Canadian Military News

[CaptainCrunch]

I might have to split this into multiple posts when I have time to do them. But to start with, I think there needs to be a discussion around what specifically the mission of the Canadian Forces is, because frankly its not simple.

Canada has to defend itself, and be able to actively participate in the defense of the North American Continent. Its more then just simply being able to fight a land or sea or air battle for Canada. There is the problem of geography, weather, logistics and the ability to supply an army in the field properly. What's the threat. After 9/11 we saw the decline of nation state warfare of advanced militaries who would take to the field and slug it out over lines on a map. Instead we saw the rise of asymmetrical disorganized warfare. small unit tactics, the rise of special forces and their effectiveness. At sea navy's switched from ship to ship, to ship to land and insertion of forces. In the air we saw more intelligence gathering and close in air support. With the rise of the taliban, the various Iraqi "rebel" groups and then later ISIS we saw an emphasis on hideous grinding bloody warfare. Set piece strategies went out the window as did mobility hyper fast warfare and combined arms concepts. Instead it was literally taking on the hydra. Things like drones and drone strikes and advanced satallite technology and recon took precedence. Armored vehicles and light armored vehicles lost a lot of their effectiveness.

Now things have switched in the last few years back to nation state warfare concepts. With the rise of China and their military modernization with an emphasis on coastal defense, the naval ability to blockade and control sea lanes, and offense by bombardment. Russia went through a modernization and theoretical professionalization of their military. With Ukraine though we've seen a lot of problems rise up with the quality of their equipment and training. Other nations are following the rush to pivot their military.

We've seen a lot of emphasis in 5th generation warplanes not just for their ability to defeat advanced air defenses and control the skies but to be able to get in theatre mass data. We've seen infantry force multipliers in terms of equipment. The advent of hypersonic missiles and the reinvestment of nuclear arsenals. At sea, we're seeing a new generation of submarines including Hunter Killers, Ballistic Missile and Cruise missile boats, the emphasis has also changed back to at sea naval development.

Can Canada create an armed force that can do all of these missions really well? No, but at the same time with the saying that information is everything, Canada has to create a military that can gather intelligence connected to arctic sovereignty and coastal defense, connected to the defense of their airspace both ballistically and through conventional means, and to be able to act as an effective fighting force if there is ever in theory a threat to Canada as a whole.

So the question is, what is the mandate of the Canadian Armed Forces.? Lets look at that.

First and foremost the defense of Canadian soil. Lets not have any illusions, Canada's armed forces is really designed or should be defined around the concept of holding actions. Canada doesn't have the main power or equipment to effectively fight even a holding action. The hope is to delay, inflict casualties and give up land for time and hope our allies come to our aid. However we have to understand that if someday there is an invasion of Canada, the American's might be tied up with their own concerns as any North American attack strategy is based around neutralizing and American response.

Second of all the support of our various treaties. Canada has to have a strong role that leads to a seat at the table with Norad. We have to be active participants in the defense of North American air space. We also have to due to this have strong early warning of bombers and ballistic strikes.

With Nato, its a mixed bag on deployments, NATO will request based on need, whether its fighters, trainers, ground force infantry, armor, ships to form around a battle group etc.

UN Peacekeeping. Now I think the concept doesn't work, and Canada really hasn't been active in it for a while doing very little. But the question is should Canada bother preparing for UN deployments? Or offering to fill roles?

Natural Disasters - By design the Canadian Forces should be able to handle at least two active massive events at a time on opposite coasts. However right now, Canada's military would probably struggle with one, and disaster response needs to be sharply defined.

There are other issues as well. Canada is having trouble with recruiting, beyond the rust out, and what is being seen as a poorly lead military with serious disciplinary issues and very little unit cohesion. People are leaving which is gutting our experienced NCO and officers core taking experience and leadership with it. New people aren't joining forcing us to recruit landed immigrants, the way we sell and support the forces is having a devastating effect.

