Defence & Security
Follow defence resources through reported staffing, fleet serviceability and project delivery. Results, changing targets and future plans stay on their own dates and definitions.
Reported spending. A separate test of readiness.
The department reports spending, staffing and persistent readiness gaps. These are separate measures of resources and delivery; their relationship cannot be reduced to a spending ratio.
Spending is nominal: not adjusted for inflation. Departmental results are self-reported. Fleet serviceability, personnel strength and project ratings do not share one denominator. Later spending plans are not later readiness results.
Results: fiscal 2024–25 · plans held through 2026–27
Current snapshot
$33.9B
Countability last verified this source’s licence on 2026-09-09.
Read this figure carefully
Sum of reported programme spending, including internal services. Fiscal years; nominal dollars. DND spending is narrower than NATO-defined defence expenditure.
91.9%
Countability last verified this source’s licence on 2026-09-09.
Read this figure carefully
DND reported result; not independently verified. Definitions and targets differ by measure; no cross-measure average is meaningful.
61.3%
Countability last verified this source’s licence on 2026-09-09.
Read this figure carefully
DND reported result; not independently verified. Definitions and targets differ by measure; no cross-measure average is meaningful.
30.0%
Countability last verified this source’s licence on 2026-09-09.
Read this figure carefully
DND reported result; not independently verified. Definitions and targets differ by measure; no cross-measure average is meaningful.
59.6%
Countability last verified this source’s licence on 2026-09-09.
Read this figure carefully
DND reported result; not independently verified. Definitions and targets differ by measure; no cross-measure average is meaningful.
51.0%
Countability last verified this source’s licence on 2026-09-09.
Read this figure carefully
DND reported result; not independently verified. Definitions and targets differ by measure; no cross-measure average is meaningful.
42.3%
Countability last verified this source’s licence on 2026-09-09.
Read this figure carefully
The structured file lists an 85% target, while its explanation records a change to 70%; the issuer status remains “to be achieved”. See the target record below.
44.0%
Countability last verified this source’s licence on 2026-09-09.
Read this figure carefully
Weighted project status indicator against the most recently approved schedule; not an unweighted percentage of projects delivered on time.
69.0%
Countability last verified this source’s licence on 2026-09-09.
Read this figure carefully
Higher is worse. Target: at most 5% of occupations with critical shortfalls. DND self-reported result; not a share of all personnel.
Time-series evidence
DND reported spending by fiscal year, nominal Canadian dollars
FY 2020–21 → FY 2024–25 · Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat — GC InfoBase — Departmental Plans and Results Reports: expenditures and full-time equivalents by program and organization
View the data table for DND reported spending by fiscal year, nominal Canadian dollars (5 points)
| Period | Value |
|---|---|
| FY 2020–21 | $26.8B |
| FY 2021–22 | $24.1B |
| FY 2022–23 | $26.9B |
| FY 2023–24 | $33.5B |
| FY 2024–25 | $33.9B |
Sum of reported programme spending, including internal services. Fiscal years; nominal dollars. DND spending is narrower than NATO-defined defence expenditure.
DND reported full-time equivalents
FY 2020–21 → FY 2024–25 · Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat — GC InfoBase — Departmental Plans and Results Reports: expenditures and full-time equivalents by program and organization
View the data table for DND reported full-time equivalents (5 points)
| Period | Value |
|---|---|
| FY 2020–21 | 91,183 |
| FY 2021–22 | 91,094 |
| FY 2022–23 | 89,864 |
| FY 2023–24 | 90,587 |
| FY 2024–25 | 92,674 |
Civilian and military full-time equivalents in the departmental resource file. These are not deployable troop counts.
People and the gaps in staffing
Reserve Force: 78.54 is a proxy. The row is labelled “positions filled”, but DND says accurate reporting on that basis is not currently possible. Its explanation uses average paid strength divided by total enrolled strength. No establishment-fill gap is calculated here.
Staffing and occupational shortfall history
| Fiscal year | Indicator | Published label | Reported result (%) | Issuer status |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2020-21 | DR-2009 | % of Regular force positions that are filled | 93.0 | to be achieved |
| 2020-21 | DR-2218 | % of occupations with critical shortfalls | 50.5 | not met |
| 2021-22 | DR-2009 | % of Regular force positions that are filled | 91.6 | to be achieved |
| 2021-22 | DR-2218 | % of occupations with critical shortfalls | 61.7 | not met |
| 2022-23 | DR-2009 | % of the Regular force Establishment that is filled | 88.7 | to be achieved |
| 2022-23 | DR-2218 | % of occupations with critical shortfalls | 70.0 | not met |
| 2023-24 | DR-2009 | % of the Regular Force Establishment that is filled | 89.1 | to be achieved |
| 2023-24 | DR-2218 | % of occupations with critical shortfalls | 72.9 | not met |
| 2024-25 | DR-2009 | % of the Regular Force Establishment that is filled | 91.9 | to be achieved |
| 2024-25 | DR-2218 | % of occupations with critical shortfalls | 69.0 | not met |
Source: Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat — GC InfoBase — performance information by programme and organization. Core-responsibility indicators DR-2009, DR-2213 and DR-2218. Filling an authorized position is not proof of trained or deployable strength.
Reported readiness against its own targets
Each vertical marker is the target recorded for that indicator, not a common standard. Planned maintenance is part of fleet operation; serviceability differs by environment. The concurrent-readiness figure concerns combinations of force elements, a model-based combination measure, not a success rate for missions.
