The Defence Budget [superthread]

[Kirkhill]

A lot of scurrying in the federal LPC government with regards to defence spending perhaps spurred on by US and NATO Allies; the current international security concerns; Canadian business groups; or just political double speak to show that the LPC is serious about defence despite a contrarian history of neglect.

Canada's defence investment plans put it on track to meet NATO guideline, minister says​

Mélanie Joly says Canada should have a plan to hit 2% NATO target by July​

She mentions:

• she is "convinced" that Canada will have a clear plan to reach 2% of GDP for defence spending to present to the NATO conference in July 2024
• having a clear defence policy with regards to Arctic sovereignty / defence
• recognizes need to invest in collective defence
• future defence procurement such as submarines, air defence systems and so forth

IMO, this clear political posturing by LPC government to demonstrates to the US, NATO, and its international Allies that it is serious about defence spending. As for the inclusion of potential defence procurement such as submarines to achieve the goal of 2% is simply political double speak. The current plan shows that the LPC will reach 1.75% in 2029 but this is dependent on the whether the next government, likely the CPC, will support it.

This is one area where the government should be relying more on cross-party parliamentary bodies like the Standing Committee on National Defence.

NDDN - Home - House of Commons of Canada

The Standing Committee on National Defence studies the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces, as well as the domestic, continental and international security environment.

www.ourcommons.ca

 

[Cloud Cover]

July of what year…

The CPC will not be spending 2% of GDP on defence because they will have a 2.3 Trillion dollar deficit to handle with debt servicing approaching 75 Billion/yr by 2028, in the context of declining GDP, a gutted industrial base, Soviet style taxation, resurgent inflation and many millions of under employed new Canadians.

2% is just not going to happen without making very politically explosive decisions.

 

[ueo]

Depends what you call Infrastructure -- some might consider a secure digital backbone to be a significant priority as well as satellite navigation and communications...

Sat nav= map compas, comms = short range VHF with manual repeaters. Inf load heavy enough, who needs all the tech crap?

 

[rmc_wannabe]

Sat nav= map compas, comms = short range VHF with manual repeaters. Inf load heavy enough, who needs all the tech crap?

A proper 21st Century mechanized army?

Our enemies have embraced digitization/automation wholeheartedly and can complete the kill chain in mere seconds vice the minutes/hours you're suggesting by being strictly analog.

The form factor of this tech is getting smaller and lighter, so I call BS when the "we carry enough shit..." is thrown around.

Being linked into the larger C2 net at the Pl or Section level brings the full force of Bde and Div assets on target without a pointless game of broken telephone. AD and CUAS also rely heavily on more than just 2 Cpls with a map and a swivel chair to identify, track, and eliminate threats. More and more of our Blue PA and targeting systems are GPS dependent, not augmented.

The physical battlefield may have echos of the Cold War, however, the technological one has changed significantly. To assume we can dial back to 1985 and be a credible threat in 2024 is folly.

 

[Rifleman62]

G7 sees Canada as ‘a freeloader’ for its foreign policy, says former minister​

 

[daftandbarmy]

A proper 21st Century mechanized army?

Our enemies have embraced digitization/automation wholeheartedly and can complete the kill chain in mere seconds vice the minutes/hours you're suggesting by being strictly analog.

The form factor of this tech is getting smaller and lighter, so I call BS when the "we carry enough shit..." is thrown around.

Being linked into the larger C2 net at the Pl or Section level brings the full force of Bde and Div assets on target without a pointless game of broken telephone. AD and CUAS also rely heavily on more than just 2 Cpls with a map and a swivel chair to identify, track, and eliminate threats. More and more of our Blue PA and targeting systems are GPS dependent, not augmented.

The physical battlefield may have echos of the Cold War, however, the technological one has changed significantly. To assume we can dial back to 1985 and be a credible threat in 2024 is folly.

 

[KevinB]

Sat nav= map compas, comms = short range VHF with manual repeaters. Inf load heavy enough, who needs all the tech crap?

I’m not sure if you were being sarcastic there, but @rmc_wannabe made some good points in his post.

There is ton of stuff you can’t do without a digital force.

 

[MilEME09]

I’m not sure if you were being sarcastic there, but @rmc_wannabe made some good points in his post.

There is ton of stuff you can’t do without a digital force.

The side with the most up to date information will likely make the better moves. Things like cloud based BLUFOR trackers, GPS radios that automatically send your grid when you send a report speed up things when time matters. Maps are great but when calling in a 9 liner, cutting that extra couple minutes while you find your grid could be the difference of life and death.

 

[PrairieFella]

Interesting Read on the New Defence Policy and our "Death Spiral"

 

[Underway]

July of what year…

The CPC will not be spending 2% of GDP on defence because they will have a 2.3 Trillion dollar deficit to handle with debt servicing approaching 75 Billion/yr by 2028, in the context of declining GDP, a gutted industrial base, Soviet style taxation, resurgent inflation and many millions of under employed new Canadians.

2% is just not going to happen without making very politically explosive decisions.

Wow, lets break this down:

• 2.3 Trillion deficit? The federal deficit last year was less then 40 billion. With a B, not a T. It was 90 billion in COVID. The current debt is 1.2 Trillion, so you expect it to double in 4 or less years?
• GDP growth was about 3.5% (higher then the US's growth this year which is a bit under 2%)
• Industrial output has been increasing every year the last 10 except for COVID years (and then bounced back huge in 22), but I would agree there is more to "industrial base" then just output
• soviet style taxation... um that's just a no in every sense of the word, you wouldn't have a capital gains tax because you wouldn't have capital
• resurgent inflation remains to be seen as inflation is currently going down but I suppose this could become true
• under employment about 6.2% down from the average historical rate of ~8%, I suppose you pointed to new Canadians, and I don't have numbers for them so you could likely be right here.

