Justin Trudeau hints at boosting Canada’s military spending

I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[Furniture]

I would argue having soldiers die for the sake of international clout is having them die pointlessly.

International clout is what prevents things like tariff wars with trade partners, or overt aggression from despots like Putin.

If NATO had fighting forces in Ukraine back in Jan '22, Ukraine wouldn't be at war with Russia. Sometimes the potential of maybe killing troops is enough to keep the bad guys in check.

I'm not suggesting we throw CAF members in every shithole just to maybe stop fights, but putting ground forces in places we care about(like Europe), means our enemies are less likely to decide to fight.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Why would Canadian soldiers dying beside allied forces in defence of our national interests be any more "pointless" than the lives that would be lost from Canadian ships being sunk or Canadian aircraft being shot down in defence of our national interests?

That's a valid point, and something for me to ponder.

I'm not sure the mass amounts of people required for a land war are a valuable use of our limited resources, being a small country with big material output potential.

I have and continue to believe that the best use of Canada's rather limited ability in an upcoming conflict would be as one of the factories and delivery services for the materials of war for our allies.

To my knowledge they have yet to build a plane or ship that can hold territory. I'm fully on board with debating what the relative strengths of the Army, Navy and Air Force should be, and I've made it clear that to my mind the RCAF and RCN should be prioritized. However, to my mind it would be folly to think that you could do without an Army that is capable of expeditionary operations.

Why does Canada need take and hold enemy territory ?

Canada needs an Army, but I think it should be a territorial Army focused on continental AD and national defence.

As a nation we need to have the capability to project power in ALL domains in defence of our national interests.

Do you believe we have the ability to project power now ?

 

[Halifax Tar]

International clout is what prevents things like tariff wars with trade partners, or overt aggression from despots like Putin.

You're an Afg Vet like myself, how'd that work out for us ? Trump and tariffs and all that.

If NATO had fighting forces in Ukraine back in Jan '22, Ukraine wouldn't be at war with Russia. Sometimes the potential of maybe killing troops is enough to keep the bad guys in check.

We will never know that.

I'm not suggesting we throw CAF members in every shithole just to maybe stop fights, but putting ground forces in places we care about(like Europe), means our enemies are less likely to decide to fight.

Why does the new world have to keep fighting the wars of the old world ?

 

[GR66]

That's a valid point, and something for me to ponder.

I'm not sure the mass amounts of people required for a land war are a valuable use of our limited resources, being a small country with big material output potential.

I have and continue to believe that the best use of Canada's rather limited ability in an upcoming conflict would be as one of the factories and delivery services for the materials of war for our allies.

I'm all for Canada leveraging it's resources and (hopefully soon to be restored) industrial might to support our Allies but sometimes it might also require Canadian forces participating in the fight...be that from the land, the sea or the air (or all of the above). Just like anything in life there needs to be a balance. If you focus so much on one (or just a few) aspects of your defence then enemies will pick those areas that you've ignored to target you in your weakest domains.

And sometimes we overplay our "limited" resources. We're a G7 country with 40,000,000 people. The same size as the United Kingdom in 1939 who had a 1,000,000 man Army at the outbreak of the war as well as a 1,400 ship Royal Navy and an RAF of 2,000 aircraft. Now I'm certainly suggesting that Canada needs a military any where near that size but a CAF of at least our current authorized strength and a significantly beefed up Reserves shouldn't be a serious burden to the nation.

Why does Canada need take and hold enemy territory ?

Who says it has to be "enemy" territory? How about holding Allied territory against enemy aggression? In defence of our ideals, or suppliers of our critical resources, or securing key trade routes/choke points, or defending Canadian nationals, etc.? Any yes, maybe if a foreign nation is threatening our national interests then maybe we will have to fight on their territory in order to eliminate the threat.

Canada needs an Army, but I think it should be a territorial Army focused on continental AD and national defence.

