Prime Minister Carney Promises New Equipment for the Canadian Army

The Canadian Army is looking to purchase self-propelled howitzers (US DoD photo)

By Tim Ryan

Prime Minister Mark Carney outlined his defence plan for Canada and if it is to be believed, there is potential for the Canadian Army to benefit significantly.

Carney is promising to re-equip the Army as well as provide new systems for the air force and navy.

The Army has received, so far, a limited number of new systems, mostly for the Latvia mission. For instance, Defence Minister Bill Blair announced Feb. 16, 2025 that the Canadian Forces would be receiving Switchblade loitering munitions systems in a $67 million deal. The weapons are being purchased from AeroVironment Inc of Arlington, Virginia.

Canada will acquire the Switchblade 300 and Switchblade 600 loitering munitions systems for its troops in Latvia.

Another smaller equipment deal announced last year, noted that the Army would receive the Thales Sophie Ultima long-range handheld thermal imagers for its soldiers.

In a series of policy announcements during the federal election campaign in March, Carney’s defence plan noted the following: “Support the Canadian Army with significant new investments, such as new self-propelled artillery systems and ground-based air defence capabilities so that the CAF have the capacity to operate in today’s context.”

Here are some details that are known at this point:

SELF PROPELLED ARTILLERY

In March it was reported that the Canadian government had started the procurement process for the Indirect Fires Modernisation (IFM) program. That news was prompted by the issuing of a Request for Information to defence firms for the project which would see the acquisition of between 80 and 98 self-propelled 155mm howitzers. Also to be purchased would be new mortars. The cost of the project could run as high as $5 billion.

Here are some of the details from the RFI:

--The project deliverables include 155mm self-propelled artillery systems, vehicle-integrated mortar systems, operational stock and training munitions, support vehicles, fire control systems, communications equipment, individual and collective training, and integrated logistics support (ILS). The project scope also includes major investments in new infrastructure to ensure adequate facilities to store, train and maintain the new fleet.

--Potential locations for infrastructure investment include: Shilo, Manitoba, Petawawa, Ontario, Meaford, Ontario, Valcartier, Quebec and Gagetown, New Brunswick.

--The Indirect Fires Modernization project scope is considering two quantitative capability levels, each with two qualitative capability levels, for government decision making regarding a funding allocation for the project. The deliverables associated with this recommendation will include:  80 to 102 Self Propelled, 52-calibre 155mm Howitzers.

--Also part of the project are Mortar Systems: 99 x 120mm Mortar Systems integrated into an 8x8 Armoured Combat Support Vehicle, 85 x 81mm Mortar Systems integrated into a Light Tactical Vehicle or 133 x 81mm Mortar Systems integrated into a Light Tactical Vehicle.

--Additional support vehicles will be acquired for this project to serve as ammunition carriers, command posts and command reconnaissance functions. These may be sourced through existing and future contracts to maintain commonality within the Canadian Army fleet.

--Fire Control Systems will be integrated into the Canadian Army’s future fires C2 solution that to ensure commonality within the Fire Direction Cells enabling full connectivity to fire platforms within the army inventory including Long Range Precision Strike, 155mm artillery and mortars. The Fire Control System at the detachment level is supported with orientation and fixation hardware that will enable the platform to accurately engage targets in GPS-denied and degraded environments.

--Communications hardware will include Fire Control Panels and Displays to enable fire control functions and the integration of the Army’s future battle management system. Also required will be Type 1 Encrypted Multi-Channel, Software Defined, VHF radios with required install kits, cabling, intercoms and headsets to enable C2 connectivity from howitzer and mortar detachments to command posts.

--Training and Simulation functions to enable weapon system operator and maintainer trainer at the unit level, to include the capability to complete familiarization training with non-geographically co-located army reserve units and digital twinning. Initial cadre training for operators, supervisors, maintainers (vehicle chassis, weapon system, electro- optical technicians.

--Next generation 155mm precision guided munitions would be looked as well as new operational and/or training munitions required for the 120mm/81mm capability

--When it comes to mobility the requirement is to come into action to engage a target in less than one minute. Operational driving range of 450 km and road speed up to 80km/h would be required. The system must be transportable by CC-17.

--For a “Shoot and Scoot” capability one battery of six howitzers must engage a target with a minimum of 96 rounds and come out of action in less than a total of three minutes. Platforms must have the ability to fire to engage indirect targets while on the move. They must use common and interchangeable munitions that are in-service in the Canadian Army (i.e.M795) with the United States, and other NATO allies.

--The system requirements for mortar systems could include but are not limited to: a light tactical vehicle integrated 81mm mortar system and an 8x8 Armoured Combat Support Vehicle equipped with a 120mm mortar weapon system.

GROUND BASED AIR DEFENCE

Carney’s promise of Ground Based Air Defence dovetails on a project already on the Army’s books.

In 2022, Esprit de Corps reported that after years of being without a ground-based air defence, the Canadian Armed Forces was ready to begin the process to acquire a system capable of shooting down enemy aircraft, missiles and drones. The Liberal government originally outlined the proposed purchase in its 2018 defence capability plan. At that point, the government stated such a ground-based air defence system would cost between $250 million and $499 million.

But, even before the procurement process had begun in earnest, that price tag has increased to what observers are saying is a more realistic cost estimate. During an April 5, 2022 briefing in Ottawa, Canadian Army officials told defence industry representatives the cost would now be between $500 million and $1 billion.

At that point, a contact was expected to be awarded in 2026 and the first systems would be in place a year later, industry officials were told. Interestingly, Army officers consider the main threats the new system would be used to deal with are rocket, artillery and mortar munitions, air to surface missiles and bombs, and remotely piloted aircraft systems.

During that April 5 briefing, industry officials were informed the system would also be able to target cruise missiles, helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft. The new system wouldn’t be capable of dealing with larger weapons, such as theatre ballistic missiles or intercontinental ballistic missiles.

That was in 2022. Fast forward to December 2024 with an altered GBAD procurement.

The Canadian Armed Forces set out to prioritize its efforts to focus on getting air defence as quickly as possible for its troops in Latvia and the region (Operation Reassurance). So it has now restructured its GBAD initiative into different phases.

Industry officials were briefed that Canada intends to first address Operation Reassurance’s urgent need for a short-range air defence system that will be able to deal with incoming rockets, artillery and mortar rounds. It will continue to work with companies on the technical details for the new equipment. “The intention is to procure a nearly Military Off The Shelf system with very little Canada specific modifications and changes,” added the government message to companies.

Canada has already acquired man-portable surface-to-air missiles for the Latvia mission.

