The Defence Budget [superthread]

[TCBF]

The boot does not provide much ankle support.  As well, it is not very effective in wetter snow - while it is an alright arctic boot, it is not ideal for winter in the sub-tundra climates.

- I can remember alighting out of a Twin Huey onto a frozen river in Petawawa (1977?), only to find that between the snow on top and the frozen river on the bottom was about two inches of water. So, the 1951 'X' designed arctic gear does not excel during spring break up, or 'wet cold'. As for ankle support, I bet at least a third of my parachute jumps are in mukluks.

 

[The Bread Guy]

PBO shares a bit of the obvious ....

The Harper government has built a military that it cannot afford and will be forced to make tough choices about in the future, if it sticks with the current funding envelope, the country's budget watchdog said Thursday.

The new assessment by the parliamentary budget office came as debate kicked off in the House of Commons about an expanded and extended war against the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant, a conflict that opposition MPs were warned this week will last more than a year.

Jean-Denis Frechette, the parliamentary budget officer, says the federal government will need to either pour more money into its defence budget, scale back its ambitions, or do a mixture of both in order to put Canada's military on a sustainable footing.

The Harper government currently spends $21.5 billion on defence — or 1.1 per cent of the gross domestic product.

In order to sustain the existing number of troops, bases, tanks, planes and ships, the budget office says the Conservatives will have to spend about 1.6 per cent of GDP, which would be an increase of at least $3 billion annually ....

This from the PBO (23 pg PDF) ....

This report examines sustainability of the national defence program by providing two estimates: a ‘source of funds’ forecast, meaning a forecast of future defence budgets; and a ‘use of funds’ estimate, meaning the cost of delivering a national defence program.

The Parliamentary Budget Office (PBO) estimates that the current force structure of the Department of National Defence (DND) is unsustainable at current funding levels. To achieve sustainability, it will be necessary to change the force structure, increase the amount of funding allocated to DND, or implement a combination of the two.

In the 2013-2014 fiscal year, DND expenditures totalled $21.5 billion, accounting for 1.1 per cent of gross domestic product (GDP). Of that amount, roughly half went toward personnel costs and roughly one-third was used for operations and infrastructure; the balance went toward the acquisition and replacement of capital equipment.

The government’s Canada First Defence Strategy (CFDS) promised to raise the nominal (non-inflation adjusted) annual increase in defence expenditure to 2 per cent starting in fiscal year 2011-2012, investing a total of $490 billion over a 20-year horizon, in an effort to provide the military with reliable funding.

However, PBO’s long-term defence program affordability estimate (the ‘should-cost’ estimate) indicates that defence costs will become unsustainable over the next 10 years. Our modelling shows that until 2014, there were sufficient funds to maintain the program. The cost to maintain Canada’s national defence force structure increased at roughly 1.5 per cent per year in real terms (adjusted for inflation) from 1995 to 2014; over the same period, defence spending increased 1.9 per cent per year in real terms.

In Summary Figure 1-1 (attached below), PBO estimates that the annual, inflation-adjusted rate of growth in the cost of maintaining the force structure from 2015 onwards will be 2.5 per cent per year.

PBO calibrated the model to the 1995 force structure, to ensure that the slope of the expenditure line to 2012 and beyond was reasonable. Because the model is driven by force structure, notably the size of the regular force and associated equipment and support costs, calibrating to a different year will produce a different outcome. The report should be read with that in mind ....

 

[MilEME09]

Which will still be ignored because it involves spending money, in a election year, and no party wants to say "hey Canadians give us $3 billion for the military" How many tax payers do you think would vote for a party that says yes to that?

 

[OldSolduer]

Which will still be ignored because it involves spending money, in a election year, and no party wants to say "hey Canadians give us $3 billion for the military" How many tax payers do you think would vote for a party that says yes to that?

Quite right I think. As ERC says, the Canadian publics support for the military is a mile wide but an inch deep.
We've been fighting this battle since Canada became a country.

 

[McG]

PBO shares a bit of the obvious ....

Farther down in Murray Brewster's article is the scary bit.  He notes, based on the PBO's findings, that we are now being funded for a decade of darkness military.

...

That affordability gap -- or shortfall -- runs anywhere between $33 billion and $42 billion over the next decade.

Left addressed, the gap means the military will be forced to thin out the ranks by "several thousand soldiers," close buildings and reduce its capital spending plan, said defence analyst Dave Perry, of the Canadian Defence and Foreign Affairs Institute.

Frechette said, under the current budget structure, the government can afford a military about the same size it had in 1999, at the height of what the Conservatives have often described as the "decade of darkness" under the Liberals.

