• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Justin Trudeau hints at boosting Canada’s military spending

Justin Trudeau hints at boosting Canada’s military spending

Canada says it will look at increasing its defence spending and tacked on 10 more Russian names to an ever growing sanctions list.

By Tonda MacCharles
Ottawa Bureau
Mon., March 7, 2022

Riga, LATVIA—On the 13th day of the brutal Russian bid to claim Ukraine as its own, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is showing up at the Latvian battle group led by Canadian soldiers, waving the Maple Leaf and a vague hint at more money for the military.

Canada has been waving the NATO flag for nearly seven years in Latvia as a bulwark against Russia’s further incursions in Eastern Europe.

Canada stepped up to lead one of NATO’s four battle groups in 2015 — part of the defensive alliance’s display of strength and solidarity with weaker member states after Russia invaded Ukraine and seized the Crimean peninsula in 2014. Trudeau arrived in the Latvian capital late Monday after meetings in the U.K. with British Prime Minister Boris Johnson and Netherlands Prime Minister Mark Rutte.

Earlier Monday, faced with a seemingly unstoppable war in Ukraine, Trudeau said he will look at increasing Canada’s defence spending. Given world events, he said there are “certainly reflections to have.”

And Canada tacked on 10 more Russian names to an ever-growing sanctions list.

The latest round of sanctions includes names Trudeau said were identified by jailed Russian opposition leader and Putin nemesis Alexei Navalny.

However, on a day when Trudeau cited the new sanctions, and Johnson touted new measures meant to expose Russian property owners in his country, Rutte admitted sanctions are not working.

Yet they all called for more concerted international efforts over the long haul, including more economic measures and more humanitarian aid, with Johnson and Rutte divided over how quickly countries need to get off Russian oil and gas.

The 10 latest names on Canada’s target list do not include Roman Abramovich — a Russian billionaire Navalny has been flagging to Canada since at least 2017. Canada appears to have sanctioned about 20 of the 35 names on Navalny’s list.

The Conservative opposition says the Liberal government is not yet exerting maximum pressure on Putin, and should do more to bolster Canadian Forces, including by finally approving the purchase of fighter jets.

Foreign affairs critic Michael Chong said in an interview that Ottawa must still sanction “additional oligarchs close to President Putin who have significant assets in Canada.”

Abramovich owns more than a quarter of the public shares in steelmaking giant Evraz, which has operations in Alberta and Saskatchewan and has supplied most of the steel for the government-owned Trans Mountain pipeline project.

Evraz’s board of directors also includes two more Russians the U.S. government identified as “oligarchs” in 2019 — Aleksandr Abramov and Aleksandr Frolov — and its Canadian operations have received significant support from the federal government.

That includes at least $27 million in emergency wage subsidies during the pandemic, as well as $7 million through a fund meant to help heavy-polluters reduce emissions that cause climate change, according to the company’s most recent annual report.

In addition to upping defence spending, the Conservatives want NORAD’s early warning system upgraded, naval shipbuilding ramped up and Arctic security bolstered.

In London, Johnson sat down with Trudeau and Rutte at the Northolt airbase. Their morning meetings had a rushed feel, with Johnson starting to usher press out before Trudeau spoke. His office said later that the British PM couldn’t squeeze the full meeting in at 10 Downing Street because Johnson’s “diary” was so busy that day. The three leaders held an afternoon news conference at 10 Downing.

But before that Trudeau met with the Queen, saying she was “insightful” and they had a “useful, for me anyway, conversation about global affairs.”

Trudeau meets with NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg Tuesday in Latvia.

The prime minister will also meet with three Baltic leaders, the prime ministers of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia, in the Latvian capital of Riga.

The Liberals announced they would increase the 500 Canadian Forces in Latvia by another 460 troops. The Canadians are leading a multinational battle group, one of four that are part of NATO’s deployments in the region.

Another 3,400 Canadians could be deployed to the region in the months to come, on standby for NATO orders.

But Canada’s shipments of lethal aid to Ukraine were slow to come in the view of the Conservatives, and the Ukrainian Canadian community.

And suddenly Western allies are eyeing each other’s defence commitments.

