Canadian military

186 posts / 0 new
Last post
Canadian military





I had no idea this was happening so I thought a thread to track Canadian military activity would be useful.

A first in the history of the RCN, HMCS Vancouver fired the missile off the coast of California while conducting a Joint Littoral Training Exercise (JoLTEX) with the U.S. Navy.

Beforehand, the Halifax-class frigate could only fire its BOFOR 57 mm Mk2 gun at land targets up to 17 kilometres. With the Harpoon Block II, it can now hit a target at up to 124 kilometres with more precision. The Canadian frigate can carry more than eight Harpoons onboard.

Made by Boeing, the Harpoon Block II is an anti-ship missile that can execute both land-strike and anti-ship missions. It is packed with more than 500 pounds of explosive and employs a GPS-aided inertial navigation system (INS) to strike land targets and docked ships.


The Boeing Harpoon Block II can also be fired from the F/A-18E Super Hornet multirole fighter. This is another reason why I believe the Super Hornet would be ideal for replacing the ageing the CF-188 Hornets.

This picture gives me chills. Canada has no need of this.

This information is from a Huffington blogger.

Jonathan Wade - Military and Foreign Affairs Specialist. Combat Veteran of Afghanistan. Specializing on Russia, Canada and the Arctic.

I googled it and found the only main news source to report on it seems to be the CBC four days ago.


Pondering wrote:


This picture gives me chills. Canada has no need of this.


I agree, we should always close to hand grenade and bayonet distance.

I kid but all joking aside what is it you don't think Canada has need of? CF18 jets, Halifax-class frigates or the harpoon missle?


Paladin1 wrote:

I kid but all joking aside what is it you don't think Canada has need of? CF18 jets, Halifax-class frigates or the harpoon missle?

All of the above? If we stopped being in a perpetual war why would we need most of that kind of hardware?

Mr. Magoo

In case Donald Trump wins?


Petition to stop Canada’s planned $30 billion Purchase of New Warplanes and Warships.


Canada Should Resist Boosting Its Defence Spending

"That's right folks. Trump's 10 per cent increase to the US military is now greater than Russia's entire defence budget. For Canada, Trump's prioritization of defence spending means that we will be under enormous pressure to boost our own defence budget. To meet NATO's goal would require a 100 per cent increase..."



Canada should boost it's defense budget.

We're deploying service members with shitty personal equipment, tired weapons, ill fitting and poor quality uniforms and boots, vehicles that are falling apart (still using a vehicle from the 50's). We have to rent cargo ships to move around the world. Screwing over service members (and our military in general) to give Trump a fuck you is ridiclous.


I have to point out that in the last year the department nd got almost 5 billion increase. 

2015-  23,669

2016- 28,519 billion

increase 20.5 % year over year.  They had payday in last year.

expense table 6-see

Direct program expenses include transfer payments to individuals and other organizations not included in major transfers to persons and other levels of government, and other direct program expenses, which consist of operating expenses of National Defence, other departments and agencies, and expenses of Crown corporations. Direct program expenses increased by $7.8 billion, or 6.8 per cent, in 2015–16

  • Other transfer payments decreased by $0.3  billion, or 0.7 per cent.
  • Other direct program expenses increased by $8.1  billion, or 10.2 per cent.
    • Crown corporation expenses increased by $0.8 billion, or 10.1 per cent, due in large part to an increase in commercial trading transactions of the Canadian Commercial Corporation.
    • National Defence expenses increased by $4.9  billion, or 20.5 per cent, largely reflecting the accrual impact of amendments made to veterans future benefit plans in 2015–16.
    • All other departmental and agency expenses increased by $2.5 billion, or 5.1 per cent, reflecting an increase in pension and other future benefit costs based on the Government’s latest actuarial valuations and a one-time expense recorded in 2015–16 related to the write-down of taxes receivable.

Public debt charges decreased by $1.0 billion, or 3.8 per cent, to $25.6 billion in 2015–16, reflecting a lower average effective interest rate on the stock of interest-bearing debt.




I have no interest feeding the industrail miltiary complex.  If allowed this happen in world war 2 we could possibly lost the war.

