The Defence Budget [superthread]

[dapaterson]

Last I looked the majority of DND civilians were employed by the three environments, mostly in base support type functions.  Shrink the number of bases to significantly shrink the number of civilians.

 

[Kirkhill]

Meanwhile

'Sweden could be at war within a few years'
Published: 26 Jan 2016 17:04 GMT+01:00

Sweden could be at war in just a few years, a top military officer has claimed in an internal document sent to soldiers and Swedish Armed Forces staff and seen by Swedish media.

Majority of Swedes back return to military service (04 Jan 16)
Swedes to get alerts on foreign intrusions (16 Sep 15)
Russian jets spotted off Sweden's east coast (31 Aug 15)

Sweden's Major General Anders Brännström made the comments in a brochure for representatives attending an annual Armed Forces conference in Boden next week.

"The global situation we are experiencing and which is also made clear by the strategic decision leads to the conclusion that we could be at war within a few years. For us in the army we have to, with all force we can muster, implement the political decisions," he wrote, reported the Expressen tabloid.

Since the end of the Cold War the Swedish Armed Forces have focused mainly on providing assistance to international missions abroad, but according to Brännström the strategy has now changed to "capability of armed battle against a qualified opponent".

The goal, he wrote in the leaflet, is to create "a threshold effect against military attacks and ultimately defend Sweden".

Sweden has made moves towards stepping up its military capability in the past year, with Defence Minister Peter Hultqvist extending cooperation with other neighbouring countries as well as Nato allies in the face of rising tensions in the Baltic region.

Sweden's Security Service Säpo said last year that the biggest intelligence threat against Sweden in 2014 came from Russia. Its stern words are largely credited with sparking increased Nato support in the traditionally non-aligned Nordic country.

Supreme Commander Micael Bydén has previously said that Sweden is not under any immediate military threat, but has warned that conflict may increase in the Nordic region.

"We should be aware that we are continuously being exposed to intelligence gathering and campaigns. We also know that areas in our region, the Baltic and increasingly the Arctic, constitute areas of friction between Russia and the West," he told a military conference in Sälen earlier this month.

http://www.thelocal.se/20160126/sweden-could-be-at-war-within-a-few-years

 

[Kirkhill]

And in Denmark

Denmark's status in Nato threatened: top official
Published: 11 Aug 2015 08:42 GMT+02:00

The former chairman of the Nato Military Committee has warned that Denmark risks losing "visibility and influence" in the military alliance due to budget cuts and decreased capabilities.

Denmark will join Nato's missile defense system (22 Aug 14)
Denmark to play key role in Nato's Russia plans (31 Jul 14)
Danish military seeing a 'critical' loss of officers (28 Jul 14)
Historic jet purchase enters new phase (21 Jul 14)

General Knud Bartels, Denmark’s former defence minister and the recently-replaced chairman of the Nato Military Committee, warned new Defence Minister Carl Holst that Denmark’s relevance in Nato is threatened by holes in the defence budget and “a growing discrepancy between [Denmark’s] ambition level and [its] ability to contribute” to the military alliance.

Berlingske newspaper obtained and published a two-page letter sent by Bartels just before he ended his term at the head of the Military Committee in June. In the letter, Bartels expressed concern about Denmark’s planned military spending, which he says fails to keep pace with growing Russian aggression. 

The former defence minister warns his successor that “the changing security policy situation” and coming changes to Nato’s structure threaten to leave Denmark on the outside looking in.

“I see Denmark’s role in the alliance as challenged. At the same time, Denmark will after my retirement as the chairman of the Military Committee no longer have people placed in leadership positions in the alliance, neither military nor civil, thus missing visibility and influence,” Bartels wrote.

According to Bartels, Denmark’s Nato partners are worried that Denmark’s coming massive purchase of new fighter jets will result in cuts to the nation’s defence budget.

