I'll believe it when I see it.
Justin Trudeau hints at boosting Canada’s military spending
- Thread starter Maxman1
- Start date
daftandbarmy
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 27,012
- Points
- 1,160
You get what you pay for, which is why our underinvestment in some areas is killing us...
www.conferenceboard.ca
Investment and Productivity
Why is M&E investment important to labour productivity?
Key Messages
- Historical data for the peer countries reveal a strong positive relationship between investment in machinery and equipment (M&E) and labour productivity.
- Canada’s investment in M&E as a share of GDP is among the lowest of its peers.
- The gap in investment in information and communications technology between Canada and the U.S. accounts for a large proportion of the labour productivity gap between the two countries.
Investment and Productivity
Investment and Productivity Why is M&E investment important to labour productivity? Key Messages The economy is doing well—why dwell on...
www.conferenceboard.ca
- Reaction score
- 17,282
- Points
- 1,260
110%.
A lot of my comments got OBE due to others posts.
Bases: there needs to be consolidation, as well as divestment of archaic buildings. Yes I hate the idea of giving up land, but there is also zero reason to keep some land that is just costing a fortune in maintenance (and becoming a heritage site as opposed to a working space).
I’m of the opinion that every base needs an airhead and rail head, and the coastal bases need ports, or at least piers for loading equipment.
I’m not sure that the Regular Force Army needs more than 15k personnel.
1 Light/Airborne Bde (~2,700 PY)
1 Armoured Bde (~3,200 PY)
2 Sustainment Bde’s (~1,800 each)
The remaining 2,800 would go towards HQ/Staff and Training positions.
If the PRes was reformed into a viable entity, there could be some additional restructuring. But one could make 2 main Army bases complete with airfields, training areas etc. (leaving Pet to CANSOF)
The advantage of having training areas on your bases is that the Reg Force can conduct training and still be ‘at home’ reducing travel time, vehicle usage for that travel, and a lot of away from family issues can be mitigated.
I’d shift TacHel between 3 bases Petawawa (for CANSOF), Latvia, and the Light base.
SAR, I don’t see any way to rationalize that fleet, ideally some of it could be done by Reservists in some outlying communities (again that would need a larger support from the RCAF than current).
Fixed Wing, I’m not sure why Winnipeg is no longer the main location for it, as it’s fairly central, and would reduce moves.
Yes you’d need the fighter folks to due to TD to Cold Lake and still require a crew there to keep it running. But the majority of fighter training is going to be in the US for the next while anyway, once the F-35 comes on board.
MH, well they are going to be on each coast to support the Navy.
I don’t really understand the Navy well enough to make solid comments about them, but it does seem to have a lot of redundancies on the HQ side for its size.
I had understood the theory of CJOC was to remove a lot of the sub HQ’s, but that doesn’t seem to have been done in a lot of cases.
The entire point of the CAF is to give the GoC a viable military force to defend Canada, and project force as needed. Right now I don’t think the CAF gives good value for the money - as there are a lot of paper empires, and a ton of good money being thrown after bad.
It is hard to recruit people for a military that is rusting out, and cannot conduct missions. So there needs to be recapitalization for equipment as part of the process to fix recruiting and retention, as well as giving an ‘out’ for people who join and decide it’s really not their goal in life, but also incentivizing people leaving the Regular Force to join the Reserves, where they can use education benefits and health care for a period to be a reservist and go back to school, and also be able to rejoin the Regular Forces after if they desire.
daftandbarmy
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 27,012
- Points
- 1,160
Just don't use the word 'cuts' ....
The emails late last summer between Chief of the Defence Staff Gen. Wayne Eyre's office and the Department of National Defence (DND), obtained by the Star under the Access to Information Act, highlight the bewildering semantics — and the tension — between Canada's soldiers and its politicians when it comes to defence spending.
www.thestar.com
Email reveals that Ottawa told Canada's top soldier not to call budget changes 'cuts'
Canada's top soldier was told he couldn't use the word "cut" in a memo to soldiers about the federal government's budget plans for the military, newly disclosed documents reveal.The emails late last summer between Chief of the Defence Staff Gen. Wayne Eyre's office and the Department of National Defence (DND), obtained by the Star under the Access to Information Act, highlight the bewildering semantics — and the tension — between Canada's soldiers and its politicians when it comes to defence spending.