At the Downing Street news conference, Rutte noted the Netherlands will increase its defence budget to close to two per cent of GDP. Germany has led the G7, and doubled its defence budget in the face of Putin’s invasion and threats. Johnson said the U.K. defence spending is about 2.4 per cent and declined to comment on Canada’s defence spending which is 1.4 per cent of GDP.

But Johnson didn’t hold back.

“What we can’t do, post the invasion of Ukraine is assume that we go back to a kind of status quo ante, a kind of new normalization in the way that we did after the … seizure of Crimea and the Donbas area,” Johnson said. “We’ve got to recognize that things have changed and that we need a new focus on security and I think that that is kind of increasingly understood by everybody.”

Trudeau stood by his British and Dutch counterparts and pledged Canada would do more.

He defended his government’s record, saying Ottawa is gradually increasing spending over the next decade by 70 per cent. Then Trudeau admitted more might be necessary.

“We also recognize that context is changing rapidly around the world and we need to make sure that women and men have certainty and our forces have all the equipment necessary to be able to stand strongly as we always have. As members of NATO. We will continue to look at what more we can do.”

The three leaders — Johnson, a conservative and Trudeau and Rutte, progressive liberals — in a joint statement said they “will continue to impose severe costs on Russia.”

Arriving for the news conference from Windsor Castle, Trudeau had to detour to enter Downing Street as loud so-called Freedom Convoy protesters bellowed from outside the gate. They carried signs marked “Tuck Frudeau” and “Free Tamara” (Lich).

Protester Jeff Wyatt who said he has no Canadian ties told the Star he came to stand up for Lich and others who were leading a “peaceful protest” worldwide against government “lies” about COVID-19 and what he called Trudeau’s “tyranny.”

Elsewhere in London, outside the Russian embassy, other protesters and passersby reflected on what they said was real tyranny — the Russian attack on Ukraine. “I think we should be as tough as possible to get this stopped, as tough as possible,” said protester Clive Martinez.
 
How hard is it to look down South as say.
TTHAD
MEADS
MSHORAD
STINGER

I mean I could have written a capability requirement and SOW for GBAD in about 2hrs from scratch.
Wouldn't it be fun if all one had to do was walk down the aisles of Destruction R Us and pick things off the shelves?

You could probably lay off about 5,000 civil servants.

😁
 
I don't know much about GBAD but I used to work with one of the few surviving AD Artillery Sgt's years back. Those folks deploy far out from the formation in interlocking layers of coverage. But that was in the days of ADAT's and I assume GBAD for the Stykers is a different animal. The ADATs had a 10km range. The Stinger is around 4-5km in range.

A SHORAD LAV would likely be using the Reconfigurable Integrated Weapons platform and would provide tactical AD for the army, but something else is needed I think for the longer range punch.

I'll go with what I know and that's the Sky Sabre. It's replacing the Sky Rapier in the UK inventory. It uses the Giraffe AMB radar (a large amount of commonality to the SG-AMB on the frigates and JSS) and the CAMM which is selected as the CIAD missile for the CSC. 25km range with 100km range radar.

I don't think we need LRAD as a military, the Short and Medium RAD would go a long way to being able to do local protection of our own units.
The easiest way to picture air defence is small umbrellas under larger umbrellas under yet larger umbrellas and so on, all of which interlock under a common command and control system.

The SHOR in SHORAD stand for short range which makes it the smallest umbrella and very dependent on what the other systems are that work with it. For example our old Javelins worked within and expanded the capability of ADATS.

The big question, which I don't know the answer to, is how the GBAD project envisions their particular solution will operate vis a vis its own resources and our allies'. There needs to be a very clear doctrine of use that GBAD slots into. Because AD is always a system of systems, that requires a very high degree of integration and interoperability. We had that for 4 AD. the GBAD requirements statement is very broad and generic.

To me its a bit vague right now because of the wide mix of equipment across the "New" NATO. Latvia apparently has RBS-70, Stinger, Giraffe, Sentinel and AN/TPS-77 but I don't see any medium or long range missiles. Lithuania does have some NASAMs and some eFP countries could deploy medium and above range.

I presume, that the definition phase of this project will start setting out more concrete elements. In fact my guess is that they are already pretty far along with that process.

🍻
 
The easiest way to picture air defence is small umbrellas under larger umbrellas under yet larger umbrellas and so on, all of which interlock under a common command and control system.

