The Defence Budget [superthread]

[Edward Campbell]

Just a few words, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail, about why DND's budget is going to be tight for a few more years:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/top-business-stories/jim-flaherty-lauds-frugal-germans-rejects-us-printing-more-money/article14125180/?cmpid=rss1&utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter#dashboard/follows/

Jim Flaherty lauds ‘frugal’ Germans, rejects U.S. ‘printing more money’

MICHAEL BABAD
The Globe and Mail

Published Thursday, Sep. 05 2013

Flaherty rejects Fed stimulus

Canada’s finance minister gave a nod to “frugal” Germany today as he again rejected the money-printing ways of the Americans.

Jim Flaherty was referring to the Federal Reserve’s massive stimulus program known as quantitative easing, or QE, under which the U.S. central bank is acquiring $85-billion (U.S.) a month in bonds.

All eyes are on that program, of course, because of indications that the Fed could soon begin to pull back, something that has caused angst among investors who want to be certain the economy and the markets can withstand that.

“The Americans tend to emphasize creating more jobs and less concern about the accumulation of public debt and printing more money, with which I’ve never agreed,” Mr. Flaherty said in St. Petersburg, Russia, where he’s attending the G20 summit.

“The Germans tend to be more prudent and frugal like Canadians tend to be.”

The Federal Reserve is trying to ease the high level of unemployment in the U.S., where 11.5 million people can’t find work.

The U.S. jobless rate stood at 7.4 per cent in July, and the August reading is scheduled to be released tomorrow. In Canada, where unemployment rate is 7.2 per cent, 1.4 million people are without jobs.

Mr. Flaherty's comments came as his government appeared to step back from its target for reducing the national debt, even as it presses other nations at the G20 summit to follow Canada’s lead in curbing debts and deficits.

Mr. Flaherty and Prime Minister Stephen Harper used the setting of this year’s G20 leaders’ summit to release new debt targets for the federal government, The Globe and Mail's Bill Curry reports from St. Petersburg.

Ottawa is now promising to bring its debt-to-GDP ratio down to 25 per cent by 2021. The government said this would be in addition to erasing annual deficits by 2015.

However the new target of 25 per cent appears to represent a softening of a timeline Mr. Flaherty’s own department released in 2012. Last fall, Finance Canada released long-term projections suggesting a debt-to-GDP ratio of 23.8 per cent in 2020-21.

There are three classes of people who don't like defence spending:

    1. Senior bureaucrats, many of who are economists, in every government department, including a handful in DND itself, because they recognize that defence spending is discretionary and politically difficult;

    2. Economists, because they recognize that defence spending is, broadly, unproductive; and

    3. Voters, the vast majority of them, anyway, because they realize that every dollar spent on defence, a common good, is a dollar that cannot be spent on themselves or on their pet projects.

The Americans always consider themselves exceptional and, in defence production, they are; America produces the overwhelming majority of the defence hardware it buys - in a less than wholly efficient and effective way US defence spending does create US jobs. There are similar situations in Russia and China (who, together with the USA have the biggest defence budgets in the world). Canada, like Germany and most other countries, does not have much of a defence export industry ~ we have some, just not much. In our situation frugality, especially with regards to the nation's defence makes economic sense.

 

[ARMY_101]

Does anyone actually have a table of the DND/CF budgets by year? After searching budget documents, Treasury Board/Finance Canada websites, etc, I cannot find anything that clearly and easily breaks down the total budgets by year.

For example, is this accurate: http://milexdata.sipri.org/result.php4 ?

 

[MarkOttawa]

See p. 14 and following here:
http://atlantic-council.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Defence-matters-jul-8.pdf

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Edward Campbell]

More news if this report, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail, is correct:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/dnd-braces-for-cuts-as-ottawa-targets-deficit/article14540777/?cmpid=rss1&utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter#dashboard/follows/

DND braces for new wave of job cuts as Ottawa targets deficit

BILL CURRY
OTTAWA — The Globe and Mail

Published Thursday, Sep. 26 2013

A new wave of job notices is going out at National Defence Thursday as the department absorbs big spending cuts to help the Conservative government climb out of deficit.

