The Defence Budget [superthread]

[drunknsubmrnr]

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

Try being the fat guy.

Is there any flexibility in reducing some units readiness to boost other units? ie tying the MCDV's and submarines to the wall while diverting funding to fully fund frigates operations

 

[PuckChaser]

Is there any flexibility in reducing some units readiness to boost other units? ie tying the MCDV's and submarines to the wall while diverting funding to fully fund frigates operations

There probably would be, but I strongly suspect there are people unwilling to let their departments take that hit in order to have readiness increased it other operational areas.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Try being the fat guy.

Is there any flexibility in reducing some units readiness to boost other units? ie tying the MCDV's and submarines to the wall while diverting funding to fully fund frigates operations

I wonder if, in the current O&M climate, some admirals are not considering tying up a frigate (n sailors and $n,nnn.nn/hour to operate) and manning an extra MCDV (only n/5 sailors and $nn.nn/hour).

 

[Sub_Guy]

Try being the fat guy.
ie tying the MCDV's and submarines to the wall while diverting funding to fully fund frigates operations

Tying up the boats (subs) would be a horrible idea, if those were to get tied up for any length of time we might as well leave them there.

 

[Monsoon]

There probably would be, but I strongly suspect there are people unwilling to let their departments take that hit in order to have readiness increased it other operational areas.

Well, there's only L1 involved in that decision, so that wouldn't be the issue; the fact that it's a bad idea would probably be the driving factor. As Dolphin-Hunter pointed out, tieing up the subs now would more or less write off the entire sub programme (fine if that's your goal, I guess - but it doesn't seem to be anyone's goal). As for the Kingston class, those ships are so laughably cheap to run that the cost/benefit math for tieing them up just doesn't compute. They see off a lot of the RCN's domestic commitments (SOVPATs, FISHPATs, SAR station, etc) at a fraction of the cost (like, a tenth) of running a heavy to do the same thing. I wouldn't be surprised if paying them off entirely meant fewer days at sea doing task group-level work/training.

 

[PuckChaser]

Well, there's only L1 involved in that decision, so that wouldn't be the issue; the fact that it's a bad idea would probably be the driving factor. As Dolphin-Hunter pointed out, tieing up the subs now would more or less write off the entire sub programme (fine if that's your goal, I guess - but it doesn't seem to be anyone's goal). As for the Kingston class, those ships are so laughably cheap to run that the cost/benefit math for tieing them up just doesn't compute. They see off a lot of the RCN's domestic commitments (SOVPATs, FISHPATs, SAR station, etc) at a fraction of the cost (like, a tenth) of running a heavy to do the same thing. I wouldn't be surprised if paying them off entirely meant fewer days at sea doing task group-level work/training.

I didn't necessarily mean the RCN, just happened to quote his example as well. Tying up older ships would be akin to tying up LSVWs or MLVWs in the Army for a year, they would be rotten hulks when you tried to start them up again. Aren't the MCDVs run by reservists? That's a lot of Cl C money being dumped into crewing those ships, are there not crews available from ships in extended refit?

 

[Stoker]

I wonder if, in the current O&M climate, some admirals are not considering tying up a frigate (n sailors and $n,nnn.nn/hour to operate) and manning an extra MCDV (only n/5 sailors and $nn.nn/hour).

Right now there is a plan to man another MCDV this summer for force generation with a mix reg/reg crew. Right from the Admirals mouth last month he said the MCDV's will be doing the lions share of Fisheries and such as other CPF's go into refit for the foreseeable future. They are cheap to operate compared to a CPF and will be seeing more operations down south in the form of OP Caribe where they are very well suited.

 

[Stoker]

I didn't necessarily mean the RCN, just happened to quote his example as well. Tying up older ships would be akin to tying up LSVWs or MLVWs in the Army for a year, they would be rotten hulks when you tried to start them up again. Aren't the MCDVs run by reservists? That's a lot of Cl C money being dumped into crewing those ships, are there not crews available from ships in extended refit?

MCDV's are indeed run by reservists, but most of the billets are reserve billets and the reg force has little interest manning them. You would think there are lots of extra crew around, but there isn't really with things such as coursing and other manning challenges such as the Orca's.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Right now there is a plan to man another MCDV this summer for force generation with a mix reg/reg crew. Right from the Admirals mouth last month he said the MCDV's will be doing the lions share of Fisheries and such as other CPF's go into refit for the foreseeable future. They are cheap to operate compared to a CPF and will be seeing more operations down south in the form of OP Caribe where they are very well suited.

That, using (smaller & cheaper) MCDVs for tasks which are within their capability envelope, is just good sense.

 

[Edward Campbell]

MCDV's are indeed run by reservists, but most of the billets are reserve billets and the reg force has little interest manning them. You would think there are lots of extra crew around, but there isn't really with things such as coursing and other manning challenges such as the Orca's.

At some point the RCN, especially, but the CF as a whole, has to come to grips with permanent vs non-permanent establishments. Our colleague dapaterson has pointed out, time and again, that the CF is breaking its own rules.

