Justin Trudeau hints at boosting Canada’s military spending

I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[BirdGunner96]

What trade do you think it should have been a part of? Or did you mean it should have been its own trade?

Its own, but that was not an option to be an orphan.

 

[Kilted]

Fingers crossed....

FIRST READING: Buckle up for a Canadian defence spending splurge​

Defence Minister Anita Anand said this week that she will be tabling “aggressive” options to significantly boost Canada’s rate of defence spending once the cabinet starts planning its spring budget. Depending on how it goes, this could spell the biggest surge in Canadian defence spending in more than 50 years.​

The government can throw as much money at us as they want, but we still need the people in uniform. As it is we can't fill all the empty spots we have. We need to stop turning people away based on their skin colour and gender just to be able to fill quotas. (I know that some recruiters were told to turn away white males, I don't know if it was a local thing, or how widespread. I of course cannot name my sources).

 

[FJAG]

As the name states, I am a recently retired Air Defender ( 6 months free). It has been like pushing a wet rope up a hill for the past 12 years, or if you like, pounding you head against wall! Have the white hat, was the first Canadian on the year long AD GCC course in the UK, went from zero to hero on Rapier FSC , HVM StarStreak LML+ Stormer platform. As well qualified Javelin S-15, 35mm Gun/Skyguard and ADATS. It is so unfortunate that Putin's megalomania has initiated this conversation, there have been pers in the CF advocating very hard for some form of AD. Unfortunately, as we stated 12 years ago, keep it a separate trade " Black beret Strat, Blue beret Air Force or even Navy" , as long it as far away from the Royal Regiment of Artillery as possible, cross training/ streaming should never had been an option. The only accomplishment was to produce more Officer / MWO (if you speak french positions). Take some of the numerous Reserve Arty Units (LG 1, C2), equip them with BV206, quads and a MANPAD system. Sry, rant over.

I had a preview of that when we stood up air defence in the 70s.

We started off debating which direction to take as the RCA is a small organization PY wise and there's a point at certain levels where both senior officers and senior NCMs need to slot into generic career bands. I think the same situation is again rearing its head with the STA specialty. When GBAD finally stands up it will probably be at the one or two battery level. What was once a 450PY career field will probably end up at less than 200 (especially if reservists take on many positions)

Under our current battlegroup centric system specialty knowledge is critical up to the MWO and major level - ie gun battery, STA bty and soon GBAD battery. Major's need to know their own field cold and majors running a battlegroup FSCC must have a fundamental understanding of STA and GBAD as well. But where do you find the more rounded experts that you need at the LCol and CWO level if they've simply come up in one silo?

It's a difficult balancing act as between viable career profiles and ensuring people with the right qualifications reach the right leadership and staff levels at the right time. If one was to create AD as its own specialty one would probably hit a career choke point at roughly ten years for both officers and NCMs. At that point they'd join the competition for the great herd of the "any trade or classification" group. One might see a competition for CO and RSM of 4 GS being split between AD and STA silos but neither silo would be of value in a CS regt role without the cross training.

It becomes even harder if, like one should, one converts many of the lower ranked PYs to reservist positions.

I frankly do not know the answer. It's one of the issues that the RCA is working on.

 

[BirdGunner96]

I had a preview of that when we stood up air defence in the 70s.

We started off debating which direction to take as the RCA is a small organization PY wise and there's a point at certain levels where both senior officers and senior NCMs need to slot into generic career bands. I think the same situation is again rearing its head with the STA specialty. When GBAD finally stands up it will probably be at the one or two battery level. What was once a 450PY career field will probably end up at less than 200 (especially if reservists take on many positions)

Under our current battlegroup centric system specialty knowledge is critical up to the MWO and major level - ie gun battery, STA bty and soon GBAD battery. Major's need to know their own field cold and majors running a battlegroup FSCC must have a fundamental understanding of STA and GBAD as well. But where do you find the more rounded experts that you need at the LCol and CWO level if they've simply come up in one silo?

It's a difficult balancing act as between viable career profiles and ensuring people with the right qualifications reach the right leadership and staff levels at the right time. If one was to create AD as its own specialty one would probably hit a career choke point at roughly ten years for both officers and NCMs. At that point they'd join the competition for the great herd of the "any trade or classification" group. One might see a competition for CO and RSM of 4 GS being split between AD and STA silos but neither silo would be of value in a CS regt role without the cross training.

