Author Topic: The Defence Budget  (Read 396452 times)

Good2Golf, Rifleman62 and 15 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline TCBF

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 13,475
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,931
Re: The Defence Budget
« Reply #50 on: July 25, 2010, 14:39:04 »
- Cut five per-cent of the budget? Easy: stop buying office furniture. 
"Disarming the Canadian public is part of the new humanitarian social agenda."   - Foreign Affairs Minister Lloyd Axeworthy at a Gun Control conference in Oslo, Norway in 1998.


"I didn’t feel that it was an act of violence; you know, I felt that it was an act of liberation, that’s how I felt you know." - Ann Hansen, Canadian 'Urban Guerrilla'(one of the "Squamish Five")

Offline Cloud Cover

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 12,530
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,164
Re: The Defence Budget
« Reply #51 on: July 25, 2010, 16:18:33 »
- Cut five per-cent of the budget? Easy: stop buying office furniture.

Isn't your office a tank?  8)

Offline TCBF

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 13,475
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,931
Re: The Defence Budget
« Reply #52 on: July 26, 2010, 00:25:31 »
Isn't your office a tank?  8)

" Those - were - the - days my friend we thought they'd never end we'd sing and dance forever and a day... " - Boris Fomin/Konstantin Podrevskii/Gene Raskin.  Recorded by Mary Hopkins in 1968 (I loved it when it played on the radio back then).
"Disarming the Canadian public is part of the new humanitarian social agenda."   - Foreign Affairs Minister Lloyd Axeworthy at a Gun Control conference in Oslo, Norway in 1998.


"I didn’t feel that it was an act of violence; you know, I felt that it was an act of liberation, that’s how I felt you know." - Ann Hansen, Canadian 'Urban Guerrilla'(one of the "Squamish Five")

Offline Chilme

  • Member
  • ****
  • 4,042
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 162
Re: The Defence Budget
« Reply #53 on: October 07, 2010, 21:51:42 »
I find it very interesting the Canada's defence budget is ranked somewhere between 10th and 15th in the world (depending on source), yet are ranked around 60th in the world for the number of personnel.

How do we have such a large budget, yet such a small arsenal and relatively small number of soldiers?

Offline Hamish Seggie

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 206,452
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,508
  • This is my son Michael, KIA Afghanistan 3 Sep 08
Re: The Defence Budget
« Reply #54 on: October 07, 2010, 21:52:58 »
I find it very interesting the Canada's defence budget is ranked somewhere between 10th and 15th in the world (depending on source), yet are ranked around 60th in the world for the number of personnel.

How do we have such a large budget, yet such a small arsenal and relatively small number of soldiers?

Take a look at how many major HQs are around.
Freedom Isn't Free   "Never Shall I Fail My Brothers"

“Do everything that is necessary and nothing that is not".

aesop081

  • Guest
Re: The Defence Budget
« Reply #55 on: October 07, 2010, 21:55:50 »


How do we have such a large budget, yet such a small arsenal and relatively small number of soldiers?

Our soldiers are paid and compensated rather well, to start.

Offline Chilme

  • Member
  • ****
  • 4,042
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 162
Re: The Defence Budget
« Reply #56 on: October 07, 2010, 21:56:31 »
So you're suggesting if we close down a few HQ's then more troops could be hired and a more weapons purchased?

aesop081

  • Guest
Re: The Defence Budget
« Reply #57 on: October 07, 2010, 21:59:28 »
.....
« Last Edit: October 07, 2010, 22:02:42 by CDN Aviator »

Offline Chilme

  • Member
  • ****
  • 4,042
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 162
Re: The Defence Budget
« Reply #58 on: October 07, 2010, 22:01:42 »
Our soldiers are paid and compensated rather well, to start.

That is true.  I can't imagine this will change any time soon.  I would say their pay is well earned for most

Offline 1984

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 5,799
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 290
Re: The Defence Budget
« Reply #59 on: October 07, 2010, 22:07:23 »
I think CDN Aviator is referring to the fact that we get paid in currency rather than cabbage.

Offline Chilme

  • Member
  • ****
  • 4,042
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 162
Re: The Defence Budget
« Reply #60 on: October 19, 2010, 19:43:12 »
Has anyone seen the latest precedent set for Defence Budgets?  The British government is planning MASSIVE cuts to their military (see link below).  Apparently it is there answer to a large national debt.  I hope Canada doesn't follow the footsteps of our friends across the pond.  I did, however, find it interesting that they intend to transfer more funding to their special forces.  To me this is the way of the future, as it seems that many modern battlefields operate unconventionally.

