ON TARGET: An Existential Threat: The CAF's Manpower Crisis

By Scott Taylor

Last week there was seemingly some good news for Canada's beleaguered armed forces. A recent Toronto Star news headline noted that "The Number of Applicants to Join Canada's Military is Soaring".

Unfortunately the text continued with "Why Hasn't that Resulted in More of Them in Uniform?" The answer it turns out is that the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) are unable to process the applications which they receive in a timely fashion. As a result, the gap between recruiting and those serving personnel who are releasing from the CAF continues to widen.

At last count there were 16,500 vacancies on the payroll of the CAF's combined regular and reserve establishment of 101,000. At a recent defence conference in Ottawa, Minister of Defence Bill Blair referred to the current recruiting versus retention crisis as a 'death spiral'. According to the newly tabled Defence Policy Update, despite the promise of billions of dollars added to the budget, there is no course correction mentioned which will reduce that 16,500 shortfall in personnel until the year 2032.

While Minister Blair told the Toronto Star that he doesn't "want to wait till 2032 to replace the 16,500. I think we need to go faster,”  he offered no plan of action which would hasten the timeline.

However, what the Toronto Star article reveals is that Canadians are still willing to enlist in the military. In fact they did so in record numbers last year with 70,080 individuals volunteering to serve in uniform. The year before that the number of applicants was 43,934 amounting to a two year total of 114,014 potential personnel for the CAF. That is more than enough to replace the entire authorized strength of the CAF.

However the overwhelmed recruiting centres were only able to process 4,301 applicants last year and just 3,930 the year before. That comes to a two year total of 8,231 which means 105,231 would-be recruits went unprocessed.

This makes one question the rationale for the CAF senior leadership to radically reduce the dress and deportment regulations in order to cast a wider net to address the recruiting shortfall.

The theory was that if any and all hairstyles were acceptable, including facial hair, tattoos and piercings, the CAF would be a more welcoming and diverse workplace. Uniforms are still to be worn, albeit they are no longer gender specific. For traditionalists, the idea of coloured hair on the parade square seemed a drastic measure to attract otherwise hesitant applicants.

Given the numbers, it would seem that dress and deportment was not the problem, but rather it was the recruiting and training branches that simply could not process the influx.

Another policy change was to allow immigrants with Permanent Resident status to enlist in the CAF. Prior to November 1, 2022, a recruit needed to be a Canadian citizen. This move bore fruit as over 21,000 Permanent Resident card holders to date have eagerly flocked to recruiting centres. Unfortunately, due to a lack of resources through which to conduct the necessary background checks on these immigrants, only 77 such applications had been processed as of February 2024.

If a pilot were to announce over the intercom to the passengers that their plane was in a 'death spiral' you would expect the next words to include a plan to take drastic measures to correct said spiral.

Instead Minister Blair continues to display a total lack of urgency.

Here is a suggested course of action. The present understrength CAF is like a starving person too weak to digest the necessary nutrients in order to recover. As a short term measure the Liberal government should put out the call for former service members to return to duty on an emergency call-up basis. They would not require background checks and they already know their trade. The job would be simply to enrol and train the new admissions.

They could be offered a lucrative signing bonus and a lucrative temporary salary. This money could come out of the savings which the CAF has been realizing as a result of having 16,500 unfilled positions for the past two years. That amounts to billions of dollars if you do the math.

There are thousands of  applications already on file and there is no shortage of new volunteers to join. The legion of called-up veterans could temporarily flesh out the training centres and process the necessary admin and medical procedures.

As for those with Permanent Resident status, why not conduct their security clearances while they are going through their Basic Military Training courses? It is called concurrent activity. Surely there are enough retired military police, intelligence branch and CSIS staffers willing to commit to restoring the CAF to full operational strength. 

Desperate times call for desperate measures, and these are definitely desperate times.

ON TARGET: Canadian Armed Forces: Top Heavy with Brass

By Scott Taylor

For months now the senior leadership of the Canadian military have been bemoaning the crippling shortfall of personnel in the ranks.

Before a parliamentary committee last year Chief of the Defence Staff, General Wayne Eyre acknowledged that there are currently 16,500 vacant positions from a Canadian Armed Forces', combined regular & reserve authorized strength of 101,000.

The reason for this crisis is a combination of the CAF's failure to attract recruits while simultaneously failing to retain trained personnel.

For those who follow the affairs of the CAF closely it will be understood that General Eyre's numbers are somewhat misleading. When you factor in all those serving personnel who are currently on sick leave, stress leave, maternity leave, paternity leave, retirement leave and those personnel recruited but still awaiting trades training, those numbers make things far worse in reality than in Eyre's briefing notes.

The lack of experienced, trained technical staff means that ships' companies cannot put to sea, planes lack pilots and vehicles are inoperable due to maintenance delays. All of this leads to frustration and burn-out for veteran service members and as a result they are retiring early.

However, things are not bleak across the board as all 138, permanent and temporary, General Officer & Flag Officer (GOFO) positions remain staffed at 100%. As the bottom falls out of the CAF at the rank and file level, the top offices remain filled to the brim.

Clearly the government realizes that even a casual observer will question that bloated ratio of GOFO's to the dwindling number of troops they still command.

On the official Government of Canada website it states, "The Canadian Armed Forces is structured to have 631 Regular Force members per 1 GOFO, which makes us lighter at the top when compared to like-sized military forces of some of our closest Commonwealth Allies."

This is a classic example of, well to be blunt, horseshit. Our closest ally is the USA and in 2017 their military had 900 GOFO's for a force of 1.3 million service members which is a ratio of 1:1,400. The US Marine Corps has just 62 GOFO's for some 180,000 Jarheads which is an impressive ratio of almost 1 GOFO per 3,000 marines. The British press recently questioned why their Army was commanded by 53 General officers when the troop strength had dropped to 70,000. That would be a ratio of 1 GOFO per 1,300 British soldiers.  

So no, we are not 'lighter at the top' than our allies as the government website claims. Quite the opposite is true. The worst part about this top heavy structure of the Canadian military is that this is not a new problem.

Back in 1995, in the wake of the Somalia Scandal which had shone a public spotlight on the darker reality of the CAF, citizens questioned why Canada had 96 GOFO's for a military with only 65,000 regular force personnel.

The Liberal government of the day had been quick to disband the entire Canadian Airborne Regiment overnight, but in the case of the bloated command structure they set a goal of 1 GOFO per 1,000 personnel, to be achieved through natural attrition.

Fast forward nearly three decades and that 96 is now 138 and while authorized a regular force strength of 71,000, the actual number is less than 60,000. This means that despite a passage of time which extends beyond that of a full military career, that attrition morphed into addition.

Given that the just released Defence Policy Update (DPU) does not project the CAF addressing the present personnel shortfall before 2032, it is time to drastically slash the bloated leadership of the CAF.

Later this summer, the retirement of General Eyre will open the door for the Liberals to start making good on that reduction through attrition that they promised.

Given the reduced size of the CAF, the next CDS should remain a Lt-General (aka a 3 star general rather than a full 4 star General).

This would set in motion a pattern where-in the 11 current Lt-General positions would be reduced to that of a two star Major-General as the incumbent retires.

Our NATO allies do not care how much gold braid our generals wear on their hats. They care about how much actual combat capability we can deliver. And right now that isn't much.

ON TARGET: THE CANADIAN ARMED FORCES DISAPPEARING ACT

By Scott Taylor

It would seem that the senior leadership of the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) continues to whistle past the graveyard as it becomes clearly evident that the personnel shortfall has begun crippling Canada's military operational readiness.

A recent CBC headline noted "Changes to training forced by budget cuts could leave military less ready for a fight, experts warn". The CBC story noted that drastic internal DND budget cuts have led to the cancellation of a qualifying exercise for combat troops headed to Canada's forward deployed battle group in Latvia.

The 'expert' sounding the alarm bell on this development is none other than Lt-Gen (ret'd) Andrew Leslie, a former Army Commander.

Since Canadian battle groups began deploying to Latvia in 2017 as part of NATO's Operation REASSURANCE, the final phase of their training was conducted at CFB Wainwright. These qualifying exercises were combined-arms training wherein soldiers would coordinate infantry, tanks, artillery and aircraft.

Without that level of training Leslie fears that Canadian soldiers are now "going to have to learn on the job, using other people's equipment and expertise".

The explanation given to the CBC by Chief of the Defence Staff General Wayne Eyre was that these qualifying exercises were cut to allow the soldiers deploying to spend more time with their families. "What we're finding was the battle groups, the various units that we're deploying, were spending a lot of time on exercise here at home to get to a very high level, and then going to Latvia and doing much of the same work." So in other words 'not to worry folks, no need to study for the exam, we'll pick it up during the test itself'.

