The coming $26 billion windfall for the Canadian Armed Forces. What to buy? (1 Viewer)

[GTX]

I suppose the test will be if the Poles are happy with their recent deliveries from Korea, including their new K2 Black Panther tanks, K9 Thunder self-propelled howitzers, FA-50 light combat aircraft and Chunmoo multiple rocket launch systems.

My expereince is that they promise things up front but don't always deliver after the fact. This is more to do with things such as promises for in country work.

 

[Dimlee]

South Korea seems to be on a roll recently, they've got a lot of export wins for their heavy vehicles. And for ships, they're the second largest produces of merchant ships in the world, after China, so they sure know how to churn out hulls economically (now whether that translates into competent warships is another matter).

Cooperation is key and a tested solution—hulls in one (lower-cost) location and further construction elsewhere with better expertise. I remember a successful experience of building of chemical tankers in such way.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Looks like we're going to hit the 2% NATO target by March 2026. And much less expenditures in the USA, which many Canadians will agree with.

Carney says Canada will meet 2% NATO spending target by March | CBC News

Saying that the era of the United States' dominance on the world stage is over, Prime Minister Mark Carney has committed his government to meeting the NATO benchmark target of two per cent of the country's gross domestic product by the end of the current fiscal year.

www.cbc.ca

I also expect PM Carney to sign onto achieving the coming new 5% NATO target.

 

[Crimea_River]

That would be 2026 I think.

 

[GTX]

I also expect PM Carney to sign onto achieving the coming new 5% NATO target.

Note that 5% is not yet a formal target. Even if it does become a target, it is more likely to be via a combination of 3.5% core military requirements with the rest will go towards defence and security related investments, including infrastructure and building industrial capacity. It will also not be mandatory - even the current 2% is a target, not a membership fee as some would try to imply.

i personally hate such arbitrary % of GDP targets. I would prefer countries look at actual capabilities (needed and existing) and focus on those rather than simplistic (sound bite) targets.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Note that 5% is not yet a formal target. Even if it does become a target, it is more likely to be via a combination of 3.5% core military requirements with the rest will go towards defence and security related investments, including infrastructure and building industrial capacity. It will also not be mandatory - even the current 2% is a target, not a membership fee as some would try to imply.

i personally hate such arbitrary % of GDP targets. I would prefer countries look at actual capabilities (needed and existing) and focus on those rather than simplistic (sound bite) targets.

I don't like that Carney is throwing the Coast Guard budget into the CAF expenditure column. The Canadian Coast Guard vessels are unarmed, and serve the Department of Fisheries and Ocean (DFO), not the CAF or RCN.

This unarmed CCG ship is not a naval vessel...

Now the USCG, with its gun turret could be considered thus. And I believe the USCG funding does come from the Pentagon budget.

 

[z42]

I don't like that Carney is throwing the Coast Guard budget into the CAF expenditure column. The Canadian Coast Guard vessels are unarmed, and serve the Department of Fisheries and Ocean (DFO), not the CAF or RCN.

This unarmed CCG ship is not a naval vessel...

The 2->5% bump is quite huge, and I would expect that NATO members would try to weasel all kinds of expenses into the target, in order to make it easier to achieve.

Not sure what the criterias are for what can be counted as defense related spending and what cannot, but it would make sense to have some common standards for this, to avoid needless strife due to some members counting expense X and others not.

 

[buffnut453]

And I believe the USCG funding does come from the Pentagon budget.

AFAIK, the USCG is funded by its own appropriations that are entirely separate from the defense budget.

 

[GTX]

The 2->5% bump is quite huge, and I would expect that NATO members would try to weasel all kinds of expenses into the target, in order to make it easier to achieve.

Not sure what the criterias are for what can be counted as defense related spending and what cannot, but it would make sense to have some common standards for this, to avoid needless strife due to some members counting expense X and others not.

Indeed - to put it in context, going from 2% to 5% is over a doubling of budgets. That's no small undertaking.

As for how it is measured, look here: https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_67655.htm

 

[Admiral Beez]

AFAIK, the USCG is funded by its own appropriations that are entirely separate from the defense budget.

Interesting, given the armament and sometimes Harpoon missiles fitted to their fleet.

 

[Warspite63]

AFAIK, the USCG is funded by its own appropriations that are entirely separate from the defense budget.

Agreed - I think they fall under the Treasury Department

 

[Warspite63]

Interesting, given the armament and sometimes Harpoon missiles fitted to their fleet.