That is certainly one very important role we need our Army to fulfill. But Canada is not alone in the World and like it or not we are dependent on interactions with other nations for many things including trade, technology and resources. If we try to just sit back in our own little bubble then we won't have the capability to protect our interests when the things we depend upon outside our bubble are threatened.

Do you believe we have the ability to project power now ?

Our ability to independently project power right now is seriously limited. Hopefully that is slowly changing with incoming capabilities like the River-Class, submarines and JSS for the Navy, new fighters, P-8's, MRTT's, MQ-9B's and AEW aircraft for the RCAF. That's also why we have a network of similarly minded Allies that we can work together with to project power like we did in Afghanistan and are now in Latvia.

 

[PuckChaser]

If Canada was interested in operating independently of allies, taking on operations and force projecting by ourselves, I could see and perhaps agree with your sentiment.

Reality is the opposite of that.

You're a 100% right, but operating independently of allies requires joint forces. Saying we should bin CA as an expeditionary force is a dumb idea if we want to be taken seriously in the global stage. In reality, a strong CA actually includes further big ticket spending into RCN (RORO/LHD/Amphib+Hospital Ship) and RCAF (Significant boost to strat cargo a/c fleet and an actual number of fighters to conduct CAS as well as CAP/SEAD).

We've been gaslit into thinking we have to fight each other for funds, and it creates a pretty toxic divide. We need to be looking to where all 4 elements can mutually support each other to advocate for funding, and let the CDS and SJS decide what are the priority procurements.

Edit: Fixed a sentence that I just stopped writing for some reason...

 

[Halifax Tar]

You're a 100% right, but operating independently of allies requires joint forces. Saying we should bin CA as an expeditionary force. In reality, a strong CA actually includes further big ticket spending into RCN (RORO/LHD/Amphib+Hospital Ship) and RCAF (Significant boost to strat cargo a/c fleet and an actual number of fighters to conduct CAS as well as CAP/SEAD).

That's essentially what I was agreeing too. If we were to operate independently of allies then I see the need for an expeditionary land force.

 

[PuckChaser]

That's essentially what I was agreeing too. If we were to operate independently of allies then I see the need for an expeditionary land force.

We need an expeditionary land force regardless. The inability or unwillingness to put troops into harms way for a "Coalition of the willing" is what is harming us. Floating a couple ships off the coast or a random 6 pack of fighters here and there is not a serious contribution in a major crisis. We are capable of unilateral operations right now with certain mission sets, but quite frankly no large scale deployment is possible for any of the 4 elements.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

You're an Afg Vet like myself, how'd that work out for us ? Trump and tariffs and all that.



We will never know that.



Why does the new world have to keep fighting the wars of the old world ?

The West would have done better in Afghanistan if it realized this is a 40 year commitment. I contend that we poisoned the well for the Taliban, a whole generation of people were exposed to education and new ideas, new roads , etc. That stuff is toxic to the Taliban way of life.

 

[Halifax Tar]

The West would have done better in Afghanistan if it realized this is a 40 year commitment. I contend that we poisoned the well for the Taliban, a whole generation of people were exposed to education and new ideas, new roads , etc. That stuff is toxic to the Taliban way of life.

I one thousand percent agree.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Look @GR66 @PuckChaser and @Furniture I've discussed this position at length on here before. And I'm not budging. I'm really not interested in responding to a dog pile of posts. Ships and Planes yes, tanks and artillery no.

No offense meant, just letting you know.

 

[PuckChaser]

Look @GR66 @PuckChaser and @Furniture I've discussed this position at length on here before. And I'm not budging. I'm really not interested in responding to a dog pile of posts. Ships and Planes yes, tanks and artillery no.

No offense meant, just letting you know.

You're entitled to your opinion, but you're going to get called out when reality doesn't fit your world view and there's absolutely no need for you to respond to anything.

Nelson is gone, sea power isn't the only name in the game anymore.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Trump is now calling for 5% GDP expenditure for NATO members from his speech today at Davos.

Yup ...