The problem with Eyre's comments is that he knows his former Army Commander, Lt-Gen Leslie is correct.

The cracks in the CAF's    operational readiness are not limited to just the Army. The RCAF has recently announced that they are grounding their aging fleet of jet trainers (which are actually newer than Canada's CF-18 frontline fighters) and farming out pilot training to allied nations.

The current shortfall of trained pilots has resulted in the cancellation of international deployments in support of NATO objectives.

The commander of the Royal Canadian Navy, Vice-Admiral Angus Topshee issued an unprecedented video message last year wherein he admitted that due to personnel shortcomings the RCN will not be able to fulfill its operational objectives through the foreseeable future. It was a brave admission, but definitely one which resonated with Topshee's sailors.

As an Ottawa resident I must admit that I was surprised to learn that the Ceremonial Guard will not be performing the Changing of the Guard ceremony on the lawn in front of Parliament Hill again this summer. The band will still make a daily appearance and there is a much reduced guard changing ceremony performed at Rideau Hall.

However that long standing martial spectacle has been suspended. It was halted first in 2020 due to Covid-19 but now it is due to a shortage of personnel in the two Reserve regiments that constitute the Ceremonial Guard - The Governor General's Foot Guards and the Canadian Grenadier Guards.

Not everyone realizes that the Scarlet coated guardsmen with their towering bearskin hats were actually serving members of Canada's militia. They are combat capable soldiers who have often deployed abroad alongside our regular forces. In order to keep the tourist friendly event a fixture in Ottawa, the Changing of the Guard ceremony may need to become a privately owned re-enactor enterprise in the future.

Now before the Colonel Blimps begin heartily thumping on their tubs at the loss of another tradition, there are many examples where this is indeed the case.  At the Citadel in Halifax the 78th Highlanders perform drill and musket demonstrations and at Fort Henry in Kingston Ontario, it is a foundation that funds the re-enactors each summer. They have no formal connection to the CAF.

Perhaps it is also time to do something similar with the RCAF's demonstration squadron known as the 'Snowbirds'. The aged out Tutor planes which the Snowbirds use are overdue for retirement and it seems unlikely that any government of the day will spend the billions of dollars necessary to buy a new fleet of show planes. Particularly when skilled pilots are in such scarce supply.

ON TARGET: Does Canada Really Need The CF-35 Joint Strike Fighter?

By Scott Taylor

The controversial procurement of 88 new F-35 fighter jets for the RCAF was back in the news again last week. An anonymous whistleblower leaked documents to National Post columnist John Ivison which resulted in an article entitled How Canada’s military-industrial complex made sure Ottawa bought its preferred fighter jet.

For those of us who have closely followed this two decades-long procurement process to replace the RCAF's aged out CF-18 Hornet fighter jets, there is little in Ivison's piece that would be considered new information. It is alleged by the whistleblower that from the get-go in 2004, the senior leadership of the RCAF wanted to purchase the F-35 and only the F-35.

It mattered not that at the time that only a single prototype of this 5th generation, stealth fighter was in existence. Nor did it matter that the teething problems suffered by the early models of the Joint Strike fighters caused aviation experts like then US Presidential candidate Donald J. Trump to threaten to cancel the entire project if he was elected. In short Trump was elected and he did not cancel the F-35 purchase.

In Canada, it was the Conservative government of Stephen Harper which first announced in July, 2010 that we would be buying 65 of the F-35's at a purchase cost of $9 billion. The first delivery of these new fighters was to be in 2016. To sell the idea to the Canadian public, then Defence Minister Peter MacKay actually posed sitting in the cockpit of a full scale mock-up of an F-35 at the Museum of Aviation in Ottawa.

To this day I have no idea how the Conservative government was able to use the grounds of a federal museum to display something which Canada had yet to actually purchase, let alone fly operationally. The Lockheed-Martin owned mock-up belonged on a military trade show floor, not in a museum dedicated to the history of aviation in Canada.

The images of MacKay sitting at the controls of a fake air force plane have not aged well given the turbulence encountered thus far in Canada's purchase of this aircraft. In brief, in 2015 the Trudeau Liberals vowed not to purchase the F-35 if elected. The Liberals were elected and the RCAF were then told to hold a competition to find the best possible replacement for the CF-18 fleet. As Ivison's whistleblower now claims, the fix was in for the F-35 to win.

In 2022 the Liberals were thus forced to announce they were buying 88 of the F-35's for the purchase cost of $19 billion. Remember this was the one plane which the Liberals had told voters they would never buy. The first delivery is not expected until 2026. 

Which begs the question as to how, 20 years later, the Joint Strike Fighter is still the best possible solution for Canada's military? In that interim we have learned the lessons of our prolonged occupation of Afghanistan in that in a counter-insurgency against a primitively armed foe, the modern fighter jet has no role. The war in Ukraine has shown us that manned aircraft are too vulnerable to modern air defence systems and that uninhabited aerial systems such as drones are the way of the future.

To see the speed with which modern warfare evolves, the Russian army has now developed what they call 'Turtle Tanks' wherein an armoured shield is welded atop their armoured vehicles to counter the threat of anti-tank kamikaze drones. While presently enjoying a measure of success against Ukrainian defenders, this will no doubt soon be countered with more sophisticated, delayed action shaped charges married to the existing drones.

With Trudeau's Liberals dropping in the polls, maybe it is not too late to bring out their old campaign promise to axe the F-35 contract if elected again? The $19 billion in savings would buy a boatload of disposable drones and the truth is that by 2026 the RCAF will be hard pressed to find any pilots to fly the new F-35's.

ON TARGET: Canada's Military Procurement: A Laundry List of Broken Promises

When the Trudeau Liberals announced their long awaited Defence Policy Update on Monday, April 8, it did not take the sceptics long to take to social media to criticize the policy paper.

While the announced spending hike is enormous -the Canadian defence budget is to nearly double from the current $30 billion to roughly $59 billion by the end of this decade - the problem is that close followers of the Canadian Armed Forces have good reason to believe that little of what is promised in the DPU will ever see the light of day. 

Comic strip aficionados will recall the Peanuts character Lucy perpetually convincing Charlie Brown that this time she will hold the football in place so that he might 'kick it to the moon'. Inevitably, at the last minute Lucy snatches the ball away and Charlie Brown ends up flat on his back swearing to never again trust Lucy's word.

Only a foolish military analyst -and there have been a few out there -would hail this current DPU as a solid building block to rebuild our badly depleted CAF. 
For those who remain unconvinced that when it comes to the Canadian Military, government promises are meant to be broken, here is a short peek back down memory lane.
Back in 2003, the Canadian Army had a battle group deployed to Afghanistan, and as insurgent resistance was stiffening, Canadian commanders realized that they would need better protection and more firepower.

Thus it was announced that Canada would spend $600 million to purchase 66 Mobile Gun Systems (MGS) from General Dynamics Land Systems (GDLS). This was controversial among senior Army commanders who were hoping to acquire a new Main Battle Tank instead.

The MGS are based upon a Light Armoured Vehicle (LAV) wheeled chassis, with the addition of a 105 mm gun for fire support.

Doubters of this purchase were put in their place by then Chief of the Defence Staff General Rick Hillier. A former armoured officer, Hillier was of the opinion that Main Battle Tanks were at that juncture "Cold War relics". Fortuitously the MGS purchase never went ahead and Canada ended up borrowing Leopard 2 MBT's from Germany to support our troops in Kandahar.
In 2005 there was a lot of fanfare when the government announced they were investing $750 million to produce 30 Multi-Mission Effects Vehicles. The MMEV's were to become the nucleus of our ground forces combat fire support.

The concept was in fact a marriage of the Air-Defence Anti-Tank System known by the acronym ADATS mounted on a LAV 3 chassis. The ADATS had been built in Canada immediately after the Cold War ended and had been mothballed almost immediately. Alas as events unfolded, they have remained in mothballs as the MMEV project was quietly cancelled. 


By 2009 the Army realized that it needed something heavier than a LAV 3 in Afghanistan and they needed it on an urgent basis. The Army wanted to buy the Swedish Combat Vehicle 90 off the shelf, but bureaucracy prevailed. A competition was then launched to ascertain which Close Combat Vehicle (CCV) would be best suited for Canada's future Army. The project called for the purchase of 108 CCV's at a cost of $2.1 billion, and they were to be the backbone of our combat forces for the foreseeable future. After two rounds of what was called 'testing to destruction' the three remaining bidders - BAE Systems, Nexter and GDLS - were informed that the whole deal was off. Given that our combat mission in Afghanistan was concluded, the Harper Conservatives killed the procurement to save money. 


