# Increased funding



## Bike to Live (9 May 2011)

Now that the Conservatives have a majority, do you think the CF will receive its much needed funding?


----------



## PuckChaser (9 May 2011)

In these economic times, and with no mission after Afghanistan? Probably not. We'll be lucky not to have our increases rolled back slightly to help balance the books. Once the books are balanced, I'm sure our capital acquisition projects will get the funding they need.


----------



## FactorXYZ (9 May 2011)

How much are the F-35's gonna cost us (for this year).


----------



## OldSolduer (9 May 2011)

Bike to Live said:
			
		

> Now that the Conservatives have a majority, do you think the CF will receive its much needed funding?



No. We may see a cut now that the big Afghan mission is done.


----------



## dapaterson (9 May 2011)

DND/CF currently fails to spend over 4% of its budget.  More money will just mean mroe that doesn't get spent.  Look at today's Windsor Star for an article.

The previous budget (that failed to pass) began a process of slight reductions to planned increases in defence spending.  SO DND/CF will still get more, just not as much mroe as was once planned.  Those "reductions" are to be $500M this year, and $1B in each of the folowing 3 years, or about 1/3 of the government's target of $11B in savings over 4 years.


----------



## the 48th regulator (9 May 2011)

Bike to Live said:
			
		

> Now that the Conservatives have a majority, do you think the CF will receive its much needed funding?



Can you please define what "Much needed funding" means.

Please don't give anecdotal, legion hall opinions.


dileas

tess


----------



## PuckChaser (9 May 2011)

FactorXYZ said:
			
		

> How much are the F-35's gonna cost us (for this year).



Nothing, they're not going to be in production yet.


----------



## Bike to Live (9 May 2011)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> Can you please define what "Much needed funding" means.
> 
> Please don't give anecdotal, legion hall opinions.
> 
> ...





I am glad you asked. 

Our Navy is too small and  Air force is almost non-existant.


----------



## dapaterson (9 May 2011)

Bike to Live said:
			
		

> I am glad you asked.
> 
> Our Navy is too small and  Air force is almost non-existant.



What are the strategic effects you think we should achieve, and, from those, what resources are required to meet those goals?   What resources do we currently have and are they optimally employed, or should we realign them to meet those goals?


----------



## the 48th regulator (9 May 2011)

Bike to Live said:
			
		

> I am glad you asked.
> 
> Our Navy is too small and  Air force is almost non-existant.




Based on what criteria?  

dileas

tess


----------



## jeffb (9 May 2011)

Bike to Live said:
			
		

> Our Navy is too small and  Air force is almost non-existant.



Based on what? Our "non-existant" (sic) air force is currently doing a pretty good job right now in Libya. Such a good job in fact that we are running out of bombs.


----------



## dapaterson (9 May 2011)

jeffb said:
			
		

> Based on what? Our "non-existant" (sic) air force is currently doing a pretty good job right now in Libya. Such a good job in fact that we are running out of bombs.



And the real Air Force is doing stellar work in keeping the air bridges open to both large international deployments, together with supporting transportation for disaster relief at home.

Though if you were to lobby for two more C-17s, a dozen more Herc Js and a new FWSAR platform I don't know if I could argue with you.


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (9 May 2011)

Bike to Live said:
			
		

> I am glad you asked.
> 
> Our Navy is too small




One of the worlds longest coastlines - 3 antique destroyers, 12 frigates, 4 perpetually dry-docked obsolete subs.  Plus some wannabe warships suited for training or policing.  Even the frigates are pushing 20 years.  I never realized it was that bad but it sure is.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (9 May 2011)

Perhaps we could throw 3 x Batteries worth of MANPADs in for the Air Defence too?


----------



## the 48th regulator (9 May 2011)

Dennis Ruhl said:
			
		

> One of the worlds longest coastlines - 3 antique destroyers, 12 frigates, 4 perpetually dry-docked obsolete subs.  Plus some wannabe warships suited for training or policing.  Even the frigates are pushing 20 years.  I never realized it was that bad but it sure is.




