Canada and the World

[Admiral Beez]

I encourage people to watch this. I was expecting a doozy and it is worse than I feared. I knew that there were big problems with defense procurement but this lays out just how bad the situation has become. Essentially, Canada regularly is paying 10x what is should cost to procure new equipment, and has now built up such a huge backlog of equipment to replace, it will require a concerted effort and spending to dig ourselves out of that hole. It also sounds like we need to make tough decisions around domestic sourcing of equipment. Frankly, things have gotten so bad I'm not sure we should allow Canadian shipbuilding industry to build any equipment for the RCN for the next couple of decades. Something has to give, we simply cannot spend 10x what it should cost for a ship just to make the Irvings richer.

We need to pick a few critical areas to specialize our defense industry in and buy mostly off the shelf from foreign suppliers for everything else. We simply can't afford to do anything else.

We need to separate regional economic and industrial credits from RCN and CCG procurement. We don't expect Canada to produce the RCAF's new F-35 Lightnings and P-8 Poseidon. Nor do we expect Canada to produce the Army's Leopard II tanks. No, we put out a tender and buy from whatever nation makes them the best for the best value. I expect Ottawa will be forced to finally take this approach for the RN on the SSK replacement - since we've never produced a submarine.

Canada launching process to acquire up to 12 conventionally-powered submarines - Canada.ca

Canada is the country with the largest coastline in the world – an underwater surveillance capability is crucial to our security and sovereignty.

www.canada.ca

 

[lenaitch]

We need to separate regional economic and industrial credits from RCN and CCG procurement. We don't expect Canada to produce the RCAF's new F-35 Lightnings and P-8 Poseidon. Nor do we expect Canada to produce the Army's Leopard II tanks. No, we put out a tender and buy from whatever nation makes them the best for the best value. I expect Ottawa will be forced to finally take this approach for the RN on the SSK replacement - since we've never produced a submarine.

Canada launching process to acquire up to 12 conventionally-powered submarines - Canada.ca

Canada is the country with the largest coastline in the world – an underwater surveillance capability is crucial to our security and sovereignty.

www.canada.ca

It's one thing to ramp up traditional shipbuilding from it's atrophied state but quite another to try and create an industry from complete scratch. Unless we want to try to compete on the world market (folly), there is no rationale to try and establish and unique industry for a dozen boats (maybe).

 

[Admiral Beez]

It's one thing to ramp up traditional shipbuilding from it's atrophied state but quite another to try and create an industry from complete scratch.

That's exactly what we do each time we enter a major warship contract - creating an industry, and then run it down, only to recreate a generation later. For example, to build nine of the twelve Halifax class frigates the Irving's Saint John, NB shipyard was expanded and new tech and expertise brought in. Once the last ship was built, the entire yard was demolished. And now, almost thirty years since the last frigate entered service, we're going to do it again, expand another shipyard to build the new frigates (destroyers to us, for some reason), only to run it down afterward.

 

[Towered]

That's exactly what we do each time we enter a major warship contract - creating an industry, and then run it down, only to recreate a generation later. For example, to build nine of the twelve Halifax class frigates the Irving's Saint John, NB shipyard was expanded and new tech and expertise brought in. Once the last ship was built, the entire yard was demolished. And now, almost thirty years since the last frigate entered service, we're going to do it again, expand another shipyard to build the new frigates (destroyers to us, for some reason), only to run it down afterward.

Sounds like lack of maintenance is not just a Toronto disease.

 

[lenaitch]

That's exactly what we do each time we enter a major warship contract - creating an industry, and then run it down, only to recreate a generation later. For example, to build nine of the twelve Halifax class frigates the Irving's Saint John, NB shipyard was expanded and new tech and expertise brought in. Once the last ship was built, the entire yard was demolished. And now, almost thirty years since the last frigate entered service, we're going to do it again, expand another shipyard to build the new frigates (destroyers to us, for some reason), only to run it down afterward.

