# The Coming DND Budget Cut



## FSTO (24 Nov 2020)

This has likely been said many times before but when this emergency is over I'm thinking the Canadian Military will take a major hit. Now we in the military could look at this as an opportunity to right some obvious wrongs within the department or we could just work hard to save our own hides (empires) and let others take the hit. Or even worse just allow TB to take the meat cleaver to us because we didn't come to them with a plan.

So in the world of "saving the cutlery" what should the CAF look like in the post covid-19 world?


----------



## PuckChaser (24 Nov 2020)

Depends on what they're going to cut. Is it L101, or just deferring major procurements? If it's both, we're in a hurt locker more than we already are.


----------



## Good2Golf (24 Nov 2020)

Some L101 perhaps, but more likely a bunch of C501.


----------



## daftandbarmy (24 Nov 2020)

FSTO said:
			
		

> This has likely been said many times before but when this emergency is over I'm thinking the Canadian Military will take a major hit. Now we in the military could look at this as an opportunity to right some obvious wrongs within the department or we could just work hard to save our own hides (empires) and let others take the hit. Or even worse just allow TB to take the meat cleaver to us because we didn't come to them with a plan.
> 
> So in the world of "saving the cutlery" what should the CAF look like in the post covid-19 world?



Hopefully, much more physically fit than it is now


----------



## Cloud Cover (24 Nov 2020)

Given the minuscule size of the DND budget in comparison to the overall size of the problem even on a deficit basis, lopping 2/3 of the DND budget and freezing the reminder for eternity would decimate the military and accomplish what else?


----------



## HiTechComms (24 Nov 2020)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Hopefully, much more physically fit than it is now


Still in the recruiting process
The Covid 19 has been great for me. 
Lost fair bit of fat
Got stronger
Run more now
Paid off any consumer debts
Saving money


----------



## daftandbarmy (24 Nov 2020)

HiTechComms said:
			
		

> Still in the recruiting process
> The Covid 19 has been great for me.
> Lost fair bit of fat
> Got stronger
> ...



Yes!


----------



## Weinie (24 Nov 2020)

FSTO said:
			
		

> This has likely been said many times before but when this emergency is over I'm thinking the Canadian Military will take a major hit. Now we in the military _*could look at this as an opportunity to right some obvious wrongs*_ within the department or we could just work hard to save our own hides (empires) and let others take the hit. Or even worse just allow TB to take the meat cleaver to us because we didn't come to them with a plan.
> 
> So in the world of "saving the cutlery" what should the CAF look like in the post covid-19 world?



Perhaps like a "Great Reset"


----------



## dimsum (24 Nov 2020)

Weinie said:
			
		

> Perhaps like a "Great Reset"



 :rofl:


----------



## rmc_wannabe (30 Nov 2020)

Let's be honest, there isn't much left to take. 

Other historical defense cuts had money or capabilities for the taking. This was the case with Papa Trudeau's cut in the 70s and 80s. This was also the case with FRP and the 1994 White Paper. Given previous cuts to spending and capability development, and the increase of commitments both domestically and internationally, what money do they want from us?


----------



## Remius (30 Nov 2020)

I’ve mentioned it before.  Hiring freeze for PS, Class B cuts, reduction in recruiting numbers across the board.  TD will be curtailed.  Reserve training limited. 

Pretty much the same stuff they’ve done before.


----------



## Jarnhamar (30 Nov 2020)

Reducing DND's budget would reduce their ability to be called out to _climate change disasters_ and other scary things. "Call in the military!" seems to be one of the first responses anytime something happens, from politicians and citizens alike.

I don't think the LPC will want to deal with the optics of it.


----------



## Remius (30 Nov 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Reducing DND's budget would reduce their ability to be called out to _climate change disasters_ and other scary things. "Call in the military!" seems to be one of the first responses anytime something happens, from politicians and citizens alike.
> 
> I don't think the LPC will want to deal with the optics of it.



I honestly don’t think they care.  They’ll still call in the military and they will have to do their jobs with limited resources.  Just like many times before now.


----------



## Haggis (30 Nov 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Reducing DND's budget would reduce their ability to be called out to _climate change disasters_ and other scary things. "Call in the military!" seems to be one of the first responses anytime something happens, from politicians and citizens alike.
> 
> I don't think the LPC will want to deal with the optics of it.



Why not divest some heavy warfighter capabilities like LAVs, Leos and M777s.  They're expensive.  Buy some more duct tape for the CF-18's and tie up a frigate or six.  Most climate emergencies don't require attack aircraft and are in littoral waters.

You'll have to save all the Infantry and unemployed sailors for the gun confiscation duties as Minister Blair has said that this duty will not fall to the police.  :Tin-Foil-Hat:


----------



## daftandbarmy (30 Nov 2020)

rmc_wannabe said:
			
		

> Let's be honest, there isn't much left to take.
> 
> Other historical defense cuts had money or capabilities for the taking. This was the case with Papa Trudeau's cut in the 70s and 80s. This was also the case with FRP and the 1994 White Paper. Given previous cuts to spending and capability development, and the increase of commitments both domestically and internationally, what money do they want from us?



How about a couple dozen post-offices CBG HQs etc?


----------



## stoker dave (30 Nov 2020)

This could be the end of the submarine fleet. 

(I won't argue if that is good or bad.)


----------



## GR66 (30 Nov 2020)

Maybe time for the "Great Army Reset"?    


In all seriousness though, an Army of 5 Divisions, 3 Reg Force Mechanized Brigade Groups and 10 Reserve Brigade Groups and in other threads we're being aspirational about being able to field and maintain a single Armoured Brigade Group in a high-intensity conflict (with phantom equipment that we hope one day to aquire).  

I think there may be room to make changes to the way things are organized.  

Maybe the imposed restrictions of a tightened budget might be the thing that (finally) pushes those at the top to make those changes, but I'm not going to hold my breath.


----------



## CBH99 (30 Nov 2020)

I agree GR66 - this is a great opportunity to streamline things, and actually use our budget a lot more efficiently.

Like you though, I won't hold my breath.  General Leslie had some great recommendations, and despite him being amongst the senior CAF leadership, nothing changed.  The empires survived.  And General Vance isn't an idiot, I imagine he's well aware the numerous black holes within DND.


My guess though is they_* won't*_ cut the budget, as the PM has already stated he won't be cutting the budget.  I think they just won't let us spend very much money, and then DND returns it to general revenue at the end of the year.   :2c:


----------



## Ostrozac (30 Nov 2020)

stoker dave said:
			
		

> This could be the end of the submarine fleet.
> 
> (I won't argue if that is good or bad.)



Submarines are at least mentioned in the SSE Defence Policy. Tanks and indirect fire support are not. The Army transitioning to an infantry-heavy constabulary force just might be in the cards —this arguably might actually be our natural state, with the Germany-based mechanized brigade as a historical quirk.


----------



## Remius (30 Nov 2020)

Ostrozac said:
			
		

> Submarines are at least mentioned in the SSE Defence Policy. Tanks and indirect fire support are not. The Army transitioning to an infantry-heavy constabulary force just might be in the cards —this arguably might actually be our natural state, with the Germany-based mechanized brigade as a historical quirk.



Until that one time when we went to to war and realized we need tanks and indirect fire support after someone thought we wouldn’t need them.


----------



## Ostrozac (30 Nov 2020)

Remius said:
			
		

> Until that one time when we went to to war and realized we need tanks and indirect fire support after someone thought we wouldn’t need them.



And we bought just enough for the war, and then sidelined them as soon as the war was over. 

By the way, which war are we talking about? Because we followed that exact pattern in 1914-1918, 1939-1945 and 2001-2011. Korea was the only exception, but it was only half way. We started with next to nothing (the Lord Strathcona's Horse's tanks were acquired, at the last minute, in theatre, from the USMC). We kept a combined arms force after the war, with a focus on Germany, but that was the only time it happened in our history. Based on the penny-packeting and small numbers of our Leopard 2 and M777 fleets, we certainly aren't positioning ourselves as a modern mechanized force nowadays.


----------



## Stoker (30 Nov 2020)

I predict no cuts, but no new money. The CSC, fighter jets will etc will still be procured. The current government just don't care how much they spend.


----------



## Navy_Pete (30 Nov 2020)

Retired RCN said:
			
		

> I predict no cuts, but no new money. The CSC, fighter jets will etc will still be procured. The current government just don't care how much they spend.



I think defence contractors have managed to include enough provisions over the years to make canceling contracts really expensive, and it's also something govts like to do to ensure delivery if there is a change of party in an election.

Jets are still in the RFP stage, but there are a lot of guarantees in NSS to make canceling any of the big contracts fairly painful. We could scale back on how many CSC we get, but cutting spending that is 15 years down the road doesn't really do anything against the short term deficits over the next year or so, and they won't really spend much on CSC for a while.


----------



## Stoker (30 Nov 2020)

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> I think defence contractors have managed to include enough provisions over the years to make canceling contracts really expensive, and it's also something govts like to do to ensure delivery if there is a change of party in an election.
> 
> Jets are still in the RFP stage, but there are a lot of guarantees in NSS to make canceling any of the big contracts fairly painful. We could scale back on how many CSC we get, but cutting spending that is 15 years down the road doesn't really do anything against the short term deficits over the next year or so, and they won't really spend much on CSC for a while.



I think we'll get jets but more than likely the cheapest ones they can get. I still think we'll get 15 as the crazy ass price we're paying more than likely will go up when we lose economy of scale or that's what Irving will say. I think the likely hood of any new submarines in the near future is pretty much done.


----------



## FJAG (30 Nov 2020)

I'll only throw in one prediction.

Whatever happens, Ottawa will not be divested of even one civilian or military full-time position. A few Class B's maybe.

op:


----------



## Cloud Cover (30 Nov 2020)

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> I think defence contractors have managed to include enough provisions over the years to make canceling contracts really expensive, and it's also something govts like to do to ensure delivery if there is a change of party in an election.
> 
> Jets are still in the RFP stage, but there are a lot of guarantees in NSS to make canceling any of the big contracts fairly painful. We could scale back on how many CSC we get, but cutting spending that is 15 years down the road doesn't really do anything against the short term deficits over the next year or so, and they won't really spend much on CSC for a while.



I think the NS government is also a party to the shipyard rehab development project. That being said, no contracting party can hold Parliament to specific performance if the decision is taken to reduce numbers of ships, but as you correctly point out the financial penalties could be significant if they are built into the contract itself.  OTOH it makes me want to throw up thinking that taxpayers somehow are obligated to pay the Irving family a fucking profit. Tax the bastards into purgatory.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (1 Dec 2020)

The CSC may be running around with empty VLS for quite sometime.


----------



## Halifax Tar (1 Dec 2020)

CloudCover said:
			
		

> I think the NS government is also a party to the shipyard rehab development project. That being said, no contracting party can hold Parliament to specific performance if the decision is taken to reduce numbers of ships, but as you correctly point out the financial penalties could be significant if they are built into the contract itself.  OTOH it makes me want to throw up thinking that taxpayers somehow are obligated to pay the Irving family _Maritime Czar_ a ******* profit. Tax the bastards into purgatory.



FTFY


----------



## dimsum (1 Dec 2020)

Colin P said:
			
		

> The CSC may be running around with empty VLS for quite sometime.



Ah, the ol' "fitted for, but not with"...


----------



## SeaKingTacco (1 Dec 2020)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Ah, the ol' "fitted for, but not with"...



Honestly, running around in peacetime with 15 awesome ships that have installed, but empty, mk41 VLS cells is the least worst of the “fitted for, but not with” scenarios.


----------



## daftandbarmy (1 Dec 2020)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Ah, the ol' "fitted for, but not with"...



The Infantry Battalion equivalent would be the 'missing' Combat Support Companies, I would guess


----------



## blacktriangle (1 Dec 2020)

Regardless of what cuts may or may not come, I'm fairly certain you all will find a way to make it work - even if it's not pretty. That aspect of the CAF always impressed me. So even if there is a fair bit of dead weight, there's also tons of capable folks that know how to "grind it out".

As someone that recently transitioned to civilian life, I'm just hoping for one last retro pay raise to put towards a post-COVID trip or something like climbing, skydiving etc. Live while we can. Here's hoping for all of you as well...  :cheers:


----------



## daftandbarmy (1 Dec 2020)

reveng said:
			
		

> Regardless of what cuts may or may not come, I'm fairly certain you all will find a way to make it work - even if it's not pretty. That aspect of the CAF always impressed me. So even if there is a fair bit of dead weight, there's also tons of capable folks that know how to "grind it out".
> 
> As someone that recently transitioned to civilian life, I'm just hoping for one last retro pay raise to put towards a post-COVID trip or something like climbing, skydiving etc. Live while we can. Here's hoping for all of you as well...  :cheers:



Fun fact: You know that you can combine 'climbing and skydiving' into one trip, right?

It's called BASE jumping


----------



## AlDazz (17 Feb 2021)

If I was a member of of any of the Regiments 3rd Battalions I might be getting a little restless.  As the Reg Force is short troops due to Covid recruiting restrictions someone is going to looking for a quick fix.