It becomes even harder if, like one should, one converts many of the lower ranked PYs to reservist positions.

I frankly do not know the answer. It's one of the issues that the RCA is working on.

Well said

 

[TacticalTea]

Article announces "Here's where increased military spending could go to", fails to actually answer that, talks about identity politics instead, Toronto Raptors, and issues that have nothing to do with Ukraine/Europe

 

[Maxman1]

That's to be expected from the Grope & Flail.

 

[TacticalTea]

That's to be expected from the Grope & Flail.

Huh? It's from Global News, not G&M

 

[Haggis]

The Liberal government has $50B worth of unfulfilled election promises already. This will probably fall into the "too hard" pile in the PMO once the war in Ukraine falls back to page six.

 

[dimsum]

I had a preview of that when we stood up air defence in the 70s.

We started off debating which direction to take as the RCA is a small organization PY wise and there's a point at certain levels where both senior officers and senior NCMs need to slot into generic career bands. I think the same situation is again rearing its head with the STA specialty. When GBAD finally stands up it will probably be at the one or two battery level. What was once a 450PY career field will probably end up at less than 200 (especially if reservists take on many positions)

Under our current battlegroup centric system specialty knowledge is critical up to the MWO and major level - ie gun battery, STA bty and soon GBAD battery. Major's need to know their own field cold and majors running a battlegroup FSCC must have a fundamental understanding of STA and GBAD as well. But where do you find the more rounded experts that you need at the LCol and CWO level if they've simply come up in one silo?

It's a difficult balancing act as between viable career profiles and ensuring people with the right qualifications reach the right leadership and staff levels at the right time. If one was to create AD as its own specialty one would probably hit a career choke point at roughly ten years for both officers and NCMs. At that point they'd join the competition for the great herd of the "any trade or classification" group. One might see a competition for CO and RSM of 4 GS being split between AD and STA silos but neither silo would be of value in a CS regt role without the cross training.

It becomes even harder if, like one should, one converts many of the lower ranked PYs to reservist positions.

I frankly do not know the answer. It's one of the issues that the RCA is working on.

...and don't forget, the RCAF is looking at the RCA (or whoever deals with this) for airfield defence as well.

 

[Retired AF Guy]

IMHO picking non American systems it dumb.
You live above the largest military industry on the planet, use it.

I have to disagree with you. There is an old saying, " About never putting all your eggs in one basket." The same principle applies to defence procurement.

 

[KevinB]

I have to disagree with you. There is an old saying, " About never putting all your eggs in one basket." The same principle applies to defence procurement.

The difference is, if our chicken coop shits the bed - everyone is FUBAR.

We share a land border - it is much easier to get stuff to Canada in a time of need that way - as opposed to getting stuff from Europe.

 

[YZT580]

has anyone really examined the toll in hardware in Ukraine? Our entire purchase order of new aircraft would now be so much scrap metal if we were engaged in any kind of peer war. To this civilian, you need at least a third more aircraft even if the numbers beyond 88 are sitting in a hangar. When the shooting starts you can't order anymore; you go with what you have. It would probably be wise to shop for a second aircraft i.e. F16 for pure airborne intercept and keep your F35 types for battlefield control. You definitely need some kind of ground/air system, hopefully combining high altitude/long range and manpads. Decent anti-armour weapons. If you don't, you might as well stay home and hoist your flag in the inverted position.

 

[FJAG]

...and don't forget, the RCAF is looking at the RCA (or whoever deals with this) for airfield defence as well.

I wonder if we still have any of the ADATS and Oerlikons warehoused in Montreal? Or the Boffins?

 

[Quirky]

has anyone really examined the toll in hardware in Ukraine? Our entire purchase order of new aircraft would now be so much scrap metal if we were engaged in any kind of peer war. To this civilian, you need at least a third more aircraft even if the numbers beyond 88 are sitting in a hangar. When the shooting starts you can't order anymore; you go with what you have. It would probably be wise to shop for a second aircraft i.e. F16 for pure airborne intercept and keep your F35 types for battlefield control. You definitely need some kind of ground/air system, hopefully combining high altitude/long range and manpads. Decent anti-armour weapons. If you don't, you might as well stay home and hoist your flag in the inverted position.

