• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

The Defence Budget [superthread]

"The latest cuts, estimated in the range of $32 million, will slice into the army’s ability to train for operations in the jungle, desert and mountains" Situation no change.

"Defence sources say as much as $600 million will be cut out of military “readiness” in all branches in the coming year" Don't worry they contracted out a precog who said nothing will happen in the near future.

"MacKay revealed that department intends to sell surplus property" maybe they will sell off Wainwright.

"As an example, activities such as the Ceremonial Guard hold particular interest for the (government of Canada) and must be sustained" Gotta make sure the cameras fim some sharp looking soldiers. That's how wars are won now. (I do think it is good pr)
 
There's no fat left to cut, top soldier says
The Daily Gleaner
Steve Rennie (The Canadian Press)
19 March 2013


OTTAWA - Canada's top soldier says the armed forces have no fat left to cut ahead of this week's austerity budget.

But Gen. Thomas Lawson told the Senate security and defence committee he understands that militaries around the world are being forced to operate with less money.

Finance Minister Jim Flaherty's budget on Thursday is widely expected to make substantial cuts across government, and the Defence Department and Canadian Forces won't escape unscathed.

Lawson, who took over last year as chief of defence staff, said the military already runs a lean operation.

"I would like to think that there was fat in the armed forces," he said Monday. "I don't think there is."

"What we find as we squeeze (is) that there is very little fat," he added later.

Still, the governing Conservatives will be looking to shave off a little more.

A leaked army planning document obtained by The Canadian Press says land forces are bracing for a big hit on operating and maintenance on top of existing budget cuts.

Those cuts will slice into the army's ability to train for operations in the jungle, desert and mountains.

The document, dated Jan. 31 and written by Lt.-Gen. Peter Devlin, says funding for full-time reservists will have to be further reduced, and unused cash in the budget for part-time soldiers may have to be raided in order to keep full-timers.

Lawson acknowledged more reservists - many of whom signed up for full-time service during the Afghanistan mission - will likely go from being full-time to part-time soldiers.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper warned Defence Minister Peter MacKay last June that initial budget cut proposals did not go deep enough on the administrative side of the department.

Lawson's remarks came on the heels of a paper that says the Defence Department has struggled to spend billions of dollars allocated to it in past budgets.

The Conference of Defence Associations Institute puts unspent and carried-over funding over the last six years at nearly $8 billion - mostly in the areas of capital equipment and infrastructure.

But the problem, as defence analyst David Perry sees it, is that sections of the department that seem to find themselves with more budget dollars than they can spend are not be the ones facing reductions.

Instead, he says it is areas such as operations and maintenance - which have no trouble spending their allocated money - that will feel the brunt of the budget cuts.

"It is therefore not the case that the funds being cut would not have been spent in any event," Perry writes.

"Rather, DND faces the dual pressures of funding reductions in some budget areas and a loss of purchasing power in others."

DND could lose more than $500 million worth of purchasing power, he estimates.
I am not sure why we keep coming to the conclusion that there is no fat to cut.  There is plenty of fat, but most of it requires more effort, requires more planning & thought than "shaving the ice cube, and/or is within protected empires or sacred cows.  There is a list of options identified in this thread:  http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/82898/post-1193048.html#msg1193048

The coming cuts are likely to be much deeper than the existing fat, but if we stop denying the existence of fat then we can focus some of the pain where it will do the least damage.
 
There is always "fat" in every large organization. Gen Lawson is not a fool, he knows there is fat. He doesn't want to cut the C2 superstructure which is worse than fat, it is bloated ~ morbidly obese. Why not?  :dunno:  Perhaps he's just lazy, maybe he doesn't want to upset his colleagues. The "why" shouldn't really matter to parliamentarians: they should just conclude that the job (CDS) is too big for Gen Lawson.
 
Or perhaps he does believe that all the various bits and pieces of the bureaucracy are necessary vital, and that they are all undermanned lean and mean. In other words, perhaps he is process oriented, which is not unusual in government, and feels that meetings, and briefings, and studies and all the rest of the paraphernalia actually contribute to the defence of Canada. If so, Edward's last sentence still applies.
 
From the ground floor level, I can see there is still fat to trim, and lots of "hidden fat". I know the ITCB class B has finally been severed completely (three years after it was supposed to stop), but certain institutions/organizations continue to keep class B soldiers on staff when either it could be reverted to a heavy employed Class A soldier or filled by Reg F positions. If we are serious about being honest to the tax payer, time to get lean and mean for real.

Again, I think HQ everywhere could most certainly "trim it up", but hey that's just me.

I also know talking to other people on the reg f side, they have seen senior serving members wastefully employed or just "marking time" while waiting for pension clocks to run out. I disagree with such notions of entitlement to employment in the CAF.

Do we as an organization (the Canadian Armed Forces) really have the stomach to make these cuts? It will certainly make a lot of people unhappy. 
 
ArmyRick said:
From the ground floor level....
Ah, but that's the problem with "the floor level" -- you clearly don't see the wisdom ( ::) ) in asking headquarters where headquarters' fat can be cut.

 
Journeyman said:
Ah, but that's the problem with "the floor level" -- you clearly don't see the wisdom ( ::) ) in asking headquarters where headquarters' fat can be cut.


>:D  'cause when they look down, they can't see the floor.
 
George Wallace said:
>:D  'cause when they look down, they can't see the floor.

Will be interesting to see those individuals do the shuttle on the FORCE test... images of a basketball being bounced off the floor come to mind...  ;D
 
Colin P said:
How does one fire a 21 gun salute with 81mm mortars by the way?

