At the C4ISR and Beyond event, held in Ottawa this past January, senior leaders from the Canadian Army, Royal Canadian Air Force, Royal Canadian Navy, and Canadian Armed Forces Cyber Command came together for a candid discussion on the future of Canada’s defense. What emerged was a clear-eyed assessment of the challenges facing the Canadian Armed Forces and a shared commitment to transformation. From force structure and talent retention to integrated air and missile defense, cyber operations, and Arctic readiness, the panel offered insights into how these leaders are rethinking modernization, interoperability, and engagement with industry. 

Brig Sandry: 

Q: Welcome, everyone, and thank you for joining me for today’s important discussion. To kick things off, I’d like to invite each of you to briefly share what you’re most interested in talking about today. After that, we’ll move into the Q&A. 

LGen Wright:  

Thanks very much, Ed. You asked us to talk about our challenges. I’ll sum up my challenge in one sentence: the Canadian Army we have today is not the Canadian Army we need for the future. Coming in, I understood that the focus of the Canadian Army over the last couple of years had been in setting the conditions to grow from the enhanced forward presence battle group up to the brigade level. And I also understood that we had done a lot of great things in terms of accelerating some of the projects we need. But we need to make sure we are modernizing those capabilities for the entire Canadian Army, not just for the couple of thousand soldiers we have in Latvia. We are not currently, but we need to become, a credible, interoperable, digitally transformed, modern Canadian Army capable of offering agile and scalable options here in Canada or anywhere around the world. 

The number one priority I’ve been focused on is modernization. And I divided that into two parts. First are major capital projects. We have around 50 national capital projects and of those we have prioritized four with a backbone. The first priority of the projects are about a capability we’ve never had, long range precision strike. The second priority is a wholesale modernization of all our indirect fire assets from mortars up to artillery. Third is updating the Arctic mobility capability we’ve had since the 1970s and which is being held together by shoestrings. And fourth is ground-based air defense which, again, we’ve already got some capability forward in Latvia, and we’re going to be trying to accelerate that. That’s one part of modernization. 

The second and equally important part of this, is that we are doing a wholesale review of the structure of the Canadian Army. This is something that has been tried at various times over the past couple of decades, but frankly, for a lot of reasons we haven’t been able to carry through with the changes that need to be made. That’s everything from the Army headquarters level, the division level, the formation level, right down to the units.  

MGen Smyth:  

Much like General Wright mentioned, there’s a massive amount of change coming to the RCAF. As I’m sure you’re all aware, the last three successive defense policies, have outlined $155 billion-worth of investment into the RCAF over the next decade. That means about 360 of our approximately 430 aircraft will either be replaced or significantly upgraded in the coming years. In terms of satellite communications, many Canadians understand very well the challenges we have in communicating across vast distances. That means remote sensing – our ability to detect what’s out there. And frankly, we have poor domain awareness of what’s going on up in the Arctic, whether it’s below the surface or all the way to space. But the investment in the RCAF is the biggest investment we’ve seen in Canada since World War Two, and that requires a complete shift in mindset.  

We know realistically the Russians are not going to drive tanks over the North Pole. The real kinetic threat to Canada is missiles coming over the horizon somewhere. Our ability to detect and then do something about that, whether it’s shooting them down, defeating them electronically, or other things, is really focused on integrated air and missile defense.  

A final thing I’ll leave you with is we’re not that far off from the time when just about any major platform will not be able to hide. We’re seeing a little bit of this in Ukraine. It doesn’t matter if you’re in a tank or in an aircraft or a ship, with maybe the exception of submarines. From space, air land, surface and subsurface sensors, we are getting to the point where we won’t be able to hide out there. The flip side of that is we need to have the same capabilities to be able to determine where our adversaries are operating from. And what that allows us is the ability to come back to war fighting advantage, decision advantage, that ability to sense and act before our adversaries can. So, there’s a lot of effort that we’re starting to look at in the future. How do we stitch all this together in a way that brings us that war fighting advantage? We have to get out of the mindset of, ‘my jet is old, I need a new jet’. 

MGen Yarker:  

In terms of modernization, the last time I stood on the stage, the organization I represent today didn’t exist. So why was cyber command stood up? The key problem we were trying to solve was a strategic and operational command and control problem.  

Cyber command’s responsible for four key war fighting capabilities: offensive cyber operations, defensive cyber operations, signals intelligence and joint electronic warfare. I’ll add signals intelligence and joint electronic warfare as well, because sometimes they get glossed over when people think of cyber command. Cyber command is responsible for all those things. It’s not just the elements of signals intelligence that support the conduct of cyber operations. Cyber command is the signals intelligence arm of the Canadian Armed Forces. So those four things came into cyber command, each with a unit tied to them, largely unchanged.  