The aerospace record contains a target change: the numeric target is 85%, the explanatory field records a reduction to 70%, and the stored status is “to be achieved”. Both target values and the issuer status remain visible; Countability substitutes none of them. “To be achieved” is the issuer’s label, not a Countability on-track verdict.
Source: Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat — GC InfoBase — performance information by programme and organization. Reported results for fiscal 2024–25. No public force-level data independently verify these readings.
Equipment delivery and revised approvals
These figures use weighted green/yellow/red project ratings and project complexity/risk weights. They are not an unweighted count of projects on time, in scope or on budget. The reference is the most recent approval, which may differ from the original promise.
The reported schedule indicator is much lower than the scope indicator. This is a difference between two rating-based measures; it does not reveal how many projects were delayed, the average delay, or whether a revised promise was met.
Source: Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat — GC InfoBase — performance information by programme and organization. DR-2868, DR-2869 and DR-2870; new identifiers in the 2024–25 results. Earlier project indicators are retained in the historical record but not joined into a trend.
The target and definition record
A shared label or identifier does not guarantee a stable measure. New land, aerospace and procurement identifiers begin in fiscal 2024–25; even the continuing maritime identifier has changed wording and targets.
Results with the target and status stored in the same row
| Fiscal year | Indicator | Published label | Result (%) | Minimum target (%) | Maximum target (%) | Recorded target year/month | Issuer status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2020-21 | DR-1995 | % of force elements that are ready for operations in accordance with established targets | 71.7 | 100.0 | — | 2025.0/3.0 | to be achieved |
| 2020-21 | DR-2007 | % of land fleets that are serviceable to meet training and readiness requirements | 62.7 | 70.0 | — | 2021.0/3.0 | not met |
| 2020-21 | DR-2176 | % of maritime key fleets that are serviceable to meet training and readiness requirements | 94.1 | 90.0 | — | 2021.0/3.0 | met |
| 2020-21 | DR-2183 | % of aerospace fleets that are serviceable to meet training and readiness requirements | 55.0 | 85.0 | — | 2021.0/3.0 | not met |
| 2020-21 | DR-2009 | % of Regular force positions that are filled | 93.0 | 95.0 | 100.0 | 2026.0/3.0 | to be achieved |
| 2020-21 | DR-2213 | % of Reserve force positions that are filled | 79.78 | 95.0 | 100.0 | 2026.0/3.0 | to be achieved |
| 2020-21 | DR-2218 | % of occupations with critical shortfalls | 50.5 | — | 5.0 | 2021.0/3.0 | not met |
| 2020-21 | DR-1298 | % of capital equipment projects that remain within approved expenditure authority | 94.12 | 100.0 | — | 2021.0/3.0 | not met |
| 2020-21 | DR-1545 | % of capital equipment projects that remain on approved schedule | 94.12 | 100.0 | — | 2021.0/3.0 | not met |
| 2020-21 | DR-2001 | % of capital equipment projects that remain in approved scope | 94.12 | 100.0 | — | 2021.0/3.0 | not met |
| 2021-22 | DR-1995 | % of force elements that are ready for operations in accordance with established targets | 71.0 | 100.0 | — | 2025.0/3.0 | to be achieved |
| 2021-22 | DR-2007 | % of land fleets that are serviceable to meet training and readiness requirements | 65.8 | 70.0 | — | 2022.0/3.0 | not met |
| 2021-22 | DR-2176 | % of maritime key fleets that are serviceable to meet training and readiness requirements | 54.0 | 90.0 | — | 2022.0/3.0 | not met |
| 2021-22 | DR-2183 | % of aerospace fleets that are serviceable to meet training and readiness requirements | 43.0 | 85.0 | — | 2022.0/3.0 | not met |
| 2021-22 | DR-2009 | % of Regular force positions that are filled | 91.6 | 95.0 | 100.0 | 2026.0/3.0 | to be achieved |
| 2021-22 | DR-2213 | % of Reserve force positions that are filled | 76.0 | 95.0 | — | 2026.0/3.0 | to be achieved |
| 2021-22 | DR-2218 | % of occupations with critical shortfalls | 61.7 | — | 5.0 | 2022.0/3.0 | not met |
| 2021-22 | DR-1298 | % of capital equipment projects that remain within most recent approved expenditure authority | 87.5 | 100.0 | — | 2022.0/3.0 | not met |
| 2021-22 | DR-1545 | % of capital equipment projects that remain on most recent approved schedule | 93.75 | 100.0 | — | 2022.0/3.0 | not met |
| 2021-22 | DR-2001 | % of capital equipment projects that remain in most recent approved scope | 93.8 | 100.0 | — | 2022.0/3.0 | not met |
| 2022-23 | DR-1995 | % of force elements that are ready for operations in accordance with established targets | 61.0 | 100.0 | — | 2025.0/3.0 | to be achieved |
| 2022-23 | DR-2007 | % of key land fleets that are serviceable to meet training and readiness requirements in support of concurrent operations | 56.0 | 80.0 | — | 2023.0/3.0 | not met |
| 2022-23 | DR-2176 | % of maritime key fleets that are serviceable to meet training and readiness requirements in support of concurrent operations | 51.2 | 90.0 | — | 2023.0/3.0 | not met |
| 2022-23 | DR-2183 | % of aerospace key fleets that are serviceable to meet training and readiness requirements in support of concurrent operations | 43.88 | 85.0 | — | 2023.0/3.0 | not met |