He also wrote that “Denmark’s military level could come under pressure from the alliance’s expectations”, especially when viewed against “Russia’s security and defence policy ambitions east and north of the alliance”.

When Nato holds its top meeting in Warsaw next year, Bartels said that Denmark will be under massive pressure to present a plan for significant military contributions.

Holst has already said he supports more spending on the military and government support parties the Danish People’s Party (DF) and the Conservatives urged Holst to heed Bartel’s warnings.

“We have an idea that Denmark should be a safe and secure country with a good defence, but we aren’t because our defence lies in tatters. We haven’t used enough money for a long time and we have chipped away our capacities,” DF spokeswoman Marie Krarup told Berlingske.

Rasmus Jarlov of the Conservatives told Berlingske that Bartels’s letter reinforces the need to spend more on Denmark’s military capabilities.

“The navy needs ships and submarines, the air force is missing surveillance capabilities, fighter jets and anti-aircraft defence while the army is missing combat vehicles, trucks and artillery. It’s hard to say who is missing the most,” he told Berlingske.

Holt declined to comment specifically on Bartel’s letter but told Berlingske that he “listens with great interest to all viewpoints”. Holt also pointed out that the there are commitments to invest some three billion kroner annually in new military equipment while another three billion is spent each year on maintenance.

http://www.thelocal.dk/20150811/denmarks-status-in-nato-threatened-top-official

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

Our leader is too busy with selfies.

 

[McG]

Last I looked the majority of DND civilians were employed by the three environments, mostly in base support type functions.  Shrink the number of bases to significantly shrink the number of civilians.

So, you are saying there is merit to ERC's suggestion of super bases with air wings and army brigades living together?

 

[runormal]

And while you're at it maybe ask why you need 1 civilian employee to support less than 3 reg force members...many of which themselves are "tails" supporting a very tiny number of "teeth".

We could say the same thing about the ratio of Officers to NCMs..

The thing is throwing more money to DND isn't going to solve the problem. A 2 year " freeze" pegged slightly above inflation, while conducting a thorough review is an excellent idea. When you have excellent ideas such as Div Patches, Royal XXXX, high-vis ranks and name tags, pips and crowns , new "Slip on" for the new combat shirt, new air force rank structures, while mulling about changing beret colours taking precedent over replacements for LSVW'S, SEA KINGS, Supply Ships, Destroyers and quality Boots. It is evident that theire arr spending problems and some waste that could  easily be removed from the budget.

I'm not saying we need to more with less but without actually reviewing what we have, what we dont need and what we actually need, we will never solve the problem.

 

[dapaterson]

Exactly. When money is plentiful all the silly ideas can be funded. A little hunger helps focus attention.

 

[McG]

Exactly. When money is plentiful all the silly ideas can be funded. A little hunger helps focus attention.

I don't know.  I would like to think it is true, but our current fascination with aesthetics kicked off as budgets were being reduced.  I also seem to recal Granstien commenting, in his history on Canada's Army, that our focus also turned to dress and regimental fashions in past budget reduction (specifically in reference to post World War One or Two). 

... And I don't trust HQs and bureaucracies to make he decisions that are best for the CAF as opposed to the decisions that are best for their local empires or stovepipes.  I have already seen an L2 HQ harvest SWE from an L4 unit because it wanted more staff.

 

[MilEME09]

I don't know.  I would like to think it is true, but our current fascination with aesthetics kicked off as budgets were being reduced.  I also seem to recal Granstien commenting, in his history on Canada's Army, that our focus also turned to dress and regimental fashions in past budget reduction (specifically in reference to post World War One or Two). 

... And I don't trust HQs and bureaucracies to make he decisions that are best for the CAF as opposed to the decisions that are best for their local empires or stovepipes.  I have already seen an L2 HQ harvest SWE from an L4 unit because it wanted more staff.

