• 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]

It would be nice to see this get some discussion tonight.
Canada's patched-up military: Too few dollars, too many missions
If there is an election debate needed, it's on Canada's military role and what we can afford
Brian Stewart, CBC News
28 Sep 2015

National defence is a dead zone in our elections, rarely debated in depth in a country where the military and its multiple problems are mostly out of sight, out of mind.

Sure, the bizarre complexities of the F-35 stealth fighter inevitably surface, as they did when Justin Trudeau vowed to scrap it entirely from the competition to replace the aging CF-18s.

But controversy briefly focused on one weapon system is hardly an adequate debate into the chronic ills of a long-underfunded military.

This national conversation is missing because politicians know defence is rarely a big vote getter, and voters seem content to let Ottawa spend as little on defence as it can get away with. And it gets away with a lot.

Somehow we scrape by with a dilapidated navy, now forced to rent foreign supply ships on a day-rate just to keep our much shrunken fleet occasionally ocean worthy.

Then there is an air force still bewildered over when it will get to replace the CF-18s we bought back in the 1980s; and an army impatient to see delivery of the new trucks that have been promised for a decade.

Those steadily rising military budgets and bold new weapons promised by the Harper government back in 2008 under the Canada First Defence Strategy have been derailed by budget cuts, spending freezes and procurement foul-ups.

While the Conservative government claims its defence spending over the years has risen massively, independent studies show the Tories actually underspent their own approved military budgets by close to $10 billion. They also chopped nearly $5 billion from defence since 2012, in large part to help Stephen Harper reach his much proclaimed budget surplus.

"The spending now on the military, when you adjust for the inflation is back where it was … at roughly 2007 levels," says David Perry, senior defence analyst with the Conference of Defence Associations.

We tend to think that the $18 to $20 billion we spend a year on defence amounts to an awful lot over a decade or so.

But it is actually far short of what's needed to sustain our forces in the work we expect them to do.

We're going to need to add on much more — between $33 billion and $42 billion across the coming decade — just to  adequately modernize and maintain our military, warns Parliamentary Budget Officer Jean-Denis Frechette.

And even that wouldn't satisfy our allies. Leaders of the NATO alliance, especially the U.S. and U.K., nag that we should be spending twice what we're now doing, up from one per cent of GDP to the two per cent that NATO members have set as the common goal.

The last time Canada hit that two per cent mark was (surprise) under Pierre Trudeau over 40 years ago, and we're not about to get even remotely close in the foreseeable future.

So we remain slumped near the bottom of NATO, 22 out of 28 in the percentage of GDP that we spend on a common defence.

The curious thing in all this is that the lower we sink in military spending, and the more tattered our equipment, the tougher our government promotes Canada's military "brand" and its role abroad

That surely is no accident. What Harper has done is shrug off the NATO nagging by trading dollars for duties.

This is done by setting up our armed forces as a reliable "go to" force in the Western alliance. A minor contributor, but a hyperactive one.

So, in just the past five years, Canadians have fought in Afghanistan, chased pirates in the Red Sea, bombed Libya, conducted air strikes against ISIS in Iraq and Syria, trained combat troops near front-line position in Kurdistan, Iraq, helped upgrade Ukraine's embattled infantry and flown fighter patrols over Baltic nations as part of NATO's show of force.

The Conservatives have not exactly turned our military into a mercenary force, but they have insisted that multi-million-dollar values be attached to this muscular service abroad and included in NATO accounts.

It's a powerful case, strongly made, at a time when many European NATO members are notoriously reluctant to volunteer for risky foreign missions. Harper's Canada by contrast seems to strain at the leash.

"We don't measure these things strictly in terms of dollars, we measure them in terms of capabilities," Harper has said when asked about Canada's share of NATO spending.

The problem, though, is that while a (often limited) show of capabilities overseas can give us some make-up points with allies, it does nothing to address the serious weaknesses that flow from dilapidated equipment and constant budget shortfalls.

Two years ago, a very rare red-flag memo from then chief of the defence staff, Gen. Tom Lawson, warned that continued budget cuts threatened the availability of key fleets of aircraft, ships and army vessels while "this in turn has an overall impact upon training and readiness."

The navy, tasked with defending seven million kilometres of Canadian waters has essentially been reduced to little more than a modest coastal defence force.

It lacks modern destroyers as command ships, and the dozen frigates left now lack dedicated large supply ships, which are essential for deep ocean operations.

Eventually our own "joint support ships" will be built as part of a planned $28 billion modernization. But this plan, too, has been dogged by constant procurement delays.

As for future promises, the Conservatives are vowing larger reserves and bigger budgets, but only starting two years from now.

Meanwhile the Liberals promise cheaper fighter jets and to make the navy "a priority," and the NDP vaguely vows to repair a military that both past Liberal and Conservative governments have allowed "to rust out."

Overall, it's pretty thin campaign gruel and perhaps what we've grown to expect.

Still, whoever gains power next month has a rude reality looming as the now staggering cost of delayed military modernization keeps escalating with inflation, and will be the bane of balanced budget hopes for many years to come.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-defence-spending-brian-stewart-1.3242611
 
Just to add on to this. We currently have 56k and change as trained effective strength service members (reg force). I had it in my head for some reason that we were still at 68k. That is small. Just to add some perspective the UK has 156k regular force. The Aussies about 58k and the mexicans about 200k.
 
Tcm621 said:
Just to add on to this. We currently have 56k and change as trained effective strength service members (reg force). I had it in my head for some reason that we were still at 68k. That is small. Just to add some perspective the UK has 156k regular force. The Aussies about 58k and the mexicans about 200k.

Are you comparing total strength or trained strength across the board?  It makes a significant difference - apples to apples, as it were...

Canada has always reported total strength, including those not yet occupationally qualified.  Thus, using the 56K figure is misleading, as it omits others that have traditionally been included.
 
Just a point:

Outside of Afghanistan all of those missions have been accomplished with minimal Canadian Army involvement.  They are RCN led.  They are RCAF led. They are CANSOFCOM led.  They don't require many bodies.  They don't require a large footprint.  They don't generate many Canadian casualties.

A massive chunk of the defence budget goes towards recruiting, training, maintaining, supporting and "divesting" soldiers of the Canadian Army that governments of all stripes are increasingly unwilling to use.

 
56k is trained effective strength (TES) meaning people who are trained (QL3 I believe) and able to do the job (ie not at JPSU,  etc). If you include non effective strength members,  it is 60k and change.  That is straight from this year's PARRA report on the DGPR site. We do not have 12 thousand people siting in pat platoon awaiting training.
 
dapaterson said:
Reg F is not at 60K and change.  You are misinterpreting the numbers.
It was 65K and change when I looked in June.

Anyway, a few individuals offer a path to a stronger military for party leaders to follow and the National Post offers it for all to view:

A roadmap to a stronger military
Paul H. Chapin, J.L. Granatstein, Brig. Gen. (Ret) Don Mcnamara And Hugh Segal
28 Sep 15

Canada today is a secure and prosperous nation, but security conditions have been deteriorating. A militant and violent Islamist terror is rampant throughout the Middle East without an agreed strategy to contain it, claiming over 100,000 lives, displacing more than 10 million, and causing a migration crisis of global dimensions. Russia and China have coerced neighbours and taken unilateral action over disputed areas - with the laws and institutions the world has counted on to maintain the peace for 70 years standing by helplessly. There are concerns about Iran acquiring nuclear weapons, and the lunatic regime in North Korea now has them. Meanwhile, the United States has retreated from its international leadership role.

As a highly globalized society, Canada has vital interests at risk - a secure homeland (freedom from fear), economic well-being (freedom from want), a stable world order, and the human values and democratic principles we believe in. What sustains our way of life are security at home and stability abroad. In these uncertain times, we can hope for the best or try to guess what most threatens us. Or we can build the capabilities a G7 country ought to have no matter what. We think it's time we put a priority on self-defence and on our ability to influence global events.

There is work to do. Who actually "stands on guard" for Canada today? The Canadian Armed Forces have the primary responsibility, but their overall military effectiveness is small compared to the job we expect them to do. Why is the world's second-largest country being defended by the world's 58th largest military force? Governments routinely declare defence to be a vital public policy, then treat it as a discretionary rather than mandatory activity, with a licence to raid the defence budget to finance other things. There is a callousness to this which is unbecoming of a people who cherish their country and want to see it secure. As Jack Granatstein has said, "Canadian governments, whatever their political stripe, cynically reckon that the men and women in uniform can get by with obsolete equipment and insufficient funding. After all, who worries about the need to protect Canada's national interests?"

Canadian industry has not helped by insisting on being a preferred supplier of military equipment it has limited capacity to produce. This has been costly: equipment has been much more expensive for the Canadian Armed Forces than for the militaries of other countries, it takes much longer to enter into service, and the delay requires millions in retrofits to keep old equipment running. Allies have played a part too, criticizing Canada for not "pulling its weight" in NATO - by which they really mean not doing more for the defence of Europe. This has distracted us from doing more for our own defence. As an ally in good standing we have a role to play in deterring Russian aggression, but Europe today is an economic giant fully capable of underwriting its own defence.

How to fix this? The starting point has to be Canada's vital interests and what it will take to protect them. It's what citizens understand, will support, and will pay for. Defence budgets have gone up and down over the decades, but they've never gone down when citizens were part of the discussion.

What capabilities should citizens be entitled to expect? Effective response to domestic crises with the military on hand when first responders cannot cope. Protection from terrorist attacks. The exercise of sovereignty over all of Canada's land, sea, and airspace, including the strategically important and ecologically vulnerable North. Full partnership with the United States in the common defence of North America. An influential voice on international security issues. The capacity to make a significant military contribution to shaping a favourable international security environment. Strong support for humanitarian operations. This is an entirely reasonable and feasible agenda, but citizens are not getting much of it.

So what's blocking things? Mainly how we think about defence. First off, let's agree Canada is worth it. That means Canadians should have armed forces able to defend their country and support their international goals. This is partly a matter of ensuring the forces have the means to do what we ask of them. It's also a function of how we manage them, equip them, and finance them. Canadians need to understand better how important military human resources are to their security, not allow them to be deployed for capricious reasons when vital national interests are not at stake, and respect the "social covenant" between the military and citizens. When service members put their lives on the line for the nation, citizens owe them the best training, equipment and care available. Governments should spare no expense to look after wounded veterans and their families. Without limits? Are there limits to the liability service members accept?

Military procurement has been a disaster because it has been driven by just about every consideration other than getting the troops the equipment they need when they need it. Bordering on the Atlantic and Pacific, Canada needs a deployable blue-water navy to meet its strategic requirements, not to fulfil industrial and regional development aspirations. Occasionally, procurement works well. In 2006, the government decided it wouldn't settle for leasing Ukrainian cargo planes to move supplies to Canadian troops in Afghanistan and gave notice it would purchase four large Boeing C-17 transport aircraft. It took delivery of the first one just a year later. The lesson: you can do it if you want to.

We also have to stop being sad-sacks about whether we can "afford" something. Canada is fabulously wealthy and could spend much more on defence. Its closest friends all spend more proportionately - and they don't have to close hospitals, fire teachers, or throw single mothers into the street to "afford" it. Those who predict this sort of thing need to be asked why they didn't even notice, let alone complain, when Canada's defence budget doubled to help finance the Afghanistan campaign. If the budget can go from $10 billion to $22 billion in 10 years without anyone noticing (besides maybe a few folks at DND and Finance), why not to $30 billion? That's not an outrageous number. It would represent about 10 per cent of the federal budget, not an unreasonable portion to devote to protecting the other 90 per cent and the kind of country that that budget helps sustain. It's more like five per cent today.