While I think the idea of reserve manned ships (and units) is great, it appears, as I understand it, that it violates the rules. Maybe we need to rethink the regular/reserve split; maybe we need two components: the active force and the reserve force and, maybe, within the reserve force we need a permanent (or active) reserve, which is on full time service and can be called to active service without further administrative action but which is not subject to e.g. postings (except for deployments) and a non-permanent (or volunteer) reserve.  :dunno:  My sense is that the Naval Reserve (the RCN(R)?) cannot run more than, say, half of the MCDVs and credible Naval Reserve Divisions. Maybe there need to be some nearly fully RCN(R) crewed MVDVs used for reserve training, say four or five of them, while the other seven or eight have mixed crews and are used for tasks like fisheries patrol and Op CARIBE, oceanographic research and even mine countermeasures.


Edit: typo

 

[drunknsubmrnr]

At some point the RCN, especially, but the CF as a whole, has to come to grips with permanent vs non-permanent establishments.

I agree. I also think that Regular force-manned as opposed to Reserve-force manning is the tip of the iceberg.

We've already seen with Huron that once a ship goes, it won't be replaced. Would it not make sense to decide now what the future fleet should be and divert as many resources as we can towards that? Once the remaining destroyers are paid off, chances are pretty good they won't be replaced. I think that 15 surface combatants are a lot more useful to the fleet and the country rather than 12 surface combatants and 4 training submarines.

 

[dapaterson]

The RCN has done considerable work to forecast the current and future fleets, and the personnel requirements to manage the transition from one to the next.

The challenge is in the large number of moving pieces - a one-year delay in AOPS means that the CSC is also delayed at least a year, meaning that the pers plan is now askew.  And that's a relatively simple thing... throw in occupational changes, departmental priorities, and so on, and the RCN has a large challenge on their hands.

 

[drunknsubmrnr]

The RCN has done considerable work to forecast the current and future fleets, and the personnel requirements to manage the transition from one to the next.

The work appears to amount to a detailed wish list. The chances of actually getting the desired fleet in an operationally useful timeframe are slim. We're already seeing this with the JSS and AOPS, and they're not terribly complicated platforms.

RCN project planning must involve a lot of "And this is where a miracle happens" milestones....

 

[ARMY_101]

3 hours to go!  Who else is excited? ;D

www.budget.gc.ca

 

[Canadian.Trucker]

3 hours to go!  Who else is excited? ;D

www.budget.gc.ca

I expect your question is a little tongue in cheek, since there is little to be excited about from what I've heard.

 

[Edward Campbell]

According to a report in the Ottawa Citizen the budget explicitly endorses "the report by Tom Jenkins, chairman of OpenText Corp., [which] recommended in February that the government use a "once in a century" opportunity to leverage the $490 billion in defence spending over the next 20 years." This is precisely the opposite of most bang for the buck and, instead, provides most pork for the buck; the CF will get whatever Canadian industry can produce, not what the military operational requirements specify. Ho-hum, we've been here before - anyone else old enough to remember the split CPF and TRUMP contracts?

 

[The Bread Guy]

.... This is precisely the opposite of most bang for the buck and, instead, provides most pork for the buck; the CF will get whatever Canadian industry can produce, not what the military operational requirements specify ....

.... with industry happy to hear it (highlights mine):

The Canadian Association of Defence and Security Industries (CADSI) strongly endorses the federal government's commitment to create and implement a defence procurement strategy in which Canadian companies will be part of any plan to build equipment for the Canadian Forces, as expressed today in the federal Budget.

"Military procurement is the largest single area of discretionary spending the government has," said Mr. Page.  "The Government is boldly seizing the opportunity this spending represents to create jobs, especially high-end manufacturing jobs, in the Canadian defence and security sector.  This is an important step forward, putting Canada on a similar footing to other highly industrialized countries with clear strategies to promote their defence and security sectors."

Mr. Page added, "The government's commitment in the Budget recognizes that it is in the national interest to have a strong, innovative, domestic defence-related manufacturing base that produces leading edge equipment, generates high-value exports, and supports knowledge-based jobs for Canadians."

CADSI had broadly supported recommendations put forward by OpenText chairman Tom Jenkins in his report to the government on leveraging defence procurement around Key Industrial Capabilities in the Canadian sector.  "Our industry is delighted that the government endorsed Tom Jenkins' proposal to use Key Industrial Capabilities to leverage military procurement and has committed to expediting the implementation of the Jenkins recommendations this Spring," said Mr. Page ....

Canadian Association of Defence and Security Industries info-machine, 21 Mar 13

 

[ARMY_101]

Is it just me, or does Budget 2013 not mention the specific amount of money DND/CAF will be receiving?

 

[dapaterson]

That information is contained in the Main Estimates, which will then be amended by the Supplementary Estimates.

 

[ARMY_101]

That information is contained in the Main Estimates, which will then be amended by the Supplementary Estimates.

Estimated spent in 2012-2013: $20,678,142,610
Main estimates for 2013-2014: $17,985,310,381
= $2.69 billion reduction

... Not bad.