Stipulated, but between the highs, there have always been lows, somewhere, even if doing nothing but refits. The current National Shipbuilding Program is supposed to break that cycle (I know, famous last words) through a steady diet of naval and CCG builds. We have absolutely no facilities, design or construction history for submarines, and why should we bother, even if it was a licenced build of somebody else's boat, for such a small fleet.

 

[Admiral Beez]

We may be entering a new high on Canadian defence spending.

Firstly, POTUS 47 is not going to tolerate Ottawa not meeting its 2% NATO spend. Secondly, Putin and Russia will soon escape from the Ukraine quagmire and will be emboldened in the Arctic, where Canada currently has very little year round military or even observational capability.

And separate from military spend, there’s a coming need to dramatically increase the CBSA at our southern border. Once the US begins rounding up illegals we can expect tens of thousands to try to flee to Canada instead of going home.

But is Trudeau the PM to execute the above? No, imo. So, this will be up to Pollivre and the Cons. Though the last Con government under Harper reduced defence spending to its lowest ever postwar, at less than 1% of GDP.

Harper really screwed us with the few billion in budget cuts when recapitalization was needed.

 

[Admiral Beez]

 

[kEiThZ]

Firstly, POTUS 47 is not going to tolerate Ottawa not meeting its 2% NATO spend. Secondly, Putin and Russia will soon escape from the Ukraine quagmire and will be emboldened in the Arctic, where Canada currently has very little year round military or even observational capability.

A bigger threat is that they now demand more than 2%. There could well be a price for not hitting 2% the last few years. There are major Trump foreign policy advisors who have not only singled out Canada, but actually called for coercive trade policies to get us to targets. There's a lot of people in this country (and some on this forum) who simply thought they could wish this problem away. Putting it off, now has the risk of making in worse in many ways. By the way, this wishful thinking has been bipartisan. Both parties underspend on defence and take American protection for granted. The Conservatives put those savings into tax cuts. The Liberals put those savings into social programs. What the Americans see as freeloading is about to end.

And separate from military spend, there’s a coming need to dramatically increase the CBSA at our southern border. Once the US begins rounding up illegals we can expect tens of thousands to try to flee to Canada instead of going home.

Yep. I have said it before. It's not just the CAF. So many of our federal security agencies are underfunded and underequipped. Some of those shortcomings might become obvious shortly.

But is Trudeau the PM to execute the above? No, imo. So, this will be up to Pollivre and the Cons. Though the last Con government under Harper reduced defence spending to its lowest ever postwar, at less than 1% of GDP.

I think a bigger problem here is not just that the Americans will want higher spending. It's that they will outright demand we buy more from them. This means less domestic production (and jobs). And less choice when do buy something. If we had already been spending 2% and a lot of it was domestic, we wouldn't be as easily pushed into this position.

 

[kEiThZ]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1854161920971973077

 

[evandyk]

Yup. Canada's complacency over the last few decades is now coming back to haunt us severely. Housing, foreign policy, procurement, infrastructure. It's like that Ernest Hemingway quote about how you go bankrupt. "Gradually, and then suddenly."

 

[lenaitch]

I think a bigger problem here is not just that the Americans will want higher spending. It's that they will outright demand we buy more from them. This means less domestic production (and jobs). And less choice when do buy something. If we had already been spending 2% and a lot of it was domestic, we wouldn't be as easily pushed into this position.

Just in terms of defence spending and procurement, I'm not so sure that is such a bad thing. Rather than us attempt to ramp up a broader defence industry, they no only already have it, it has proven itself to be sustainable. In addition to simply being further away, buying offshore kit runs a greater risk of that supplier being a theatre or target.

 

[kEiThZ]

Just in terms of defence spending and procurement, I'm not so sure that is such a bad thing. Rather than us attempt to ramp up a broader defence industry, they no only already have it, it has proven itself to be sustainable. In addition to simply being further away, buying offshore kit runs a greater risk of that supplier being a theatre or target.

Removing the flexibility to buy the best kit for the job is never going to benefit us. We have Leopard tanks because we've always thought that Abrams were too heavy for Europe. We are building British designed destroyers because they have a best in class design. We built Arctic patrol ships based on a Norwegian design because those folks know a thing or two about Arctic ops. There's lots of examples like this. If the priority starts becoming buying from the US as opposed to the best for us, we simply are trading the problems we have with sustaining our industrial base for theirs.