Finally, let's end Canadians' irrational love affair with "UN peacekeeping" which many believe can and should be Canada's role in the world. They worship a myth, not grounded in reality. First, peacekeeping is a dangerous business; 3,386 members of UN peacekeeping missions have been killed since 1948, including 121 Canadians, and the trend is worsening. Second, peace operations are no less worthy just because they are not UN-led. Increasingly, the UN has had to mandate other organizations (NATO, EU, African Union) to undertake the really difficult peace operations (Balkans, Afghanistan, East Africa, Congo). And third, Canadian decisions to participate in peacekeeping have been motivated by realpolitik not altruism - to keep otherwise inconsequential regional disputes becoming major wars and leading to nuclear confrontation. Bottom line: the creation of conditions for peace today requires combat-capable forces, not observers in blue berets.

What to do? The list of good things to do could fill a volume. We have selected eight practical measures which will make a difference.

Instill a sense of urgency

The defence of Canada and its interests deserves a greater sense of urgency than governments have been giving it. Good ideas have been developed and sensible plans made, only to have them languish and allocations left unspent. At the current pace, previous capabilities won't be restored until 2025 at the earliest - a long time for a serious country to continue to live with aged fighters and warships and for its Prime Minister to be able to offer only token contributions to shaping a favourable international security environment.

Issue a national security strategy

Unlike our major allies, we have never articulated an overall national security strategy - a set of policies - to guide the activities of the many departments and agencies of government involved in internal and international security affairs. Such a strategy would put a security plan in place which could be monitored and adjusted as necessary, and it would help end the interminable arguments over priorities, jurisdictions, and budgets.

Invest in information and ideas

Governments should have the best information available to make the best possible decisions on national security issues. This is not something they now can count on. Canada should invest in an Office of National Assessment such as Australia has, tasked with gathering data from both classified and open sources and producing independent assessments directly for the Prime Minister. We should also invest in the intellectual capital on which our aspirations to exercise international leadership depend. There has been such a "dumbing down" of Canadian policy capacity that Canada no longer has much to offer in solving international problems. We need to build up policy capacity in government and reverse the reductions in Canada's diplomatic and military staff in the places decisions are made.

Increase the size of the Armed Forces

Canada's armed forces are too small and stretched too thin to adequately protect its interests in the complex and uncertain times in which we live. A total force of 150,000, including 50,000 in a Ready Reserve, would be a realistic five-year goal. Canada has one of the smallest Reserve forces in the world. The Reserves are mainly Army units trained for combat and available to reinforce the Regular Force as necessary. They are also the key resource when national calamities occur. So far, the Canadian Armed Forces have been able to respond when called upon, but one cannot be sanguine about their ability to handle a series of events, multiple events at the same time, or a major event like the earthquake some foresee for the west coast.

Ensure a capability for enforcement action in the North

Canada needs to be able to enforce national authority over national territory, seas, and airspace. This doesn't require, as many believe, a permanent armed presence in the North.

The constant would be effective satellite and aircraft patrols so that the proper authorities can know what's going on and direct military assets to areas where and when sovereignty enforcement is necessary. The challenge is to ensure the Canadian Armed Forces have a persistent ability to take effective identification, interception, and enforcement action especially in strategically important locations whenever others are present.

Participate in ballistic missile defence

Canada was a full partner with the United States in defending the continent until 2005, when it unilaterally absented itself from a role in dealing with the gravest new threat the continent faces, ballistic missiles. The arguments for participation are stronger today than ever, while those against are as vapid as ever. Right now, Canada is the only NATO member not involved in ballistic missile defence.

Buy F-35s

Canada must also replace its CF-18s with F-35s. Despite the dust thrown up, the facts are clear. Canada needs a fifth-generation fighter to be interoperable with the U.S. in continental defence and with allies in coalition operations. Anything less means Canadian fighters can be seen and engaged by enemy aircraft before they even know they are in the vicinity. The only fifth generation fighter being manufactured in the west is the F-35. Its costs are not "out of control"; the manufacturer's price has dropped by 50 per cent since 2007. What has been out of control are the estimates of the costs and of the F-35's lifespan - from DND's 20 years to PBO's 30 years, to the AG's 36 years, to KPMG's 42 years. If the F-35 is "too expensive" for Canada, why have 12 other countries apart from the U.S. not found it too expensive to place orders for 674 aircraft? .

