Canadian Defence News

[Army Guy]

1 hour ago, BeaverFever said:

I have not read or heard a single suggestion that we somehow left out a qualified contender. We pretty much had every possible AIP sub possible on the initial lost and so far everything suggests it was narrowed to the final 2 based on endurance at sea and submerged endurance, specifically the ability to sail from Esquimalt through the Bering straight, patrol under ice for 3 weeks and return , all without having to resupply. 

There is ZERO plan to build submarines in Canada it’s totally different from shipbuilding and we have zero skills or infrastructure for it. The talk about Canadian benefits refers to ongoing fleet service, onboard equipment and industrial offsets. For example I read that the Korean consortium is dangling a Hyundai battery plant as well as various industrial benefit options for army vehicles. 
 

I am fairly certain that the contract will go to TK however it just makes sense given that NATO interoperability is baked in, we’ve signed on to ReArm Europe and it’s best suited for the primary mission of coastal/arctic patrol even if it’s less effective for other missions. 

I'm sure the nuclear option has been left out...and like most military's they are just glad they the politicians are looking at something...as right now west Edmonton mall has more active subs in the water than we do....

IS 3 weeks going to be enough, murphy law always throw something in the way every time it can, traversing the artic in the winter is a whole new ball game...and speeds under water are not all that fast...can they surface under a solid ice pack is the question resupply can always be down by air, like the Americans do for their fleet if they have to... 

Battery plants for the subs, or for EV,s i ask because Canada does not have a real good record with EV batteries plants.

[Army Guy]

1 hour ago, BeaverFever said:

Well a submarine gives you a stealth strike capability, where the environment is not permissive to surface ships. Granted, the need for Canada to have that capability might currently be limited, but in the age of the drone maybe some day the army will need to call in fires and a submarine is the only platform that can safely be in range. 
 

The self defence missile sounds funny to me because it is currently conceived as wire-guided like an old TOW missile or the old javelin MANPAD with an operator in the sub controlling it with a joystick. It seems to me that the sub would not be able to maneuver when this thing is in action and probably the best bet when being hunted by an enemy aircraft or ship would be to escape and evade, not stick around and mess with this thing. Not to mention they’re still trying to develop it. 

That's a stretch but OK, seems like a whole lot of money for maybe a once in a life time mission...Must be a huge change of minds in the political wings, i say that because we have passed on weapon systems in the pass because they were to offensive or offensive looking , like attack helicopters, MLRS, SPA, etc etc....so why the need for the ability to launch ballistic missiles...i would have thought it was way way to offensive...

It is funny , but would come in handy in a pinch kind of like your ballistic missiles...

Koreans make good products, their naval equipment is second to none, cutting back on our frigates and purchasing their latest destroyers makes a lot more sense, as even their copy of the Ardleigh burke is is less than 2.5  bil a piece and built on time and going with Korean subs does have many valid points....Europe does produce great aircraft, and are looking for new partners on their gen 6 fighters...they also have an excellent selection of army ground equipment....but Army air still needs to be addressed, and the best in the market is US equipment...

 

[paxamericana]

19 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

the best in the market is US equipment

Canada should only buy US equipment. That is if Canada wishes to be a global democracy. Mainly because our equipment is designed to fight a world away with higher lethality, range and survivability. This is not by accident I should emphasize, we have learned through decades of blood and treasure of what works and doesn’t. The United States is a major waring power that has master the art of global dominance in every fighting domain. If Canada’s only goal is to protect itself from the US, I suggest moving to a different continent and even then it wouldn’t help much. The US possesses the capability to put at risk any target in the world at any time of our choosing. 

[BeaverFever]

11 hours ago, Army Guy said:

I'm sure the nuclear option has been left out.

Yes 100% the nuclear option was never under consideration due to cost and I believe I heard Topshee or Norman once say they are too big to sail in the some channels of the arctic archipelago where they want these subs to be able to lurk. 
 

11 hours ago, Army Guy said:

S 3 weeks going to be enough, murphy law always throw something in the way every time it can, traversing the artic in the winter is a whole new ball game...and speeds under water are not all that fast...