Once the purchase of the short-range air defence battery for Latvia is completed (phase 1), the procurement team will then turn its attention to the purchase of more extensive ground-based air defence systems for the rest of the military as outlined in phases 2 and 3, noted an article in the Ottawa Citizen.

DND spokesperson Nick Drescher Brown explained some of the key points of the phased process:

--“The introduction of Phase 1 represents an additional Battery of SHORAD equipment, but the high-level requirements of this system remain the same.  The requirement refinement process for Phase 1 will focus on Military Off the Shelf systems that are readily available to support OP REASSURANCE, which may result in a different capability than that which will be defined for the enduring solutions of Phases 2 and 3.”

--"Breaking the project into phases was necessary to address the army's priority. Breaking the project into phases  and accelerating the Phase 1 procurement will result in a better alignment with the army's immediate priorities while maintaining the integrity of the original GBAD project scope so that the project can balance the needs of OP REASSURANCE (Phase 1)  with a focus on best value and long term sustainment for the army's enduring GBAD capability (Phase 2 and 3).

-“Project resources will resume Phase 2 definition work once the Phase 1 RFP is released for tender.  The Phase 2 schedule will be further refined as part of industry engagements.  The project cost range for Phases 2 and 3 combined remain within the $500M - 1B previously advertised. The sequencing of Phase 3 follows the same rationale as that for Phase 2 and therefore still being refined.”

In addition, the cost has increased. This time it is from $1 billion to $1.5 billion.

What remains to be seen is whether Carney’s new government will follow this strategy or change the procurement once again to bring to fruition his election promise.

WHAT ELSE DOES THE ARMY NEED?

Ongoing projects on the books include the “Tank life extension.” That aims to reset and improve the Canada’s Main Battle Tank fleet in order to meet future operating requirements and threats. The project will improve protection, improve Surveillance and Target Acquisition, improve Human Factors, improve Firepower (RWS, ammunition, potentially main armament) and improve Command, Control and Communications (C3) architecture.

The Army has a limited budget for this project of around $850 million.

If Carney is serious about defence he could boost that budget and move more quickly on outstanding Army procurement programs.

ADDITIONAL READING:

https://www.espritdecorps.ca/feature/canadian-forces-air-defence-procurement-moves-forward-dnd-says

https://www.espritdecorps.ca/feature/does-the-canadian-army-have-an-alternative-to-buying-himars

Put Canadian Defence Systems into the Canadian Surface Combatant

There is growing concern about the lack of Canadian-made equipment on board the Canadian Surface Combatants (Lockheed Martin supplied image)

By Tim Ryan

The erratic behaviour of U.S. President Donald Trump is starting to raise concerns about the Royal Canadian Navy’s largest shipbuilding program – the Canadian Surface Combatant.

The CSC will see 15 ships built to replace the Halifax-class frigates but major storms are already appearing on the horizon. Most of the key elements of the CSC warships are U.S.-built and U.S. controlled. Canadian suppliers and Canadian defence companies have little presence on the estimated $100 billion program.

The Ottawa Citizen revealed Feb. 14, 2025 that defence industry officials have raised warnings about the level of American control and the possibility the Americans will hold this country hostage over future upgrades or even the provision of spare parts for the Canadian Surface Combatants.

Retired Vice Admiral Mark Norman, the former commander of the Royal Canadian Navy, has sounded the alarm that having an American-controlled command system running Canada’s new warships poses a serious risk, particularly at a time when the U.S. is openly hostile to this country.

The U.S. already controls much of the technology used by the Canadian military, but previously that was not seen as an issue as the Americans were viewed as close allies, the Ottawa Citizen reported. But, with Trump in office, the situation has radically changed. The American president has talked about seizing Greenland and the Panama Canal as well as destroying Canada’s economy and making it into the 51st state. Trump’s America has also become significantly closer to Russia and there are growing concerns about whether NATO will survive a Trump presidency.

There are a number of concerns about the lack of Canadian equipment on the CSCs but the key one centers on the command management system, which controls weapons, radars and other intelligence-gathering equipment. Originally that high-tech system on board the CSCs was supposed to be Canadian-made and under the full control of the Canadian government.

But that system was switched out for made-in-the-U.S. technology called Aegis, allowing the Americans full control.

Vice Admiral Norman took to social media Feb. 14 to denounce the move as a “real and serious risk.”

“Even if everything was rosy and there was no risk, we’ve given up any down-stream autonomy in pursuit of a less capable system,” Norman wrote on X about the U.S.-built Aegis. “Someone needs to answer for this.”

Norman questioned whether Canada should move as soon as possible to using a new command system for the CSC fleet that is not under American control.

But the Department of National Defence and the Royal Canadian Navy has rejected that option. “While the Government of Canada is closely monitoring the trade situation in the United States, Canada’s procurement of the AEGIS system through the US government is proceeding as planned,” DND spokesperson Kened Sadiku stated in an email.

How did all of this come about?

When the CSC team was unveiled in November 2017, Lockheed Martin Canada, a subsidiary of the U.S. defence giant, highlighted that its proposal included the Canadian-built command and control system known as CMS-330. The firm pointed out that the maximum focus was to get Canadian content on the new warships.

But DND spokesperson Sadiku explained to the Ottawa Citizen that shortly after the design selection and contract were awarded for the CSC in 2019, it was only then that discussions began in earnest. It was soon realized that the Canadian-made equipment that had been contracted for was a “suboptimal solution and introduced significant developmental, cost and schedule risk,” he claimed.

Further discussions were held with industry and government officials and it was decided to instead use the Aegis system from the U.S. “This was assessed as a vital and very significant risk reduction decision,” Sadiku stated.

Glenn Copeland, general manager, Lockheed Martin Canada Rotary and Mission Systems, noted in an emailed statement that Canada chose the Aegis system in a government-to-government transaction with the U.S. The statement pointed out the Aegis system was being used on the surface combatants and would be combined with a tactical interface being derived from the CMS-330.

But let’s examine the official DND/Canadian Forces claim made to the Ottawa Citizen. The DND and Canadian government picked the Lockheed Martin proposal but then realized what had been proposed was “suboptimal.”

This raises significant concerns about how the actual evaluation of bids was done. It would seem like the proper examination of the proposals wasn’t done effectively. And if the Lockheed Martin bid had elements that, in retrospect, were “suboptimal” then why wasn’t the contract cancelled?

The problem about the U.S. control over CSC systems and the lack of Canadian equipment on board the warships had been flagged before.  The Ottawa Citizen reported in December 2020 that Canadian defence industry officials had previously warned Jody Thomas, then the deputy minister at DND, and Bill Matthews, then deputy minister at the procurement department, about the potential dangers of U.S.-controlled technology and the lack of Canadian content onboard the CSCs.

