I'll believe it when I see it.
Justin Trudeau hints at boosting Canada’s military spending
- Thread starter Maxman1
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 1,801
- Points
- 1,260
It needs to be coupled with an increase in overall members of the CAF. No reason why we can’t be sitting at say, 90-95k full time and another 50-60km in the reserves.
'We have to do more': Foreign affairs minister on Canada's defence spending
Foreign Affairs Minister Melanie Joly says she thinks that Canada’s military needs to be 'better equipped' and that the government has to 'do more' when it comes to stepping up the defence budget.www.ctvnews.ca
I expect a budget increase for Defence. Between Anand, Joly and Freyland, the messaging is pretty clear.
- Reaction score
- 1,801
- Points
- 1,260
Smaller than 68,000 people spread across the Army, Navy and Air Force?
- Reaction score
- 7,024
- Points
- 1,310
The problem is that our Canadian Military Culture and our Canadian National Culture parted ways around 1968 (possibly even sooner). We were an relic of a bygone Era. We had no need for defense, because we were a nation of statesmen. We were an "honest broker, middle power." Our Military Culture, therefore, developed in an echo chamber, and as an orphan from our National Identity.
Given our 15 years working closely with the Americans as the lead element in ISAF, we developed a lot of bad habits, in the sense that we look up and have grandiose ideas of what a proper "Combat Team" looks like and what the BLUF (I loathe the term) of an operation should be.
We will never have a military funded, equipped, or manned to the same scale as the US, but yet we still chase that dream with our military structures and thinking.
- Reaction score
- 21,702
- Points
- 1,260
Spike is trash compared to Javelin. There are several non open source Javelin options that can’t be discussed here that would be good compliments to CAF needs.
- Reaction score
- 8,210
- Points
- 1,160
I'm of the view that Canadian National Culture in 2022 is fundamentally at odds with Military Culture writ large.
War is a team sport, individuals don't matter. Look at the meat grinder that is Ukraine atm. Rockets, Bombs, Missiles and Shells don't give a damn about "accommodations".
We are sacrificing group cohesion to cater to the individual. It's an interesting experiment
And yet the British Army came from an Individualistic Culture. As did the American one.
It is an interesting question and, in my view, it is all about understanding both the capabilities of the National Culture and the needs of the Military Culture. I believe there is a Canadian balance to be found but I don't know what it is.
daftandbarmy
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 31,882
- Points
- 1,160
One of the reasons I remained a company commander for so long (too long?) was because it was inspiring to connect with so many young, keen Canadians on a regular basis.
Talk to just about any teenager, in just about any rifle company or its equivalent, and you'll find yourself talking to a great example of Canadian military culture.
Last edited:
- Reaction score
- 9,773
- Points
- 1,360
Our Military Culture also drew from a class of people that is in diminishing supply:
White men from rural areas and small town Canada. Men that had they not joined the Armed Forces, would have found a place working in mining, oil + gas, forestry, farming and fishing.
Many often served for a time then went off to work in those industries.
We are now trying to attract from an increasingly larger pool of other groups that don't want to serve in the Military. Many of them left places to a) get away from persecution and the military/security forces carrying them out or b) to actively avoid military service.
Interesting conundrum we now find ourselves in.
- Reaction score
- 8,210
- Points
- 1,160
Kev, I agree in part but, to be blunt we are already invested in some gear, like the Leos, and most of the gear you are willing to lease at short notice is not your top of the line stuff and is due for replacement or upgrading.
Your new gee-whiz kit is going to refurb your own forces for the foreseeable future. Just as the Germans are going to be directing their activities to their forces.
We can get lots of gear to fight the last battle. Can we get the stuff to fight the next one?
We are literally back to 1939 with everyone rearming at the same time. Canada needs to look at licence manufacture of kit nationally. Not because of Regional Benefits. But simply because available plant will be operating at max capacity. If we want it it is likely we will have to build it.
Now can you send us a few M109s to make FJAG happy?
Retired AF Guy
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 914
- Points
- 1,160
Thank you for the clarification. Much appreciated..
- Reaction score
- 27,180
- Points
- 1,090
Non deployable personnel? Hard non deployable positions should be "relief" for operational pers to get a pause. If you're not deployable, well, in a defence context, that's a position that needs to be contracted out or civilianized - unless its necessary for ship to shore. Permanently filling them with non-deployable people means you're burning out the deployable people.
The 71,500 Reg + 30,000 Res are hard caps - we must manage our military (including BTL, ATL, SPHL) within those limits. Retaining "Can't do military tasks" personnel cuts into those numbers. Having a one of one position filled by someone being retained whose limitations include "Can only work two, sometimes three three hour days a week" does not serve the institution well.
Keeping Bob because he's been in for ten years but can't be employed in his military role is green welfare. (Or Navy blue welfare, or sky blue welfare). That's not the role of the CAF. Maybe there's a need for Bob's experience within defence as a civilian or a contractor - why keep him filling one of our limited positions when he can't do the job?
More broadly speaking, every time the CAF says "Hell yeah, we can accommodate people with conditions X, Y and Z" the CAF erodes universality of service, and risks being ordered to radically amend entry standards - if we can accommodate non-deployable people, why can't we enrol non-deployable people from day one?
Last edited:
- Reaction score
- 7,024
- Points
- 1,310
I will agree that we have quality members joining our ranks. I would also argue that people who have an investment in military matters are invested whole hog.