1      6.1-inch round of ammoution ship gun costs 800,000.  This not a missle, this is a shell.  Like big bullet fired for large gun.  This was suppoused to cost 50,000 a round now its 800,000.  Not enough money to train or fire the gun.  I want social housing, welfare schemces, not military projects that to expensive to be used.


The industrail miltiary complex is why we won WW2. We we able to produce more 'stuff' than the Germans.

I don't disagree that incredible amounts of money is wasted in the military. We need to fix the system so that the every day members recieve benifits from the military budget and not million dollar experiments.

The military is often called upon when disasters strike at home and abroad. The military should have the capability to send their own ships to a disaster-struck area and help facilitate the evacuation of Canadian nationals. The Canadian citizens sent into harms way by the government should have the proper equipment.


That last sentence you wrote is very subjective.

"""The Canadian citizens sent into harms way by the government should have the proper equipment."""

2010 one canadian soldier sent to Afganstian cost about 525 000 a years.  With of some expenses left out in the figure

2010 1 one american soldier sent to Afganstian cost about 1, 300 000  a year.

I believe that US soldier is best equipped and supported soldier in the world.  How much would it cost to have "proper equipment" 100,000 am year, maybe another half a million if your trying to reach parity with the US.


SeekingAPoliticalHome I don't think that example is a good counter-point to what I was suggesting. Poitns from the article.

-We don't break down costs by individuals.

-Nor does it include the $2 billion in equipment and infrastructure that Canada currently has in Afghanistan.

It doesn't go into details about equipment for individual service members which was my point.  They'll spend millions on big stuff but our personal equipment sucks. There is a lot of over spending and crap for head quarters and offices and little luxeries here and there.  It sucks because the Canadian government forces the military to use equipment made in Canada by Canadian companies, largely for political reasons. The whole "it creates jobs". Nice a nice thought until someone is shooting at you and you have crappy equipment to protect yourself with. We won world war 2 in a shoter amount of time than it took to design test and issue a backpack to Canadian soldiers. Imagine a person telling you that they don;t have any boots, uniforms or body armor for you; now imagine that person being cooled off by a $800 directional desk top air conditioner. 



Are speaking from personal experience?   If you are then I will cide the point to you.  My experience with Canadian Forces was in the late 90's.  I was a reservist in during my university years, a 6 months time period where I passed basic training and then they wanted to send me to infantry course in the summer break.  What I learnted during me experience  was I disliked the outdoors (alot) so infantry was out of the question.  As for equipment we got new thermal underware, undergarments (t shirts), and new boots, the rest was hand me downs if I recall correctly.  You were expected to get a foldabe multitool gadgit and I purchased a swiss army kinve for backup.  No dress uniforms but we had access during cermonies and as needed from the armories inventory. Basic kit. 

As procurment sourcing the government is more interested secondary objectives like jobs.  Tied aid was very like you describe, not sure if its still done.  Canada sends dollars to groups on the condition they buy Canadian goods.  As for Canadian manufacutured goods I can not comment on the quality of the gear.   My frame of judgement was limited ( I got basic kit can not compare it to other gear because all I knew was what I got). 


It sounds like we have a bit in common. I wonder if you got the green waffle thermal underwear or the bright smurf blue stuff back then? I was lured in to the infantry by "liking camping".  The personal equipment took a down turn. Getting issued two pairs of boots went down to one, then new recruits would have to wear running shoes because there weren't any boots in the system for them. Or they would be given heavy goretex lined and padded boots which would make their feet sweat in the summer. Our stuff is either now falling apart or it takes decades to get a piece of equipment in. The equipment we do use is decided upon for political reasons and not practical ones.


Maybe I shouldn't say we shoul increase the military budget, maybe I should say we should drastically change how the military budget is spent.


I got green waffle, every one in my training group green waffle. No boots? running shoes that is shocking. We were given a small can of silicone to make them less prone to leak.  For me even new boots were a problem, I got spent a lot time fighting salt stains which were a pain in the butt to deal with. But the boot thing is wild.  I would not begrude any recruit boots.  I found the whole thing disheartening no boots in the system, but trying procure the f-35. 