View attachment 835160

I think they got caught up in the Reagan-era 600-Ship push. Offensive capabilities like SSMs have not been carried post-Cold War, AFAIK

 

[Frog]

Agreed - I think they fall under the Treasury Department

No more.
Department of Homeland Security.

 

[Warspite63]

No more.
Department of Homeland Security.

Yep. I was actually looking it up - you beat me to it

 

[Admiral Beez]

Alternatively, if showing a big middle finger to the current US president is seen as more important, damn the torpedoes full speed ahead, cancel the F-35, and then lease some smaller numbers of 4th gen fighters as a stop-gap measure while restarting the tendering?

Agreed. I think Canada had best absorb the sunk costs and any cancelation fines, and offer its F-35s to the next country in the L-M queue. Instead let's look to Europe, not necessarily for cost savings, but to keep the US at arms length. If the SAAB Gripen is good enough for NATO members Sweden, Hungary, Czech Rep and now Portugal, along with operators in the Americas (Brazil and now Columbia) it should be good enough for Canada.

This is the most plain spoken PM I can recall.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/carney ... -1.7555928

"The United States is beginning to monetize its hegemony: charging for access to its markets and reducing its relative contributions to our collective security, We will ensure every dollar is invested wisely, including by prioritizing made-in-Canada manufacturing and supply chains. We should no longer send three-quarters of our defence capital spending to America."

 

[Frog]

I think Canada had best absorb the sunk costs and any cancelation fines, and offer its F-35s to the next country in the L-M queue. Instead let's look to Europe, not necessarily for cost savings, but to keep the US at arms length. If the SAAB Gripen is good enough for NATO members Sweden, Hungary, Czech Rep and now Portugal, along with operators in the Americas (Brazil and now Columbia) it should be good enough for Canada.

This is the most plain spoken PM I can recall.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/carney ... -1.7555928

"The United States is beginning to monetize its hegemony: charging for access to its markets and reducing its relative contributions to our collective security, We will ensure every dollar is invested wisely, including by prioritizing made-in-Canada manufacturing and supply chains. We should no longer send three-quarters of our defence capital spending to America."

I believed that because of rhe territory's size, Canada would prefed a two engines fighter.

 

[Warspite63]

I believed that because of rhe territory's size, Canada would prefed a two engines fighter.

I think that was a major factor in the original CF-18 purchase. Is the modern assumption that military engines are now so reliable that single-engined aircraft are viable for Canada? After all, the F-35 is single-engined.....

 

[Admiral Beez]

I believed that because of rhe territory's size, Canada would prefed a two engines fighter.

If we want twin engines and an aircraft from outside of the US, we have only the Eurofighter and Rafale. But is that false reassurance anyway? IIRC, today's jet engined are very reliable, and if a failure damages critical systems (hydraulics, fuel lines, avionics), both engines might be intact, but the aircraft is still doomed.

SAAB will need to update its website. They were smart to leave it up.

https://www.saab.com/markets/canada/gripen-for-canada

 

[GTX]

The Fighter Engine Debate – More is not Better

If there is one recurring theme when talking fighters in Canada, it is that fighters need 2 engines for flying over the arctic. Unique to a Canadian audience, opined by people from all walks of life, the issue is set deep in the psyche of so many.

www.linkedin.com

 

[SplitRz]

Note that 5% is not yet a formal target. Even if it does become a target, it is more likely to be via a combination of 3.5% core military requirements with the rest will go towards defence and security related investments, including infrastructure and building industrial capacity. It will also not be mandatory - even the current 2% is a target, not a membership fee as some would try to imply.

i personally hate such arbitrary % of GDP targets. I would prefer countries look at actual capabilities (needed and existing) and focus on those rather than simplistic (sound bite) targets.

Really?

It seems to me that GDP seems about the fairest way possible to define a proportionate minimum contribution without penalising poorer countries by expecting them to spend beyond their means, or allowing them to ponce-off of or hide behind wealthier ones who chose to spend more.

And why do you assume its an arbitrary figure? Its based upon collective deployable and available force - and the equivalent of the most likely enemies.

As for the membership fee analogy - if you're a member of a club that looks after all its members, members in this case prepared to make the ULTIMATE sacrifice on behalf of all and any other member, its seems utterly logical and fair that there are some basic rules and expectations of reciprocity. Of course that might mean a country with a lower level of industrial strength might chose to spend its money on infantry rather than state of the art tech, but surely that kind of flexibility and horses for courses is one of the prime strengths of being in and part of an alliance which can develop an integrated strategy which plays to the differences and abilities of its constituent members?