No idea but that’s what Topshee, Norman and all the talking heads on the CDAI podcast always mention as their benchmark 

 

11 hours ago, Army Guy said:

can they surface under a solid ice pack is the question

I think only nuclear submarines have the power to do that but nukes were never an option 

 

11 hours ago, Army Guy said:

resupply can always be down by air, like the Americans do for their fleet if they have to... 

yeah but theyd rather not have to rely on that if they don’t have to, its not stealthy and RAS is not a like a quick stop at Tim Hortons. And they can’t refuel, refill potable water tanks  or offload sewage with an aircraft either. 
 

11 hours ago, Army Guy said:

Battery plants for the subs, or for EV,s i ask because Canada does not have a real good record with EV batteries plants.

Not sure, both I assume. The EV battery plant initiatives are all fairly recent and not really long enough for their to be a consistent “record”.   Trump’s attempts to kill the EV market have out everything in flux. 
 

11 hours ago, Army Guy said:

That's a stretch but OK, seems like a whole lot of money for maybe a once in a life time mission

I agree 

 

11 hours ago, Army Guy said:

we have passed on weapon systems in the pass because they were to offensive or offensive looking , like attack helicopters, MLRS, SPA, etc etc....so why the need for the ability to launch ballistic missiles...i would have thought it was way way to offensive...

I think it’s “nice to have” for the navy but mot something that’s a requirement. Also we are now back in the offensive arms game so MLRS and SPA are apparently back on the menu. Attack helicopters are arguably obsolete in the drone era but we are shopping for combat drones too. 
 

11 hours ago, Army Guy said:

Koreans make good products, their naval equipment is second to none, cutting back on our frigates and purchasing their latest destroyers makes a lot more sense, as even their copy of the Ardleigh burke is is less than 2.5  bil a piece and built on time and going with Korean subs does have many valid points....Europe does produce great aircraft, and are looking for new partners on their gen 6 fighters...they also have an excellent selection of army ground equipment....but Army air still needs to be addressed, and the best in the market is US equipment...

My gut tells me the European option is the way we will go as it makes more sense given the core mission and our NATO and ReArm Europe commitments UNLESS Korea can really significantly outperform on price, timetable,  industrial benefits and the land systems they’re offering a bulk purchase discount on.   But then going for an all-Korean military would really screw us out of ReArm Europe opportunities 

[Army Guy]

14 hours ago, paxamericana said:

Canada should only buy US equipment. That is if Canada wishes to be a global democracy. Mainly because our equipment is designed to fight a world away with higher lethality, range and survivability. This is not by accident I should emphasize, we have learned through decades of blood and treasure of what works and doesn’t. The United States is a major waring power that has master the art of global dominance in every fighting domain. If Canada’s only goal is to protect itself from the US, I suggest moving to a different continent and even then it wouldn’t help much. The US possesses the capability to put at risk any target in the world at any time of our choosing. 

US produces some of the worlds leading in class military equipment, but lets not kid ourselves, not all of the US equipment is world class...some of it does not even rate in the top 5....And others get canceled before production even starts...and then there is production capacity which at the moment is severely hampering US military build up...for example China has 250% more ship building capacity as the US has....I mean Australia is looking for a nuke sub and the US is doubting it can provide because of lack of production capacity...And Britain well they to are working on a new boat...who knows when it will be completed...or in production...

Yes the US is a military power that has a boat load of experience...I don't think anyone in the Canada has aspirations of defending against the US...and those that do are normally liberals who won't be doing any of the fighting anyways, they are good talkers, not fighters......The objective here is to arm ourselves with a modern military force that is capable of helping our allies when necessary...

[Army Guy]

4 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

yeah but theyd rather not have to rely on that if they don’t have to, its not stealthy and RAS is not a like a quick stop at Tim Hortons. And they can’t refuel, refill potable water tanks  or offload sewage with an aircraft either. 
 

 

I think it’s “nice to have” for the navy but mot something that’s a requirement. Also we are now back in the offensive arms game so MLRS and SPA are apparently back on the menu. Attack helicopters are arguably obsolete in the drone era but we are shopping for combat drones too. 
 

