[Admiral Beez]

On the assumption that POTUS47 and a now Ukraine-free, Arctic-curious Putin encourage Canada to boost its defence spending, what should we buy? First some numbers:

Canada's Current Defense Spending (2023)
Total Defense Spending: Approximately $30 billion CAD.
Percentage of GDP ($2.8 trillion CAD): Around 1.3% of GDP

Projected Increase Needed to Reach 2% of GDP
2% of GDP = 2% of $2.8 trillion CAD = $56 billion CAD.
$56 billion CAD (target) – $30 billion CAD (current) = $26 billion CAD.

With $26 billion CAD ($19 billion USD), I would like to see money invested on:

1. Personnel recruitment and retention. We need more than 68k full time enlisted members. The CAF says they want 75k.
2. SSKs. We need AIP submarines asap. Let's get some off the shelf AIP diesel boats now, and budget for SSNs for 2040.
3. Heavy ice breakers. Expand the project to at least three ships, Polar Icebreaker Project - Wikipedia
4. Expand the Arctic naval base at Nanisivik and build a second, larger base at Resolute Bay.
5. Expand our alliances, especially AUKUS.
6. Return to a permanent, brigade-sized Army presence in ETO. We rotate smaller battalion sized units through the Baltics.

What else? Maybe arctic drones?

 

[lenaitch]

On the assumption that POTUS47 and a now Ukraine-free, Arctic-curious Putin encourage Canada to boost its defence spending, what should we buy? First some numbers:

Canada's Current Defense Spending (2023)
Total Defense Spending: Approximately $30 billion CAD.
Percentage of GDP ($2.8 trillion CAD): Around 1.3% of GDP

Projected Increase Needed to Reach 2% of GDP
2% of GDP = 2% of $2.8 trillion CAD = $56 billion CAD.
$56 billion CAD (target) – $30 billion CAD (current) = $26 billion CAD.

With $26 billion CAD ($19 billion USD), I would like to see money invested on:

1. Personnel recruitment and retention. We need more than 68k full time enlisted members. The CAF says they want 75k.
2. SSKs. We need AIP submarines asap. Let's get some off the shelf AIP diesel boats now, and budget for SSNs for 2040.
3. Heavy ice breakers. Expand the project to at least three ships, Polar Icebreaker Project - Wikipedia
4. Expand the Arctic naval base at Nanisivik and build a second, larger base at Resolute Bay.
5. Expand our alliances, especially AUKUS.
6. Return to a permanent, brigade-sized Army presence in ETO. We rotate smaller battalion sized units through the Baltics.

What else? Maybe arctic drones?

View attachment 610484

This isn't my preferred forum for these discussions, but to jump on:

- The government has shown that it can't spend the money it already allocates. Until they house-clean the procurement process, it could be $100Bn - it wouldn't matter.
- Icebreakers aren't a military matter. Whether it could fall under the terms of the NATO agreement, IDK. If you want to militarize the Coast Guard, that's another topic.
- I would add housing and infrastructure. Unsexy as it is, if you want to recruit and retain people, don't expect them to live and work in 1950s facilities.
- THE CAF has difficulty recruiting now; arctic bases aren't going to help unless other issues are solved first. There is a variety of opinions, even on here, whether bases should be near cities to attract the increasingly urbanized population. Besides, what's a ice-bound refueling dock, and the folks stuck living there, going to do all winter?
- A permanent brigade in Europe would only be effective if they have modern equipment, and enough if it to sustain losses.

 

[kEiThZ]

I am seeing a lot of hot takes online, mostly from what I call defence bros, many of whom who have never served, or who have never served at the strategic/HQ level and have no idea how defence procurements fits into wider defence, industrial, economic and foreign policy. So naturally all the lists are just dreamlists of kit to buy. No thought to any other consideration, including on how we would operate a lot of these.

To start with, the government had a plan. Anand actually did present Cabinet with a plan to meet 2%. They shuffled her off into a basement office on Elgin street for that work. I am not even sure any of her Conservative predecessors had actually put in that work. So if they are drafting options (and I am already hearing chatter from friends and around the office about staff checks), I would assume that plan is a good place to start.

The new wrinkle here? The Trump administration is a wildcard. To begin with, 2% may not be enough. And beyond that, they might outright insist that procurement dollars substantially go their way. Hard as it was to raise defence spending before, it will be even harder if we have to tell voters that we're going to cut OAS and CCB to send dollars to sustain American factories.