Are we to beef up our Navy to fulfill historical feel good needs, or is there a tactical need for them?

This has been argued ad nausea on the forums, which I believe you have stomped your feet within a few threads.

Back to the Original Posters ranting....please explain.

dileas

tess


----------



## jeffb (9 May 2011)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> And the real Air Force is doing stellar work in keeping the air bridges open to both large international deployments, together with supporting transportation for disaster relief at home.



You are absolutely correct of course.  Sometimes my Army brain focuses on kinetic effects.  I'm a gunner though so I guess you can't blame me for liking things that go boom.  :nod:


----------



## psionic0 (9 May 2011)

Should it really matter where the money is spent. All branches are in need of it. True the army has been the focus for the last several years. However that is due to the last mission.  That being said, most of the equipment that was bought for the Afghan mission was done reactionary. In most cases, it took a casualty for the powers that be to cough up the equipment necessary to keep our troops safe. Remember folks, we used to travel to streets of Kabul in open top ILTIS's. Who'd be willing to do that today?


----------



## dapaterson (9 May 2011)

psionic0 said:
			
		

> Should it really matter where the money is spent. All branches are in need of it. True the army has been the focus for the last several years. However that is due to the last mission.  That being said, most of the equipment that was bought for the Afghan mission was done reactionary. In most cases, it took a casualty for the powers that be to cough up the equipment necessary to keep our troops safe. Remember folks, we used to travel to streets of Kabul in open top ILTIS's. Who'd be willing to do that today?



(1) The Navy, Army and Air Force are unable to spend the funding they currently have; every year millions of dollars are lapsed.  How will throwing more money at them change any thing - when they are unable to spend the money they already have?

(2) You might want to read up on COIN and interactions with the population before denouncing vehicles.


Besides, your comments are very broad and lacking in any detail.  What is more money needed for?  Where specifically should it be applied?  Are there any places the CF can save money to reinvest in more important areas?


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (10 May 2011)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> (1) The Navy, Army and Air Force are unable to spend the funding they currently have; every year millions of dollars are lapsed.  How will throwing more money at them change any thing - when they are unable to spend the money they already have?



I would consider the administration failing to go to heroic lengths to spend all the available funds by March 31 every year as a plus rather than a minus.  The March spending spree in government adds little to programs, but simply serves to sustain budgets at a higher level for the upcoming year.


----------



## OldSolduer (10 May 2011)

Dennis Ruhl said:
			
		

> I would consider the administration failing to go to heroic lengths to spend all the available funds by March 31 every year as a plus rather than a minus.  The March spending spree in government adds little to programs, but simply serves to sustain budgets at a higher level for the upcoming year.



Spending it just cause you have it means diddly squat. I agree. 

A coherent well thought out plan might help.....just sayin....... :2c:


----------



## dinicthus (10 May 2011)

Well, if you need, say X amount of dollars to properly address a shortfall in perceived capabilities, or a perceived shortfall in capabilities, if you have 0.00X (1/1000th) of what is necessary to buy the new -  whatever- dollars available, then I can understand why they would not get spent every year, because they just aren't enough to make the leap up to level necessary to buy what is perceived as actually being necessary to deliver a given level of capability.

Any weapons/sensor/transport/armor/whatever system is going to have some minimum level of buy-in. We can't spend a few million, for example, and just buy a couple engines for an F35, though that would snap up the remaining money in that year's budget. They would need enough for the F-35 itself, plus ancillary and support equipment, training, consumables, and replacement parts.

That is my take on the fact that the whole defence budget doesn't get spent. Some things we could purchase have too high of a buy-in, or ante, for us to be able to get there with the available budget "surplus".

But, I still consider it admirable that they don't spend 350 dollars on a hammer and such just to consume the entire budget like I read about another country doing with its defence budget.


