Our North - SSE Policy Update Megathread

[KevinB]

lol, so are most other countries including the great almighty United States.

Our Hornets are Super but in all seriousness they are newer, the F-16, F-15’s, F-22 and F-35 are much newer…
The P3’s are gone, but yes, eventually you will get P-8’s
We have more than a jokes worth of C17

Also a very capable helicopter fleet.

Again most major Navies around the world are using older Ships. At least Canada's have cleanish non flammable drinking water.

With extra lead? I think your smoking crack of you think the CPF’s are in any shape to do much.

We could also get serious and start domestic production of said equipment. It would would mean wonders for our manufacturing sector and Military.
but we have Quebec and Ontario who get in the way of most good manufacturing.

Supply and Demand, you have little demand, so there is little incentive to making a supply.

Guaranteed if the CAF was a valuable partner, you’d have BAE, LocMart, RTX etc building plants in Canada to make stuff for the CAF and the rest of the world.

 

[GR66]

Certainly our involvement and commitment in NATO is political. The military aspect only derives itself from the political.

Our commitment to Latvia is primarily political due to the NATO politics that saw us go there in the first place. There are no strategic military reasons for us to be there due to pure Cdn defensive reasons.

It’s due to that reason and the fact of strategic realities of the US role in sustaining any NATO peer on peer war both militarily and economically that I would be reluctant to do as your proposing vs aligning our entire force structure and equipment with the Americans.

Aligning with the Nordic countries might be easier in peace and likely fits with only outfitting enough of the army with equipment to support the Latvian deployed forces but that doesn’t likely hold true for an ability to sustain the Cdn Army through a couple of years of intensive peer on peer operations.

I'd 100% agree with you if we were forward deploying with American units or units using American vehicles. I'd also agree with you if we were expecting to build a CA with enough depth to deploy and sustain in combat multiple mechanized Brigades.

However, we are deploying alongside Danish and Swedish units that are both using Leopards and CV90's. Commonality with the other units within the Brigade would simplify what will already be a difficult multinational supply system.

If the arguments are that the only way that maintaining a Mechanized force with tanks makes sense for Canada is to go all in on the Latvia mission and forward deploy the bulk of our equipment then I'd argue that in this particular case standardizing our equipment with the rest of the Brigade we'll be fighting alongside makes sense.

 

[childs56]

Our Hornets are Super but in all seriousness they are newer, the F-16, F-15’s, F-22 and F-35 are much newer…
The P3’s are gone, but yes, eventually you will get P-8’s
We have more than a jokes worth of C17

The Navy/Marines pulled more then a few of their legacy Hornets out of storage so they could support their fleet. Besides the F22 and F35 not much is actually new in the US fleet. F15 old, F16 Old, B52 really old, C130 old, DC 10 old, B747 new to them but old, C5 old, C141 newer but we have those. etc.
Yes the US Military has the greatest and bestest most modern fleets in the world.

Also a very capable helicopter fleet.

Again the most modern of your fleet is is based off early drawings, The rest although modern are still based on old 1960-80s platforms. Just modernized.
Lets face it even your Armored vehicles are based on 1960-70s tech that has been modernized/ rebuilt/ overhauled.

With extra lead? I think your smoking crack of you think the CPF’s are in any shape to do much.

They do lots that why they are worn out.

Supply and Demand, you have little demand, so there is little incentive to making a supply.

except for those little parts that make some of the bigger parts go round. I get it we are not a big market for large orders, any orders for that matter.

Guaranteed if the CAF was a valuable partner, you’d have BAE, LocMart, RTX etc building plants in Canada to make stuff for the CAF and the rest of the world.

Instead they just open up/ buy out Canadian Tech companies. They all build stuff here just not on the Grande scale they do in the great America. If Canada put the money out they would come. We can provide all our own resources for the cause.

 

[Good2Golf]

Frankly I wouldn't give the Army one red cent until it can come up with an actually viable plan for itself.

You mean like pan-Div/Bde force balance, finally answering what it is that conventional light forces do, and addressing the mutable top-heaviness of the Army’s PRes disbursed sectional/platoonic structure across the country?

However … yes, only Infantry takes and holds ground.