With all that background in mind, here is what I think the government will do. They are going to ramp up what they can domestically. There's actually some easy wins here. We have a base infrastructure backlog of a few billion. We have an even longer infrastructure wishlist. Some of it is dual use that benefits remote communities. Heck, just the new secure command centre in Ottawa could be a billion bucks. Next, as has been pointed out, housing. Again, creates jobs, improves retention and reduces burden on some members. Our housing situation is so bad, in places like Ottawa, it's been flagged as a potential compromise risk.

Next up, recruiting and retention. I get paid well. But my pay hasn't kept up with housing inflation. When I was a newly minted Captain, with a small $20k downpayment from my parents, I was able to get my own condo. If they hadn't helped, I would have got there in 2-3 years. Today, it's become routine for young Captains to have roommates till they get a significant other. It's nuts. And that cost of housing is also why we often can't retain people. They just need more pay. So in addition to building more housing, we're going to need pay bumps. Especially for hard hit trades that have high training costs and tough retention like pilots, NDT techs, cyber officers, etc.

After all this comes the question of what kit to buy. Again, the priority has to be what can ramp domestically. We put in place a 25 yr building program for the frigates, because that is the pipeline of work necessary at current spending to sustain the shipyards. We can pay them to speed that procurement up and the use the saved years on the backed to start follow-on replacement program. There's other examples like this too. We can get GDLS speeding up LAV deliveries and buying more of them. We can look at Roshel to build a lot of armoured trucks. Etc.

And after this, if we have to spend abroad then the items to be prioritized are purchases that can be done in the US that both fit a need and would be low risk procurement. I'll give an example. One of my friends works in a project cells for an AEW capability. That is something that can be spun up quick and has an obvious choice: the Boeing Wedgetail. We finally get the independent AEW capability that the RCAF has wanted for decades and it has commonality with the US and NATO. Bombardier mad about missing out? Buy the same electronic warfare bird as the US Army using Bombardier Globals. Similarly, there's a desire for some kind of amphibious capability or flat-top for the navy. The army is short tanks, artillery, air defence and EW. And there's decent options for all of those things in the US.

There's also quick hits like top up orders. We could use more P-8s so that we can finally put a squadron in Newfoundland. We could convert some of our F-35 order and add a bit to get small (~30 frames) subfleet of carrier or amphib capable F-35Bs or F-35s to start working with the USN or USMC, to gain amhib or carrier experience. 30 frames would let us keep a 6 pack in the US year round. I am sure the USN would be happy to get a Canadian six pack of F-35Bs.

On the longer horizon there are partnership opportunities. For example, we're trying to wrap our head around collaborative combat aircraft, beyond the drones of today. Or there's the air force's desire to replace all our helicopters with a single type of tiltrotor or coaxial helicopter like the V-280 being developed by Bell in the US. Maybe we can convince the Americans to let us license manufacture V-280s at BHC in Montreal.

End of the day, this isn't a spending spree without context. It has to hit a number of defence and foreign policy goals. Quickly rising up that list of goals is keeping the Americans happy. But it's also about spending wisely and actually getting us decent return on our spending.

 

[kEiThZ]

- The government has shown that it can't spend the money it already allocates. Until they house-clean the procurement process, it could be $100Bn - it wouldn't matter.

Exactly. Fundamentally, our procurement system is designed to prioritize industrial and regional benefits over actually buying kit. I'll often come across (usually) conservatives who complain about the 1-2% for Aboriginals. That's not the problem. The problem is that the navy has to buy ships in Canada whether Canada makes them or not. And next, the navy doesn't get to pick the shipyard who will build these in Canada. Rest of government does. That's the biggest example. But this happens across so many procurements all across government (not just the military). Speeding procurements requires a hard choice where regional employment takes a backseat. I have no idea if that will or will not come to pass. Especially if the way to pay for all this spending is many of those same workers facing service cuts or higher taxes at the same time.

- Icebreakers aren't a military matter. Whether it could fall under the terms of the NATO agreement, IDK. If you want to militarize the Coast Guard, that's another topic.

You're correct. But also icebreakers are a capability where we actually do outshine the Americans. This is a place where we can make headway. And if we need to make the Coast Guard paramilitary to make it count, we should. Personally, I have long advocated for doing this with the CCG and giving them the Search and Rescue role.

- THE CAF has difficulty recruiting now; arctic bases aren't going to help unless other issues are solved first. There is a variety of opinions, even on here, whether bases should be near cities to attract the increasingly urbanized population. Besides, what's a ice-bound refueling dock, and the folks stuck living there, going to do all winter?