It was the Harper Conservatives who had also originally announced in 2010 that they would buy 65 Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighters to replace the RCAF's 80 CF-18's at a purchase cost of $9 billion. The first delivery of these CF-35's was to be in late 2016. However in 2015 the Trudeau Liberals ran on the promise that if elected they would scrap the Conservative’s plans to purchase the controversial CF-35 Joint Strike Fighters. Once elected, Trudeau did scrap the initiative to buy the F-35s and the Liberals subsequently ordered the RCAF to hold a competition to determine the CF-18's best possible replacement. Lo and behold the F-35 won the competition and the price tag is now $19 billion for 88 aircraft, the first of which will not be delivered until 2026. 

For the long suffering Royal Canadian Navy nothing exemplifies their dangling carrot of procurement promises better than the saga to replace the now long retired HMCS Protecteur class supply ships. First announced in 2004, the original timeline called for a contract to be signed by 2009 with the first of three ships delivered and in service by 2012. There is now only two such ships on the order book and the first will not be delivered until 2025 with the second due in 2027. The cost has continued to climb.

So when the Liberals table a DPU in 2024 promising $73 billion in additional defence spending over the next 20 years, forgive me if I do not believe that this time Trudeau is going to 'kick it to the moon'.

ON TARGET: Canada's Defence Policy Update: Seeing Will be Believing

By Scott Taylor

On Monday April 8, Minister of National Defence Bill Blair unveiled the Liberal government's long awaited Defence Policy Update (DPU). Titled 'Our North, Strong and Free' the new policy outlines a significant spending increase and promises to acquire some very specific new capabilities and equipment for the Canadian Armed Forces.

“Through this policy, Canada will invest $8.1 billion over the next five years and $73 billion over the next 20 years in our national defence,” Blair stated in the DPU.

In terms of equipment acquisitions, the DPU shopping list includes; early warning aircraft, tactical helicopters and new long range missiles for the Army. 

The government plans to buy specialized maritime sensors to improve ocean surveillance as well as build a new satellite ground station in the Arctic. The DPU blueprint includes plans to establish additional support facilities in the Arctic for military operations. Also referenced, albeit without detail, is a new fleet of submarines for the Royal Canadian Navy.

There will be a major investment in domestic ammunition production to replace those stocks of artillery shells which Canada donated to Ukraine. Having learned their lesson from that war, Canada also plans to significantly increase the Army's strategic reserve of ammunition.

Due to the numerous delays to the Canadian Surface Combatant program a large sum of money has been set aside to keep the RCN's aging Halifax-class frigates operational until the new Type 26 destroyers eventually enter service.

With a nod to the fact that the modern battlefield is evolving into new domains, the DPU focussed on improving the CAF’s ability to conduct cyber operations. The government plans to establish a Canadian Armed Forces Cyber Command. Also to be pursued, is a joint cyber operations capability with the Communications Security Establishment (CSE) Canada's secretive, Ottawa-based electronic intelligence gathering organization.

While not as sexy as the wish list of futuristic weaponry and spy gizmos, the DPU also set aside increased funding to address the construction of  affordable housing for military personnel. That was about the only item to address the most pressing issue which is currently crippling the CAF: the combined retention failure/recruiting shortfalls which have resulted in woefully depleted ranks.

You can buy all the weaponry in the world, but it will be useless if there is no one left in uniform to use it.

As for what all this will mean for the actual future of the CAF, a few polite reminders might help put things in perspective. First of all, this DPU was initially announced by the Liberal government back on April 7, 2022 as an 'urgent' necessity in the immediate aftermath of Russia's invasion of Ukraine. That was nearly two years to the day before they actually tabled this DPU. That is not an 'urgent' response in any universe.

At the DPU technical briefing last Monday, it was confirmed that prior to making the details public in Canada, Minister Blair had first briefed NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg to get his blessing. Apparently Blair also pre-briefed US Ambassador to Canada David Cohen. Those who follow Canadian military affairs closely will be well aware that both NATO and the US have been pressuring Canada to increase defence spending to the NATO alliance target of 2 per cent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP). 

This new DPU projects a massive increase from Canada's current annual defence budget of $30 billion to a staggering $50 billion by the end of this decade. However, thanks to Canada's robust economy that will only put us at the 1.76 per cent GDP mark. In other words, closer but still no cigar from Stoltenberg.

Perhaps the most important detail to remember is that this is a projected 20-year plan, which is unlikely to survive any change in government. To coin the old phrase 'I'll believe it when I see it'.


ON TARGET: Debunking the Vimy Ridge Myth

By Scott Taylor

This week marks the 107th anniversary of the Battle of Vimy Ridge. While April 9th is the day of commemoration, the battle itself lasted three days.

What is amazing is the myth that has grown around that April 1917, First World War clash in Northern France. To many Canadians, Vimy Ridge has become the symbolic birthplace of where and when Canada became a truly independent nation, and shed its colonial past.

The short version of this myth’s genesis is that at Vimy Ridge all four Canadian divisions fought together as a single corps and that they succeeded in capturing the ridge after both British and French attempts had failed. This is a pretty specific criteria, which in my opinion does not stand up to closer scrutiny.

For one thing, the Canadian divisions may have fought as one corps, but they were collectively commanded by British General Julian Byng. If that does not define colonial troops, I do not know what does.

It is also important to note that the fighting for Vimy Ridge was not an isolated battle. It was actually part of a larger British diversionary attack coordinated with an even larger French offensive all along the Aisne river.

While the Canadians captured Vimy Ridge, the larger objective failed as the major French offensive was soundly defeated. The French losses in that battle were so horrific that the French Army subsequently mutinied. For months to follow the French soldiers refused to participate in any further attacks.

Thus it is hard to argue that Canada’s success at Vimy Ridge was a major turning point in the outcome of the war.

As for casualties, by today’s standards the Canadian losses at Vimy were sickening. In under 72 hours of combat we suffered 3,598 killed and a further 7,004 troops wounded. All that to capture one stretch of high ground without achieving a major breakthrough. In fact, the German 6th Army simply pulled back a few kilometers and dug in again.

Now some of those who espouse the Vimy myth as Canada’s birthplace will argue that it is a symbolic battle which exemplifies the entire war effort of Canada as a Dominion in the First World War.

If that is the case I would suggest that the Battle for Hill 70, fought in August 1917 would have been a better choice. At Hill 70 the Canadian corps was by then under the Canadian command of General Arthur Currie, and the casualties suffered were far lighter.

However, I have long challenged the premise that Canada fighting an imperial war to aid Britain somehow reflects our independence as a nation.

For me, it was the little known Chanak crisis of 1922 when Canada first cut the umbilical cord with mother country Britain.

As that juncture a resurgent Turkish national army, born from the ashes of the Ottoman Empire, under the Generalship of Kemal Attaturk were defeating the Greek Army in Anatolia.

The British wanted to assist the Greeks but knew that their war weary population was not ready for another foreign war. Thus the call went out to the Common Wealth nations to contribute soldiers to the cause.

Canadian Prime Minister William Lyon McKenzie notified then British Colonial Secretary Winston Churchill that unlike the declaration of war in 1914, Canada’s response would no longer be “automatic” but rather it would require the consent of Parliament.

When Parliament rejected the request, Canada officially said “no.”

Following Canada’s lead, both Australia and South Africa gave the war a thumbs down. Britain had no choice but to force the Greeks to accept a separate peace with the Turks and the rest is history.

This chapter of our history needs to be taught in our schools as the true coming of age of our nation. Fighting a good battle under British command in an imperial war does not make you independent. Saying ‘no’ to Britain did.

ON TARGET: Making the Canadian Military Fighting Fit Again

By Scott Taylor

Arguably this is the lowest point in the history of the Canadian Armed Forces in terms of combat readiness.

A recent internal report was leaked to the CBC which revealed that nearly half of Canada's combat vehicles and weaponry would be un-deployable in the case of war due to a lack of serviceability. This includes both the lack of available spare parts and the trained personnel required to maintain our aircraft, ships and armoured vehicles.

Not mentioned in the report specifically was the advanced age of much of that equipment. For instance, Canada's dwindling fleet of CF-18 Hornet Fighter jets are more than four decades old, and the twelve Halifax-Class Frigates that form the backbone of the Royal Canadian Navy have been in service since 1991.

From 2001 until 2014 Canada sent over 40,000 troops to fight in Afghanistan. During those thirteen years, the Canadian Army did successfully hone its war-fighting skills and they acquired specialized equipment and weaponry.

However, the campaign in Afghanistan was that of counter-insurgency against a primitively-armed, largely illiterate Taliban. Most of the tactics learned and equipment purchased by the Canadian Army were aimed at self-protection from improvised explosive devices (IED's) and suicide attacks by fanatical jihadists.

For their part, the RCAF flew its most recent combat sorties against Gadhaffi's Libyan loyalists in 2011, and then against ISIS (aka Daesh) insurgents in Iraq and Syria from 2014 until 2016 as part of Operation IMPACT. No casualties were sustained by the RCAF throughout these extended campaigns for the simple reason that the Libyans and Daesh evil doers were without sophisticated air defences.

The last guns a-blazing experience for the Royal Canadian Navy was off the coast of Libya in 2011 when Gadhaffi loyalists opened fire on HMCS Charlottetown near the rebel held city of Misrata. 

Fast forward to February 2022 and the Russian full scale invasion of Ukraine. The heretofore unthinkable became reality as we suddenly had two near-peer modern militaries waging conventional war on European soil. Now, more than two years into that conflict observers can see exactly what technology has emerged as the new 'Queen of the Battlefield'.

Turns out it is the same weapon that has dominated battlefields since the invention of gunpowder -the artillery. However, in a near peer clash, the artillery needs to be self-propelled and armoured for the survivability of the gunners.

The M-777 155 mm howitzers that Canada obtained for Afghanistan were well suited against a foe that possessed no fire detection technology nor any weapons with which to engage the Canadians in return.

Russian forces have very sophisticated counter-battery assets which include a wealth of their own artillery and ammunition. Hence the M-777's have proven to be a bust in Ukraine.

In the air, the drone is the master of the skies in the Ukraine conflict with both sides employing huge numbers of remotely piloted attack drones of varying sizes. There is literally nowhere to hide on the modern battlefield.

As a result we have seen a wave of counter-drone measures implemented by both sides which includes everything from active air defence to additional protection on top of armoured vehicles.

In terms of manned Combat Fighters or helicopters, their use has been limited thus far in the conflict. There have been no swirling dogfights overhead and due to the presence of effective ground to air defences, the Russian Air Force has only appeared when the circumstances have allowed them to attain a localized window of air superiority.

At sea, the Ukrainians have steadily sunk major Russian Navy warships in the Black Sea with seaborne drones. This has led military analysts to question the value of manned capital ships in future warfare.

Given that the Canadian Armed Forces need to be re-built from the ground up, the architects of that re-structuring should look to this ongoing conflict for the blueprint of Canada's future military. The fact is that the single biggest challenge crippling the current CAF is the shortfall of personnel in the ranks. The good news is that the future is headed towards an almost completely human free battle of the high-tech machines.

ON TARGET: The RCAF is in Serious Crisis

By Scott Taylor

For those who closely follow the news about the Canadian Armed Forces in general and the Royal Canadian Air Force in particular, it will come as no shock to learn that they are currently suffering from a crippling shortage of trained personnel.


At a recent defence & security conference in Ottawa, Minister of National Defence Bill Blair admitted that the inability of recruiting to keep pace with retirements from the CAF have left Canada's military institution in a "death spiral". Blair offered no plan to correct the course of action, he simply said that the leadership "needs to do better".

In 2023, Vice Admiral Angus Topshee released a short video message which contained an unprecedented honest admission that the present day Royal Canadian Navy is anything but, "Ready aye Ready." 


Topshee admitted that for the foreseeable future the RCN would be unable to meet its operational requirements. This shortfall of trained sailors recently led to the cancellation of an annual, two-ship deployment to the seas off the West coast of Africa. Topshee was not whistling past the graveyard: The RCN really is broken.


While Lieutenant General Eric Kenny has been less open with the Canadian public about the state of the RCAF, the lack of experienced pilots and ground crew is not something easily disguised to those toiling in the much thinned ranks. 

Last year the RCAF was unable to participate in several international joint training exercises because Canada simply does not have the resources. This is particularly true among the RCAF's Fighter Wing.


One might have thought that the release of Tom Cruise's Top Gun Hollywood blockbuster sequel would have sent hordes of young men and women racing to the nearest recruiting centre. 


However, even if the video game generation were motivated to test their skills for real, the problem is now that the depleted RCAF Fighter Wing is hard pressed to even absorb them.


On March 8, the RCAF announced that they were suspending the Phase III and IV of the fighter pilot training program and retiring the aging CT-155 Hawk trainer fleet of aircraft. For the last 24 years the CT-155 Hawk has served with the RCAF as their main advanced trainer aircraft, serving as the last step before student pilots moved onto the even more ancient CF-18 Hornets. Previously a typical training course for a fighter pilot candidates would go through four training phases, of which Phase III and IV were on the CT-155.

Now, a RCAF wannabe fighter pilot will need to complete their first two basic phases and then wait until Canada can find space on an advanced training course with an allied nation.
One of the official justifications for farming out this training and shutting down the CT-155 fleet was that it is due to Canada soon transitioning to the yet to be delivered 88 new CF-35's. (The CF-18 Hornets would eventually be retired).


This justification, however, is just bureaucratic lipstick on a pig. No one in RCAF leadership is willing to admit that they have dropped so far below a sustainable personnel level that they can no longer train the next generation fighter pilots.


This situation cannot be reversed by simply trying harder to do what is no longer working. 


At present, if you want to fly fighters, you are either going to live in Cold Lake, Alberta or Bagotville, Quebec. These bases may make good tactical sense in terms of North American air defence, but their remoteness poses a major challenge to the modern family construct wherein both spouses have a career. 


The solution would be to move the fighter squadrons to Calgary and Mirabel, Montreal respectively and negotiate deals with Canada's major airlines to allow former RCAF fighter pilots to serve as true reservists. 


If those trained CF-18 fighter pilots could bring their skillset back to the RCAF say for two months of the year, without having to move back to Cold Lake or Bagotville, I think you could erase the personnel shortage almost overnight. 


I'm sure if the RCAF brain-trust also threw in the carrot of investing in these reserve pilots to transition to the fifth generation CF-35's you would seal the deal.


Let's start being creative folks. Tom Cruise cannot live for ever and the RCAF just turned 100 this year.

ON TARGET: How Badly Broken Is The CAF?

By Scott Taylor

On Thursday Mar. 7, Minister of National Defence Bill Blair gave a keynote speech at the Conference of Defence Associations in the storied ballroom of Ottawa's landmark Chateau Laurier hotel. 


The room was packed with senior military officers, industry executives and academics all expectantly awaiting Blair to try and sugar coat the current state of the Canadian military. In the past it has been the traditional playbook of both the Liberals, and prior to that the Harper Conservatives, to blame the hated media for portraying the Canadian Armed Forces in a negative light. 


This time out, Blair chose to go a completely different route. In his opening statement, the MND singled out the CBC's Murray Brewster and praised him on his most recent expose.

The title of Brewster's story was the "State of Canadian Armed Forces' Combat readiness growing worse, government report warns". The sub-head more specifically noted that the "department of National defence report also says almost half of the military's equipment is 'unserviceable'. 


It would be pretty tough to sugar coat that to a room packed with many of the same officers who had a hand in drafting the report to which Brewster was referring. So instead Blair essentially owned up to the shit show albeit, laying some of the blame for the mess on the former Conservative government. The internal government report which Brewster cited in his story provided a laundry list of current shortfalls crippling the CAF. 

Apparently the RCAF, which is in the process of celebrating their 100th anniversary, are in the worst shape of the three service branches. According to the report 55 per cent of the RCAF's fighters, maritime aviation, search and rescue, tactical aviation, trainers and transport plans are considered to be 'unserviceable'. That means just 45 per cent of the inventory actually still flies.


The RCN came in a not so distant second worse with 54 per cent of their frigates, submarines, Arctic Offshore Patrol Ships and Maritime Coastal Defence Vessels in no state to deploy. For those optimists looking for how full the glass is, that means 46 per cent of the RCN is able to report "Ready, Aye, Ready. The rest of the fleet is beached.

Coincidentally, that same day as Blair spoke, the Ottawa Citizen ran a cover story outlining problems the RCN are having with a brand new Arctic Offshore Patrol ships. Namely that they experience flooding which causes corrosion. The DND had tried to convince Citizen reporter David Pugliese that the alleged flooding was negligible, but the video footage supplied and published by theCitizen indicated otherwise.


