Author Topic: The Defence Budget  (Read 410126 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Eaglelord17

  • Member
  • ****
  • 10,940
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 228
It's interesting to see how many folks around here seem to be OK with a foreign power squeezing Canada's nutz to get what it wants ...

My question to you is when in history hasn't this been the case? Since we became a nation (as well as before it) someone has always been forcing us to do what they want for their benefit. For a while it was the UK, now it is the US. It would be nice if we could just shrug it off, but we have neither the power, or more importantly the will to do so.

Offline FSTO

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 22,955
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,200
My question to you is when in history hasn't this been the case? Since we became a nation (as well as before it) someone has always been forcing us to do what they want for their benefit. For a while it was the UK, now it is the US. It would be nice if we could just shrug it off, but we have neither the power, or more importantly the will to do so.

I would be okay with what we do (militarily wise) currently if we were just honest about it. Our leaders (political and military) trot out "Multipurpose combat capable military" when we are just barely hanging on to that mantra. I'd be impressed if the Government just came clean and said "We are doing the absolute minimum required because we know that when push comes to shove, the USA will do the job for us. We have no intention of increasing military expenditure and all new purchases will prioritize local jobs over combat capability."
That would be immensely refreshing.

Offline MilEME09

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 30,180
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,288
I would be okay with what we do (militarily wise) currently if we were just honest about it. Our leaders (political and military) trot out "Multipurpose combat capable military" when we are just barely hanging on to that mantra. I'd be impressed if the Government just came clean and said "We are doing the absolute minimum required because we know that when push comes to shove, the USA will do the job for us. We have no intention of increasing military expenditure and all new purchases will prioritize local jobs over combat capability."
That would be immensely refreshing.

That level of honesty would be very refreshing, on the other hand, given human history, I firmly believe we are due for a major conflict soon, and Canada is very much reactionary with defense spending, like both world wars, Korea, and even Afghanistan we were caught with our pants down saying "oh wait we need a military"
"We are called a Battalion, Authorized to be company strength, parade as a platoon, Operating as a section"

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 51,080
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,355
  • Two birthdays
    • Currently posting at Canadian Defence & Foreign Affairs Institute's "3Ds Blog"
Re: Canada to send troops to Latvia for new NATO brigade
« Reply #1203 on: January 23, 2017, 21:52:54 »
Will a hammer on defence spending come down from new POTUS?

Quote
Readout from Secretary James Mattis’ Call with Canada Minister of National Defense Harjit Sajjan

Pentagon Spokesman Capt. Jeff Davis provided the following readout:

Secretary of Defense James Mattis spoke this morning via telephone with Canadian Minister of National Defence Harjit Sajjan.  This was Secretary Mattis' first telephone conversation with a defense counterpart since being confirmed as secretary of defense on Jan. 20.  Secretary Mattis thanked Minister Sajjan for his leadership and the deep and enduring defense partnership between the United States and Canada.  The two reiterated the depth and breadth of the relationship shared between the United States and Canada as NORAD partners, NATO allies, and North American neighbors. 

Secretary Mattis and Minister Sajjan reinforced the vital importance of U.S. and Canadian commitment to North American defense and NORAD.  Secretary Mattis emphasized the indispensable partnership with Canada across the spectrum of bilateral and multilateral security issues such as Iraq, NATO Enhanced Forward Presence and C-ISIL.  The two leaders also addressed the importance of North American defense relations among the United States, Canada, and Mexico. 

Secretary Mattis thanked Minister Sajjan for Canada’s strong support for our alliance, and expressed his personal appreciation for the professionalism of the Canadian Armed Forces. The two committed to stay in close communication and noted they looked forward to meeting one another.
https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Releases/News-Release-View/Article/1057416/readout-from-secretary-james-mattis-call-with-canada-minister-of-national-defen#.WIanNaSUVFQ.twitterhttps://www.defense.gov/News/News-Releases/News-Release-View/Article/1057416/readout-from-secretary-james-mattis-call-with-canada-minister-of-national-defen

Cf. UK:

Quote
Readout from Secretary James Mattis’ Call with UK State Secretary for Defense Michael Fallon

Pentagon Spokesman Capt. Jeff Davis provided the following readout:
 
Secretary of Defense James Mattis spoke today by telephone with his counterpart from the United Kingdom, State Secretary for Defense Michael Fallon. Secretary Mattis emphasized the United States and the United Kingdom will always enjoy a uniquely close relationship, reflected in our defense ties which are a bedrock of U.S. security.