Over the next few days or whatever, I'll try to address a lot of things. What's the forces mix look like? How big or small should it be. What changes have to happen due to the battlefield becoming more digital.

Right now even with the long awaited purchase of the F-35, the Canadian Forces could be looked at as dismal and failing. I'm sorry its harsh but its true. The tough Canadian Military from the 40's and 50's has slide to the we'll make due despite the cuts 60's to 70's to 80's. To the so called peace dividends of the 90's to the avalanche of neglect and poor strategic and budgeting decision of the 2000s.



I'll try to keep it short and to the point. It will come across as harsh and critical to be honest.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

Are you prepared to exit NATO then?

Canada has to be able to defend itself. That is a given.

But Canada has commitments abroad. These commitments mean Canada's military has to be able to deploy and perform in conflict zones, and to support our NATO allies. No one thought we'd see a large scale conflict in Eastern Europe again, yet here we are. What happens when the mad man invades non-NATO Finland next? Or what happens if he invades a NATO ally like Estonia?

If we focus only on "one" thing like you suggest, then Canada has to exit NATO, which would be a disaster for our security IMO.

It already really is as Canada has been excluded from information sharing and other agreements, and isn't seen as a trustworthy eye fives partner. As well after much promise, Canada has reneged on their spending in the eyes of NATO, and to extent our North American partners.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

Are you prepared to exit NATO then?

Canada has to be able to defend itself. That is a given.

But Canada has commitments abroad. These commitments mean Canada's military has to be able to deploy and perform in conflict zones, and to support our NATO allies. No one thought we'd see a large scale conflict in Eastern Europe again, yet here we are. What happens when the mad man invades non-NATO Finland next? Or what happens if he invades a NATO ally like Estonia?

If we focus only on "one" thing like you suggest, then Canada has to exit NATO, which would be a disaster for our security IMO.

I'm not sure we can effectively focus on both. I'm not advocating exiting NATO, I'm advocating focusing our military on one primary task, rendering others secondary. If our military's primary focus is supporting NATO, to me that is a different force than defending Canada. How often has our military been needed to defend this country? I'm not really pushing any directions, I'm just wondering whether we can or can't do everything with equal priority.

But if this military needs to be able to both defend itself and project itself overseas as equal focuses, I wish you all luck determining the right force configuration!

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

I'm not sure we can effectively focus on both. I'm not advocating exiting NATO, I'm advocating focusing our military on one primary task, rendering others secondary. If our military's primary focus is supporting NATO, to me that is a different force than defending Canada. How often has our military been needed to defend this country? I'm not really pushing any directions, I'm just wondering whether we can or can't do everything with equal priority.

But if this military needs to be able to both defend itself and project itself overseas as equal focuses, I wish you all luck determining the right force configuration!

Ideally its not a concept of having to do both, it never was. Its having an armed forces with the equipment and capacity of being able to pull from existing stores and personal to provide assets to NATO for example of the UN.

We don't need a separate stock of materials and an expeditionary force on call for NATO. Or separate planes to support NATO or the UN in peace keeping. We don't need designated frigates or submarines.

In theory its a give what you can.

Right now we can do neither well or at all. We don't have the readiness or the equipment to defend Canada or our shores, we don't have the up to date equipment, personal count of experienced people for deployment without significantly straining and breaking the Armed Forces.

We literally have the capacity to do none of the pillars that the Armed Forces need to do.

Outside of special forces and some specialized training cadres, we really wouldn't be an effective fighting addition to a NATO mission in Europe if that balloon drops. Our equipment is too old, rusty and out of date to survive in a modern battlefield. and there are so many holes in our equipment and weapons strategy that Canadians couldn't protect themselves at all.

Right now if NATO called a conference and Canada showed up eager to help, they'd be pretty much laughed out of the room. Or they might ask us to supply them with some meals on wheels trucks.

[Zulu29]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Ideally its not a concept of having to do both, it never was. Its having an armed forces with the equipment and capacity of being able to pull from existing stores and personal to provide assets to NATO for example of the UN.