----------



## cphansen (10 May 2011)

I think the money which was returned, should have been used to buy samples of equipment we are considering buying. An example would have been the Close Combat Vehicle. I would have liked to see a LAR stood up from the PRes with mortat vehicles, MGS vehicles, Assault Troop and armoured recce vehicles, armoured engineer vehicle, ambulance, a CP vehicle and Supply vehicles. 

I would set it up with 3 squadrons, each one equiped with a different suppliers candidate vehicle. Each squadron would have 2 recce troops, each seven vehicles, one mortar troop of 4 vehicles, one assault troop with 4 vehicles, one troop of DSFVs consisting of 4 MGS's.

Then I would have the squadrons go to Eastern, Central and Western Canada and have the PRes run the crap out of them, testing the durability and ease of maintenace of the candidate vehicles, seeing how they do in xold weather, mud and just lousy conditions.

It would give us a good picture of the capability and suitability of the different candidate vehicles.

It would give the PRes a meaningful tasking, allow a trained pool of personnel to be created for the different vehicle types.

The test period should be roughly a year, then the next year do the same with logistical vehicles ehich would benefit all the services. We also need to do the same thing for helicopters for all the services.

We need to shorten the procurement cycle and we, the forces, need to know more about the equipment's actual worth


----------



## aesop081 (10 May 2011)

Bike to Live said:
			
		

> Air force is almost non-existant.



Go tell Gadafi that.......



> as of 2359 hr UTC, 8 May 2011
> 
> Sorties to date
> CF-188 Hornet 232
> ...


----------



## captloadie (10 May 2011)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> (1) The Navy, Army and Air Force are unable to spend the funding they currently have; every year millions of dollars are lapsed.  How will throwing more money at them change any thing - when they are unable to spend the money they already have?



When you think about it, spending 96% percent of your funding based on a plan developed eight months before the actual money is allocated is pretty good. Projects slip, flight hours can't be flown, maintenance contracts can't be completed, etc. If we wanted to fix the system, we'd set up a method to move allocated funds into the next fiscal year to fund previously approved expenditures. This would eliminate most of the march madness, and reduce the waste we see that comes with it. 

Furthermore, the money doesn't disappear. In many cases it goes to the L1s to offset overexpenditures in other units, and in the end it goes to pay down the national debt. This is a better use of tax dollars than a CO approving spending the funds on PP&S, and as much equipment under $1000 as possible by 31 March just because he can't use it.


----------



## dapaterson (10 May 2011)

My point is that the department chronicaly underspends - not once or twie, but every year.  Read the RPP and DPR and look at how much DND lapses and carries forward annually.  The number of zeros at the end is alarming.

Dinicthus: Would $1B a year be enough to address your shortfalls?  Since that's what DND hands back every year.  Special permissions generally let DND carry forward $400M each year, though, so we're down to "only" $600M each year.  So, on a ten-year project, that's $6B you could spend - from existing reference levels, without touching anything that's currently done.  Still think DND is underfunded when I'm offering you $6B?


SherH2A:  "Simplify procurement" - again, sounds good - but what do you mean?  What parts of the process do you want to eliminate or streamline?  And re: new vehicles: there are already significant maintenance backlogs for the military - buying new DSFVs/LAVs/whatevers will only make that worse - unless you're getting rid of some other vehicles or hiring more mechanics.

Pie in the sky internet bitching is altogether too common.  Perhaps stopping to think things through might be in order first.


----------



## dinicthus (10 May 2011)

That's a lot of money being handed back, indeed.

Being as ignorant as I am (thus the questions) I didn't really have a shortfall that I perceived. That would take someone with some actual experience in the field. But I do like to humbly discuss things. Helps me learn more.