Also, it's a strange idea that we can't do sustainment because the OEM is far away. Being able to do sustainment in far away places is a necessary core competency for an expeditionary force. If we can't get parts from Europe, you can forget about deploying outside Canada.

 

[lenaitch]

Removing the flexibility to buy the best kit for the job is never going to benefit us. We have Leopard tanks because we've always thought that Abrams were too heavy for Europe. We are building British designed destroyers because they have a best in class design. We built Arctic patrol ships based on a Norwegian design because those folks know a thing or two about Arctic ops. There's lots of examples like this. If the priority starts becoming buying from the US as opposed to the best for us, we simply are trading the problems we have with sustaining our industrial base for theirs.

Also, it's a strange idea that we can't do sustainment because the OEM is far away. Being able to do sustainment in far away places is a necessary core competency for an expeditionary force. If we can't get parts from Europe, you can forget about deploying outside Canada.

I have no problem licencing designs of others (although saying the AOPS is 'based on' a Norwegian design is closing in on a 'grandpa's axe' analogy), but if the German factory for Leopard tanks is now a hole in the ground, how do we sustain combat losses in a conflict that got so bad that it created the hole in the first place.

For the equipment that we actually buy from other countries, how much of the maintenance supply chain is domestic? It might be easier to get a domestic factory to whip up some oil filters or something because to OEM supplier no longer exists, but probably a lot harder to replace, you know, the actual hull, because we lost a bunch.

Even with a domestic supply chain, part of the problem the CAF has to overcome, particularly the Navy, is the equipment is so old parts simply don't exist anymore, in some cases not even the drawings for the part.

I would be more comfortable with the concept of "best for us" if it were operationally-based more than politically or economically.

I agree that tying ourselves to a single supplier isn't the best solution. US equipment tends to be very big, very complex and very expensive; more suitable to an 'all singin'-all dancin' military. But we allowed a lot of the other good options escape us.

 

[kEiThZ]

if the German factory for Leopard tanks is now a hole in the ground, how do we sustain combat losses in a conflict that got so bad that it created the hole in the first place.

At the point at which Germany's factories are smoking holes, having tanks may well be irrelevant because the nukes are flying. Planning for that risk is well beyond what even the Americans would do. Supply chain risk is usually about plausible disruption or risk by adversarial control or infiltration.

For the equipment that we actually buy from other countries, how much of the maintenance supply chain is domestic?

Whatever percentage we end up in injecting into the broader supply chain. Or whatever component is made in Canada. For example, we have Wescam turrets that are made in Canada and the US. So that's very local. But on something like shipbuilding, they can basically source everything but the turbines, mission systems and weapons locally because the project has to build a massive industrial base to support itself.

I would be more comfortable with the concept of "best for us" if it were operationally-based more than politically or economically.

For the most part, it is more operationally based. Going to a blanket Buy American rule would be unprecedented and exceptionally disruptive.

 

[afransen]

Removing the flexibility to buy the best kit for the job is never going to benefit us. We have Leopard tanks because we've always thought that Abrams were too heavy for Europe. We are building British designed destroyers because they have a best in class design. We built Arctic patrol ships based on a Norwegian design because those folks know a thing or two about Arctic ops. There's lots of examples like this. If the priority starts becoming buying from the US as opposed to the best for us, we simply are trading the problems we have with sustaining our industrial base for theirs.

Also, it's a strange idea that we can't do sustainment because the OEM is far away. Being able to do sustainment in far away places is a necessary core competency for an expeditionary force. If we can't get parts from Europe, you can forget about deploying outside Canada.

I think the problem isn't necessarily where we got our designs for destroyers or patrol ships. The problem is that we waste absurd resources on the actual procurement. Between our scope creep and our domestic industry's poor performance, we can't actually build these designs to be effective or cost efficient. Why not buy from those shipyards directly and cut the Irvings out of it?