As Canada undertakes the process of rebuilding our military, we must consider both short-term needs and long-term capabilities.
Overinvestment in backfilling current capabilities could leave us unprepared for the rapidly changing nature of warfare, while overinvestment in ‘futuristic weapons’ could leave us without enough of ‘the basics’ (armoured vehicles, artillery shells, air defences, etc) that will always be an important part of fighting any large-scale conflict.
Getting this balance right will be essential to determining whether Canada achieves its full military potential or ends up squandering billions.
So far, the government has taken important initial steps to rebuild the CAF, including the recently announced pay increase for CAF members. In case you missed it, some key details are below:
The Military Factor adjustment will represent the following increase to the total pay of CAF members, for the Regular Force and Reserve Force, including the Canadian Rangers and Cadet Organizations Administration and Training Service:
- Rank of Sailor/Private/Aviator, Pay Increment 1 – 20% Regular Force, 13% Reserve Force
- Rank of Sailor/Private/Aviator, Pay Increment 2 to Commander/Lieutenant-Colonel – 13% Regular and Reserve Force
- Rank of Captain(Navy)/Colonel and above – 8% Regular and Reserve Force
For example, the starting salary for a Private, Pay Increment 1 (Regular Force) will increase from $3,614 a month ($43,368 yearly) to $4,337 a month ($52,044 yearly).
Long-range strike
Once the foundation of more robust recruitment has been addressed and basic equipment shortages are fixed, we will need to look at how Canada can best defend our territory, support our allies, and deter adversaries.
And this brings us to long-range strike capability.
Only three nations currently possess long-range strategic bombers: The United States, China, and Russia. The U.S. fleet is the largest and most advanced, and will soon be upgraded with the new B-21 Raider, of which the U.S. plans to purchase at least 100. China operates the Xi’an H-6, a license-built version of Russia’s Tu-16. The plane is immensely out of date, but serves as a ‘missile truck,’ able to carry long-range missiles closer to their intended targets. Russia operates a range of strategic bombers left over from the Soviet Union, many of which are slow and quite outdated, but which, combined with Russia’s long-range missiles, gives Russia the ability to hold many targets at risk.
Why would Canada want to join these nations in possessing long-range strike capability?
Simply put, we have an immense amount of territory to protect, much of which is sparsely populated. Most of our allies – and potential areas of conflict in which we would be involved – are far away from our main population centres, either far up in the North or in Europe. Thus, the ability to deliver missiles over a long range is something that would benefit Canada.
Consider a situation in which Russian ships and troops made an incursion into some of Canada’s northern territory. Deploying ships and troops would take time, but being able to deploy long-range bombers armed with long-range missiles could address the problem rapidly and efficiently. Possessing long-range strike capability could also help us support our allies in Europe and deter Russia.
Practical long-range strike for Canada
Obviously, Canada won’t be building a sixth-generation stealth bomber in the near future. What we can do is build relatively affordable, long-range, unmanned strategic aircraft that can deliver missiles. This could be done in a four-step process.
First, Canada would put out a Request for Proposal for a long-range unmanned subsonic aircraft with a range of 10,000 km. The RFP would stipulate that the aircraft had to be produced by a Canadian firm. Canadian aerospace companies, tech companies, and drone manufacturers would all be encouraged to pool their efforts. The goal would not be to develop a world-best strategic bomber, but rather a relatively replaceable aircraft that could operate without putting Canadian lives at risk, and which would create a foundation for future Canadian strategic bomber development.
Second, Canada would partner with allies to procure long-range missiles (perhaps as part of the FC/ASW program) that could be delivered by the bomber.
Third, the government would procure at least 25 of the bombers over five years.
This process could play out over 10 years from RFP to final procurement. By year six, Canada would possess five domestically-produced long-range bombers. While some would say this is overly ambitious and simultaneously too far in the future to matter, that’s the attitude that led to Canada being in such a vulnerable position. Years of downplaying our potential and putting off military investment have left us overly dependent on a United States that seems less and less stable by the day.
By thinking now about what will benefit our national defence in the future, we can make an efficient and effective investment in our military strength. And long-range strike should be part of that investment.
Spencer Fernando
If this piece left you clearer than it found you, that's the point. I write for readers who want to think past the week, to see the longer pattern beneath the daily story, and to come away steadier rather than more agitated.
That longer view gets built somewhere. On Patreon, essay by essay, I'm constructing The Long Work, a body of analysis meant to outlast the news cycle that prompted it. The readers there make it possible. No subsidies, no strings. The work answers to them.
$8/month to read it as it's built, and to have a hand in building it.