The Defence Budget [superthread]

[Kirkhill]

One thing that would definitely do it is cutting off all trade with Canada. I seem to remember that the Germans told Trudeau Sr. "No tanks, no trade (with Germany)." And guess what happened next? The government bought new Leopard I tanks and even stationed some of them in Germany. So, if the threat to cut off trade worked in the mid-1970s, why wouldn't it work now?

That's funny!  [  Helmut Kohl played the same hand that Trump is apparently playing with Merkel.

Trump may (or may not) have put a dollar value on the cost of defending Germany.

White House Rejects Claims Trump Gave Merkel Fake $376 Billion ‘Bill’ For NATO Payments

http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/03/27/white-house-rejects-claims-trump-gave-merkel-fake-380-billion-bill-for-nato-payments-transatlantic-relationship-germany-europe-security-defense/

Regardless of what did or did not happen linking defence and trade is not new.

I continue to assert that the Dew Line bought the AutoPact and that North Warning bought the Canada US Free Trade Agreement.

 

[jollyjacktar]

It's really hard to blame the Liberals for simply continuing what the Harper government did post 2009.

To be fair, it's more of a continuation of direction started under Mr. T Sr., and improved upon or played with by subsequent administrations.  All, gleefully kicked us in the chops and nads as seen fit.  Some,  Chretien for instance , with greater abandon than others, Harper, but all treated us as a tool and led us down various paths with sweet nothings or fuck you's whispered in our ears.  I personally don't know which knife in the guts hurts more, the ones held by the hand you knew wasn't your friend, Uncle Jean, or the one by he who promised he was a friend, Uncle Steven, and in reality, was all talk.

 

[George Wallace]

That's funny!  [  Helmut Kohl played the same hand that Trump is apparently playing with Merkel.

Trump may (or may not) have put a dollar value on the cost of defending Germany.
http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/03/27/white-house-rejects-claims-trump-gave-merkel-fake-380-billion-bill-for-nato-payments-transatlantic-relationship-germany-europe-security-defense/

Regardless of what did or did not happen linking defence and trade is not new.

I continue to assert that the Dew Line bought the AutoPact and that North Warning bought the Canada US Free Trade Agreement.

Even in Business it is called "Politics".  [

 

[jmt18325]

To be fair, it's more of a continuation of direction started under Mr. T Sr., and improved upon or played with by subsequent administrations.  All, gleefully kicked us in the chops and nads as seen fit.  Some,  Chretien for instance , with greater abandon than others, Harper, but all treated us as a tool and led us down various paths with sweet nothings or frig you's whispered in our ears.  I personally don't know which knife in the guts hurts more, the ones held by the hand you knew wasn't your friend, Uncle Jean, or the one by he who promised he was a friend, Uncle Steven, and in reality, was all talk.

Oh I agree with you - I was simply speaking to the plans for the operational escalator and the continued deferment of more and more capital spending.

 

[TCM621]

It's really hard to blame the Liberals for simply continuing what the Harper government did post 2009.

But Harper could only do so much and alot of the problems we have were problems under the previous liberal government (supply ships, destroyers, helicopters, etc). Hell, a lot of it goes back to Trudeau Sr. The Tories don't get a free pass (they had issues as well particularly on the veteran file) but as someone who has served under 3 Liberal PMs, I sure as hell can blame them.

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk

 

[Edward Campbell]

To be fair, it's more of a continuation of direction started under Mr. T Sr., and improved upon or played with by subsequent administrations.  All, gleefully kicked us in the chops and nads as seen fit.  Some,  Chretien for instance , with greater abandon than others, Harper, but all treated us as a tool and led us down various paths with sweet nothings or fuck you's whispered in our ears.  I personally don't know which knife in the guts hurts more, the ones held by the hand you knew wasn't your friend, Uncle Jean, or the one by he who promised he was a friend, Uncle Steven, and in reality, was all talk.

But that is exactly what we you are: a tool in a legitimate government's toolbox. A good, effective military is an expensive and finely crafted tool, but that's just what it is ... and tools are made to be used.

The people don't "owe" us you anything beyond a decent salary, adequate training and equipment and lawful missions. They, the people and the governments they elect, should, but often don't, give you some respect ... you deserve it, but it is a bonus.

 

[YZT580]

E.R. you said it.  The trouble is that at best the government is only providing half of your list.  The services are probably adequately paid but training is continuously postponed and adequate equipment provision is a joke. Even when they do supply equipment the primary objective isn't to supply but to provide some auxiliary benefits.  Witness our latest purchase of short range turbo-prop twins that are guaranteed to cause back problems to every SAR tech over 5' 10.  At the moment they are providing missions that seem to make sense but I will reserve the right to change even that statement if they aren't very careful with regards the UN. So the government is not coming close to living up to their end of the contract.  We have indeed entered another 4 years of darkness.   

