft to maintain a stable production industry (licensed production at existing facilities like GDLS excepted).

Ships are another exception because each one is a multi-year contract in itself and any government with half a brain (sorry Canada) would keep a steady flow of orders going to maintain the industry full time.

The question about that 2-4% of GDP is how much is spent on the internal economy and how much is spent externally.

Buying 10 BCAD of kit from the States is a lot different than building 10 BCAD of kit at home. 10 BCAD spent at home is workfare.

However your original reference to $10 BCAD of kit (over 1/3 of our total annual defence budget) suggested you were talking about capital items not consumables.

 

[Halifax Tar]

It is pretty embarassing though when the PR lines are you are sailing on a modernized warship with all the bells and whistles, and then you pull into a port and go around seeing if anyone has an electric switch to keep your 30 year old black water collection system running so the toilets work (and then Command staff not letting you buy the part off Amazon for next day delivery). Nothing quite like being in Jacksonville getting port-o-potties on the jetty for the weekend (and then waiting for CTG staff to go ashore before sending someone with some goodies to visit the USN ships to get a part on the down low and modifying it).

Asking the neighbors for parts is not new and its been a common non taught function by Naval Storesman since I've been in.

That's how I got a nice tour of the USS Saipan sometime around 2001. And a good view of their on board Supply System. And I've been doing it right up to my last FRE trip when the PO1 Stoker and I went over to the Yank ship in search for some POL product for the GTs.

There are lots of reasons we don't buy from Amazon. But for non tech parts it doesn't make sense. Or how about the folks in Ottawa just keep the CFSS stocked up ? If they would do that we shouldn't need Amazon.

 

[markppcli]

Asking the neighbors for parts is not new and its been a common non taught function by Naval Storesman since I've been in.

That's how I got a nice tour of the USS Saipan sometime around 2001. And a good view of their on board Supply System. And I've been doing it right up to my last FRE trip when the PO1 Stoker and I went over to the Yank ship in search for some POL product for the GTs.

There are lots of reasons we don't buy from Amazon. But for non tech parts it doesn't make sense. Or how about the folks in Ottawa just keep the CFSS stocked up ? If they would do that we shouldn't need Amazon.

Or just stop. Let the parts fail for the current systems is exposed as insufficient. Our “make it work” attitude is great on operations when lives are on the line but does us. I favours otherwise.

 

[KevinB]

I agree. It's hard to create a continuing production line for such things as tanks and howitzers but things like trucks, which we need in the thousands could become a continuing industry if produced in smaller lots of several hundred per year.

Re-open Canadian Arsenals as a Crown Corp.
Build 20 tanks a year under license from someone, and 20 Arty systems the same way.
Have the lines setup to be able to do surge production in extremis.

OTOH, we have an existing production facility for armoured vehicles in London. Conceivably a part of that line could be used to turn out say a squadron's worth of tanks under licence per year without disrupting its other lines. That could keep the line running for a decade on initial production and longer on upgrades.

The GDLS plant in Windsor couldn’t build Abrams without a major overhaul.
Better to partner with GDLS in a Crown Corp IMHO for a tank line.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Or just stop. Let the parts fail for the current systems is exposed as insufficient. Our “make it work” attitude is great on operations when lives are on the line but does us. I favours otherwise.

Agreed. Our mantra of "make it work" is probably why we're where we are now.

 

[Kirkhill]

Agree 100%. I'd focus on the consumables and quickly replaceable items needed to fight a war. We don't purchase enough of the major capital items like tanks, howitzers and aircraft to maintain a stable production industry (licensed production at existing facilities like GDLS excepted).

Ships are another exception because each one is a multi-year contract in itself and any government with half a brain (sorry Canada) would keep a steady flow of orders going to maintain the industry full time.


However your original reference to $10 BCAD of kit (over 1/3 of our total annual defence budget) suggested you were talking about capital items not consumables.

Good Morning.

The number I chose was plucked, not considered. Insofar as I was thinking of anything in particular I was thinking about buying F35s or C130s or C17s or P8s or Sky Guardians. Or submarines. Or Spy radars. 10 BCAD doesn't go very far with those projects. And it all goes to the US (or perhaps Korea?).