The SHOR in SHORAD stand for short range which makes it the smallest umbrella and very dependent on what the other systems are that work with it. For example our old Javelins worked within and expanded the capability of ADATS.

The big question, which I don't know the answer to, is how the GBAD project envisions their particular solution will operate vis a vis its own resources and our allies'. There needs to be a very clear doctrine of use that GBAD slots into. Because AD is always a system of systems, that requires a very high degree of integration and interoperability. We had that for 4 AD. the GBAD requirements statement is very broad and generic.

To me its a bit vague right now because of the wide mix of equipment across the "New" NATO. Latvia apparently has RBS-70, Stinger, Giraffe, Sentinel and AN/TPS-77 but I don't see any medium or long range missiles. Lithuania does have some NASAMs and some eFP countries could deploy medium and above range.

I presume, that the definition phase of this project will start setting out more concrete elements. In fact my guess is that they are already pretty far along with that process.

🍻
According to this article on The Drive, the British Sky Sabre (Land Ceptor CAMM Missiles - same missiles as being procured for the CSC) is already integrated into the US Systems:

"Realistically, however, the British Army would be working closely with allies, primarily the United States, in most potential large-scale conflicts that would require extended air defense coverage. No doubt with this in mind, the CAMM became the first foreign missile to be integrated within the U.S. Army’s Integrated Air and Missile Defense Battle Command System (IAMD IBCS). This is the service’s new missile defense network, and the integration work was completed back in 2019 by MBDA and Northrop Grumman."
 
The easiest way to picture air defence is small umbrellas under larger umbrellas under yet larger umbrellas and so on, all of which interlock under a common command and control system.

The SHOR in SHORAD stand for short range which makes it the smallest umbrella and very dependent on what the other systems are that work with it. For example our old Javelins worked within and expanded the capability of ADATS.

The big question, which I don't know the answer to, is how the GBAD project envisions their particular solution will operate vis a vis its own resources and our allies'. There needs to be a very clear doctrine of use that GBAD slots into. Because AD is always a system of systems, that requires a very high degree of integration and interoperability. We had that for 4 AD. the GBAD requirements statement is very broad and generic.

To me its a bit vague right now because of the wide mix of equipment across the "New" NATO. Latvia apparently has RBS-70, Stinger, Giraffe, Sentinel and AN/TPS-77 but I don't see any medium or long range missiles. Lithuania does have some NASAMs and some eFP countries could deploy medium and above range.

I presume, that the definition phase of this project will start setting out more concrete elements. In fact my guess is that they are already pretty far along with that process.

🍻
appreciate the lesson, thanks
 
Or like this:

events-at-portmeirion-north-wales-during-a-convention-of-the-prisoner-M598NM.jpg


My guess is DAP will get the reference.

🍻
 
I don't know much about GBAD but I used to work with one of the few surviving AD Artillery Sgt's years back. Those folks deploy far out from the formation in interlocking layers of coverage. But that was in the days of ADAT's and I assume GBAD for the Stykers is a different animal. The ADATs had a 10km range. The Stinger is around 4-5km in range.

A SHORAD LAV would likely be using the Reconfigurable Integrated Weapons platform and would provide tactical AD for the army, but something else is needed I think for the longer range punch.

I'll go with what I know and that's the Sky Sabre. It's replacing the Sky Rapier in the UK inventory. It uses the Giraffe AMB radar (a large amount of commonality to the SG-AMB on the frigates and JSS) and the CAMM which is selected as the CIAD missile for the CSC. 25km range with 100km range radar.

I don't think we need LRAD as a military, the Short and Medium RAD would go a long way to being able to do local protection of our own units.
Its all the same animal (GBAD), you are either conducting VP, Area or Route defence. The size of your AD bubbles depends on your systems abilities and more importantly, the platforms used. A layered Air Defence is required, but Canada will never see it. We already own the EL/M-2084 which with much bullshit (probably) could be compatible with the CAMM, easy solution for medium range. VSHORAD is an even easier onion to peel , MANPADS are easy to acquire throughout NATO ( not Stinger, the Polish Piorun system is superior) and all that the units would require is a crapload of AD/AFV Recognition as well as a compound of Bv 206, COTS side by sides, TLAV's and some helicopter rappel training. A couple of RegF units trained first, then use the exact same weapons systems and vehicles to train the reserve units ( same can be said for anti-tank systems imo). Lol, rant over!
 