Do you need to take and hold ground if you can deny the same from your enemy by non-infantranic means?

Most countries don’t have a Sierra Army Depot lying around

View attachment 85400

Most countries also can forward deploy an armored division across an ocean in <48 hrs.

Al that said, at least the CA (and the RCN, and CANSOF) has more UAS than the RCAF…

 

[Furniture]

Do you need to take and hold ground if you can deny the same from your enemy by non-infantranic means?

By this I assume you mean convening and door opening...

 

[daftandbarmy]

You mean like pan-Div/Bde force balance, finally answering what it is that conventional light forces do, and addressing the mutable top-heaviness of the Army’s PRes disbursed sectional/platoonic structure across the country?

Finally, we're back to Army Reserve Restructuring... whew

 

[Halifax Tar]

feature or bug, If we cant get to the fight?

Its a simple suspected fact. Should the ball drop The USN and USAF will be a smidgen busy moving all of their blood and treasure into place. And expecting industry to start whipping out C17s and Cargo Ships at that point is to late.

And they are really the only ones who we could ask.

By our very geography our ability to project and sustain our expeditionary land forces, if we are to continue to have them, should be a top priority of the CAF; other wise they are just a home guard with some small party taskings elsewhere if we don't.

 

[IKnowNothing]

Our commitment to NATO is as much political as military. Through our putting troops on the ground to deter Russian aggression we are presenting a united political front with our NATO allies and I think that, as much as their military utility, means Canada needs to maintain capabilities like armour.

Now I'm going propose a bit of a 180 degree idea here from what I've proposed in the past. I've always been banging the drum for the CAF to buy US vehicles and kit wherever possible to maximize our interoperability with our most important ally. IF however we accept that NATO and our Latvia Brigade are going to be the primary focus for the mechanized elements of our Army then I'm changing my mind.

Our primary partners in the Multinational Brigade are going to be Denmark and Sweden. Denmark also commands the Multinational Division under which our Brigade will operate. Both of these countries use the Leopard 2 and the CV90 for their mechanized forces.
.

Further to, in addition to the big ticket items, I'm sure Saab, the government of Sweden, and any NATO customer would love some (more?) munitions manufacturing capability outside of easy reach of Russia.
RBS 70, GLSDB, NLAW, MAPAM and THOR mortar rounds, 84mm rounds for CG...

However, we are deploying alongside Danish and Swedish units that are both using Leopards and CV90's. Commonality with the other units within the Brigade would simplify what will already be a difficult multinational supply system.

Is there a plan for them to bring the good toys to play? From what I've read they're sending AMV and Piranha mounted units

 

[Fabius]

I'd 100% agree with you if we were forward deploying with American units or units using American vehicles. I'd also agree with you if we were expecting to build a CA with enough depth to deploy and sustain in combat multiple mechanized Brigades.

However, we are deploying alongside Danish and Swedish units that are both using Leopards and CV90's. Commonality with the other units within the Brigade would simplify what will already be a difficult multinational supply system.

If the arguments are that the only way that maintaining a Mechanized force with tanks makes sense for Canada is to go all in on the Latvia mission and forward deploy the bulk of our equipment then I'd argue that in this particular case standardizing our equipment with the rest of the Brigade we'll be fighting alongside makes sense.

Due to accidents of geography and history we share the same continent as the Americans and in the long run of time we are more likely to find ourselves beside them than elsewhere even in NATO. The US is more likely to be beside us in other places ie. Hati, Korea, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria.

6 months after a large war starts with NATO, the MN Bdes will be gone replaced by national units and formations at Bde. Divisions I will bet will be largely sole nation as well. The Swedish and Danish forces nor economies will not be any position to resupply Canada’s equipment.

I am firmly in the belief that aligning our equipment with anyone other than the US only makes any sense if you only look at peacetime and only if you look at a very specific limited timeframe and geographic theatre. It does not make sense as a broad vision for the Canadian Army in the next half century.

 

[Fabius]

Is there a plan for them to bring the good toys to play? From what I've read they're sending AMV and Piranha mounted units

They are deploying CV90s and Leo’s as well. The Danes specifically will have a mix of Piranha, CV90, and Leo’s.


In terms of manufacturing capability, if Canada was to adopt similar equipment as the Nordic countries and go all in with interoperability with them, and back that by developing the industrial base to backstop the development and production etc of all those systems and components, I might be convinced of its viability as a long term vision.

However I think that is more unlikely than the CA buying American and such a vision still seems to be denying geography and our national alignment with the US in a global sense vs a specific subset of one theatre.

 

[IKnowNothing]

In terms of manufacturing capability, if Canada was to adopt similar equipment as the Nordic countries and go all in with interoperability with them, and back that by developing the industrial base to backstop the development and production etc of all those systems and components, I might be convinced of its viability as a long term vision.

However I think that is more unlikely than the CA buying American and such a vision still seems to be denying geography and our national alignment with the US in a global sense vs a specific subset of one theatre.

I think that comparing those two paths to improve from the status quo- Scandic Association vice American Streamlining, that the American path is undeniably the simpler, straighter line.

That being said, it's not without risk. The power imbalance is already absolutely massive- complete defense industry dependency (as opposed to the current very near complete) would only widen that and further contribute to de facto status as a vassal, a return to pre WW2's relationship with Britain.

But looking at NATO, as it stands- Sweden 10.5m, Denmark 5.9, Norway 5.5, Finland 5.4, add in Canada and you've got 66.3, with Canada being more than half. If we were serious about defense (which choosing one of the two paths and executing would imply) our size and buying power would grant us a leadership role in armaments consortium/ power bloc that as an amalgam would join Germany/France/UK in the 2nd tier of NATO. An actual middle power in the world. Definitely the tighter rope to walk, but some significant geopolitical payoff.

 

[KevinB]

I think that comparing those two paths to improve from the status quo- Scandic Association vice American Streamlining, that the American path is undeniably the simpler, straighter line.

That being said, it's not without risk. The power imbalance is already absolutely massive- complete defense industry dependency (as opposed to the current very near complete) would only widen that and further contribute to de facto status as a vassal, a return to pre WW2's relationship with Britain.

Having similar equipment doesn’t bind yourself like a vassal, Canada can still chose its own directions.

I tend to believe having more US kit would actually strengthen Canadian independence as you would be looked as valuable partner, instead of that pesky freeloader.

But looking at NATO, as it stands- Sweden 10.5m, Denmark 5.9, Norway 5.5, Finland 5.4, add in Canada and you've got 66.3, with Canada being more than half. If we were serious about defense (which choosing one of the two paths and executing would imply) our size and buying power would grant us a leadership role in armaments consortium/ power bloc that as an amalgam would join Germany/France/UK in the 2nd tier of NATO. An actual middle power in the world. Definitely the tighter rope to walk, but some significant geopolitical payoff.

Canada made its decision after WW2 to be an ostrich, now you just rarely raise your heads out of the sand.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

This is an extract from Our North, Strong and Free:

Similarly, the Canadian Army’s light armoured vehicle fleet is central to ensuring Canada can maintain its operational commitments, including to NATO, while maintaining a robust fleet at home for training and domestic operations. Canada will explore establishing a light armoured vehicle production program to replenish our fleet while also enabling industry to invest in a sustainable defence production capacity to support Canada and our NATO allies.

Canada has a world-class AFV production capacity at GDLS in London. We can overuse the word "strategic", but it is a such an asset. It is very useful to be able to produce our own major equipment. So we are actually in a pretty good place to make good on this. Simply having more LAVs would allow us to have additional vehicles for operational stocks. This has to include the funds for support so that what we have is operational.

I am not a defence economist, but it might be beneficial to have a steady-state production line for LAVs rather than big episodic purchases.

Regarding our LAVs, it has been a few years since I was a crew commander (LAV 3 and Coyote not LAV 6), but in terms of capabilities I think they are just fine. We could talk about adding a missile and what that would cost.

 

[PrairieFella]

This is an extract from Our North, Strong and Free:

Similarly, the Canadian Army’s light armoured vehicle fleet is central to ensuring Canada can maintain its operational commitments, including to NATO, while maintaining a robust fleet at home for training and domestic operations. Canada will explore establishing a light armoured vehicle production program to replenish our fleet while also enabling industry to invest in a sustainable defence production capacity to support Canada and our NATO allies.