My gut tells me the European option is the way we will go as it makes more sense given the core mission and our NATO and ReArm Europe commitments UNLESS Korea can really significantly outperform on price, timetable,  industrial benefits and the land systems they’re offering a bulk purchase discount on.   But then going for an all-Korean military would really screw us out of ReArm Europe opportunities 

I thought thats where the sub tender comes in, he can perform much like AOR's only for subs...also able to carry spare parts and extra weapons as required...VLS tubes are a problem and can't be done at sea...or so they say...

Attack helos have many different tasks, escort of transport helos is one of them, something we lacked in Afghanistan...you talked about call to fires AH-64E can put a lot of ordnance on target when needed, and can control loitering munitions and drones as part of its weapons packages...I think attack helos are here for a while longer...

I think a lot of weapon systems are struggle for relevance due to drones...and most are making changes to their designs to incorporate them...like the tank, new designs are now coming our just to counter drones...

 I think not being reliant on one country or continent would be a good strategy, doing Korea for say naval items, however i still think the Type 212cd is the better boat , its delivery dates make more sense...Europe for ground systems, maybe even some aircraft....A400M looks good, as does the new gen 6 fighter aircraft... and America for Aircraft of all types... 

 

[BeaverFever]

Canadian Army launches bold modernization and restructuring initiative

October 9, 2025 - Defence Stories

Estimated read time – 2:30
 

The Canadian Army has entered a pivotal moment in its history. Lieutenant-General M.C. Wright, Commander of the Canadian Army, recently unveiled a sweeping modernization and restructuring initiative designed to transform the Army into a force ready to meet the demands of today’s volatile global security environment. At the heart of this transformation is Inflection Point 2025, a strategic blueprint that acknowledges a stark reality: the Army we have is not the Army we need. The strategy outlines a generational shift in how the Army is structured, equipped, trained, and sustained. 

Responding to a changing world

The modernization effort is driven by the increasing risk of high-intensity conflict, rapid evolution of warfare technologies, and the impact of climate change. Canada also faces unprecedented challenges to its sovereignty and security due to geopolitical competition in the Arctic. In this context, the Army must be prepared for major combat operations—large-scale, joint, and combined arms engagements against peer adversaries. This marks a significant shift from decades of focus on providing support to coalition operations.

Caption

Restructuring for operational effectiveness

To meet these demands, the Canadian Army is restructuring into four integrated formations, each aligned with operational needs and designed to enhance agility, scalability, and readiness:

• Defence of Canada Division: The dedicated homeland defence force and the backbone of national mobilization

• Manoeuvre Division: The frontline for land combat, providing fully equipped, deployable forces for major combat operations

• Support Division: The foundation of Canadian Army base and institutional support, with direct links to the national supply chain 

• Training Formation: Responsible for delivering individual and collective soldier training, and preparing leaders through professional military education 

This restructuring shifts operational leadership to the divisional level, allowing Canadian Army Headquarters to focus strategically on safeguarding national sovereignty and territorial integrity. The transition will begin in 2026, guided by an upcoming Canadian Army Modernization Order and Master Implementation Directive. 

Investing in people and capabilities

With recent increases in size and strength, the Regular Force now stands at approximately 22,000 soldiers, the Reserve Force includes about 20,000, and the Canadian Rangers number nearly 5,000, with room to grow. Over the next two years, soldiers will be equipped with new modular assault rifles, night vision devices, drones, as well as operational clothing and personal equipment designed for comfort and performance.

Current modernization efforts include nearly 50 major capital projects, such as: 

• Enhanced command and control, integrating computers, communications, cyber, intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, and targeting (C5ISRT) 

• Long-Range Precision Strike (LRPS) capabilities 

• Ground-Based Air Defence (GBAD) systems 

• Domestic Arctic Mobility Enhancement (DAME) platforms 

• Indirect Fires Modernization (IFM) 

A culture of adaptation 

LGen Wright emphasized the need for a clear and strong identity within the Army—one rooted in discipline, service, respect, fitness, and a fighting spirit. This transformation also includes fostering innovation and digital excellence, along with the One Army concept, integrating members of the Regular and Reserve forces, Canadian Rangers, and civilian members of the Defence Team. 

The message is clear: modernization is not optional. It is essential to defend Canada’s interests at home and abroad. As the Commander concluded, “The change starts now.” 

For more information, visit Canadian Army Modernization.