But as you encourage me to think about it I would start off exploiting those defence companies that we already have and encouraging them to expand their efforts. Soucy tracks. Safran landing systems. Elcan Optics. L3 Harris comms and computers. Ballard fuel cells. Colt small arms. GDLS LAVs. GM trucks. Roshel Senators. GDOTS Canada ammunition. Rheinmetall AD systems. Magellan rockets. Even Bombardier Recreational Products. Heck, boots, helmets, combats, IMPs, snow cammies..... All of that could be built for Canadian service by Canadians. And put into inventory. And sold.

For example I would be looking to Magellan to lead on a Canadian licenced missile factory such as the Aussies have built so that our ships have full silos and lots more in reserve. So that our aircraft have enough missiles to be all bombed up at the same time. So that we could supply NASAMs systems for every major community and defence target in Canada. And so that we could sell them.

All of this to build inventory. Inventory is the Just in Case insurance that even a peaceful country needs. And one form of inventory is an inventory of trained bodies. People that have been taught skills that can be put into storage for a while but can be reactivated should circumstances demand. Training people in military or emergency skills is no different than sending kids to college or funding highschool courses. Forget soldiering for a bit, just bring back Industrial Arts at school so kids learn to use tools. Teach first aid. Teach Voice procedures. Teach Navigation and Map-Reading. Teach Driver's Ed, Cross Country driving and boating. On school time. Extend the school year. Add a year to High School and reinstitute Grade 13.

The extra time in school comes from the productive life of the taxpayer but also reduces domestic unemployment. And it better equips the population with the skills to handle the unexpected.

Ukraine has got itself a Rheinmetall Plant to produce Fuchs and Leopards. That means that they save themselves that cost of buying them from Germany. If Germany will sell them to them. They can build them themselves.

And Rheinmetall gains because it won't be as constrained by German politicians. I imagine Ukraine will be only too happy to help Rheinmetall sell tanks and APCs on the global market if it means foreign exchange.

We can increase the defence budget as a portion of the GDP without having to offshore it. We can find bodies by giving kids 6 weeks worth of non-military military training in school time with an elective in their curriculum. We can subtract some CRA and CFIA agents and add some workers at government arsenals and at factories working on government contracts.

 

[FJAG]

Re-open Canadian Arsenals as a Crown Corp.
Build 20 tanks a year under license from someone, and 20 Arty systems the same way.
Have the lines setup to be able to do surge production in extremis.

That's my thought. I'm a bit influenced by my uncle's experience when he came over from Germany in the sixties with a mechanics ticket. He immediately had a job as a welder with Crane carriers Canada which had a small facility in Scarborough that turned out ... well crane carrier chassis for mobile cranes. They did about a dozen or so a year. He left there for a job with de Havilland in Downsview turning out Caribous. Good steady employment.

I kind of view trucks that way. If you need two thousand and they have an expected life of 15 years hard service then build them at a rate of say 200 per year continuously. In ten years you'll have built 2,000, can retire the first 200 to reserve service and replace them with a new 200. Every year you do the same. It keeps your fleet fresh, you build up a reserve and will always have parts and a heavy workshop facility available for overhauls etc. Not to mention that there is a strong automotive infrastructure available in SW Ontario to build on.

The GDLS plant in Windsor couldn’t build Abrams without a major overhaul.
Better to partner with GDLS in a Crown Corp IMHO for a tank line.

I wouldn't go that far. GDLS London is just down the road from me and GDLS Lima just a short hop down the I-75. Between them they have both the knowledge and the machinery to turn out tracked vehicles and the assembly of various weapon systems. Again, our own need is fairly modest and if you use a limited, but continuous, production line which puts much of the assembly of components into the London plant then you build up a skilled work force which provides long-term benefits. As you suggest, if the rate of production is 20 per year and our need is 200 (three regiments plus spares) then you could build the force over 10 years and keep it refreshed indefinitely and build a reserve. If you're building a decent chassis it could be modified to take something like a K9 or M109 turret and do SPs as well.

It's dreamland, I know but its feasible as long as you properly define the end-state army you want to build and maintain and put your mind to building an industry that's capable of producing it indefinitely and has the greatest local production component as well.