We don't need a separate stock of materials and an expeditionary force on call for NATO. Or separate planes to support NATO or the UN in peace keeping. We don't need designated frigates or submarines.

In theory its a give what you can.

Right now we can do neither well or at all. We don't have the readiness or the equipment to defend Canada or our shores, we don't have the up to date equipment, personal count of experienced people for deployment without significantly straining and breaking the Armed Forces.

We literally have the capacity to do none of the pillars that the Armed Forces need to do.

Outside of special forces and some specialized training cadres, we really wouldn't be an effective fighting addition to a NATO mission in Europe if that balloon drops. Our equipment is too old, rusty and out of date to survive in a modern battlefield. and there are so many holes in our equipment and weapons strategy that Canadians couldn't protect themselves at all.

Right now if NATO called a conference and Canada showed up eager to help, they'd be pretty much laughed out of the room. Or they might ask us to supply them with some meals on wheels trucks.

It’s almost to the point where Canada needs to give up and just have a top notch coast guard and SAR. Retain our special forces for foreign/domestic operations and call it a day. The CF as Captain has said is completely rusted out, can’t retain/recruit people and is woefully underfunded. Stick a fork in it, it’s done.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Zulu29

It’s almost to the point where Canada needs to give up and just have a top notch coast guard and SAR. Retain our special forces for foreign/domestic operations and call it a day. The CF as Captain has said is completely rusted out, can’t retain/recruit people and is woefully underfunded. Stick a fork in it, it’s done.

This is kind of where I'm at. Reduce the expectations from full Canadian defense as well as full NATO air/land/sea support, and start paring down what we can actually do.

Very strong coast guard, reasonably strong navy, reasonably strong air force, and maybe rely on a beefed up militia/reserve for land forces. Maybe Canada doesn't actually need tanks...

[btimbit]

We already had this "We don't need tanks" conversation roughly 20 years ago. It was actually already decided that we'd get rid of them. Until we deployed them and realized just how useful they are, in a short few years we went from getting rid of every tank, to buying new ones.

I'd rather an attempt to get them back on their feet rather than giving up. I know there's no political or social will to actually properly support the armed forces, but I'd still rather hang on and hope that changes vs giving up

[Fuzz]

Maybe part of the issue is ever changing governments have too much say. Turn design of our military and expenditures over to them, with the mandate to create plans that they see the most effective use of a budget they are given. If a federal government wants to expand roles, they say "you get this much money, figure it out" and let the military run with it. Perhaps have a board with a few MP's sitting on it that rotate, but in general, the military picks what most suits the mandate. Having the government pick out every contract obviously isn't working well for us. Maybe this would take some of the politics out of it? Try something different.

[btimbit]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Maybe part of the issue is ever changing governments have too much say. Turn design of our military and expenditures over to them, with the mandate to create plans that they see the most effective use of a budget they are given. If a federal government wants to expand roles, they say "you get this much money, figure it out" and let the military run with it. Perhaps have a board with a few MP's sitting on it that rotate, but in general, the military picks what most suits the mandate. Having the government pick out every contract obviously isn't working well for us. Maybe this would take some of the politics out of it? Try something different.

Basically what Australia does. It's not perfect either, but a hell of a lot better than how we do it that's for sure

[edslunch]

I keep coming back to what is the mission, what are the threats, what is the strategy. Canada as a whole is indefensible, but most of it isn’t worth attacking either. I don’t see defending Canadian soil as a realistic requirement. Jets and surveillance on the coasts ought to do it.

A more real threat is to our sovereignty over remote and offshore resources. Can we push back if Russia or others lay claim to our Territorial waters, particularly in the arctic as it opens up. That calls for an arctic naval presence with some sort of deterrence capability.

Other than that, I believe there is value to being in NATO and standing with countries who are willing to fight for what is right. I think we do great things with training that we should continue, and we should support a small, light, but fully equipped and capable land force for potential hot spots like Eastern Europe. I think the days of peacekeeping are over though.