Canada has a world-class AFV production capacity at GDLS in London. We can overuse the word "strategic", but it is a such an asset. It is very useful to be able to produce our own major equipment. So we are actually in a pretty good place to make good on this. Simply having more LAVs would allow us to have additional vehicles for operational stocks. This has to include the funds for support so that what we have is operational.

I am not a defence economist, but it might be beneficial to have a steady-state production line for LAVs rather than big episodic purchases.

Regarding our LAVs, it has been a few years since I was a crew commander (LAV 3 and Coyote not LAV 6), but in terms of capabilities I think they are just fine. We could talk about adding a missile and what that would cost.

With a new engine, a modern 30mm or bigger and a missile system (which implies a new turret), I think the LAV as an IFV would be sufficient for the Canadian reality. What we're really lacking with the LAV is the ancillary, non logistic stuff. If we want a LAV heavy army, we need a LAV AD. A LAV mortar. A LAV Cavalry. Etc etc. We also need to square the circle that is the thought process of pairing LAVs (wheeled) with tanks (tracked). A medium brigade with tanks isn't a heavy brigade and should not fight as such.

Perhaps LAVs should form the crux of medium brigades centered on 5CMBG and most of the reserves. Heavy brigades can be formed by 1 and 2 CMBG with augmentation from the remaining Reserve units not assigned to LAV brigades.

 

[Maxman1]

There are plenty of Stryker variants, like a 120mm mortar carrier, so the design is capable.

 

[PrairieFella]

There are plenty of Stryker variants, like a 120mm mortar carrier, so the design is capable.

Exactly. The precedent is there. Same thing with AD.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Our Hornets are Super but in all seriousness they are newer, the F-16, F-15’s, F-22 and F-35 are much newer…
The P3’s are gone, but yes, eventually you will get P-8’s
We have more than a jokes worth of C17

Also a very capable helicopter fleet.



With extra lead? I think your smoking crack of you think the CPF’s are in any shape to do much.

Supply and Demand, you have little demand, so there is little incentive to making a supply.

Guaranteed if the CAF was a valuable partner, you’d have BAE, LocMart, RTX etc building plants in Canada to make stuff for the CAF and the rest of the world.

Aerospace wise, Canada is a important component contributor to a lot of programs. Our transport aircraft fleet is actually quite sizable when you compare it to other countries and likely one area where we actually shine and punch higher than our weight.

 

[quadrapiper]

I think that comparing those two paths to improve from the status quo- Scandic Association vice American Streamlining, that the American path is undeniably the simpler, straighter line.

That being said, it's not without risk. The power imbalance is already absolutely massive- complete defense industry dependency (as opposed to the current very near complete) would only widen that and further contribute to de facto status as a vassal, a return to pre WW2's relationship with Britain.

But looking at NATO, as it stands- Sweden 10.5m, Denmark 5.9, Norway 5.5, Finland 5.4, add in Canada and you've got 66.3, with Canada being more than half. If we were serious about defense (which choosing one of the two paths and executing would imply) our size and buying power would grant us a leadership role in armaments consortium/ power bloc that as an amalgam would join Germany/France/UK in the 2nd tier of NATO. An actual middle power in the world. Definitely the tighter rope to walk, but some significant geopolitical payoff.

What would a South Korean alignment look like?

 

[KevinB]

Aerospace wise, Canada is an important component contributor to a lot of programs. Our transport aircraft fleet is actually quite sizable when you compare it to other countries and likely one area where we actually shine and punch higher than our weight.

Arguably that is just starting now with the MRTT, as the C-17 and C-130 fleets aren’t large. Especially given the size of Canada, and the domestic needs on the Herc’s.

 

[MilEME09]

Arguably that is just starting now with the MRTT, as the C-17 and C-130 fleets aren’t large. Especially given the size of Canada, and the domestic needs on the Herc’s.

Just like the CAST brigade of the 70s and 80s we would likely need to seize commercial airlines in a time of war in order to get our troops to europe quickly.