Comparatively the Canadian Army was the only branch that managed what could arguably considered a barely passing grade with just 46 per cent of their primary combat equipment and vehicles considered hors d'combat. Which means a less than comforting 54 per cent still rolls and fires.


However, given the acute shortage of spare parts, ammunition and trained technicians, even this marginal result is bound to diminish unless the course of the CAF can be drastically altered and quickly.


Personnel shortages are the major crippling factor at present with the CAF short nearly 16,000 service members out of a combined authorized Reserve and Regular Force strength of 115,000.


Blair had to admit that one of the solutions to the recruiting problem had been to remove the pre-requisite that an applicant be a Canadian Citizen. As of last year one needed only to be a Permanent Resident to enlist. 


According to another recent CBC report, that policy change resulted in more than 21,000 Permanent Residents signing up at recruiting centres. Unfortunately, due to the lengthy process required for security background tests on these individuals, fewer than 100 of those recruits are actually in uniform today.


While Blair openly admitted in his speech that the present CAF is in terrible shape, he made no concrete announcements and gave no specific timelines as to when the Liberals will even announce their long anticipated Defence Policy Update. This was formerly the Defence Policy Review undertaken on an 'Urgent' basis following Russia's February 2022 invasion of Ukraine. Blair would only say that this new policy paper would come 'soon.'

ON TARGET: How Solid is NATO?

By Scott Taylor

On Monday February 26, French President Emmanuel Macron started a firestorm on the international diplomatic front by suggesting that NATO member countries could contribute combat forces to the war in Ukraine on an "official basis". The French leader said that “we will do everything needed so Russia cannot win the war" after a meeting in Paris of over 20 European heads of state and government and other Western officials.

President Macron admitted that to date there is "no consensus" on such a plan but he also emphasized that "nothing was excluded".

In response to Macron's comments, Canada, US, UK and Germany issued immediate official denials of support for such a military escalation of the conflict with Russia. 
French political opposition parties also sharply criticized Macron's proposal while the Kremlin invoked the threat of nuclear retaliation if NATO troops deploy onto the Ukrainian battlefield. 
Where Macron did find support was from the governments of Lithuania and Estonia, both of whom are NATO allies which border Russia.

The reasoning behind Macron's suggested escalation of the war is the fact that in recent weeks, Ukraine has suffered some serious battlefield reversals and the industrial capacity of the West is unable to keep up with the munitions expenditure by Ukraine.

At present, Russian artillery enjoys a 10-to-one advantage in shells fired on a daily basis. 
It is also true that the Armed Forces of Ukraine are woefully short of manpower. Even with aggressive conscription techniques being used by Ukraine's Security Forces, the attritional nature of the war to date remains firmly in Russia's favour.
European allies can look to purchase weapons and munitions for Ukraine from Asian producers such as South Korea, but only the commitment of foreign combat soldiers will tip the balance.

Which brings us to the very core definition of what it means to be a member of the NATO alliance. Article 5 of the NATO Charter states that, provided a NATO ally is the victim of an armed attack, each and every other member of the Alliance will consider this act of violence an armed attack against all members and will take the actions necessary to assist the ally attacked. 
Now keep in mind that this North Atlantic Treaty was signed in 1949, and the original 12 members, including Canada, sought a collective military alliance to resist potential Soviet Union aggression in Europe and/or North America. 
No provision was made for attacks on colonial territories held by these member states. Which is why NATO did not go to war against Argentina when it invaded the British colony of the Falkland Islands back in 1982. But I digress.

Now entering its 75th year, NATO has grown to the current total of 31 member countries, with Sweden and Finland only joining the club after Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022.

To date no NATO country has suffered an armed attack against it and thankfully Article 5 of the charter has not been put to the test. However the Alliance did flex its muscle in 1999 when it bombed Serbia into submission during a 78-day aerial bombardment.

NATO also led the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan and it was a NATO commanded alliance that bombed the bejeezus out of Libya in 2010. Throw in some NATO training missions in war ravaged post-US invasion Iraq and it turns out that the world's most sophisticated and powerful military alliance has yet to achieve a clear cut win.

For the record, Canada has been front and centre in all of these NATO-led, albeit dubious, missions far outside their stated mandate of mutual defence.
What Macron is suggesting is the opposite. Should a member state choose to form a bilateral alliance with Ukraine and then commit their own soldiers to that conflict, that will not trigger Article 5.
So long as Russia does not escalate the war onto the NATO ally's territory, in this case France, other NATO members are under no obligation to join the fray. 

ON TARGET: The Canadian Armed Forces are in Even Worse Shape than you may Think

By Scott Taylor

There is no shortage of news stories outlining the current woes of the Canadian Armed Forces. The shortage of personnel stands at a crippling 16 per cent and this gap between authorized strength and service members in uniform will only widen as the senior leadership are failing miserably in both recruiting new candidates and retaining trained soldiers, sailors and aircrew.

Apologists for the Trudeau Liberal government and the military brass will dismiss this current crisis as a common challenge for a western democracy to maintain a peacetime army.

However, with the Russian invasion of Ukraine still raging in Europe, Gaza and the West Bank aflame in the Middle East and Houthi pirates running amok in the Red Sea, these can hardly be considered peaceful times.

In fact, the demand for CAF combat instructors to train the Armed Forces of Ukraine in the UK and Poland, plus the crunch of maintaining a forward deployed Battle Group permanently in Latvia as a NATO deterrent to further Russian aggression, the Canadian Army is hard pressed to conduct the necessary training in Canada for any would be recruits.

This year marks the 100th Anniversary of the Royal Canadian Air Force. The occasion will be marked with pomp and ceremony, parades, gala balls and commemorative photo books. However, a few coats of paint cannot hide the reality that the RCAF is desperately short of pilots.

Programs have been initiated to encourage trained pilots from allied nations to immigrate with their families, complete with hefty signing bonuses in order to plug the gaps on the flight line. Experienced RCAF pilots are being encouraged to keep their uniforms handy and enlist in the Reserves, just in case the civilian airline business takes a downturn and they need to slide back into their old cockpits.

The poor old Royal Canadian Navy are also slammed with some sea-going trades listed at 40 per cent below authorized manning levels. Sure you can round up a bunch of green recruits and herd them aboard a frigate, but you cannot put a RCN warship out to sea without having certain qualified technicians in key trades aboard. It was recently announced that an annual operational two-ship RCN commitment to the seas off West Africa was aborted for want of trained crew.

Which begs the question, how did Canadians become so apathetic towards serving in our military? In 1989 at the zenith of the Cold War, Canada had over 88,000 regular troops enlisted, when our population stood at just 26.7 million.

Today Canada has just crested the 40 million population threshold and we are hovering around the 60,000 mark for regular service members still actually on the payroll. Note, that number includes hundreds, if not thousands of personnel who are awaiting release or are on extended leave (stress, medical, paternity, maternity etc). Not to mention the scores of individuals officially recruited, but who are languishing on bases while awaiting their trades training.

For those who recall modern history, shortly after the CAF had hit that 88,000 member pinnacle, the Soviet Union imploded and the good guys won the Cold War.

Although Canada had never really fully ponied up for our NATO commitments, a peace time dividend was expected by the Canadian public so the Progressive Conservative government of the day implemented the Force Reduction Program (FRP) for the allegedly 'bloated' CAF.

Under the terms of the FRP, from April 1992 to March 1998 military personnel were offered lucrative incentives in order to take early retirement. Naturally enough DND bureaucrats botched this up by overpaying members for their unused leave and then they callously clawed it back once Treasury Board realized DND had not conformed to the official guidelines.

But the members were by now out of uniform and on civvy street. An estimated 10,500 CAF veterans took advantage of the FRP.

It is hard to imagine that just thirty short years ago, the Canadian military could not get rid of personnel fast enough, and of course in their keen desire to thin out the ranks, recruiting courses were suspended. That created its own set of difficulties in the years to come as the CAF literally had no Privates (rank level).

The aging out of Canada's military equipment is fodder for another column but relief is on the order books in the form of 88 purchased CF-35 Joint Strike Fighters and 15 Canadian Surface Combatants. The real challenge will be to ensure that there will be enough people left in uniform to actually get to use them.

ON TARGET: 'Urgent Basis'?: Canada's New Air Defence Systems

By Scott Taylor

On Thursday Feb. 15, Minister of National Defence Bill Blair used the occasion of a NATO Ministers' meeting in Brussels to announce Canada's acquisition of two new air defence systems for the Canadian Armed Forces. The total combined value of these two procurements is estimated at $273 million, and in both cases delivery is expected to be "later this year".

