Military Budget predictions

[a_majoor]

In interesting and realistic assessment of what to expect:

http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/006249.html

When will the Conservatives start putting money behind their defence promises?

In the forthcoming budget, I hope. But Gen. Hillier will not get those heavy-lift helicopters anything like as soon as he wishes.
...
...[Minister of National Defence] O'Connor also told chief of defence staff Gen. Rick Hillier that troops in Afghanistan will have to wait for much-needed new helicopters because buying big-ticket military hardware takes a long time. Gen. Hillier had made a public plea for the choppers two days ago...

Mr. O'Connor said he expects Canada will stay in Afghanistan beyond its current February 2007 commitment, but he said the Forces also need officers and rank-and-file soldiers to train the 13,000 new full-time recruits and 10,000 reservists the Conservatives promised during the federal election.

He said the Forces are having no problem attracting new members, but there remain unacceptable delays, of as long as 12 to 18 months, to process and train them...

Guess who the real enemy is? The Minister of Finance:

Mr. O'Connor said he will be pushing for more defence spending in the first Tory budget, but hinted his government may be hard pressed to live up to its lavish military spending campaign promise.

"As I told the troops in Afghanistan, their opposition are the terrorists; my opposition is the finance minister. I have to try to make sure that from the finance minister I get as much money as I can possibly get. Our cabinet is aware of the needs of the military and what we have to have to achieve our plans -- so is the prime minister. Our overall plan is a five-year plan, but we have to start it this year," Mr. O'Connor said...

I wonder how long it will take Prime Minister Harper to ensure that real money follows on this pledge?
...
Harper said he wants to send a message to the military that what he called "years of neglect" by previous governments is over.

He acknowledged the Afghanistan mission has put a significant strain on the military but pledged that the state of the Canadian Forces will improve as it is built up over the next few years.

Part of that plan will include winding down smaller military deployments around the world to focus on bigger missions such as Afghanistan, he said [good!].

"Rather than placing a handful of soldiers here and a handful of soldiers there, we will concentrate our efforts in ways that we can show leadership . . . and make a real, notable contribution."

That could include both United Nations peacekeeping and other kinds of missions, such as the NATO operation in Afghanistan...

Meanwhile the Ottawa Citizen's reporters, Mike Blanchfield and Avi Saper (could they have, gasp, an agenda?), gratuitously regurgitate nonsense about Darfur in their story.

Mr. O'Connor's remarks mean that the Harper government likely will not be in any position to answer a United Nations call for troops to bolster the floundering and ineffective African Union military monitoring mission in Sudan's war-torn Darfur region.

An all-party group of MPs last week urged the government to lead an international charge at the UN to come to the aid of a three-year crisis in Darfur that has claimed 200,000 lives and displaced millions.

Please read this updated guest-post, Darfur update: Somebody please tell Jack Layton about this, for the real story on Darfur.

Mark C.

I don't suppose anyone should have realistically expected anything different, and of course, even if a duffel bag with several billion dollars was delivered to my office, there is a lack of infrastructure to train new troops, not to mention flowing new equipment through the system to everyone. In a way, O'Conner's remarks are no surprise either, the only reason buying big ticket equipment takes a long time is the convoluted procurement process, something which the Minister and CDS should be working on as "job one".

 

[GAP]

If there is a serious will to change the procurement system, if only on a temporary basis, it can be done. As an example the Chinook is already a proven, approved product. The procurement of equipment for this mission was done rapidly (not sure what the process is called) and the majority of the "immediate" needs could be done also, it just takes the will of MND, PM and CDS.

But is there the will?  The budget numbers and the relevent timeframe will give a good view of how rapididly the whole thing is going to be accomplished. So far the PM has shown his support, but is that going to be able to translate in numbers, especially in a minority government and  the "five priorities", all of which consume great gobs of $$

 

[Edward Campbell]

It seems to me that the first question, for Finance Minister Flaherty, is: ”can I implement a 1% GST cut and give out $1,200.00 per child and let the provinces receive/keep some of the child care money the Government of Canada (not just the Liberal Party of Canada) promised without rolling back the income tax cuts made in the last budget?”

If the answer is “Yes,” (and it might be possible) then whatever money is ‘left over’ might go to defence.

If the answer is “No,” then I think we get very, very little new money until the ’07 budget, if then.

We have been very lucky – good to great press, recently, makes Canadians concerned that they are risking your lives without giving you adequate resources.  I think most MPs are hearing this in their ridings and I think it is being reflected back into the caucuses.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

I don't have much faith with O'Connor at the helm.....he is already going the doom and gloom route.

