• 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]

Well, based on the latest liberal policy release, in my opinion, we can definitely count on another decade of darkness if the Liberals are able to grab the reins again. "Reevalute the major equipment purchases" is just veiled speech for hack and slash.
 
The new major purchases/expenditures without contracts planned for the near future--whatever that is--are ("Phase D" at link):
http://www.vcds.forces.gc.ca/sites/page-eng.asp?page=8667

Navy:

JSS: $131M (?!?)
A/OPS: $2.6B

Army:

CCV $1.8B
TAPV $1.0B
MSVS $1.1B (part of the overall Medium Support Vehicle System actually does have a contract
http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/pri/2/pro-pro/msvs-ssvm-eng.asp )
LAV III Upgrade $1.2B

Then there's the new fighter (read F-35) that's not on the list but seems rather imminent:
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/39415.165.html

And then there's the interminably elusive new fixed-wing SAR aircraft, not even listed:
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/23889.855.html

Mark
Ottawa
 
This article seems on the, er, money to me (usual copyright disclaimer):
http://www.embassymag.ca/page/view/dnd-06-09-2010

Despite government promises to continue increasing the Defence department’s budget post-Afghan mission and keep the military a high priority, nervousness and quiet doubts are proliferating among arms lobbyists, manufacturers and, apparently, top Canadian commanders as well…

Departmental budget cuts are being sought across most of the public service after the federal government’s two-year stimulus plan sunk billions into infrastructure and growth projects.

The Defence department and Canadian military accounted for roughly $21 billion out of the $259 billion the federal government spent last year. That amount is set to increase each year, but when it unveiled this year’s budget, the government cut the rate of increase significantly. Whether even that rate will be sustained is a matter of speculation.

Even more worrying for stakeholders is that the government announced in the spring that it is conducting a strategic review of the Defence department. Staff are being asked to find areas where it can cut five per cent of its budget.

The fear is that as the government continues to look for savings, procurement projects will be put on hold. Last week, the government announced its shipbuilding procurement strategy, although it did not contain dollar figures, and delayed the implementation for two years, ostensibly in order to conduct the process fairly…

Two weeks ago, the government released supplementary estimates that contained $412 million more in defence spending. This partly had to do with funding for security at the 2010 G8 and G20 summits, but also included funding for aircraft and heavy-lift helicopter projects. It also launched some infrastructure projects from several years ago.

The Canada First Defence Strategy, the government’s multi-decade, multi-billion-dollar defence checklist, is therefore left intact, but spread out over a year longer, says retired colonel Brian MacDonald, now a senior defence analyst with the Conference of Defence Associations. However, he was worried that the capital project spending was in supplementary estimates instead of the main estimates.

“I guess here the question is, really on the equipment side, when we are going to see some greater clarity on the strategic capital investment plan, particularly the big number items such as the fighters and the naval shipbuilding program,” said Mr. MacDonald…

Mike Greenley, vice-president of General Dynamics Canada, which produces the Canadian Army's LAV-III armoured personnel carrier, said it doesn't appear a major platform procurement will be in the cards this year [emphasis added, meaning that the company will have to take another look at its own programming.

"Even in 2011, if you look at the currently published schedule of programs, even if you get going on ships, even if we start talking about selling these fighting vehicles and aircraft, the actual contract signings of these things probably wont happen either," he said.

Mr. Greenley warned that an indefinite stalling of procurement will have an impact on manufacturers—and their ability to meet new requirements quickly whenever they come up.

"That's what makes you nervous, because you have got to keep pace with some of these programs," said Mr. Greenley. "I would offer on behalf of the entire industrial base that that's the thing that would keep us nervous, because unless we're moving on procurements, then those new startups of programs aren't there to keep the defence economic base engaged."..

Mark
Ottawa
 
- Cut five per-cent of the budget? Easy: stop buying office furniture. 
 
whiskey601 said:
Isn't your office a tank?  8)

" Those - were - the - days my friend we thought they'd never end we'd sing and dance forever and a day... " - Boris Fomin/Konstantin Podrevskii/Gene Raskin.  Recorded by Mary Hopkins in 1968 (I loved it when it played on the radio back then).
 
I find it very interesting the Canada's defence budget is ranked somewhere between 10th and 15th in the world (depending on source), yet are ranked around 60th in the world for the number of personnel.

How do we have such a large budget, yet such a small arsenal and relatively small number of soldiers?
 