Its all the same animal (GBAD), you are either conducting VP, Area or Route defence. The size of your AD bubbles depends on your systems abilities and more importantly, the platforms used. A layered Air Defence is required, but Canada will never see it. We already own the EL/M-2084 which with much bullshit (probably) could be compatible with the CAMM, easy solution for medium range. VSHORAD is an even easier onion to peel , MANPADS are easy to acquire throughout NATO ( not Stinger, the Polish Piorun system is superior) and all that the units would require is a crapload of AD/AFV Recognition as well as a compound of Bv 206, COTS side by sides, TLAV's and some helicopter rappel training. A couple of RegF units trained first, then use the exact same weapons systems and vehicles to train the reserve units ( same can be said for anti-tank systems imo). Lol, rant over!
Sorry, I forgot to add that we could use the oversized/useless/ annoying, always N/S TAPV's as targets. Win.Win.
 
Sorry, I forgot to add that we could use the oversized/useless/ annoying, always N/S TAPV's as targets. Win.Win.
Don't sell them short yet, every new system has issues, and the army already has new plans for them in the long term.
 
Don't sell them short yet, every new system has issues, and the army already has new plans for them in the long term.
They're gonna have to stop them from catching fire on road moves, collapsing road shoulders, rolling over and find some spare parts for them before they can make any use of them whatsoever.

Once that's all sorted out, the fact that they're a badly designed armoured vehicle designed for airfield security and bastardized by the CAF to be MRAPs for the last war we found ourselves in will have to be reckoned with. Nobody asked for them, nobody wants them, and a handful of corps in the army have been made to make do with them because there's nothing else on offer. Eat your dinner or go hungry, mom and dad don't care.

I wish the them good luck in fixing those problems.
 
Don't sell them short yet, every new system has issues, and the army already has new plans for them in the long term.
I can think of at least a dozen useful things that the TAPV could do.

The negativity reminds me of the initial reaction to the Bison ... and then the RegF army snaffled them all up because they proved very useful.

🍻
 
I can think of at least a dozen useful things that the TAPV could do.

The negativity reminds me of the initial reaction to the Bison ... and then the RegF army snaffled them all up because they proved very useful.

🍻
It’s legit trash.
 
I can think of at least a dozen useful things that the TAPV could do.

The negativity reminds me of the initial reaction to the Bison ... and then the RegF army snaffled them all up because they proved very useful.

🍻
Yes , but the difference was the reserves never even saw the Bison. With the TAPV ( Funny how after all this time it still doesn't have a name.?) When the programme began there was great excitement in the reserve force.
Because ,well because it's an armoured vehicle !
At this point and over the course of manufacture the Regular Force kept telling the Reserve Force that they weren't entitled to any . And they wouldn't be able to operate them and several other reasons. Basically it would a cold day in hell before the Reserves saw one.
And after about a year or eighteen months I guess what ? Apparently hell froze over . And while at first they were delighted. And now after couple of years of use . Most of the end user I have been talked to are less then delighted by them.
There's some who get the feeling that the reserves got them primarily because the regulars didn't want them.
 
There's some who get the feeling that the reserves got them primarily because the regulars didn't want them.
Yeah, that is exactly why the PRes got them, and the PRes got fewer in those divisions where Reg F units wanted more TAPV.
 
What I find weird in the announcements is that we still don't have people to buy normal spares with and everyone is focused on the capitol side of new equipment.

We have a backlog of requisitions out that is probably in the tens of millions just for the Navy side, but don't have the people to process the buys and walk them through buy&sell.

Shiny new equipment is cool, but how about basic widgets to keep our current stuff going? Some of it has a lead time meausured in years as well, so it's not like it will show up tomorrow, but without enough procurement staff really doesn't matter how many TSORs we pump out.

Not really sexy, but 1000s of different items at lower dollar values adds up, and still has a high LOE even with the most basic procurement rules.
 
Not really sexy
I think you answered your own question.

Announcing new stuff is always sexier than announcing spares for current stuff. The CAF is (rightly) being lambasted for having old equipment, so from a PR perspective I'd totally see why they'd want to focus on new procurement.
 
Back
Top