This is a radical idea but what about bringing in an outside, friendly military of comparable size to review everything with fresh eyes? like the Aussies or the Italians? then they can go "hey why the hell are you spending so much on X, while project Y has been stalled for months?"

 

[dimsum]

This is a radical idea but what about bringing in an outside, friendly military of comparable size to review everything with fresh eyes? like the Aussies or the Italians? then they can go "hey why the hell are you spending so much on X, while project Y has been stalled for months?"

<sarcasm>

Because then we would look bad in front of other people? 

</sarcasm>

The Aussies would probably be a good model for what you suggest, minus the fact that they have more credible threats (without the continental US at their doorstep) and therefore have more political buy-in for the capabilities they have/need.

 

[McG]

Lots of money not spend by DND last fiscal year and based on older stories, I expect the current FY is going a lot worse.  Still, it would be nice to imagine our equipment deficit being closed sometime in the not too distant future.

Defence short "several tens of billions" for equipment: analyst
Murray Brewster, The Canadian Press
Published Monday, February 1, 2016 9:08PM EST

OTTAWA -- A Senate committee has been told there is a shortfall of tens of billions of dollars between funding that's been set aside for military equipment and the actual price tag for what the military says it needs.

Defence analyst Dave Perry of the Canadian Global Affairs Institute testified that the "mismatch" is one of the biggest problems facing the new Liberal government as it seeks to overhaul the country's defence policy.

"At present, the defence procurement system is trying to buy more equipment that DND can afford," said Perry. "There is roughly three times more demand for project funding than there are available funds, leaving the capital acquisition budget short by several tens of billions of dollars, even with the planned increase to the defence budget that the government has promised to honour."

There are at least 100 pieces of equipment that Defence has deemed essential to fulfil its mandate in the coming years and only a portion of that list is funded, he said.

The dysfunctional military procurement system was a bane to the former Harper government, but despite reforms implemented two year ago, roughly 63 per cent the projects listed in the federal government's defence acquisition guide are late and only 34 per cent are on time.

Perry says since 2007 a total of nearly $9 billion in allocated capital funding for military hardware was not spent and much of that went back to the federal treasury.

He noted the figure rose significantly in the last budget year, which concluded in March 2015 and saw $1.5 billion in funds earmarked for purchasing capital equipment go unspent.

The Harper government introduced its much-heralded Defence Procurement Strategy in February 2014, an initiative meant to streamline the process and leverage the participation of Canadian industry.

But Perry told the Senate defence committee that the effort has not yet produced results.

"To be blunt, I hope the new government finds that lack of progress unacceptable," he said.

The Liberals promised a comprehensive defence policy review to replace the former Conservative government's 2007-era Canada First Defence Strategy. That document had a list of planned equipment purchases, but within 18 months of its publication National Defence privately deemed some of the projects unaffordable.

The new review -- the first comprehensive analysis since the Chretien government's 1994 defence white paper -- is key for tough decisions the Trudeau government will have to make, including how to replace the Air Force's aging CF-18 jet fighters.

Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan has said he wants the policy review completed by the end of the year -- a commitment he reinforced last week in a speech to the Canada 2020 think-tank.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/defence-short-several-tens-of-billions-for-equipment-analyst-1.2760918

 

[PuckChaser]

Between what we need and what we can afford, I don't think I'm in the minority to know that afford trumps need 100% of the time, across all parties. I'd love to be wrong, though.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Personally, I don't like the way this article is phrased.

This sentence annoys me:

"the defence procurement system is trying to buy more equipment that DND can afford"/i] .

It makes it look like its a DND problem, and that DND is the organization that is failing to fund defence procurement properly.

This is kind of an upside down view of the situation. It's DND that determines what is needed to carry out the mission it is charged with. Then Defence procurement comes up with the costed out project. But the financing of the projects, that is totally outside DND or Defence procurement's purview: It rests with the TB and Finance Departments, in other words, the government - not DND. It would have been more precise to say:

"The defence procurement system is trying to buy more equipment to fulfill DND's needs than Treasury Board is allowing it to buy."