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2010/10/18/britain-budget-cuts.html

aesop081

  • Guest
Re: The Defence Budget
« Reply #61 on: October 19, 2010, 20:23:34 »
as it seems that many modern battlefields operate unconventionally.

While it may be true now.....what about 2 years from now ? How about 5 years ? 10 years ?

The trouble with making huge capability cuts based on whats going on now is that later on, when things have changed, you "got nuthin' ".

Offline Hamish Seggie

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 206,452
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,508
  • This is my son Michael, KIA Afghanistan 3 Sep 08
Re: The Defence Budget
« Reply #62 on: October 20, 2010, 10:24:07 »
While it may be true now.....what about 2 years from now ? How about 5 years ? 10 years ?

The trouble with making huge capability cuts based on whats going on now is that later on, when things have changed, you "got nuthin' ".

How true!!
Freedom Isn't Free   "Never Shall I Fail My Brothers"

“Do everything that is necessary and nothing that is not".

Offline E.R. Campbell

  • Retired, years ago
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 450,125
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 17,997
Re: The Defence Budget
« Reply #63 on: October 20, 2010, 10:59:37 »
There is, often, a point (Britain figures they're at it in 2010-2015, Canada figured that back circa 1995-2000) when countries must try to balance the books. It would be nice to think that governments think strategically but, alas, it is not possible. Governments can (and usually do) consider strategic issues but they also must (and always do) consider both practical and political issue, too. Practicality and politics almost always trump strategy in democracies. People vote, issues don't. Unhappy people will punish political leaders; issues might be more benign.

In my opinion the UK defence cuts, while deep, are not as harsh as the cuts imposed on the CF beginning in 1969 and continuing, almost uninterrupted, until around 2003.

(In fairness: the deepest real cuts to Canadian defence spending occurred over a 20 year period from 1955 to 1975. After 1975 Canadian defence spending very closely 'tracked' US spending - growing and falling in step. Measured as a percentage of GDP (the best way to measure) Canadian defnec spending has (with one brief exception in about 1978-82) declined steadily from nearly 8% of GDP circa 1952 to about 1.25% of GDP today. The last time our defence spending, measured as a percentage of GDP, was at a respectable middle power level (2 to 2.5% of GDP) was in early 1960s - the Diefenbaker/Pearson era. Stephen Harper continues to reduce defence spending as a percentage of GDP. The Conservatives' Canada First Defence Strategy is a (financial) recipe for unilateral disarmament.)

There are several European countries, including France and Italy, that must, sooner rather than later, follow the UK's example. There is also the problem of the USA: which is far, far too deeply in debt. I recommend a thin, new book by Michael Mandelbaum that outlines some of the problems that impending, necessary budget cuts will have on the USA: The Frugal Superpower. Mandelbaum is not and does not pretend to be a political non-partisan but that doesn't negate the wisdom of his analysis.
It is ill that men should kill one another in seditions, tumults and wars; but it is worse to bring nations to such misery, weakness and baseness
as to have neither strength nor courage to contend for anything; to have nothing left worth defending and to give the name of peace to desolation.
Algernon Sidney in Discourses Concerning Government, (1698)
----------
Like what you see/read here on Army.ca?  Subscribe, and help keep it "on the air!"

Offline Chilme

  • Member
  • ****
  • 4,042
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 162
Re: The Defence Budget
« Reply #64 on: October 20, 2010, 17:11:01 »
While it may be true now.....what about 2 years from now ? How about 5 years ? 10 years ?

The trouble with making huge capability cuts based on whats going on now is that later on, when things have changed, you "got nuthin' ".

I agree with you 100%.  A military should always have the capability to challenge any perceived threats.  I do, however, believe that current situations and those in the foreseeable future should play a major role in resource allocation.  Otherwise you spread too thin.

Offline E.R. Campbell

  • Retired, years ago
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 450,125
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 17,997
Re: The Defence Budget
« Reply #65 on: November 30, 2010, 18:32:31 »
The Good Grey Globe, to its credit, pays some sensible attention to defence policy and, in the process, give the Liberals a slap upsode the head, in this editorial, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/editorials/liberal-foreign-policy-good-ends-not-enough-means/article1816647/
Quote
GLOBE EDITORIAL
Liberal foreign policy: good ends, not enough means
From Monday's Globe and Mail

The Liberals' trilogy of foreign-policy speeches by Bob Rae, Dominic LeBlanc and Siobhan Coady show a proper firmness on Afghanistan but they are lacking in commitment to provide the equipment and the money required for a vigorous presence in international affairs.