Restore the Navy

According to DND, "The construction of the first Canadian Surface Combatant is expected to begin in the early part of the next decade." Meanwhile, the Navy no longer has any support vessels to replenish its existing warships at sea and is looking at options to fill the role until two new auxiliary oiler replenishment (AOR) vessels become operational around 2021. This is not what the Chretien, Martin or Harper governments had planned. Since 1994, the idea had been to acquire not two AORs but four much more capable "joint support ships." The larger number would provide the Navy the flexibility required to operate off two coasts, while a JSS can both resupply warships and sealift troops, equipment, supplies, and helicopters for international operations. O Canada. Most of us know the words and can sing them at hockey games. But many fewer of us pause to think about what they mean. And very few of us are actually involved in "standing on guard." Let's change that.


Excerpted from O Canada: Who Stands on Guard for Thee? An Open Letter to the Political Party Leaders. Published by the Vimy Institute.
 
dapaterson said:
Reg F is not at 60K and change.  You are misinterpreting the numbers.
I'll look again tomorrow but it seemed pretty cut and dried. 
 
Tcm621 said:
I'll look again tomorrow but it seemed pretty cut and dried.

I suspect you are omitting the BTL & SUTL.  Rather fundamental things.
 
I was a little off. TES is 56,061. Prefered manning Level is 60,416 and total strength is 65,715. Regardless, my intial point was that we have 56k who are functional.
 
Tcm621 said:
I was a little off. TES is 56,061. Prefered manning Level is 60,416 and total strength is 65,715. Regardless, my intial point was that we have 56k who are functional.

That's 56K of the 60K target, of the 68K target paid.

And I know of ongoing studies to validate whether the 60K is an achievable goal within the 68K cap; BTL/SUTL/SPHL etc all place demands on the system that are known, but may not be currently met with their allocations.
 
dapaterson said:
That's 56K of the 60K target, of the 68K target paid.

And I know of ongoing studies to validate whether the 60K is an achievable goal within the 68K cap; BTL/SUTL/SPHL etc all place demands on the system that are known, but may not be currently met with their allocations.

Maybe you can expand on that a bit.  We are aiming for 60k TES with another 8k assumed to be non-effective for various reasons such as training, injured, etc? The way I see it, they are setting the bar low and failing to achieve it. As a G7 country and the second biggest landmass in the world, even a 60k military is a fraction of what we need and could reasonably afford.
 
And while you are at it DAP perhaps you can square those numbers with these plans....

http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-reports-pubs-report-plan-priorities/2015-analysis-programs-strategic-outcome.page#p4_4_1
http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-reports-pubs-report-plan-priorities/2015-reserve-force.page

I have a cup of coffee if you want it.
 
For the Reg F #s: DND does not manage by PAA; it only reports by PAA.  Meaning that the reports are crafted by machine (with some human intervention) and may or may not seem to align with reality.

For the Res F: I'm aware of a number of ongoing intiatives to improve the information reported.  Which includes better breakdowns of full time vs part time Reservists, and better attribution of where the full-time Res F is employed - in Res units or in the rather amply girthed HQs Canada seems to love so much.
 
dapaterson said:
For the Reg F #s: DND does not manage by PAA; it only reports by PAA.  Meaning that the reports are crafted by machine (with some human intervention) and may or may not seem to align with reality.

For the Res F: I'm aware of a number of ongoing intiatives to improve the information reported.  Which includes better breakdowns of full time vs part time Reservists, and better attribution of where the full-time Res F is employed - in Res units or in the rather amply girthed HQs Canada seems to love so much.

So, wrt the Regs,

Assuming that Lt Col Boyd knew what he was talking about,

ooda-loop-powerpoint-ppt-template.jpg


How far is the Observation from the Orientation and how many iterations are you looking at before they match?

I gather the Reserve numbers are, charitably, indeterminate?
 