He also emphasized the United States' unshakeable commitment to NATO and he thanked Secretary Fallon for his country’s commitment of two percent of GDP to defense [emphasis added] and contributions to international security. The two leaders pledged to work together in the coming months, agreeing to maintain focus on defeating ISIL.  They pledged to work closely and noted they looked forward to meeting at the upcoming NATO defense ministerial.
https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Releases/News-Release-View/Article/1057424/readout-from-secretary-james-mattis-call-with-uk-state-secretary-for-defense-mi

Read between the lines?

Mark
Ottawa
« Last Edit: January 24, 2017, 11:41:55 by MarkOttawa »
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Offline Old Sweat

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 195,085
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,245
Re: The Defence Budget
« Reply #1204 on: February 16, 2017, 15:03:11 »
According to this CP story, reproduced under the Fair Dealings provision of the Copyright Act, the MND has announced that Canada will be increasing defence spending. No indication of when and how much was made.

Canada will make new investments in defence, Sajjan says from Brussels
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/canada-will-make-new-investments-in-defence-sajjan-says/
By The Canadian Press — Feb 16 2017

OTTAWA — Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan says Canada is looking at significant new investments in defence that will follow the forthcoming release of its defence policy review.

Sajjan made the remarks today when asked about U.S. President Donald Trump's repeated complaints about NATO members failing to carry their share of the cost of the alliance.

Sajjan is in the middle of a series of defence meetings in Europe, including a gathering of NATO ministers.

Speaking to a teleconference from Brussels, he says he has spoken with U.S. Defence Secretary James Mattis, who stressed the importance of the NATO alliance.

Sajjan says Canada is demonstrating its commitment to NATO by contributing troops and leading a multinational NATO mission in Latvia as part of what is known as Operation Reassurance.

He says the policy review looked at Canadian defence needs for the next 20 years and that means more money — although he didn't say how much.

NATO says member states should aim to spend two per cent of GDP on defence. Canada now spends about one per cent.

"We knew that spending by the previous government was low and the defence policy review allowed us to do a thorough analysis of what was required," the minister said.

"Yes, this will require defence investments."

The government is looking at predictable, planned investments, he said.

"We in Canada need to be able to demonstrate a thorough plan and what type of defence investment is needed, because this is significant money that needs to be invested, but the Canadian taxpayer also requires us to make sure that we are efficient with the money."

As well as the NATO talks and a meeting with a counter-ISIL group led by Mattis, Sajjan also had bilateral meetings with the NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg and ministers from Australia, France, Germany, Portugal, Slovenia and the United Kingdom.

He is heading to Germany for the Munich Security Conference, where senior decision-makers from around the world will discuss international security challenges.

- mod edit to add link -
« Last Edit: February 16, 2017, 19:55:02 by milnews.ca »

Offline Cdn Blackshirt

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 8,930
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,272
Re: The Defence Budget
« Reply #1205 on: February 16, 2017, 19:02:51 »
That sounds very positive, but hesitant to get my hopes up.....
IMPORTANT - 'Blackshirt' is a reference to Nebraska Cornhuskers Football and not naziism.   National Champions '70, '71, '94, '95 and '97.    Go Huskers!!!!

Offline E.R. Campbell

  • Retired, years ago
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 451,310
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 18,028
Re: The Defence Budget
« Reply #1206 on: February 16, 2017, 19:28:16 »
According to this CP story, reproduced under the Fair Dealings provision of the Copyright Act, the MND has announced that Canada will be increasing defence spending. No indication of when and how much was made.

Canada will make new investments in defence, Sajjan says from Brussels
By The Canadian Press — Feb 16 2017


OTTAWA — Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan says Canada is looking at significant new investments in defence that will follow the forthcoming release of its defence policy review ...


