Justin Trudeau hints at boosting Canada’s military spending

I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[FJAG]

Not to get too cranky here but when you are part of a mutual defence alliance the other guys expect that you'll contribute something across the board and not just the crap that suits you.

It's an old formula that has pretty much worked for some 70 years now.

Toodles.

 

[blacktriangle]

I think the argument could be made to keep some well trained & resourced RegF Light Inf. We have a lot of territory to defend. Then there's always the possibility of NEO, reinforcing NATO on short notice, or another counterinsurgency type mission. And unless SOF has moved to DE, those people have to start somewhere.

 

[suffolkowner]

Not to get too cranky here but when you are part of a mutual defence alliance the other guys expect that you'll contribute something across the board and not just the crap that suits you.

It's an old formula that has pretty much worked for some 70 years now.

Toodles.

I'm curious if that is actually true? Has NATO ever sat down and tried to rationalize contributions and get some specialization? Or do they as you say want everyone to be the all singing and dancing force?

 

[Halifax Tar]

Not to get too cranky here but when you are part of a mutual defence alliance the other guys expect that you'll contribute something across the board and not just the crap that suits you.

It's an old formula that has pretty much worked for some 70 years now.

Toodles.

Since when has that mattered in Canada ?

I remain convinced we do not need a deployable Army. What we do need are big robust air and sea forces.

 

[Halifax Tar]

I think the argument could be made to keep some well trained & resourced RegF Light Inf. We have a lot of territory to defend. Then there's always the possibility of NEO, reinforcing NATO on short notice, or another counterinsurgency type mission. And unless SOF has moved to DE, those people have to start somewhere.

I'm curious if that is actually true? Has NATO ever sat down and tried to rationalize contributions and get some specialization? Or do they as you say want everyone to be the all singing and dancing force?

I'd wager if we went to NATO and said we're shutting down the army and instead were going to be the among the world's best in quality and quantity for air and sea power they'd be pretty excited about that.

 

[QV]

I’m in agreement with the army. I’d reduce the full time and increase the reserves or even double it. Make it mostly combat arms and some CSS. But that would require massive changes to reserve TOS.

Keep SOF. keep specialists and CSS. And a full time cadre of trainers/instructors for the combat arms element

Increase the airforce and Navy significantly.

And reserve army doctrine should be added: how to become the insurgent, in case were invaded by land and we still don’t have the hardware needed to defend.

 

[Furniture]

I'd wager if we went to NATO and said we're shutting down the army and instead were going to be the among the world's best in quality and quantity for air and sea power they'd be pretty excited about that.

I'd wager we'd be even more a of a joke as a "world leader", or "soft power" if we did that, and we'd get laughed out of the room.

Canada can afford a modern, well killed out army of a reasonable size, alongside a capable air force and navy. The last thing Canada needs is further support for the militia myth...

 

[Quirky]

And reserve army doctrine should be added: how to become the insurgent, in case were invaded by land and we still don’t have the hardware needed to defend.

If your Navy and Air Force are good enough, those land invasion crafts won't come anywhere near the shores.

 

[suffolkowner]

Full agreement I know people hate it but we really don't need a deployable Army.

A solid small SOF organization and some territorials is all we need for land forces.

Almost all of our defense spending should be towards sea and air power.

I do kinda hate it.
Do we have a deployable army?
I feel like our sea and air power must already consume much of the budget?
We should be able to field a decent somewhat more capable army than we do for a small increase in funds. Just as we should be able to reequip the RCAF and RCN.

By cutting the Army how much more are we going to get out of/for the RCN and RCAF?

 

[Remius]

I do kinda hate it.
Do we have a deployable army?
I feel like our sea and air power must already consume much of the budget?
We should be able to field a decent somewhat more capable army than we do for a small increase in funds. Just as we should be able to reequip the RCAF and RCN.

By cutting the Army how much more are we going to get out of/for the RCN and RCAF?

You could shift full time PYs to the airforce and navy.

I would gather that the Navy and Air Force are constantly more operational than the Army is. Coasts need patrolling, air needs patrolling. Our land? Yes but really the only ones truly really doing that are the Rangers up North.

I’m not sure that we need the kind of army we have when it could be designed as a small core able to surge when and as needed.

 

[Halifax Tar]

I'd wager we'd be even more a of a joke as a "world leader", or "soft power" if we did that, and we'd get laughed out of the room.

Canada can afford a modern, well killed out army of a reasonable size, alongside a capable air force and navy. The last thing Canada needs is further support for the militia myth...

