Justin Trudeau hints at boosting Canada’s military spending

I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[GR66]

Well be a good partner...

You're asking more than our current government is willing to give

 

[OldSolduer]

Well be a good FREELOADING virtue signalling partner...

FTFY

 

[Happy Guy]

Interesting comments since it was announced that Ms. Anand was being moved over to the the President of the Treasury Board and Mr. Blair to become the new MND. After allowing for the handover, I'm assuming that it will take about 2-3 months before he decides on anything of real significance. Meanwhile major capital equipment purchases that were being processed under Ms. Annand will continue to percolate up over the next few months.

I think that there is significant and very real international political pressure pounding on the Cdn gov't now to increase defence spending.

The next two - fives years will be critical for the world. Will there be continual and aggressive attacks on US drones by Russians? will this escalate? Nuclear threats? If Putin falls what will happen in Russia and the following turmoil that will happen? If the west fails in supporting Ukraine what will NATO do? What will happen in China? Invasion of Taiwan? Continual of covert aggressive attack on western political institutions? Cyber attacks with emphases on food, water and power supplies? Agressive and overt naval and air confrontations between western and Chinese assets? Famine, especially in the African countries if Ukraine, a major world's supplier of grain, cannot produce and ship its products?

Will Mr. Blair be up to the demanding job of being the MND? If he fails, is there any real talent in the Lib caucus to replacement him? What are real consequences if he fails? Does PM Trudeau truly understand the international threats and does he know that the large geographical distance will not insulate Canada? I think that the CDS lost a valuable leader with Ms. Anand. I sincerely hope that Mr. Blair will have the same intellectual prowess, hard work ethic, determination, and stamina as Ms. Anand.

 

[GK .Dundas]

As I recall on more then one occasion the Treasury Board has been used as the political equivalent to the elephant's graveyard.
My one question is How much longer does, the CDS before he should be retiring.?
The reason I ask is that both he and the Minister seemed to have annoyed the PMO concerning Hati

 

[Rifleman62]

I think that there is significant and very real international political pressure pounding on the Cdn gov't now to increase defence spending.

I pray so. Unfortunately, Trudeau's ego - no one is going to tell me what to do. Appointing Blair is proof IMHO.
The only way forward is to remove all Cdn senior officers from positions of importance in NATO.

 

[Furniture]

I pray so. Unfortunately, Trudeau's ego - no one is going to tell me what to do. Appointing Blair is proof IMHO.
The only way forward is to remove all Cdn senior officers from positions of importance in NATO.

That will do nothing to the government, but will hurt the CAF.

If our allies want to apply pressure, they need to do it through economic means, that is the government's soft spot.

 

[Navy_Pete]

Meanwhile in Poland

https://twitter.com/x/status/1681010529429594121

When they have Star Destroyers, the CAF will probably be rolling around in a Scooby Doo van.

They are also very aggressively boosting their navy (ships and infrastructure) and much more likely to deliver new ships before we do.

Afghanistan and then COVID showed that you can actually streamline procurement in Canada when it matters but takes some political will to actually apply the option to bypass some steps (which ministers can authorize) or apply suitable resources to do it a lot faster.

I usually feel like we are trying to do so many things concurrently we actually get very little done, so would be more efficient if we just focused on doing a lot less, but do it really well.

 

[Furniture]

I usually feel like we are trying to do so many things concurrently we actually get very little done, so would be more efficient if we just focused on doing a lot less, but do it really well.

The only problem with that is when we give up capabilities, then discover we actually need them, the learning curve is steep and costly. Of course, the people who make the cuts rarely are the ones who have to pay the price, so I'm sure it will happen....

 

[Navy_Pete]

The only problem with that is when we give up capabilities, then discover we actually need them, the learning curve is steep and costly. Of course, the people who make the cuts rarely are the ones who have to pay the price, so I'm sure it will happen....

This is true, but I would argue we don't actually have the effective capabilities we think we have anyway. The rust out of the tanks, and basic survivability of our ships (or things like CBRN) is two obvious examples.

But it could just mean scaling down to what we can actually support, so for the Navy example I think we could chop down to 8 frigates now, which is still probably more than we can actually crew and do the maintenance/repairs on, but 12 is a pipe dream. Trying to do a bit of fixes to all of them mean that major issues just get 'accepted' so all the background for some kind of disastorous BOI is already in place. Our DWPs are now at about 5 times the number of work hours as the 280s at the end of life, and that's not even doing all the basic repairs to the hull and mechanical systems that we know about.

 

[Kirkhill]

This is true, but I would argue we don't actually have the effective capabilities we think we have anyway. The rust out of the tanks, and basic survivability of our ships (or things like CBRN) is two obvious examples.

