Naked and Afraid: The defence policy update

Vincent J. Curtis

24 May 24

Naked and Afraid, Canada’s defense policy update, is a catalogue of irresolute, empty promises for a future government to fulfill, and is fraught with pollyannish conviction.  Naked and Afraid is the 2024 update to the 2017 Defense Policy paper, Weak, Anxious, and Distracted; and, despite being the successor to a seven-year-old document, N&A projects a vision of spending over a twenty-year period. It boldly declares timidity: its forecasted expenditures will bring Canada’s defense spending to a colossal 1.79 percent of GDP by 2029-30, short of the 2023 commitment to 2.0 percent.

Prime Minister Trudeau received an extraordinary letter, dated May 23^rd, signed by 23 United States Senators, calling attention to that shortfall, and asking for a more ambitious program from him at the NATO conference in July.

Canada will be relying upon polar bears to do much of the CAF’s dirty work.  The expenditures are remarkably deficient in fighting teeth: $18.4 billion over 20 years is allocated to acquire new “tactical helicopters”.  Problem is, the detailed wording doesn’t distinguish between an AH-64E Apache tactical helicopter and a CH-147F tactical lift helicopter. There’s $2.7 Billion over 20 years allocated to acquire long-range missile capability, which could mean a Lockheed-Martin HIMARS rocket artillery battery (passim). There’s mention of, but no money associated with, acquiring a ground-based air defense system for critical infrastructure; and one reads Saab’s MSHORAD missile system between the lines. There is only mention of “exploring options” to acquire long-range air- and sea-launched missiles, Tomahawk cruise missiles fitting this description.

Otherwise, there’s $9.0 Billion over 20 years for updates to existing equipment to preserve deployability.  There’s mention of, but no monetary commitment towards, upgrading or replacing the “main battle tanks” and the LAVs.  After 20 years, one would think replacement was unavoidable, but the hesitancy to make a commitment is palpable.

All this is rather strange when the main threat to Canada, supposed by the paper, is in the far North.  To move a battle group around the High Arctic would require about 100 tac lift helos, but that’s not foreseen in the paper.

To deal with threats to the far North, there’s money for surveillance and infrastructure, and a mention of, but no money allocated to, some mythical conventionally powered sub with under-ice capability. There’s $1.4 Billion over 20 years to acquire maritime sensors to monitor the maritime approaches to the Arctic and North. There’s $222 million over 20 years (where do they get these precise numbers?) for a new satellite ground station in the Arctic. There $307 million over 20 years for airborne early warning aircraft, which could mean either a Boeing P-8 Poseidon or a couple of Saab’s GlobalEyes (passim).  There’s $5.5 Billion over 20 years to acquire satellite communications capability. And there’s reference to “exploring options” to acquire a suite of surveillance and strike drones.

There’s stuff in Naked and Afraid that should be routine defence expenditures: replenishing ammunition stocks that were given to Ukraine. manufacturing our own artillery shells, training, housing, health- and child-care, and upgrading domestic infrastructure.

Significantly, there’s no specific mention of the Type 26 frigate; there’s only money set aside to refit the existing fleet of Halifax class frigates.

In EdC Vol 30-12 and 31-2, I sketched what threats to Canada’s sovereignty in the far North would look like, and what’s required to meet them. Meeting them requires an all of government approach, including skeptical reviews of foreign investment. The RCN and the RCAF have to be able to put platoon-plus sized units at threatened locations in Canada’s Arctic Archipelago, and be able to support them both logistically and tactically.  A Gripen E operating off an austere runway in Resolute Bay will be better than a daintier F-35 out of Bagotville, but that’s water under the bridge.

Naked and Afraid seems to be a grab-bag of pet and harmless expenditures without a strategic vision.  Just like the Indo-Pacific Strategy.

-30-