Officials with various firms had been complaining to politicians and media outlets that the Canadian Surface Combatant project has fallen far short on its promises of creating domestic employment. There was little work for Canadian firms, besides Irving shipbuilding.

But Thomas told the executives that they are hindering the project and she characterized their efforts as being those of sore losers. “I think there’s still too much noise from unsuccessful bidders that makes my job and Bill’s job very difficult,” she said, referring to Matthews, deputy minister at Public Services and Procurement Canada.

Interestingly, that the now retired Thomas seems to have a different view. During an interview with CBC The Current on April 1, 2025, Thomas stated that more emphasis should be placed on buying Canadian systems, instead of American equipment. “We obviously need to be interoperable with the United States,” she said. “NATO is interoperable with the United States, but we don't need to be quite as integrated as we are.”

“I also think we need to see where we're going to invest in Canadian capacity in Canadian industry,” she added in her CBC interview. “We're never going to have the defence industrial base that the United States has, but we do have some niche areas where we are really, really technically advanced, and I think that's where we should be investing in Canadian technology and anywhere where we can see an opportunity to accelerate existing programs.”

One of those niche areas, according to domestic firms, is the CMS-330.

The CMS-330 technology was so successful that it was installed on board Canada’s Arctic and Offshore Patrol Ships, Halifax-class frigates and the new joint supply ships being built. CMS-330 technology is also on Chilean and New Zealand navy ships.

Germany, Portugal and Taiwan are also considering purchasing the CMS-330 systems, according to a Jan. 29, 2025 report from Janes, the international defence publication.

It is unclear why Canada and other nations are still keen to use the CMS-330 technology despite the DND’s claim that the equipment is “sub-optimal.”

CMS-330 is not the only unique piece of Canadian-built equipment that won’t be going into the CSCs.

A number of Canadian firms repeatedly tried to warn ministers and deputy ministers at the Department of National Defence, Public Services and Procurement Canada as well as Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada that they were being shut out of the Canadian Surface Combatant project.

Those concerns were ignored. Instead, Canada left it up to the winning consortium, in this case, the U.S.-controlled Lockheed Martin Canada and BAE of the United Kingdom to determine the equipment that would make up key components of the CSC fleet.

By selecting the consortium’s Type 26 warship design for the CSC, the Royal Canadian Navy automatically agreed to what Lockheed Martin had determined was the best equipment for it to use.

At the time, the DND defended its choice that shut out inclusion on the CSC of Canadian-made propulsion systems, sonar and communication systems, as well as radar. The Canadian-based firms that build those systems employ hundreds of people in the high-tech sector.

“By selecting the design, Canada has selected the associated equipment,” DND spokeswoman Jessica Lamirande said at the time. She noted DND is “confident that we have competitively selected the best design to meet Canada’s needs.”

As a result, a radar built by Lockheed Martin in the U.S., which in 2020 hadn’t yet been certified for naval operations, is going to be installed on the CSC. Passed over was a state-of-the art naval radar developed with the help of Thales Canada in Nepean. Canadian taxpayers contributed $54 million to the development of that radar, which is now being used on German, Danish and Dutch warships.

Also shut out of the CSC competition was SHINCOM, a naval communications system built by DRS Technologies of Ottawa and considered one of the top such systems in the world, according to the Ottawa Citizen. SHINCOM is in service on other Royal Canadian Navy vessels as well as 150 warships of allied navies around the world, including Australia, the U.S., Japan, New Zealand and South Korea. It was originally developed for Canada’s Halifax-class frigates and Canadian taxpayers have poured millions of dollars into its development.

Steve Zuber, then vice president of DRS Technologies, wrote on Aug. 31, 2016 to alert then innovation minister Navdeep Bains that the way the CSC procurement was designed would work against Canadian firms. “The CSC procurement approach may actually disadvantage Canadian companies,” Zuber warned. “The current evaluation approach puts our world-class Canadian solutions at serious risk of not being selected for Canada.”

General Dynamics Missions Systems Canada also tried to warn government officials in November 2019 that the lack of competition shut out high-tech Canadian systems developed over the years with both private and tax dollars. Company vice president David Ibbetson told then navy commander Vice Adm. Art McDonald, DND deputy minister Jody Thomas, PSPC deputy minister Bill Matthews and ISED deputy minister Simon Kennedy about the lack of competition on the CSC anti-submarine warfare systems. That resulted in a “largely foreign solution with only limited Canadian content,” he warned.

Bureaucrats at ISED pushed back against such concerns by pointing out that the CSC program will include equipment from other firms such as L-3 and CAE in Quebec and MDA in B.C. Lockheed Martin has also committed to invest in priority areas such as cybersecurity, clean technology and the marine sector, innovation minister Bains was told.

Then there was the issue in November 2019 when the Lockheed Martin Canada executive responsible for delivering on the industrial commitments admitted the system had major problems. Walt Nolan said the policy the Canadian government developed had prompted defence firms to significantly overcommit on the jobs and industry benefits they claim they can deliver on the CSC.

Fast forward to 2025 where the failure by federal bureaucrats to heed the warnings about U.S. equipment on board CSC have now come home to roost.

But some defence industry executives say changes can still be made. Canada has only committed to the first three CSCs.  With the remaining 12 ships there should be a concerted effort to buy Canadian, they argue. Failing to do so will continue to allow a key Canadian military asset under the full control of the U.S., an ally that can no longer be fully trusted.

In an April 8, 2025 opinion article in the Globe and Mail, political scientists Jamie Levin and Simon Pratt called on the Canadian government to use a Canadian command and control system for the CSCs as well as weapons systems built by domestic or non-U.S. foreign companies. “The ink is barely dry on Canada’s naval outfitting contract with Lockheed Martin, and there is still time to back out,” they wrote.

(With files from David Pugliese)

Additional reading:

https://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/defence-watch/too-much-noise-on-canadian-warship-program-dnd-deputy-minister-admonishes-industry-executives

https://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/defence-watch/top-of-the-line-canadian-made-naval-equipment-shut-out-of-70-billion-warship-program

https://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/defence-watch/u-s-system-canadas-war-ships

Is Canada’s F-35 Program Ready To Crash And Burn?

By Tim Ryan

The F-35 file is heating up courtesy of U.S. President Donald Trump.

Trump, as Esprit de Corps readers known, has been threatening to annex Canada and destroy our economy.

The Liberal government has been mobilizing its response to the increasingly erratic U.S. president and American efforts to undercut Canada’s sovereignty.