| 2022-23 | DR-2009 | % of the Regular force Establishment that is filled | 88.7 | 95.0 | 100.0 | 2026.0/3.0 | to be achieved |
| 2022-23 | DR-2213 | % of Reserve force positions that are filled | 75.18 | 95.0 | 100.0 | 2026.0/3.0 | to be achieved |
| 2022-23 | DR-2218 | % of occupations with critical shortfalls | 70.0 | — | 5.0 | 2023.0/3.0 | not met |
| 2022-23 | DR-1298 | % of capital equipment projects that remain within most recent approved expenditure authority | 88.0 | 100.0 | — | 2023.0/3.0 | not met |
| 2022-23 | DR-1545 | % of capital equipment projects that remain on most recent approved schedule | 81.0 | 100.0 | — | 2023.0/3.0 | not met |
| 2022-23 | DR-2001 | % of capital equipment projects that remain in most recent approved scope | 94.0 | 100.0 | — | 2023.0/3.0 | not met |
| 2023-24 | DR-1995 | % of force elements that are ready for operations in accordance with established targets | 67.0 | 100.0 | — | 2025.0/3.0 | to be achieved |
| 2023-24 | DR-2007 | % of key land fleets that are serviceable to meet training and readiness requirements in support of concurrent operations | 49.0 | 80.0 | — | 2024.0/3.0 | not met |
| 2023-24 | DR-2176 | % of maritime key fleets that are serviceable to meet training and readiness requirements in support of concurrent operations | 45.73 | 90.0 | — | 2024.0/3.0 | not met |
| 2023-24 | DR-2183 | % of aerospace key fleets that are serviceable to meet training and readiness requirements in support of concurrent operations | 48.9 | 85.0 | — | 2024.0/3.0 | not met |
| 2023-24 | DR-2009 | % of the Regular Force Establishment that is filled | 89.1 | 95.0 | — | 2026.0/3.0 | to be achieved |
| 2023-24 | DR-2213 | % of Reserve Force positions that are filled | 77.58 | 95.0 | — | 2026.0/3.0 | to be achieved |
| 2023-24 | DR-2218 | % of occupations with critical shortfalls | 72.9 | — | 5.0 | 2024.0/3.0 | not met |
| 2023-24 | DR-1298 | % of capital equipment projects that remain within the most recent approved expenditure authority as forecasted for the fiscal year | 93.0 | 100.0 | — | 2024.0/3.0 | not met |
| 2023-24 | DR-1545 | % of capital equipment projects that remain on most recent approved schedule | 93.0 | 100.0 | — | 2024.0/3.0 | not met |
| 2023-24 | DR-2001 | % of capital equipment projects that remain in most recent approved scope | 100.0 | 100.0 | — | 2024.0/3.0 | met |
| 2024-25 | DR-1995 | % of force elements that are ready for operations in accordance with established targets | 61.3 | 90.0 | — | 2025.0/3.0 | not met |
| 2024-25 | DR-2176 | % of maritime key fleets that are serviceable to meet training, readiness, and operational requirements | 59.6 | 60.0 | — | 2025.0/3.0 | not met |
| 2024-25 | DR-2861 | % of planned readiness achieved for core concurrent mission set | 30.0 | 90.0 | — | 2025.0/3.0 | not met |
| 2024-25 | DR-2862 | % of land key fleets that are serviceable to meet training, readiness and operational requirements | 51.0 | 70.0 | — | 2025.0/3.0 | not met |
| 2024-25 | DR-2863 | % of aerospace key fleets that are serviceable to meet training, readiness, and operational requirements | 42.3 | 85.0 | — | 2028.0/3.0 | to be achieved |
| 2024-25 | DR-2009 | % of the Regular Force Establishment that is filled | 91.9 | 95.0 | — | 2026.0/3.0 | to be achieved |
| 2024-25 | DR-2213 | % of Reserve Force positions that are filled | 78.54 | 95.0 | — | 2026.0/3.0 | to be achieved |
| 2024-25 | DR-2218 | % of occupations with critical shortfalls | 69.0 | — | 5.0 | 2025.0/3.0 | not met |
| 2024-25 | DR-2868 | % of capital equipment projects that remain in most recent approved scope | 94.0 | 90.0 | — | 2025.0/3.0 | met |
| 2024-25 | DR-2869 | % of capital equipment projects that remain on most recent approved schedule | 44.0 | 90.0 | — | 2025.0/3.0 | not met |
| 2024-25 | DR-2870 | % of capital equipment projects that remain within the most recent approved expenditure authority | 75.0 | 90.0 | — | 2025.0/3.0 | not met |
Separate plans: no outcome has been substituted
| Plan fiscal year | Indicator | Published label | Minimum target (%) | Maximum target (%) | Recorded target year/month |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-26 | DR-1995 | % of force elements that are ready for operations in accordance with established targets | 90.0 | — | 2032.0/3.0 |
| 2025-26 | DR-2176 | % of maritime key fleets that are serviceable to meet training, readiness, and operational requirements | 60.0 | — | 2032.0/3.0 |
| 2025-26 | DR-2861 | % of planned readiness achieved for core concurrent mission set | 90.0 | — | 2032.0/3.0 |
| 2025-26 | DR-2862 | % of land key fleets that are serviceable to meet training, readiness and operational requirements | 70.0 | — | 2032.0/3.0 |
| 2025-26 | DR-2863 | % of aerospace key fleets that are serviceable to meet training, readiness, and operational requirements | 70.0 | — | 2032.0/3.0 |
| 2025-26 | DR-2009 | % of the Regular Force Establishment that is filled | 95.0 | — | 2027.0/3.0 |
| 2025-26 | DR-2213 | % of Reserve Force positions that are filled | 95.0 | — | 2032.0/3.0 |
| 2025-26 | DR-2218 | % of occupations with critical shortfalls | — | 5.0 | 2032.0/3.0 |
| 2025-26 | DR-2868 | % of capital equipment projects that remain in most recent approved scope | 90.0 | — | 2026.0/3.0 |
| 2025-26 | DR-2869 | % of capital equipment projects that remain on most recent approved schedule | 90.0 | — | 2026.0/3.0 |