Joyce Murray, the Liberal defence critic, said the government is being hoisted on its own rhetoric.

"It's very childish to point back and not look at their own record," she said.

...

http://winnipeg.ctvnews.ca/parliamentary-budget-officer-says-defence-costs-unsustainable-over-next-decade-1.2298533

 

[a_majoor]

I suspect the solution to this goat rodeo is going to be similar to how we did business in Afghanistan; "emergency requirements" to suddenly restock the military with trucks, boots and all the other things which dropped through the cracks the last time, and get new warships in the water (sorry Air Force dudes and dudettes, you got helicopters and the C-17's last time....).

Of course that is a great way to ensure the long term management problems of our procurement system are solved [/snarc]

 

[FortYorkRifleman]

Link removed IAW site policy.

Milnet.ca Staff

 

[MilEME09]

Of course that is a great way to ensure the long term management problems of our procurement system are solved [/snarc]

Now i'm no expert in our procurement system but from the many conversations on this forum, its a matter of to many birds on DND's shoulders saying whats what.Also I would say ML's with no floor for my feet cause its rusted out makes it an emergency.

 

[McG]

Looks like O&M funds are taking another hit this year.
I am not clear on the provisionments being made for international operations.  Can Parlaiment vote in a secret dollar allocation, will the defence budget be forced to eat the cost, or is something else going on?

War in Iraq and Syria will cost Canada $528M by next year, Kenney says
Defence minister reveals estimate one day after DND labelled information as classified
MURRAY BREWSTER, THE CANADIAN PRESS
CBC News
01 Apr 2015

Canada's war in Iraq and Syria is expected to cost more than half a billion dollars by this time next year, Defence Minister Jason Kenney revealed Wednesday, one day after federal budget reports stamped the estimate as secret.

Of the total, $406 million is expected to be spent in the new budget year that began Wednesday, on top of the projected $122.5 million that was set aside in the fiscal year that just ended.

Those are the incremental costs — the amount of money the Department of National Defence spends over and above the routine expense of maintaining an army.

The federal Treasury Board's plans and priorities report for the coming fiscal year, released Tuesday, showed the price tags for overseas operations in both the Middle East and eastern Europe were classified.

Both opposition parties complained, calling the decision to hide the dollar figures unacceptable, but Kenney said the information simply wasn't available when the estimates were completed in early March.

The $528.5-million estimate is likely not the last word on the question of costs, because there will be tear-down expenses should the next federal government decide to end the combat mission next March.

"I offer a caveat. That number will obviously change," Kenney said on the way into question period.  "If the past is any guide, it'll change upward, but that's our best estimate. And it's on that basis that cabinet approved additional funding."

Last month, the parliamentary budget office estimated in a February report that one year of combat operations would cost between $242 million and $351 million.

Both Kenney and Prime Minister Stephen Harper suggested there was no attempt to hide the figure, claiming it was released last week. A spokeswoman in Kenney's office said the numbers were revealed during a conference call with ethnic media, which took place around the time the Commons was debating the motion to extend and expand the deployment.

If Kenney was really interested in accountability he would have informed MPs, said Liberal defence critic Joyce Murray.

"Reports that the minister would disclose this on a call, and not in the House, reinforces how little regard he and his government have for our Parliament and its role in maintaining oversight," Murray said.

The estimates also keep secret the cost of Canada's contribution to NATO's reassurance mission in the new budget year. Those figures were not released on Wednesday.

Dave Perry of the Canadian Defence and Foreign Affairs Institute said it's the first — and only — time in nearly 20 years that cost estimates for an international operation was withheld because it was deemed classified.

Opposition NDP leader Tom Mulcair said the government shouldn't have to be dragged kicking and screaming towards accountability.

"The first thing Canadians are entitled to when we are in a war situation is truth, including the truth about the cost of that war," Mulcair said.

Baseline defence budget set to shrink

At the same time, a close examination of the budget estimates also show the age of austerity is here to stay at National Defence, with baseline budget spending to expected to drop over the long term.
Spending on the military is forecast to be six per cent lower in 2017-18 than it was when the deficit fight began, Perry said.

The reports, which lay out projected spending over several years, show Defence will get a slightly bigger baseline budget in 2016-17 of $19.2 billion, but will be cut to $18.7 billion in 2017-18, which is lower than the current forecast of $18.9 billion.

The figures are significant because the country is committed to a hot war in Iraq and Syria, and an emerging cold war in eastern Europe — both of which are not expected to be resolved any time soon, Perry said.

The defence policy "plan that's on the books now is intended to have the budget and spending grow every single year," he said. "That's not what's happening."