All three shadow cabinet ministers rightly emphasized that Lester Pearson, the founder of UN peacekeeping, would also have supported the Canadian mission in Afghanistan. They not only advocated a return to traditional peacekeeping but also a move toward the responsibility-to-protect doctrine, which means a heightened humanitarian interventionism, where there is no peace to be kept, or conventional governments or armies to mediate between – or specifically Canadian interests. The apparent implication is a series of future missions quite like the present one in Afghanistan.

This greater activism is to be accomplished without any increase in the Canadian defence budget in real terms. Moreover, Mr. LeBlanc, the Liberal defence critic, and his colleagues reasserted their rejection of the Conservatives' proposed purchase of F-35 stealth fighter jets. The Liberals, to their credit, affirm the importance of the Arctic (including a permanent secretariat for the Arctic Council and an ambassador for circumpolar affairs), but are reluctant to buy jets that would enable Canada to be truly and effectively sovereign over its vast northern territories – and which would do much to help the Canadian Forces take part in the overseas interventions that the Liberals favour.

The sustained engagement in foreign affairs of both Michael Ignatieff and Mr. Rae is evident in the considerable substance in current Liberal foreign-policy positions, more than is customary from an official opposition in Canada. But the Liberals' unwillingness to support their principles and proposals with adequate equipment and other resources leaves questions they will have to answer before and during the next federal election campaign.


While there is “substance” in the Liberal foreign policy positions there is much more wishful thinking and destructive politics.
It is ill that men should kill one another in seditions, tumults and wars; but it is worse to bring nations to such misery, weakness and baseness
as to have neither strength nor courage to contend for anything; to have nothing left worth defending and to give the name of peace to desolation.
Algernon Sidney in Discourses Concerning Government, (1698)
----------
Like what you see/read here on Army.ca?  Subscribe, and help keep it "on the air!"

Offline GAP

  • Semper Fi
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 198,565
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,776
Military needs billions
« Reply #66 on: January 13, 2011, 07:03:16 »
Military needs billions
When will politicians face reality on massive defence money needed?
By DAVID AKIN, QMI Agency Last Updated: January 13, 2011
Article Link
 
Deep in the bowels of National Defence Headquarters in Ottawa, bureaucrats are quietly pulling together pricing information to buy more giant Boeing C-17 transport planes.

Canada already has four C-17s — acquired with some controversy — in 2007.

Brand new, they have a sticker price of around $400 million. But some planners in the air force have noted the U.S. no longer wants to buy all the C-17s it had ordered from Boeing, which means there’s a good chance the Yanks might be in a mood to let one of its allies, like us, buy some off them at a deep discount.

Now, just to be clear, the senior generals of the Canadian Forces, let alone Defence Minister Peter MacKay or the federal cabinet, are not pushing a program to commit billions more for the C-17s, particularly while the government is trying to push through its controversial multibillion-dollar purchase of new F-35 fighter planes.

Still, the revelation that low-level planners at defence are even jotting notes on the backs of napkins about acquiring anywhere from two to six more C-17s is a reminder that our two leading political parties, the governing Conservatives and their Liberal challengers, are largely avoiding what ought to be a crucial and important debate leading up to the next federal election.

Simply put: Our Canadian Forces needs billions and billions of dollars worth of new gear — not just new fighter planes — but no one has any clear plans to pay for what they need, particularly in a time of global fiscal restraint.

Alternately, one party or the other could stand up and, as Conservatives have done in Britain and Democrats did in the U.S., start announcing big-time cuts to military acquisitions and other programs.

Instead, we’ve been watching Conservatives and Liberals argue bitterly about the merits of purchasing the F-35 fighter plane, though both largely agree we will need some kind of new fighter plane to replace our fleet of excellent-but-aging CF-18s.

Whatever plane we choose is going to cost us billions. How will we pay?

And is that most urgent need? Is that the top spending priority?

What about new search-and-rescue capabilities? As one defence insider put it, the equipment we have has the capability for the search part but there are too many scenarios where we simply don’t have the gear for the rescue part.

We need new technology for surveillance and monitoring, particularly in our resource-rich north. The solution there could be a combination of satellites, unmanned aerial vehicles and surveillance aircraft to replace our aging CP-140 Auroras.

Again: This will cost billions.