The vast majority of the 172 workers who will receive “affected” notices are at Canadian Forces Base Montreal, where 145 positions are impacted. Receiving a notice does not necessarily mean a person will be laid off. The union representing defence workers received advance notice of the letters, but the department did not indicate to the union how many positions it plans on eliminating.

“We didn’t see this coming,” said John MacLennan, President of the Union of National Defence Employees. Mr. MacLennan said the affected positions represent direct service to the Canadian Forces.

According to the union, the affected staff are primarily mechanics who work on tanks and armoured personnel carriers.

“These are not back-office jobs,” he said, taking issue with Finance Minister Jim Flaherty’s claim that cuts would only affect “back-office stuff.”

“These are front-line workers that overhaul and repair the engines, make sure the turret’s working, the gun’s working on it, the cannon’s working on it,” he said, warning that the government will be losing the corporate knowledge that it paid for in terms of staff training.

Julie DiMambro, a spokesperson for Defence Minister Rob Nicholson, would not confirm details of the notices.

“With the mission in Afghanistan winding down, the civilian workforce that was brought in to backfill for deployed military members is being reduced and the Department will make every effort to ease the impact on affected employees,” she said in a statement.

National Defence received about $20.1-billion in approved funding during the fiscal year that ended March 31, 2013. A recent report from the department’s Deputy Minister, Richard Fadden, indicates that one quarter into the current fiscal year, spending is down about 9 per cent.

The 2012 budget announced $5.1-billion in permanent government-wide cuts by next year, of which $1.1-billion was to come from National Defence.

More than two years have passed since Lieutenant-General Andrew Leslie – now retired and volunteering as an adivsor to Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau – issued a detailed report on how the department and the Canadian Forces could save money.

Mr. Leslie’s report on “transformation” in July, 2011, received a cool reception from military brass. The report found the staff size of DND and the Forces at headquarters had increased 46 per cent from 2004 and 2010 and that the department was spending too much on Ottawa-based contractors and consultants.

The report recommended trimming levels of bureaucracy – what he called the “tail” – in order to prioritize spending on the front-line military – or “teeth.”

The report found the department was spending about $2.7-billion a year on contracts to consultants and contractors, employing at least 5,000 people.

It would appear from the department’s latest spending update that the government is cutting back on contractors, although the union warns that Thursday’s cuts will lead to more outsourcing.

The 2012 federal budget required DND and the Canadian Forces to find $692.4-million in savings this year and $1.1-billion in permanent annual savings by next year.

After the first three months of the current fiscal year, the department reported that 44 per cent of the year’s targeted savings have been achieved. A departmental report says this was done through “administrative efficiencies, reducing reliance on contracted services and rebalancing the workforce.”

The government is attempting to find savings while maintaining CAF regular force strength at 68,000, with an additional 27,000 reserves. The government’s most recent estimates for civilian personnel indicated a slight decline from 25,408 this year to 24,814 in 2015-16, but those figures came with a footnote stating that “these planning figures may be further reduced.”

Former Chief of Defence Staff Rick Hillier weighed in this week about the current changes at DND.

“It’s a massive, massive challenge and the cuts are enormous,” he told CTV’s Power Play on Monday. Mr. Hillier retired from the Canadian Forces in 2008.

He expressed concern that without reducing the size of the Forces, the cuts will come to training and operations budgets.

“And that means soldiers will sit in garrison and ships will remain tied up at the dock and airplanes won’t fly and I think you have to balance that,” he said, recommending that Ottawa shrink the Canadian Forces down to 50,000 personnel.

I agree with Gen (Ret'd) Hillier about reducing the size of the forces. My suggestion is:

    1. Cut 25 flag and general officers ~ if their work is really important it can be done by Capts(N)/Cols;

    2. Cut 50 Capts (N) and Cols ~ replace all four stripe 'director' positions in NDHQ with Cdrs/LCols who are, anyway, out "first level executives;"

    3. Cut 100 each Cdrs/LCols and LCdrs/Majs ~ and the work they do goes with them; and

    4. Cut most of the "dot Coms" and return their functions to NDHQ and other, level 2, HQs and then cut 200 other officer and NCM positions.

 

[McG]

    1. Cut 25 flag and general officers ~ if their work is really important it can be done by Capts(N)/Cols;

    2. Cut 50 Capts (N) and Cols

    3. Cut 100 each Cdrs/LCols and LCdrs/Majs ~ and the work they do goes with them; and

Where do these numbers come from?