The problem is that those who aren't, are the ones who cut the cheques for procurement and campaign for votes; most of said votes come from people who give zero fucks about military matters. Like we saw in Afghanistan, we were a military at war, not a nation.
So what's the answer? To me, we need to have a frank discussion with ourselves, as a military, and cut the bullshit about us "punching above our weight." After we strip bare the bloated HQ structure we built trying to be something we're not, go to Parliament and lay it all out for them. "If you want to be a middle power, this is what it will take and what it will cost."
Until we tell them what is needed, we will continue to see someone else's vision of "Canadian Military Culture" as a result of differing political opinions. It will be a revolving door of priorities and promises every 4 years. Mich like it had been for the last 60 years.
- Reaction score
- 6,523
- Points
- 1,140
I don't understand the obsession with American kit for "compatibility". We will end up Canadianizing it to the point it is no longer compatible, then be left with an expensive orphan fleet.
Another consideration we need to look at, is the USA willing to sell us the top version, or just a stripped down export version of their kit? Is a stripped down Javelin more useful to us than NLAW? Also, the US defence budget is significantly larger than ours, can we actually afford to buy American kit in quantities high enough to be used/useful?
As an example, a Javelin costs $78K USD per missile, the NLAW is $33K USD. Can we can get more weapons, and more training out of the same number of dollars with the "good enough" NLAW?*
If I was Emperor of Canada I'd be shopping for the "good enough" kit we can buy in large numbers, rather than chasing the top of the line super expensive kit we can only afford in numbers too small to be useful.
*I realize they are different categories of missile, but since we lack either category of missile currently, it makes more sense to me to invest in the category we can more easily afford to buy and train with.
Another consideration we need to look at, is the USA willing to sell us the top version, or just a stripped down export version of their kit? Is a stripped down Javelin more useful to us than NLAW? Also, the US defence budget is significantly larger than ours, can we actually afford to buy American kit in quantities high enough to be used/useful?
As an example, a Javelin costs $78K USD per missile, the NLAW is $33K USD. Can we can get more weapons, and more training out of the same number of dollars with the "good enough" NLAW?*
If I was Emperor of Canada I'd be shopping for the "good enough" kit we can buy in large numbers, rather than chasing the top of the line super expensive kit we can only afford in numbers too small to be useful.
*I realize they are different categories of missile, but since we lack either category of missile currently, it makes more sense to me to invest in the category we can more easily afford to buy and train with.
daftandbarmy
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 31,882
- Points
- 1,160
And readiness has become more of a headliner maker recently, for obvious reasons. Before COVID we were aprraently 80% deployable. Now? Who knows....
Military readiness 'one of the things that keeps me awake at night,' says Canada's top soldier
'The world is getting more dangerous every day and we need to be ready for it,' said Gen. Wayne Eyre
Defence Minister Anita Anand has said the country has the capacity to send those 3,400 military members, even with a diminished force of about 65,000 regular members and 30,000 reservists. But the government has faced questions about whether it can sustain that level of deployment.
Eyre said the military options that he brings forward to the defence minister are based on "what we can realistically generate and put together to have a credible contribution to the alliance."
"But this speaks to why we need to accelerate many of the things that I talked about: getting more people in, getting the projects that we have on the books through the various gateways and into the hands of our people," he said. "There's no single silver bullet for readiness."
Before the pandemic hit, the defence department estimated that roughly 80 per cent of the military could meet its operational obligations if called upon. New figures on the military's state of readiness have not been published.
MilEME09
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,788
- Points
- 1,210
What about the British NLAW? Seems highly effective in Ukraine and is much cheaper to produce.
- Reaction score
- 16,908
- Points
- 1,010
Not the same kind of missile. They do different jobs, in different range bands.
- Reaction score
- 21,840
- Points
- 1,360
If only we had a mutual agreement about mutually reinforcing our defense/defence production capabilities….oh wait….we’ve had one for 2/3 of a Century…
US-Canada Defense Production Sharing Agreement (1956)
FJAG
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 13,664
- Points
- 1,160
Easy answer that's totally within our control - stop Canadianizing stuff. Go whole hog for an integrated North American defence industry.
Why worry about what might or might not happen. If we integrate more why wouldn't they sell us top of the line stuff? If we buy production run stuff without customization we share in scale of production savings.
They are different systems with different characteristics especially range. Why not buy both for example the NLAW for the section and the Javelin for a platoon's weapon's section/ battalion ATGM platoon.
Of course. But what may be good enough for one role might be inadequate for another.
Personally I tend to look at arms purchases from an effects standpoint and work backwards to the price. Find what you need and then determine if you can afford it and, if not adjust the plan accordingly by either more funding or reassessing the effects desired and how to accomplish them. That may require major organizational changed. It's a complex balancing act.
MilEME09
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,788
- Points
- 1,210
So better to say NLAW is to replace M72, Javalin as a more mobile TOW? I gotta start reading up on anti armour weapons more.
- Reaction score
- 16,908
- Points
- 1,010
NLAW seems to fit better around the Carl G niche. M72 is not much good against modern tanks, but it is really cheap and can really mess up bunkers/defensive positions and, I suppose, older AFVs.
Javelin is a medium to long range (depending on version, if you believe wikipedia) anti-armour system that can destroy just about any armoured vehicle in the world.
Similar threads
- Article