That's great but will those "new investments" be in more serving members (other than admirals and colonels), in ships, tanks, aircraft, boots and logistics vehicles? or will they come from Professor Michael Byers' list?
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 suffolkowner

  • Member
  • ****
  • 7,520
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 196
Re: The Defence Budget
« Reply #1207 on: February 16, 2017, 20:01:51 »
That's great but will those "new investments" be in more serving members (other than admirals and colonels), in ships, tanks, aircraft, boots and logistics vehicles? or will they come from Professor Michael Byers' list?

The last paragraph by Byers is reasonable, but the preceding was just an attempt to justify the abandonment of our responsibilities

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 51,080
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,355
  • Two birthdays
    • Currently posting at Canadian Defence & Foreign Affairs Institute's "3Ds Blog"
Re: The Defence Budget
« Reply #1208 on: February 16, 2017, 20:18:32 »
A letter I sent to the Globe and Mail:

Quote
"Prof. Michael Byers, in his article "Canada doesn’t deserve its reputation as a defence laggard" (Feb. 16), makes an heroic effort to exaggerate the scale of Canada's defence spending by claiming that spending should include elements of the budgets of the RCMP, Canadian Border Services Agency and Canadian Coast Guard.

I am shocked to note that in this effort he failed to included monies allocated to Fishery Officers of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.  These enforcement personnel are uniformed, often armed, and work on land, freshwater and the oceans; their funding would have helped to raise his supposed defence dollars even higher."

Reference (scroll down to "Conditions of Employment"):
http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/career-carriere/enf-loi/conditions-eng.htm

When I was with CCG at DFO HQ in Ottawa one would sometimes see a Fishery Officer in uniform in the building carrying a Heckler & Koch machine pistol.

As for the perniscious peacenik prof.:

Quote
The Canadian Forces, or, The Byers Disarmament Plan
https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2015/07/08/mark-collins-the-canadian-forces-or-the-byers-disarmament-plan/

Mark
Ottawa
« Last Edit: February 16, 2017, 20:30:24 by MarkOttawa »
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Offline Cloud Cover

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 12,730
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,176
Re: The Defence Budget
« Reply #1209 on: February 16, 2017, 20:45:20 »
When I was with CCG at DFO HQ in Ottawa one would sometimes see a Fishery Officer in uniform in the building carrying a Heckler & Koch machine pistol.

Shooting fish in a barrel? (sorry, couldn't resist).


Offline MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 51,080
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,355
  • Two birthdays
    • Currently posting at Canadian Defence & Foreign Affairs Institute's "3Ds Blog"
Re: The Defence Budget
« Reply #1210 on: February 16, 2017, 21:17:27 »
At least not us bureaucrats ;).

Mark
Ottawa
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Offline FJAG

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 69,330
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 763
  • Ex Gladio Justicia
    • Wolf Riedel Google+ Page
Re: The Defence Budget
« Reply #1211 on: February 16, 2017, 21:30:52 »
That's great but will those "new investments" be in more serving members (other than admirals and colonels), in ships, tanks, aircraft, boots and logistics vehicles? or will they come from Professor Michael Byers' list?

Actually the article gave me food for thought. If NATO considers some of these items as part of a country's overall defence spending, then with some tweaking such as Byer's suggests one could move up the ranking list with no additional spending and no real change in budgets or responsibilities of the various departments.

That would mean that one wouldn't then need a tremendous amount of new spending to create both a more credible force and achieve the target 2.0% figures.

One mustn't forget that while the US spends 3.6% of its GDP on defence, only a small fraction of that is committed to NATO while most NATO members' spending (excluding Canada) is almost 100% committed to NATO. There's a bit of an apples and oranges situation going on in this debate when one compares US and other NATO members' spending.

 :cheers:
Illegitimi non carborundum
Semper debeatis percutis ictu primo
Access my "Allies" book series at:
https://wolfriedel.wordpress.com

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 171,655
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,371
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: The Defence Budget
« Reply #1212 on: February 16, 2017, 23:18:55 »
OK -  I feel better now.

An opportunity to disagree.   [:D

The US is contributing 3.6% of GDP to its defence.  IN ADDITION it provides all the other services that Byers describes to its citizens.

If the US (and NATO) agree to the Byers model then the US will claim a budget of 5? 6? 10%? of GDP.  So, will 2% still be the standard?

And, indeed, while not all of the 3.6% of GDP is committed to NATO, NATO has access to all of the capability that that 3.6% of GDP buys.

Meanwhile, in Canada, we get covered not only by the NATO committed budget (of 2%) but also the NORAD committed budget.  Arguably we should be committing MORE than 2%.

Sir.   :nod:
Over, Under, Around or Through.
Anticipating the triumph of Thomas Reid.

"One thing that being a scientist has taught me is that you can never be certain about anything. You never know the truth. You can only approach it and hope to get a bit nearer to it each time. You iterate towards the truth. You don’t know it.”  - James Lovelock

Conservative, n. A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from the Liberal, who wishes to replace them with others. [Ambrose Bierce, 1911]

Offline FJAG

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 69,330
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 763
  • Ex Gladio Justicia
    • Wolf Riedel Google+ Page
Re: The Defence Budget
« Reply #1213 on: February 17, 2017, 01:18:29 »
OK -  I feel better now.

An opportunity to disagree.   [:D

The US is contributing 3.6% of GDP to its defence.  IN ADDITION it provides all the other services that Byers describes to its citizens.

If the US (and NATO) agree to the Byers model then the US will claim a budget of 5? 6? 10%? of GDP.  So, will 2% still be the standard?

And, indeed, while not all of the 3.6% of GDP is committed to NATO, NATO has access to all of the capability that that 3.6% of GDP buys.

Meanwhile, in Canada, we get covered not only by the NATO committed budget (of 2%) but also the NORAD committed budget.  Arguably we should be committing MORE than 2%.

Sir.   :nod:

I think we generally agree (and I think that the US Coast Guard is already part of the US Armed Forces and therefore within the 3.6% - not sure if they count Border Security)

I quite frankly think that we can and should put more into the defence budget but it needs to be for a meaningful use and not to create bigger and fatter headquarters.

I'm still a big believer that we do not need a larger regular force. What we need is a bigger and fully equipped reserve force that translates into more deployable field force which would allow us to meet commitments. How that's legislated, recruited, organised, trained, equipped and deployed are details. What we need first of all is a commitment which takes us away from the fiction that only full time personnel will do the job.

If we're letting the US dictate our GDP numbers then maybe we should look at the US active component to reserve (NG and AR) ratios:

Army: Active 487k, NG/AR 660k;

Navy: Active 323k, NR 111k;

Air Force: Active 307k, ANG/AFR 211k;

Marines: Active 183k, MR 111k;

Coast Guard: Active 39k, CGR 8k

Our numbers are:

Army: Reg 23k, Res 17k, Rangers 5k;

Navy: Reg 8.5k, Res 5.1k

Air Force: Reg 14.5k Res 2.6k

Other: Reg F 22k, Res 1.8k

With the exception of the navy, our reg to Res ratios are all skewed significantly in favour of the Reg F. This is especially true for the army where much of the US heavy combat power and sustainment organizations (those forces primarily required for major operations) are contained in the ANG and AR respectively while lighter rapid deployment and special forces are in the Active componenet. On the other hand our Army reservists have no equipment (much less heavy equipment) to speak of.

The same holds true (even more so) for the US Air Force where significant war fighting equipment is in the hands of the AirNG and Air Res.

Long story short, while I favour an increased defence budget, in my humble opinion we should not give one more nickle to the defence budget until the senior command comes up with a plan to first create significant and fully equipped and deployable war fighting formations predominantly staffed by the Res F.

 :tank2:
Illegitimi non carborundum
Semper debeatis percutis ictu primo
Access my "Allies" book series at:
https://wolfriedel.wordpress.com

Offline MilEME09

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 30,180
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,288
Re: The Defence Budget
« Reply #1214 on: February 17, 2017, 02:45:26 »

Long story short, while I favour an increased defence budget, in my humble opinion we should not give one more nickle to the defence budget until the senior command comes up with a plan to first create significant and fully equipped and deployable war fighting formations predominantly staffed by the Res F.


For this to Occur, we need a well trained Res Force, right now we have officers that couldn't lead a company out of a paper bag because they have no real experience once they leave course.
"We are called a Battalion, Authorized to be company strength, parade as a platoon, Operating as a section"

Offline Humphrey Bogart

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 73,024
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,200
Re: The Defence Budget
« Reply #1215 on: February 17, 2017, 09:18:04 »
I fundamentally disagree with the notion that we should invest more money in the Reserve Force.  We would need a significant change in organization, leadership and policy governing the Reserve Force before I'd consider investing one more dime into the organization. 