There is lots of different cyber commands that you might want. Lots of different cyber commands that I would argue Canada needs, but we deliberately stood up the one that we could stand up as a minimum viable command with the deliberate idea that we would evolve it. Minimum viable is a term that I use to directly link to more agile thinking. The idea is that you move forward with small steps. The only thing that we changed on standup was I took a small team, and I built them as the Command evolution team to drive in three-month sprints and make the idea of evolving the Canadian Armed Forces Cyber Command a reality. 

I’ll end my comments with a thought on advantage. We’ve talked about war fighting advantage, and the theme is about decision advantage, but what does advantage really mean? The easy piece is that you want the very best capabilities for decision and war fighting you can possibly have and start with that. And that’s usually what dominates the conversation. What I would say is from cyber command’s perspective, we are equally interested in the other aspect of advantage, which is that it is always relative, and advantage matters over whom you have an advantage because that adversary is going to attempt to tilt the playing field in their favour. And two, we can also gain advantage when we take away the adversary’s capabilities they lean on for decision making and war fighting.  

Cmdre Armstrong:  

I’d like to talk about our legacy fleets. First is people, second is fight time. Halifax class modernization was to keep pace with C4ISR. But the force development we’re tasked with is to make sure that our sailors can go out with the best equipment we can give them. And do it in a satellite-denied environment with allies and other government departments. 

The second is the modernized fleet. The Harry DeWolf class vessels bring a phenomenal capability to the Navy, and to the government of Canada. And we’re continuing to explore what more we can do. We’ve got the F-150, but what else can we do with it? We’re looking again for industry’s ideas, what we can do to modernize and make it much more capable, much more part of the joint fight in the Arctic. It’s not just buying assets and equipment and all the rest, it’s like my colleagues have spoken about, it’s the people, it’s the doctrine, it’s those aspects that enable all our maritime information warfare campaign.  

The last thing I’ll say is that we need to do a better job of getting the people aspect out there. We need to make sure that the new sailors coming in can operate the technology. They need to understand it and understand it better than I ever will. We need to train them up so they can use it in these new environments, and to do that we must foster their development. 

I’ll leave you with a couple of final thoughts. We know that we need to continue to modernize our C4ISR capabilities. We also need to continue to enable what we’re doing with artificial intelligence. We need to understand cyber warfare.  

Brig Sandry:  

Q: Can you speak to how the Canadian Armed Forces will work together through the Pan-Domain Command and Control concept paper? And how do you see your role and vision aligning with the U.S. on Combined or Joint All-Domain Command and Control? 

Also, could you touch on the experimentation side — particularly Project Olympus? I understand you’re personally invested in making it a success. Where are you focusing your energy, and how are you signaling to the organization that this is a priority based on how you’re spending your time? 

LGen Wright:  

I’ll get into what am I doing personally to make sure we’re focused on where we need to be. I want to mention the importance of Brigadier General Stéphane Masson and his team. I also want to mention that all this is new for the Canadian Army, to have a post command, division commander going into that position. Stéph has the contacts and the credibility, and we’ve also formed underneath Stéph the Directorate of Digital Army Combat Systems Integration (DDACSI) Colonel Aaron Luhning, who I know several of you in the room know from the Hack FD we had at the end of November.  

So, when it comes to Project Olympus we’re certainly working with General Dawe and the CCSI team. Bold Quest was another one where all the organizations on the stage here were very much involved. Project Convergence is one that I’m personally involved with. In March I’m going down to the United States. The US Chief of Staff of the Army General Randy George is hosting a small number of international colleagues to do the latest version of Project Convergence. We are looking at what the US Army is doing in terms of their modernization and how they’re taking industry innovation, artificial intelligence, and machine learning, and making sure that we can be interoperable with them and with our key allies moving forward.  

I think I can also add what am I doing personally. It is always a challenge for commanders writ large and for Army commanders to get fascinated by the day to day. But I have to put the trust in the division commanders and my Chief of Staff Operations to keep the pulse on that. Obviously, I need to remain abreast of what’s happening, but I really need to make sure that I’m putting my money where my mouth is. 

Brig Sandry: 

Q: General Smyth, when it comes to integrated air missile defense, what are the gaps and then what is the CAF doing to get after those gaps? 

MGen Smyth:  

Broadly speaking, when it comes to integrated air and missile defense, it’s tying together all the major projects that we have within the Air Force. And there are two key linchpins to it. One of them is cloud-based command and control, the ability to really understand where our aircraft are, where our platforms are through space links, and where our adversaries are operating. And, how to be able to do that sensing, make sense, and then act. That’s one of the key aspects of it.  