... replace all four stripe 'director' positions in NDHQ with Cdrs/LCols who are, anyway, out "first level executives;"

Would the follow-on be to reduce all three stripe section heads to LCdr/Maj and make Capt the working rank of NDHQ?

    4. Cut most of the "dot Coms" and return their functions to NDHQ and other, level 2, HQs and then cut 200 other officer and NCM positions.

In a way, this has been done.  There are only two that remain as CEFCOM, CANADACOM and CANOSCOM were all merged.  Though, I have no doubt that efficiencies can be found.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Where do these numbers come from? Essentially out of my ass, but I did think a bit about the 25 GOFOs and then multiplied the others.
Would the follow-on be to reduce all three stripe section heads to LCdr/Maj and make Capt the working rank of NDHQ? No. Director is the "first level executive" in the civil service. Cdr/LCol (ship/unit CO) is ours; they should be harmonized.
In a way, this has been done.  There are only two that remain as CEFCOM, CANADACOM and CANOSCOM were all merged.  Though, I have no doubt that efficiencies can be found. Agreed.

 

[dapaterson]

In 1997, the MND report on leadership and management of the CF directed a reduction to 65 GOFOs.  To my knowledge, that written direction from the MND has never been rescinded.

It would be interesting for an MND to walk in one day and tell the CDS,

"Right.  Your GOFO establishment, effective tomorrow, is 1 Admiral/General, 5 VAdm/LGens, 15 RAdm/MGens, and 45 Cmdre/BGens.  Come back tomorrow with your establishment plan.  Come back the day after with your posting plot against the new establishment, and I'll sign off the release messages."

 

[McG]

... replace all four stripe 'director' positions in NDHQ with Cdrs/LCols who are, anyway, out "first level executives;"

Would the follow-on be to reduce all three stripe section heads to LCdr/Maj and make Capt the working rank of NDHQ? No. Director is the "first level executive" in the civil service. Cdr/LCol (ship/unit CO) is ours; they should be harmonized.

Sect Heads report to directors and are typically Cdr/LCol and they oversee a team of primarily majors.  If you drop the directors, I would assume you then drop the section heads and the "working staff."  If that is not where you are going, how do you see this work?

 

[OldSolduer]

It would be interesting for an MND to walk in one day and tell the CDS,

"Right.  Your GOFO establishment, effective tomorrow, is 1 Admiral/General, 5 VAdm/LGens, 15 RAdm/MGens, and 45 Cmdre/BGens.  Come back tomorrow with your establishment plan.  Come back the day after with your posting plot against the new establishment, and I'll sign off the release messages."

Interesting yes, it would be. I'd be curious as to how long the MND remains the MND after he tells the CDS this.

 

[Old Sweat]

I suspect any MND with the confidence to slash the GOFOs could survive, especially if he had done his homework with the PMO and PCO. Having said that, Edward's figure should have a separate add on pool for international/representational positions. This would includes posts such as the DComd NORAD and Canmilrep NATO as well as ones that pop up from time to time like the one in Naples LGen Bouchard filled and LGen Vance is in now. There probably are minimum eight to ten of these posts that are our share of alliances' command and control.

 

[Edward Campbell]

I suspect any MND with the confidence to slash the GOFOs could survive, especially if he had done his homework with the PMO and PCO. Having said that, Edward's figure should have a separate add on pool for international/representational positions. This would includes posts such as the DComd NORAD and Canmilrep NATO as well as ones that pop up from time to time like the one in Naples LGen Bouchard filled and LGen Vance is in now. There probably are minimum eight to ten of these posts that are our share of alliances' command and control.

I agree, in my perfect world® the CDS would be a three star, ditto the VCDS and DCINC NORAD and CANMILEP NATO. When, from time to time, we get positions like the one in Naples occupied by LGen Vance, that three star would be "surplus" and approved, and funded, on a temporary basis, by cabinet. Equally when, even less often, we get a four star position - e.g. Chairman of the NATO Military Committee which Gen (Ret'd) Henault occupied from 2005-08 - one of the three stars would be promoted and that position would also be "surplus." Further, in my perfect world®, the CNS, CGS (currently CCA) and CAS and the DCDS, the head of the J-Staff in NDHQ and head J-3 guy, would all be two stars. So would the commanders of major commands and the Defence Advisors (Attachés) in Washington and London.