I agree with the previous poster(s) who said to get politics out of it. Decide what missions and threats we want to deal with, set a budget, and let the military manage it (assuming they are competent).

As an off the wall idea, could several smaller militaries band together, agree on a standard build out, and bulk purchase the necessary gear?

[CaptainCrunch]

Canada can't afford a military that can fight to defend all of Canadian soil. The idea is nothing more then slowdown and holding actions until help comes and its either Nato or America.

That day is past, we've drawn down to far and cut to deep, I'd be amazed if we can rebuild the armed forces to anything resembling a professional and capable military without a serious capital and not budget injection.

We can talk about a partial military, but the bottom line is that NATO won't keep Canada onboard if Canada doesn't show seriousness in continuing to have a capable military. Having some kind of half ass partial military based around a coast guard (which won't be able to defend the coast or arctic. You need a for real navy for that) and a small airforce, and a ground force that's incomplete and unserious, NATO will boot us at the worst and at the best keep us but are unlikely to commit to helping Canada.

The American's would be a far worse story. If we were to follow a half ass route as a permanent strategy the Americans would demand and decide to take over all North American Strategic decisions. We're talking a Canadian Armed Forces under the complete control of an American led command structure in NATO. We're talking American ground units and bases probably in the Arctic. And we're talking American naval units patrolling our shores again especially in the arctic.

If you read the book who killed the Canadian Military it described a meeting with a US president that was likely Bush Sr and a Canadian representative who was told that someday there will be a president that will get tired of an unserious partner in the defense of North America. And at that point the US will make all the decisions and won't care what Canada thinks, and they'll hold that very large trade hammer as a negotiating tool.

It doesn't matter. To me successive government have killed the Canadian Forces, its pretty much dead. The F-35's are a nice touch, but it and the porkbarrelling for Irving Future naval vessels program has shown that we're not serious.

[CaptainCrunch]

Ok a quick thought on the need for MBTs and the need.

They were very effective in asymmetrical warfare and were nearly indestructible against man portable anti-tank rockets and rounds. Their main guns were very effective as direct fire support against enemy positions and vehicles.

There's the thought that a missile armed AFV is an effective counter, and that might well have been true even up to the first 10 years of the 2000''s. But with the evolution of the improved 3rd generation battle tanks and the incoming 4th generation battle tanks. AFV's in a tank environment are incredibly vulnerable

A M1A2 main tank round can travel 3000 meters in the blink of the eye. With it advanced site and stabilization system it kills what it can see.


A Tow missile can shoot over 4500 metres. but with modern armor and the optical nature of the missile its a lower chance kill on a tank.

I looked at the recon tank and my first thought is that its basically a hybrid tank AFV Its not designed to survive in a MBT environment and is designed for infantry support and recon against light vehicles and enemy fortifications. But like the Stryker it just won't do anything particularly well.

We can point to the failure of the MBT by the Russians in the Ukraine, but that is a failure of training, tactics and the typical russian inability to have quality control in their military manufacturing.

[Monahammer]

I appreciate the level of thought being put into this, as I asked this question about the purpose of the Canadian forces in the Russia-Ukraine thread in response to a comment about being a G8 Nation and maintaining a military.

On to NATO:

What are the actual requirements for NATO participation? Here's the answer from a fact sheet prepared by the US State Department in 1997:

"NATO membership is potentially open to all of Europe's emerging democracies that share the alliance's values and are ready to meet the obligations of membership.

There is no checklist for membership.

We have made clear that, at a minimum, candidates for membership must meet the following five requirements:

--New members must uphold democracy, including tolerating diversity.

--New members must be making progress toward a market economy.

--Their military forces must be under firm civilian control.

--They must be good neighbors and respect sovereignty outside their borders.

--They must be working toward compatibility with NATO forces.

Again, while these criteria are essential, they do not constitute a checklist leading automatically to NATO membership.

New members must be invited by a consensus of current members.