Yeah. When we have problems keeping fighter pilots in Cold Lake,.....

That said to be fair, that Arctic base won't be a year round thing. They'll end up kinda like what we do for Alert where we post in rotations of 6 months. Or we end up with some kind of manning cycle where various units have an obligation to staff the place for 4 months every 2-3 years. Investing in this kind of infrastructure is another way government can keep some of that extra defence spending at home. So I really wouldn't rule it out.

- A permanent brigade in Europe would only be effective if they have modern equipment, and enough if it to sustain losses.

A permanent brigade in Europe will never be on the table. Not with the manning and manpower issues we have. What could be on the table is extra kit that we preposition there and a small permanent logistics and maintenance detachment that keeps everything running smoothly as the various battalions cycle through on their rotation of the readiness plan.

That said, we will have to discuss our army's structure finally. The 3 large brigades we have now are way too unwieldy. And yet they can't sustain a full brigade in Europe. And we lack all the enablers to actually have a fully functional independent brigade that could lead a division over there. We may need to have 4 smaller mechanized brigades and bring a small infantry brigade or large regiment to help with things like Noncombatant Evacuations. Not dissimilar to the army testing the Global Response Task Force concept. So if we do go down the path, maybe we end up buying something like 5.5 brigades worth of kit and sticking a brigades worth of kit in Europe.

 

[Admiral Beez]

And of course we must consider where can we find that $26 billion? I don't think we can increase taxes or deficits to achieve, maintain and especially exceed the 2% target.

So, some government programs are going to have to be cut. Trudeau's government significantly increased federal spending, especially on social programs (e.g., Canada Child Benefit, infrastructure, Indigenous reconciliation) and climate initiatives (e.g., carbon pricing). And then there's the Federal civil service growth at well beyond population size. Will Poilievre's government keep this spending? It's really hard to take away people entitlements once they feel entitled to them.

 

[afransen]

In some ways, it will be entertaining to watch PP eat sh*t from Trump once he's elected. That will be the only consolation I would take from it, at least.

 

[lenaitch]

You're correct. But also icebreakers are a capability where we actually do outshine the Americans. This is a place where we can make headway. And if we need to make the Coast Guard paramilitary to make it count, we should. Personally, I have long advocated for doing this with the CCG and giving them the Search and Rescue role.

Agree. If we did that, I would promote a 'white fleet -black fleet' division like the USCG has. There's still a need for research, waterway maintenance, etc. plus a constabulary role (they could inherit al of the AOPS). Sticking a gun on a boat and calling it military or paramilitary ignores a lot of command authority and liability issues.

That said, we will have to discuss our army's structure finally. The 3 large brigades we have now are way too unwieldy. And yet they can't sustain a full brigade in Europe. And we lack all the enablers to actually have a fully functional independent brigade that could lead a division over there. We may need to have 4 smaller mechanized brigades and bring a small infantry brigade or large regiment to help with things like Noncombatant Evacuations. Not dissimilar to the army testing the Global Response Task Force concept. So if we do go down the path, maybe we end up buying something like 5.5 brigades worth of kit and sticking a brigades worth of kit in Europe.

It's way above my mental paygrade but it seems there is a fair bit of debate whether our brigades should be all light, all heavy, something in between or a mix of both. Even at that, there is debate surrounding whether something like the LAV is a 'fighting vehicle' or simply a protected taxi to get ground troops to the fight. Kit needs to follow doctrine. One thing the Army is lacking in is self propelled artillery - either barrel or tube. As we have seen in Ukraine, shoot-and-run has become important.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Do we need ETO army expansion at all? Perhaps the RCAF and RCN along with domestic arctic base expansion is what’s best?

In some ways, it will be entertaining to watch PP eat sh*t from Trump once he's elected.

Agreed. Canadians need to remember that the CAF was torn to pieces under the CPC, with Harper reducing defence spending to 0.98% of GDP by 2014. It's now 1.29% of GDP (2024-2025 budget) and is forecast to increase to 1.49% of GDP by 2025-26. That's a 52% increase over what the CPC government left us in 2014. Trump won't let PM Poilievre decrease or slow the increase in defence spending without a beat-down.

So, where's PP going to find $26 billion? The annual deficit is already an incredible $40 billion (or 1/10 of a Musk), up from $500 million under Harper.

Per the budget, "since 2015, the federal government has spent over $160 billion to build Canada's clean economy and reduce emissions". Perhaps we need to roll that back.