Chilme said:
I find it very interesting the Canada's defence budget is ranked somewhere between 10th and 15th in the world (depending on source), yet are ranked around 60th in the world for the number of personnel.

How do we have such a large budget, yet such a small arsenal and relatively small number of soldiers?

Take a look at how many major HQs are around.
 
Chilme said:
How do we have such a large budget, yet such a small arsenal and relatively small number of soldiers?

Our soldiers are paid and compensated rather well, to start.
 
So you're suggesting if we close down a few HQ's then more troops could be hired and a more weapons purchased?
 
CDN Aviator said:
Our soldiers are paid and compensated rather well, to start.

That is true.  I can't imagine this will change any time soon.  I would say their pay is well earned for most
 
I think CDN Aviator is referring to the fact that we get paid in currency rather than cabbage.
 
Has anyone seen the latest precedent set for Defence Budgets?  The British government is planning MASSIVE cuts to their military (see link below).  Apparently it is there answer to a large national debt.  I hope Canada doesn't follow the footsteps of our friends across the pond.  I did, however, find it interesting that they intend to transfer more funding to their special forces.  To me this is the way of the future, as it seems that many modern battlefields operate unconventionally.

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2010/10/18/britain-budget-cuts.html
 
Chilme said:
as it seems that many modern battlefields operate unconventionally.

While it may be true now.....what about 2 years from now ? How about 5 years ? 10 years ?

The trouble with making huge capability cuts based on whats going on now is that later on, when things have changed, you "got nuthin' ".
 
CDN Aviator said:
While it may be true now.....what about 2 years from now ? How about 5 years ? 10 years ?

The trouble with making huge capability cuts based on whats going on now is that later on, when things have changed, you "got nuthin' ".

How true!!
 
There is, often, a point (Britain figures they're at it in 2010-2015, Canada figured that back circa 1995-2000) when countries must try to balance the books. It would be nice to think that governments think strategically but, alas, it is not possible. Governments can (and usually do) consider strategic issues but they also must (and always do) consider both practical and political issue, too. Practicality and politics almost always trump strategy in democracies. People vote, issues don't. Unhappy people will punish political leaders; issues might be more benign.

In my opinion the UK defence cuts, while deep, are not as harsh as the cuts imposed on the CF beginning in 1969 and continuing, almost uninterrupted, until around 2003.

(In fairness: the deepest real cuts to Canadian defence spending occurred over a 20 year period from 1955 to 1975. After 1975 Canadian defence spending very closely 'tracked' US spending - growing and falling in step. Measured as a percentage of GDP (the best way to measure) Canadian defnec spending has (with one brief exception in about 1978-82) declined steadily from nearly 8% of GDP circa 1952 to about 1.25% of GDP today. The last time our defence spending, measured as a percentage of GDP, was at a respectable middle power level (2 to 2.5% of GDP) was in early 1960s - the Diefenbaker/Pearson era. Stephen Harper continues to reduce defence spending as a percentage of GDP. The Conservatives' Canada First Defence Strategy is a (financial) recipe for unilateral disarmament.)

There are several European countries, including France and Italy, that must, sooner rather than later, follow the UK's example. There is also the problem of the USA: which is far, far too deeply in debt. I recommend a thin, new book by Michael Mandelbaum that outlines some of the problems that impending, necessary budget cuts will have on the USA: The Frugal Superpower. Mandelbaum is not and does not pretend to be a political non-partisan but that doesn't negate the wisdom of his analysis.
 
CDN Aviator said:
While it may be true now.....what about 2 years from now ? How about 5 years ? 10 years ?

The trouble with making huge capability cuts based on whats going on now is that later on, when things have changed, you "got nuthin' ".

I agree with you 100%.  A military should always have the capability to challenge any perceived threats.  I do, however, believe that current situations and those in the foreseeable future should play a major role in resource allocation.  Otherwise you spread too thin.
 
The Good Grey Globe, to its credit, pays some sensible attention to defence policy and, in the process, give the Liberals a slap upsode the head, in this editorial, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/editorials/liberal-foreign-policy-good-ends-not-enough-means/article1816647/
GLOBE EDITORIAL
Liberal foreign policy: good ends, not enough means
From Monday's Globe and Mail

The Liberals' trilogy of foreign-policy speeches by Bob Rae, Dominic LeBlanc and Siobhan Coady show a proper firmness on Afghanistan but they are lacking in commitment to provide the equipment and the money required for a vigorous presence in international affairs.