Decisions to invite new members must take into account the required ratification process in the member states. In the case of the United States, decisions are made in consultation with Congress.

The key determinant for any invitation to new members is whether their admission to NATO will strengthen the alliance and further the basic objective of NATO enlargement, which is to increase security and stability across Europe."

So, I doubt we would be kicked out of NATO for changing the nature of our military. It doesn't modify any of the integral conditions laid out there. And further, that seems pretty suspect when considering how pitiful some militaries are within NATO already. Canada's land mass alone adds signficant strategic value to NATO, being able to monitor the entire northern air space, having current strategic defacto control of a large sea border with the intended opponent of NATO. If Canada wasn't going to contribute at all to a military, then I could see it be a problem, but that's not what we're actually talking about.

in 2006, NATO members made an agreement to commit 2% of their GDP to defense spending annually. There was also a lesser known commitment made to equipment expenditure within that budget. https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2...xp-2022-en.pdf

As that linked info shows, the vast majority of NATO members consistently miss those targets. So there doesn't seem to be a large desire within the alliance to punish members for not spending on military.

What if Canada started funnelling 2% of GDP exclusively into development of advanced drone manufacturing for defense purposes? Not only would this immediately catapult it into both NATO guidelines for defense spending, but could give us a technological edge on a force multiplication technology, something we desperately need as a manpower deficient nation. Our contribution to global missions wouldn't have to be manpower, instead we could continuously export this drone technology, while also building up a significant home defense.

IMO we shouldn't need to send canadian soldiers to any foreign theatre any more. We have the technology. Let's start using our technological and economic advantages here. Train a and establish elite reserve forces for domestic security purposes. Maybe for infrequent spec ops insertions with limited scope.

[Monahammer]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

I appreciate the level of thought being put into this, as I asked this question about the purpose of the Canadian forces in the Russia-Ukraine thread in response to a comment about being a G8 Nation and maintaining a military.

On to NATO:

What are the actual requirements for NATO participation? Here's the answer from a fact sheet prepared by the US State Department in 1997:

"NATO membership is potentially open to all of Europe's emerging democracies that share the alliance's values and are ready to meet the obligations of membership.

There is no checklist for membership.

We have made clear that, at a minimum, candidates for membership must meet the following five requirements:

--New members must uphold democracy, including tolerating diversity.

--New members must be making progress toward a market economy.

--Their military forces must be under firm civilian control.

--They must be good neighbors and respect sovereignty outside their borders.

--They must be working toward compatibility with NATO forces.

Again, while these criteria are essential, they do not constitute a checklist leading automatically to NATO membership.

New members must be invited by a consensus of current members.

Decisions to invite new members must take into account the required ratification process in the member states. In the case of the United States, decisions are made in consultation with Congress.

The key determinant for any invitation to new members is whether their admission to NATO will strengthen the alliance and further the basic objective of NATO enlargement, which is to increase security and stability across Europe."

So, I doubt we would be kicked out of NATO for changing the nature of our military. It doesn't modify any of the integral conditions laid out there. And further, that seems pretty suspect when considering how pitiful some militaries are within NATO already. Canada's land mass alone adds signficant strategic value to NATO, being able to monitor the entire northern air space, having current strategic defacto control of a large sea border with the intended opponent of NATO. If Canada wasn't going to contribute at all to a military, then I could see it be a problem, but that's not what we're actually talking about.

in 2006, NATO members made an agreement to commit 2% of their GDP to defense spending annually. There was also a lesser known commitment made to equipment expenditure within that budget. https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2...xp-2022-en.pdf

As that linked info shows, the vast majority of NATO members consistently miss those targets. So there doesn't seem to be a large desire within the alliance to punish members for not spending on military.

What if Canada started funnelling 2% of GDP exclusively into development of advanced drone manufacturing for defense purposes? Not only would this immediately catapult it into both NATO guidelines for defense spending, but could give us a technological edge on a force multiplication technology, something we desperately need as a manpower deficient nation. Our contribution to global missions wouldn't have to be manpower, instead we could continuously export this drone technology, while also building up a significant home defense.