"Maybe I shouldn't say we shoul increase the military budget, maybe I should say we should drastically change how the military budget is spent."  Sign me up for that.


Canadian Armed Forces Document Calls For 'Heavier Weapons' To Confront Child Soldiers in Africa

How to kill kids in Africa the nice Canadian way...


Bumbling NATO Instructors in Ukraine

Glad to hear it. Carry on!


Sicily: The Base For A US/NATO Attack


"From 12-24 March, along Sicily's Mediterranean coast, the NATO naval drill 'Dynamic Manta' is taking place. Military navies from the US, CANADA, Italy, France, Spain, Greece and Turkey will all be a part of it. The launching pad for the 16 naval units earmarked for the operation, The Californian SSN-781, a US nuclear submarine for rapid attack.

We cannot think about liberating ourselves from the powers represented by the European Union without first liberating ourselves from the domination and influence which the US is exercising over Europe, be it directly or through NATO."


"How to kill kids in Africa the nice Canadian way..."

Yup, pretty nasty eh? Using heavier machine guns to mow down waves of children WW1 style. Incidentally would you have an anternative method of dealing with waves of attackers armed with AK47s or machettes?

Child soldiers are common in Africa so if we send Canadians there get ready to see pictures and videos of Canadians shooting kids.


As far as the Ukraine goes their soldiers are still fairly undiciplined at the individual soldier level by western standards but they can handle themselves in a fight. In some cases visiting soldiers with no combat experience are "training and teaching" Ukrainian soldiers who have combat experience...


 Remember Shidane Arone..


I do yes. I don't see the relevance though?


If you can't see the relevance when this thread has turned to talking about child soldiers in Africa then I am now confused. He was beat to death by a racist member of Canada's Armed Forces while they were "peacekeeping".  Seems to me that when our troops deploy to Africa someone should be actively working on anti-racism otherwise the people we are there to "help" will become the "other" and thus in potential harms way from at least some of our troops.


Shidane Arone wasn't a child soldier though in so far as I can see. He was a 16 year old kid who was either looking for another kid or attempting to steal supplies and as you say was beat to death by Canadian soldiers who were on a peacekeeping mission. (while hardly an excuse the unit involved had severe discipline problems and was a dumping ground for soldiers with disciplinary issues). I'm not sure if they were racist or just murderers?

The link above was about the government talking about Canadian soldiers requiring heavier weapons (eg. machineguns) in order to protect themselves against waves of child soldiers. A common tactic in Africa.

I realize somalia is brought up everytime there is talk about Canada deploying to Africa/overseas and with peacekeeping but the mission Shidane Arone was murdered on was, if I'm not mistaken, a 6 month tour.  Since then there have been numerous various missions including Afghanistan where we were in country for 14 years and no one as far as I know tourtured a kid to death. 


So you think the longest war in our history was a good thing? Tell me if all the locals liked us so much in Afghanistan why did people keep trying to kill our troops? Is it really true that some of them had the audacity to think we were invaders? 


I'm editing my comment to be less sarcastic. Krop please don't try and twist my words and move the goal posts around. No where did I suggest or even hint at Afghanistan being a good thing in this thread. I used us being deployed to Afghanistan for 14 years without a case of torturing a 16 year old kid as an example of how the Somalia murder isn't a bar in which to hold our performance against.  As far as western militaries go we probably have one of the best track records.

The reason why the military will be deployed en mass to Africa (where children will be shot) is because Canadians have a romantasized notion of what peacekeeping is and the Liberals are capatalizing on that. If we turfed that silly image then Canadians would be less inclined to send soldiers to combat in Africa against armed militia including kids while dealing with rape murder and corruption from out UN "allies".

What happens when Canadians happen across a capital crime being committed by UN soldiers? Do we shoot them or file a report?

Rev Pesky

From Paladin 1:

I used us being deployed to Afghanistan for 14 years without a case of torturing a 16 year old kid as an example...

Let us not forget that the Canadian military turned over prisoners to the Afghan army knowing full well those prisoners would be tortured.