 

https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/maple-leaf/defence/2025/10/canadian-army-launches-bold-modernization-and-restructuring-initiative.html

[BeaverFever]

51 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

 

Canadian Army launches bold modernization and restructuring initiative

October 9, 2025 - Defence Stories

Estimated read time – 2:30
 

 

The Canadian Army has entered a pivotal moment in its history. Lieutenant-General M.C. Wright, Commander of the Canadian Army, recently unveiled a sweeping modernization and restructuring initiative designed to transform the Army into a force ready to meet the demands of today’s volatile global security environment. At the heart of this transformation is Inflection Point 2025, a strategic blueprint that acknowledges a stark reality: the Army we have is not the Army we need. The strategy outlines a generational shift in how the Army is structured, equipped, trained, and sustained. 

Responding to a changing world

The modernization effort is driven by the increasing risk of high-intensity conflict, rapid evolution of warfare technologies, and the impact of climate change. Canada also faces unprecedented challenges to its sovereignty and security due to geopolitical competition in the Arctic. In this context, the Army must be prepared for major combat operations—large-scale, joint, and combined arms engagements against peer adversaries. This marks a significant shift from decades of focus on providing support to coalition operations.

 

Caption

Restructuring for operational effectiveness

To meet these demands, the Canadian Army is restructuring into four integrated formations, each aligned with operational needs and designed to enhance agility, scalability, and readiness:

• Defence of Canada Division: The dedicated homeland defence force and the backbone of national mobilization

• Manoeuvre Division: The frontline for land combat, providing fully equipped, deployable forces for major combat operations

• Support Division: The foundation of Canadian Army base and institutional support, with direct links to the national supply chain 

• Training Formation: Responsible for delivering individual and collective soldier training, and preparing leaders through professional military education 

This restructuring shifts operational leadership to the divisional level, allowing Canadian Army Headquarters to focus strategically on safeguarding national sovereignty and territorial integrity. The transition will begin in 2026, guided by an upcoming Canadian Army Modernization Order and Master Implementation Directive. 

Investing in people and capabilities

With recent increases in size and strength, the Regular Force now stands at approximately 22,000 soldiers, the Reserve Force includes about 20,000, and the Canadian Rangers number nearly 5,000, with room to grow. Over the next two years, soldiers will be equipped with new modular assault rifles, night vision devices, drones, as well as operational clothing and personal equipment designed for comfort and performance.

Current modernization efforts include nearly 50 major capital projects, such as: 

• Enhanced command and control, integrating computers, communications, cyber, intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, and targeting (C5ISRT) 

• Long-Range Precision Strike (LRPS) capabilities 

• Ground-Based Air Defence (GBAD) systems 

• Domestic Arctic Mobility Enhancement (DAME) platforms 

• Indirect Fires Modernization (IFM) 

A culture of adaptation 

LGen Wright emphasized the need for a clear and strong identity within the Army—one rooted in discipline, service, respect, fitness, and a fighting spirit. This transformation also includes fostering innovation and digital excellence, along with the One Army concept, integrating members of the Regular and Reserve forces, Canadian Rangers, and civilian members of the Defence Team. 

The message is clear: modernization is not optional. It is essential to defend Canada’s interests at home and abroad. As the Commander concluded, “The change starts now.” 

For more information, visit Canadian Army Modernization.

 

https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/maple-leaf/defence/2025/10/canadian-army-launches-bold-modernization-and-restructuring-initiative.html

Wow there is a lot of content at the above link but in summary it’s all about massive restructure and recapitalization of the army to prioritize “High Value War Fighting”  and being “interchangeable” with allies instead of just “interoperable”.   Interestingly while there is a lot of ink spilled about long range precision fire, artillery, tanks, etc.  there’s only one very small reference to potential LAV replacement.  Also no direct reference to increasing overall force size. 
 

I’ve long thought the army should be organized into an expeditionary force and a domestic force instead of 4 paper “divisions” for each region of Canada. That makes sense. 

Edited October 9, 2025 by BeaverFever

[herbie]

Let's just tell them they're all too fat and no more facial hair while we're at it instead. Then not pay them for a month or so.

Gotta balance the budget ya know.

