Justin Trudeau hints at boosting Canada’s military spending

I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[FJAG]

It would be interesting to see the political drivers behind that relocation process...

Yup - battalions/regiments leaving Victoria, Calgary (bde), Winnipeg, Picton, etc. Most were as a result of unification and the associated 1960's draw downs. Calgary in 1997 was a separate matter and had a lot to do with Don Mazankowski - the then godfather of Alberta - setting things in motion before he left politics.

Not sure of the time line on Work Point Barracks

I went through CFOCS Venture in the fall of 1969 and the Rifles were in the process of moving out.

 

[daftandbarmy]

What do the Brits do as far as posting allowances?

I mean if Canada did the 2 year unit moves, you could be at 2% easily

I can't recall, and I'm pretty sure it was bare bones and the Army didn't give much of a Eff. Preparing for war took priority.

But anyone who had kids in school would do whatever they could to keep them in one place.

I recall one of the OC's commuting from Scotland to Plymouth, every other weekend, so he could see his wife and 5 kids

 

[Kirkhill]

Another great Lagasse article.

Opinion: Canada: Now is our time to be strong and free

For more than 150 years, Canada has hitched itself to an integrated continental strategy. The assumptions about the U.S. that backed that bet have blown up, owing to Donald Trump – but we still can, and must, stand up for this country

www.theglobeandmail.com

Peter Jones is a professor at the University of Ottawa. Philippe Lagassé is an associate professor at Carleton University and the Barton Chair at the Norman Paterson School of International Affairs. George Petrolekas is a retired colonel and a fellow with the Canadian Global Affairs Institute who served in Bosnia and Afghanistan, and was an adviser to senior NATO commanders.

Let us start by remembering what Canada was meant to be.

More than 150 years ago, Canada became a nation, having rejected offers to join the United States and resisted American invasions. The Canadian national dream envisioned east-west trade united by a railroad where we could grow, cut, drill, dig and manufacture the majority of what we needed. Importantly, the United States, while seen as a beneficial market, was not meant to eclipse other trading relationships with the British Empire and Europe.

I sincerely hope that Sir John A. is enjoying himself a wee tumbler these days. After a rough decade it appears that we may be on the verge of rediscovering him.

So there are now in essence three options ahead of us.

We can choose to try to ingratiate ourselves with this new America

The second option is to fight back.

..there is a third option: we can stand up and demonstrate an assertiveness toward the world and our own future. This may require sacrifices and impose pain as great or maybe even greater than the above options in the short-term, but in the long-term, bold self-reliance presents the best chance for an economically viable and sovereign Canada.

This is where we need to go next – and it will require Canada to finally act like a country, instead of a collection of regional fiefdoms.

What exactly does standing up entail?

It means weaning ourselves away from trade that has become overwhelmingly north-south out of simplicity, and returning to the east-west axis of trade that Sir John A. MacDonald envisioned. It will mean, after decades of merely talking about it, investing seriously in a more resilient economy that is stronger at home and can export to the world. It means making the most of our internal market of some 40 million people and growing.

A cornerstone of this policy would mean a rapid investment in an east-west oil and gas pipeline system and electrical grid so that we can both supply our energy to all parts of this country and export it readily from both coasts. Similarly, it will mean undertaking the complicated work of removing interprovincial trade barriers and asking whether we should still be sacrificing trade with other countries on the altar of politically sensitive sectors, such as dairy.

....

The most critical aspect to achieving this shift will be a change in the Canadian mindset. We must realize that we have been blessed with abundant resources, and that, rather than just selling them, we have to use them to develop our country for ourselves. That will require the enabling of capital investments, including venture capital, to not only find, extract and sell resources, but to refine them, process them and build products with them in Canada.

The development of these resources, particularly energy, strikes some as immoral. But we cannot afford that sensibility and retain our sovereignty. We can be – we must be – leaders in an energy revolution without turning our backs on the advantages we have.

...

