Justin Trudeau hints at boosting Canada’s military spending

I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[Kirkhill]

Given that GDMS deals with the tech side, a lot, this isn't likely a vehicle announcement

New management system? EW?

 

[Fabius]

Upgraded C2 battle management system using SITAWARE architecture for the Cdn led multinational Bde in Latvia?
Would have thought that would’ve been included in the other announcement though.

 

[CBH99]

Unless it’s about the Spanish who are junk.

ACTUALLY holy shit...it WAS actually about the Spanish. Like actually.

(Sorry Italy...I took half a nanosecond to think of a continental map of Europe, saw a part on the south sticking down, and couldn't be bothered to go beyond that apparently...)


I always found the Portuguese to be impressive. By far the best field kitchens in NATO, they have to be...I don't think I could even dream of food that good. Super squared away, knew their stuff, good kit, leaders seemed solid - only crossed paths a few times (like 3) but each time they were impressive


My 2 cents anyway

 

[CBH99]

SHORAD
120Mortar
ATGM
what else are we missing that we can mount on a LAV

New build M2 .50 machine guns?

(That were manufactured in the last decade...not the WW2 ones we had floating around back in the day)

 

[MilEME09]

New build M2 .50 machine guns?

(That were manufactured in the last decade...not the WW2 ones we had floating around back in the day)

And mount them on vehicles instead of c6 in the pintle?

 

[Maxman1]

And mount them on vehicles instead of c6 in the pintle?

And 40mm AGLS.

 

[McG]

I’d also draw your attention to Annex C; MOTS was not the only option being considered during the OA phase.

“Buy COTS and develop into MOTS” is sort of a tell me you don’t understand the “OTS” part of those acronyms without saying it.

Wasn't the F-35 on order when the Liberals took office? Isn't that the deal we paid big penalties on when they cancelled it and Trudeau said we would never buy them?

No. Your memory has failed you here. The Liberals did promise to never buy it and to run a competition, but the Conservative deferred the actual decision until they lost power. Conservatives had announced an intent to buy F35 as early as 2011, but they never put it in the budget and they never committed through a contract.

General Dynamics Mission Systems Canada
view-all-products-programs-and-services

So that means comms systems, sensor systems, computer systems, software, or some combination of the above. Not uniforms, vehicles, nor machine guns.

 

[FSTO]

Paul Wells interviews Octobob

"It's taking away from readiness"

A top officer in the Canadian Armed Forces says work at home makes work abroad harder

open.substack.com

 

[KevinB]

“Buy COTS and develop into MOTS” is sort of a tell me you don’t understand the “OTS” part of those acronyms without saying it.

It really depends on what you think Off The Shelf means

No. Your memory has failed you here. The Liberals did promise to never buy it and to run a competition, but the Conservative deferred the actual decision until they lost power. Conservatives had announced an intent to buy F35 as early as 2011, but they never put it in the budget and they never committed through a contract.

As per SOP for Canadian Government regardless of party.

So that means comms systems, sensor systems, computer systems, software, or some combination of the above. Not uniforms, vehicles, nor machine guns.

Well I suspect it means something from GD, not necessarily just Mission Systems.

The location of GSMS-C HQ is in Ottawa, so a nicer commute for Ottawa based politicians, Military, and Reporters.

 

[markppcli]

UOR for light forces mobility would make sense if we’re expecting to expand that capability for Latvia.

 

[IKnowNothing]

Canada announces $1.68-billion investment in technology network for Canadian Army - Canada.ca

In the current global environment, Canada needs a modern, adaptable army that can meet security challenges of today and tomorrow. We are making the necessary investments to provide Canadian Army members with the tools that they need to do their jobs, while ensuring that these investments create...

www.canada.ca

Tech infrastructure

 

[KevinB]

UOR for light forces mobility would make sense if we’re expecting to expand that capability for Latvia.

Everyone else seems to have come to the understanding that their forward presence in Europe should be Heavy Armor - but hey Canada just keep beating to your own drummer, it must be everyone else that is out of step...

 

[markppcli]

Everyone else seems to have come to the understanding that their forward presence in Europe should be Heavy Armor - but hey Canada just keep beating to your own drummer, it must be everyone else that is out of step...

Oh no I’m 100 percent with you in that. Although I think a light Bn could effectively defend some dense Baltic forests, I’d prefer they be in an ifv of some kind. Frankly that we can deploy a full Bg is shocking, even in the 90s we had Bgs in the Balkaans.