A Canadian officer who made it, in a full 30+ year career, to one star would be a "star." The very good officers would retire as Capts(N)/Cols and the consistently "better than most" would finish their careers as Cdrs/LCols.

 

[dapaterson]

With a Reg F target of 68K paid strength, one GOFO per 1000 would be 68.  Given that the 68K is paid, not trained, strength, we should be able to provide our share to our alliances out of that 68 and still have enough left in Canada for our own needs - if, outside of specialists & limited staff, you start to need one per 4K trained (that's one per bde) we've still got plenty, even for unforecast requirements.

 

[MilEME09]

Federal auditors found $1.5 billion in ‘significant’ defence department accounting errors

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/2013-budget/Federal+auditors+found+billion+significant+defence/9012549/story.html


this is why we cant have nice things

 

[CougarKing]

Not sure what to think of Ivison's commentary as he slams the DND in his commentary below, which was titled "While the House was mesmerized by the train wreck in the Senate, National Defence pulled a fast one" on the National Post website's front page: 

National Post

(...)

For example: The Department of National Defence appears to be transferring $57-million from its capital budget into its operating budget (a DND spokeswoman said the amount is actually $62-million but couldn’t explain why).

Obviously, this is excellent news for those who need to pay the bills at Defence. It’s not even bad news for those charged with buying the planes, ships and armoured vehicles identified as necessary under the Canada First defence strategy. DND is notorious for being unable to spend its capital budget on time — a practice that has resulted in $556-million in lost purchasing power in recent years, according to analyst David Perry, thanks to a 7% Defence Specific Inflation average.

But it’s bad news for the taxpayer. You can’t take money from the capital budget, re-allocate it to the operations budget, and still have money in the capital pot to buy the equipment that you’re already committed to.

MPs should be asking some hard questions about this and other nuggets buried deep in the body of the estimates
It’s an exercise in kicking the can down the road and coping with the $2.5-billion in operational cutbacks the Conservatives ordered as part of their deficit reduction plan. This financial sleight of hand is an open secret in the bureaucracy and the Department of Finance is quiescent since it gives DND flexibility to manage the cuts, while keeping budgets on track to balance across government in 2015.

It’s possible the uniforms could decide to live with smaller capital budgets, and do without the shiny new kit they’ve already earmarked. Possible, but not probable. More likely, they will come back to Parliament, cap in hand, for a capital budget top-up when they need the cash.

Ironically, when a similar thing happened last year, it was the vigilance of members of the Senate Finance committee that brought the matter to public light.

Senator Irving Gerstein asked Major-General Robert Bertrand, acting chief financial officer at DND, how he could spend part of his capital budget on operations and still have money available for new equipment.

“It’s a tricky concept,” said Maj.-Gen. Bertrand.

“I should say so,” said Mr. Gerstein.

Defence is facing a budget crunch, as it tries to maintain existing numbers of troops and bases, while adding new gear like the F35 fighter jets. The answer appears to be the perennial search for “efficiencies” in ongoing operations. In the interim, the department is raiding unspent money in the capital budget.

Yet this transfer requires parliamentary approval. MPs should be asking some hard questions about this and other nuggets buried deep in the body of the estimates. For example, why does Public Works need $25-million for “additional office accommodation” and $38-million to “fit up” Crown-owned buildings, when there are 20,000 fewer public servants than there were a couple of years ago?

(...)

 

[Navy_Pete]

So they cut $2.5 billion, and transferring $62 million to keep the lights on and meet govt operational requirements is somehow bad for the taxpayer?  I'm confused.

They purposely created so many hoops to jump through for capitol spending that most of that money would just get unspent in the fiscal year anyway.  Our system is highly optimized and very efficient at not spending a dime, but keeping a lot of people busy to try and do so.

 

[marinemech]

how about going after contractors who are dragging their heels on the multi-billions dollars of contracts that are years overdue, by assigning multimillion dollar per pay penalties.