With illum rounds, during the day, over the Ottawa river? Template it like it's the Canada Day fireworks?

In all seriousness, keeping a weapons system around for purely ceremonial reasons strikes me as kind of pointless. If firing salutes with guns is important, then we can do it with M777, if it isn't important, then we simply don't do it.

With budget cuts coming, some things simply aren't going to get done.
 
Look, folks: we have had budget cuts before ~ worse than these (in proportion). We survived. It wasn't always easy but, sometimes, we took good, hard looks at what we did and how we did things and we decided to be more efficient. We never cut the Ceremonial Guard, nor the Snowbirds, nor saluting cannons. We are not popular in this country, notwithstanding yellow ribbons and red T-shirts; polling puts us, consistently, near the bottom of most Canadians' list of spending priorities. Balancing the budget in Canada is nearly akin to rugby in New Zealand, plus it's good policy. DND always does a full and more than fair share when budget cuts are needed, we always survive. We will this time, too.

That's my perspective from 35+ years in uniform during the past 50+ years.
 
Journeyman said:
....but rugby is enjoyable.  ;D

Were you not  a back?  Or maybe a "scrum fluff" flanker?  Go figure....

Try sticking your head between two fat guys legs.....
 
devil39 said:
Were you not  a back?  Or maybe a "scrum fluff" flanker?  Go figure....

Try sticking your head between two fat guys legs.....

BTDT
 
devil39 said:
Were you not  a back?  Or maybe a "scrum fluff" flanker?  Go figure....

Try sticking your head between two fat guys legs.....
Really?  You come out of Milnet hibernation to post that? 
It's got to be tough at your age..... forgetting that I was the guy beside you wearing the 5. 

But you are getting older.  Sad, really.  >:D
 
Military braces for more spending cuts
Some fear new 'decade of darkness'

Lee Berthiaume
Ottawa Citizen
20 March 2013


The Conservative government's oft-stated support for Canada's military is coming under the microscope as senior officers and defence analysts brace for more cuts in Thursday's federal budget.

And some are even warning that unless dramatic steps are taken, the military is in danger of entering another dreaded "decade of darkness."

An analysis by retired Lt.-Col Brian MacDonald of the Conference of Defence Associations has found military spending as a percentage of gross domestic product trending toward its lowest level since 1997.

The "decade of darkness" was the name given by former chief of defence staff Rick Hillier to describe the deep spending cuts imposed on the military by the government of former prime minister Jean Chrétien in the 1990s.

MacDonald stated that the declining ratio of defence spending to GDP - from a high of 1.4 per cent in 2009-10 to an estimated 1.08 per cent by 2015 - is "more consistent to a return to "the Decade of Darkness' than to the 'Brave New World' promised" by the federal Conservatives.

Such a comparison is potentially volatile for the federal government, which has painted itself as a champion of the Canadian Forces while blasting the Chrétien government for the cuts imposed under its rule.

Douglas Bland, chair of defence management studies at Queen's University, said the Conservatives have discovered what the Chrétien Liberals already knew: there's always cash to be found in the defence budget.

"It's like a change jar," Bland said, noting that provinces don't get angry when money is taken from the military and few Canadians notice, "so there is very little blowback."

But CDA analyst David Perry wasn't prepared to say the Canadian Forces is entering another "decade of darkness."

Perry released his own study this week that found national defence funding has been reduced by $2.12 billion, or about 10.6 per cent, in the last two federal budgets - a number that may be even higher if new cuts are introduced in Thursday's budget.

But that compares to a more than 20 per cent cut imposed by the Chrétien government, Perry said, "so we're about halfway to where we were in the '90s"

The fact the federal government has pledged to maintain the Canadian Forces' strength at 68,000 regular force members and 27,000 reservists, and that it's still planning to buy new equipment, are noteworthy.

"Every other time the budget has been cut, the front-line personnel have been reduced and the capital budget has been frozen or reduced," Perry said.

"This will make it easier to come back in three or four years if the books recover and bump things back up."

But the fact the military is severely restricted in what it can and cannot slash is causing other short-term problems, Perry said, including hitting training and maintenance disproportionately hard.

This is consistent with concerns recently raised by the head of the Canadian Army, Lt.-Gen. Peter Devlin, whose own force is facing a 22 per cent spending cut.

"While we have had our budget reduced by 22 per cent, there are a bunch of fixed costs," Devlin told a Senate committee Dec. 3.

"It means that the training budgets for the formations are probably about 45 per cent lower than it was."

Chief of Defence Staff Gen. Tom Lawson acknowledged during an appearance before a Senate committee Monday that managing the spending reduction would be the focus of senior officers for the foreseeable future.

And he agreed there will be challenges.

"Anywhere we look for these savings, we will do so carefully," Lawson said. "But there will be some loss of capability."

Yet the country's top soldier said he remained optimistic - in part because the military had recovered from the "decade of darkness."

"The Canadian Armed Forces of 2013 is well ahead of where we were back in the mid-1990s," Lawson said.

"I can see clearly how far we have come to where we are today."
 
Some interesting chat here. I have chatted, briefly, with Stephen Saideman about this; I suspect he, and Prof Stein, are right: cuts to HQs (which I believe are both possible and would, indeed, produce positive results) and reforms to the defence procurement processes will not produce the required cuts. We must do a lot less with less money - but: we have done that before. We, the nation, can sustain a core of general purpose combat capable forces with less resources; it is not easy but it is possible.

According to Elinor Sloan's research, the public is content to maintain adequate defence spending but, as I have said before, that same public also demands a balanced budget. My quesstimate is that the latter trumps the former.


 
Back
Top