From Wikipedia: ​Canadian Afghan detainees

Allegations regarding the treatment of Afghan detainees resurfaced in November 2009 via parliamentary testimony by Richard Colvin, the second highest-ranked member of Canada’s diplomatic service in Afghanistan from 2006 to 2007. Colvin claimed that many detainees were probably tortured, and it was a standard operating procedure for Afghan interrogators. This would be consistent with special reports by the United Nations Human Rights Commission and the US Department of State. Colvin also said the torture involved beatings, whipping with power cables, the use of electricity, knives, open flames and rape.

...Colvin would provide further testimony in a hearing at the MPCC. He stated that upon visiting Kandahar province's main prison in May 2006, he discovered the ICRC had a "serious problem" with trying to keep track of Afghan prisoners. Officials had approached Colvin with "forceful" concerns about the lack of information given to them by Canada, causing them to lose "many, if not most — and possibly all — of our detainees," stated Colvin. He has also presented allegations that Canadian government and military officials knew about reports of abuse and human rights violations surrounding former governor of Kandahar Asadullah Khalid, saying Canadian officials heard credible sources claiming that Khalid ran a drug network, used drugs himself, used private detention facilities, and sexually abused young girls​.

Canada​'s military adventure in Afghanistan my not be the best example of how well it all works...


That's a great point to bring up RP. Your quoted piece says "were probably tortured" but for arguments sake lets say it was establish they were being tortured and murdered.  Part of Canada's mission to Afghanistan was to (so called) rebuild the country which included training menoring and supporting the Afghan National Army (ANA) and Afghan National Police (ANP). Read; not taking over for them.

In order to support train and mentor them we need to let them do their job or attempt it. Our involvement with the ANP was to mentor them, not command or control them.  Just because you mentor someone doesn't mean they automatically listen to or follow what you're saying.

Canadians were ordered to hand prisoners over to the ANP for them to do their job (and support them as police). ANP were accused of murdering prisoners.   What should Canada have done instead? Refused to hand over prisoners to that countries police forces which would amount to basically telling the ANP to fuck off and they're nobodies which would in all liklihood turn them against us even further? Should Canada and NATO have fired all the local police officers and sent our own to do their jobs instead? 

It was a shitty position for Canada to be placed in, I haven't seen anyone suggest a working solution (aside from the standard we shouldn't have been there).

Canada unfortinuately had the same issue when it came to Afghans (ANP and ANA) abusing young boys.


What happens when Canada deploys to Africa and we observe members of the UN breaking the law up to and including committing capital crimes?   The UN is a shit show.


"What happens when Canada deploys to Africa and we observe members of the UN breaking the law up to and including committing capital crimes? "

Guess what? Been there. Done that...

Christopher Black: 'What Really Happened in Rwanda?'

The Dallaire Genocide Fax



So NDPP what would you do?  I'm a Canadian soldier and I just called you, my commander, over the radio and told you that our UN allies are torturing/raping/assaulting locals. What do I do?


What Snowden or Manning did.


So I'm on the phone with you and saying:

"Hey boss what do you want me to do? Turn this prisoner over to the local police where he might get tortured or do you want me to disobey the policy about prisoners and keep him which might instigate the local police?"

and you're going to hang up on me and make a post on wikileaks?


Nuremberg established that you are responsible. As is the officer, for not contravening the relevent Geneva conventions or laws of war. 'Befehl ist Befehl' or 'just following policy' doesn't cut it. Since you are the one behind the 8-ball in this hypothetical scenario, it's your call soldier. I wouldn't support you being there in the first place.

Speaking of warcrimes:

Conservatives Accuse Harjit Sajjan of Lying About Allies Reaction To CF-18 Withdrawal

Of course the real lie is Trudeau's promise to cut Canada's involvement in the war. So he cuts the 'safest' part - bombing from the safety of high above - but escalates the least safe - deployment of troops.

And as if to make up for the removal of the jets, it has now been nationally reported that Canadian special forces are 'painting targets' for coalition bombers and airstrikes on Mosul.

Civilian casualties from the bombing of Mosul, vastly exceed those of Aleppo. Canada is committing warcrimes. There is no national reaction worthy of the name.