[eyeball]

3 minutes ago, herbie said:

...no more facial hair while we're at it

I've never understood why facial hair isn't banned for safety reasons. We weren't allowed to have beards on our volunteer fire dept because they prevented you from forming a tight seal with a mask in the event you needed to put on an air pack.

Don't soldiers have the same issue protecting themselves from gas, chemical and biological weapons?

[Army Guy]

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

I've never understood why facial hair isn't banned for safety reasons. We weren't allowed to have beards on our volunteer fire dept because they prevented you from forming a tight seal with a mask in the event you needed to put on an air pack.

Don't soldiers have the same issue protecting themselves from gas, chemical and biological weapons?

Facial hair is shaved off when deployed or while doing gas training....which there is not much money to do constant gas hut training...PS you can get a tight seal if you use "Vaseline" or so they told the guys with beards...but you would have to be on the short bus if you wanted to take a chance with Nerve gas...CS gas there would be no real issue, but anything else good luck...having facial hair was a gimmick to try and boast recruitment....and it is a failure...along with long hair, sloppy dress and deportment...it is not professional...

[Army Guy]

4 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

Wow there is a lot of content at the above link but in summary it’s all about massive restructure and recapitalization of the army to prioritize “High Value War Fighting”  and being “interchangeable” with allies instead of just “interoperable”.   Interestingly while there is a lot of ink spilled about long range precision fire, artillery, tanks, etc.  there’s only one very small reference to potential LAV replacement.  Also no direct reference to increasing overall force size. 
 

I’ve long thought the army should be organized into an expeditionary force and a domestic force instead of 4 paper “divisions” for each region of Canada. That makes sense. 

They have done this in the past, trying to spark more interest in the troops and public, it is how we ended up with 5 divs the last time....when we only had 1 Mech Infantry brigade per div.......today they are going to put all the current brigades in one div , Combat support in another , and support in another ....it was like that in the back ground of the last div structure, if they "were sent out as one fighting force "all 3 brigades"....they "the other force structures" combat support and support....would form separate Bridges not "divisions" ...

what is different is the light inf Bn's meaning 3 RCR, 3 PPCLI and 3 Vandoos, will now form Light Infantry brigade...Not sure what they are going to do for Combat support or support....as right now they don't have any of that...maybe it might be leach off the main brigades Div....

Giving the defense of Canada to the reserves.... Not sure of that concept...if we are going to equip and man them into viable combat units maybe....I mean they already have the task of defending the north....because it requires very little equipment...It would take a lot of investment to have the reserves take over defense of Canada...if we wanted to do it right...which is really not Canada's style...

GDL has been lobbying the government pretty hard with their new LAV 7 & 8 with new 30 mm turrets, etc....So i would not be surprised some time in the near future, something about it....Army has got a lot of other priority's it needs to fix first, some of them you already mentioned...I just hope they buy enough for 3 Brigades worth...also mentioned where replacing utility helos, upgrades to Chinooks, and looking for an attack helo...on top of multi layered air defense, drones, anti, anti-drone, tank weapons,  ...I like to see some tracked IFV,  the list is endless....and that's just the army..

Edited October 10, 2025 by Army Guy

[BeaverFever]

1 hour ago, Army Guy said:

Giving the defense of Canada to the reserves.... Not sure of that concept...if we are going to equip and man them into viable combat units maybe....I mean they already have the task of defending the north....because it requires very little equipment...It would take a lot of investment to have the reserves take over defense of Canada...if we wanted to do it right...which is really not Canada's style...

But for army “defence of Canada” just means aid to the civil power and arctic sovereignty there is not going to be high intensity land warfare against another country on Canadian soil.  Unless they’re going to specifically train for guerrilla / insurgency warfare to resist US occupation there’s very little combat power required for this function. 
 

1 hour ago, Army Guy said:

GDL has been lobbying the government pretty hard with their new LAV 7 & 8 with new 30 mm turrets, etc....So i would not be surprised some time in the near future, something about it....Army has got a lot of other priority's it needs to fix first, some of them you already mentioned...I just hope they buy enough for 3 Brigades worth...also mentioned where replacing utility helos, upgrades to Chinooks, and looking for an attack helo...on top of multi layered air defense, drones, anti, anti-drone, tank weapons,  ...I like to see some tracked IFV,  the list is endless....and that's just the army..