 

[kEiThZ]

It's way above my mental paygrade but it seems there is a fair bit of debate whether our brigades should be all light, all heavy, something in between or a mix of both. Even at that, there is debate surrounding whether something like the LAV is a 'fighting vehicle' or simply a protected taxi to get ground troops to the fight. Kit needs to follow doctrine. One thing the Army is lacking in is self propelled artillery - either barrel or tube. As we have seen in Ukraine, shoot-and-run has become important.

A big problem we have is that doctrine doesn't follow policy, cause we don't generate good policy, and procurement follows industrial benefits more than doctrine. For example, we've largely procured a medium weight armoured vehicle because that's what GDLS produces. But we've not then gone on to really develop doctrine around this (which would more strictly limit how we employ these forces against a heavier adversary) because no government wants to admit publicly that there are tasks we won't take on. And then there's the question of what we really need vs what we have. If we don't have the sea and air lift to get to theatre fast enough, should we be procuring heavier vehicles? Should we buy more and preposition kit? Etc. There's questions here that politicians have been putting off answering forever. And that's part of the problem.

Per the budget, "since 2015, the federal government has spent over $160 billion to build Canada's clean economy and reduce emissions". Perhaps we need to roll that back.

Some of that money is spent. And some of that is tied to things like production tax credits for batteries. I don't think giving up thousands of jobs and the anchor for future auto sector necessarily makes sense. Ruining the economy isn't going to help pay for a higher defence budget.

 

[Admiral Beez]

With the F-35, P-8A Poseidon and A330 Multi-Role Tanker Transport aircraft now in the RCAF pipe, It’s the RCN that has the greatest opportunity to contribute new capability to NATO and deterrence. We need AIP ice-capable subs, pronto.

Canadian Navy Commander Checks Out HD HHI's Submarine Construction Capabilities - Naval News

Royal Canadian Navy Commander Angus Topshee visits Ulsan, reviews submarine construction and production facilities.

www.navalnews.com

Their submarines look good. As do Japan's.

KSS-III submarine - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Sōryū-class submarine - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Existing Submarine Designs That Could Meet Canada's Needs - MW JONES & COMPANY INC

As the Canadian Patrol Submarine Project considers how to best replace the Victoria-class and deliver the military capabilities that Canada could need in this period of great-power conflict, it might find it useful to understand how well existing platforms deliver those capabilities. Canada’s...

mwjones.com

 

[kEiThZ]

With the F-35, P-8A Poseidon and A330 Multi-Role Tanker Transport aircraft now in the RCAF pipe, It’s the RCN that has the greatest opportunity to contribute new capability to NATO and deterrence. We need AIP ice-capable subs, pronto.

The problem with getting ships is that they take a long time to get. Especially if we insist on building them in Canada. Even if we decide they will all be ordered in Korea, we're talking at least half a decade before first delivery, and 10-15 years for order completion.

On the other hand, the easiest way to spend money? Buy more of what you're buying already with contract extensions. More F-35s and P-8s is way easier than subs. And they'll reach faster too. Not enough crews? No big deal. We just fly each aircraft less. Spending will still be up. There's also obvious plays coming. Notably a Wedgetail purchase. Commonality with P-8. Commonality with a whole bunch of allies. Compatible with our new tanker. Frees up American Wedgetails to play in the Pacific. Saves a whole pile of personnel costs from all those Air Battle Managers we post to the US and Germany to operate on those AWACs. North Bay is a lot cheaper than paying thousands in foreign service premiums.

Subs will happen. But it'll take longer than most would like. There's a whole pile of issues. From personnel shortages (notably all those engineers, project managers and staff officers that everybody loves to call Headquarters bloat) because we're running so much at the same time, to complex politics of spending billions abroad, to complex geopolitics where our submarine choice forces a 40 year tight defence relationship with the winning country. Doing that outside Five Eyes is uncomfortable for the institution. And there's even less comfort with Asia, because we get almost nothing defence related from there now.

Infrastructure is probably easier politically. And easier to speed up. There's priorities. Like the new multi-billion dollar secure campus to combine operations and command centres for Space, SOF, Intelligence, etc. It's a necessary item that keeps getting punted because spending billions on a new HQ looks bad when there's so many other priorities. But if they're splashing money around, this one moves up the list quick. Right alongside a whole pile of moving for housing, rejuvenating various workshops, quarters and office buildings on all our bases. There's still buildings with no potable water in the CAF.