The cynicism of all sides here is remarkable. 

Hey Canada, your boys could have made this possible: Just keep pretending you didn't know. Or that Russians are worse...

Pogo Pogo's picture

I still didn't get how you would reply to the soldier on the other end of the phone.  It appears that you are saying that you would refuse to accept local control. Would you take the prisoner (who may be innocent or a murderous thug) into UN custody or release him?  I am kind of picturing the porter in the Clint Eastwood Movie who ends up throwing the bag in the air and running away. 



Unfortinuately NDPP I don't believe the Geneva conventions (specifically convention IV and protocol I or II depending on whether Afghanistan is considered an international or non-international conflict) protect local nationals from local police.

The Geneva conventions really only deal with armed conflicts between states.  Canadians afforded Taliban prisoners the protections and benifits of prisoners of war in accordance with the conventions, basically treating them like a legitimate armed force, but we didn't legally have to. (That also makes it interesting because since we were considering the Taliban a legitimate enemy force a Canadian soldier could be charged as a war criminal for spraying one in the face with pepper spray [chemical weapon] but wouldn't if they sprayed a civilian in the face [crowd control agent]).

It would essentially be akin to a Canadian soldier stationed in the UK refusing a British police officer from taking possession of and arresting a British citizen.  I sense you're not too keen on flushing that debate out too much so I won't harp on it. I just find it a very interesting and important topic.



As for our MND, it does appear that he flat out lied in order to support Trudeau. What a let down.


The government responded to Petition e-608.  Petition e-608 called upon the government to allow the Military Police Complaints Commission (MPCC) unfettered access to documents, citing section 38.01(8) of the Canada Evidence Act as being an opening to allow this to happen.  The rationale behind the petition, I believe, centred on a feeling that the MPCC having this information would help bring more integrity to proceedings on the treatment of Afghan detainees.  Anyway, the government said "no" to the petition's request. 

Petition e-608

Government response to Petition e-608


Sajjan Expresses 'Regret' For Claiming To Be Architect of Key Battle Against Taliban

A particularly repellent cabinet this time around - liars and relentless self-promoters. 


A Question of Torture For Canada's New Defense Minister (Nov 13, 2015)  -  by Matthew Behrens

"An intelligence asset complicit in torture..?"

Rev Pesky

From Paladin 1:

What should Canada have done instead?

The rule is, that once you have taken someone prisoner, what happens to them after that is your responsibility. If you turn them over to someone who either tortures or kills, it is the same as if you had tortured or killed them yourself. I'm not sure what's so hard to understand about this.

Given that the Canadian government knew in advance the probability that their prisoners would be tortured or killed, the answer is they cannot turn them over, at least, not without making themselves vulnerable to war crimes charges.


Harjit Sajjan 'Architect' Fuss a Scandal About Nothing: Walkom

"The real story about Canada's 2006 Operation Medusa battle in Afghanistan is that ultimately it didn't work..."

Mr. Magoo
voice of the damned

From the Thomas Walkom column...

In the end, Defence Minister Harjit’s Sajjan’s sin is grammatical.

He has described himself as “the” architect of a 2006 Canadian-led mission against the Taliban during the Afghan War. He should have said “an” architect.

For this, he is being pilloried in the Commons. Opposition MPs have called him a liar and demanded he resign.

I wonder how Thomas Walkom would like it if another Toronto Star columnist told an assembled audience "I'm the columnist at the Toronto Star".

Mr. Magoo

I wonder how Thomas Walkom would like it if another Toronto Star columnist told an assembled audience "I'm the columnist at the Toronto Star".

To be fair, all but the dullest of readers would understand that something as big as a newspaper cannot have only ONE columnist. 

Opposition MPs have called him a liar and demanded he resign.

Also to be fair, I guess that's their job.  And if one of their own makes a questionable statement, it's their job to say "here's what s/he REALLY meant and it's perfectly fine".

TBH, it's actually kind of nice living in a country where this constitutes a scandal.

voice of the damned

Mr. Magoo wrote:

I wonder how Thomas Walkom would like it if another Toronto Star columnist told an assembled audience "I'm the columnist at the Toronto Star".

To be fair, all but the dullest of readers would understand that something as big as a newspaper cannot have only ONE columnist. 



Yeah, I was in a hurry, and didn't have time to think of a better comparison.

So, okay. Suppose there are two National Affairs Columinists at the Star, and the other guy goes to a gathering of journalists and says "I'm the National Affairs Columnist at the Toronto Star", when he clearly knows that that is a misleading statement. If Walkom were to complain about that, I doubt he'd be mollified to hear "Oh, you're just arguing about grammar."

That said, I guess "architect" is a more ambiguous word than "columnist". But if there was even a fleeting second in Sajjan's mind when he thought "Hmm, this might not be an entirely accurate thing to say", then he really should have jettisoned that phrasing.


It seems that he didn't give his boss enough credit. Its tough sometimes to be a toady who wants to impress people.  If he had of said I fought under the command of Retired Maj.-Gen. Fraser it just wouldn't have had the same effect. I think this is likely not going to endear him to any regulars in the Canadian Forces.

Retired Maj.-Gen. Fraser is a well-known Canadian Armed Forces veteran with a truly remarkable history, both academically and professionally. He holds degrees in Psychology, Political Science, a Master’s degree in Defense Management and Policy as well as numerous accreditations from the Ivey Business School, the Canadian Forces College and other accreditations from the United States. Retired Maj.-Gen. Fraser has served for over 30 years leading Canadian as well as other NATO troops in some of the most challenging missions worldwide such as Afghanistan, Bosnia and Cyprus.


Tom Mulcair Wants Ethics Commissioner To Reopen Harjit Sajjan Ruling on Detainees

An inquiry into the treatment of Afghan detainees is definitely required. Which is why it'll never happen anytime soon.


With Daesh Done, Time For Canada To Pull Out   -  by Scott Taylor

"Not our fight."


Appearing To Retreat on Previous Claims, Liberals Steer Toward Boost in Defence Spending

"Increasing Canadian military spending to two per cent of GDP would see the defence budget doubling to $40 billion."

Hey, you can afford it right?


Canada Brings Home 1 of 2 Aurora Surveillance Planes From Anti-ISIS Mission

"The primary mission of CP-140s in Iraq was to act as spotters, targeting ISIS combat units and buildings for destruction..."


Mosul Residents Deny ISIS Presence in Building That Was Hit By US Airstrike that Killed 105 Civilians

"The attack could be the largest single instance of civilian casualties confirmed by the US-led coalition in the nearly 3 year old campaign against ISIS in Iraq."


More Soldiers, Ships and Planes [Armed Drones too!] For Military  in Liberal Defence Plan

"The Liberal government's new defence policy lays out a plan to increase the defence budget by 70% over the next decade to $32.7 billion. The announcement comes on the heels of Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland's address to Parliament Tuesday, which among other things laid out the case for a bigger defence budget.

Sajjan called the military an 'indispensable tool' of Canada's foreign policy. [As we saw in Afghanistan and Libya]

NATO Sec-Gen Jens Stolleberg issued a statement welcoming Canada's plans to boost spending and increase the size of the military. 'This new policy affirms Canada's unwavering commitment to NATO..."

I predict little resistance to any of this militarization, alas.


Canada Does Trump's Bidding With Massive New Defence Spending

"The Trudeau Liberals did not campaign on, and have no mandate for, significant increases in the defence budget. There has been no change in the international security environment since the election to justify such astronomical increases.

The new funding envelope is nothing short of a total capitulation to the American bully, President Trump."

As always, read comments.


Where's the Left's Response to Liberals' Military Spending Increase?     -    by Yves Engler

"It's no wonder the Trudeau government has moved to ramp up military outlays. Even 'left' commentators/politicians are calling for increased spending on Canada's ecologically and socially destructive war machine.

The NDP has staunchly defended Canadian militarism in recent years. I've yet to come across a formal statement about yesterday's announcement. What do those currently vying for NDP leadership think of Trudeau's new defence policy and how will they respond?"