What's really needed is a fully staffed and funded Regular Force.  We've got three Brigades which are only Brigades on paper, we don't properly equip the formations we do have and our doctrine is 30 years out of date in some cases.  I've heard certain folks say that we wouldn't know how to spend additional money, even if we did get it.  I agree with this and until the institution itself changes, no further money should be allocated to the Defence portfolio.

For the Army:

1.  Increase manpower and funding to form three fully staffed and equipped brigades, not paper ones.
2.  Get rid of the Divisions as a level in the command structure.
3.  Significantly reduce the number of pers Involved in administering the IT monster and download a lot of IT to the units (exception being advanced courses and office training).
4.  Invest in the "Brains" of the Army (Doctrine, Lessons Learned, Simulation, Future Concepts and Designs)
5.  Performance Management to become a Standards Driven initiative as opposed to Funds Driven.  Money folks should have input but shouldn't be responsible.
6.  A fundamental rethink of the Managed Readiness Plan, staff officers in Army HQ should not be dictating to Bde Comds which units do what. 
7.  Align Readiness with the fiscal year and posting cycle.  Right now none of the plans are linked.

Right now, the Regular Force spends most of its time simply trying to administer itself, never mind conducting actual operations.  We talk a big game but it's one thing to talk its another to walk the walk.

Offline dapaterson

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 352,220
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 14,319
Re: The Defence Budget
« Reply #1216 on: February 17, 2017, 09:25:03 »
The question you seem to be asking is which oversize beast to feed and reform.

Maybe some first principles work is in order : what do we want the army to be able to deliver, and thus what structure - reg and res - do we require to accomplish it?  We can't presuppose that the three CMBGs are what we need / where we need / how we need things to be.
This posting made in accordance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 2(b):
Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/1.html

Offline FJAG

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 69,330
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 763
  • Ex Gladio Justicia
    • Wolf Riedel Google+ Page
Re: The Defence Budget
« Reply #1217 on: February 17, 2017, 09:36:06 »
For this to Occur, we need a well trained Res Force, right now we have officers that couldn't lead a company out of a paper bag because they have no real experience once they leave course.

That creates an infinite chicken and egg loop: We need a well trained Res F before we structure an expanded defence force based on reservists however we'll never have a well trained Res F without properly training and equipping it.

Plans have to come first. Build the plan for a force that integrates a large deployable Res F and then implement it with the appropriate legislation, doctrine, recruiting, staffing, training, equipping, etc.

I can't see that happening when NDHQ couldn't even make the modest past proposals work. A radical change in attitude is needed. If all we do is throw more money at Defence without a comprehensive plan/policy we'll just be throwing more money into the black hole of a bureaucracy that is DND.

 :cheers:
« Last Edit: February 17, 2017, 09:41:23 by FJAG »
Illegitimi non carborundum
Semper debeatis percutis ictu primo
Access my "Allies" book series at:
https://wolfriedel.wordpress.com

Offline Journeyman

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 456,065
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,636
Re: The Defence Budget
« Reply #1218 on: February 17, 2017, 09:54:50 »
Ah, so you're suggesting....a Defence White Paper?    :o   Crazy talk;  we just did one of those in 1994!

Sure, the government has since produced the masturbatory cheerleading A Role of Pride and Influence in the World  (2005) and the delusional shopping list Canada First Defence Strategy (2008), which went to the shredder before the ink was dry.  But an actual Defence White Paper -- a clearly annunciated, realistic, and affordable defence policy -- hasn't been seen in almost a quarter of a century.

And I'm not referring to the still dragging-out Defence Policy Review.  ::)   Travelling the country and seeking enough opinions (again, informed or otherwise was apparently irrelevant), until the government gets enough to say "yep, peacekeeping is the way ahead -- says so right here...right after 'we don't actually know the fighter aircraft needs for Canada, but it is anything but the F-35'," does not remotely resemble an actual Defence White Paper.
 
I even read works I disagree with;  life outside  an ideological echo chamber.

Offline Humphrey Bogart

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 73,024
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,200
Re: The Defence Budget
« Reply #1219 on: February 17, 2017, 09:56:12 »
The question you seem to be asking is which oversize beast to feed and reform.