Standing up also means getting serious about defence, such that we know what is happening in our own territory and can act on it. If, internationally, that means focusing our efforts on particular regions of the world and otherwise pulling back on the wider international stage, so be it. But if Europe and NATO remain critical to our security, we should consider reopening a base there. If Asia is a theatre in which we have critical interests, we should consider developing an ongoing presence. Importantly, this will require changing our defence strategy and structure from what we have – a system that emphasizes forces to support U.S.-led operations – and toward one that projects and sustains self-reliant forces that can operate alone or in concert with regional allies by sea and by air.
....

Finally, standing up means we must adopt a hard-nosed, interests-based foreign policy. Wherever we decide that we have a fundamental interest, that is where we must make consistent and long-term commitments.

...

 

[markppcli]

Are those numbers for Italy correct?
Over 20 million more people than us but only 2 billion more in spending? Something is not right.

They spend as much as we do on defence personnel and have 100000 more members. Money just goes further.

Anyways all the liberal candidates want to solve 2% with pay raises so I’m sure that will fix everything.

 

[Czech_pivo]

PP is talking some specifics on what he plans to do with the CAF, of course it completely remains to be seen if a single item of this occurs. Nevertheless, he is talking some specifics whereas the 3 Blind Mice of the Team Red leadership race haven't laid out anything other than 2027, 2027 and 2029 to meet 2%.

Poilievre pledges Arctic military base, naval icebreakers if party forms government

Conservative Leader cites need to counter growing threats from Russia and China, as well as desire to maintain good relations with United States

www.theglobeandmail.com

Poilievre pledges Arctic military base, naval icebreakers if party forms government​

"The Conservatives say the military base they envision in Iqaluit would be able to host a full Royal Canadian Air Force wing, or unit of command, to launch and land new F-35 fighter jets to deter, intercept and destroy threats as well as to land Poseidon P-8 surveillance aircraft that carry out search and rescue, conduct anti-submarine warfare, as well as intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance work."

Sounds like there is a substantial facilities upgrade/expansion in the works of Iqaluit. Could include an increase in the number of F35's we are buying in order to cover this and a potential increase in the number of P-8's we've ordered.

The two Navy icebreakers the Conservatives are promising would be on top of the two polar icebreakers the Seaspan and Davie shipyards are now building for the Canadian Coast Guard. Mr. Poilievre is pledging these existing icebreakers will be delivered by 2029.
I'm not sure how we can build these 2 new icebreakers by 2029 - I'm saying 100% impossible, convince me that I'm wrong on this.

Mr. Poilievre is pledging to double the size of the 1st Patrol Group of the Canadian Rangers, expanding it from 2,000 to 4,000 Rangers. This group is spread across the northernmost parts of Canada including Nunavut, Yukon, Northwest Territories and Atlin, B.C.
I like this idea but in reality better training is completely needed for them, along with better resources/funding.

There is a naval refuelling facility under development at Nanisivik on Baffin Island, Nunavut, and Joint Task Force North has a headquarters in Yellowknife responsible for all Canadian Armed Forces operations and administration in northern Canada. Yellowknife is not however in the High Arctic like Iqaluit.

That Albatross of a facility has been a millstone around our neck for the last 10yrs with the promise (dream?) that it will be completed next season, always next season.

 

[suffolkowner]

PP is talking some specifics on what he plans to do with the CAF, of course it completely remains to be seen if a single item of this occurs. Nevertheless, he is talking some specifics whereas the 3 Blind Mice of the Team Red leadership race haven't laid out anything other than 2027, 2027 and 2029 to meet 2%.

Poilievre pledges Arctic military base, naval icebreakers if party forms government

Conservative Leader cites need to counter growing threats from Russia and China, as well as desire to maintain good relations with United States

www.theglobeandmail.com

Poilievre pledges Arctic military base, naval icebreakers if party forms government​

"The Conservatives say the military base they envision in Iqaluit would be able to host a full Royal Canadian Air Force wing, or unit of command, to launch and land new F-35 fighter jets to deter, intercept and destroy threats as well as to land Poseidon P-8 surveillance aircraft that carry out search and rescue, conduct anti-submarine warfare, as well as intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance work."

Sounds like there is a substantial facilities upgrade/expansion in the works of Iqaluit. Could include an increase in the number of F35's we are buying in order to cover this and a potential increase in the number of P-8's we've ordered.

The two Navy icebreakers the Conservatives are promising would be on top of the two polar icebreakers the Seaspan and Davie shipyards are now building for the Canadian Coast Guard. Mr. Poilievre is pledging these existing icebreakers will be delivered by 2029.
I'm not sure how we can build these 2 new icebreakers by 2029 - I'm saying 100% impossible, convince me that I'm wrong on this.

Mr. Poilievre is pledging to double the size of the 1st Patrol Group of the Canadian Rangers, expanding it from 2,000 to 4,000 Rangers. This group is spread across the northernmost parts of Canada including Nunavut, Yukon, Northwest Territories and Atlin, B.C.
I like this idea but in reality better training is completely needed for them, along with better resources/funding.

There is a naval refuelling facility under development at Nanisivik on Baffin Island, Nunavut, and Joint Task Force North has a headquarters in Yellowknife responsible for all Canadian Armed Forces operations and administration in northern Canada. Yellowknife is not however in the High Arctic like Iqaluit.

That Albatross of a facility has been a millstone around our neck for the last 10yrs with the promise (dream?) that it will be completed next season, always next season.

i dont see why we would need more F35's unless they want a squadron in Iqaluit permanently and good luck with that

do we really need another 2 icebreakers?

We already have

2 Polar PC2 icebreakers on the books which far exceed in every way anything we had before
6 medium PC3 icebreakers
8 light AOPS 4/5
plus the 15 MPV's

 

[Rainbow1910]

"The Conservatives say the military base they envision in Iqaluit would be able to host a full Royal Canadian Air Force wing, or unit of command, to launch and land new F-35 fighter jets to deter, intercept and destroy threats as well as to land Poseidon P-8 surveillance aircraft that carry out search and rescue, conduct anti-submarine warfare, as well as intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance work."

Sounds like there is a substantial facilities upgrade/expansion in the works of Iqaluit. Could include an increase in the number of F35's we are buying in order to cover this and a potential increase in the number of P-8's we've ordered.

I would not be charitable and expect additional F-35A and P-8 orders to come from this, the logistics of operating a full time military base in the North are also interesting to say the least.

The two Navy icebreakers the Conservatives are promising would be on top of the two polar icebreakers the Seaspan and Davie shipyards are now building for the Canadian Coast Guard. Mr. Poilievre is pledging these existing icebreakers will be delivered by 2029.
I'm not sure how we can build these 2 new icebreakers by 2029 - I'm saying 100% impossible, convince me that I'm wrong on this.

I am fairly sure he meant that the current pair of CCG Polar icebreakers would be delivered by 2029, this is generally on schedule with the current guesswork for the class so I have no clue what this is supposed to mean. The pair of pledged RCN polar icebreakers makes little sense, they are much better suited to the CCG and are manpower/cost prohibitive for the Navy. This order has the potential to screw up the NSS pipeline schedule as well.

 

[Czech_pivo]

i dont see why we would need more F35's unless they want a squadron in Iqaluit permanently and good luck with that

do we really need another 2 icebreakers?

We already have

2 Polar PC2 icebreakers on the books which far exceed in every way anything we had before
6 medium PC3 icebreakers
8 light AOPS 4/5
plus the 15 MPV's

I would say that we do need 1 more PC2 icebreakers and a number of new PC3's (3-4). The US has been picking up a fair amount of our slack in the Great Lakes over the years and its time we started to carry our own weight.

We definitely don't need ANY of them to be RCN vessels.

As of the F35's I still am of the belief that we are going way to light on the numbers - attrition will crush us over the next 25+yrs and in terms of having a bit extra in times of uncertainty, I don't see why another squadrons worth should be out of the question.

And for the P-8's 2nd biggest country in the world and the longest coastline and we'll have what 14-16 of these? Again, over 25+yrs this number will be down to what, 11-13? Buying again 4-6 and padding for the future, adding to our already meager capabilities and uncertain times makes sense.

 

[daftandbarmy]

I would say that we do need 1 more PC2 icebreakers and a number of new PC3's (3-4). The US has been picking up a fair amount of our slack in the Great Lakes over the years and its time we started to carry our own weight.

We definitely don't need ANY of them to be RCN vessels.

As of the F35's I still am of the belief that we are going way to light on the numbers - attrition will crush us over the next 25+yrs and in terms of having a bit extra in times of uncertainty, I don't see why another squadrons worth should be out of the question.

And for the P-8's 2nd biggest country in the world and the longest coastline and we'll have what 14-16 of these? Again, over 25+yrs this number will be down to what, 11-13? Buying again 4-6 and padding for the future, adding to our already meager capabilities and uncertain times makes sense.

But what about the Australian F-18s?

 

[Czech_pivo]

But what about the Australian F-18s?

LOL - I yelled at the computer when I read that....

 

[daftandbarmy]

LOL - I yelled at the computer when I read that....

 

[captloadie]

Neither the Liberals nor the Conservatives are focusing on what the real issue is. We can get all the nice shiny toys we want for the CAF or the CCG, but where are the people coming from to operate, maintain, and support the capabilities? The great plan to open recruitment to permanent resident is only beneficial to Army Reserve units based in metro centres, and maybe the Navy in Victoria, if you promise them they never have to leave. How do we get people to join if they are told their going to spend most of their time in Greenwood, Cold Lake, or Iqaluit? Don't get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with any of those communities for individuals and their families, but they aren't the big hubs that most Canadians seem to want to live in.

 

[suffolkowner]

I would say that we do need 1 more PC2 icebreakers and a number of new PC3's (3-4). The US has been picking up a fair amount of our slack in the Great Lakes over the years and its time we started to carry our own weight.

We definitely don't need ANY of them to be RCN vessels.

As of the F35's I still am of the belief that we are going way to light on the numbers - attrition will crush us over the next 25+yrs and in terms of having a bit extra in times of uncertainty, I don't see why another squadrons worth should be out of the question.

And for the P-8's 2nd biggest country in the world and the longest coastline and we'll have what 14-16 of these? Again, over 25+yrs this number will be down to what, 11-13? Buying again 4-6 and padding for the future, adding to our already meager capabilities and uncertain times makes sense.

I dont deny the attrition point or that 14-16 and 88 are light on the numbers especially if we do not do better on succession. I wonder if we can expect the same longevity out of the F35 as the F18?

On icebreakers we dont use anything like a medium PC3 on the Great Lakes. Presently we have the Samuel Risley, Griffon and Judy Lamarsh. Although the "new" Judy Lamarsh is under refit right now i think. Admittedly sad and pathetic abrogation of our responsibilities but the US has only one real icebreaker the rest being sub 1000 tonne tugs i think.

The two Polar icebreakers so far exceed anything we have ever had i just wonder about the justification for another.
We have thanks to the Vikings 7 "mediums" right now and again the 6 replacements are to be a pretty significant increase replacing an AC 3 with a PC3. Effectively our mediums will be our old heavies

 

[daftandbarmy]

Neither the Liberals nor the Conservatives are focusing on what the real issue is. We can get all the nice shiny toys we want for the CAF or the CCG, but where are the people coming from to operate, maintain, and support the capabilities? The great plan to open recruitment to permanent resident is only beneficial to Army Reserve units based in metro centres, and maybe the Navy in Victoria, if you promise them they never have to leave. How do we get people to join if they are told their going to spend most of their time in Greenwood, Cold Lake, or Iqaluit? Don't get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with any of those communities for individuals and their families, but they aren't the big hubs that most Canadians seem to want to live in.

But why end the tradition of a career that condemns you to years of internal exile?

 

[Czech_pivo]

Neither the Liberals nor the Conservatives are focusing on what the real issue is. We can get all the nice shiny toys we want for the CAF or the CCG, but where are the people coming from to operate, maintain, and support the capabilities? The great plan to open recruitment to permanent resident is only beneficial to Army Reserve units based in metro centres, and maybe the Navy in Victoria, if you promise them they never have to leave. How do we get people to join if they are told their going to spend most of their time in Greenwood, Cold Lake, or Iqaluit? Don't get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with any of those communities for individuals and their families, but they aren't the big hubs that most Canadians seem to want to live in.

