I want a clear understanding of what threat it is that we are going to ask the military to combat, first...
Our defence policies are not a secret. This government and its predecessor have both laid out clear guidelines on what lines of tasking are and level of effort/contribution expected.
The heart of the matter is whether these policies and resources committed are appropriate to a G8 economy and Five Eyes/NATO power.
There is new 'few billion'; to provide renewal of existing kit, enhance polar/arctic capability, finally replace our aging combat aircraft is already a large increase from today's expenses.
It's actually not a large increase at all. Defence spending in absolute terms is actually lower than it was during the war in Afghanistan. And we are still struggling with recapitalization of worn out kit.
To put this in perspective, if we increased spending to match Italy, which expends 1.5% of GDP on its military to our 1.3%, that would be an annualized increase of 2.5B or so.
Personally, as someone in uniform, that's really all that we would need. That extra $2.5 billion would actually do a ton to rebuild buildings on bases falling apart, massively improve training, fix a broken supply system where troops can't even get proper uniforms sometimes or aircraft sit grounded for weeks for a lack of spares, and induct some new capabilities that we need (UAVs for surveillance, amphibious carriers on each coast, space surveillance, force wide cyber, etc.).
But its worth pointing out, this is already the penciled in number in 2027 according the Federal spending estimates.
First, let me point out that are our defence spending is not 1.3% as most Canadians understand it. The Liberals rebaselined the definition to include the RCMP and Veterans Affairs pensions, claiming that this was more in line with NATO reporting (debateable), and so spending went up from 1% to 1.3% overnight. Next, talking about spending penciled in 2027 is utterly deceptive BS when this government has deferred billions in defence spending. Would you think it okay for example, if Doug Ford came by and said the province was going to defer billions in education and transit spending for a decade or more:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/liberal-budget-military-2017-1.4035424
It's particularly bad when you consider how politicized our procurement system and that it will take a decade (or two and a half decades in the case of a Sea King replacement) to actually induct new equipment and capabilities from project launch.
1. Pretending that Canada has a capable military that is a material contributor to our security; and
We are well past that point. It's why we didn't get a Security Council seat. And probably won't in the future. I've dealt with military officers and diplomats from the rest of the world. They see us as America's pet more than say America's sibling (like the UK). And as the de facto American dependancy we are, a lot of what happens in the Arctic or Pacific near us, is more frankly discussed with the US than Canada. The rest of the world isn't stupid.
Heck, our Arctic waters are a literal playground for nuclear submarines. And half of them are our allies. French, British, American, Russian and Chinese. They all play up there. The only ones not up there are us. I've literally met more American Navy personnel who've seen the Arctic and the North Pole than Canadians.
2. Not provoking the Americans to completely lose patience with our free-riding
LOL. Americans don't have emotions on this. I've been at discussions with American naval officers talking about plans to deploy carrier groups in the Arctic to counter the Chinese, in a post-climate change world. They have these discussions as though Canada does not exist. They will not tolerate approaches to the continent not being secured. Simple as that. If Canada won't spend what is necessary to buy and crew the kit needed to do the job, they will and they won't ask our permission to do it.
Many argue that modern air-independent submarines would be much more capable at asserting/defending our arctic territory, albeit at a higher price tag.
Nuclear subs would be best. AIP is a decent second choice though, and really the only choice for a country with no experience operating nuclear vessels. Ideally, we'd get something like Short Fin Barracuda which the Australians bought from the French. It's a nuclear submarine with the propulsion switched out to AIP.
g. Similarly, with our expeditionary needs (military and humanitarian), a couple of joint support ship (Mistral-class et al, not simply a renamed oiler) would enhance our ability to deliver equipment, aid, etc.
The cost escalation in this area is huge.
It's really not as much to acquire these vessels as people think. There was strong interest in the CAF to buy the Mistrals specifically:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/navy-defence-ships-purchase-france-mistral-1.3435803
The Conservatives, unfortunately, passed on this. And Egypt bought both carriers for 950 million Euros (or less than the increase in cost of the Scarborough Subway):
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...y-intended-for-russia/?utm_term=.fa7776eb89f8
The real issue for us with carriers is finding the personnel to crew them. Our navy maybe > 10 000 personnel, but we only have about 3000 active sailors. It's getting to the point where our special forces are actually larger than our active navy.
At the height of the Cold War, we had in the order of 400 fast jet aircraft.
Aircraft and pilots were a lot cheaper, a lot more disposable, a lot less reliable and a lot less capable back then. A fleet of 80 F-35s is much more capable than 400 Voodoos.