According to the official announcement CAF "members deployed to NATO's Canada-led Battle Group in Latvia will soon have two new defensive capabilities that are being acquired on an urgent basis. This new equipment will strengthen the defence capacity of the Battle Group as a whole, further adding to the deterrence capabilities of soldiers from all contributing nations." 

Now keep in mind that I did not add the underline to 'urgent basis' --that was actually part of the official correspondence. Which begs the question just what is the yardstick that DND uses to define the word 'urgent.'

Canada has not had any air defence capability whatsoever since 2012. At that juncture Canada had completed a 10- year combat mission in Afghanistan, and although our troops had by no means won that conflict, our soldiers could consider themselves experienced veterans of modern counter-insurgency warfare.

As the primitive Taliban forces had no aircraft or drones from which to threaten our soldiers with aerial attack, Canada focused on such capabilities as countering improvised-explosive-devices and investing in heavy lift helicopters to transport troops without exposing them to the deadly roadways. Thus air defence was not deemed a priority and the Canadian Army simply let this capability lapse.

Fast forward to June, 2017. In response to the ongoing conflict in eastern Ukraine and the potential threat of further Russian aggression, NATO launched Operation REASSURANCE. Answering NATO's call, Canada stepped up and volunteered to be the lead nation for a multi-national brigade, which was to be forward deployed into Latvia.

At this juncture, the threat of potential all-arms combat against a near peer in the form of the Russian military should have resulted in Canadian Army commanders pounding on their Minister's desk to demand they be equipped and trained on modern air defence systems on an urgent basis. 

Instead we heard not a peep from the military brass nor any of the other armchair generals and Colonel Blimp tub-thumpers who were just delighted to be back into the familiar rhetoric of the Cold War era.

Conveniently forgotten was the fact that during the Cold War Canada did have tactical low level air defence systems, and lots of it. The Royal Canadian Artillery had entire Air Defence Regiments and combat arms units had shoulder-fired missiles. But I digress.
In February 2022 when Putin launched the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the world was shocked. Everyone thought that the vaunted Russian military machine would easily crush the Armed Forces of Ukraine and the avid speculation was on where Putin would invade next. The fact that Russia was using combat helicopters and fighter jets should have again caused our commanders in Latvia to demand air defence systems on an 'urgent basis'.

However, it was not until January 2023 that Canada realized that air defence systems were necessary to defeat Russia's drones and combat aircraft over the modern battlefield. As such it was announced that Canada would procure the NASAM (National Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile System) for the Armed Forces of Ukraine. The NASAM deal is worth $406 million and is considered a Foreign Sales purchase directly from the US Government.

When this acquisition for Ukraine was made public, opposition defence critics quickly pointed out that the Canadian Army themselves possessed no such vital tactical capability. As a result, over a year ago, the Liberals quietly tendered bids for a low level air defence system for the Canadian Army, on an 'urgent basis'. Blair's announcement last week was simply the result of that months-long competition.

For the record, the $406 million NASAM air defence package purchased for Ukraine in January 2023, has yet to be delivered. Which makes one wonder what exactly is meant by an 'urgent basis'. 
I mean it's not like there's a war on.

ON TARGET: Shelling Out: The Exploding Cost of the War in Ukraine

By Scott Taylor

Last week Canada's Minister of National Defence, Bill Blair announced that Canada will be contributing another $35 million worth of equipment and training to the Armed Forces of Ukraine (AFU). 

Since 2014, Canada has donated over $8.5 billion in military hardware and cash to support Ukraine’s government and build the capacity of the AFU, most of that aid being delivered after Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022.

To the average Canadian taxpayer struggling to pay a mortgage and with growing concerns over our failing health care systems, that might sound like a lot of money. However, to embattled Ukrainian President

Volodymyr Zelenskyy, this amounts to a mere pittance compared to the vast sum he requires to continue resisting the Russian invasion.

On his most recent visit to the USA to plead for funds from US Congress, Zelenskyy was hoping for $60 billion (USD) in immediate relief. Instead he returned to Kyiv having only secured a mere $250 million (USD), mostly in the form of ammunition from the US military. It is not chump change, but it is no where near what Ukraine needs to stay in the fight.

Also worthy of note from Blair's announcement was the type of equipment which Canada is giving Ukraine. The bulk of the $35 million donation will be in the form of 10 Zodiac Hurricane rigid-hull-inflatable-boats (RhIBs). Now these are excellent pieces of kit mainly used by Canada's special forces operatives for amphibious clandestine operations.

As a close observer of the war in Ukraine to date, I realize that Ukraine has launched a few raids across the Dniepr river into Russian held territory on the east bank. However these have been brief sideshows compared to the land based trench warfare slugfest of attrition taking place on the vast steppes of Ukraine or in urban battles akin to the World War 2 battle of Stalingrad.

What the AFU desperately needs is artillery ammunition, drones, combat aircraft, low level air defence systems and manpower. Canada is sending them 10 Zodiac boats instead.

To be fair, Canada has in the past donated four M777 155mm Howitzers to Ukraine along with much of our own artillery shells. We subsequently purchased 20,000 155mm howitzer shells from the US government to be delivered directly to Ukraine. 

In total Canada has provided Ukraine with what seems like a whopping 40,000 heavy artillery shells thus far in the war. 

However when you factor in that the conflict has been raging for almost two years and Ukraine expends on average 5,000 rounds of artillery daily, Canada has only provided 8 days worth of ammo, or 1% of the shells fired to date.

It is no longer the consideration of the cost when it comes to artillery shells. The US and NATO allies simply cannot produce enough to keep pace with the expenditure in Ukraine. 
Prior to 2022, the US produced just 14,000 155 mm shells per month. That production has been doubled to 28,000 a month currently, but Ukraine needs 200,000 shells a month. You do not need a degree in mathematics to realize those numbers are not sustainable.

Also of note is the fact that in the capitalist tradition of a product's market value being based on the ratio of supply-versus -demand, due to this production shortfall, the cost per 155 mm artillery round has quadrupled from $2,000 (USD) per shell in 2022, to over $8,000 (USD) currently.
.
It would seem that the US arms industry does indeed 'Stand with Ukraine'. In this case, all the way to the bank.

ON TARGET: OFF COURSE: The Canadian Armed Forces Lack Direction

By Scott Taylor

When the Trudeau Liberals were first elected in 2015, one of their announced priorities was to review Canada's existing Defence Policy.

The result of that collective brainstorming was released in 2017 under the catchy title Strong, Secure, Engaged, or SSE for short.

This SSE blueprint was originally touted to be the Liberals' "20-year plan to provide the Canadian Armed Forces with the capabilities, equipment and culture needed to anticipate and respond to threats and protect Canadians.”

However, just five years into the SSE era the global security environment took an alarming turn when the Russian military invaded Ukraine. In response to this perilous development, Deputy Prime Minister, and Finance Minister, Chrystia Freeland announced in her Budget 2022 that a major review would be undertaken, complete with public consultation, to amend the existing SSE to better fit the deteriorating global security situation.

Despite the ongoing war in Ukraine and heightening tensions between China and Taiwan in the western Pacific, it was not until March 2023 that the Department of National Defence and Canadian Armed Forces would actually launch public consultations on what is now termed the Defence Policy Update. 

The window for these outside public submissions was a relatively brief six weeks, with the deadline closing on 30 April, 2023. Nearly a year later, the war in Ukraine still rages, the Middle East has exploded, Houthi pirates are running amok in the Red Sea and China continues to rattle sabres with Taiwan. Yet still the CAF awaits their new marching orders in the form of the long awaited Defence Policy Update.

In the interim, the leadership team at National Defence Headquarters must continue to tread water, while struggling to meet the objectives of the now admittedly very out of date SSE.

In this regard the CAF leaders have failed miserably. Due to a nearly two-decade shortfall in recruiting coupled with a failure to retain experienced service members, the Canadian military now faces a severe lack of personnel.

The situation in the Royal Canadian Navy is so dire that an annual two ship deployment to West Africa was cancelled for 2024 due to a lack of qualified sailors.

A shortage of fighter pilots has also resulted in Canada cancelling several international training exercises in 2023. For its part, the Army is challenged to conduct training as a result of Canada having donated a huge chunk of their weaponry and ammunition to the Armed Forces of Ukraine.

That said, it is hard to simply blame the current crop of leaders if they in turn are awaiting a clear set of directions from the elected officials who govern our military.

In fact the tardiness of the Liberals releasing the Defence Policy Update may be a blessing in disguise. For instance the war in Ukraine has demonstrated that the drone is the new 'Queen of the Modern Battlefield' and that Low Level Air Defence is the necessary protection for troops involved in 'near peer' conventional warfare. Canada is sadly lacking in drones and totally bereft of a low level air defence system. Given that we have a battle group forward deployed in Latvia that might be the first priority item on the DPU's purchase list. 