----------



## CBH99 (17 Feb 2021)

Quick fix, long term problems.  I very much doubt they’ll be disbanding any battalions anytime soon.  (Although with this government, it would be far from the dumbest defence decision they’ve made.)

it doesn’t fix anything other than relocate troops from one battalion to top up the others.  It doesn’t generate numbers or add new capabilities.


----------



## MilEME09 (17 Feb 2021)

CBH99 said:


> Quick fix, long term problems.  I very much doubt they’ll be disbanding any battalions anytime soon.  (Although with this government, it would be far from the dumbest defence decision they’ve made.)
> 
> it doesn’t fix anything other than relocate troops from one battalion to top up the others.  It doesn’t generate numbers or add new capabilities.


Not to mention it would hurt our ability to rotate troops through workup/deployment, and rest/reconstitution cycles. If we shank the forces, we would burn our people out. If anything we need to cut our bureaucratic tail and trade it for military teeth. Our bureaucracy has expanded exponentially without a correlation to defense output, infsct our output has gone down id argue.


----------



## daftandbarmy (17 Feb 2021)

CBH99 said:


> Quick fix, long term problems.  I very much doubt they’ll be disbanding any battalions anytime soon.  (Although with this government, it would be far from the dumbest defence decision they’ve made.)
> 
> it doesn’t fix anything other than relocate troops from one battalion to top up the others.  It doesn’t generate numbers or add new capabilities.



If there's one thing that has impressed me about the CAF it's that we have kept the nine Infantry battalions intact for several decades. 

In contrast, over the same period, the British Army has gone through a cyclone of regimental mergers and amalgamations bordering on the frenetic, and which just comes off looking like bad planning/ leadership.


----------



## MilEME09 (17 Feb 2021)

daftandbarmy said:


> If there's one thing that has impressed me about the CAF it's that we have kept the nine Infantry battalions intact for several decades.
> 
> In contrast, over the same period, the British Army has gone through a cyclone of regimental mergers and amalgamations bordering on the frenetic, and which just comes off looking like bad planning/ leadership.


Yes, but last I checked not one battalion was at close to full strength, if we had to deploy a battlegroup again no one battalion could go on its own with significant augmentation from the ARes and other units.


----------



## Haggis (17 Feb 2021)

daftandbarmy said:


> In contrast, over the same period, the British Army has gone through a cyclone of regimental mergers and amalgamations bordering on the frenetic, and which just comes off looking like bad planning/ leadership.


Maybe the "Leading Change" bubble on a Brit PER is worth more than on a CAF one?


----------



## daftandbarmy (17 Feb 2021)

Haggis said:


> Maybe the "Leading Change" bubble on a Brit PER is worth more than on a CAF one?



Never underestimate the levels of self-interest, and political manoeuvring, involved when Generals start cutting head counts.

There's a reason there are still 5 x Guards (Infantry) Regiments in the UK


----------



## Haggis (17 Feb 2021)

daftandbarmy said:


> There's a reason there are still 5 x Guards (Infantry) Regiments in the UK


One for each castle? 💂‍♂️🏰


----------



## daftandbarmy (17 Feb 2021)

Haggis said:


> One for each castle? 💂‍♂️🏰



Dude, not even close.

That's why they have to drag other regiments in to help with all the important 'guarding' that must take place (like 1 PARA, when we were in Edinburgh 'guarding' Hollyrood etc) 









						List of British royal residences - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## FJAG (17 Feb 2021)

Once you invest in that many bearskins and scarlet tunics then you're pretty much committed. 

🙂


----------



## CBH99 (17 Feb 2021)

MilEME09 said:


> Not to mention it would hurt our ability to rotate troops through workup/deployment, and rest/reconstitution cycles. If we shank the forces, we would burn our people out. If anything we need to cut our bureaucratic tail and trade it for military teeth. Our bureaucracy has expanded exponentially without a correlation to defense output, infsct our output has gone down id argue.


Oh absolutely.  I don’t think anybody would, or even could, disagree with you.

The bigger the bureaucracy, the more resources it consumes.  Less for the pointy end.


----------



## CBH99 (18 Feb 2021)

MilEME09 said:


> Not to mention it would hurt our ability to rotate troops through workup/deployment, and rest/reconstitution cycles. If we shank the forces, we would burn our people out. If anything we need to cut our bureaucratic tail and trade it for military teeth. Our bureaucracy has expanded exponentially without a correlation to defense output, infsct our output has gone down id argue.


Oh absolutely.  I don’t think anybody would, or even could, disagree with you.

The bigger the bureaucracy, the more resources it consumes.  Less for the pointy end.


----------

