Justin Trudeau hints at boosting Canada’s military spending

I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[Good2Golf]

... versus - right now - another party with no plan for 2%, just a partisan blast as opposition for the ruling party with exactly the same "plan". That's the real irony being pointed out here by some.

Are people expecting an opposition party to produce a budget-grade line by line breakdown of how they’d sped to 2%?

The 2% measure is relatively simple to measure despite it being in the PMs words “a crass mathematical measure”

Pretty sure the PM doesn’t do math, by his own admission.

I think Poilievre’s statement of “best value” for procurement will be tested once CPC voters realize that Canadian jobs will likely be lost bc Hanwha, etc can produce cheaper than Irving.

I hardly think anyone from Irving is going to ‘lose their job’ because of Hanwha. Babcock possibly…but not ISI.

It's no accident that the only big defence items the Harper government approved were those that maximized domestic spending. The few purchases beyond that were all wartime exigencies. With no war underway, we're not even going to get those now.

ACP-S, ACP-T and MHLH? Wartime? 1/4B for C-17 #5 and 5.0B for CH-147F was big money but after the [AFG] war.

interoperability with allies also extends to spare parts, etc. With the P-3

“Hey, [insert P-3/P-8 operator] friends! Can we borrow one of your analog MX-20s?” [edit to add: Canada is the only 1st world operator of 1/4 century old non-digital MX-20s]

There are hundreds of the basic airframe in service as business jets, around the world. Parts for that should not be an issue.

Canada has the skill and experience to make it not work…

 

[childs56]

JLTV is a built for purpose combat vehicle, designed in GWOT era but able to handle high intensity combat tasks.

Built to replace the HMMWV; with a more armored version back then, never actually replaced it. Many years later it is used to supplement it.

Roshel Senator is a Ford F550 with an armor kit.

What is wrong with that? Proven platform.

It's apples to oranges. It's also not used by any credible military force besides the Ukrainians, and they only have them because it was a donation.

Initially it was a donation, other countries ordered more and Ukraine even more.

The Senator is a rear-area taxi cab or for federal police tasks and with a military as small as ours, relatively useless.

These guys seem to think it is pretty good.

I don't want to get further into the rabbit hole but the JLTV vs Senator is a bad comparison of Canadian industry offering an alternative to something readily available on the MOTS marketplace. Our best procurements are always items that met the mandatory requirements, made by existing companies with no Canadianizing to the design.

Everything Canada Buys gets Canadianized.

 

[YZT580]

I am not worried about commonality if we happen to get Globaleye.

There are hundreds of the basic airframe in service as business jets, around the world. Parts for that should not be an issue. With both Sweden and France as NATO users, we would not be alone in the user pool, which is key.

except do we really need to send it to Europe. they have lots. Our area of responsibility is off the coast on 3 sides and that is a lot of open water and huge distances between airports. As well, the only neighbour with whom we share responsibility for security happens to fly P-8s. Unfortunately it is made by Boeing but hopefully they will get their quality control under control before our order is delivered

 

[ytz]

And quantum computing resistant data communications products as well, some of which is developed right in Waterloo.

Montreal is a world leading centre for AI. Being locked out of AUKUS likely means we'll lose a lot of that talent to them.

 

[ytz]

ACP-S, ACP-T and MHLH? Wartime? 1/4B for C-17 #5 and 5.0B for CH-147F was big money but after the [AFG] war.

Like I said all of those are wartime exigencies. And all of those combined are a fraction of the CSC program. Not even counting the whole shipbuilding portfolio. Honestly, it would be easier to sell building an aircraft carrier in Canada than the aircraft to go on that ship.

 

[Good2Golf]

Like I said all of those are wartime exigencies. And all of those combined are a fraction of the CSC program. Not even counting the whole shipbuilding portfolio. Honestly, it would be easier to sell building an aircraft carrier in Canada than the aircraft to go on that ship.

ACP-T closest to being portrayed as wartime exigency, but both MHLH had nothing to do with AFG. IMLC did, but not MHLH. As I kited, the 5th C-17 was also nothing to do with a (by then) past war.

 

[ytz]

ACP-T closest to being portrayed as wartime exigency, but both MHLH had nothing to do with AFG. IMLC did, but not MHLH. As I kited, the 5th C-17 was also nothing to do with a (by then) past war.

Wasn't MHLH sole sourced? Either way it was mostly a follow on capability. Again, add up all of those projects and compare the cost to the shipbuilding portfolio.

 

[FJAG]

In our case the output sucks. We show up to lead a battle group without all kinds of enablers. No air defence. No long range fires. No attack helicopters. No MALE UCAVs. No substantial EW. Etc. Or we offer up an air group of just six fighters. Sometimes without a tanker. And no AEW&C.

This!

We may have been punching well in Afghanistan vis a vis other NATO countries, but when it comes to participating in the collective defence of Europe, where the biggest threat is currently, we aren't doing well.

The trouble is we are gauging our weight by the size of our military rather than our economy and potential outputs. Even when you consider the $ spent as inputs, our resultant outputs are low.

It's practically impossible for a European country to be at 2% and not actually contributing substantially to collective deterrence and defence in Europe. Maybe if they flat out deny NATO principles? But even Orban doesn't do that. Can you give an example of a country that spends 2% and does "not meaningfully contribute to the alliance"? What exactly does this mean in practice for you? I'm trying to understand how you actually envision this happening?

Also this!

It's such an obvious point it hardly bears mentioning. True, not every European national resource is earmarked to NATO, but it's like the old metaphor. "In a ham omelet, the chicken is involved but the pig is committed." Canada is represented by the chicken; Europeans are represented by the pig.

This is the point of the 2%. It gives the capacity to contribute. We're now spending well over 1%. And a lot of that is literally to stop things from falling apart. Our "output" is actually rather poor. At some point investment is needed. If you can't afford a new car, sure you'll spend a ton to keep the clunker running. Doesn't make you a reliable employee, if you need that car for your job.

For me this is where the Advancing with Purpose model breaks down. We have an "Army of Today" (basically the RegF) and we aim for an "Army of Tomorrow" (once again the RegF). Basically the "Army of Tomorrow" becomes the new "Army of Today" when tomorrow finally arrives. But effectively, we haven't moved the goal posts. We are still the same army, built for peacetime with occasional forays onto operations - some sustained, some short-term. Usually when we upgrade worn out capabilities we do so with less equipment and thus the capability slowly spirals downward.

What's missing from this scenario is that the "Army of Today" should always have two components: an "Army FOR Today" which represents the ready RegF elements needed to perform duties day-to-day; and an "Army FOR Tomorrow" which is a standing, trained and equipped reserve component that you can mobilize in a preplanned timeframe to expand your force if and when needed.

I fully agree that investment is needed. I agree that 2% is needed. But it will be mostly wasted unless we come to grips with the "Army FOR Tomorrow" issue.

For Canada, defence spending is viewed as part of the government's discretionary budget. Even worse, within the CAF, the army is viewed as a discretionary item. For the Air Force and Navy, the equipment acquired dictates the number of personnel. There is limited discretion at play. I tend to think that DND/CAF HQ, like any bureaucracy, considers itself a primarily a non discretionary organization. The army, on the other hand, is frequently looked at when PY harvesting is needed or budget limitations are set against equipment replacements. Many of the army's current capability deficiencies have been brought about by PY or other budget cuts and the army having to priorize what stays on life support and what can be let go and risk assumed. The Army FOR Tomorrow has been thrown under the bus long ago.

 

[PuckChaser]

Excellent long form interview by Pamela Wallen with former Liberal Party MP (and ret'd LGen) Andrew Leslie. Covers a lot of procurement issues and his thoughts which confirm a lot of opinions here that the current Liberal Government believes in soft power above all else, and that defense spending is the absolute bottom priority.

 

[dapaterson]

Wasn't MHLH sole sourced? Either way it was mostly a follow on capability. Again, add up all of those projects and compare the cost to the shipbuilding portfolio.

No. ACAN is not sole source. There's a difference between "I want X and won't consider altero" and "There is no product besides X that meets our needs".

 

[Good2Golf]

Wasn't MHLH sole sourced? Either way it was mostly a follow on capability. Again, add up all of those projects and compare the cost to the shipbuilding portfolio.

No. It was single bidder compliant (CH-53 and Mi-26 were also assessed prior to PA(Imp), both both failed to meet the HLMRs, and an ACAN released accordingly. To say it was a follow-on from IMLC is incorrect. MHLH formally entered the DSP in 2005. IMLC was initiated and approved in 2008, following the release of the Manly Report.

If you argued that Harper buying Leapord 2 was wartime, I’d buy that argument. Everything else was based on pre-war SOCDs.

I’m not sure I understand your point regarding NSS being (and are you including CSC?) cost more than every other MCP added together (which I’m assuming you mean to include FFCP?)

 

[Cloud Cover]

Software, actually such as Radiate.

 

[Good2Golf]

First video I’ve seen of Trudeau’s statement at the NATO summit….to an empty press room…

https://twitter.com/x/status/1811922238708629673

 

[Quirky]

First video I’ve seen of Trudeau’s statement at the NATO summit….to an empty press room…

 

[markppcli]

Built to replace the HMMWV; with a more armored version back then, never actually replaced it. Many years later it is used to supplement it.

It largely has, certainly in front line service. Going off what I see on deployments, and having been on exercise on… 4? Major US army bases this year JLTV is the standard for combatants.

What is wrong with that? Proven platform.

Armour protection is sub optimal

Initially it was a donation, other countries ordered more and Ukraine even more.

These guys seem to think it is pretty good.

Everything Canada Buys gets Canadianized.

The Ukrainians have also spoken about its pitfalls. The Senator is great for what it does, but it’s not a front line combat vehicle.

 

[ytz]

We may have been punching well in Afghanistan vis a vis other NATO countries, but when it comes to participating in the collective defence of Europe, where the biggest threat is currently, we aren't doing well.

The only reason we could actually punch above our weight in Afghanistan was because we still had enough legacy stock and personnel leftover from the 80s and 90s. People don't seem to understand that we burned through all of that and now there is no juice left in the tank, so the costs to recapitalize are going to be really steep. We have to pay to recapitalize all the things we haven't over the last 20 years over the next 10 years.

 

[ytz]

I’m not sure I understand your point regarding NSS being (and are you including CSC?) cost more than every other MCP added together (which I’m assuming you mean to include FFCP?)

What I am suggesting is that the Harper government wasn't all that generous on buying kit outside wartime exigencies that were also sourced outside Canada. That's why NSS sailed though (pun intended) while they didn't want to burn political capital on FWSAR or FFCP. Etc. Sure the SOCDs existed before. But what was prioritized, in terms of political (and actual) capital, was very much based on wartime needs and then what would spend money at home. They left almost everything else for their successors to do.

 

[ytz]

It largely has, certainly in front line service. Going off what I see on deployments, and having been on exercise on… 4? Major US army bases this year JLTV is the standard for combatants.



Armour protection is sub optimal



The Ukrainians have also spoken about its pitfalls. The Senator is great for what it does, but it’s not a front line combat vehicle.

We could have easily purchased Senators for reserve and rear echelon fleets. That we couldn't even do that is an example of how little we support industry, which in turn is why they lobby so damn hard when RFPs hit the street.

 

[markppcli]

We could have easily purchased Senators for reserve and rear echelon fleets. That we couldn't even do that is an example of how little we support industry, which in turn is why they lobby so damn hard when RFPs hit the street.

I don’t we should buy things simply because industry produces them, we should but things because they facilitate in operational function we doctrinally out to be able to accomplish.

I’m not a fan of the idea of “reserve vehicles” simply because, as we saw with the AVGP, they end up being use operationally. In all honestly I think there are senator variants that can do some jobs for us, undoubtably better than TAPV, but the base models being sent to Ukraine aren’t them.

 

[FJAG]

The only reason we could actually punch above our weight in Afghanistan was because we still had enough legacy stock and personnel leftover from the 80s and 90s. People don't seem to understand that we burned through all of that and now there is no juice left in the tank, so the costs to recapitalize are going to be really steep. We have to pay to recapitalize all the things we haven't over the last 20 years over the next 10 years.

Yes and no. I get the point that you are making but its a bit more complicated than that because we also bought a lot of new stock for that which is still with us. Leo2s, M777s, CH-47s, Sperwer, LCMR, MSVS, LUVW, TAPVs and a whole lot of mine clearing equipment. The fleet of the LAV III was new and even the LAV6.0 and ACSV could be viewed as a result of Afghanistan. Yup, we turned to old Bisons, TLAVs and some ammo stocks (which needed a turn over anyway).

IMHO, the problem is the binge buying that we do in the army by buying a fleet and then letting it run until it rusts out. It's always been like that. The trucks we used in the 1970s had all been built in the early 1950s.

People. We got a pretty good influx of new folks just because we were at war. There is always a legacy vs new crowd in an army. It's the way of things and one of the strengths of the system.

All that said, the CAF clearly needed to and has a continuing need to recapitalize. It's doing so in some very key areas such as ships and aircraft. The army clearly is having the short end of the stick at present, but I think in part you can say they had their turn during Afghanistan and now it's time to get the RCAF and RCN's house in order first.

What I am suggesting is that the Harper government wasn't all that generous on buying kit outside wartime exigencies that were also sourced outside Canada. That's why NSS sailed though (pun intended) while they didn't want to burn political capital on FWSAR or FFCP. Etc. Sure the SOCDs existed before. But what was prioritized, in terms of political (and actual) capital, was very much based on wartime needs and then what would spend money at home. They left almost everything else for their successors to do.

That I agree with. The army lost its influence very heavily as we started pulling out at the end of the 00s and the money dried up very quickly so that Force 2013 got hit hard.

I don’t we should buy things simply because industry produces them, we should but things because they facilitate in operational function we doctrinally out to be able to accomplish.

I agree with that but sometimes we need to take a chance just to ensure that we maintain a healthy defence industry. I don't want to see us buying a 1,000 Senators, but I would like to see us buy a 100 Senator-like vehicles for each of the next 10 years. They can be fed in to replace older LUVWs and similar vehicles as they clap out.

I’m not a fan of the idea of “reserve vehicles” simply because, as we saw with the AVGP, they end up being use operationally. In all honestly I think there are senator variants that can do some jobs for us, undoubtably better than TAPV, but the base models being sent to Ukraine aren’t them.

I hate the idea of "reserve" vehicles. Every vehicle we buy should have an operational role even if it currently fulfills a training role. First, however, we need to decide on what the operational role of the reserves truly are.

My particular pet peeve is that our entire army structure mentality is that we buy just enough equipment to support the anticipated peacetime expeditionary operations plus a small stock for training and spares. We do not have an overall force structure in mind which is capable of participation in a major war or to provide a credible and capable component of an allied deterrence force. I appreciate that what is a reasonably sized force may vary from individual to individual. IMHO, for a nation with Canada's wealth, we should be able to deploy and sustain a full division on expeditionary operations.