Yeah that’s what I was hunting for, tracked IFV. If we are truly going to be “interchangeable” with allies we need something like CV90 or Lynx but there’s no mention of tracks and barely a mention of LAVs so Im not sure it’s even on the roadmap.  The new LAV prototypes look cool but I wonder if they’re heavy enough. The LAV’s European cousin, the 8x8 Boxer, is heavier, more powerful and better armour. There is also a new dedicated Brimstone overwatch variant proposed that can carry 8 Brimstone missiles and can allegedly strike targets up to 20km away 
 

 

Edited October 10, 2025 by BeaverFever

[I am Groot]

10 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

But for army “defence of Canada” just means aid to the civil power and arctic sovereignty there is not going to be high intensity land warfare against another country on Canadian soil.  Unless they’re going to specifically train for guerrilla / insurgency warfare to resist US occupation there’s very little combat power required for this function. 

JTF2 can defeat America all on its own. But not by fighting them in Canada. We have a 5,000-mile border. Break into teams of ten, slip across the border, and start killing US politicians from the governing party. If that doesn't get them to pull back, start blowing up bridges, railways, power stations, pipeline pumping stations, etc. Tons of soft targets it would take ten million troops to adequately guard from special operators. 

[Army Guy]

21 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

But for army “defence of Canada” just means aid to the civil power and arctic sovereignty there is not going to be high intensity land warfare against another country on Canadian soil.  Unless they’re going to specifically train for guerrilla / insurgency warfare to resist US occupation there’s very little combat power required for this function. 
 

Yeah that’s what I was hunting for, tracked IFV. If we are truly going to be “interchangeable” with allies we need something like CV90 or Lynx but there’s no mention of tracks and barely a mention of LAVs so Im not sure it’s even on the roadmap.  The new LAV prototypes look cool but I wonder if they’re heavy enough. The LAV’s European cousin, the 8x8 Boxer, is heavier, more powerful and better armour. There is also a new dedicated Brimstone overwatch variant proposed that can carry 8 Brimstone missiles and can allegedly strike targets up to 20km away 
 

 

Thats not what NATO and the northern NATO countries are saying or doing, today the top winter warfare units in NATO is the British Marines...and US Army, marines and they are not even artic nations...Right now we have the ability to move troops and some light equipment to the north but can barely operate 20 to 30 kms from those bases....Sh!t not long ago an air force tech got lost on the run way for more than 12 hours in the fog....he was less than 500 meters from the hanger...

We are going to build artic bases....which means having a presence in the artic...patrolling via skidoo, UAV, and surveillances aircraft...So we are looking at the problem...

We don't train in guerrilla ware fare...we have done counter insurgency, but no insurgency...crap we barely train on high intensity warfare...i can remember a time were we were 8 to 9 months a year in the field....and it produced soldiers that had their sh!t wired tight....today soldiers might get out twice a year,  for a month at a time...and the reservist get less than that....Northern op s is a wide open back door...that anyone could force open....

I've seen CV9035 up close and they are what we need for sure, Lynx is a beast of an IFV....weighing in at over 50 tons... it is a lot of machine....That is what is needed in Latvia....LAV's are way to light....New LAVs are beast as well, never seen them up close but stats only...upgraded armor, gun, FCS, and power pact....and with Spike missiles....

Boxer is a  piece of kit for sure, we should have purchased that to start with, it offers just that much more than the LAV does...and you can change your high mileage vehs around for lower in the matter of hours by exchanging the enquire back end of the vehicle...a plus if it is battle damaged...or you need one specific type of vehicle like IFV or Air defense variant, or any variant really all in mere hours....One of the variants we do need is Anti tank like you mentioned, as the there is not enough of the TUA LAVs, i think they all went to LDSH, back in the day every Inf bn had 18 TUA on M113...now there is none....minus a few ground mounted TOWs's..... Boxer is also coming out with a Mass UAV launcher for swarms and counter swarms....Germans have pretty much thought about everything they can mount on a boxer... from tank guns / arty guns to mortars, to air defense....  