 

[Kirkhill]

Day 507 of the Ukraine War

72 Weeks and 6 Generations from February 24th 2022

UK Minister Heappey used the ongoing war in Ukraine as an example, describing how certain electronic warfare assets could typically have a “burn time” of about 10 to 12 weeks.

“You’ll put a UAS into service for the Ukrainians. It’ll take about six weeks for the Russians to figure out why it can fly through their EW screen, and another six weeks for the Russians to figure out how to reprogram their EW or to put something new into their EW platforms to defeat it. And then you go again with that loop in contact between sorties of being able to reprogram, take intelligence, science, innovation and military cunning and to maintain your read constantly.”

New "generations" of capabilities every 12 weeks. How does that square with multi-decade procurement plans.

In this article Heappey is explicitly addressing how to fit Quantum Computing into old aircraft in particular and keeping up with technology in general.

Military planes should be built with quantum technology in mind: UK official - Breaking Defense

The leap to quantum tech will be a "tank versus cavalry, machine guns versus humans moment,” said UK’s Minister of State for the Armed Forces, James Heappey.

breakingdefense.com

Edit - and in the EW/UAS vein

Spurred by Ukraine conflict, US Army conducts new tests of kinetic, microwave counter-UAS systems - Breaking Defense

“The threat is always going to evolve. We actually see this every day when we watch what's happening in Ukraine and Israel,” said Col. Michael Parent, the lead for the RCCTO’s Counter-small Unmanned Aircraft Systems office.

breakingdefense.com

 

[Kirkhill]

A new Loitering Spike for the Infantry - the Spike Firefly.

After use in combat, Rafael looks to future for Spike FireFly loitering munition - Breaking Defense

The Spike FireFly could now be put into wider use in Israel, according to reports.

breakingdefense.com

 

[TCM621]

Agreed. Our mantra of "make it work" is probably why we're where we are now.

You aren't wrong but on the other hand when my boss says get it fixed, I get it fixed. Everyone has a boss and the level where someone can actually apply the brakes is so far above the average workers level they may as well not exist. Conversely, the higher you go up the chain the more distance there is between them and what happens on a day to day basis. Even good leaders with the best of intentions struggle to get things through the bureaucracy (military and civlian) that only seem to exist to ruin good ideas.

 

[daftandbarmy]

You aren't wrong but on the other hand when my boss says get it fixed, I get it fixed. Everyone has a boss and the level where someone can actually apply the brakes is so far above the average workers level they may as well not exist. Conversely, the higher you go up the chain the more distance there is between them and what happens on a day to day basis. Even good leaders with the best of intentions struggle to get things through the bureaucracy (military and civlian) that only seem to exist to ruin good ideas.

“If you are going to sin, sin against God, not the bureaucracy. God will forgive you but the bureaucracy won't.”

― Hyman G. Rickover

 

[OldSolduer]

Even good leaders with the best of intentions struggle to get things through the bureaucracy (military and civlian) that only seem to exist to ruin good ideas.

The bureaucracy is there to serve but it seems that the bureaucracy seems to think its the "boss".

 

[TCM621]

The bureaucracy is there to serve but it seems that the bureaucracy seems to think its the "boss".

I know that this was the case with Hillier. He wanted to transform the military, so they nodded their heads and waited for him to leave to undo most of his work. This has been shown in report after report, the goal of the organization doesn't matter, goals are changed to suit the bureaucracy. If we need 10 000 new recruits but the bureaucracy can only do 9000, they don't transform the department to increase production, they just set the target under 9000 so it doesn't disrupt them too much.

 

[KevinB]

I know that this was the case with Hillier. He wanted to transform the military, so they nodded their heads and waited for him to leave to undo most of his work.

Some of that work Big Cod did was still severely damaging to the CAF as it’s not big enough to implement some of the “Com” structures. We can do it down here simply because we have a force that is well over 300x the size of the CAF.

This has been shown in report after report, the goal of the organization doesn't matter, goals are changed to suit the bureaucracy. If we need 10 000 new recruits but the bureaucracy can only do 9000, they don't transform the department to increase production, they just set the target under 9000 so it doesn't disrupt them too much.

True. There is too much senior level bureaucracy and not enough lower level support with civilian positions.