One of those potential responses could mean the end of Canada’s F-35 program or at least a significant scaling back of that military acquisition.

The Liberal government announced Jan. 9, 2023 that it would purchase 88 F-35s in a project that will cost $19 billion. National Defence officials also confirmed the full life-cycle cost for the F-35 project would eventually tally $70 billion.

Canada does not expect to receive its first F-35 fighter jet until 2026. Full operational capability for Canada’s F-35s is set for around 2032.

The first 16 fighter jets have been paid for.

But Prime Minister Mark Carney noted on March 17 at a news conference in London, England that after that, all options are open. “The fact is that under the contract, as you may know, that after a certain number of purchases, then we have options on subsequent aircraft,” he said.

“Given the geopolitical environment, given the fact that there are options, given the need for value for money, given the possibility of having substantial production of alternative aircraft in Canada – as opposed to sending, as we have been, on average, 80 cents of every dollar to the United States – it’s prudent and in the interest of Canada to review those options,” Carney added.

“Full disclosure: this is one of the discussions I had both in Paris and in the U.K.,” he said. “Given our security posture in Europe, given potential steps in Ukraine, given our own security needs, that diversification of our suppliers in a way that ensures that as much as possible of that production resides in Canada and benefits Canadians in multiple ways, is a prudent thing to do.”

Defence Minister Bill Blair. Blair also revealed March 14 to CBC that Canada is actively looking at potential alternatives to the F-35 and will hold conversations with rival aircraft makers.

Blair says the focus is on what is best for Canadian interests and the defence of country. He noted that conversation is taking place inside the Canadian Forces. "It was the fighter jet identified by our air force as the platform that they required, but we are also examining other alternatives — whether we need all of those fighter jets to be F-35," Blair told host CBC David Cochrane.

"The prime minister has asked me to go and examine those things and have discussions with other sources, particularly where there may be opportunities to assemble those fighter jets in Canada," Blair said.

That sounds like there may be interest in the Gripen fighter jet from Saab. As part of its pitch, Saab had offered to build the jets in Canada. The F-35, in contrast, is built in the U.S.

In the fighter jet competition that Canada held several years ago, the Gripen scored higher points when it came to industrial benefits for domestic industry. The Gripen also scored higher than the F-35 in long-term maintenance costs.

But Royal Canadian Air Force leaders had wanted the F-35 since the aircraft was first developed and their view prevailed. (Some analysts have suggested the procurement was biased.)

Now with the U.S. becoming the main threat to Canada’s sovereignty, the RCAF support for the F-35 no longer makes sense.

But questions remain. Is the review announced by Bill Blair going to have any real substance? Blair has declined to release a timeline for the exercise, which is not a good sign.

Blair, himself, is considered a weak minister who has not challenged the status quo. And he has downplayed the Trump threat. “Clearly, he’s joking,” Blair  said Dec. 10 when Trump started in on his push to make Canada the 51st state.

Even as late as Feb. 12, 2025, Blair was dismissing Trump’s threats as rhetoric. “We’ve assured all of our allies we’re prepared to stand up for our country,” Blair stated. “I do not believe that represents a real threat to us.”

The situation has obviously changed.

Equally disturbing is that Blair has also entrusted the F-35 review to the Canadian Forces/RCAF leadership, the same organizations that lobbied for the stealth fighter jet in the first place. Isn’t that like leaving the fox in charge of the hen house?

Some analysts are suggesting the review is simply a public relations exercise to placate angry Canadians who are questioning why their hard-earned tax dollars are going to support American high-tech aerospace jobs.

But it could be that Carney wants to send a strong message to the Americans by dumping the F-35.

If so, it would just be yet another twist in the controversial F-35 saga in Canada. The Liberal government originally committed funding to the development of the aircraft, but did not actually commit to purchasing the stealth fighter. When the Conservative government took over they pushed the F-35 option.

At a high-profile news conference in 2010, featuring then-defence minister Peter Mackay sitting in the cockpit of a F-35 mock-up, the Stephen Harper government announced it was purchasing the plane. But increasing costs and technical problems dogged the F-35 program. In a 2012 interview with CBC, Conservative MP Chris Alexander claimed the government had never said it would buy F-35s. But Alexander claims were dismissed and roundly mocked as footage existed clearly showing the Conservatives stating they were buying the aircraft. In the end, Alexander seemed to only succeed in undercutting his own credibility.

During the 2015 election campaign, Justin Trudeau vowed his government would never purchase the F-35. As prime minister, Trudeau continued to point out the Canadian military had no need for the F-35 and he blamed the Conservatives for agreeing to purchase a problem-plagued fighter jet, the Ottawa Citizen reported. But, with the 2023 announcement, the Liberals not only committed to the acquisition, but also increased the number of jets to be bought to 88 from the 65 the Conservatives had wanted, the newspaper added.

With Canada entering an election shortly, will the so-called review just be another paper exercise?

Reporting by Bloomberg News on March 17 also raised another issue—what are the consequences of dropping the F-35?

“Canceling the F-35s might be a good idea, but we need to think about it,” Bombardier Chief Executive Officer Eric Martel told a business audience in Montreal. “We have contracts with the Pentagon. Will there be reciprocity there?”

(Martel was thinking of his own firm, which has contracts with the Americans, but other Canadian firms are also in the same boat).

Does the Canadian Army Have An Alternative To Buying HIMARS?

Canada's military leadership is pushing for a sole source deal for the U.S.-built High Mobility Artillery Rocket System or HIMARS but the country has other non-American alternatives. (U.S. Dept. of Defense photo).

By David Pugliese

In mid-March I wrote an article for the Ottawa Citizen about how Canada’s military leadership was pushing for yet another sole source deal for American equipment. This initiative was underway despite U.S. President Donald Trump’s vow to economically damage Canada and eventually annex it as the 51st state.

The Canadian Forces wants the Liberal government to purchase the U.S.-built High Mobility Artillery Rocket System or HIMARS, prompting concern from defence industry officials representing domestic as well as non-U.S. companies.

Ukraine has been using HIMARS in combat against Russian forces but Trump was recently able to reduce the effectiveness of the weapon system by limiting the flow of data and intelligence needed for its operations. (that situation has now been reversed).

The plan being proposed by the Canadian Forces senior leadership would see the purchase of a number of HIMARS built by Lockheed Martin. The sole source deal could be handled through a Foreign Military Sale in which Canada would receive the equipment direct from the U.S. government.

Asked why it was considering a HIMARS purchase from a country that was threatening to annex Canada, Department of National Defence spokesman Kened Sadiku responded in an email that “the Long-Range Precision Strike (Land) project will significantly enhance Canada’s defence capabilities, both domestically and abroad.”

“This project is progressing well and we are expecting to share additional details in the coming months,” Sadiku added in his email.

A 2024 Canadian Forces briefing on the Long Range Precision Fires project noted that the acquisition of the equipment could be worth up to $4.99 billion. The project would involve purchasing launchers, fire control software, munitions and spare parts.

Canadian defence suppliers have warned that the push by the Canadian Forces to buy American equipment has provided little benefit for domestic firms. One industry representative stated that the Canadian Forces efforts to acquire yet another piece of U.S. equipment shows just how “tone deaf” the military leadership is to the growing anger among Canadians who are disgusted by the U.S. attempts to take over our country.

Defence analyst Steffan Watkins took to the X social media platform to point out that he thinks the HIMARS sale is a done deal. He noted that the Royal Canadian Air Force has been practicing moving U.S. Marines HIMARS around since November 2024.

But are there non-U.S. alternatives to HIMARS? Of course there are.

Here are two of those:

PULS (Precise and Universal Launching System)

The multiple rocket launcher was developed by Israel’s ELBIT systems.

Elbit has also joined forces with Germany’s KNDS to develop a variant of the system for the European market. One of the ideas was to use U.S. HIMARs and GMLRS weapons for the system but Defense News reported last year that Lockheed Martin blocked that initiative. (The company would prefer customers simply order its HIMARS).

Variants of PULS are in service or on order by Thailand, Spain, the Royal Danish Army, and the Royal Netherlands Army. In cases like Spain, the systems are being built domestically.

In January 2025, Israeli news media reported that Serbia had purchased the PULS. On Feb. 6, 2025, Elbit Systems Ltd. announced it had been awarded a contract valued at approximately $57 million to supply its PULS Rocket Launcher Artillery Systems to the German Armed Forces.

Under the contract, Elbit Systems, in collaboration with KNDS Deutschland, will deliver rocket artillery systems, including the development of associated adaptations and the integration of German C4I equipment (such as command and weapons control systems). These rocket launcher systems will undergo test procedures performed by the German procurement agency BAAINBw and associated technical test centers to achieve approval for in-service use in the German Armed Forces. The systems will also be supported through in-service support, according to Elbit.

K239 Chunmoo

This South Korean rocket artillery system developed in 2013 and is in service with militaries in South Korea, Poland, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. It is self-propelled wheeled and is capable of launching various calibres of rockets.

South Korea has specialized in quickly delivering the systems. Poland was to have bought 212 of the systems but it upped the number to 290. The first 18 were delivered two years ago. The rest are to be delivered by 2027.

K239 Chunmoo combines mobility of M142 HIMARS and firepower of the M270 MLRS, according to GlobalSecurity.org. Depending on the type of missiles the range varies from 80 kilometres to 290 kilometres.

Estonia is considering K239 Chunmoo, built by Hanwha Aerospace, because of ongoing delays with HIMARS, South Korean news media reported Feb. 25, 2025. While Estonia continues negotiations with Lockheed Martin over delivery timelines, the possibility of turning to Hanwha Aerospace could materialize, given that Poland and other nations have opted for Chunmoo due to its delivery speed and after-sales support, the Chosun Daily reported.

“I would like to speak [with the U.S. government] to ask, are they ready to speed up the production, or are they ready to give us earlier [production] slots?” Estonia’s defense minister Hanno Pevkur said in an interview with Breaking Defense at a conference in Munich on Feb. 15. “Because the information we’ve gathered today clearly shows that delivery time is very long and we don’t have so much time.”

That is where the K239 Chunmoo comes in but whether the order materializes remains to be seen.

Trump’s Threats Divides Ranks of Retired Canadian Military Officers

U.S. President Donald Trump represents one of the most dangerous threats to Canada in decades (US Dept. of Defense photo)

By Tim Ryan

U.S. President Donald Trump has been clear – he doesn’t believe Canada is a viable country and he wants to annex our nation. Trump advocates that Canada would become the 51st U.S. state.

In the course of a few weeks, Trump’s ongoing campaign to absorb Canada has erased decades of close co-operation between the two nations. The U.S. is no longer Canada’s closest ally.

According to a new poll released Feb. 20,  more than a quarter of Canadians now see the United States as an “enemy” nation.

Trump’s claims about Canada’s worthless military shows what he truly believes of the sacrifice this country has made in supporting the U.S. Just aiding the Americans in Afghanistan alone cost Canada more than $20 billion, 159 lives and more than 2,000 wounded. With his dismissive words Trump dumped that legacy into the garbage.

Retired Vice Admiral Mark Norman has become a breath of fresh air to counter those who continue to make excuses for Trump and claim that Canada is getting what it deserves.

Writing in the National Post on Feb. 14, Norman told it like it is- Canada is under attack by the U.S. and has to act accordingly. “When the leader of our closest neighbour, ally and trading partner says that he can destroy us with the stroke of a pen — and repeats his willingness to do so — it is more than just an expression of perceived superiority or hyperbole, it’s a real threat,” Norman wrote. “To dismiss it as anything less would be irresponsible and naive.”

The U.S.-Canada relationship is kaput. Canada, Norman argued, must focus on moving on. But also, it should not sit back and let the U.S. continue to try to destroy our nation. “This may need to include otherwise previously unthinkable actions such as shutting off our oil and gas, electrical power and critical supplies, as well as the abandonment of historic diplomatic and military relationships and commitments,” Norman pointed out.

But Trump has his supporters among the retired Canadian military ranks.

Retired Lt. Gen. Andrew Leslie took to X on Feb. 19 to question why Canada was not fixing “the things that are causing US angst?” He included border security, defence and the trade imbalance in that list. “It’s not that hard,” Leslie claimed.

That prompted Globe and Mail columnist Andrew Coyne to question why Canada should give into Trump’s threats: “Why are ex-military guys counselling surrender?” Coyne asked on X.,

Globe and Mail columnist Gary Mason was equally blunt about Leslie’s remarks. “Not that hard? What an idiotic thing to say,” Mason stated. “As if any of that would make a difference to someone intent on annexing this country. Just a brutally ignorant statement.”

Retired Gen. Rick Hillier went on X Feb. 15 to complain about Canada and throw his weight behind Trump supporter Kevin O’Leary’s proposal for a common dollar, integrated border and immigration requirements and common economic approaches with the U.S.

That earned Hillier both support and hatred, including from some Canadians who suggested he was a traitor.

Some compared Hillier’s response in negative terms to Norman’s patriotic take.

Hillier also took to social media to admonish angry Canadians for booing the U.S. national anthem at hockey games. But Canadians were in no mood to be lectured. They pushed back, labelling Hillier as a U.S. lackey.

Tobi Lutke, who co-founded Shopify, also got raked over the coals for claiming that Canadians want their government to support Trump’s initiatives. “Win by helping American win,” Lutke claimed.

Trump has only continued to insult Canada. “They don’t have military protection, and you take a look at what’s going on out there, people are in danger” he claimed. “They need our protection.”

Neither Leslie nor Hillier addressed those insults towards the Canadian Forces.

Trump suggested his good friend, Canadian hockey legend Wayne Gretzky, could even become governor of the annexed country. Gretzky’s silence in the wake of Trump’s ongoing attacks on Canada didn’t earn him much respect. He was denounced by some of his fellow Canadians as a traitor who has spent too much time in the U.S.

A petition was started to rename Wayne Gretzky Drive in Edmonton.

“It feels a little bit embarrassing how desperate we are to try and hang on to him like the Canadian hockey legend when he doesn't want anything to do with Canada,” said Grant Prete who is spearheading the renaming effort.

While it might seem that Trump’s brand of bullying will eventually disappear when the president leaves office, Canadians shouldn’t be counting on that. Like all great empires, the U.S. has started to begin its downward slide. Its debt is increasing. Climate change has been having a significant impact on some parts of the country.

America of the future needs two things to continue to function – critical minerals and water. Canada has both.

The Canadian Press news service points out that Canada is a key supplier of 13 of the 35 minerals on the United States' critical list- the minerals it needs for its economic and national security. Those include tellurium, niobium and uranium. In 2023 the U.S. bought almost $30 billion worth of critical minerals from Canada. The U.S. accounted for 59 per cent of all Canada's critical mineral exports, the Canadian Press news service noted.

Trudeau told Canadian business leaders behind closed doors that Trump's threat was "a real thing," and he cited the president’s desire to access Canada's critical minerals.

In a November 2024 report the Council of Canadians pointed out that the U.S. is running out of water. To “Make America Great Again” Trump wants to bring jobs, agriculture and energy production back to the U.S.,” wrote Maude Barlow of the Council of Canadians. He can’t do that without water. As a result, Trump has his eye on Canada’s freshwater supplies.

But Barlow argues that Canada, which has about seven per cent of the planet’s renewable freshwater, needs every drop to deal with both climate change and demand.

The threat of annexation will not go away with Trump.

Canadian Forces being left behind as it dithers on new technology

A Canadian Forces soldier trains Ukrainian troops in the use of drones, a somewhat ironic situation since Ukraine has become a world leader in drone warfare. (DND photo)

By David Pugliese

In November 2024 I started writing an article on first person view (FPV) drones and the Canadian Armed Forces.

I figured the piece would be a good news story for the Ottawa Citizen newspaper about how the CAF was embracing the FPV technology that was revolutionizing warfare.

Afterall, FPV drones are now dominating battlefields. They were being used in fighting in Gaza and Lebanon and had become a critical enabler for both sides of the Ukraine-Russia conflict.

The first person view (FPV) drones allow the pilot to see from the drone’s perspective in real-time, usually through a headset. The low-cost systems, which are in some cases are as cheap as $500, can bring devastating firepower to the battlefield. Social media is full of videos showing explosive-laden FPVs knocking out multi-million dollar weapons, including main battle tanks.

Intelligence analyst Wesley Wark has outlined how such drone technology was “transforming warfare in real time,” adding that Ukraine uses FPV drones to drop munitions down Russian tank hatches and chase individual soldiers and small units on the battlefield.

But I didn’t expect the response I got from the Canadian Forces on FPVs.

“At this time, the Department of National Defence/Canadian Armed Forces does not have any current or planned procurements for First Person View drones for operational use,” department spokesperson Alex Tétreault explained in an email.

End of story. FPVs were not even being considered by the CAF. Nor were there any plans whatsoever to go down the FPV road, even in an experimental way.

One would have thought a FPV purchase would be easy. As explained, they are cheap enough so a major procurement program wouldn’t be needed. They are high-tech, allowing the military and government to send a message they are continuing to keep pace with new designs and weapons.

Canada’s ally Ukraine has been cranking out thousands of the devices a month- it needs hard currency to keep the war effort going so there could have been a direct link to support Ukraine financially with an order of their defence products. (It is somewhat ironic that the CAF recently put on its Combat Camera website a photo of a Canadian Forces soldier training Ukrainian troops in the use of small drones. Ukraine has become a world-leader in such weapons).

The U.S. defence industry is building FPVs as well. In fact, the U.S. Army has been conducting experiments with FPVs with a plan to have a program in place next year and the first units equipped with the systems by 2026.

How do you explain the failure of CAF to embrace FPV technology? Defence sources pointed out the past and current CAF leadership has been dismal in understanding how quickly war- and the technology of war – changes. It is a leadership linked to the past, not future innovation.

That was abundantly clear in the second part of the CAF response on FPVs.

“In Our North Strong and Free (strategy) we committed to exploring options for acquiring a suite of surveillance and strike drones as well as counter-drone capabilities, sometime in the future,” the CAF statement read.

Sometime in the future?

That is in reference to the General Atomics MQ-9B Reapers that Canada plans to purchase. The federal government announced on Dec. 19, 2023, that Canada would buy 11 of those remotely piloted aircraft for $2.5 billion.

The drones were originally expected to be delivered in 2025, but that will be delayed until 2028 as modifications are made to the aircraft to deal with Arctic conditions.

DND posted on the social media site X on Jan. 10 that the first two MQ-9B drones were in production at a U.S. company in California. In its posting, the department called the news “exciting progress.”

But then there was a kicker. DND also confirmed that those unmanned aircraft won’t be fully operational until 2033.

Why?

DND won’t say.

But some military observers were also pointing out the obvious. By the time the MQ-9B fleet is fully operational- almost a decade from now - its technology will be obsolete.

Foreign militaries, will by then, have gone in different directions for such robotic technology. Future drone systems will increasingly rely on artificial intelligence to become truly autonomous weapons and will be used in swarm attacks to overwhelm defences, analysts like Wesley Wark have pointed out.

It is becoming obvious that CAF and DND are also being left behind on the drone swarm development.

On Jan. 15, 2025, Swedish Minister for Defense Pal Jonson announced at a press conference that his country was going to be using swarm aerial drones in support of ground units.  As noted by the U.S. publication Defense News, the Swedes released a video showing a formation of 10 quadcopters taking off and relaying footage of their flight trajectory to ground operators. The swarm of 10 can be controlled by a single operator.

Ukraine is also doing more research on drone swarms. It has already acknowledged deploying groups of three to 10 drones at a time but wants to expand that capability.

Russia has focused much of its technology development on deploying decoy drones as part of its strategy to deceive Ukrainian air defence crews. Codenamed Operation False Target, the decoys are launched along with regular drones, making it difficult to determine which of the robotic aircraft are armed and which are not.

In addition, Russia has developed new drones capable of carrying thermobaric weapons. As reported by the Associated Press the thermobaric warheads create a vortex of high pressure and heat that can penetrate thick walls, causing death and significant injuries to those on the ground.

In contrast, the Canadian Forces has not conducted any experiments with small drones or quad-copters dropping munitions. Instead it is focused on its more traditional MQ-9s that are on order from General Atomics, a U.S. firm. Those will be able to carry different weapons, including 250- and 500-pound bombs as well as “low collateral damage” bombs, according to the DND briefing on the Remotely Piloted Aircraft System program.

(It should be noted, however, that the CAF and Defence Research and Development Canada has focused efforts on counter-drone technology. Those have included tests of systems provided by industry which utilize lasers, guns, and ultrasonic waves to deal with drones).

But it isn’t just FPVs and offensive drone swarms that the CAF and DND leadership has ignored. Canadian firms are among those on the cutting edge for over-the-horizon long-range radar but are largely being ignored by the federal government and military.

Both the U.S. and Canada have announced they will be building over-the-horizon radar systems to provide long-range surveillance of threats to North America. The Canadian portion of the over-the-horizon radar project, part of the NORAD modernization effort, is valued at least $1 billion.

There are currently two companies in the world that have actually delivered a system that could potentially fit the bill for the project; BAE Australia and D-TA Systems Inc. of Ottawa.

D-TA Systems, which has 40 employees, has already briefed U.S. military officials several times about its over-the-horizon radar technology. In addition, it recently delivered a working radar to Defence Research and Development Canada.

D-TA Systems Inc. was established in 2007 and has been involved in defence projects in the U.S., Canada and other NATO nations as well as Japan. The firm has been working on over-the-horizon radar since 2011 for various Department of National Defence and U.S. military projects. DND has already spent $30 million on the initiative but hasn’t acted on procuring a full-size system.

The Pentagon is building its own test system in the Pacific in the Republic of Palau. That radar, expected to be operating by 2026, will be a scaled-down version of an over-the-horizon radar. The proposed U.S. system is smaller than the radar that D-TA recently delivered to DRDC.

D-TA is advocating for its technology, financed by Canadian taxpayers, to play a key role in the radar projects but the jury is out on whether the company will be successful.

For further reading and viewing check out this Esprit de Corps article as well as On Target:

https://www.espritdecorps.ca/feature/shotguns-versus-drones-new-methods-to-deal-with-small-uavs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4tSKj-xfIyE

What is Happening With Canada’s Spike Missile Procurement?

Slovenian soldiers fire the Spike LR anti-tank missile. (US Dept. of Defense photo)

By David Pugliese

On Nov. 26 the National Post newspaper reported that Canada was having problems with its recently ordered Spike anti-tank missiles.

There had been suggestions in the House of Commons that the missiles weren’t accurate.

Rafale, the manufacturer of the Spike LR2 missiles, has not responded to requests for comment.

During the Nov. 28 Standing Committee on National Defence, procurement minister Jean-Yves Duclos did not answer questions about the ongoing problems. Instead he pointed to the Liberal government’s commitment to procuring new equipment for the Canadian Forces.

So what is happening?

Here is what we know so far.

More than half of the new anti-tank missiles provided to the Canadian military during initial testing didn’t function properly, the Department of National Defence has confirmed.

The federal government spent U.S. $32 million ($45 million Canadian) to purchase Spike anti-tank missiles for use by Canadian Forces personnel in Latvia. The deal also includes simulators. DND spokesman Kened Sadiku noted that “Due to operational security, the total number of units to be acquired cannot be disclosed.”

The National Post did report that DND is considering cancelling the Spike contract.

But as I reported in the Ottawa Citizen, DND spokesman Nick Drescher Brown said that is not true; the contract with Rafael Advanced Defense Systems, an Israeli company, is still in place.

But DND has acknowledged ongoing problems with the Spike LR2 missiles.

“During Initial Cadre Training conducted by the company on July 15-16, 2024, five out of eight missiles experienced functionality issues,” Drescher Brown confirmed to the Ottawa Citizen. “We continue to work closely with the equipment manufacturer to identify and address the root cause of these issues.”

Drescher Brown did not go into detail about the specific problems affecting the missiles. But he noted that no one was injured nor were there any safety concerns associated with the firings. “All safety protocols built into the equipment performed exactly as expected,” he added.

In February 2023, the Ottawa Citizen reported that the Canadian Army was fast-tracking its purchase of the anti-tank weapons as well as air defence systems for troops stationed in Latvia. The equipment was classified as an Urgent Operational Requirement, the same process used during the Afghanistan war to quickly obtain gear without going through the slower traditional procurement procedures.

Drescher Brown said in the interest of getting the new missiles quickly for the Latvia mission, no live-fire tests or demonstrations were performed during the selection process. “This technical risk was assessed and deemed acceptable as all of the potential bidders had delivered thousands of units of this product to other customers by that point in time,” he added.

This is indeed accurate. Both Spike and Javelin missiles are in service with multiple nations. Javelin has been used extensively in Ukraine while Spike variants have been used in conflicts in Gaza, Iraq, Lebanon and during the second Nagorno-Karabakh war.

The ongoing issues with Spike affect both the missiles and launchers.

“While deliveries of these new systems for deployed Canadian Battle Group members in Latvia has been delayed slightly, until the equipment manufacturer implements the required changes to ensure that these systems function as intended, full operational capability remains on schedule for January 2026,”  Drescher Brown added.

No details were provided by DND on when the needed changes for the Spike systems are expected to be completed.

Once the issues are ironed out, the missiles would be a welcome addition to the Canadian Army arsenal. The SPIKE LR2 is an advanced state-of-the-art fifth generation multipurpose multi-platform missile. The LR2 has enhanced engagement range; enhanced lethality as well as weight reduction in both of the missile and the launcher.

For the enhanced lethality the LR2 includes two warhead configurations: a tandem HEAT (High Explosive Anti-Tank) warhead configuration, improving the armour penetration capability by more than 30 per cent; and a new multipurpose blast warhead that includes controlled fusing for regulating the desired effect, according to the company that produces the system. The system’s operator can select a “breach mode” - the new warhead can breach up to 20 centimetres of reinforced concrete and detonate within the structure.

National Defence referred to the anti-tank missile acquisition as being for a Portable Anti “X” Missile.  “The “X” name in Portable Anti “X” Missile was created by the Canadian Army to represent the capability of this weapon system and its effectiveness against armoured vehicles, buildings and structures as well as combatants. X is used to refer to its multiple capabilities, including anti-armour, anti-structure and anti-personnel.” 

The request for Proposal for the PAXM UOR did not have specific Canadian Content Policy or Industrial and Technological Benefits (ITB) Policy requirements. As a result there are no contractual requirements for Rafale to leverage Canadian firms for the completion of this contract, according to DND. They may choose to invest or leverage Canadian firms as they see fit, however there is no obligation to report it through the duration. 

The Ukraine war has highlighted Canada’s gap in modern anti-tank weapons. In news media interviews at the beginning of the conflict, retired Chief of the Defence Staff Gen. Rick Hillier complained about the Canadian Army’s reliance on aging Carl Gustaf anti-tank systems and its lack of modern anti-tank weapons.

What Hillier neglected to mention was that when he was CDS, the then Liberal government had approved $194 million for the purchase of either the Javelin or the Spike missile systems. Companies put their bids in to provide 840 missiles and more than 100 firing systems. Test firings of both weapons was conducted. But a year later the bids were rejected as the Army claimed it didn’t have enough information to figure out whether the weapons would be effective on the battlefield. This decision was made despite the fact that both systems were already fielded in other militaries and reportedly effective. In the end, the Canadian anti-tank missile project went by the wayside.

Further reading:

https://defenceobserver.ca

https://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/defence-watch/dnd-canadian-forces-anti-tank-missiles-latvia

Twitter: @davidpugliese

Canadian Forces Air Defence Procurement Moves Forward, DND says

The Royal Canadian Air Force transports U.S. air defence equipment during exercises (US Defense Dept. photo)

By Tim Ryan

On Nov. 21, 2024, analyst Richard Shimooka wrote in the online publication, the Hub, that “National Defence recently announced it was canceling the ground-based air defence program – a key army modernization priority.”

That is a pretty significant decision and blow to the troops….if it were true.

Except it isn’t, according to the Canadian Armed Forces and National Defence.

(It is unclear why Shimooka, the Macdonald Laurier Institute and the Hub falsely claimed that Ground Based Air Defence or GBAD was cancelled but they have in the past written/distributed incorrect information about defence issues).

So what is actually happening with the GBAD procurement?

The Canadian Armed Forces or CAF is prioritizing its efforts to focus on getting air defence as quickly as possible for its troops in Latvia and the region (Operation Reassurance). So it is restructuring its GBAD initiative into different phases.

In the face of continued Russian aggression in Ukraine, Canada intends to first address Operation Reassurance’s urgent need for a short-range air defence system that will be able to deal with incoming rockets, artillery and mortar rounds, according to an Oct. 10 notice to defence firms. It will continue to work with companies on the technical details for the new equipment. “The intention is to procure a nearly Military Off The Shelf system with very little Canada specific modifications and changes,” added the government message to companies.

Canada has already acquired man-portable surface-to-air missiles for the Latvia mission.

Once the purchase of the short-range air defence battery for Latvia is completed (phase 1), the procurement team will then turn its attention to the purchase of more extensive ground-based air defence systems for the rest of the military as outlined in phases 2 and 3, noted an article in the Ottawa Citizen.

DND spokesperson Nick Drescher Brown explained some of the key points of the phased process:

--“The introduction of Phase 1 represents an additional Battery of SHORAD equipment, but the high-level requirements of this system remain the same.  The requirement refinement process for Phase 1 will focus on Military Off the Shelf systems that are readily available to support OP REASSURANCE, which may result in a different capability than that which will be defined for the enduring solutions of Phases 2 and 3.”

--"Breaking the project into phases was necessary to address the army's priority. Breaking the project into phases  and accelerating the Phase 1 procurement will result in a better alignment with the army's immediate priorities while maintaining the integrity of the original GBAD project scope so that the project can balance the needs of OP REASSURANCE (Phase 1)  with a focus on best value and long term sustainment for the army's enduring GBAD capability (Phase 2 and 3).

-“Project resources will resume Phase 2 definition work once the Phase 1 RFP is released for tender.  The Phase 2 schedule will be further refined as part of industry engagements.  The project cost range for Phases 2 and 3 combined remain within the $500M - 1B previously advertised. The sequencing of Phase 3 follows the same rationale as that for Phase 2 and therefore still being refined.”

Now that this project is under way, or at least being planned and worked on, it is worth remembering a little history of air defence for the Canadian Forces.

The Canadian Army was outfitted in 1989 with a then state-of-the art air defence anti-tank system known as ADATS. It was purchased to protect bases in Germany against attack by the Russians, but, shortly after ADATS was delivered, the Cold War ended and the systems were shipped back to Canada. ADATS was occasionally used for domestic security, including to provide protection from potential air threats during the G8 summit in Alberta in 2002.

But after a series of budget cuts, the Canadian Army decided to shed its the ground based air defence capability. In 2005, the Army determined that the primary role of ADATS was “to be direct fire” with air defence a secondary role.

But the Army’s efforts to dump GBAD were met with serious concern, particularly in the Royal Canadian Air Force. The office of then Maj.-Gen. Charles Bouchard tried to push back against the Army, according to 2005 documents obtained by Esprit de Corps.

“While understood and not unexpected, this planned reduction in GBAD capability is happening at a time when the asymmetric threat and associated response dictates that the requirement for such a capability remains valid,” Bouchard’s office responded in a 2005 briefing note for the Canadian Army.

While the Army commander saw little need to maintain GBAD for an expeditionary role, Bouchard’s office countered with the following: “This capability does have a utility from both a NORAD and a domestic operations perspective.”

In fact, during a May 2005 NORAD planning conference, the joint U.S.-Canadian air defence command had identified the requirement “for a rapidly deployable” air defence capability for national special security events or important gatherings such as a G8 conference, according to the records.

But the RCAF’s concerns only delayed the inevitable. Almost all ADATS were declared surplus, and except for a few units for testing and support, the GBAD capability all but disappeared in 2012.

But, faced with budget cuts ordered by the Conservative government, the Army announced it was removing ADATS from service in 2012.

The move left the Canadian Forces without a primary air defence system. Army officers acknowledged at the time that decision was risky, but the service had determined it was acceptable in the short term. The Army had plans to introduce a new air defence system around 2017, but that project never went forward.

Further reading:

https://defenceobserver.ca

https://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/defence-watch/canadian-military-air-defence-system-latvia