Email reveals that Ottawa told Canada’s top soldier not to call budget changes ‘cuts’
Canada's top soldier was told he couldn't use the word "cut" in a memo to soldiers about the federal government's budget plans for the military, newly disclosed documents reveal.
www.thestar.com
- Reaction score
- 18,770
- Points
- 1,360
“Slightly less than net-positive increases”Just don't use the word 'cuts' ....
Email reveals that Ottawa told Canada's top soldier not to call budget changes 'cuts'
Canada's top soldier was told he couldn't use the word "cut" in a memo to soldiers about the federal government's budget plans for the military, newly disclosed documents reveal.
The emails late last summer between Chief of the Defence Staff Gen. Wayne Eyre's office and the Department of National Defence (DND), obtained by the Star under the Access to Information Act, highlight the bewildering semantics — and the tension — between Canada's soldiers and its politicians when it comes to defence spending.
Email reveals that Ottawa told Canada’s top soldier not to call budget changes ‘cuts’
Canada's top soldier was told he couldn't use the word "cut" in a memo to soldiers about the federal government's budget plans for the military, newly disclosed documents reveal.
medicineman
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 3,919
- Points
- 1,110
Deletions from the accounts receivable?Just don't use the word 'cuts' ....
Email reveals that Ottawa told Canada's top soldier not to call budget changes 'cuts'
Canada's top soldier was told he couldn't use the word "cut" in a memo to soldiers about the federal government's budget plans for the military, newly disclosed documents reveal.
The emails late last summer between Chief of the Defence Staff Gen. Wayne Eyre's office and the Department of National Defence (DND), obtained by the Star under the Access to Information Act, highlight the bewildering semantics — and the tension — between Canada's soldiers and its politicians when it comes to defence spending.
Email reveals that Ottawa told Canada’s top soldier not to call budget changes ‘cuts’
Canada's top soldier was told he couldn't use the word "cut" in a memo to soldiers about the federal government's budget plans for the military, newly disclosed documents reveal.
- Reaction score
- 9,123
- Points
- 1,360
@KevinB we are in violent agreement. The symmetrical 3xCMBG Army is an OWN GOAL.
- Reaction score
- 18,770
- Points
- 1,360
“Train to Excite!” enters the chat…
FJAG
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 11,556
- Points
- 1,160
What the heck. It's been a long drive today so I'll just jump into this one.
OTOH, I can see a need to rationalize ResF armouries. This is in particular as I think we need a new model of full-time service that caters to a one station career for soldiers where their wives can have a full career as well. The reality of modern life is the two-income family. The more we can cater to that type of career model the easier it will be to achieve stable full-time manning. To me that means urban units of blended full-time /part-time ResF personnel. Those are full battalions where a third of the battalions strength needs full-time work areas that also provides facilities to part-timers during the RegF's off-time. I'm not talking hot bunking. Many existing armouries won't cater to that. Some will. Rationalization is needed.
Yeah, I agree to a point. We're a big country like you'all and we need to be where the people are. There are only a few major bases - Edmonton/Wainwright; Shilo; Petawawa; Meaford; Quebec/Valcartier; Gagetown/Aldershot. Consolidation for the RegF does not serve the regionally-based ResF well. Those bases need to be retained if nothing else for their training areas and as concentration areas.
OTOH, I can see a need to rationalize ResF armouries. This is in particular as I think we need a new model of full-time service that caters to a one station career for soldiers where their wives can have a full career as well. The reality of modern life is the two-income family. The more we can cater to that type of career model the easier it will be to achieve stable full-time manning. To me that means urban units of blended full-time /part-time ResF personnel. Those are full battalions where a third of the battalions strength needs full-time work areas that also provides facilities to part-timers during the RegF's off-time. I'm not talking hot bunking. Many existing armouries won't cater to that. Some will. Rationalization is needed.
Reasonably near.