 

[Admiral Beez]

On the other hand, the easiest way to spend money? Buy more of what you're buying already with contract extensions.

Good point. Here’s a list of all current and future planned CAF projects.

Planned Canadian Forces projects - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Can we get some new aircraft for the Snowbirds as part of the defence spend?

 

[kEiThZ]

Can we get some new aircraft for the Snowbirds as part of the defence spend?

We've got enough parked Tutors in storage to keep the Snowbirds in business till the Heat Death of the universe.

Good point. Here’s a list of all current and future planned CAF projects.

It's a good list based on existing published requirements and projects. This list will change substantially is we are actually allocated more and are honestly working on getting real capability up.

I'll give a small but easy example. The army's "new" medium truck fleet:

Medium Support Vehicle System - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

The MilCOTS fleet was delivered 2009-2011. The SMP fleet was delivered 2018-2020. This means the MilCOTS fleet is already 15 years old on average. The SMP fleet is already 6 years old on average. There's no replacements planned yet. The intended service life in the contracts was 12 years. Combined, this is just under 2900 vehicles. It's the backbone of the military's logistics fleet.

This is an example of a problem that isn't even on the radar. We have a fleet that is expected to be substantially used off-road that is already past expected service life. And we have different fleets between regulars and reservists, which means that every time we take drivers and mechanics from the reserves to augment the regular army, they need additional training.

Planning for a replacement fleet that covers both fleets with a single type should start now. But it hasn't because there are so many other priorities. So we will use the MilCOTS fleet for 20+ years and MSVS for at least 15+ years. And this is the best case scenario.

These are the kinds of things that if real money came would end up on the project list quickly.

 

[Admiral Beez]

It looks like Japan has left the building for our SSK program.

https://www.hilltimes.com/story/202...ement-bid-for-canadian-navys-new-subs/442454/

Here's a comparison of the remaining contenders, complements of ChatGPT:

Submarine Type	Displacement	Length	Beam	Complement	Endurance	Weaponry
Shortfin Barracuda (France)	4,700 tons (surfaced)	99 meters (325 ft)	8 meters (26 ft)	60-70 personnel	45 days	6 x 533mm torpedo tubes, SCALP Naval cruise missiles, torpedoes, mines
Type 121CD/E (Germany)	3,600 tons (surfaced)	77 meters (253 ft)	8 meters (26 ft)	35-40 personnel	50+ days	6 x 533mm torpedo tubes, torpedoes, mine warfare capabilities
KSS III Batch II (South Korea)	3,900 tons (surfaced)	83.9 meters (275 ft)	9 meters (29.5 ft)	50-60 personnel	60+ days	6 x 533mm torpedo tubes, Hyunmoo missiles, torpedoes
Navantia S-80 (Spain)	3,000 tons (surfaced)	81 meters (266 ft)	7.3 meters (24 ft)	40-50 personnel	30-40 days	6 x 533mm torpedo tubes, torpedoes, mines
SAAB C71 (Sweden)	1,200 tons (surfaced)	60 meters (197 ft)	6.2 meters (20.3 ft)	20-30 personnel	14-21 days	6 x 533mm torpedo tubes, torpedoes

Here's a breakdown of the Air-Independent Propulsion (AIP) capability and near-ice capability:

Submarine Type	AIP	Near Ice Capability
Shortfin Barracuda (SSK)	Yes	No (Designed for warmer climates)
Type 121CD/E (Germany)	Yes	Yes (Capable of operating in colder waters, but not specifically Arctic)
KSS III Batch II (South Korea)	Yes	Yes (Designed for cold waters, including near-Arctic regions)
Navantia S-80 (Spain)	Yes	No (Optimized for Mediterranean and temperate climates)
SAAB C71 (Sweden)	Yes	Yes (Designed for cold-water operations, including near ice)

 

[just east of the creek]

Lots of informed postings here.

A couple of other notes.

A comprehensive bill further enabling and protecting the employment rights of those serving in the reserves, both in ‘regular’ duties and during any periods of service with the regular forces.

Housing, pay scales and other incentives to recruit and retain forces personnel was raised. This is fundamentally important.

The ending of the consistent struggles of retired forces personnel to access the services owed to them. This is a national embarrassment.

The streamlining of the procurement process.We have endured endless and disgraceful examples - fighter jets, helicopters, trucks, and pistols, which we had been trying to replace since 2011, and finally this began to happen in 2024. Program cost in the neighbourhood is 3.2 million USD.