| 2025-26 | DR-2870 | % of capital equipment projects that remain within the most recent approved expenditure authority | 90.0 | — | 2026.0/3.0 |
| 2026-27 | DR-1995 | % of force elements that are ready for operations in accordance with established targets | 90.0 | — | 2032.0/3.0 |
| 2026-27 | DR-2176 | % of maritime key fleets that are serviceable to meet training, readiness, and operational requirements | 75.0 | — | 2036.0/3.0 |
| 2026-27 | DR-2861 | % of planned readiness achieved for core concurrent mission set | 90.0 | — | 2032.0/3.0 |
| 2026-27 | DR-2862 | % of land key fleets that are serviceable to meet training, readiness, and operational requirements | 80.0 | — | 2036.0/3.0 |
| 2026-27 | DR-2863 | % of aerospace key fleets that are serviceable to meet training, readiness, and operational requirements | 85.0 | — | 2036.0/3.0 |
| 2026-27 | DR-2009 | % of the Regular Force Establishment that is filled | 95.0 | — | 2027.0/3.0 |
| 2026-27 | DR-2213 | % of Reserve Force positions that are filled | 95.0 | — | 2032.0/3.0 |
| 2026-27 | DR-2218 | % of occupations with critical shortfalls | — | 5.0 | 2032.0/3.0 |
| 2026-27 | DR-2868 | % of capital equipment projects that remain in most recent approved scope | 90.0 | — | 2027.0/3.0 |
| 2026-27 | DR-2869 | % of capital equipment projects that remain on most recent approved schedule | 90.0 | — | 2027.0/3.0 |
| 2026-27 | DR-2870 | % of capital equipment projects that remain within the most recent approved expenditure authority | 90.0 | — | 2027.0/3.0 |
Source: Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat — GC InfoBase — performance information by programme and organization. Result and plan rows are separate document types. The archive does not preserve the original Departmental Plan for each result year; a same-row DRR target is not proof of an unchanged original promise.
Definitions, explanations and source editions
The issuer’s definitions and explanations
These are the exact fields in the preserved TBS performance file, including DND’s calculation formulas. Project ratings include partial credit and penalties for traffic-light statuses, weighted for project complexity; they are not shares of projects.
Regular Force establishment filled · DR-2009
Published explanation
Although the target was not met, Regular Force recruiting intake achievements, combined with attrition remaining at expected levels, contributed to a net growth of 2,000 Regular Force members. During the 2024–25 reporting cycle, the target date for achieving this performance indicator was amended to March 2027.
Published methodology
Explanation/rationale: This indicator measures the percentage of Regular Force (RegF) positions in the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) currently filled by RegF personnel. This indicator informs the success of recruiting and retention efforts in addition to management of career progressions of individual RegF CAF members. A low indicator response could prompt a review of recruiting practices and policies or retention issues within the CAF's RegF component. Formula/calculation: (Total Canadian Armed Forces Regular Force headcount / Total Regular Force establishment levels for the Canadian Armed Forces) x 100 Measurement strategy: The Director Human Resource Information Management - Human Resources Reporting System - Monthly Establishment and Strength Report will be used to generate this result. This report will include Total Establishment, Total Headcount (strength) and Reg F Manning State. Baseline: 94% Notes/definitions: The regular force establishment level, as directed by Strong, Secure, Engaged (SSE), is the number of personnel that the regular force of the Canadian Armed Forces is authorized to employ.
Primary Reserve paid-strength proxy · DR-2213
Published explanation
Accurate reporting of the percentage of positions filled in the Primary Reserve is not currently possible under the current establishment. The data reflected in this report is based on a calculation of the Average Paid Strength (the average number of reservists paid per month over the year) divided by the Total Strength (the total number of individuals enrolled in the Primary Reserve). During the 2024–25 reporting cycle, the target date for achieving this performance indicator was amended to March 2032.
Published methodology
Explanation/rationale: This indicator measures the percentage of Reserve Force (ResF) positions in the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) currently filled by ResF personnel. This indicator informs the success of recruiting and retention efforts in addition to management of career progressions of individual ResF CAF members. A low indicator response could prompt a review of recruiting practices and policies or retention issues within the CAF's ResF component. Formula/calculation: Primary Reserve (P Res) Force only: (A Total CAF P Res headcount / Total P Res Force establishment level) x 100 Measurement strategy: Chief Reserves and Cadets to generate HRMS Report ID NDRES005 "Home Strength Comparison to Host employment for the Reserve Force" as of 31 March of each year. This report provides the data to inform the variables in the formula/calculation. Baseline: 79% Notes/definitions: The Primary Reserve Force establishment level is the number of personnel that the Primary Reserve Force of the Canadian Armed Forces is authorized to employ.