 

[MarkOttawa]

Interesting (and maybe depressing) article in Ottawa Citizen today, "Tories freeze all spending on new gear for military":
http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=141129bd-ec2a-47a4-bb73-74945b5197f4

Excerpts:

'...
The big-ticket equipment projects, many put into motion last year by the Liberal government's defence policy paper, appear to now be in limbo, defence industry and military officials privately say.

In some cases, military planners are looking at rearranging the order of the purchases. Just before the election, the Liberal government announced it would spend $5 billion on buying replacements for the air force's aging Hercules transport planes. Now officers are re-examining that and looking at the likelihood of moving ahead first with the purchase of larger long-range transport planes, a program favoured by the Harper government...

Defence industry officials say there have been discussions on whether to scale down the project to spend $2.1 billion on a Joint Support Ship, a combination troop and supply vessel. The Liberals had wanted to buy a fleet of those ships as well as an amphibious assault ship, a project estimated to cost around $1 billion.

But one scenario that has been discussed in the Defence Department is the purchase of less expensive commercial tankers to refuel navy ships at sea. Under that scheme, the amphibious assault ship would take on some of the roles that would have been filled by the Joint Support Ship...
http://www.forces.gc.ca/admmat/dgmepm/pmojss/index_e.asp
http://www.navy.forces.gc.ca/mspa_news/news_e.asp?id=164

[New vessels in French service that might fit the amphibious assault ship bill, and we should have two:]
http://www.deagel.com/pandora/mistral_pm00192001.aspx

The Conservatives have promised to buy some of the same gear as the Liberals. But the Harper government is also committed to building a fleet of armed icebreakers as well as a deep water port in the Arctic, projects that analysts say will cost billions.

The lack of direction on procurement programs was highlighted at the recent CANSEC defence equipment show in Ottawa. There, some industry officials expressed frustration that much-needed projects were being delayed.

In particular, they pointed to the Defence Department's decision to "fast-track" the purchase of fixed-wing search-and-rescue planes. That program, to replace aging Buffalo aircraft mainly based on the West Coast, was announced with great fanfare in 2003 and was considered a priority program. But industry officials say they have seen little movement on the project...'

See "Somehow aircraft just don't get purchased":
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2006/03/somehow-aircraft-just-dont-get.html

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Teddy Ruxpin]

I've said it before and I'll say it again:  I'm not surprised.  The Tories appear to be following a politically driven, O'Connor-developed defence strategy that bears little or no relationship to actual operational reality.  O'Connor bleated against the fast-track procurement plan when in opposition, so there was no way it would survive contact once the Conservatives were elected.  Instead, they'll follow a concept dreamed up in the backroom by a washed up Cold Warrior, rather than listen to people who are actually doing the job.  Icebreakers?  For what purpose?  3 x C-17s versus 15 new Herc replacements?  Why?  :-\

Politicians should provide guidance and direction ("we want you to do this") - the military provides capabilty ("here's what we'll do it with").  Whenever political types feel they know better than the operators which equipment - from grenades to cargo aircraft - is suitable for operational use, we're in big trouble.

My 2 cents...

 

[MarkOttawa]

Teddy Ruxpin: Not to mention those battalions for Goose Bay, Bagotville, Trenton and Comox!

Mark
Ottawa

 

[FormerHorseGuard]

i wish they could take the politics out of government shopping lists, get the best deal and be done with it.

i was watching a program on one of the US Airforce aircraft being made and how the company that designed and got it into production got around the budget and the politics of selling it to the US Government, the Airforce wanted it badly.

so no one in the senate or congress would even consider voting againist this huge project, the company had a piece ( hundreds of thousands or parts) made in every State in the Union, so if it was on the chopping block no would be quick to jump on the wagon and demand the project be canned. That was very wise move on the company but it made for a more costly aircraft i am sure.

I think the Canadian Government should do it in a more business fashion

How many federal government departments need for example new 4 door cars for staff visits or what ever, including police cars etc?

they should just arrange to buy all department cars at once  buy an equal number from each of the major car makers in CANADA, that way each gets a  share of the pie and we as the tax payer get a better break. all the DND staff cars are basically the same, and the police cars yes they need to be a bit different but you get the idea.

army needs new 2.5 tonne trucks, forget the riding make work projects, go buy the truck that makes the most sense for the army not who ever has a truck plant in his or her riding who needs to make their office look important, look what I did for my riding, i got them a  truck deal.