All three shadow cabinet ministers rightly emphasized that Lester Pearson, the founder of UN peacekeeping, would also have supported the Canadian mission in Afghanistan. They not only advocated a return to traditional peacekeeping but also a move toward the responsibility-to-protect doctrine, which means a heightened humanitarian interventionism, where there is no peace to be kept, or conventional governments or armies to mediate between – or specifically Canadian interests. The apparent implication is a series of future missions quite like the present one in Afghanistan.

This greater activism is to be accomplished without any increase in the Canadian defence budget in real terms. Moreover, Mr. LeBlanc, the Liberal defence critic, and his colleagues reasserted their rejection of the Conservatives' proposed purchase of F-35 stealth fighter jets. The Liberals, to their credit, affirm the importance of the Arctic (including a permanent secretariat for the Arctic Council and an ambassador for circumpolar affairs), but are reluctant to buy jets that would enable Canada to be truly and effectively sovereign over its vast northern territories – and which would do much to help the Canadian Forces take part in the overseas interventions that the Liberals favour.

The sustained engagement in foreign affairs of both Michael Ignatieff and Mr. Rae is evident in the considerable substance in current Liberal foreign-policy positions, more than is customary from an official opposition in Canada. But the Liberals' unwillingness to support their principles and proposals with adequate equipment and other resources leaves questions they will have to answer before and during the next federal election campaign.


While there is “substance” in the Liberal foreign policy positions there is much more wishful thinking and destructive politics.
 
Military needs billions
When will politicians face reality on massive defence money needed?
By DAVID AKIN, QMI Agency Last Updated: January 13, 2011
Article Link

Deep in the bowels of National Defence Headquarters in Ottawa, bureaucrats are quietly pulling together pricing information to buy more giant Boeing C-17 transport planes.

Canada already has four C-17s — acquired with some controversy — in 2007.

Brand new, they have a sticker price of around $400 million. But some planners in the air force have noted the U.S. no longer wants to buy all the C-17s it had ordered from Boeing, which means there’s a good chance the Yanks might be in a mood to let one of its allies, like us, buy some off them at a deep discount.

Now, just to be clear, the senior generals of the Canadian Forces, let alone Defence Minister Peter MacKay or the federal cabinet, are not pushing a program to commit billions more for the C-17s, particularly while the government is trying to push through its controversial multibillion-dollar purchase of new F-35 fighter planes.

Still, the revelation that low-level planners at defence are even jotting notes on the backs of napkins about acquiring anywhere from two to six more C-17s is a reminder that our two leading political parties, the governing Conservatives and their Liberal challengers, are largely avoiding what ought to be a crucial and important debate leading up to the next federal election.

Simply put: Our Canadian Forces needs billions and billions of dollars worth of new gear — not just new fighter planes — but no one has any clear plans to pay for what they need, particularly in a time of global fiscal restraint.

Alternately, one party or the other could stand up and, as Conservatives have done in Britain and Democrats did in the U.S., start announcing big-time cuts to military acquisitions and other programs.

Instead, we’ve been watching Conservatives and Liberals argue bitterly about the merits of purchasing the F-35 fighter plane, though both largely agree we will need some kind of new fighter plane to replace our fleet of excellent-but-aging CF-18s.

Whatever plane we choose is going to cost us billions. How will we pay?

And is that most urgent need? Is that the top spending priority?

What about new search-and-rescue capabilities? As one defence insider put it, the equipment we have has the capability for the search part but there are too many scenarios where we simply don’t have the gear for the rescue part.

We need new technology for surveillance and monitoring, particularly in our resource-rich north. The solution there could be a combination of satellites, unmanned aerial vehicles and surveillance aircraft to replace our aging CP-140 Auroras.

Again: This will cost billions.

Or we could outsource search-and-rescue to private-sector companies and likely save a pile.

Our navy needs new ships, the most expensive of which would be one or two joint-support ships, a type of vessel that can take on multiple configurations to be, for example, a troop carrier or a supply ship. It’s a vital tool for just about any mission the CF might be given. This could be the most expensive purchase of all.

That’s just a small part of a long list. As we get set for Budget 2011 and a possible election, politicians should be straight up with voters and with those in uniform about the kind of military we want — and are prepared to pay for.

david.akin@sunmedia.ca
end
 
Back
Top