Force elements reported ready · DR-1995
Published explanation
The target was not met due to ongoing shortages in sustainment, equipment and personnel. These shortages were intensified by increased demand for force elements supporting Op REASSURANCE in Latvia, which was the primary contributor to this year’s lower result. During the 2024–25 reporting cycle, the target date for achieving this performance indicator was amended to March 2032.
Published methodology
Explanation/rationale: Assess the Canadian Armed Forces’ (CAF) capacity to be ready to conduct operations. An insufficient number of ready force elements (the building blocks of operations) could limit CAF capacity and flexibility to conduct one or more concurrent operations and would prompt the need to assess operational capacity gaps. This indicator informs National Defence and CAF activities to design, build, field, sustain and manage the operational capacity required to deliver the full range of Defence operational tasks. Formula/calculation: (# of Force Elements reported as ready / Total # of Force Elements Tasked in the Force Posture and Readiness directive) x 100 Measurement strategy: This indicator assesses the readiness of force elements required to conduct operations as tasked in the Force Posture and Readiness Directive. Data is collected and reported through the Strategic Management and Readiness Tool (SMaRT). Baseline: The baseline to be used corresponds to the first official readiness results as of Summer 2018 which is based on Force Elements presented to the CDS following the CDS directive on Force Posture and Readiness. Notes/definitions: Force Elements: An organizational entity consisting of personnel, resource/equipment and/or infrastructure components which can be force generated and assigned to tasks. Ready/Readiness: The preparedness to respond to government direction, expressed in terms of capability to execute the request and the time to deploy the capability. Force Posture: Sum of elements of all kinds which characterizes a military force relative to a given mission. Target explanation: Canada's defence policy ensures that the Canadian Armed Forces will be prepared to simultaneously conduct operations. This target represents the total number of operations the Canadian Armed Forces are expected to conduct simultaneously as per Strong Secure Engaged. Data collection frequency: Monthly or as requested.
Planned concurrent readiness achieved · DR-2861
Published explanation
This indicator is based on the core missions outlined in Strong, Secure, Engaged. Concurrency goals will be revised to better align with the current geopolitical context, Government of Canada priorities and updated defence policy.
Published methodology
Explanation/rationale: The current security environment forces Canada to respond simultaneously to various domestic and international commitments, which is known as concurrency of operations. As mandated in the defence policy (SSE), certain concurrency operations must be sustained at any given time, and readiness planning must reflect that. The conditions of Force Elements directly influences the possible combinations of force elements required to meet planned concurrency targets. This indicator informs National Defence and CAF activities and prioritization to design, build, field, sustain and manage the operational capacity required to deliver the full range of Defence Operational tasks. Performing poorly in this area would demonstrate that the CAF is unable to sustain the appropriate readiness requirements that have been mandated in the defence policy. Formula/calculation: Using the SMaRT Analytic Data for a Fiscal Year the following calculation will be performed (Volume of ready combination permutation / total volume of all combination permutations ) x100 Measurement strategy: This indicator is used to calculate the current readiness when considering the force Elements required to conduct the planned mission obligations that are laid out in the Defence Policy. The SMaRT leverages all possible sequences of Force Element combinations that can be used to perform a specific mission. These different combinations of force elements are entered into SMaRT and programmed algorithms are used to conduct comparative modelling to identify readiness and DND/CAF's ability to satisfy all missions concurrently through the aggregation and manipulation of all mission permutations. Baseline: Not available until there are 3 years of historical data available Notes/definitions: Force Elements: An organizational entity consisting of personnel, resource/equipment and/or infrastructure components which can be force generated and assigned to tasks. Ready/Readiness: The preparedness to respond to government direction, expressed in terms of capability to execute the request and the time to deploy the capability. Force Posture: Sum of elements of all kinds which characterizes a military force relative to a given mission. Target explanation: Canada's defence policy ensures that the Canadian Armed Forces will be prepared to simultaneously conduct operations. This target represents the total number of operations the Canadian Armed Forces are expected to conduct simultaneously as per Strong Secure Engaged (SSE). Data Collection Frequency: Monthly or as requested.
Maritime key-fleet serviceability · DR-2176
Published explanation
The target was not met due to the low serviceability of key fleets in the first two quarters due to the following reasons: an extended work period for the Halifax class; crewing and materiel issues for the Kingston class; and, mechanical issues on HMCS Windsor. Performance improved in the last two quarters, and targets were met during that period. The 59.6% result is assessed against a target of 60% that accounts for planned maintenance. Achieving 100% serviceability across key fleets at the same time is neither expected nor operationally feasible. During the 2024–25 reporting cycle, the target date for achieving this performance indicator was amended to March 2032.