IMO we shouldn't need to send canadian soldiers to any foreign theatre any more. We have the technology. Let's start using our technological and economic advantages here. Train a and establish elite reserve forces for domestic security purposes. Maybe for infrequent spec ops insertions with limited scope.

Just for a comparable example on the strategic positioning point, Iceland is noted for having no military. But it is a NATO member.

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

Just for a comparable example on the strategic positioning point, Iceland is noted for having no military. But it is a NATO member.

Iceland is about the size of Saskatoon. For them to have a military would be absurd.

They share the same values as NATO and contribute financially, so NATO would defend them in a worst case scenario.

Canada is not Iceland. Canada is a rich country (G7) and technologically advanced, and a manufacturing country. Really, Canada should be one of the leaders of NATO. We should be comparing ourselves to Italy or Spain's military - not Iceland's.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

Iceland is about the size of Saskatoon. For them to have a military would be absurd.

They share the same values as NATO and contribute financially, so NATO would defend them in a worst case scenario.

Canada is not Iceland. Canada is a rich country (G7) and technologically advanced, and a manufacturing country. Really, Canada should be one of the leaders of NATO. We should be comparing ourselves to Italy or Spain's military - not Iceland's.

Also it take 12 or so to drive around the circumference of Iceland.

It is a poor comparison, IMO

[Monahammer]

Sure, I am not saying we SHOULD compare to them, I am just stating that NATO doesn't only accept strong militaries. That's not part of the agreement. And the agreement is relatively loose, its seemingly not enforced based on the 2%/20% rule, or even on not having any military at all (in the case of iceland).

So, we need to answer what Canada's military is without NATO first. Then we can worry about NATO. But we should stop fearing basic ejection from NATO for not standing up to some unknown standard: the standard doesn't really exist, and if we are re arming, or refocusing our strength in another way it might actually be more beneficial for the overall alliance than our current contribution. What is our current contribution to NATO? Occasional JTF2 support for missions? One or two boats per armada? Our planes are too old to contribute now until we get the F-35s...

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

So, we need to answer what Canada's military is without NATO first. Then we can worry about NATO. But we should stop fearing basic ejection from NATO for not standing up to some unknown standard: the standard doesn't really exist, and if we are re arming, or refocusing our strength in another way it might actually be more beneficial for the overall alliance than our current contribution. What is our current contribution to NATO? Occasional JTF2 support for missions? One or two boats per armada? Our planes are too old to contribute now until we get the F-35s...

Canada was leading NATO's battle group in Latvia, in fact I think they still are.

yip still are:

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_136388.htm

Host nation: Latvia
Framework nation: Canada
Contributing nations: Albania, Czechia, Italy, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia and Spain

A Canada centric military carries a far too isolationist vibe for my liking.

[Zulu29]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Canada was leading NATO's battle group in Latvia, in fact I think they still are.

yip still are:

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_136388.htm





A Canada centric military carries a far too isolationist vibe for my liking.

And that’s a perfectly rational take to have but the problem is no one wants to be a soldier in Canada anymore, the military is politicized by the government of the day, it’s woefully underfunded and it’s rusted out. How does that get fixed in a reasonable time frame?

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

What if Canada started funnelling 2% of GDP exclusively into development of advanced drone manufacturing for defense purposes? Not only would this immediately catapult it into both NATO guidelines for defense spending, but could give us a technological edge on a force multiplication technology, something we desperately need as a manpower deficient nation. Our contribution to global missions wouldn't have to be manpower, instead we could continuously export this drone technology, while also building up a significant home defense.

What I like about this is the focus. We don't seem to have the resources or wherewithal to have a complete army/navy/air force that are all modern and well-maintained. If we specialized in something we might be able to make more meaningful (high technology/unique) contributions to world security. Maybe instead of drones we pick a specific ship-type or two and focus on building/selling/contributing those.