We don't have the personnel to keep our dwindling fighter force flying as it is, ramming more aircraft, of different type no less, into the bases won't do anything. We need to retain, rebuild and recruit, this will take years and Billions. We can double the amount of people in the CAF, but there won't be anywhere to house them. Building new housing is just as important as purchasing new toys.

 

[Kirkhill]

We don't have the personnel to keep our dwindling fighter force flying as it is, ramming more aircraft, of different type no less, into the bases won't do anything. We need to retain, rebuild and recruit, this will take years and Billions. We can double the amount of people in the CAF, but there won't be anywhere to house them. Building new housing is just as important as purchasing new toys.

All this talk about Air Defence, RCAF and RCA and Ground Based Air Defence has got me playing with words again.

It strikes me that Fighters, Low Cost Attritables, UAVs, Drones and Missiles are all "Ground Based". Fighters are Manned Ground Based Air Defence Systems.

 

[dimsum]

Or the Boffins?

Time to scour some museums!

There should be an extra 12 since the MCDVs don't have them installed anymore.

 

[GR66]

Not necessarily so. From both an historical perspective (I exempt Afghanistan as we didn't deploy a "mechanized formation") and our current NATO land commitment, we don't actually "integrate" with the American army sustainment system all that much. And that should be one of the factors considered in selecting major equipment - who'll provide repair, recovery, replacement (and will it be compatible) in the echelon above that which we deploy. We have much greater need of interoperability with the US in air and naval operations.

What do I foresee in the short-term (up to ten years) as to our "army" commitment? It will likely be a greater reinforcement of our current NATO deployment (eFP Latvia). While it's currently a bit of a dog's breakfast with odds and sods from several countries, the tanks in that battlegroup are Leopards (Poland and Spain), so we may not be working alongside Abrams. It makes sense (but who says that military thinking should make sense) to build on existing operational structures rather that change horses in mid-stride. Regardless of how the situation in Ukraine evolves, my suggestion would be to initially increase the Canadian presence on the ground to a full battle group with an adequate tranche of supporting arms and services. Hopefully the other NATO contributors would also increase their participation with the goal to round out a brigade group. Eventually, we should provide the majority of combat power (on the ground and dedicated/legitimate for quick fly-over to marry with equipment), and then it would make sense for Canada to command such a NATO brigade (or to be one of primary nations to rotate command). The next step would be to organize an integrated operational HQ with the Latvians.

I'd argue that in the case of a full-scale shooting war in Europe that ONLY the US would have the surplus capacity to provide Canada with any replacement vehicles and parts. Any spare capacity for European vehicles would go to the European users as only the US maintains enough surplus capacity to provide for anyone else besides themselves. All the more reason in my mind to establish even greater interoperability and formal links with the US Army at echelons above the (aspirational) Brigade level deployment that the CF would be capable of.

 

[daftandbarmy]

has anyone really examined the toll in hardware in Ukraine? Our entire purchase order of new aircraft would now be so much scrap metal if we were engaged in any kind of peer war. To this civilian, you need at least a third more aircraft even if the numbers beyond 88 are sitting in a hangar. When the shooting starts you can't order anymore; you go with what you have. It would probably be wise to shop for a second aircraft i.e. F16 for pure airborne intercept and keep your F35 types for battlefield control. You definitely need some kind of ground/air system, hopefully combining high altitude/long range and manpads. Decent anti-armour weapons. If you don't, you might as well stay home and hoist your flag in the inverted position.

Decades of 'Brush Fire Wars' have skewed our understanding about what it takes to fight and win a major conflict (s). Time to pay the Piper....

 

[Brad Sallows]

Depending on how a war escalates, Europe might not be the only theatre. Most raising and training of new forces and replacements will still be in Canada. It's best to have fewer types of equipments. It's easier to ship stuff coming into Canada across a secure land border than a contested ocean.

 

[Furniture]

The difference is, if our chicken coop shits the bed - everyone is FUBAR.

We share a land border - it is much easier to get stuff to Canada in a time of need that way - as opposed to getting stuff from Europe.

I think the concern is more that political games could see us denied access to support and parts. A softwood lumber dispute could turn into no more spares for any of our kit as a way to force us to do what the USA wants.