 

[Edward Campbell]

More on the defence budget and, specifically, the deeply flawed Canada First Defence Strategy, in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Globe and Mail:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/tories-plan-to-revamp-defence-spending/article4227726/

At the risk of saying "I told you so ..." this was easy to see coming; I will repeat myself and say:

1. Canadians' support for the CF may be a mile wide (all those red T-shirts and yellow ribbons) but it is only an inch deep, especially when it comes to defence spending vs other (social) priorities; and

2. The Canada First Defence Strategy was never anything more than an ill-considered shopping list. It promised a finite decrease in defence spending when projected as a percentage of GDP out to 2035. It could do that by "low baling" costs and being vague, to be charitable, about dollars and cents.

The Conservatives are doing what needs to be done in tough economic times: restraining discretionary spending - and few things are more politically discretionary than national defence. But there still needs to be a plan for our national defence - one that promises real growth in defence spending (as a percentage of GDP) over, say, 20 years, of an order that will buy us the people, the kit and consumables we (all Canadians) need to provide to DND and the CF to guarantee* our own security.


_____
* Not unilaterally - in conjunction with traditional friends and trusted allies

So, the chickens are finally home ... this article, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail revisits the Hobson's choice that faces the Government of Canada ~ cuts the forces to fit the money available or add some money (which doesn't exist until after the 2015 election:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/globe-politics-insider/as-ottawas-defence-shopping-list-keeps-getting-longer-somethings-got-to-give/article15433715/?cmpid=rss1&click=dlvr.it#dashboard/follows/

As Ottawa’s defence shopping list keeps getting longer, something’s got to give

SUBSCRIBERS ONLY

Campbell Clark
OTTAWA — The Globe and Mail

Published Thursday, Nov. 14 2013

It’s an eye-popping figure: $105-billion for new warships. It’s a sobering estimate of what it costs to buy a navy. Too bad there’s no sober assessment of what Canada’s defence will do without.

There is an inescapable squeeze: the cost of all the military equipment the Conservatives pledged is edging higher, but the military budget is shrinking.

The new $105-billion estimate of lifetime costs for building warships – released by the government as it awaits an Auditor-General’s report on its shipbuilding plans – shows why current decisions have to fit into a long-term plan that adds up.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper built a big part of his political persona on pumping money into the military, as the Conservatives blamed previous Liberal governments for putting the Canadian Forces through what general Rick Hillier called a decade of darkness. Now it seems like Mr. Harper doesn’t want to admit the money he pledged isn’t there by revamping the plans.

When his government set out its plans for military-equipment purchases, in a 20-year defence strategy issued in 2008, it was planning bigger defence budgets. This year’s defence budget was supposed to be $21.7-billion, but now, in reality, it’s $3-billion less. It’s projected to stay relatively flat. The gap between the plan and reality is getting bigger every year.

Add the $105-billion lifetime cost for ships to the $45-billion estimated by accounting firm KPMG for F-35 fighter jets – even if the decision on buying them is on hold for now – and it starts to look like real money. In broad terms, that would take up a quarter of the defence budget, year after year, unless the budget is increased. And there’s more on the shopping list.

The $105-billion projection for warships doesn’t come from a spiralling price tag – if there are cost increases or overruns, they will be added later. But it’s supposed to be all-inclusive, and long-term: it includes the purchase price, but also 30 years of maintenance costs and the salaries of people who will operate them.

It provides a great big number, with everything, in theory, thrown in. In this case, it’s a useful illustration: it amounts, with a just a small portion missing, to what it costs to buy and operate a navy over 30 years. The $105-billion breaks down (roughly, because of the accounting details) to about $3.5-billion a year in constant dollars – but it’s there year after year, for decades.

It includes the ships that are the backbone of the navy – the so-called “surface combatants” that will replace the current frigates and destroyers. Building “up to” 15 of them will cost $26.2-billion, and with maintenance and operations, the total cost is estimated at $90-billion over 30 years. The $105-billion total also includes the cost of replacing two supply ships and adding “up to” eight new Arctic patrol vessels. Barring the costs of operating and (possibly) replacing Canada’s four submarines and its 12 small coastal vessels, it’s pretty much the fleet.

There isn’t much to cut, unless you do without a navy. Some in the military would do without the Arctic patrol vessels, about 8 per cent of the cost estimate, but the government insists. The biggest element – about 85 per cent – is the crucial frigates. The $26.2-billion purchase price is already very tight, said David Perry, a defence analyst with the CDA Institute, so the government will have to either shrink the small fleet or skimp on their capabilities.