[Army Guy]

11 hours ago, I am Groot said:

JTF2 can defeat America all on its own. But not by fighting them in Canada. We have a 5,000-mile border. Break into teams of ten, slip across the border, and start killing US politicians from the governing party. If that doesn't get them to pull back, start blowing up bridges, railways, power stations, pipeline pumping stations, etc. Tons of soft targets it would take ten million troops to adequately guard from special operators. 

Your forgetting they have 1000 times the SF operators that we do , it would not take long to track them down and put an end to all of that.... JTF is good but not that good...what would make a larger force is gather up all those red necks, tell them to bring their guns, and pick ups  and tell them there is a case of beer and a large box of gummies, for every American captured....might not work but it would be funny to watch...

[I am Groot]

21 hours ago, Army Guy said:

Your forgetting they have 1000 times the SF operators that we do , it would not take long to track them down and put an end to all of that.... JTF is good but not that good...what would make a larger force is gather up all those red necks, tell them to bring their guns, and pick ups  and tell them there is a case of beer and a large box of gummies, for every American captured....might not work but it would be funny to watch...

It's not easy to find people when they look and sound like Americans, when they can move quite easily on your roads and highways, through your cities, without anyone noticing. Special forces are not an investigative organization. And there aren't enough of them to be used to guard every bridge, refinery, pumping station, electricity substation, power plant, airport, and military base in America, PLUS every Republican senator, congressman, and cabinet official against, say, a ten-man unit of JTF2. A couple of dozen such 10-man units would wreak havoc across America.

Although if I were in charge, I'd have them go to Washington and simultaneously attack a bunch of Republican senators and congressmen while they were sleeping with either no security or just a one or two-man unit. Just like that, Trump loses his majority in the senate, and maybe congress.  That's assuming they can't just take out the prez and his VP. Neither has the security meant to stand up against a large group of special forces people. 

[BeaverFever]

On 10/10/2025 at 9:32 AM, I am Groot said:

JTF2 can defeat America all on its own. But not by fighting them in Canada. We have a 5,000-mile border. Break into teams of ten, slip across the border, and start killing US politicians from the governing party. If that doesn't get them to pull back, start blowing up bridges, railways, power stations, pipeline pumping stations, etc. Tons of soft targets it would take ten million troops to adequately guard from special operators. 

You wouldn’t need JTF2. Any person willing to pull a trigger or fly a drone on behalf of the Canadian resistance would be able to slip across the border go anywhere in the US. If even 1% of the Canadian population chose to take up arms and resist that would be a larger insurgent force than the US faced in either Iraq or Afghanistan and they’d have free run of the continent, probably thousands or tens of thousands of Americans would join us as well.  Maybe more.  Forget about assassinating politicians we could be destroying bridges and rail hubs, flying homemade drone swarms into US military bases, wiping out whole squadrons of parked aircraft, causing all kinds of civil and economic chaos. 

Edited October 19, 2025 by BeaverFever

[BeaverFever]

On 10/11/2025 at 7:03 PM, I am Groot said:

Although if I were in charge, I'd have them go to Washington and simultaneously attack a bunch of Republican senators and congressmen while they were sleeping with either no security or just a one or two-man unit. Just like that, Trump loses his majority in the senate, and maybe congress.  That's assuming they can't just take out the prez and his VP. Neither has the security meant to stand up against a large group of special forces people. 

You would just be giving Americans their 9/11 moment and make those Republicans into Martyrs and the American people would rally around the flag and give the government permission to use any and all force like they did after 9/11. Americans in the heartland and small towns have to understand that there will be armed resistance in their communities so long as USA continues to occupy Canada and that all US transportation and economic infrastructure, and all US military assets are fair targets. 

[I am Groot]

11 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

You would just be giving Americans their 9/11 moment and make those Republicans into Martyrs and the American people would rally around the flag and give the government permission to use any and all force like they did after 9/11. Americans in the heartland and small towns have to understand that there will be armed resistance in their communities so long as USA continues to occupy Canada and that all US transportation and economic infrastructure, and all US military assets are fair targets. 

Americans don't have the staying power to put up with a sustained operation of sabotage and assassinations for long. Not to sustain a war they would know is wrong, to keep control of a country that doesn't belong to them and doesn't want them there. That isn't what those small-town Americans send their sons off to the military for.