 

[Lightguns]

But Harper could only do so much and alot of the problems we have were problems under the previous liberal government (supply ships, destroyers, helicopters, etc). Hell, a lot of it goes back to Trudeau Sr. The Tories don't get a free pass (they had issues as well particularly on the veteran file) but as someone who has served under 3 Liberal PMs, I sure as hell can blame them.

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk

Under 9 PMs and I agree with you, Heck, our problems started with NATO in 1949 and the "sphere of American Influence" forcing us to give away all our equipment to nations in the "sphere of UK influence".  We are still trying to catch up.

 

[George Wallace]

Under 9 PMs and I agree with you, Heck, our problems started with NATO in 1949 and the "sphere of American Influence" forcing us to give away all our equipment to nations in the "sphere of UK influence".  We are still trying to catch up.

Add the false impression that more modern and more efficient weapons systems and equipment justifies downsizing and you can see how we have gotten to where we are today.  We have seen numerous discussions on these forums on many of the points to affirm this; 10 tonne trucks to replace 5 tonne and 2.5 tonne trucks on a one for four exchange as one example.  The impression that one Leopard 2 tank is more deadly than previous tanks, so we can cut the numbers accordingly.  All across all Elements, Branches and Corps we have seen this reasoning cut our capabilities.  We often forget that we have equipment removed from service through maintenance scheduling, rebuild or modification scheduling, accidents (damaged or destroyed), etc. so we need to ensure we have replacements or a "War Stock" to provide a minimum replacement pool. 

Another factor overlooked by many is that technology is not cheap and constantly advancing.

 

[jmt18325]

But Harper could only do so much and alot of the problems we have were problems under the previous liberal government (supply ships, destroyers, helicopters, etc). Hell, a lot of it goes back to Trudeau Sr. The Tories don't get a free pass (they had issues as well particularly on the veteran file) but as someone who has served under 3 Liberal PMs, I sure as hell can blame them.

I'm talking specifically about the current funding track.  As a Canadian that cares about defence, I had high hopes that SJH would do better in that department(indeed, I voted for him twice), and he did at first, I'm sure you'd agree.  His short sighted political belief that he needed to balance the budget now really dashed those hopes. 

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Under 9 PMs and I agree with you, Heck, our problems started with NATO in 1949 and the "sphere of American Influence" forcing us to give away all our equipment to nations in the "sphere of UK influence".  We are still trying to catch up.

Served under 8, from Trudeau Sr. to Harper ... but what the heck are you rambling on about "us giving away all our equipment to nations in the "sphere of UK influence" "  ???

 

[Lightguns]

Served under 8, from Trudeau Sr. to Harper ... but what the heck are you rambling on about "us giving away all our equipment to nations in the "sphere of UK influence" "  ???

When NATO was formed in 1949, it was divided into military spheres of influence.  In each sphere, the minor nations had to deploy equipment that marched the ammo and spares of the lead nation.  This was the first step to NATO standardization of ammo and equipment.  We were in the US sphere and gave our Canadian made British kit to the Italians and Belgians for cheap as they were in the UK sphere.  We basically gave away our kit while purchasing half as much kit from the US military.  This happened through the 1950's til we basically had all US calibres and vehicle powertrains.  There were exceptions, such as Centurion which we had committed to before NATO standardization.  There were also a lot of mix matching, like getting rid of .303 Vickers for .30-06 GPMG while still using .303 Lee Enfields, then converting the GPMG to 7.62 NATO at near the same time as buying FNs.  NATO Standardizing put a lot of pressure on a government that never liked buying military equipment to begin with and left the Army with a shortfall of equipment that has since been the norm. 

It's from a PD session several years ago.  Basically, the jest of the Thesis was that the military never caught up in it's equipment lifecycle because it was forced to change equipment, ammo and spares in a shorter period of time (a decade) and dispose of equipment that it had not intended to dispose of so quickly.  Then the continuous cuts from the Diefenbaker era on kept the army behind.

 

[Kirkhill]

Add the false impression that more modern and more efficient weapons systems and equipment justifies downsizing and you can see how we have gotten to where we are today.  We have seen numerous discussions on these forums on many of the points to affirm this; 10 tonne trucks to replace 5 tonne and 2.5 tonne trucks on a one for four exchange as one example.  The impression that one Leopard 2 tank is more deadly than previous tanks, so we can cut the numbers accordingly.  All across all Elements, Branches and Corps we have seen this reasoning cut our capabilities.  We often forget that we have equipment removed from service through maintenance scheduling, rebuild or modification scheduling, accidents (damaged or destroyed), etc. so we need to ensure we have replacements or a "War Stock" to provide a minimum replacement pool. 

Another factor overlooked by many is that technology is not cheap and constantly advancing.

So, does that mean that you endorse the need for a Managed Readiness Plan with, for example, one Squadron in a Regiment being equipped with vehicles for garrison purposes?  Vehicles being drawn from stock for exercises and operations?

 

[George Wallace]

So, does that mean that you endorse the need for a Managed Readiness Plan with, for example, one Squadron in a Regiment being equipped with vehicles for garrison purposes?  Vehicles being drawn from stock for exercises and operations?

I thought that that Managed Readiness Plan was a farce.  Vehicles need to move.  Putting them into storage at Depots or Training Areas only permits seals to dry out, rust to take hold, etc. making the vehicles less serviceable than if they are in daily use. 

 

[Lightguns]

Add the false impression that more modern and more efficient weapons systems and equipment justifies downsizing and you can see how we have gotten to where we are today.  We have seen numerous discussions on these forums on many of the points to affirm this; 10 tonne trucks to replace 5 tonne and 2.5 tonne trucks on a one for four exchange as one example.  The impression that one Leopard 2 tank is more deadly than previous tanks, so we can cut the numbers accordingly.  All across all Elements, Branches and Corps we have seen this reasoning cut our capabilities.  We often forget that we have equipment removed from service through maintenance scheduling, rebuild or modification scheduling, accidents (damaged or destroyed), etc. so we need to ensure we have replacements or a "War Stock" to provide a minimum replacement pool. 

Another factor overlooked by many is that technology is not cheap and constantly advancing.

And thus 500 Sherman tanks are replaced by 250 Centurion tanks which are then replaced by 114 Leopard I tanks and finally 65 Leopard II tanks.  My numbers maybe a little off but the jest is the same.  Of course, the government allows a little overlap between new and used kit so that the impression is that they are not taking away capability. 

 

[Kirkhill]

I thought that that Managed Readiness Plan was a farce.  Vehicles need to move.  Putting them into storage at Depots or Training Areas only permits seals to dry out, rust to take hold, etc. making the vehicles less serviceable than if they are in daily use.

OK.  Understood.  But could that be managed by more frequent use of the depot stocks?  Say returning the vehicles to depot every 3 months? 6 months? A year?  Also - a notion I have broached before is the notion that rather than the techs being tied to the regiment that they be tied to the vehicles?  When you draw a squadron of Leos you get their accompanying troop of techs.  When you draw a squadron of LAVs or TAPVs or Vikings (it is to dream) you get the appropriately qualified techs with them.

 

[George Wallace]

OK.  Understood.  But could that be managed by more frequent use of the depot stocks?  Say returning the vehicles to depot every 3 months? 6 months? A year?  Also - a notion I have broached before is the notion that rather than the techs being tied to the regiment that they be tied to the vehicles?  When you draw a squadron of Leos you get their accompanying troop of techs.  When you draw a squadron of LAVs or TAPVs or Vikings (it is to dream) you get the appropriately qualified techs with them.

Looks good on paper.  HOWEVER.......Having the vehicles parked in Wainwright does little cost effective wise for units in Ontario, Quebec and the Maritimes.  Rotation of those vehicles through those units would cause additional maintenance costs and more costly transportation costs.  Same could be said for sending troops from the East out West to rotate through those vehicles. 

 

[Brasidas]

Looks good on paper.  HOWEVER.......Having the vehicles parked in Wainwright does little cost effective wise for units in Ontario, Quebec and the Maritimes.  Rotation of those vehicles through those units would cause additional maintenance costs and more costly transportation costs.  Same could be said for sending troops from the East out West to rotate through those vehicles.

What about putting them all in Gagetown? If we've got one squadron's worth of tanks, how about outfitting only one squadron and the school with a pool of tanks? Call everybody else armoured recce like they did with the reserves?

 

[Kirkhill]

Looks good on paper.  HOWEVER.......Having the vehicles parked in Wainwright does little cost effective wise for units in Ontario, Quebec and the Maritimes.  Rotation of those vehicles through those units would cause additional maintenance costs and more costly transportation costs.  Same could be said for sending troops from the East out West to rotate through those vehicles.

On the plus side - regular road moves between training venues, depots and garrisons would exercise troops, exercise vehicles and show presence.  On the other hand money would have to be found for POL, bearings and seals.

One of the reasons I became fascinated with things military was counting red and yellow lugs on Ayrshire Yeomanry Dingos or Ferrets (whatever they were driving when I was 3 years old and the wheels were the only thing I could see through the fence).  Those vehicles were regularly on the road on some scheme or other.

 

[jmt18325]

The unofficial word around official Ottawa is that the budget's Donald Trump Paragraph means that the forthcoming defence review -- with the Trudeau government's amorphous pledge to "equip the Forces to meet the challenges of the coming decades" -- will result in Canada finally meeting its NATO commitment. A Conservative government had long been a NATO free rider, but it will be a Liberal government that will finally pay its way in NATO. To this Liberal hawk, that is profoundly ironic -- but highly satisfying.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/warren-kinsella/trump-trudeau-and-nato_b_15643424.html

I'll take that with a grain of salt, but that would be huge news if true.