Unfortunately even when the much anticipated DPU is finally released it will undoubtedly fall short of what the CAF needs and that is a complete makeover. Recommendations to fix the culture through new dress and deportment regulations and a few new pieces of kit will not put Humpty Dumpty back together again. That egg is broke and what Canada needs is a whole new egg, not a bunch of horses and men mucking about in the old yolk.

ON TARGET: NATO Troops not Litterbugs and Drunks: Russian Disinformation Falls Flat in Latvia

By Scott Taylor

For years now, the Canadian Armed Forces have been telling anyone who will listen, to be afraid of Russian disinformation.

According to our own military officers and a few self-appointed ‘misinformation experts’ the Russian propaganda machine is out to undermine the efforts of the NATO Alliance of which Canada is a founding member.

In 2014, Canada agreed to provide troops to be forward deployed in Latvia as part of NATO’s Operation REASSURANCE, as a deterrent to potential Russian aggression.

The fear was that Russia would disseminate misinformation among the Latvian population – particularly the 25% ethnic Russian Latvians in order to sow discord and discontent between the NATO battlegroup and local civilians. To counter this potential threat, Canada spent a boatload of money to create something called the NATO Strategic Communication Center of Excellence.

Interestingly, this title is somewhat misleading as their website runs an up-front disclaimer that they are not actually part of the NATO command structure and that they do not represent the military alliance. This in turn makes me question the validity of the use of the word ‘Excellence’ in their title.

However, it is now being reported that any Russian propaganda campaigns in Latvia have been largely unsuccessful and have failed to gain traction with that country’s population. Now before some zealot accuses me of spreading Russian disinformation, this latest report comes courtesy of the Royal Military College of Canada, and that internal assessment was obtained by the Ottawa Citizen.

It is not that Russia did not attempt to sow discord in Latvia; it is instead the fact that the tactics used were so lame as to be immediately dismissed by a Latvian public long accustomed to clumsy government propaganda from their Soviet era.

For instance one Russian ploy was to depict NATO soldiers flagrantly littering the streets of Latvia.

If the streets were indeed clogged with garbage, such images may have indeed incensed the Latvian population. But they were not, so the issue gained no traction.

Another Russian ruse was to portray Canadian soldiers as being fixated on the acquisition of beer.

For anyone familiar with soldiers of almost any nationality the question begs, where is the insult? If NATO soldiers were drunkenly staggering en masse through the streets of Riga like extras from the Walking Dead TV series, Latvians might have indeed been displeased with having a NATO brigade deployed on their soil.

The orderly conduct of the Canadian and indeed all NATO contingents in Latvia made that Russian misinformation fizzle on impact.

Perhaps the most outlandish Russian falsehood was to link former Royal Canadian Air Force Colonel, Russ Williams, the convicted serial killer, to the Canadian mission in Latvia.

The kicker was to attach a photo which had been entered into evidence at William’s murder trial, wherein the colonel was wearing the bra and panties of one of his victims.

This, I am sure was dismissed out of hand by any Latvian civilian exposed to this hoax as being too bizarre to even contemplate it being real.

Only those Canadian service members familiar with the Russ Williams saga would have been slighted by the fact a senior RCAF officer had indeed committed rape and murder. But I digress.

Now that the Canadian military have realized how little impact the Russian disinformation campaign has had in Latvia, perhaps they can stop using that red herring to deflect any negative news story here in Canada.

Whether or not Canada’s procurement woes, personnel shortages or sexual misconduct scandals would be “music to the Kremlin’s ears” is irrelevant. The answer is to fix the problems, not blame the Russians.

ON TARGET: The Future Canadian Armed Forces will need to Shrink its Ranks

By Scott Taylor

There has been an almost steady drumbeat of bad news stories revealing the numerous shortcomings and challenges facing the Canadian Armed Forces. The combined recruiting and retention crisis over the past decade has resulted in a crippling shortage of personnel. In some key trades – particularly in the Royal Canadian Navy and RCAF – the trade vacancy rate tops 40%.

Overall the combined Regular and Reserve forces are facing a 17% shortfall of an authorized personnel strength of 115,000.

This situation has been acknowledged by the senior brass who have advised the Canadian public that, like it or not, they will simply not be able to achieve their operational requirements through the foreseeable future.

To face this crisis the Canadian military have focussed their efforts on the obvious. In an attempt to increase recruiting and encourage retention the CAF lifted all regulations on tattoos, piercings, hairstyles, facial hair and gender specific uniform items.

The RCN have also created a special one-year Naval Experience Program wherein would be recruits only have to commit to twelve months of service.

The hope is that within that initial period, the excitement and adventure of Navy life will convince these individuals to sign up for a full career.

However the current shortage of qualified personnel means that fewer RCN warships can be put to sea. As a result, the one year wonder recruits may find their twelve months to be a boring stretch of doing general duties such as cleaning barracks and mending equipment. But I digress.

The approach the CAF leaders should consider would be that of downsizing the military to keep pace with the diminished number of recruits.

I know this will sound like heresy to the Colonel Blimps out there, but before you start thumping your tubs, I will remind you that this is nothing new.

With advances in technology we have seen a complete evolution of the modern battlefield. We went from close-packed rank of hundreds of soldiers firing muskets in volleys to a machine gun able to generate more firepower from a single soldier.

Close observers of the current conflict in Ukraine will have realized that uninhabited drones are now the masters of the battlefield. They can be used to observe and also to directly destroy enemy weapons and formations. The skill set for piloting or programming such drones does not require the same level of fitness and physical strength as that of conventional combat soldiers.

I think that if Canada were to invest in a boatload of cutting edge fleets of hunter-killer and kamikaze drones, operated by just a handful of talented gamers this would have more tactical impact on a modern battlefield than three battalions of conventional mechanized infantry.

At sea, the war in Ukraine has also exposed the vulnerability of Russia’s surface fleet to the uninhabited, water borne attack drones of the Armed Forces of Ukraine.

It is also true that with the advent of technology, crew sizes in conventional warships can be drastically reduced.

The French navy currently operates their larger FREMM frigates with crews of just 140, while the RCN still puts their Halifax-class frigates out to sea with over 220 sailors crammed aboard.

The RCAF has a crippling shortage of pilots despite a decades-long drastic reduction in the number of combat planes operated by Canada.

In terms of fighter aircraft, in the early days of the Cold War, Canada purchased over 1,100 CF-86 Sabre fighters. To replace them, Canada bought a mixed fleet of 200 CF-104 starfighters and 145 CF-5 fighters.

This was, in turn, downsized to a fleet of just 120 CF-18 Hornets in the 1980’s. There are currently 86 CF-18’s still in service with the RCAF, and the government has signed a contract to replace these with 88 F-35 Joint Strike fighters.

The real future of military aviation however, as demonstrated by the war in Ukraine is not dog-fighting Top Gun jet jocks: it is unmanned drones programmed by high-tech engineers.

ON TARGET: Canadian troops in Niger? Iraq? Why?

By Scott Taylor

There were two news stories out last week which served as a reminder that Canada still has combat soldiers deployed to two global hotspots that rarely get mentioned in the media: Namely Niger and Iraq.

On Thursday January 3rd, the Ottawa Citizen headline read “Canadian Special Forces to remain in Niger, but details about role are unclear.” Most Canadians can be forgiven if they were unaware that Canada has been deploying military training teams to Niger for more than a decade.

Questions should have been raised when the Niger military staged a coup last July to oust that country’s democratically elected president.

The Niger officers who plotted that coup had been trained by U.S. and Canadian military trainers and had participated in the U.S.-led annual Flintlock exercises.

It took the U.S. State Department until October before they officially deemed the events in Niger to be a coup. Under U.S. law such official recognition brings with it restrictions on the provision of military aid and training to that nation.

Canada did not concede that- what they continued to refer to as an ‘attempted coup,’ was in fact a successful ‘coup’ until mid-December.

Given the time lines, the question begs just what exactly these Canadian soldiers have been doing in Niger for the past six months? Ostensibly they were deployed to train the Niger military. That same military then illegally seized power, imprisoned the elected president and cut ties with the European Union.

Also in that interim, the Niger military junta expelled the 1400 French troops which had been based in the former colony.

After being questioned by the Ottawa Citizen, the Canadian Armed Forces issued a statement that the small team of Canadian special forces members will no longer train members of Niger’s military. While not divulging what exactly these special forces trainers have been doing since the coup, the defence department made it clear that these soldiers were not leaving Africa anytime soon.