And politicians who supported and launched such a war would absolutely be legitimate military targets. 

[BeaverFever]

46 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

Americans don't have the staying power to put up with a sustained operation of sabotage and assassinations for long. Not to sustain a war they would know is wrong, to keep control of a country that doesn't belong to them and doesn't want them there. That isn't what those small-town Americans send their sons off to the military for.

And politicians who supported and launched such a war would absolutely be legitimate military targets. 

I’m just saying you can’t limit it to political assassinations, the war has to majorly destroy the daily quality of life of average citizens 

[BeaverFever]

On 10/10/2025 at 9:01 PM, Army Guy said:

Thats not what NATO and the northern NATO countries are saying or doing, today the top winter warfare units in NATO is the British Marines...and US Army, marines and they are not even artic nations..

That’s why they only train for arctic warfare not arctic sovereignty and security. Basically they’re training to defend Norway. Canada’s arctic mandate at least for now is sovereignty and security of the Canadian arctic which is a different mission. 
 

On 10/10/2025 at 9:01 PM, Army Guy said:

We don't train in guerrilla ware fare...we have done counter insurgency, but no insurgency

CSOR does so we at least have a small nugget of excellence. I was thinking the way around this problem without the politically problematic issue of training the CAF to fight the USA would be to modify our NATO mission in Latvia/Eastern Europe to train for “defence in depth” of “total defence” warfare against a Russian invasion of Europe. The Scandinavian and Baltic states already employ these principles, which accept that they can’t realistically hold off a Russian invasion along a static front but instead will have to fight and operate in and amongst Russian forces with no real “front line”. I think of it like a cheese grater, which doesn’t stop the cheese from passing through it, but instead just shreds the cheese into more manageable pieces as it passes through.   It’s not really “insurgency” or guerrilla warfare but more like dispersed operations with conventional forces but I think it’s something to work with. I think we might have just seen an example with Canadian CF-18s practicing operations from Estonian highways in a recent exercise this past week.  
 

Anyway it would be cool if the Canadian Army made practicing this type of defence and insurgency/guerrilla warfare in Europe an official part of its doctrine and purpose - you know, to help resist a “Russian” invasion of “Europe“ (making big air quotes) - for the true purpose of defending Canada from USA. It could be especially effective if we made sure to get lots of Reservists rotated through that training so they could bring that knowledge back to their local reserve regiments in communities across the country. 

[CdnFox]

5 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

I’m just saying you can’t limit it to political assassinations, the war has to majorly destroy the daily quality of life of average citizens 

One thing we learned from the washington sniper,  you don't have to kill them all. You just have to kill a few in each city and the rest will live in fear of going outside. 

[eyeball]

5 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

Anyway it would be cool if the Canadian Army made practicing this type of defence and insurgency/guerrilla warfare in Europe an official part of its doctrine and purpose - you know, to help resist a “Russian” invasion of “Europe“ (making big air quotes) - for the true purpose of defending Canada from USA. It could be especially effective if we made sure to get lots of Reservists rotated through that training so they could bring that knowledge back to their local reserve regiments in communities across the country. 

Existing emergency and auxiliary services, especially in rural areas, often offer skills development training to attract volunteers. Offering this type of defense training is something we could easily do. We could maintain armouries in communities all across Canada in preparation and for ongoing training as well.

I mean, we've all seen Red Dawn, commies could drop out of the sky anywhere.

Edited October 19, 2025 by eyeball

[BeaverFever]

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

Existing emergency and auxiliary services, especially in rural areas, often offer skills development training to attract volunteers. Offering this type of defense training is something we could easily do. We could maintain armouries in communities all across Canada in preparation and for ongoing training as well.

I mean, we've all seen Red Dawn, commies could drop out of the sky anywhere.

Cool thing is, we already have armouries in communities all over Canada, that’s where our reservists already serve. We should be boosting our reserves anyway, as a cost- effective way to grow our force size and to respond to the increasing number of natural disasters across the country. It’s a totally reasonable and non-provocative thing to do. Couple that with heavy rotation of these reservists through NATO’s eastern front training for “Total Defence” and asymmetrical warfare against a vastly larger adversary would be pretty useful.