Kenney and others in the Conservative government have previously argued that they are spending 27 per cent more on the military than when they took office in 2006 — a figure that does not take into account the corrosive effect of inflation.

The government has also argued it has topped up the budget with extra appropriations, particularly for overseas missions.

Perry said the baseline budget is where all of the training, maintenance and preparations for those deployments are found. Those forecasts show deep cuts in readiness for all three branches of the military, made in the name of balancing the budget, will remain, he said.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/war-in-iraq-and-syria-will-cost-canada-528m-by-next-year-kenney-says-1.3018802

 

[OldSolduer]

Regardless of which of the generally excellent officers is chosen he (and the DM and the MND) need to understand that the prime minister told them (back in 2012) that he wanted cuts to the defence superstructure. Prime Minster Harper singled out "corporate and institutional support and services," which is not very secret code for headquarters and real estate. In other words Prime Minister Harper told his MND (and through him the DM and CDS) that he wanted cuts to admirals and colonels and office buildings, not to combat units; but at least some of Peter MacKay, Rob Nicholson, Robert Fonberg, Richard Fadden, John Forster, Walt Natynczyk and Tom Lawson (and their subordinates) thought they knew better and they tied up ships and cut vehicle fleets instead ... they were wrong.

The new CDS needs to be smarter. He doesn't own the CF, the country does, he administers the CF on behalf of the Government of Canada (Stephen Harper, Prop.)

Amen ERC! Well said!

 

[tomahawk6]

The world is not a less dangerous place than it was 3 years ago.If anything it is more so.The threats come from a resurgent Russia and China,as well as from the islamists.Cutting defense capability is quite short sighted if savings can be found on the domestic spending side of the ledger,then thats the avenue to take.

 

[bradley247]

I couldn't disagree with you more ERC. The problems in the CF today are not because every MND and CDS has misinterpreted "The Great Stephen Harpers" grand vision for the CF...it's because we are a cash cow to fund his precious balanced budget, while at the same time promising not to cut troops. The CDS is such a shitty job because he has to both stand up for the CF and not butt heads with the government (I'm sure you can remember how much Harper loved Hillier). The PMO isn't nearly as hands off in running the CF as you are implying.

Standing by for pro-Harper chewing out in 3...2...1

 

[Edward Campbell]

Cutting the C2 bloat, trimming HQs, lowering staff ranks to much more reasonable levels and so on should have been, and still should be, priorities for MNDs, DMs and CDSs. That those simple steps, encouraged - even directed - by the head of government, were not taken is inexcusable, in my opinion.

    The CF has too many officers.

          The CF has far, far too many flag and general officers.

              The CF has too many HQs.

                    Too many staff officers carry too much rank - it muddies the command/control relationship which should be clear and can be clear.

None of those problem, and they are, I suggest, very real problems that do material, measurable harm to the CF, are too hard to solve. They are all within the CDS' power to correct.

 

[upandatom]

I couldn't disagree with you more ERC. The problems in the CF today are not because every MND and CDS has misinterpreted "The Great Stephen Harpers" grand vision for the CF...it's because we are a cash cow to fund his precious balanced budget, while at the same time promising not to cut troops. The CDS is such a shitty job because he has to both stand up for the CF and not butt heads with the government (I'm sure you can remember how much Harper loved Hillier). The PMO isn't nearly as hands off in running the CF as you are implying.

Standing by for pro-Harper chewing out in 3...2...1

No Chewing out here,
I think they are all idiots.

Im glad Vance is in there, Met him several times overseas and hes a great leader, perfect for the position. The reason why Uncle Rick was so well respected with the troops was because he allowed himself to be identifiable with them. Uncle Walt was able to the same on a not so grand scale as his predecessor. Lawson though, hard for any troops to identify with in any aspect, he was put in the job in a hard time. I think with Vance having such an impact on the operation in Afghanistan and being so well identifiable to the troops, he will excel in this role. He is not one to be pushed around by the GoC as well.

Good on him, he Deserves the role and the respect that comes with it.

 

[Navy_Pete]

Regardless of which of the generally excellent officers is chosen he (and the DM and the MND) need to understand that the prime minister told them (back in 2012) that he wanted cuts to the defence superstructure. Prime Minster Harper singled out "corporate and institutional support and services," which is not very secret code for headquarters and real estate. In other words Prime Minister Harper told his MND (and through him the DM and CDS) that he wanted cuts to admirals and colonels and office buildings, not to combat units; but at least some of Peter MacKay, Rob Nicholson, Robert Fonberg, Richard Fadden, John Forster, Walt Natynczyk and Tom Lawson (and their subordinates) thought they knew better and they tied up ships and cut vehicle fleets instead ... they were wrong.

