News   Apr 29, 2024
And You Get A Panel…
 210     0 
News   Apr 26, 2024
Sustainability Month: ReHousing — A Multiplex How-To Guide Explores What’s Possible in the Yellowbelt
 2.8K     5 
News   Apr 26, 2024
Mattamy's Soleil and Mile & Creek Condos in Milton’s Flourishing Landscape
 787     0 

Canada and the World

kEiThZ said:
Broadly, we need a real rethink on force design going forward. Artillery is just one piece. It also baffles me, for example, why an air force of 20k operates four different types of helicopters including the spectacularly useless Griffon, a helicopter that is too big to scout, and too underpowered to really lift much, too slow to escort a Chinook, and too small to even lift a full infantry section.

Moving forward, not only do we need to rethink the needed capabilities, but there needs to be serious thought given to synergies and efficiencies.

I've talked about on the first page. I'm a big fan of what the US Marine Corps is doing with Force Design 2030 [PDF warning]. It is, undoubtedly, very controversial. No tanks. Less infantry. Less artillery. More sensors. More missiles. It's a force that is designed to move quickly, strike and leave. It's not a force designed to fight in long wars of occupation.

Promo video of the rationale here:


Good video explaining the changes here:

Click to expand...
[/QUOTE]

The advantage the USMC has is it has the other services to fill in gaps. We would have to do a kinda-sorta transformation, keeping in mind the other things our military is expected to still do (long range surveillance, strategic lift, maritime, etc., but generally, I agree.
kEiThZ said:
I think we should copy this model. It's closer to what most Canadians envision our military doing and would let us actually develop higher competency in some niches.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure I would agree. I'm not convinced 'most Canadians' give our military a second thought except when they read about a domestic deployment or the latest scandal. When they do think about the military, many still think in terms of 'peace keeping'. The majority of Canadians would not encounter a military member, facility or piece of equipment in their lifetimes.

 
lenaitch said:
I'm not sure I would agree. I'm not convinced 'most Canadians' give our military a second thought except when they read about a domestic deployment or the latest scandal. When they do think about the military, many still think in terms of 'peace keeping'. The majority of Canadians would not encounter a military member, facility or piece of equipment in their lifetimes.
Click to expand...

Pertinent point of the increasing distance between the military and the society from which it is drawn (to be fair a trend for a while) is a key component of any defence-related discussion. There was an excellent article about it a few years ago that argued - in so many words, that an informed public can help shape informed choices. In fact, I think the article was from a former US Serviceman who was criticising the media during the Iraq War, for not being critical enough of the military's decision making. The point being in this case that the press was being unduly deferential. Love him or hate him, when a senior politician used the phrase "whip out our CF-18s" my jaw hit the floor.

I remember a time when regular units were based in major cities across Canada, but in the 90s left for remote super garrisons. It may have been practical, but out of sight out of mind.

More broadly, a fascinating discussion that was had a few years ago in the US was on the possibility of reintroducing conscription. Although this was directed at spreading the burden of military service and current operations more widely across US society, it would certainly stir the debate on the military onward.
 
lenaitch said:
When they do think about the military, many still think in terms of 'peace keeping'.
Click to expand...

How much of that is true post-Afghanistan? I would bet that most Millennials and Zoomers don't think of the CAF as exclusively a peacekeeping force.

lenaitch said:
The advantage the USMC has is it has the other services to fill in gaps. We would have to do a kinda-sorta transformation, keeping in mind the other things our military is expected to still do (long range surveillance, strategic lift, maritime, etc., but generally, I agree.
Click to expand...

Not suggesting that we can 100% imitate. But I think the idea of a lighter and more nimble force that can make meaningful, but time limited contribution has some merit to it.

For example, consider something like the tanks we have. It's a massive burden to operate and maintain them. There's only three bases where it's really possible to exercise them. Takes weeks to move them anywhere. One has to ask if it's worthwhile for a military starving for personnel and funds to devote an outsized share of resources for a capability that won't be meaningfully used in combat. If we're going to operate tanks, maybe it's better if we simply locate them in a single regiment that is based in Europe as part of some combined NATO force, instead of distributed over several locations in Canada with our techs flying all over the place.
 
Lennox970 said:
I remember a time when regular units were based in major cities across Canada, but in the 90s left for remote super garrisons. It may have been practical, but out of sight out of mind.
Click to expand...

Not just relations with society. We now have a substantial recruiting and retention problem. In a country where half the population lives in 6 urban agglomerations (Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, Ottawa) and another quarter stays in cities of several hundred thousand, getting young people to sign up to spend their 20s in Petawawa and Cold Lake is a challenge. Getting them to stay when they are older and have families is also a challenge, when their spouses have poor career prospects at these locations.

Among other things, we really need to rethink how the CAF is based in Canada. I'm a fan of some extreme solutions here. For example, I'd love to see the entire fighter force moved to Mirabel and then simply deploy fighter detachments as needed for various watches and tasks. Build a new army base near London (or rebuild the old one). Move most of what's at Petawawa there. Move all the regiments in Shilo to Edmonton and reduce Shilo to a training area. Etc.