Or we could outsource search-and-rescue to private-sector companies and likely save a pile.

Our navy needs new ships, the most expensive of which would be one or two joint-support ships, a type of vessel that can take on multiple configurations to be, for example, a troop carrier or a supply ship. It’s a vital tool for just about any mission the CF might be given. This could be the most expensive purchase of all.

That’s just a small part of a long list. As we get set for Budget 2011 and a possible election, politicians should be straight up with voters and with those in uniform about the kind of military we want — and are prepared to pay for.

david.akin@sunmedia.ca
end
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I´m not so sure about the universe

Offline E.R. Campbell

  • Retired, years ago
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 450,125
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 17,997
Re: Military needs billions
« Reply #67 on: January 13, 2011, 07:44:04 »
It seems to me that this is a continuation of the discussion in our (existing) Defence Budget [merged, Bruce] thread. The Great Recession is still with us, and despite the real, pressing needs in National Defence (and a very few other spending envelopes) governments are not inclined to spend on anything that is not a "vote getter" - and defence spending is never popular with more than a small minority of Canadians.
« Last Edit: January 13, 2011, 08:10:54 by Bruce Monkhouse »
It is ill that men should kill one another in seditions, tumults and wars; but it is worse to bring nations to such misery, weakness and baseness
as to have neither strength nor courage to contend for anything; to have nothing left worth defending and to give the name of peace to desolation.
Algernon Sidney in Discourses Concerning Government, (1698)
----------
Like what you see/read here on Army.ca?  Subscribe, and help keep it "on the air!"

Offline Not a Sig Op

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 53,102
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,716
  • I'm just a musical prostitute, my dear.
Re: Military needs billions
« Reply #68 on: January 13, 2011, 08:08:22 »
Search and rescue, now there's a thought. Why are there any domestic military units with SAR as a primary task when a civillian agency could accomplish exactly the same task cheaper, and potentially more efficiently due to less reduced red tape?
Remember troops, the minimum acceptable standard is still an acceptable standard.

Offline Technoviking

    DANCE TO THE TECHNOVIKING.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 181,721
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,789
  • OBEY!
Re: Military needs billions
« Reply #69 on: January 13, 2011, 08:15:00 »
Search and rescue, now there's a thought. Why are there any domestic military units with SAR as a primary task when a civillian agency could accomplish exactly the same task cheaper, and potentially more efficiently due to less reduced red tape?
First of all, awesome profile pic!

Anyway, I think part of the answer may lay in the fact that any national search and rescue organisation ought to be that: national.  I realise that provinces have their own, and if I'm not mistaken, there are clear boundaries for "who searches when".  The other part of why may be due to the unlimited liability "clause" that the military has.  If a search and rescue agency were comprised solely of civilians, then there would perhaps be issues.  I'm not sure.  But I think the main reason is that the national level search and rescue "task" is best suited for the military, given its experiences, and expertise, in the area.

So, there I was....

Offline Bruce Monkhouse

    is back. Still says fitness, not drugs.

  • Lab Experiment #13
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 225,750
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 14,467
  • WHERE IS MY BATON?
    • http://www.canadianbands.com./home.html
Re: The Defence Budget
« Reply #70 on: January 13, 2011, 08:28:12 »
Because for all the talk of private enterprise saving "tons" of money, time, etc., that seems to only work out on paper, never in real life.

Lets see, same planes, same fuel, same wages, add in profit margin,......oh, oops......
IF YOU REALLY ENJOY THIS SITE AND WISH TO CONTINUE,THEN PLEASE WIGGLE UP TO THE BAR AND BUY A SUBSCRIPTION OR SOME SWAG FROM THE MILNET.CA STORE OR IF YOU WISH TO ADVERTISE PLEASE SEND MIKE SOME DETAILS.

Everybody has a game plan until they get punched in the mouth.

Offline Not a Sig Op

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 53,102
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,716
  • I'm just a musical prostitute, my dear.
Re: Military needs billions
« Reply #71 on: January 13, 2011, 08:38:34 »
First of all, awesome profile pic!

THANK YOU! I changed that a few months ago and have been secretly hoping somone would comment on it.

Quote
Anyway, I think part of the answer may lay in the fact that any national search and rescue organisation ought to be that: national.  I realise that provinces have their own, and if I'm not mistaken, there are clear boundaries for "who searches when".  The other part of why may be due to the unlimited liability "clause" that the military has.  If a search and rescue agency were comprised solely of civilians, then there would perhaps be issues.  I'm not sure.  But I think the main reason is that the national level search and rescue "task" is best suited for the military, given its experiences, and expertise, in the area.