I'll go twenty
Agreed - I'd add ~1,000 reservists for depth and sustainment.
Agreed as to PYs but I'd spread them over three bdes with ~7,000 Class A ResF.
Again agreed as to PYs but again rounded out with ~4,000 Class A ResF.
Okay. But here's where I add in the additional ~5,000 PYs. A combat support brigade (~500 PY/~1,500 PT); 2 x mech bdes (~1,000 PY/2,000PT each); at least 1 x arty bde (~500 PY/~2,000PT); an engr bde (~1,000 PY/~2,000PT); and base support structures (~1,000PY)
The ResF MUST be reformed into viable entities - otherwise we might as well pack in the whole thing, align ourselves with Iceland and reallocate the defence budget to touchy-feely crap..
I don't agree with this. We train in bursts. No one given unit spends more than several months each year on full-scale ranges. Much of the training can be done on simulators, low-level small arms ranges and small dry manoeuvre areas. Administrative moves to and from an urban base to a large-scale training areas is training in its own right that should be practiced often. IMHO we overvalue the need to have training areas collocated with unit lines. It's become a dissatisfier with modern families.
Agree with Petawawa and the Lt Bde (albeit I think they are one and the same) With respect to Latvia I wouldn't. It's just a bde and bde's do not hold aviation - we need to take stock of what aviation resources MND-N will develop into having. Currently they don't have much. Personally I'd have other NATO countries contribute and save all of our aviation for the SOF and Lt bde.
Facilities. Incidentally, I would take 3 Div HQ - rename it 1 Div and move it to Winnipeg to 1) have it collocated with the RCAF to facilitate air movement planning. Since I would move CMTC to Latvia, preposition an armoured brigade there and have all major exercises there we would need a much better planning/coordination working with the RCAF; 2) 1 Divs bdes are spread from Alberta to Ontario. Winnipeg is two hours from its eastern and western units.
No comment as yet.
I'm thinking of ash canning CJOC. Give 1 Div the responsibility for all things Europe and 2 Div for all things North America. I think that if we haven't learned our lesson about trying to fix shithole countries after Afghanistan then we can form a small staff in 2 Div and give them responsibility for that as well. Sure - make it a joint cell. I need to run that around a bunch more - I think centralizing everything in one HQ leads to staff bloat and lethargy.
Agreed.
All of the above and more.
Maxman1
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 1,106
- Points
- 960
Now what am I supposed to yell when I fire reserve rounds?Just don't use the word 'cuts' ....
Email reveals that Ottawa told Canada's top soldier not to call budget changes 'cuts'
Canada's top soldier was told he couldn't use the word "cut" in a memo to soldiers about the federal government's budget plans for the military, newly disclosed documents reveal.
The emails late last summer between Chief of the Defence Staff Gen. Wayne Eyre's office and the Department of National Defence (DND), obtained by the Star under the Access to Information Act, highlight the bewildering semantics — and the tension — between Canada's soldiers and its politicians when it comes to defence spending.
Email reveals that Ottawa told Canada’s top soldier not to call budget changes ‘cuts’
Canada's top soldier was told he couldn't use the word "cut" in a memo to soldiers about the federal government's budget plans for the military, newly disclosed documents reveal.
- Reaction score
- 1,012
- Points
- 1,160
"Bang - Cut - Bang - Cut - Bang" for a 5 rd burst;
"Boom" for grenade;
"Big Boom" for anti armour.
Just like the old days.
"Boom" for grenade;
"Big Boom" for anti armour.
Just like the old days.
- Reaction score
- 17,282
- Points
- 1,260
And all those bases and people could drop into one Base down here... I just don't see those bases as major.
Fair point, but I haven't seen anything that proves there is a will to make the PRes work in the Army.
I’d agree IF the PRes can be reformed/reformatted — right now I don’t see the CA having that desire. Hence my hedging towards the Reg units.
Agreed.
I’d suggest that PCF’s have at least a 2 week ‘field phase’ for no other reason than ranges.