If we don't start making drastic changes, the problems are only going to get worse (and they are already bad). To give an example, the Aerospace Engineering Test Establishment had to move from Cold Lake to Ottawa because they were struggling to recruit personnel. Even the offer of several hundred thousand in training at test pilot school or at fully funded paid graduate studies was not enough to convince people to live in Cold Lake, when people can't be ordered to fill those positions (specialist skills).
 
kEiThZ said:
How much of that is true post-Afghanistan? I would bet that most Millennials and Zoomers don't think of the CAF as exclusively a peacekeeping force.
Click to expand...
[/QUOTE]
There, FIFY 😁

Well, the poll linked was 2018. You are correct that the alphabet of recent generations don't have connection to the 'hay-day' of Pearsonian peacekeeping, it is a myth that keeps getting perpetrated, particularly by politicians (or more, recently, that we are convenors of meetings). The military is not an intrinsic part of our culture, and is very small in a very large country. As mentioned in another post, few bases are located in or near large population centres. According to Wiki, Vancouver, Montreal and the GTA hold about one-third of our population; the GTA alone about 18%. None of these regions have a significant military presence. There are no doubt all sorts of good reasons for that, but, in my opinion, adds to the disconnect.


kEiThZ said:
Not suggesting that we can 100% imitate. But I think the idea of a lighter and more nimble force that can make meaningful, but time limited contribution has some merit to it.

For example, consider something like the tanks we have. It's a massive burden to operate and maintain them. There's only three bases where it's really possible to exercise them. Takes weeks to move them anywhere. One has to ask if it's worthwhile for a military starving for personnel and funds to devote an outsized share of resources for a capability that won't be meaningfully used in combat. If we're going to operate tanks, maybe it's better if we simply locate them in a single regiment that is based in Europe as part of some combined NATO force, instead of distributed over several locations in Canada with our techs flying all over the place.
Click to expand...
I agree. I will leave to others to decide if we need MBTs or not, but if they are to be kept, at least keep the small numbers that we have in one place, or pre-deploy them and keep a training component in one place. If we do keep them, they have to be up-to-date. One concern I do have, should to decision be made to exit the heavy armour game, is future leadership not acknowledging the inherent limitations in future commitments.
 
Normally, I might be inclined to a put a report about Federal Budget expenditures and accounting minutiae in our standard Federal politics thread......

But I think this discussion fits better here.

So first, the report, is from the Parlimentary Budget Officer and can be found here:


From said report:

1650891488699.png


In summary, the main estimates suggest that bureaucracy has budgeted 15B extra for Defense over the next two years vs what the budget publicly states.

The PBO is curious what the money is for..............

So am I............

I'd be interested to hear @kEiThZ thoughts.

That's a bit more than pocket change slipping in under the radar.

Not necessarily anything untoward or malfeasant but certainly something less than transparent.
 
Northern Light said:
Normally, I might be inclined to a put a report about Federal Budget expenditures and accounting minutiae in our standard Federal politics thread......

But I think this discussion fits better here.

So first, the report, is from the Parlimentary Budget Officer and can be found here:


From said report:

View attachment 395539

In summary, the main estimates suggest that bureaucracy has budgeted 15B extra for Defense over the next two years vs what the budget publicly states.

The PBO is curious what the money is for..............

So am I............

I'd be interested to hear @kEiThZ thoughts.

That's a bit more than pocket change slipping in under the radar.

Not necessarily anything untoward or malfeasant but certainly something less than transparent.
Click to expand...

There is a federal politics thread?
 
Northern Light said:
Normally, I might be inclined to a put a report about Federal Budget expenditures and accounting minutiae in our standard Federal politics thread......

But I think this discussion fits better here.

So first, the report, is from the Parlimentary Budget Officer and can be found here:


From said report:

View attachment 395539

In summary, the main estimates suggest that bureaucracy has budgeted 15B extra for Defense over the next two years vs what the budget publicly states.

The PBO is curious what the money is for..............

So am I............

I'd be interested to hear @kEiThZ thoughts.

That's a bit more than pocket change slipping in under the radar.

Not necessarily anything untoward or malfeasant but certainly something less than transparent.
Click to expand...
I'd be interested as well. Government budget statements typically don't follow 'generally accepted accounting practices' (ok, smoke, mirrors and animal entrails). I doubt DND has the capacity to spend that amount of extra dough in one year.
 
I think it's just placeholder budgeting for NORAD modernization and any immediate priorities identified in the DPR. Mostly though, I think it's budgeted so that Canada doesn't look even worse, and gets further sidelined internationally, now that most of the other laggards we used to hide behind are also upping their game.

They'll find ways to spend the money. Heck, there's a ton of infrastructure, military housing, and basic kit like clothing, body armour, PPE, etc they could spend it on.
 
I thought DND can bank unspent funds for use in future years anyway.
 
kEiThZ said:
I think it's just placeholder budgeting for NORAD modernization and any immediate priorities identified in the DPR. Mostly though, I think it's budgeted so that Canada doesn't look even worse, and gets further sidelined internationally, now that most of the other laggards we used to hide behind are also upping their game.

They'll find ways to spend the money. Heck, there's a ton of infrastructure, military housing, and basic kit like clothing, body armour, PPE, etc they could spend it on.
Click to expand...

Do you think some portion is dedicated to replacing artillery/radar/ammo donated to Ukraine?

I'm wondering what that tab will be at when its all said and done; I also imagine there may be some contingency around future support for that effort.
 
Last edited:
afransen said:
I thought DND can bank unspent funds for use in future years anyway.
Click to expand...

It's all accounting. DND has been returning a billion per year give or take because it can't spend it.

Really, the crisis has kinda shown which countries don't have clothes on. And we're one of them. Gonna take a decade at least to fix it. Or maybe we'll simply accept irrelevancy internationally and relegate ourselves to pretending to defend our homeland while the Americans actually do it. That's an option too.

Canadians just don't understand what we're up against. Take a look at what is on the other side of the Arctic. The Russians are building up a ton of Arctic military and economic infrastructure.



We claim to be an Arctic country but our entire Arctic force is going to be based around half a dozen very lightly armed slush breakers? I hope Canadians aren't too surprised when there Americans decide they'll just start doing whatever they want up there since we're irrelevant.

 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top