Maybe some first principles work is in order : what do we want the army to be able to deliver, and thus what structure - reg and res - do we require to accomplish it?  We can't presuppose that the three CMBGs are what we need / where we need / how we need things to be.

100% in agreement on your first point I feel both the Reg and Res need reform.  Your second part, I don't think we need first principles work, the works already been done, we've just never bothered following through on our words.  It's words without any action.  It's been articulated many times, General Purpose Combat Capability and Medium Weight Force.  A medium weight force is supposed to be able to do everything across th spectrum of conflict, though not as well at some tasks that would be more suitable to a light force or heavy force. 

We've got doctrine, we've got designs and future concepts, let's buy equipment and properly man and support our forces and align ourselves with doctrine, designs and future concepts.  The first question we should be asking ourselves whenever we buy a new piece of equipment is, does this support our doctrine at present and in the future.  We let equipment drive our doctrine when it should be the other way around.

Things that make sense to me:

1.  Medium weight forces - We have a small Army so the medium weight concept makes sense to me, it also gives us flexibility.  A LAV based force is a potent weapon but we've opted to reinvent the wheel every time we buy a new piece of kit, none of it makes any sense.  e.g. Armoured Recce with a TAPV.
2.  The Brigade - Every Army in the world worth its salt works around the Brigade concept, why change what works? 
3.  Readiness - We've got three Brigades but the idea that one Brigade is at High Readiness while the others are in Trg and Support is flawed.  Readiness should be managed at the Brigade level and tasks should be downloaded the Brigades to decide who/what to employ.  Each Brigade should maintain 1/3 of it's force at High Readiness.  Given our geographical spread, this makes the most sense, especially when you consider the domestic tasks we're frequently called upon to do.  The whole Lines of Operations concept is ridiculous, it's a staff officer wet dream and is micromanagement to the tenth degree.  We're a professional army, a military force should be able to rapidly re-roll itself to perform all tasks along the spectrum of conflict.


« Last Edit: February 17, 2017, 09:59:03 by Humphrey Bogart »

Offline Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 82,030
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,569
Re: The Defence Budget
« Reply #1220 on: February 17, 2017, 10:04:24 »
Concur, FJAG.

It also goes back to something I have been saying throughout my career: If the reg force wants the reserves to meet a certain standard, then the reg force must assume full duty and responsibility for the training.

So long as the militia, or the naval reserve, or the air reserve "self-train" within their ranks, they cannot achieve readiness levels requested of them by the reg force. Basically: the reg force must be the one training the reserves.

However, to get there, the reserves must accept that the historical militia regimental system, or the local NRU's for the Navy, must be abandoned in favour of a more direct approach to training. And the reg force must understand that when not called out for ops, reservists should be under training, at their current level, by the reg force for every moment they are available, with no time whatsoever spent on paperwork, administration, etc.

Offline Blackadder1916

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 109,275
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,379
Re: The Defence Budget
« Reply #1221 on: February 17, 2017, 12:43:27 »
Actually the article gave me food for thought. If NATO considers some of these items as part of a country's overall defence spending, then with some tweaking such as Byer's suggests one could move up the ranking list with no additional spending and no real change in budgets or responsibilities of the various departments.


For an brief explanation of what NATO considers defense spending see page 10 of this document. http://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/pdf_2016_07/20160704_160704-pr2016-116.pdf
Whisky for the gentlemen that like it. And for the gentlemen that don't like it - Whisky.

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 171,655
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,371
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: The Defence Budget
« Reply #1222 on: February 17, 2017, 14:24:31 »
I think we generally agree (and I think that the US Coast Guard is already part of the US Armed Forces and therefore within the 3.6% - not sure if they count Border Security)

I quite frankly think that we can and should put more into the defence budget but it needs to be for a meaningful use and not to create bigger and fatter headquarters.

I'm still a big believer that we do not need a larger regular force. What we need is a bigger and fully equipped reserve force that translates into more deployable field force which would allow us to meet commitments. How that's legislated, recruited, organised, trained, equipped and deployed are details. What we need first of all is a commitment which takes us away from the fiction that only full time personnel will do the job.