Helicopters is another mess, Canadian Content is a nice thing but if it raises the cost to where price is so much higher we cannot afford enough to do the job and have a few spares what is the point.

storage of equipment, rotate the darn stocks and do not ware house them till they rot on the tires and become useless unless they get a complete rebuild ( iltis jeeps at CFB Toronto in the 90s at the supply depot, they sat there for years, i use to have to play guard on base defence exercises and I use to walk around the Supply Depot and would see them sit there unused and never moved.)

take the shopping list and shop off ebay if the deal is there.

my shopping list would be in this order

1) helicopters heavy lift
2) new cargo trucks
3) more of Lav family
4) transport aircraft
5) light 4x4 trucks or g wagons
6) pay raises for the members I know it should be higher on the list but they need the equipment more to protect the troops overseas
7) upgrades of equipment
8) new supply ships
ice breakers and jss ships are not in my thoughts
just my thoughts
what  would your shopping list look like?
opie one

 

[FSTO]

My shopping list:

New AOR's for the Navy
Medium Lift Helios's
Attack Helios's (doesn't have to be Longbow or Apache, a Cyclone or Blackhawk with wpns pod would suffice)
Strat and Tac Airlift
SAR AC
Replace AAW Destroyers
Army equip (Trucks, LAV's, whatever else the grunts need  ;D)


PEOPLE
As for training the new folks; all those guys getting out at 20 years (and there is a lot of us) hire them back on a 3 year contract to conduct Basic and QL training. These guys are not deployable, do not need career coursing, and we don't even have to write PER's on them. All they are doing is getting rid of the recruit/training bubble and allowing the front line pers the time to go on deployments, rest, refresh and get back out there again.

A final note, I support 100% the CDS's Standing Contingency Task Force. We should have had this capability and I think it is vital to our national interests.

 

[orange.paint]

My shopping List:

1.reg force combat unit in NFLD. (that alone would take care of recruitment)
2.tank replacement (with a tank)
3.med lift helo's

 

[aesop081]

i would love to see a replacement for my 25 year old Aurora, which i will be flying until it is 40 under current plans

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

My List:
1 )  Heavy Lift Helicopters
2 )  BHS (need to start the process now)
3 )  C-130 Replacement Program (to include C-17's or A400M)
4 )  Buffalo Mine Clearance Vehicles (IED's scare the hell out of me....)
5 )  LAV-III DFS Upgrade (reallocation of MGS/MMEV budget)
6 )  MTVR's with armour packs
7 )  MALE UAV (foreign deployment & coastal surveillance)
8 )  Icebreakers (need them for political reasons or we risk loss of sovereignty)


Matthew. 

P.S.  Longer term I would sign onto P-8 (MMA) and create a strategic contruction plan to keep a domestic shipyard busy producing AOR's, FELEX refits, following the domestic production of the Icebreakers (we need to guarantee 20 years of construction to justify the infrastructure investment necessary to upgrade a shipyard to world-class standards).

 

[Teddy Ruxpin]

Bored this evening, so I'll bite; here's my list (not in priority - and I didn't go surfing for shiny kit):

1)  MLVW replacement
2)  CC-130 replacement (not to include C-17s until the requirement is validated after the Hercs are replaced)
3)  Sufficient personal kit (including flak vests, desert uniforms, etc.) for each soldier in the Army, regardless of trade
4)  Sufficient next generation NVGs for each soldier in the Regular Army, with a pool for Reserve unit use
5)  SCTF interim capability, to include the ship(s), JSS, and sufficient landing capability
6)  Medium lift helicopters
7)  Proper recce vehicle to replace LUVW C&R
(8  Additional HL PLS trucks
9)  Rough terrain forklifts and Rough terrain sea container handlers
10)  Attack/recce aviation (would probably cut the number of Griffon airframes to make this happen)
11)  Tribal replacement
12)  Halifax mid-life refit
13)  JSF procurement
14)  New direct fire system (cancelling MGS and MMEV)
15)  Fund sufficient personnel to fully establish all existing units, plus CSOR - before starting up new battalions

Long enough?    ;D

 

[George Wallace]

One thing I notice that is conspicuous in its' absence is RADIOES with which we can all talk to each other.

 

[Bomber]

Don't need Radio's, I have a mug telling me that we are the "worlds first digitized Army"  Really good point though, perhaps ones that when plugged in, worked, and i mean in the field, not in an office, but in the frozen terrain of the artic, and in the heat and dusty of "over there", kind of like a 77 set, but maybe with a bit more range, and less than a Bazillion dollars. 

Also, in that Citizen article, it mentioned that Al Duequettville (VP of Boeing Canada) was confused about why it was taking so long, wasn;t he in uniform at one time?  And pretty high up in it, should he have a bit of an idea of the mess he was involved with, or is this just a surprise, when you could walk into the surplus store and order a 6 pack of Strategic lift, and a couple supply ships, just cause you had some mad money?

 

[Edward Campbell]

Interesting lists; we outsiders need to look at it somewhat differently.  We do not have the technical ’smarts’ necessary to say this bit of kit vs. that one, over there.  Nor do we have the local knowledge necessary to set sensible priorities.  Instead we should deal with capabilities.