 

[KevinB]

Oh no I’m 100 percent with you in that. Although I think a light Bn could effectively defend some dense Baltic forests, I’d prefer they be in an ifv of some kind. Frankly that we can deploy a full Bg is shocking, even in the 90s we had Bgs in the Balkaans.

Multiple BG's
In fact the 92-93 period was just about as thing as there CA was stretched, as the CAR was in Somalia, and 2 RCHA was in Cyprus, as well as the FYR deployments coming and going...

 

[IKnowNothing]

Oh no I’m 100 percent with you in that. Although I think a light Bn could effectively defend some dense Baltic forests, I’d prefer they be in an ifv of some kind. Frankly that we can deploy a full Bg is shocking, even in the 90s we had Bgs in the Balkaans.

How close/far are we from being able to commit full Bn's to the mech roto, even if it's 2 line coy's + a spare platoon or 2 chopped to the CS coy (to be used to make a semi-permanent combat team with the tanks and/or use the UOR Spikes as an AT platoon)?

 

[KevinB]

Canada announces $1.68-billion investment in technology network for Canadian Army - Canada.ca

In the current global environment, Canada needs a modern, adaptable army that can meet security challenges of today and tomorrow. We are making the necessary investments to provide Canadian Army members with the tools that they need to do their jobs, while ensuring that these investments create...

www.canada.ca

Tech infrastructure

Most folks have C6ISR, and adding the L for land tends to mean one hasn't embraced Joint MultiDomain aspects...

 

[markppcli]

How close/far are we from being able to commit full Bn's to the mech roto, even if it's 2 line coy's + a spare platoon or 2 chopped to the CS coy (to be used to make a semi-permanent combat team with the tanks and/or use the UOR Spikes as an AT platoon)?

I’m out of the Bns right now and have been for a year. So grain of salt and I won’t get into specifics. That being. Said the infantry is actually doing okay for manning (ie it’s a green trade) however the Bns are only authorized at 70% their full strength. Which means that even at 90 odd percent full the Bns are actually at 65-67 percent of what they should be for a deployment. So for a Bn to go over you need to pull 1-2 companies worth of people from somewhere. Deploying two companies + a tank Squadron is an option but isn’t really doctrine, not that 15 tanks is either mind you.

 

[IKnowNothing]

I’m out of the Bns right now and have been for a year. So grain of salt and I won’t get into specifics. That being. Said the infantry is actually doing okay for manning (ie it’s a green trade) however the Bns are only authorized at 70% their full strength. Which means that even at 90 odd percent full the Bns are actually at 65-67 percent of what they should be for a deployment. So for a Bn to go over you need to pull 1-2 companies worth of people from somewhere. Deploying two companies + a tank Squadron is an option but isn’t really doctrine, not that 15 tanks is either mind you.

Thanks.

Bold, might not be doctrine, but you'd have to think it would be closer than that grab bag from 4-5 countries- and would certainly look better if the Canadian lead Bde had a homogenously Canadian unit.

 

[GR66]

Just spitballing here. Latvia is the primary theatre where we expect to require our mechanized forces. We currently have 6 x LAV battalions at 65-67% of full pers levels. That means you basically have 6 x Battalions of vehicles but only 4 x Battalions of personnel.

Let's say you reorganize to have 4 x LAV Battalions at full pers levels in Canada. Pre-position 1 x Battalion of LAVs in Latvia with our eFP Brigade. That leaves you with 1 x Battalion worth of LAVs as spares/war stocks to draw on if necessary.

The four LAV Battalions rotate as a fly-over Battalion to crew the eFP Latvia LAVs or can be tasked for Battle Group sized deployments elsewhere if/when required. That still leaves you with 3 x full LAV Battalions for the primary Latvia mission.

 

[IKnowNothing]

Just spitballing here. Latvia is the primary theatre where we expect to require our mechanized forces. We currently have 6 x LAV battalions at 65-67% of full pers levels. That means you basically have 6 x Battalions of vehicles but only 4 x Battalions of personnel.

Let's say you reorganize to have 4 x LAV Battalions at full pers levels in Canada. Pre-position 1 x Battalion of LAVs in Latvia with our eFP Brigade. That leaves you with 1 x Battalion worth of LAVs as spares/war stocks to draw on if necessary.

The four LAV Battalions rotate as a fly-over Battalion to crew the eFP Latvia LAVs or can be tasked for Battle Group sized deployments elsewhere if/when required. That still leaves you with 3 x full LAV Battalions for the primary Latvia mission.

Make the 4th Lav battalion a 2 year posting to Latvia, with it and the Bde it's a part of separate from the 3x CMBG construct.