Instead “they are conducting planning for future activities in the region including liaison and coordination with African and Western nations” read the official statement. Well that certainly clears that up.

The second news story to catch my attention was that of the recent U.S. drone strike in Baghdad. Several people were killed and wounded in that strike including a leader of a Iraq Shiite militia known as the Popular Mobilisation Forces (PMF).

On the surface the U.S. action would appear to be justified. Since the outbreak of the Israel-Hamas conflict, a group of Iranian-backed Shiite militias – which call themselves the Islamic Resistance in Iraq – have carried out over 100 attacks against U.S military installations in both Iraq and Syria.

However, this is where things begin to get a little complex. The U.S. and their allies – including Canada – retain military forces in Iraq and the region to build the capacity of the Iraq Security Forces to keep Daesh (aka ISIS or ISIL) from a resurgence.

The PMF are part of the official Iraqi Security Forces and as such they come under the command umbrella of the Iraqi army.

So the American military is resorting to extra judicial executions of the very same forces they are supposed to be assisting, to combat the really bad guys which would be the Daesh evil doers.

It simply makes no sense, which is why Canada should cut our losses and end OPERATION IMPACT in Iraq ASAP. While we are at it, we should bring home those trainers in Niger instead of looking for more mischief to be stirred up in that region of Africa.

ON TARGET: Is The USA Reversing Course on the Conflict in Ukraine?

By Scott Taylor

Over the past few weeks there has been a tremendous shift in US foreign policy with regards to the war in Ukraine. The phrase 'negotiated settlement' is once again being uttered by the Biden administration as a proposed major military aid package to Ukraine has been blocked by US Congress.


In early December, Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskyy made a personal appeal to US lawmakers on Capitol Hill seeking a $60+ billion (USD) emergency bailout in cash and weaponry. However the Republican Party dominated US Congress voted instead to block the deal and Zelenskyy returned to Kyiv with the comparatively paltry sum of just $250 million in mostly Pentagon-donated munition stocks.
Further crunching Ukraine's cash flow crisis is Hungarian President Victor Orban's blocking of a separate European Union aid donation valued at $50 billion Euros ($76.1 billion CAD).


Zelenskyy's government have recently warned that without an infusion of $37 billion (USD) in the coming months, they will have no option but to forfeit on the payment of civil servant salaries and pensions. 


To date Canada has provided an estimated $9.5 billion (CAD) in aid to Ukraine since 2014, with the bulk of that being delivered since the Russian invasion in February 2022. In terms of donations based on a per capita or as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) basis, Canada is the leading donor to Ukraine. However the staggering amount of money that Ukraine requires to remain in the war - let alone rebuild following the conflict - is well beyond Canada's capacity to sustain on our own.


Hence, when the Biden administration suddenly stops talking 'total victory' in Ukraine and instead starts using the word 'negotiation', it clearly signifies a major shift in the outcome of the war. 


In 2023, the US and NATO allies, including Canada, had put considerable combat resources and training into the Armed Forces of Ukraine with the view that a major counter offensive would drive the Russian invaders out of all Ukrainian territory. However, after months of bloody combat, the Ukrainians suffered severe casualties in exchange for very little territory regained. Even Ukraine's senior military commanders have admitted that the war is now a 'stalemate'. The new US strategy is aimed to bolster Ukraine's defensive positions in advance of any peace negotiations. 

In a recent Politico story, an un-named White House official is quoted as saying "the only way this war ends ultimately is through negotiation. We want Ukraine to have the strongest hand possible when that comes."


In the early days following Putin's invasion, it was President Zelenskyy who expressed the sentiment that only negotiations would end the bloodshed. As such, Ukraine did send negotiators to meet with their Russian counterparts in Belarus and later in Antalya, Turkey. By mid-March 2022, just weeks into the war, both sides were close to reaching a fifteen point agreement.


However, following a whirlwind visit to Kyiv by British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, Zelensky suddenly switched his policy to nothing less than 'total victory' and negotiations were halted.


Arguably, Ukraine had a far stronger bargaining position in April 2022 than they do now. Also, if the aim of the west was to prolong the war in order to further weaken Russia militarily, then this too has apparently back-fired. 

In those early days of combat, the world saw the once vaunted Russian war machine humiliatingly revealed as being nothing but a paper tiger. The invading Russian armoured columns had been shattered by sophisticated, NATO weaponry in the hands of a competent NATO trained Ukrainian military. 

However in the subsequent months of fighting, the Russian military has learned from its mistakes, fired those failed commanders and put their defence industry on a war time footing. Contrary to the spring of 2022, when they were soundly defeated and routed outside the gates of Kyiv, Russia now possesses a combat capable conventional fighting force.


If the US and the EU continue to withhold the necessary funding and weaponry, and as a result Ukraine is forced to make territorial concessions at future peace talks, no doubt the people of Ukraine will feel they have betrayed by the West's false promise of limitless support.

ON TARGET: What 'Bang' is Canada Getting for the Defence 'Bucks' being Spent?

By Scott Taylor

One of the most often perpetuated myths about the Canadian military is that it is somehow woefully underfunded. The genesis for this false impression is the arbitrary yardstick used by many defence analysts to calculate budgets as a percentage of a nation’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP).

The magic number that was seized upon was that of two percent GDP to be spent on national defence.

Canada happens to have the luxury of having a comparatively large GDP.

As a result, we presently spend just 1.3% of our GDP on defence, despite the fact that in terms of actual dollars spent, we rank sixth among the 30-member states of the NATO alliance. It would also shock most Canadians to know that Canada ranks in the top ten percent of countries in the world, in terms of actual dollars spent on defence.

Canada currently attempts to spend $26.5 billion a year and that means that to meet the defence analysts’ measure of two percent of GDP, our defence budget would need to be in excess of $40 billion.

That is a mind-blowing figure.

One of the most vocal advocates of NATO members – including Canada, spending that magical two per cent of GDP on defence, was none other than former, and possibly soon to be future President of the United States, Donald Trump.

He famously referred to those NATO members not meeting the two percent threshold as ‘delinquent’ and ‘freeloaders’.

Missing from Trump’s equation was the fact that countries like Greece and Latvia – who both spend more than two percent - have relatively miniscule GDP’s and as such can offer little capacity to the NATO alliance in terms of actual contribution. In contrast, Canada provided NATO with a full battle group during the decade long occupation of Afghanistan, combat trainers for the mission in Iraq and a forward deployed battle group in Latvia since 2017 as part of Operation REASSURANCE.

In other words, when one factors in actual capability and commitment, Canada could hardly be referred to as either ‘delinquent’ or a ‘freeloader’. It is also true that in the past year, Canada has announced over $30 billion in new defence contracts.

In addition to the $19 billion to purchase 88 F-35 Joint Strike Fighters from Lockheed Martin, on November 30th, the Liberal government also announced a sole source deal worth $8 billion to buy new surveillance aircraft from Boeing.

Just before Christmas, the Liberals announced that Canada was buying $2.5 billion worth of Predator drones from General Atomics.

As there is no point in having an armed drone without arms, Canada also announced the purchase of $400 million worth of Hellfire missiles. Those missiles are made by Lockheed Martin.

While these are large dollar figure acquisitions for the future of the Canadian Armed Forces, Canadians should realize that two of these weapon systems represent a drastic departure from Canada’s historic posture of a peacekeeping nation.

The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter’s main asset is its fifth-generation stealth capability. By its very definition this is a ‘day one’ offensive weapon to be used to neutralize a peer or near peer hostile state’s air defences. We are purchasing 88 of these fighter aircraft and Canada has no plans to operate a mixed fleet. I for one cannot fathom a scenario wherein Canada would initiate a first strike against another country all on our own. This means that for the foreseeable future our air force’s combat asset is nothing more than a supplement to the U.S. Airforce.

As for the purchase of 11 MQ-9 Reaper (Predator) drones armed with Hellfire missiles, this puts Canada on the slippery slope of making ourselves a deputy to the world’s self-appointed policeman – the United States of America.

The U.S. uses these hunter-killer drones to carry out extrajudicial execution of their enemies all over the world.

These things are long range deadly killing machines, which again, I cannot foresee any scenario wherein we would employ these drones into any airspace without express permission from our southern cousins.

Contrary to any sales pitch, the Reapers are not going to be used all that often by the RCAF to detect forest fires.

Word to the wise, some of those Canadian defence analysts calling for the “two per cent of GDP spending on defence” receive much of their funding from those same defence contractors benefiting from the additional expenditure.