So with 2 PCF’s a year you have saved a month of time away. Plus there is a lot to be said for the ability to do "9-5" field work, it was on the the things I appreciate in Petawawa. It is also something I appreciate down here, where pretty much every base is also a training area - but there are also some significantly big training areas where units will deploy to for validations.
I don't disagree, but I don't see value in small unit sized moves -- I'd rather conduct Bde sized moves to training areas in the US for larger formation training.
I don't see CANSOF having room for a Lt Bde as well in Pet without an expansion of the training area.
I'm seeing TacHel to provide MedEvac for Latvia as well as potential resupply.
Agreed
There needs to be a Joint HQ - and not spelled JARMY (the J is silent), I'd rather have the Div HQ's be actual deployable entities (or at least 1 Div) so that leaves the need for Joint HQ for NA, as well as potential Pacific Forces.
I think you need to be surgical with staffing and command for it - but I see being able to kill off a lot of other HQ's if one retains CJOC.
Fabius
Full Member
- Reaction score
- 708
- Points
- 810
I’m of the opinion as well that we need a joint command to actually synchronize our overall environments. Right now CJOC is not that but it could be.
I would argue though that we need two joint commands. I would suggest that Canada needs to get on board with combining NORTHCOM into NORAD and taking NORAD from an aerospace defensive construct into a joint combined multi domain defensive construct.
CJOC runs international stuff and a revamped NORAD runs continental stuff.
I would argue though that we need two joint commands. I would suggest that Canada needs to get on board with combining NORTHCOM into NORAD and taking NORAD from an aerospace defensive construct into a joint combined multi domain defensive construct.
CJOC runs international stuff and a revamped NORAD runs continental stuff.
- Reaction score
- 22,585
- Points
- 1,090
CJOC needs a vigorous application of hacksaws and machetes to its HQ structure. Last figures I saw suggest that the HQ alone is nearly the same size as a Reg F infantry battalion.
- Reaction score
- 13,288
- Points
- 1,010
100 people. Tops.
- Reaction score
- 17,282
- Points
- 1,260
A Corps HQ has ~650 personnel.
Depending upon what CJOC is supposed to do, that size may be reasonable, but I suspect it's not doing all of what it should be based on the other HQ's that Canada has going.
- Reaction score
- 6,490
- Points
- 1,310
Necessary Staff functions exist and they have to be done by someone. Unnecessary staff functions need to be constantly evaluated and culled without remorse.
That said, you could send every staff officer in CJOC out to pasture and still not see those extra PYs filter down to the Infantry Coy, Flying Sqn, or Ship's Company overnight.
That said, you could send every staff officer in CJOC out to pasture and still not see those extra PYs filter down to the Infantry Coy, Flying Sqn, or Ship's Company overnight.
- Reaction score
- 989
- Points
- 1,060
“I would suggest that Canada needs to get on board with combining NORTHCOM into NORAD and taking NORAD from an aerospace defensive construct into a joint combined multi domain defensive construct”
That’s a lot of GBA++ job security right there.
That’s a lot of GBA++ job security right there.
McG
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 2,381
- Points
- 1,160
For a force employment command, it has a lot of force generation and institutional functions that need another home.
Fabius
Full Member
- Reaction score
- 708
- Points
- 810
I guess a question that should be answered though is what does a joint HQ like CJOC do in the case of the CAF.
Sandwiched between the SJS and the various deployed Op HQs what function does it do?
Do we expect it to command joint forces in combat like a U.S. Combatant Command?
Even many of the OPs HQ such as TFL are not going to command forces in combat, that is done by the NATO or US HQs to which our forces are declared.
If we don’t have a need to C2 forces in combat or operations and the joint HQ is merely a joint force generation coordinator do we need it in addition to the L1 HQs and the SJS?
Sandwiched between the SJS and the various deployed Op HQs what function does it do?
Do we expect it to command joint forces in combat like a U.S. Combatant Command?
Even many of the OPs HQ such as TFL are not going to command forces in combat, that is done by the NATO or US HQs to which our forces are declared.
If we don’t have a need to C2 forces in combat or operations and the joint HQ is merely a joint force generation coordinator do we need it in addition to the L1 HQs and the SJS?
Similar threads
- Article