And BTW, the composition of the TB, which is a committee of the cabinet whose members are appointed by the PM, is usually a good indication of where the PM of the day's priorities lie.

PM JT has assigned to the Board Scott Brisson as Chair (ok, good choice) but saddled him with the Ministers for (1) Immigration, refugee and Citizenship, (2) Finance [compulsory appointment], (3) Health, (4) Families, childhood and social development and (5) Environment and climate change.

Even the "alternates" come from (1) Agriculture, (2) House Leader, (3) Natural resources, (4) Infrastructure and (5) Democratic institutions.

Overall, absolutely no one from the departments that have some form of responsibility for the safety or security of the citizens of the country (DND, Public Safety, Justice, Attorney-General, Transport) are on the Board, and only in the alternates are there any ministers that might be considered, but even then only indirectly, interested in the economy (Agriculture, Natural resources and infrastructure).

Guess how high defence procurement and DND are going to be on the TB list of people to care for.
/RANT OFF 

 

[Kirkhill]

So, when a new government comes into office and sits down with the CDS - who goes first?  The New Government or the CDS?

Does the CDS tell them what he CAN do?  Or does the New Government tell him what they WANT to do?

Between CAN and WANT is a gap.

Who supplies the info to fill the gap?

I would guess that the CDS would detail the gap-fillers necessary.

Then somebody has to estimate the cost of filling the gap.

Who does that?  And is it done before the PM has had a chance to chat with Treasury Board and allows his Defence Minister to issue a Policy Statement (white paper or what have you)?

It seems a bit strange to me that capabilities are always under-funded, that there is never enough money, and that it is never possible to do what was originally proposed.

Who got the math wrong?  The original estimator?  Or the current project managers?

 

[Old Sweat]

Short answer - the PCO decides for both of them and then sorts the details out with the PMO, Finance and TB.

 

[Kirkhill]

From Sir Humphrey's web site.

http://www.pco-bcp.gc.ca/index.asp?lang=eng&page=prec


The Canadian Ministry (by order of precedence)
[PDF version]

The order of precedence for the ministry is determined by the Prime Minister. The order in which ministers are sworn into the ministry is also determined by the Prime Minister. For the November 4, 2015 swearing-in ceremony, ministers were sworn in alternating between men and women, according to their place in the order of precedence.

The Right Honourable Justin P. J. Trudeau
Prime Minister

The Honourable Ralph Goodale
Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness

The Honourable Lawrence MacAulay
Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food

The Honourable Stéphane Dion
Minister of Foreign Affairs

The Honourable John McCallum
Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship

The Honourable Carolyn Bennett
Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs





The Honourable Scott Brison
President of the Treasury Board

The Honourable Dominic LeBlanc
Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

The Honourable Navdeep Singh Bains
Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development

The Honourable William Francis Morneau
Minister of Finance

The Honourable Jody Wilson-Raybould
Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada

The Honourable Judy M. Foote
Minister of Public Services and Procurement




The Honourable Chrystia Freeland
Minister of International Trade

The Honourable Jane Philpott
Minister of Health

The Honourable Jean-Yves Duclos
Minister of Families, Children and Social Development

The Honourable Marc Garneau
Minister of Transport

The Honourable Marie-Claude Bibeau
Minister of International Development and La Francophonie

The Honourable James Gordon Carr
Minister of Natural Resources

The Honourable Mélanie Joly
Minister of Canadian Heritage

The Honourable Diane Lebouthillier
Minister of National Revenue

The Honourable Kent Hehr
Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence

The Honourable Catherine McKenna
Minister of Environment and Climate Change

The Honourable Harjit Singh Sajjan
Minister of National Defence

The Honourable MaryAnn Mihychuk
Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour

The Honourable Amarjeet Sohi
Minister of Infrastructure and Communities

The Honourable Maryam Monsef
Minister of Democratic Institutions

The Honourable Carla Qualtrough
Minister of Sport and Persons with Disabilities

The Honourable Hunter Tootoo
Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard

The Honourable Kirsty Duncan
Minister of Science

The Honourable Patricia A. Hajdu
Minister of Status of Women

The Honourable Bardish Chagger
Minister of Small Business and Tourism

 

[Ostrozac]

The order of precedence for the ministry is determined by the Prime Minister.