Published methodology
Explanation/rationale: This indicator measures the percentage of the reporting period during which Royal Canadian Navy (RCN) Key Fleets were serviceable and in a state of readiness for operations and tasking (both Force Generation and Force Employment). If RCN Key Fleets are not serviceable, the impacts will be felt through lowered training availability leading to lower expected levels of operator capability. This may result in a lower operational capability than required by the CDS Directive on Force Posture and Readiness (FP&R). The indicator is used to inform decisions on maintenance cycles, maintenance resources, spares resource requirements, the achievability of operational goals, training needs and methods, and the replacement cycle for Naval vessels. Formula/calculation: (Sum of days in a calendar year that all in-service platforms are serviceable / Sum of all days in a calendar year) x 100 Measurement strategy: Under this indicator, Key Fleets refers to Halifax-class, Kingston-class, Harry DeWolf-class, and Victoria-class vessels. The remainder of the Harry DeWolf-class and the Protecteur-class will be added to this metric as they are brought into the RCN fleet. Baseline: To be determined. Notes/definitions: Serviceable: A vessel is serviceable when it is in a materiel condition such that it can be employed for Naval operations. A ship is considered unserviceable when in a 3rd line work period such as a Docking Work Period (DWP), when in 2nd line work periods such as Extended Work Periods (EWPs), or when a Category 1 Operational Deficiency (OPDEF) has been raised. During other types of 2nd line maintenance periods such as Short Work Periods (SWPs), a ship is normally considered serviceable, and the decision on whether a vessel is deemed serviceable or unserviceable is based on the ship’s reported readiness state. In-Service: Equipment from overall Department of National Defence / Canadian Armed Forces holdings that have been given to the Royal Canadian Navy (RCN) for training or readiness activities. A ship is considered unavailable (Not in Service) when in a 3rd line work period such as a Docking Work Period (DWP).
Land key-fleet serviceability · DR-2862
Published explanation
Despite improvements over the previous year, the target was not met due to underfunding of National Procurement, an aging fleet, and high operational tempo. Serviceability is expected to improve as new fleets are introduced, and older ones are divested. The 51% result is assessed against a 70% target that accounts for planned maintenance. Achieving 100% serviceability across key fleets at the same time is neither expected nor operationally feasible. During the 2024–25 reporting cycle, the target date for achieving this performance indicator was amended to March 2032.
Published methodology
Explanation/rationale: This indicator shows the extent to which Canadian Army vehicles are in a mechanical state to be used (serviceable) for training, readiness, and operational requirements. Lack of sufficient serviceable vehicles could result in less than optimal training and operations , as well as loss of knowledge and skills within the Canadian Army. The situational awareness provided by this indicator enables decisions regarding level, duration, and intensity of operations and training activities. It also informs the assessment of requirements for increased support to serviceability (operator and technical maintenance), and oversight of spare parts management. The Army has identified 14 fleets of vehicles and weapons systems that are the most important for foundation training, pre-deployment training and operations. This indicator is expressed as the quantity of serviceable equipment divided by the quantity of equipment in service and in the possession of the primary force generator. In total, this represents approximately 6,000 pieces of equipment. This total will fluctuate as equipment entitlements change, and as equipment is fielded and divested. Formula/calculation: i) Asset serviceability Ratio (in calendar days per year): 365- unserviceable days (days in maintenance) / 365 days ii) Average Fleet serviceability Ratio: Sum of all Asset serviceability Ratios per fleet / Total Fleet Size iii) Average Serviceability across all Fleets: (Sum all Average Fleet Serviceability Ratios / Total Number of Fleets) x100 Measurement strategy: The indicator measures whether the key fleets were serviceable for the Canadian Army (CA) presented as a % of asset units serviceable per Calendar Year. First, the total number of days that an asset unit is serviceable (as a percentage per calendar year) is calculated and summed for each fleet. Then, % of asset units per calendar year for each fleet is summed and divided by the total fleet size and multiplied by 100 to convert to a percentage. Formula will not reach 100% per fleet; the reported result is an average of all fleet serviceability percentages and incorporates scheduled maintenance. Land Key Fleets include: 1. Bison 2. Coyote 3. Light Armoured Vehicle (LAV) 6.0 4. Tracked Light Armoured Vehicle (TLAV) 5. Leopard (Leo) 2 6. Tactical Armoured Patrol Vehicle (TAPV) 7. Armoured Heavy Support Vehicle System (AHSVS) 8. M777 Howitzer 9. C3 Howitzer 10. Light Support Vehicle Wheel (LSVW) 11. Heavy Logistic Vehicle Wheel (HLVW) 12. Medium Support Vehicle System (MSVS) 13. Military Commercial Off-the Shelf (MilCOTS) 14. Light Utility Vehicle wheel (LUVW). Baseline: To be determined. Notes/definitions : Serviceable: Equipment that the Canadian Army has in its units and can use for training or readiness activity purposes, based on mechanical standards for safety features, major assemblies, suspension, frame, body and weapons systems. Equipment that is not serviceable are those that are undergoing repairs (ex. Open work orders for 1st, 2nd, or 3rd line maintenance). Note that the concept of “serviceable” differs slightly between military environments due to the inherent differences across types of equipment.
Aerospace key-fleet serviceability · DR-2863
Published explanation
The target was not met due to a number of factors including personnel shortages, supply chain disruptions, and the increasing maintenance demands of aging platforms. Planned major maintenance, unplanned equipment problems, underfunding, and obsolescence also affected serviceability. These challenges are expected to persist in the near term, with improvements anticipated as new platforms achieve full operational capability. The 42.3% result is assessed against an 85% target that accounts for planned maintenance. Achieving 100% serviceability across key fleets at the same time is neither expected nor operationally feasible. During the 2024–25 reporting cycle, the target was revised from 85% to 70% as achieving 100% serviceability across key fleets at the same time is unrealistic. The date for achieving this performance indicator was amended to March 2032.