----------



## cphansen (10 May 2011)

Thank you for your comments.
To simplify procurement, I would use the $1 billion to get samples of the equipment into the hands of tactical users earlier in the cycle and have them use the equipment to destruction in the major regions of Canada. It would be pretty effective testing,

This would eliminate the obviously unsuitable equipment earlier in the cycle. For example I was talking about a LAR being setup from the PRes because properly setup, it would embodie the tasks of all the combat arms, even the artillery ie the mortar troop. Setting it up from the PRes would allow PRes personnel, from all the arms,  to learn the skills needed to maintain and use the equipment. This would allow the regular force to keep on with their primary task to defend  Canada. When the equipment is selected we would have a pool of individuals ready to instruct on the equipment and it's maintenance.

As for the non selected equipment, it could be sold or used on the ranges.


----------



## dapaterson (10 May 2011)

SherH2A:  Spending $1B still requires procurement - and $1B is a lot of money.  So how will you simplify that procurement?


----------



## a_majoor (10 May 2011)

The real problem is internal.

We have multiple layers of headquarters and Byzantine procurement processes that eat up time and resources. Take an axe to a lot of that overhead and we would actually save money (or have PY's to fill out the sharp end in the three services), and also speed up the procurement process which would also save lots of money. 

Waiting ten years to get a new rucksack in service (much less a ship) requires paying overhead to the project office for that time, as well as allowing inflation to boost the price of the finished product compared to the decade old "bid" price. As noted, monies actually allocated during any particular FY are often not spent because the process is so slow.

Given the economic realities we are facing, it would be a far better use of our resources to unclog the system and maximise the use of our existinig resources rather than making plans based on possible new funding.


----------



## OldSolduer (10 May 2011)

For what its worth (probably not a lot) - I have some thoughts:

Procurement - I don't know much about it, so I'll leave it alone for now.

Politics - not just poltical players but internal politics within government and the department can play a big role. Its government policy that we "buy Canadian" if there is a Canadian product that can fulfill the requirements, am I correct dapaterson? 
 First example  - We went through this in 91 or 92 when a fellow (nice fellow actually) from NDHQ was breifing us on the new boot project. We wanted Danners to be the new boot, HOWEVER we were told that there is a Canadian company that can fulfill the requirement, so you can't have Danners. That's why more than one or two people slipped with the CWWB - we saved money by putting on the wrong soles.
Second example  - remember the "horse blanket" that was issued in the early 90s when we wanted the American ranger blanket? That was made of material that DND had purchased and was left over from the old rainsuit. Another government department (Supply and Service I think) said, if you want those blankets....you have to use this material first. Until its gone, forget it.

Now add into the mix the politicians who sit in Parliament and demand that their province get huge contracts from DND...and you get a dog's breakfast.
If anyone remembers the CF 18 Maintenance contract.....


----------



## cphansen (10 May 2011)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> SherH2A:  Spending $1B still requires procurement - and $1B is a lot of money.  So how will you simplify that procurement?



Your right $1B is a lot of money. I am using the current CCSV competition as and example. We have already come up with candidates what I propose is buying sufficent examples of the top 3 candidates to produce a sqn each of the candidates and test them to destruction by PRes personnel. The $1B should cover the PYs and training. This would allow the CF to develop SOPs etc. The unit could serve as OPFOR in exercises with the regulars.  

This would shorten the process byhaving 3 different candidates tested at the same time by a larger pool of personnel. It would also allow tactical SOPs to be refined for the candidates and introduce the candidates overall to the CF. It would also put to sleep, probably for good, that the PRes are unable to maintain the current generation of equipment. If the vehicles can't be maintained by the PRes then perhaps the problem is in the vehicle design. Any armoured PRes unit should be capable of keeping their vehicles in good running order, breaking and changing track, pulling and replacing engines, radios etc.

I think doing it this way would reduce the procurement cycle and speed up the introduction of the vehicles to the forces. We could even use the PRes personnel to staff the schools which will be needed as part of the introduction.

The same approach could be used for things like helicopters, guns. Unfortunately it would be difficult for large ticket items like ships etc.  I don't know whether even $1B would suffice to purchase flights of the F35 or Typhon etc, if the competition was opened up. At least it would prevent us from sinking too much into vehicles which aren't operational yet.