Big price tags for a navy and fighters mean a big figure has to be squeezed into the defence budget every year. Half the defence budget, more than $9-billion, goes to salaries, and only a small fraction is for the navy or fighter squadrons. The overwhelming portion is in the army and bureaucracy. Billions more are spent on bases and training – though the Defence Department is already reducing the latter. It is cutting billions, and stretching the life of equipment, but its capital spending is supposed to go up.

There’s still the other things Mr. Harper pledged to buy: search-and-rescue planes, maritime patrol planes and close-combat armoured vehicles. And as the estimate for warships illustrates, decisions made now will be paid for year after year, long after Mr. Harper is gone.

So far, it won’t all fit. Former lieutenant-general Andrew Leslie, when he was still in the army, called for restructuring the military, cutting overhead to pay for its cutting edge. The government still argues cost-cutting will make it fit. But something big has got to give, and as yet, the Conservative government hasn’t explained what it is. The military isn’t back to the decade of darkness, not yet, but its budget is in the shadows. Time for a new plan.

Campbell Clark is a columnist in The Globe’s Ottawa bureau.

Let me repeat a few points:

    1. The Government of Canada is doing the right thing - restraining, cutting discretionary spending until its fiscal house is in order again;

    2. The Canada First Defence Strategy was never about increasing Canada's military strength. It was, at best, a juvenile, ill advised bit of political fluff designed to fool the vast majority of Canadians who are economically illiterate,*
        at worst it was a cynical attempt to cut the military by stealth. It makes no strategic sense at all - but then Canadian governments are, generally, poor at strategy, and it's poor economics, too;

    3. Defence spending is not productive ~ and that includes "buy Canadian" projects;

    4. LGen (ret'd) Leslie is, partially, right, but a bit timid. The CF is a C2 train wreck. It is over-managed and mismanaged to a degree that goes beyond being disgraceful. Many, most of a our flag and general officers are, at least, one rank higher
        than necessary or even desirable and fully ⅓ can be, and should be retired without replacement ~ management would improve ~ and we should "delayer" one complete level of the CF C2 superstructure;

    5. Canada needs a grand strategy, starting with a vision that leads towards a sensible, politically acceptable foreign policy and a defence policy that produces armed forces which are:

          a. Appropriate for a G8 nation which is, by any measure, in the world's top 10%,

          b. Adaptable to an ever changing strategic environment;

          c. Available when and where needed ~ which implies adequate numbers of people (in units, not HQs) and adequate (working) equipment and adequate strategic "lift," and

          d. Affordable ~ we may not be a "big league" military power, and we don't need or want to be one, but we can be, and should be in the Triple A + league.


_____
* It probably worked with much of the Conservative base, too, which is, generally, less educated than the supporters of more progressive parties.

 

[jollyjacktar]

Honestly.  When I saw that piece about the life cycle cost of new vessels over a 30 year period,  I wasn't a bit surprised.  What did they expect the cost of personnel, fuel and refits ect would cost over such a prolonged period of time?  I'd be willng bet that in reality the cost will be much more at the end of the day.  That's the cost of doing business and is exactly why you don't see the major powers or many others with major fleets of the past.  Who the hell can afford it?  This is just some trying to make hay and get the masses all up in arms at the expense of the government of the day.
:

 

[Edward Campbell]

Honestly.  When I saw that piece about the life cycle cost of new vessels over a 30 year period,  I wasn't a bit surprised.  What did they expect the cost of personnel, fuel and refits ect would cost over such a prolonged period of time?  I'd be willng bet that in reality the cost will be much more at the end of the day.  That's the cost of doing business and is exactly why you don't see the major powers or many others with major fleets of the past.  Who the hell can afford it?  This is just some trying to make hay and get the masses all up in arms at the expense of the government of the day.
:

I'm pleased to see more realistic life cycle costs being used and publicized.

The downside is that these large numbers play into the hands of the large anti-military faction in Canada.

 

[jollyjacktar]

Yes, I agree it's good to be up front with it as well.  But, as I said it's someone who's trying to raise shit on the procurement at the Conservatives expense.  Pure politics.