Published methodology
Explanation/rationale: This indicator shows the extent to which Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) aircraft are in a mechanical state to be used (serviceable) for operations and training. Lack of sufficient serviceable aircraft may lead to/could result in less than optimal training and operations, as well as loss of knowledge and skills within the RCAF. The situational awareness provided by this indicator enables decisions regarding level, duration and intensity of operations and training activities. It also informs the assessment of requirements for increased support to serviceability (operator and technical maintenance), and oversight of spare parts management. Formula/calculation: (i) Asset serviceability Ratio (in calendar days per year) 365- unserviceable days (days in maintenance) / 365 days ii) Average Fleet serviceability Ratio: Sum of all Asset serviceability Ratios per fleet / Total Fleet Size iii) Average Serviceability across all Fleets (Sum all Average Fleet Serviceability Ratios / Total Number of Fleets) x100 Measurement strategy : The indicator measures whether the key fleets were serviceable for the Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) presented as a % of asset units serviceable per Calendar Year. First, the total number of days that an asset unit is serviceable (as a ratio per calendar year) is calculated and summed for each fleet. Then, ratio of asset units per calendar year for each fleet is summed and divided by the total fleet size and multiplied by 100 to convert to a percentage. Formula will not reach 100% per fleet; the reported result is an average of all fleet serviceability percentages and incorporates scheduled maintenance. Aerospace Key Fleets include: 1. CF188 Hornet 2. CC130 Hercules 3. CC130J Super Hercules 4. CH149 Cormorant 5. CH146 Griffon 6. CC177 Globe Master III 7. CC150 Polaris 8. CC138 Twin Otter 9. CH147 Chinook 10. CP140 Aurora 11. CH148 Cyclone 12. CC144 Challenger 13. CT114 Tutor 14. CT142 DASH-8. Baseline : Not available until there are 3 years of historical data Notes/definitions: Serviceable: Equipment in the possession of the primary force generator that are in service and free of faults that would prevent their safe operation and can be used for training or readiness activity purposes. Unserviceable equipment are those undergoing servicing and repairs (ex. Open work orders for labour, maintenance, spare parts etc). Note that the concept of “serviceable” differs slightly between military environments due to the inherent differences across types of equipment. Primary Force Generator: Royal Canadian Air Force.
Project scope indicator · DR-2868
Published explanation
Published methodology
Explanation/rationale: This indicator measures the degree to which Defence equipment acquisition conforms to the most recently approved project scope. The project scope can be reviewed on a semi-annual basis. If scope is not met, the Materiel Group will not deliver what is expected by the Canadian Armed Forces. The data obtained is used to identify issues such as the degree of change to scope, impact to the project and overall equipment acquisition program performance. Changes to scope would prompt leadership to investigate and manage according to the capability deficiencies identified for the project. Formula/calculation: ((Number of capital equipment projects with scope status of green) +(.5 * (Number of projects with scope status yellow))- (0.5*(Number of projects with scope status red) /Number of capital equipment projects) * 100 Measurement Strategy: Project status is determined based on data from DRMIS and the Project Quad charts updated monthly. Data in DRMIS and Project quad charts are generated by individual Project Managers. Projects are weighted by complexity and risk as follows: -PCRA Level 1 = 1 -PCRA Level 2 = 5 -PCRA Level 3 = 25 -PCRA Level 4 = 25 Baseline: The baseline will be derived from the data from the past 3 FYs. Notes/definitions: DND's Project Approval Directive (PAD) provides direction to DND/CAF project and programme professionals that is consistent with the Government of Canada (GC) Policy on the Planning and Management of Investments and Directive on the Management of Projects and Programme, and includes a clearly defined Project Measurement Protocol (Green, Yellow, Red). Capital equipment projects refers to all major capital projects >$10M.
Project schedule indicator · DR-2869
Published explanation
The target was not met due to a range of factors contributing to project delays. These included aggressive schedule baselines, reprioritization of central resources, staff shortages and reassignments to other projects, procurement timelines and contracting legal issues, technical and qualification issues; interdependencies, and costing challenges.
Published methodology
Explanation/ rationale: This indicator measures the degree to which Defence equipment acquisition conforms to the most recently approved project schedule. The project schedule can be reviewed on a semi-annual basis. If schedule is not met, the impacts could include both capability and financial factors. The data obtained is used to identify issues such as the degree of change to schedule, impact to the project and overall equipment acquisition program performance. Changes to schedule would prompt leadership to investigate and manage according to the capability deficiencies identified for the project. Formula/calculation: ((Number of capital equipment projects with schedule status of green) +(.5 * (Number of projects with schedule status yellow))- (0.5*(Number of projects with schedule status red) /Number of capital equipment projects) * 100 Measurement Strategy: Project status is determined based on data from DRMIS and the Project Quad charts updated monthly. Data in DRMIS and Project quad charts are generated by individual Project Managers. Projects are weighted by complexity and risk as follows: -PCRA Level 1 = 1 -PCRA Level 2 = 5 -PCRA Level 3 = 25 -PCRA Level 4 = 25 Baseline: The baseline will be derived from the data from the past 3 FYs. Notes/definitions: DND's Project Approval Directive (PAD) provides direction to DND/CAF project and programme professionals that is consistent with the Government of Canada (GC) Policy on the Planning and Management of Investments and Directive on the Management of Projects and Programme, and includes a clearly defined Project Measurement Protocol (Green, Yellow, Red). Capital equipment projects refers to all major capital projects >$10M.