----------



## dapaterson (10 May 2011)

Ah - but you've just changed the rules midway through the procurement, saying that you're buying three sample sets.  So, by procurement regulations, we'd have to scrap what's been done to date and re-issue the solicitation.

So, in fact, you'll slow things down further.


----------



## cphansen (10 May 2011)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Ah - but you've just changed the rules midway through the procurement, saying that you're buying three sample sets.  So, by procurement regulations, we'd have to scrap what's been done to date and re-issue the solicitation.
> 
> So, in fact, you'll slow things down further.



Definitely not the intention, so lets take a look at what we need to do. We would definitely have to change some of the rules. 

Once we have identified the candidates, we would then purchase outright the vehicle mix needed to equip a Light Armoured Regiment squadron using one of the three candidates. This would result in a 3 squadron setup. Each squadron would be tested in the major sectionss of Canada, including the tundra and the Arctic, the plains, the maritimes, the Pacific and the Great Lakes area. This would mean the  different squadrons would have to be rotated between the different commands. This would allow the different formations and commands to see, inspect, and rate the candidates according to their showing in exercises against the current regular vehicles etc. This would allow much more feedback from potential users. Of course this would need a fleet of transporters, temporary mobile quarters, workshops etc. We would be building a structure which would be mobile and provide roughly the same level of support as a small base .

We wouuld also task the PRes to man these units because then the units would only be staffed during the time of the trials and then the troops could return to theur regular units


----------



## dapaterson (10 May 2011)

You've jsut made a more complex procurement process, not simpler, and made it more expensive to boot.  .  Buying three fleets requires a process to select which three will be in your "buy and try".  Buying three small fleets will raise the unit price on each vehicle as well, as there's a loss of economies of scale.  You'll need specialized training for each of the three fleets as well - all at a cost of time and money.  There's customization required of each fleet to meet Canadian-specific requirements (like radios and other comms gear).  Doing this for a small fleet is more expensive - non-recurring engineering costs are spread over a much smaller group.  Those incremental costs may convince bidders not to offer their product.  Regulations also require industrial offsets in Canada - expensive to arrange for a small fleet purchase.

You'll also be administering three times as many contracts; you'll be stocking three times as many types of spare parts; you'll be making incompatible infrastructure modifications for things like maintenance bays (vehicle A is wider than B, and B is longer than C) and ammo storage.   Overall, you're now spending more, not less, to get the end product.

Then, once your eveluation is complete, you'll have to negotiate the purchase agreement for the larger fleet.  That also 


Overall, the timleines will be extended, and the costs will be increased if we adopt this methodology.  Perhaps not the end result we want.


----------



## Bike to Live (10 May 2011)

I am very happy. Did you guys read the citizen, front page? The potention purchase of Navy destroyers?


----------



## jollyjacktar (10 May 2011)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> For what its worth (probably not a lot) - I have some thoughts:
> 
> Procurement - I don't know much about it, so I'll leave it alone for now.
> 
> ...


Good Examples, Jim.  I remember the POS Horse Blankets we were issued with in the early 90's.  A waste of money, time and effort to produce as they were so very unsat, according to those of us including myself whom I had contact with at the time.

I wish we would get over the pork barreling that goes on with the procurement process.  It's fine if there truly is a product locally (Cdn) made that does what is needed.  If not, go else where.  The money that is wasted by appeasing all the gimmies out there amongst the chain from HoC to the Squaddie at the end would be better spent in the end and the taxpayer would get more bang for his buck value wise.  If our industrial folks out there make goods that stand the test of time, then they will succeed as they should.  If not, they don't deserve to and we should not prop them up.  A Sam Hughes mentality of buying really has to change otherwise we can end up with a bunch of fantastic Ross rifles, shitty web gear and entrenching tools with a nice hole in the middle to peek thru as is an example of which was money wasted in WW1.


----------