The new CDS needs to be smarter. He doesn't own the CF, the country does, he administers the CF on behalf of the Government of Canada (Stephen Harper, Prop.)

Don't really care what Harper said; if you reduce the NP budget to the point where you can't buy parts or do maintenance on your whole fleet, and only do it on the higher priority ships, then what your public direction for the voters is doesn't matter.

The fact of the matter is the only way they can quickly reduce defence spending is to stop buying things and spending money.  That's what they did to create an artificial surplus, so they look good for the election.  They (the politicians) also instituted a ton more bullshit processes that have slowed down every single major procurement, which is another good way to defer spending.

Harper Government (tm) support for the CAF is about as real as an election day slogan, and they want to spend the absolute minimum on us that they can get away with and not lose voter support.  At least other parties are honest in their lack of support to operations.

 

[Kirkhill]

...Prime Minster Harper singled out "corporate and institutional support and services," which is not very secret code for headquarters and real estate. In other words Prime Minister Harper told his MND (and through him the DM and CDS) that he wanted cuts to admirals and colonels and office buildings, not to combat units; ....

Could support and services be expanded to trades and positions that don't hear the "crack-thump"?

The Government is funding 68,000 positions (more or less).  In addition to those command positions how many uniformed support positions could be "civilianized", even if they were designated for deserving, time-expired members?

It would change the balance on the liability side of things (more people in the line of fire and thus more risk) but equally it would open up more jobs for injured, experienced personnel while not detracting from the numbers potentially available for front line service.

Also, is there an opportunity to push further on the In-Service Support side of things and find a better balance between the three "traditional" models of service delivery:

- private contractors - worked for the RN when all they had to do was deliver to the ship, not so well for the army where they had a tendency to flee

- the independent government department - the Commissariat - major problems when the Commissariat accompanied the army into the field and demanded releases before handing out ammunition and other supplies

- the "nation at war" system ofr WW1 and WW2 - where uniformed personnel managed everything from the factory gate, if not the factory floor, to the front line.

How far forward can "private" or "PWGSC" support and supply be trusted?  Can they be trusted to maintain an independent battle group in a timely fashion?  A Brigade?  Higher?

Are the Army's requirements different than those of the RCN and the RCAF? Intelligence?  I believe that there is a difference and that that difference can and should be exploited to get people out of the uniformed 68,000 (releasing them for combat positions) and into civilian positions similar to the Royal Fleet Auxiliary.

It would also have a significant impact on the procurement of equipment - perhaps more emphasis on "replacement in a timely fashion" rather than "never break and easy to repair".  Perhaps more use of civilian services and equipment where the bullets aren't flying and dedication of the available dollars to the front lines?

 

[tomahawk6]

I have previously advocated use of Reservists to fill some of these roles as we do in the US.We think it saves money and it does free up active duty personnel for other duty.

 

[daftandbarmy]

I think this guy is right, in terms of Harper's intentions:

http://vanguardcanada.com/what-future-the-combat-army/

Feet and knees together folks, this will likely be one helluva ride!

 

[Eye In The Sky]

I couldn't disagree with you more ERC. The problems in the CF today are not because every MND and CDS has misinterpreted "The Great Stephen Harpers" grand vision for the CF...it's because we are a cash cow to fund his precious balanced budget, while at the same time promising not to cut troops. The CDS is such a shitty job because he has to both stand up for the CF and not butt heads with the government (I'm sure you can remember how much Harper loved Hillier). The PMO isn't nearly as hands off in running the CF as you are implying.

Standing by for pro-Harper chewing out in 3...2...1

Or perhaps a chewing out for being unprofessional towards the elected PM?  As the armed forces, our job is to follow direction from the elected officials, even if we don't agree with them personally.

The PM and government have to consider the wants and whinings of all Canadians, not just the small % of us in uniform.  I don't think there's much care and concern for our military that scratches below the surface from the average voting Canadian.  They would rather see their taxes dollars used elsewhere.

A government that ignores the wants of a majority of its citizens will soon find itself sidelined IMO.  Believing that in its simplistic form (although not completely accurate), I have said before and will say it again, the government will support and fund the CAF to the limit it believes it can without suffering major backlash from the average voting Canadian.

 

[McG]

The government's specific, clear direction is not just giving to Canadians what they want.  It is what the CAF needs.  Extraneous, bloated beuraucracy does not only consume resources to sustain itself, it also gets in the way of efficient command.

Instead of following the specific, clear direction - the CAF has build new layers of HQ and cut muscle to preserve fat.  But, the government that gave its very public direction has also been complicit in the failure to follow that same direction.