That may be so by the letter of the law, but by custom aren't Ministers and their Ministry granted precedence by the PM in the order that the Ministers were sworn into the Privy Council? The order of precedence listed exactly tracks with seniority in the privy council, going back to Ralph Goodale and Lawrence MacAulay (the two senior Ministers in Cabinet) who were both sworn in on the same day (4 Nov 1993).

 

[Happy Guy]

Ref: http://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/canada-among-bottom-third-of-allies-in-defence-spending-nato-says


Canada among bottom third of allies in defence spending, NATO says

Lee Berthiaume, Ottawa Citizen
More from Lee Berthiaume, Ottawa Citizen

Published on: February 3, 2016 | Last Updated: February 3, 2016 8:54 PM EST
​

Canada is near the back of the pack when it comes to defence spending among NATO members — a trend that is expected to worsen under the Liberal government, and which could cause trouble with our allies.

Like all NATO members, Canada has repeatedly committed to spending two per cent of its gross domestic product, or GDP, on defence spending. And like most of its allies, Canada has repeatedly failed to fulfil that commitment. Only the United States, United Kingdom and a few others have consistently met the target.

But a new NATO report estimates Canada spent just one per cent of GDP on defence last year, leaving it in the bottom third of allies. Only Italy and Spain, whose economies have been struggling, Luxembourg Belgium, and Eastern European members Slovenia, Hungary and the Czech Republic ranked lower.

Canada’s lagging performance is not especially new, as it has hovered around the one-per-cent mark for the past few years. But the Liberals themselves have predicted the figure will decline even further under their watch over the next few years.
The previous Conservative government promised in last year’s federal budget to boost defence spending over the next decade. In real terms, that meant growing the military’s $20-billion budget by about $2.3 billion by 2026.

During the election campaign, the Liberals promised to stick with the Conservatives’ plan — even though they had predicted months earlier that defence spending would actually fall to 0.89 per cent of GDP under the plan thanks to economic growth surpassing the planned spending increases.

“Their (the Conservatives’) promises of increased funding are not credible in light of (past) promises and cuts,” then-Liberal defence critic Joyce Murray told The Canadian Press in April.

“And, even if they were to implement this delayed increase, this would still reduce our military’s share of GDP to just point eight per cent, which is unprecedented.”

Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan’s spokeswoman, Jordan Owens, said in an email that the government “is committed to maintaining current Defence spending levels, including current planned increases.

“Canada joined allies in the Defence Investment Pledge,” she added, in reference to the two per cent target. “But it’s important to note that the pledge is aspirational and that nations calculate their 2 per cent differently. Percentage of GDP can misrepresent how much is actually being spent on capabilities. We’re focused on outputs and ensuring we have the necessary capabilities to support operations.”
The National Post reported last week that the British government has sent diplomatic notes to Canada and other NATO allies urging them to bolster defence spending. Defence analyst David Perry of the Canadian Global Affairs Institute believes it could be only a matter of time before allies begin complaining in public.

Successive U.S. ambassadors to Canada publicly pressured the then-Liberal government in the late 1990s and early 2000s to increase its defence spending. But Perry said the Conservative government was able to get away with underspending while Canadian troops fought in Afghanistan, Libya, Iraq and Syria.

“The past government would make the argument that ‘We aren’t spending the same amount, but we are doing other things,’” Perry said. “And there was some credence to that argument because you didn’t see active pressure on Canada to spend more.”