I don't think we'll hit 2% either unless the Gov't wants to salt the earth for the next party. Sometimes I think that in order to make the next government look bad outgoing gov't's just sets a bunch of stuff on fire and forces the next guy to make unpopular cuts.

 

[Quirky]

Interesting Read on the New Defence Policy and our "Death Spiral"

No surprises there, 20+ years with the same issues and no real desire to fix them. Can just gets kicked down the road.
So much investment in new equipment, but absolutely nothing for the less sexy stuff like housing.

 

[markppcli]

Particularly like the highlighted bit.

I would go further. I would prioritise army hardware over infrastructure. We can find enough roofs in this country to keep whatever it is we decide to buy warm and dry and secure until we can build "the right" infrastructure, whatever that might be. Most of the army's kit, its vehicles, including things like HILUXes are designed to spend most of their lives outside in any case.

I see you’ve never had the joy of getting a vehicle fleet to turn over in -40

Sat nav= map compas, comms = short range VHF with manual repeaters. Inf load heavy enough, who needs all the tech crap?

Manually repeating VHF, hopping or not, is a great way to get all your RRBs blown up. En SIGINT will find and destroy that quite quickly. Similarly that means more people carrying more things. You can use a 117 to talk globally via MUAS, or run it directionally, or via a mesh net work. All of these are about survivability. We don’t just need to cam our faces, we need to cam our comms.

 

[FJAG]

I see you’ve never had the joy of getting a vehicle fleet to turn over in -40

I have ... and many times ... and usually at 0 dark 30.

I take @Kirkhill's point. Back with 3rd Herd, in Shilo (which I know you know well) our infrastructure was the gun shed that now houses the RCA Museum. There was barely room for the two batteries' worth of M109s in there. Everything else, including the other tracks and all of our wheeled vehicles were in the outdoor fenced compound behind it - summer, winter, rain or shine (or blizzard).

Yup, there were days it wasn't fun - and I still get flashbacks every time that I smell diesel. But the equipment was fine - it was designed to be outdoors.

I know we are now getting gear that's a bit more delicate but even so, most of what the CAF has, especially the army and navy, is designed to live in the great wild. Since my day there has been a large move to build infrastructure (except maybe adequate PMQs and quarters) and I have the general sense that there is probably enough for the size of force we have.

 

[OldSolduer]

I have ... and many times ... and usually at 0 dark 30.

I take @Kirkhill's point. Back with 3rd Herd, in Shilo (which I know you know well) our infrastructure was the gun shed that now houses the RCA Museum. There was barely room for the two batteries' worth of M109s in there. Everything else, including the other tracks and all of our wheeled vehicles were in the outdoor fenced compound behind it - summer, winter, rain or shine (or blizzard).

Yup, there were days it wasn't fun - and I still get flashbacks every time that I smell diesel. But the equipment was fine - it was designed to be outdoors.

I know we are now getting gear that's a bit more delicate but even so, most of what the CAF has, especially the army and navy, is designed to live in the great wild. Since my day there has been a large move to build infrastructure (except maybe adequate PMQs and quarters) and I have the general sense that there is probably enough for the size of force we have.

I was on my CWO course many years ago in Edmonton. We discussed new tanks, LAVS, LAV and tank barns etc.

I made the point "none of this will matter if you can't crew the systems".

Our greatest resource is the most neglected and low on the priority list.

 

[FJAG]

I was on my CWO course many years ago in Edmonton. We discussed new tanks, LAVS, LAV and tank barns etc.

I made the point "none of this will matter if you can't crew the systems".

Our greatest resource is the most neglected and low on the priority list.

I wouldn't argue with you on the basic principle, but I always take a look at this from a mobilization point of view. What do I need to mobilize units capable of going into high intensity conflict.

That get's me to the timeline required to a) build the equipment and b) train the people.

When I take a look at the average infantry battalion or artillery regiment I see that their average peacetime establishment has roughly 590 and 540 people respectively. Of those 61% are Cpls/Ptes and another 17% are MCpls. A war time establishment would be higher but most of the additional personnel would raise the junior ranks percentages even higher.

So where does that leave me? Assuming that we have a core of roughly 25% RegF, and assuming that we can kick the recruiting system in the nuts and get it into high gear, it means that in a major emergency we should be able to take that 25% core of existing trained leaders and a draft of 75% fresh recruits and, arguably, within a year of intensive training, turn out a adequately trained battalion or regiment. In that year, however, we cannot build the major equipment for it. (I'm presuming our allies have the same emergency and we can't get it in mass off the shelf from them even if we were able to kick our procurement folks in the nuts as well).

The task would be even simpler if we already had a partially trained and equipped ARes force.

While I appreciate that human resources are vital, I think that its easier to mobilize human resources than equipment. The bottom line is we need to have a plan to generate both and ensure that they come together simultaneously so that they can be employable. We have an existing inadequate recruiting system and training system marginally suitable for mass throughput that can be worked with to become much more efficient in an emergency. We have zero plans to mobilize industry to allow for the timely acquisition of equipment. That will kill us.

Okay. Everyone can have at me now for spouting heresy.