But it could just mean scaling down to what we can actually support, so for the Navy example I think we could chop down to 8 frigates now, which is still probably more than we can actually crew and do the maintenance/repairs on, but 12 is a pipe dream. Trying to do a bit of fixes to all of them mean that major issues just get 'accepted' so all the background for some kind of disastorous BOI is already in place. Our DWPs are now at about 5 times the number of work hours as the 280s at the end of life, and that's not even doing all the basic repairs to the hull and mechanical systems that we know about.

Suppose the CSC fleet were chopped to 8 from 15. How many SSKs and OPVs could be put to sea instead?

 

[MilEME09]

This is true, but I would argue we don't actually have the effective capabilities we think we have anyway. The rust out of the tanks, and basic survivability of our ships (or things like CBRN) is two obvious examples.

But it could just mean scaling down to what we can actually support, so for the Navy example I think we could chop down to 8 frigates now, which is still probably more than we can actually crew and do the maintenance/repairs on, but 12 is a pipe dream. Trying to do a bit of fixes to all of them mean that major issues just get 'accepted' so all the background for some kind of disastorous BOI is already in place. Our DWPs are now at about 5 times the number of work hours as the 280s at the end of life, and that's not even doing all the basic repairs to the hull and mechanical systems that we know about.

8 Wouldn't really cover our needs though, and probably give us a boat per coast available and that's it. Really the Navy should be our largest branch, and the army our smallest.

 

[Good2Golf]

Suppose the CSC fleet were chopped to 8 from 15. How many SSKs and OPVs could be put to sea instead?

Zero. #defencespendingisnonlinear

 

[Furniture]

Suppose the CSC fleet were chopped to 8 from 15. How many SSKs and OPVs could be put to sea instead?

If CSCs were cut, the CAF would just get less... If the CAF asked for 8 CSCs and 10 OPVs, the CAF would likely get 8 OPVs and the rest of the saved money would go toward buying more strategic votes.

 

[Kirkhill]

If CSCs were cut, the CAF would just get less... If the CAF asked for 8 CSCs and 10 OPVs, the CAF would likely get 8 OPVs and the rest of the saved money would go toward buying more strategic votes.

And then we try to have debates about what constitutes a rational belief....

 

[Kirkhill]

8 Wouldn't really cover our needs though, and probably give us a boat per coast available and that's it. Really the Navy should be our largest branch, and the army our smallest.

But if we had 8 CSCs, 8 SSKs and 8 OPVs then we would have a CSC, an SSK and an OPV active off of each coast. Would that be better than a CSC at home and a couple of CSCs in the First Island Chain?

 

[Furniture]

And then we try to have debates about what constitutes a rational belief....

Given that the CAF is being killed by rust-out and lack of replacements, due to intentionally byzantine policies and lack of interest from the GoC, I'd say my statement aligns more with reality than your idea of less CSCs for more varied platforms.

 

[Kirkhill]

Given that the CAF is being killed by rust-out and lack of replacements, due to intentionally byzantine policies and lack of interest from the GoC, I'd say my statement aligns more with reality than your idea of less CSCs for more varied platforms.

No argument.

But what would we talk about if we didn't at least hope for rational decisions?

 

[Brad Sallows]

At some point, the quantity of usable units (of whatever) has to have a minimum below which it is pointless having anything. Either the minimum is zero, or it isn't. If it isn't, then that amount is a hard floor. If we are struggling to meet commitments and maintain credibility, we're most likely below the hard floor and have to stop reducing.

 

[MilEME09]

But if we had 8 CSCs, 8 SSKs and 8 OPVs then we would have a CSC, an SSK and an OPV active off of each coast. Would that be better than a CSC at home and a couple of CSCs in the First Island Chain?

Would we not want more ssk's? Less crew and long term less maintenance cost I thought?

 

[Navy_Pete]

Suppose the CSC fleet were chopped to 8 from 15. How many SSKs and OPVs could be put to sea instead?

I'm cynical enough to think that 15 was chosen so that we could decrease the actual number at some point, but we absolutely do not have anywhere near the infrastructure or resources to be able to crew or maintain 15 of those at the operation pace the RCN is beating the hell out of the CPFs with. The amount of stuff on that ship is mind boggling, so the additional LOE for all the interference items will be big, and the crew is smaller than ever.

We are getting a really capable, but much more complex ship that will need to rely more on fully working equipment and a higher baseline sailor competence compared to what we have now, so even with a lot of industry partnering/ISSCs the navy will need to majorly shift how they do things to actually have an effective capability. That will mean not trying to do a 6 week work period in 4 weeks, not trying to do 5 work periods concurrently with resources for 2, and not relying on ship's staff to manage it all internally. The support tail should significantly increase compared to what we currently have, but don't see that happening (or even enough footprint in the dockyards to expand to do that).