The Liberals have promised to withdraw Canadian fighter jets from Iraq and Syria, where they have been bombing Islamic State targets since 2014 but say they will fight ISIL in other ways.

Still, Perry says, Canada’s absence from a major anti-ISIL meeting in Paris last month suggests allies don’t consider it a key player. And unless Canada steps up with a new contribution in Iraq and Syria, it could be only a matter of time before the pressure to pull its weight in dollars begins to ratchet up.

“If we continue to make significant operational contributions to NATO, then I think that we realistically continue to get somewhat of a pass in the fact that we’re not even close to that neighbourhood,” he said. “If not, then I think our allies look at us in a significantly different way then they have been.”

lberthiaume@postmedia.com

Twitter.com/leeberthiaume



Canadian defence spending, by the numbers

$20 billion: Estimated Canadian defence spending last year.

$17 billion: Estimated Canadian defence spending last year, when adjusted for inflation to 2005 figures.

$16 billion: Canadian defence spending in 2005, the year before the Conservatives came to power.

1 per cent: Estimated amount of Canada’s gross domestic product spent on defence last year. This is the number that analysts and allies look at closest as a way to compare between different NATO members and different points in time.

2.42 per cent: Estimated average amount of GDP spent on defence by all NATO members.

1.43 per cent: Estimated average amount of GDP spent on defence by European NATO members.

1.1 per cent: Average amount of Canada’s GDP spent on defence annually between 2000 and 2004. This is during the height of the so-called “decade of darkness” under previous Liberal governments.

1.8 per cent: Average amount of Canada’s GDP spent on defence annually between 1990 and 1994. This is during the tail end of the Cold War.

2 per cent: The amount of GDP that NATO has long asked its members to spend on defence.

2009: Canadian defence spending peaks at 1.4 per cent of GDP under the federal Conservative government. This also marks the peak of Canada’s military involvement in Afghanistan.

28: Total number of NATO members.

Seven: Number of NATO members that spent less on defence as a share of GDP than Canada last year. They are Belgium, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Italy, Luxembourg, Slovenia and Spain.

Source: NATO, Bank of Canada


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

From all indications the DND budget will decrease in the next budget.  The question is how many CAF members will the Government allow DND to cut? To 50,000 like Gen (Ret'd) Hiller suggested?

 

[Cloud Cover]

Besides cutting personnel, they need to decide which obsolete capabilities need to be axed, which relevant and useful capabilities need to be scaled back, and which parts of our foreign policy that currently rest on defence posture, will change in nature. Do not look for anything that signals any degree of serious intention of improving overall capability or efficiency.

Mr. Harper epically failed in rebuilding and revitalizing the CAF. Although Trudeau could do worse, even if he does nothing at all the green machine will implode, if it hasn't already. IMO Trudeau will take the opportunity to purposely, and with a very clear policy intent, substantially and permanently deliberately disarm and disengage the military from long established practices and relationships. When doing so, I hope that he will not take the path that all previous governments engaged at with various degrees of stealth. The man is some sort of ideological pacifist, it would be refreshing if he would just say so and move on. At least people would know where he really stands, and I think the majority of Canadians might support him, if he moves quickly.

 

[Good2Golf]

...OR......Canada - #6 in NATO spending.

Ref: Defence Expenditures of NATO Countries (2008-2015)

...from Table 2 - Defence Expenditures (USD) for 2015

USA - $649.9B
GBR -  $59.7B
FRA -  $43.8B
GER -  $39.7B
ITA -    $18.3B
CAN -  $15.8B


...OR....

CAN (15.8B USD) = 15.9B USD (ALB + BUL + CRO + CZR + DEN + EST + HUN + LAT + LUX + POR + ROM + SLR + SLV)


Is %GDP one way of measuring Def Exp?  Yes.

Is absolute expenditures another way?  Yes.


:2c:

Regards
G2G