Project expenditure-authority indicator · DR-2870
Published explanation
The target was not met due to a range of factors contributing to project delays. These included aggressive schedule baselines, reprioritization of central resources, staff shortages and reassignments to other projects, procurement timelines and contracting legal issues, technical and qualification issues; interdependencies, and costing challenges.
Published methodology
Explanation/ rationale: This indicator measures the degree to which Defence equipment acquisition conforms to the most recently approved expenditure authority. The project expenditure authority can be reviewed on a semi-annual basis. If project costs are not within the approved expenditure authorities impacts may include project completion, capability and overall budget forecasting. The data obtained is used to identify issues such as the degree of change to budget, impact to the project and overall equipment acquisition program performance. Changes to project costs would prompt leadership to investigate and manage according to the capability deficiencies identified for the project. Formula/calculation: ((Number of capital equipment projects with budget status of green) +(.5 * (Number of projects with budget status yellow))- (0.5*(Number of projects with budget status red) /Number of capital equipment projects) * 100 Measurement Strategy: Project status is determined based on data from DRMIS and the Project Quad charts updated monthly. Data in DRMIS and Project quad charts are generated by individual Project Managers. Projects are weighted by complexity and risk as follows: -PCRA Level 1 = 1 -PCRA Level 2 = 5 -PCRA Level 3 = 25 -PCRA Level 4 = 25 Baseline: The baseline will be derived from the data from the past 3 FYs. Notes/definitions: DND's Project Approval Directive (PAD) provides direction to DND/CAF project and programme professionals that is consistent with the Government of Canada (GC) Policy on the Planning and Management of Investments and Directive on the Management of Projects and Programme, and includes a clearly defined Project Measurement Protocol (Green, Yellow, Red). Capital equipment projects refers to all major capital projects >$10M.
Occupations with critical shortfalls · DR-2218
Published explanation
The target was not met due to ongoing shortages in some occupations; however, as a greater portion of the Regular Force Establishment was filled, more occupations are now forecasted to recover within two years. This contributed to an improvement from 72.9% in FY 2023-24. During the 2024–25 reporting cycle, the target date for achieving this performance indicator was amended to March 2032.
Published methodology
Explanation/rationale: This indicator illustrates the number of Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) occupations that are understaffed. Each CAF member is assigned a specific occupation upon enrolment. To ensure operational effectiveness, sufficient numbers of members filling each CAF occupation are required as outlined by Canada's defence policy. This indicator can inform the development of focused recruiting and retention initiatives to relieve personnel shortages in understaffed occupations. Formula/calculation: (# of Regular Force distressed occupations / Total # of Regular Force occupations) x 100 Measurement strategy: Count of the number of Occupations that are below 90% Trained Effective Strength versus Preferred Manning Levels as of 31 March of each year, and which are not forecast to recover within 2 years. Baseline: 17.90% Notes/definitions: An occupation is considered to have a critical shortfall when the number of trained and effective members employed in that occupation is less than 90% of the preferred number, and it is not forecast to recover within 2 years.
These tables reproduce a fixed captured edition. A later release must be captured, checked for revisions and assessed before this reading changes.
Inspect the captured source editions
Defence · captured 2026-09-09 · issuer data
Original response SHA-256: 453df0d8f19d28b4cf91bfd45e011ad39731ee8c899521641640695d4db685e5
Resources · captured 2026-09-09 · issuer data
Original response SHA-256: 510188c50020a52f2cac81f122fe2ad460a505939d426b53c8754fcd9d0fd3fc
Contains information licensed under the Open Government Licence – Canada. No government endorsement is implied.
Put DND’s own reporting in the wider federal Delivery Scoreboard →
What the record says about this domain
Evidence gaps
How do defence dollars translate into deployable capability?
What is missing: The held record contains departmental spending, staffing ratios and self-reported readiness indicators, but no matched public microdata linking each expenditure to a force element’s trained personnel, equipment availability and operational output. Indicator definitions, targets and deadlines change; project indicators use weighted ratings against revised approvals. The Reserve Force label is not measured on its stated establishment basis.
Consequence: The pages report each measure on its own definition and period. They publish neither cost per ready unit nor a composite readiness score, and do not infer what later spending commitments achieved.
How to read the dates on this page
- Data version
- When Countability last published a new version of its record. One date for every page on this site, shown in the box above.
- Reference period
- The period a specific figure or chart point actually measures — a quarter, a month, or a year, as the source series is published. This is what "as of" means everywhere on this page, and it varies figure by figure.
- Source licence verified
- Where shown, the date Countability last read that source’s licence terms word for word — not when the source itself last published. Where a source date is unavailable, none is shown rather than guessed.
Full method, evidence tiers, and licence attribution: Sources & Method.
Related on this site
Other domains
This snapshot is a curated sample of Countability’s method, applied to this domain. See Work with Countability for a commissioned question this page does not yet cover.
Work with Countability Commission a question