Agreed

Funding for an ongoing, decades long, recruitment drive - coupled with:
1) signing bonuses,
2) reenlistment bonuses,
3) improved housing, training facilities
4) vastly increased 'throughput' of new recruits
5) increase in compensation
6) rotation in/out of 'hardship' locations

 

[suffolkowner]

on Great Lakes icebreaking

The USCG also claims they are supplemented with Canadian icebreakers in U.S. ports and the shared U.S. and Canadian waters. Unfortunately, that claim is unfounded. Last year the two Canadian Great Lakes icebreakers spent less than six hours in shared waters when they escorted a vessel departing a Canadian port. They spent no time in U.S. ports. In contrast, U.S. icebreakers dedicated more than 130 hours breaking ice in Canadian harbors and covered virtually all of the icebreaking in the shared waters. At the beginning of the ice season, both Canadian icebreakers were over 1,500 miles away in the Saint Lawrence River requiring U.S. icebreakers to leave U.S. ports in order to assist Canadian carriers into Canadian ports. USCG buoy tenders were not available to break ice because they were busy working Canadian aids to navigation. Although both Coast Guards claim to manage the Great Lakes Navigation System for icebreaking as a single system the resources and demands are not equally shared. The Canadian Coast Guard provides two icebreakers to support nearly 90 Canadian-flag vessels. The USCG provides nine icebreakers to support over 50 U.S-flag vessels. The U.S. measures “waterway availability” in only four areas and Canada measures icebreaking response time in hours, regardless of vessel location.

Great Lakes Icebreaking

U.S.-Flag Great Lakes Fleet

lcaships.com

 

[Quirky]

How do we get people to join if they are told their going to spend most of their time in Greenwood, Cold Lake, or Iqaluit?

With enough $$$ anything is possible.

 

[ArmyRick]

@KevinB
Slightly off topic. I was in 2VP in the 90s and I remember in 97 or 98, the CO telling us on parade "We would not move to Shilo ever as they did not have the infrastructure to house a battalion yada, yada, yada...."

And a few years later, voila. Bye Bye depressing Winnipeg Kapyong Barracks and off to the lively and rocking Shilo/Brandon, Manitoba.

 

[Czech_pivo]

Jetties A/B update.

Canada Opens Renovated Jetty for Future Naval Fleets in British Columbia

Canada’s Department of Defence has inaugurated a reconstructed jetty at the Esquimalt military base in Victoria, British Columbia.

thedefensepost.com

A/B Jetty Recapitalization

DCC is a Crown corporation that delivers infrastructure and environmental projects for the defence of Canada.

www.dcc-cdc.gc.ca

Question - will these be able to handle 2/3 AOPS, 1 JSS, 7-9 CSC's and then potentially 5-6 new Subs and 5-6 new Corvettes? Or will we be in yet another situation where we don't have the facilities in place to meet our needs? I realise that I've asked this question before and was told something about 'rafting' of ships together and having the space but that sounds more like a short term solution than something longer term.

 

[YZT580]

Neither the Liberals nor the Conservatives are focusing on what the real issue is. We can get all the nice shiny toys we want for the CAF or the CCG, but where are the people coming from to operate, maintain, and support the capabilities? The great plan to open recruitment to permanent resident is only beneficial to Army Reserve units based in metro centres, and maybe the Navy in Victoria, if you promise them they never have to leave. How do we get people to join if they are told their going to spend most of their time in Greenwood, Cold Lake, or Iqaluit? Don't get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with any of those communities for individuals and their families, but they aren't the big hubs that most Canadians seem to want to live in.

perhaps not in your mind but there are currently 28000 folks living in the 3 towns you mention. Not all of them are military by any means. I live in a town of 14000 having moved here from a town of 12000. Obviously I am not an outlier since there are 13,999 other people who have made the same choices as I have so quit with the doom and gloom about the numbers. It isn't the location of our bases that keep people from joining: it is the reputation the CAF has earned for maintaining rusted out antiques, poor living conditions and no evident purpose. Get some shiny new gear with the promise of more, get rid of the extreme left wing bias in HS guidance departments, provide some favourable news and videos and show some concern for the careers of the spouses that you effect with your moves and then you will start to see the numbers going up instead of down