PAA is an annual roll-up and will lag, so by the time of its reporting, it will never match the actual figures.  PAA is meant as a reporting/context tool, not the actual positional management tools.

:2c:

Cheers
G2G
 
Good2Golf said:
PAA is an annual roll-up and will lag, so by the time of its reporting, it will never match the actual figures.  PAA is meant as a reporting/context tool, not the actual positional management tools.

:2c:

Cheers
G2G
It should be fairly close though, right? Unless we have a massive hire or release hit, the numbers should be a good estimate.

To me the fact that we have 56k TES aiming for a PML of 60k is ridiculous. We are basically aiming for 60th place in the world. We are G7 country and the second largest land mass. Anything less that top a 20 military is embarrassing.
I know it's not all about numbers but at the end of the day it takes bodies to function at the top and we are about 140 thousand people away from being in the top 25 in terms of numbers. If we doubled our numbers, and gave them the kit to function we might, maybe,  be able to argue for top 20 status.
 
Tcm621 said:
It should be fairly close though, right? Unless we have a massive hire or release hit, the numbers should be a good estimate.

To me the fact that we have 56k TES aiming for a PML of 60k is ridiculous. We are basically aiming for 60th place in the world. We are G7 country and the second largest land mass. Anything less that top a 20 military is embarrassing.
I know it's not all about numbers but at the end of the day it takes bodies to function at the top and we are about 140 thousand people away from being in the top 25 in terms of numbers. If we doubled our numbers, and gave them the kit to function we might, maybe,  be able to argue for top 20 status.


And that is the sort of argument that we, informed citizens, can and should make to politicians.

The politicians and the senior bureaucrats have expert advice on everything from equipment to force structure, and they should follow it. You and I  might disagree with the advice being offered, but the top level policy makers are duty bound to listen to the real experts in the government's employ.

We citizens, on the other hand, can and should say what sort of foreign, security and defence policies we want.

If we are very, very certain of our ground we can even speak about capabilities. I, for example, would feel on safe ground to say to a political candidate that my vote goes to the person and party promising and delivering 24/7, near real time surveillance over all of Canada's territory, the maritime approaches to that territory and the airspace over both. I will know that I am asking for (a) constellation(s) of satellites in non-geostationary orbit, land based radars, airborne warning and control systems, land and undersea sensors and control and analysis facilities, but I, personally, would feel confident to say that. I would not feel competent to say what fighter jet we need, much less how many, nor what ships or tanks or boots.

If enough of us tell the politicians enough reasonable things ~ if we all stay in our lanes, in other words ~ they might listen to some of it.

Our lanes are to say what we want; the experts (military people, engineers, contractors) are there to tell the government how it can be delivered. We, finally, have to tell our politicians that we are (or are not) willing to pay for it all.
 
Tcm621 said:
It should be fairly close though, right? Unless we have a massive hire or release hit, the numbers should be a good estimate.

To me the fact that we have 56k TES aiming for a PML of 60k is ridiculous. We are basically aiming for 60th place in the world. We are G7 country and the second largest land mass. Anything less that top a 20 military is embarrassing.
I know it's not all about numbers but at the end of the day it takes bodies to function at the top and we are about 140 thousand people away from being in the top 25 in terms of numbers. If we doubled our numbers, and gave them the kit to function we might, maybe,  be able to argue for top 20 status.

...but (most) Canadians only want to believe that we are influential and strong, etc...  They don't want to pay the price (offset by reducing other benefits) that such a military would take.  It's hard enough to make a case for 1.1% of GDP...
 
Good2Golf said:
...but (most) Canadians only want to believe that we are influential and strong, etc...  They don't want to pay the price (offset by reducing other benefits) that such a military would take.  It's hard enough to make a case for 1.1% of GDP...

I think it would be easier (not by much) to make the case if we could increase our manufacturing base as part of that increased spending. I know I am asking for a miracle but if we could manufacture more at home it might go better to make the case. More production licenses, and manufacturing at home rather then build else where and deliver.
 
Back
Top