I fully disagree. If we went to NATO and said we are going to immediately meet or exceed the 2% expenditure on defense BUT our contribution will be solely Naval and Air forces I feel like they would be happy. We should be the go to for ASW/Convoy protection and Air Superiority.

Why do we need a deployable Army ? What we need is territorials with small arms, manpads and hand held antitank capability. And lots of them. They should be solely for DOMOPs and Territorial defense. We need a strong and mobile SOF component for what ever arises. I posted in another thread we could petition the US for them to allow Canadians to join the US Army.

I do kinda hate it.
Do we have a deployable army?
I feel like our sea and air power must already consume much of the budget?
We should be able to field a decent somewhat more capable army than we do for a small increase in funds. Just as we should be able to reequip the RCAF and RCN.

By cutting the Army how much more are we going to get out of/for the RCN and RCAF?

See for your self

RCN:

Commander Royal Canadian Navy - Canada.ca

March 2020 - Essential information to familiarize the Minister with the Department.

www.canada.ca

Army:

Commander Canadian Army - Canada.ca

March 2020 - Essential information to familiarize the Minister with the Department.

www.canada.ca

RCAF:

Commander Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) - Canada.ca

March 2020 - Essential information to familiarize the Minister with the Department.

www.canada.ca

This of course is missing all of the joint stuff. Just the bare bones for each command.

 

[Furniture]

I fully disagree. If we went to NATO and said we are going to immediately meet or exceed the 2% expenditure on defense BUT our contribution will be solely Naval and Air forces I feel like they would be happy. We should be the go to for ASW/Convoy protection and Air Superiority.

Why do we need a deployable Army ? What we need is territorials with small arms, manpads and hand held antitank capability. And lots of them. They should be solely for DOMOPs and Territorial defense. We need a strong and mobile SOF component for what ever arises. I posted in another thread we could petition the US for them to allow Canadians to join the US Army.

So when the next SFOR, KFOR, or ISAF comes up Canada can be the large, rich nation sitting back sending in air lift? I'm sure that will go over well with our partners while their troops are coming home in body bags. Just like Canada looked down on NATO partners that weren't carrying their share of the load with ISAF.

From a purely selfish Canadian point of view there is sense in it, but there is no way that Canada would be taken seriously if all we could muster was fighters, airlift, and convoy escorts.

The USA will always be the go-to for air superiority, even if we wanted to buy the best fighters they wouldn't sell them to us. Unless we plan to expand our fleet many times compared to what we have(we can't even staff what we have), we will never be the "convoy escorts" of NATO.

Lastly, do you really want people who want to serve in the army to go south to the USA to do it? Where will our reserves come from if anyone who wants to be army full time has gone south? Are you assuming they will do their initial contract, and come running home for Tim's, and Heartland re-runs?

 

[Halifax Tar]

So when the next SFOR, KFOR, or ISAF comes up Canada can be the large, rich nation sitting back sending in air lift? I'm sure that will go over well with our partners while their troops are coming home in body bags. Just like Canada looked down on NATO partners that weren't carrying their share of the load with ISAF.

Do you think anyone would have missed us if we didn't show up in KAF or SFOR ? Do you think the big heads don't realize it takes a monumental effort it takes to move men and material and support them ?

From a purely selfish Canadian point of view there is sense in it, but there is no way that Canada would be taken seriously if all we could muster was fighters, airlift, and convoy escorts.

Is Canada being taken seriously now while we try to be all singing all dancing ?

The USA will always be the go-to for air superiority, even if we wanted to buy the best fighters they wouldn't sell them to us. Unless we plan to expand our fleet many times compared to what we have(we can't even staff what we have), we will never be the "convoy escorts" of NATO.

I think we can play a bigger part in our partnership with our continental friends. Carry our weight and more if you will.

We have to expand our Navy many times over. No real quantity of material can yet be moved by air as efficiently or in matching volume as by sea. Truly the most important battle ground NATO has is the North Atlantic.

Lastly, do you really want people who want to serve in the army to go south to the USA to do it? Where will our reserves come from if anyone who wants to be army full time has gone south? Are you assuming they will do their initial contract, and come running home for Tim's, and Heartland re-runs?

I'm trying to provide options. At this point anyone I know with dual citizenship and a desire went south anyways.

 

[rmc_wannabe]

I do kinda hate it.
Do we have a deployable army?
I feel like our sea and air power must already consume much of the budget?
We should be able to field a decent somewhat more capable army than we do for a small increase in funds. Just as we should be able to reequip the RCAF and RCN.