I could understand if they were combat SAR units, but they're not, they have little to no defence application (If there is, I've missed it and appologize), yet they're lumped into the defence budget.

If we rid ourselves of primary SAR taskings, that frees up a lot of people, a lot of resources, and we never again have to hear "Well ok, but what does this do for search and rescue" when trying to buy a fighter jet or a tank. (We even get to say "None. It's a tank. It kills people.")

According to the Canada command website, we have approx 160 SAR techs. That's arguably 160 of our best troops tied up in a role that has no combat application (Admitedly, anyone working in a SAR tech role is there because they want to be there, but that's beside the point). Plus associated staff and logistic tail.

So either make a new federal agency, or better yet use an existing federal agency. The coast guard would be a prime candidate for this tasking, they already have SAR taskings, they have facilities in most areas of Canada, and have experience maintaing air assets. Give them our primary SAR taskings (As well as sufficient resources to handle the increased work load, and expand inland), and they'd probably do it more efficiently (Not better, but more efficiently).

Money is saved in cutting the logistics tail that comes with a military unit. No annual postings, operate air assets out of private air strips, etc.

Of course, it's only fair that we'd be expected to maintain secondary SAR roles in the air force and navy (Heck make army pers available for GSAR on a limited basis, when they're in garrison, most units can spare at least a few), but if it doesn't have a combat application, it shouldn't be on our budget.
« Last Edit: January 13, 2011, 08:48:05 by a Sig Op »
Remember troops, the minimum acceptable standard is still an acceptable standard.

Offline Bruce Monkhouse

    is back. Still says fitness, not drugs.

  • Lab Experiment #13
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 225,750
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 14,467
  • WHERE IS MY BATON?
    • http://www.canadianbands.com./home.html
Re: The Defence Budget
« Reply #72 on: January 13, 2011, 08:52:08 »
I am certainly no expert on SAR, but I would venture every ship that has needed someone taken to hospital, every plane that has 'landed', not of its own accord, or even a lost soldier in the Artic might think it would have a "combat application".

IMO, of course.
IF YOU REALLY ENJOY THIS SITE AND WISH TO CONTINUE,THEN PLEASE WIGGLE UP TO THE BAR AND BUY A SUBSCRIPTION OR SOME SWAG FROM THE MILNET.CA STORE OR IF YOU WISH TO ADVERTISE PLEASE SEND MIKE SOME DETAILS.

Everybody has a game plan until they get punched in the mouth.

Offline Not a Sig Op

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 53,102
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,716
  • I'm just a musical prostitute, my dear.
Re: The Defence Budget
« Reply #73 on: January 13, 2011, 09:06:04 »
I am certainly no expert on SAR, but I would venture every ship that has needed someone taken to hospital, every plane that has 'landed', not of its own accord, or even a lost soldier in the Artic might think it would have a "combat application".

None of those things have anything to do with a combat application.

Don't get me wrong, it's very important, but it's not somthing that ONLY the military can do.
Remember troops, the minimum acceptable standard is still an acceptable standard.

Offline Bruce Monkhouse

    is back. Still says fitness, not drugs.

  • Lab Experiment #13
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 225,750
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 14,467
  • WHERE IS MY BATON?
    • http://www.canadianbands.com./home.html
Re: The Defence Budget
« Reply #74 on: January 13, 2011, 09:09:33 »
None of those things have anything to do with a combat application.

I think we're taking this thread far of it's topic, however, I'm sure a torpedoed ship or a shot down pilot might like to think they are "combat".

Or are we just talking about what you consider "combat"?


..and to get back on "Defence Budget", can you come up with some sort of numbers that show the saving?  I've been doing the 'Govt" thing pretty much since I was 17 and have seen many 'save money' schemes that have, and some that still are, costing us lots of dollars. And just to clarify, my ideology is less govt., however my experience hasn't borne that out yet.

Bruce
« Last Edit: January 13, 2011, 09:13:35 by Bruce Monkhouse »
IF YOU REALLY ENJOY THIS SITE AND WISH TO CONTINUE,THEN PLEASE WIGGLE UP TO THE BAR AND BUY A SUBSCRIPTION OR SOME SWAG FROM THE MILNET.CA STORE OR IF YOU WISH TO ADVERTISE PLEASE SEND MIKE SOME DETAILS.

Everybody has a game plan until they get punched in the mouth.