As has been said here in Army.ca, we want armed forces to give the Government of Canada options – a range of options for adding weight (muscle) to our policy pronouncements.  There might be some emotional satisfaction, for some, in being a moral superpower but it does not earn us anything when we try to advance or protect our own interests in the world.  We trade influence the same way we trade wheat or oil: the market value of our influence is based. Mostly, on our answer to the ”what have you done for me, lately?” question.  If we do little, except carp from the sidelines, then our influence trades at a very low price – junk bond status; if, on the other hand, we are able and willing to ’pull our weight’ and ‘punch above our weight’ and whatever other clichés might be appropriate, then our influence will be valuable, indeed.

The question is: how much?

We need forces which are established, manned, equipped, trained, organized and ready to be able to meet the sorts of commitments shown in the attached table, on fairly short notice:

• A few weeks, if not just days, after orders (which means this is more time, one hopes, after warning) for level 4 and 5 operations;

• Weeks, maybe a few months, after orders for level 2 and 3 operations; and

• A few months after orders (mobilization, perhaps) for level 1 operations.

The implications include:

• Balanced naval, land and air forces;

• Balanced combat, support and sustainment forces – and some of those ‘forces’ may be contracted civilians;

• Balanced availability: different units/groups at different levels of readiness as situations (and there are almost always several of them in play at once) dictate;

• A firm sustainment (and expansion) ‘base’ of schools, dockyards, supply depots, strategic transport elements, engineering/test establishments, etc; and

• A continuous recruiting programme so that the ‘feast/famine’ cycles which are so expensive are reduced, if not eliminated.

The last two are very difficult for politicians because, like too many business executives, they are unable (under the pressure of their shareholders) to do much long term thinking.  Just as the teachers’ pension funds, for example, force companies on to a ‘do better, quarter-after-quarter’ model (and say ‘to hell with long term growth and value’), so voters force politicians on to a ‘gimme something tangible, right now, in time for the next election’ model (and say to hell with value for money spending, etc).

That’s my list.

Sorry, I was tring to get the table inserted, even as an image; couldn't manage it; senior's moment, I guess!  :-[

 

[Edward Campbell]

Just out of curiosity. Anyone know the annual budget for the US Military?

Google is you friend: http://www.dod.mil/comptroller/defbudget/fy2006/index.html

 

[Praetorian]

1) Heavy Lift Aircraft (So we dont have to rent Russian ones)
2) Medium Lift Helicopters
3) Assault/Supply Ship (yes they can do both jobs: RN)
4) Tank Replacement (not an LAV with a 105mm strapped to the top plz)
5) Every Single Soldier fully kitted out  (not wearing woodland pattern in Kabul, just an eg, i know we have Arid Region CADPAT for this dep)
6) Destroyers (we have 3, each with 29 SM2's, Arleigh Burkes of USN have 105 each, ouch)

-note; the list is not in order of precedence.

Just my opinion, everything on the list is possible to reach within the next five years, there is things id like to see, such as nuc subs to protect the north, but that is a dream that wont become a reality for at least 10-15 years

Cheers  :cheers:

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

6) Destroyers (we have 3, each with 29 SM2's, Arleigh Burkes of USN have 105 each, ouch)

Really? I am not sure where you are getting your info but its wrong. Flight I of the Arleigh Burke class has 90 cells for their MK41 VLS system which they use to embark both Standards and Tomahawks, plus 2 quad launchers for harpoons. The Flight IIA batch of the Arleigh Burke class has 96 cells of which 6 cells are dedicated for the ESSM with 4 missiles per cell. the other 90 cells have the Standards and Tomahawks. Flight IIA also removes the CIWS and Harpoon missiles (although they can be refitted as needed). Both Flights will embark the VLA antisubmarine missile.

3) Assault/Supply Ship (yes they can do both jobs: RN)

I am curious which class is an AOR and and Assault ship. Why would you want to make your troops all the more vulnerable with carrying munitions and fuel?

 

[Praetorian]

My apologies
I misread the numbers for the SM2 missiles(doesnt change the fact that ours hold 29, and theres hold 90+)- how many do their cruisers hold as a matter of interest? (ticonderoga class)
As to the AOR/Assault, i believe the Fearless class were used for both during the falklands, as were converted merchants, besides one detonation is the same as the next, would it really matter how much explosive material is on a ship? if fire gets to the magazines or storage areas, wether uv got a thousand pounds of explosive or ten thousand your still gonna go to the moon.
Just makes sense as to cost, already the Americans are realising that and are using their carriers to refuel other ships at sea, as the carriers only refuel every fifty years.
Also; I think the Navy would take anything it could get, it and the Air Force doubtlessly took a far greater hit from previous governments then even the Army.

:cheers: