- Reaction score
- 2,753
- Points
- 940
Yes, they're posted in. :nod:Lightguns said:
The Defence Budget [superthread]
- Thread starter Edward Campbell
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 25,217
- Points
- 1,090
Lightguns said:
And the landscaping on a base appears by magic without human intervention?
OldSolduer
Army.ca Relic
- Reaction score
- 14,096
- Points
- 1,140
dapaterson said:
A distant cousin of the Good Idea Fairy.
- Reaction score
- 25
- Points
- 430
dapaterson said:
50/50. Someone has to load those rounds fired into the Impact Areas.
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 430
milnews.ca said:
As long as we're on the topic, there's an update from DND as well. From the Defence Team people (DWAN link only):
This story which states that DND requested the deferment of $3B from its capital budget was taken from the National Newswatch site. It is reproduced under the Fair Dealings provision of the Copyright Act.
DND requested budget time-out: Harper
By The Canadian Press — Feb 12 2014
OTTAWA - Prime Minister Stephen Harper says the request to put off $3 billion in military equipment purchases was made by National Defence and does not represent a cut.
His comment comes in the face of Opposition demands that the Conservatives outline precisely which capital programs are being deferred over the next three years.
The new federal budget provided a global figure but no details on what is affected and when the reinvestment will occur.
Harper says the budget adjustment came from the military because it's unable to spend the cash during that time period, which happens to coincide with the government's drive to balance the budget.
Defence experts say the delay means that programs will lose buying power and the military may have to do with either fewer or less-capable pieces of equipment.
Harper insists the money will be available when the department needs it.
DND requested budget time-out: Harper
By The Canadian Press — Feb 12 2014
OTTAWA - Prime Minister Stephen Harper says the request to put off $3 billion in military equipment purchases was made by National Defence and does not represent a cut.
His comment comes in the face of Opposition demands that the Conservatives outline precisely which capital programs are being deferred over the next three years.
The new federal budget provided a global figure but no details on what is affected and when the reinvestment will occur.
Harper says the budget adjustment came from the military because it's unable to spend the cash during that time period, which happens to coincide with the government's drive to balance the budget.
Defence experts say the delay means that programs will lose buying power and the military may have to do with either fewer or less-capable pieces of equipment.
Harper insists the money will be available when the department needs it.
I'm not really sure what that means. Deferred for three years and it needs to be deliberately put back into the budget kind of sounds like cut to me.
Any better numbers available? They don't say where the cuts will be. 2012 was over a 40 billion deficit, 2013 still waiting for Q4 to get the final numbers. A balanced budget will not be painless.
Any better numbers available? They don't say where the cuts will be. 2012 was over a 40 billion deficit, 2013 still waiting for Q4 to get the final numbers. A balanced budget will not be painless.
- Reaction score
- 3,453
- Points
- 1,260
- Reaction score
- 5,003
- Points
- 1,260
David Parkins, in the Globe and Mail, explains the impact of the federal budget on the Canadian Armed Forces in one picture:
Source: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/are-you-csis-csec-or-rcmp/article16655155/#dashboard/follows/
Source: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/are-you-csis-csec-or-rcmp/article16655155/#dashboard/follows/
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
If paracord and gun tape are holding that $hit together, it may not be too bad...
I jest.
I jest.
McG
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 2,771
- Points
- 1,160
With all the talk of retirement moves, John Ivison brings discussion back to the real problems: poor budget/resource management and absent political direction. Let's bring our attention back to this.
... and for the report that he references, see here: http://www.cdainstitute.ca/images/so2014en.pdf
(Unlike the article, the report itself really deserves discussion in a forgein policy thread)
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2014/02/18/john-ivison-report-fires-at-aimless-canadian-military-ruled-by-balance-sheets-not-foreign-policy/
... and for the report that he references, see here: http://www.cdainstitute.ca/images/so2014en.pdf
(Unlike the article, the report itself really deserves discussion in a forgein policy thread)
This story from the Ottawa Citizen suggests the CAF is considering dropping some capabilities and/or personnel cuts. It is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provision of the Copyright Act.
Canadian military studying personnel cuts, heavier reliance on allies for new defence strategy
http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/2013-budget/Canadian+military+studying+personnel+cuts+heavier/9788258/story.html
BY LEE BERTHIAUME, OTTAWA CITIZEN APRIL 29, 2014
Canadian military studying personnel cuts, heavier reliance on allies for new defence strategy
OTTAWA — Defence officials have been asking hard questions about the state of Canada’s military and its future needs, as the federal Conservative government prepares a new Canadian defence strategy.
The questions include where the Canadian Forces are most likely to be deployed globally, whether the military should try to save money by relying more heavily on its allies, and whether it has too many soldiers, sailors and air personnel.
Any decisions would require government approval, but the questions, revealed in internal documents obtained by the Citizen, provide a window into myriad issues the Canadian military and Department of National Defence face now and in future.
A new defence strategy is long overdue. Officials have deemed the government’s current plan, unveiled in 2008 and dubbed the Canada First Defence Strategy, unaffordable and in need of an update.
The government won’t say when the new defence plan will be unveiled. But, based on the documents, here are some of the issues officials are grappling with:
Do personnel levels need to change?
The Department of National Defence, like all federal departments, is facing deep budget cuts as the Conservative government tries to balance the budget by next year. It is unusual, however, in that while it can lay off civilians like any other department to find savings, the government has ordered it not to cut personnel in uniform. Instead, it must remain steady at 68,000 full-time military personnel and 27,000 reservists.
The Conservative government is sensitive to reducing the size of the military after criticizing past Liberal governments for doing this in the 1990s. But some, such as retired defence chief Rick Hillier, have suggested the number of people in uniform should be shrunk, especially in light of funding cuts and the end of the Afghan mission.
Defence officials are also looking separately at the army, navy, air force and special forces to ensure they are the right size “to meet future challenges,” suggesting a rebalancing of personnel across the services. And planners are looking at what special capabilities would be required to address new challenges such as space, cyber attacks and the Arctic, and how they should be prioritized.
What degree of self-sufficiency can be given up to save money?
One of the first things the new Conservatives government did for the military on coming to power in 2006 was order four C-17 heavy transport aircraft. “To be truly sovereign, we must be able to deploy our forces and equipment where they are needed, when they are needed,” Prime Minister Stephen Harper said at the time. “To put it bluntly, hitchhikers may get to their destination, but they don’t get to pick the route or the timing.”
Eight years later, defence planners are facing a different economic environment, with some trade-offs already planned. The navy will turn to allies and private firms to resupply its fleets starting next year, rather than keeping Canada’s existing replenishment vessels in the water until replacements are ready.
Third-parties will also be used to refuel Canada’s F-35s in mid-flight if the government decides to purchase the stealth fighter, which is incompatible with Canada’s current refuelling aircraft.
In both circumstances, the government will save money, but also face higher risks from having to rely on outside assistance.
How much? How fast? How long?
The government has laid out six broad missions the Canadian Forces must be ready to conduct, potentially all at the same time. They include such things as patrolling the Arctic, responding to a terrorist attack, helping out during a domestic or international natural disaster, and fighting a war.
Fiscal belt-tightening, however, has left defence planners studying their level of “ambition” when it comes to such missions, including what kind of forces should be dedicated to a mission, how fast the military should be called upon to respond, and for how long.
The idea that the military must be able to conduct six missions at once now appears uncertain, as officials have questioned what “degree of concurrency is expected in executing the mission.”
How to deal with aging equipment?
The government is already grappling with a large number of troubled military procurement projects aimed at replacing aging equipment. These include the air force’s fighter jets and search-and-rescue airplanes, and the navy’s resupply ships, frigates and destroyers.
But defence planners noted more equipment will need replacement in the coming years, including the airplanes used to fly the prime minister, the air force’s air-to-air refuelling aircraft, and the navy’s four submarines.
Complicating matters is uncertainty about how much money DND can actually count on when budgeting for the future, and how to address “defence-specific inflation.”
Inflation has been identified as a significant challenge for the department as it runs much higher in the defence sector than the average thanks in part to constantly evolving technological advances. Any project delay means less equipment can be bought with the money budgeted, unless the government gives more.
Defence Strategy Limbo
The Canada First Defence Strategy was unveiled to great fanfare by the federal Conservative government in May 2008. The focus was a promise of stable funding for the Canadian Forces for the next 20 years, and to re-equip the military with state-of-the-art equipment.
But the CFDS, as it is known in defence circles, was almost immediately criticized as little more than a shopping list, with little strategy. And only three years after being released, defence officials had quietly concluded the strategy was unaffordable.
The Conservative government’s promise of stable, long-term funding has essentially been abandoned to eliminate the federal deficit, with DND having hundreds of millions of dollars less than anticipated.
Nearly all the planned equipment purchases have also been scrapped or delayed. New frigates and destroyers were supposed to be in the water starting next year, and search-and-rescue airplanes in the air. Now no one knows when any of those will be delivered.
New maritime surveillance aircraft were expected in 2020, but won’t arrive until 2030. The army also recently cancelled a $2-billion plan to buy heavily armed and armoured personnel carriers, while it remains unclear what jet fighter will replace Canada’s CF-18s.
The Conservative government has been promising an updated defence strategy since 2012, but refuses to say when it will be produced.
© Copyright (c) Postmedia Network Inc.
- mod edit to add article link -
Canadian military studying personnel cuts, heavier reliance on allies for new defence strategy
http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/2013-budget/Canadian+military+studying+personnel+cuts+heavier/9788258/story.html
BY LEE BERTHIAUME, OTTAWA CITIZEN APRIL 29, 2014
Canadian military studying personnel cuts, heavier reliance on allies for new defence strategy
OTTAWA — Defence officials have been asking hard questions about the state of Canada’s military and its future needs, as the federal Conservative government prepares a new Canadian defence strategy.
The questions include where the Canadian Forces are most likely to be deployed globally, whether the military should try to save money by relying more heavily on its allies, and whether it has too many soldiers, sailors and air personnel.
Any decisions would require government approval, but the questions, revealed in internal documents obtained by the Citizen, provide a window into myriad issues the Canadian military and Department of National Defence face now and in future.
A new defence strategy is long overdue. Officials have deemed the government’s current plan, unveiled in 2008 and dubbed the Canada First Defence Strategy, unaffordable and in need of an update.
The government won’t say when the new defence plan will be unveiled. But, based on the documents, here are some of the issues officials are grappling with:
Do personnel levels need to change?
The Department of National Defence, like all federal departments, is facing deep budget cuts as the Conservative government tries to balance the budget by next year. It is unusual, however, in that while it can lay off civilians like any other department to find savings, the government has ordered it not to cut personnel in uniform. Instead, it must remain steady at 68,000 full-time military personnel and 27,000 reservists.
The Conservative government is sensitive to reducing the size of the military after criticizing past Liberal governments for doing this in the 1990s. But some, such as retired defence chief Rick Hillier, have suggested the number of people in uniform should be shrunk, especially in light of funding cuts and the end of the Afghan mission.
Defence officials are also looking separately at the army, navy, air force and special forces to ensure they are the right size “to meet future challenges,” suggesting a rebalancing of personnel across the services. And planners are looking at what special capabilities would be required to address new challenges such as space, cyber attacks and the Arctic, and how they should be prioritized.
What degree of self-sufficiency can be given up to save money?
One of the first things the new Conservatives government did for the military on coming to power in 2006 was order four C-17 heavy transport aircraft. “To be truly sovereign, we must be able to deploy our forces and equipment where they are needed, when they are needed,” Prime Minister Stephen Harper said at the time. “To put it bluntly, hitchhikers may get to their destination, but they don’t get to pick the route or the timing.”
Eight years later, defence planners are facing a different economic environment, with some trade-offs already planned. The navy will turn to allies and private firms to resupply its fleets starting next year, rather than keeping Canada’s existing replenishment vessels in the water until replacements are ready.
Third-parties will also be used to refuel Canada’s F-35s in mid-flight if the government decides to purchase the stealth fighter, which is incompatible with Canada’s current refuelling aircraft.
In both circumstances, the government will save money, but also face higher risks from having to rely on outside assistance.
How much? How fast? How long?
The government has laid out six broad missions the Canadian Forces must be ready to conduct, potentially all at the same time. They include such things as patrolling the Arctic, responding to a terrorist attack, helping out during a domestic or international natural disaster, and fighting a war.
Fiscal belt-tightening, however, has left defence planners studying their level of “ambition” when it comes to such missions, including what kind of forces should be dedicated to a mission, how fast the military should be called upon to respond, and for how long.
The idea that the military must be able to conduct six missions at once now appears uncertain, as officials have questioned what “degree of concurrency is expected in executing the mission.”
How to deal with aging equipment?
The government is already grappling with a large number of troubled military procurement projects aimed at replacing aging equipment. These include the air force’s fighter jets and search-and-rescue airplanes, and the navy’s resupply ships, frigates and destroyers.
But defence planners noted more equipment will need replacement in the coming years, including the airplanes used to fly the prime minister, the air force’s air-to-air refuelling aircraft, and the navy’s four submarines.
Complicating matters is uncertainty about how much money DND can actually count on when budgeting for the future, and how to address “defence-specific inflation.”
Inflation has been identified as a significant challenge for the department as it runs much higher in the defence sector than the average thanks in part to constantly evolving technological advances. Any project delay means less equipment can be bought with the money budgeted, unless the government gives more.
Defence Strategy Limbo
The Canada First Defence Strategy was unveiled to great fanfare by the federal Conservative government in May 2008. The focus was a promise of stable funding for the Canadian Forces for the next 20 years, and to re-equip the military with state-of-the-art equipment.
But the CFDS, as it is known in defence circles, was almost immediately criticized as little more than a shopping list, with little strategy. And only three years after being released, defence officials had quietly concluded the strategy was unaffordable.
The Conservative government’s promise of stable, long-term funding has essentially been abandoned to eliminate the federal deficit, with DND having hundreds of millions of dollars less than anticipated.
Nearly all the planned equipment purchases have also been scrapped or delayed. New frigates and destroyers were supposed to be in the water starting next year, and search-and-rescue airplanes in the air. Now no one knows when any of those will be delivered.
New maritime surveillance aircraft were expected in 2020, but won’t arrive until 2030. The army also recently cancelled a $2-billion plan to buy heavily armed and armoured personnel carriers, while it remains unclear what jet fighter will replace Canada’s CF-18s.
The Conservative government has been promising an updated defence strategy since 2012, but refuses to say when it will be produced.
© Copyright (c) Postmedia Network Inc.
- mod edit to add article link -
- Reaction score
- 146
- Points
- 710
Absolutely wrong, how typical of Canadian "journalism"--from Jan. 2013:
Perhaps the author had the A/OPS in mind but even then the last time first delivery in 2015 was claimed was in 2011:
http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/rpp/2011-2012/inst/dnd/st-ts05-eng.asp#aops-npea
And by 2012 that delivery had shifted all the way to 2018 [with six ships planned what are the chances of getting first CSC in 2022?]:
http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/rpp/2012-2013/inst/dnd/st-ts04-eng.asp#aops-npea
Now the gov't only says that there will be "...a construction contract in 2015", who knows when deliveries will begin:
http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/business-equipment/arctic-offshore-patrol-ships.page
Ace reporting, eh?
Mark
Ottawa
Oldgateboatdriver
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 1,825
- Points
- 1,010
Perhaps the reporter was referring to the clamouring of the Navy, which has for years now indicated that the Destroyers were getting way past their life time and should be replaced by 2015 at the latest.
- Reaction score
- 146
- Points
- 710
Those are just three ships (eventually to be replaced via CSC program) but the story refers to "frigates" too--those 12 are the big number and never any expectation that their replacing would start 2015: FELEX:
http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/business-equipment/halifax-frigate.page
Also no plan of any recent date I can recall to replace destroyers themselves from 2015.
Mark
Ottawa
http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/business-equipment/halifax-frigate.page
Also no plan of any recent date I can recall to replace destroyers themselves from 2015.
Mark
Ottawa
Hey Mark,
Since you asked, here's the relevant section:
http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about/canada-first-defence-strategy.page#ql8
In case you're too busy, let me reproduce it for you:
Destroyers and Frigates
Starting in 2015, 15 ships to replace Canada's destroyers and frigates. While all these vessels will be based on a common hull design, the frigate and destroyer variants will be fitted with different weapons, communications, surveillance and other systems. These new ships will ensure that the military can continue to monitor and defend Canadian waters and make significant contributions to international naval operations.
Ace Reporter
Since you asked, here's the relevant section:
http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about/canada-first-defence-strategy.page#ql8
In case you're too busy, let me reproduce it for you:
Destroyers and Frigates
Starting in 2015, 15 ships to replace Canada's destroyers and frigates. While all these vessels will be based on a common hull design, the frigate and destroyer variants will be fitted with different weapons, communications, surveillance and other systems. These new ships will ensure that the military can continue to monitor and defend Canadian waters and make significant contributions to international naval operations.
Ace Reporter
- Reaction score
- 146
- Points
- 710
Scoopster: Unfortunately those CFDS words date from 2008:
http://pm.gc.ca/eng/news/2008/05/12/canada-first-defence-strategy
Text then same as at your link:
http://www.casr.ca/doc-canada-first-defence-strategy-5.htm
One would have thought one should have looked at the current situation when writing about it.
Also from same 2008 text:
What would you think if someone repeated those dates today? Pleased to reproduce actual background for you.
Mark
Ottawa
http://pm.gc.ca/eng/news/2008/05/12/canada-first-defence-strategy
Text then same as at your link:
http://www.casr.ca/doc-canada-first-defence-strategy-5.htm
One would have thought one should have looked at the current situation when writing about it.
Also from same 2008 text:
What would you think if someone repeated those dates today? Pleased to reproduce actual background for you.
Mark
Ottawa
- Reaction score
- 2,753
- Points
- 940
Suddenly a heated agreement breaks out......
- Reaction score
- 146
- Points
- 710
Scoopster: My apology, you're right--the article does put that date in the context of the original 2008 CFDS and I missed it.
Thanks very much,
Mark
Ottawa
Thanks very much,
Mark
Ottawa
Similar threads