... as we restore common sense in America, we’re moving quickly to bring back strength and peace and stability abroad. I’m also going to ask all NATO nations to increase defense spending to 5 percent of GDP, which is what it should have been years ago — it was only at 2 percent, and most nations didn’t pay until I came along; I insisted that they pay, and they did — because the United States was really paying the difference at that time, and it’s — it was unfair to the United States. But many, many things have been unfair for many years to the United States ...

 

[ueo]

I simply don't buy that.

Never met a machine that could "take and hold ground" From pl to strategic level, always devolves to the PBI!

 

[Good2Golf]

Never met a machine that could "take and hold ground" From pl to strategic level, always devolves to the PBI!

…yet.

 

[KevinB]

I have and continue to believe that the best use of Canada's rather limited ability in an upcoming conflict would be as one of the factories and delivery services for the materials of war for our allies.

You realistically have no war material factories, and no delivery service methods.

 

[daftandbarmy]

You realistically have no war material factories, and no delivery service methods.

... and no national will to acquire any of those things

 

[KevinB]

Tomahawk - 1700 km
SM6 (SSM) - >500 km
PrSM SSM - 500 to >>1000 km

Kratos Valkyrie MQ-58A - 5600 km

View attachment 90720

This Containerized Launcher For The XQ-58A Valkyrie Combat Drone Could Be A Game Changer

The system would be air, rail, road, or sea transportable, allowing for long-range, hard-hitting drone swarms to make unpredictable attacks.

www.twz.com

View attachment 90722

Even an AOPS could reach a long way inland.

Being able to hit something does not equate to having control of something by ground force, or most importantly being able to defend something or someone.

 

[Halifax Tar]

You realistically have no war material factories, and no delivery service methods.

... and no national will to acquire any of those things

Everyone on this forum is playing with delusions of grandeur, just go read the Army Reserve Restructuring thread...

Never met a machine that could "take and hold ground" From pl to strategic level, always devolves to the PBI!

This assumes Canada actually has a national interest in taking and holding ground.

 

[Kirkhill]

Being able to hit something does not equate to having control of something by ground force, or most importantly being able to defend something or someone.

Agreed, but no matter how big an expeditionary land force we create it will always be too small. It will be limited in its geographic area of influence, both in terms of where it can be deployed and the area it can cover, as well as limited in its temporal aspects, how quickly it can deploy and how long it can stay.

In that sense there is little difference between deploying a Tomahawk and deploying a Brigade Gp. Both of them have their limitations.

....

I agree Canada should have an expeditionary land force. Its size and capabilities matter less to me. I share @Halifax Tar 's priorities. Get the defence of Canada right first and then build an expeditionary capability that Global Affairs can wield in support of Canada's interests.

Take a look at your own country's apportionment of defence dollar.

Group A - Coast Guard, National Guard, Army, Interior
Group B - Navy, Marines, CIA, State.

Group A - Pershing on the Mexican Border and Custer at Little Big Horn
Group B - Marines in Tripoli and Central America

....

One area I may conflict with @Halifax Tar is his position on the Navy. Although maybe not. My feeling on the Navy is that the Navy is also afflicted with the expeditionary bug. It shows itself not in its desire to fight the next European land war but in its desire to sail with the USN on the high seas. I have always got the sense that the RCN is not big on domestic, or as they seem to prefer to describe them, constabulary duties.

 

[Remius]

I happen to agree to an extent with HT on this. We should expand naval and air power. Bulk up our reserve capacity and capability and find a way to surge and support a core reg force expeditionary element on an as needed basis.

Let’s face it. The army contributes very little to our domestic défense (dom ops excluded and the occasional flag waving exercise in the north).

Navy and airforce to secure coasts and trade routes. Core expeditionary army capability with a robust reserve that can surge when needed.

Not saying we need to get rid of expeditionary capability but we could look at new or even old ways of doing that. Maybe modernize the special force (note not “special forces”) those surge operations.

Either way we need a compete rethink if our model.