By cutting the Army how much more are we going to get out of/for the RCN and RCAF?

The problem with the notion of getting rid of the Army is basically advocating cutting off a limb to save the body, when there's antibiotics for the infection.

We can have a solid military; Navy, Air Force, and Army, but it will require one thing we haven't had in decades: political will.

I hope we see this conflict doing 2 things that are needed for Canadians:

1. The G7, NATO, and our "friends around the world" finally call out politicians out on their bullshit. We talk a good game, but are the first ones to get up and leave when the cheque drops.

and

2. Canadians take a long, hard look at our ability to defend ourselves. I'm sure Ukraine was sure the West would come to their rescue. Article 5 is Article 5, but I bet the tepid NATO response to a conventional war in Europe has done "wonders" to comfort the Baltic states. We often joke about Poland being the speedbump between Moscow and Berlin, I wonder how many Canadians realize we're the speed bump between Moscow and Washingston?

The previous POTUS was willing to walk from NATO due to inaction. Thar same POTUS sparked division and instability directly across our border. If we cannot depend on our allies, we need to be able to depend on ourselves; currently we cannot defend our coasts or our airspace, let alone when the rubber hits the road in a ground invasion.

 

[Kirkhill]

Full agreement I know people hate it but we really don't need a deployable Army.

A solid small SOF organization and some territorials is all we need for land forces.

Almost all of our defense spending should be towards sea and air power.

Keep the Army but rework it so that it is deployable in small and large units.

Now if only the Navy would let them on board, or build them their own boat.

I'd take half a dozen Absalons in a Pinch



By the way, that is a Type 26 CSC with a big garage.

Could you spare half a dozen out of that 15 you're building?

 

[suffolkowner]

I fully disagree. If we went to NATO and said we are going to immediately meet or exceed the 2% expenditure on defense BUT our contribution will be solely Naval and Air forces I feel like they would be happy. We should be the go to for ASW/Convoy protection and Air Superiority.

Why do we need a deployable Army ? What we need is territorials with small arms, manpads and hand held antitank capability. And lots of them. They should be solely for DOMOPs and Territorial defense. We need a strong and mobile SOF component for what ever arises. I posted in another thread we could petition the US for them to allow Canadians to join the US Army.



See for your self

RCN:

Commander Royal Canadian Navy - Canada.ca

March 2020 - Essential information to familiarize the Minister with the Department.

www.canada.ca

Army:

Commander Canadian Army - Canada.ca

March 2020 - Essential information to familiarize the Minister with the Department.

www.canada.ca

RCAF:

Commander Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) - Canada.ca

March 2020 - Essential information to familiarize the Minister with the Department.

www.canada.ca

This of course is missing all of the joint stuff. Just the bare bones for each command.

The personnel numbers are obviously quite different but the operating budget numbers don't seem to support the proposition

RCN $715M
RCAF $1060M
Army $935

I'd have to see some numbers and outcomes first. On the surface army personnel have to be a major cost driver but their weapons/platforms aren't in relation to those employed by the RCAF and RCN. A $250M F-35 is should outfit a decent amount of grunts and a $4000M CSC sure would

 

[Kirkhill]

Not to get too cranky here but when you are part of a mutual defence alliance the other guys expect that you'll contribute something across the board and not just the crap that suits you.

It's an old formula that has pretty much worked for some 70 years now.

Toodles.

Helicopters.

AKA Flying Tanks.
And Infantry with ATGMs, MANPADs and heliportable vehicles.

Tara!

 

[Kirkhill]

I'd wager if we went to NATO and said we're shutting down the army and instead were going to be the among the world's best in quality and quantity for air and sea power they'd be pretty excited about that.

I don't know. Marines seem to be in fashion these days. And you don't need to Holystone the decks anymore.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Keep the Army but rework it so that it is deployable in small and large units.

Now if only the Navy would let them on board, or build them their own boat.

I'd take half a dozen Absalons in a Pinch

View attachment 69469

By the way, that is a Type 26 CSC with a big garage.

Could you spare half a dozen out of that 15 you're building?

I like it! Turn the Army into a Marine corps and make them subservient to the RCN

 

[Remius]

It wouldn’t be doing away with the army. It would be a restructure to allow surges. Large reserve with cadre of full time specialists, trainers and maybe a small full time combat capability. Like armour or artillery. So when we have an ISAF type situation we can surge the numbers to where they can get to. We already do work up training for that stuff anyways.