But the other one is the actual command and control node. Our combined air operation centre in Winnipeg is ancient. We’ve added some new apps and connectivity, but it has passed its useful lifespan in many ways. So, what is the future of that command-and-control system? We’re working very closely with US Air Force on this, on what it will look like in a future conflict scenario. That may not necessarily happen on Canadian soil. We probably don’t want to put all our eggs into one big juicy fat target. Because one well-placed missile means we don’t have a command and control capability. So, there will probably be a building for them to operate in. But it’s the ability to disperse and put small teams out and be able to do it from a Starbucks or from your mom’s basement if you need to, wherever we can disperse those troops. A lot of the work that’s going on through things like Project Convergence are where we’re investing in some of those experimentation capabilities. What can we do to put a small team up during a NORAD exercise and to see what the data flow is coming from the AWACS, from the jets that are flying, and see how that plugs in? How do we get the SATCOM working? How do we plug all these different capabilities into that network and make sure that we can sense, make sense, and act? 

Brig Sandry: 

Q: But how do you manage talent? 

MGen Yarker:  

That actually takes an awful lot of our attention. And in fact, it’s one of the major advantages of having stood up a cyber command, which is to be a home for some of that talent. Our goal isn’t to build the entire cyber force by only recruiting individuals who are already domain experts. Quite the opposite. What we are looking for are people who are dedicated and with an interest in service. And we will then train them to be the cyber operators and to have the skill sets we need. That offers us several advantages. First, it means I’m not trying to compete with Google. But it also means that if this is where our focus is, it gives us the opportunity for retention. Because I will tell you a cyber operator who joined out of high school and has already had the opportunity to fight in cyberspace, on the front lines if you will, in Latvia, in Ukraine and elsewhere, those are very highly motivated, very talented people.  

Brig Sandry:  

Q: Jason, you’ve got a big data pool. How do you access that and what systems do you bring in place to make that happen? 

Cmdre Armstrong:  

We have to trust our sailors. They understand how the technology works, and we need to enable them to bring that stuff in and study it. They’re doing incredible things on board ships with data management, sifting through the data, using the different sensors, and then communicating out to our allies. We need to give them the problem and let them work through the solution. I would really like to see increased dialogue between us, again, at that tactical level.  

Brig Sandry:  

Q: How are your commands currently working with industry to identify and develop the solutions you need? What kind of signals are you sending to show where help is needed, and at what point can industry actively come on board to be part of building those solutions? 

LGen Wright:  

At the beginning of the day, we spoke about the notion of self-reflection. The self-reflection from the Army is that over the past few years we have not been present at the forums where we’ve needed to be present. I can tell you you’re going to see a marked change in the Army’s presence, and in the interest and the dialogue we want to have. 

Also, in September we had the first ever Army Appreciation Day on Parliament Hill. The question is why did it take so long when we’ve had Air Force and Navy appreciation days? Brigadier General Stéph Masson, if I may, I’m going to have you come up and give a brief overview on how we’re trying to do some of the industry days, and some of the focused initiatives that will bring people in to talk about some of the specific priorities that we have.  

BGen Masson:  

Thank you. The Chief of Staff Army Strategy and I, in order to be more consistent with our engagement with this strategy, have decided that every quarter we’re going to engage army-related industry. Starting in the next few weeks, with dates to be confirmed, you will receive an invite where we’re going to ask you to come and sit down for casual chat. And during that present everything that we have in mind for army of today, but also army of the future.  

Brig Sandry:  

Q: General Smyth, you also wanted to say a few words about working with industry? 

MGen Smyth:  

We need a completely different paradigm in terms of how we deal with the defense industry. I’ve had a lot of conversations over the last couple of months with various companies. And the consistent message that I’m hearing is that we need to talk more often. The challenge that we have is that our system says, ‘okay, you need to build the requirements and then you put out an RFI or an RFP, and then we wait for industry to scratch their heads and come back with a solution to that’. What I would rather see is a dialogue around, ‘here’s an operational problem that we’re facing. What can we do together to solve that problem?’ And we need to change that whole procurement construct. But we must do it collectively because we can’t do it on our own. And industry can’t do it on their own. It must be done together, working as a team.  

Brig Sandry:  

Q: Are the service chiefs having any discussions around creating opportunities for Canadian and allied industry to collaboratively demonstrate technologies — particularly to help identify and understand capability gaps in Canada? 

MGen Smyth:  

The short answer is, yes, absolutely. I will say we’re relatively early in the process, just over a year since we’ve been given the task. We’re doing some studies right now and we’ve gone out to industry to companies that we know have robust modeling and simulation capabilities, and who can help us define the capability gaps.  

Brig Sandry:  

Q: My final question. If you had a magic wand what is one thing would you want to change tomorrow?  

MGen Smyth:  

I would fix our networks, and the ability to flow data between unclassified, protected, secret and top secret. Right now, that backbone isn’t in place sufficiently for the data requirements we know are coming. 

MGen Yarker:  

Yeah do that and make sure it is protected. 

Cmdre Armstrong:  

I would say alignment across industry and in the military. I’d like one standard, all the same, and understood by everybody. 

LGen Wright:  

We need to continue the emphasis on fixing our recruiting and improving our retention so that we actually have the people to operate the systems we’re going to need to move forward into the future. 

Brig Sandry:  

Sirs, I think that will bring us to our conclusion. Thank you very for sharing your candid thoughts.