If we're letting the US dictate our GDP numbers then maybe we should look at the US active component to reserve (NG and AR) ratios:

Army: Active 487k, NG/AR 660k;

Navy: Active 323k, NR 111k;

Air Force: Active 307k, ANG/AFR 211k;

Marines: Active 183k, MR 111k;

Coast Guard: Active 39k, CGR 8k

Our numbers are:

Army: Reg 23k, Res 17k, Rangers 5k;

Navy: Reg 8.5k, Res 5.1k

Air Force: Reg 14.5k Res 2.6k

Other: Reg F 22k, Res 1.8k

With the exception of the navy, our reg to Res ratios are all skewed significantly in favour of the Reg F. This is especially true for the army where much of the US heavy combat power and sustainment organizations (those forces primarily required for major operations) are contained in the ANG and AR respectively while lighter rapid deployment and special forces are in the Active componenet. On the other hand our Army reservists have no equipment (much less heavy equipment) to speak of.

The same holds true (even more so) for the US Air Force where significant war fighting equipment is in the hands of the AirNG and Air Res.

Long story short, while I favour an increased defence budget, in my humble opinion we should not give one more nickle to the defence budget until the senior command comes up with a plan to first create significant and fully equipped and deployable war fighting formations predominantly staffed by the Res F.

 :tank2:

Unfortunately, I find no opportunity to disagree here.   :)
Over, Under, Around or Through.
Anticipating the triumph of Thomas Reid.

"One thing that being a scientist has taught me is that you can never be certain about anything. You never know the truth. You can only approach it and hope to get a bit nearer to it each time. You iterate towards the truth. You don’t know it.”  - James Lovelock

Conservative, n. A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from the Liberal, who wishes to replace them with others. [Ambrose Bierce, 1911]

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 171,655
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,371
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: The Defence Budget
« Reply #1223 on: February 17, 2017, 14:35:52 »
Re Reg Res:

I continue to argue that Res is not the same as Militia and that a proper Res is an integral part of the Reg Force and needs to be planned as such from the get go. 

The basic position has to be that when shooting starts we need lots of Privates and we need them fast. 
On the other hand Privates tend to clog up the works in Garrison, expect accommodations for wives and pensions, and generally go Bolshie when not making loud bangs.

The Reserve should be a place where trained Privates, from the Regular force, retire for 7 years after 3 years with the colours.  They need a cadre of Junior Officers and a strong NCO force of all ranks to both oversee continuation/refresher training and to supply a body of leaders that will take their Privates and amalgamate them into the Regs at short notice (maybe a tiered response of 72 hrs NTM and 14 days NTM).

The Militia - the defence of Canada volunteer force - is a separate discussion entirely and should be treated entirely separately.  What you can expect from volunteers and how, or if, they should be compensated, is all moot (as in debatable).
Over, Under, Around or Through.
Anticipating the triumph of Thomas Reid.

"One thing that being a scientist has taught me is that you can never be certain about anything. You never know the truth. You can only approach it and hope to get a bit nearer to it each time. You iterate towards the truth. You don’t know it.”  - James Lovelock

Conservative, n. A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from the Liberal, who wishes to replace them with others. [Ambrose Bierce, 1911]

Offline MilEME09

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 30,180
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,288
Re: The Defence Budget
« Reply #1224 on: February 17, 2017, 14:37:10 »
Concur, FJAG.

It also goes back to something I have been saying throughout my career: If the reg force wants the reserves to meet a certain standard, then the reg force must assume full duty and responsibility for the training.

So long as the militia, or the naval reserve, or the air reserve "self-train" within their ranks, they cannot achieve readiness levels requested of them by the reg force. Basically: the reg force must be the one training the reserves.

However, to get there, the reserves must accept that the historical militia regimental system, or the local NRU's for the Navy, must be abandoned in favour of a more direct approach to training. And the reg force must understand that when not called out for ops, reservists should be under training, at their current level, by the reg force for every moment they are available, with no time whatsoever spent on paperwork, administration, etc.

I've been saying for awhile not, especially in CSS that to fix what we have, we need the reg force to take control. I am glad others share my view, however to achieve this, we need institutional change, something I don't see coming over night, or any time soon for that matter.
"We are called a Battalion, Authorized to be company strength, parade as a platoon, Operating as a section"