Author Topic: The Defence Budget [superthread]  (Read 461770 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline MilEME09

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 35,460
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,532
Re: The Defence Budget [superthread]
« Reply #1800 on: May 09, 2017, 23:26:50 »
Not to mention 50 billion for 12 subs. Well thats if we build our own and i feel like it would be higher, now say get 12 built in a foreign yard and we could probably get 12 for like 5 billion

Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk

"We are called a Battalion, Authorized to be company strength, parade as a platoon, Operating as a section"

Offline GR66

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 53,800
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 606
Re: The Defence Budget [superthread]
« Reply #1801 on: May 10, 2017, 00:07:39 »
There are a whole lot of new toys in that document.  I find it hard to argue with the additional equipment they are recommending for the Navy and Air Force, but even with increasing the defence budget to 2% of GDP is it even doable without making significant cuts elsewhere?  HQ and staff cuts will only go so far when you're talking about equipment expenditures of this magnitude, not to mention all the people to man and maintain them.  Does that mean a significantly reduced Army?  Base closures?

Offline MilEME09

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 35,460
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,532
Re: The Defence Budget [superthread]
« Reply #1802 on: May 10, 2017, 01:17:45 »
There are a whole lot of new toys in that document.  I find it hard to argue with the additional equipment they are recommending for the Navy and Air Force, but even with increasing the defence budget to 2% of GDP is it even doable without making significant cuts elsewhere?  HQ and staff cuts will only go so far when you're talking about equipment expenditures of this magnitude, not to mention all the people to man and maintain them.  Does that mean a significantly reduced Army?  Base closures?

No because the report also says the army is undermanned, and capabilities need to stop being divested.

Edit: On that note, whats everyones opinions on the recommendation of creating a Reserve unit in the Yukon?  and expanding the rangers.
« Last Edit: May 10, 2017, 03:08:29 by MilEME09 »
"We are called a Battalion, Authorized to be company strength, parade as a platoon, Operating as a section"

Offline suffolkowner

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 11,150
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 308
Re: The Defence Budget [superthread]
« Reply #1803 on: May 10, 2017, 10:19:14 »
Just for reference - the senate called for 36 Chinooks and one AH for each Chinook - apparently in the senate that equates to 24 AH.

Loachman, how would you feel about 36 AH-1Zs and upping the CH-146s to the UH-1Y configuration?  Don't adjust the number of flying squadrons or pilots.  Just adjust the inventory.

Can the UH-1Y's be built in Montreal? Problem solved! Upgrades on the CH-146 are limited by the transmission are they not?

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 127,150
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,936
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: The Defence Budget [superthread]
« Reply #1804 on: May 10, 2017, 12:43:42 »
Not to mention 50 billion for 12 subs. Well thats if we build our own and i feel like it would be higher, now say get 12 built in a foreign yard and we could probably get 12 for like 5 billion

Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk

Even when we planned on 10-12 nuclear attack subs, it would have been at the expense of the surface fleet. I would like to see 5-6 subs likely tagging onto the Aussie-French deal, 2 operational subs on each coast, 1-2 in various refits. Of the operational subs on the coast, one can be on long operations and the other doing training at and near the base, so the crews can keep up their other training and have something of a life ashore.

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 198,590
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,363
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: The Defence Budget [superthread]
« Reply #1805 on: May 10, 2017, 12:51:11 »
Quote
Can the UH-1Y's be built in Montreal? Problem solved! Upgrades on the CH-146 are limited by the transmission are they not?


That was actually the reason I raised the point.

If new helicopters are required then the options are, in my opinion: the status quo; the AH-1/UH-1 solution; the UH-60/AH-64 solution. 

The USMC has left open a door for the RCAF by its "fast and loose" UH-1 "upgrade".  In my view that is a classic application of "my grandfather's axe" to the procurement issue.  As long as there is one piece of metal, the one with the original serial number on it, left on the aircraft then it is still the original aircraft.  It is still "my grandfather's axe".

That means that the options are, assuming that we want logistics commonality between the AH and the UH versions of the aircraft, either to "upgrade" the Griffons to the USMC UH-1Y/AH-1Z standard or to go whole hog and buy a new fleet of UH-60s and AH-64s.

My "guess" is that in an "open and fair" not to mention "transparent" competition, upgrading the Griffons at Mirabel with part kits supplied from Texas
 would be the least-cost/politically-sensitive solution.
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline MilEME09

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 35,460
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,532
Re: The Defence Budget [superthread]
« Reply #1806 on: May 10, 2017, 14:27:59 »
That would be a good start for sure given our resources, there is a lot of things for the airforce and Navy in this report that if we did it all, we would need a lot more people. Though I've always been an advocate for the airforce and navy being much larger.
"We are called a Battalion, Authorized to be company strength, parade as a platoon, Operating as a section"

Offline Loachman

  • Former Army Pilot in Drag
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 208,787
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,227
Re: The Defence Budget [superthread]
« Reply #1807 on: May 10, 2017, 17:27:21 »
The UH-1Y is more than an "upgrade". Little of the UH-1N likely survives. Everything above and aft of the main cabin area is new, and the cabin area has been extended.

The new LAVs are not "upgrades" either, but new hulls and turrets and many other components. The US Marines had their LAVs stripped and the bottoms of the hulls cut off and new double-V bottoms welded on. It is cheaper to build new hulls, as we did, and that is why so many were offered as monuments.

Whether it is worth Bell's while (and ours, if it costs more) to open a short-run second production line, I don't know. In any case, Bell makes various components in various places - and, as we found out with late-run Griffons, not everything fits as it should. A number were delivered with collectives rubbing against the left-hand doors. Ours were assembled in Mirabel, and then (at least some, if not all) individually flown a long distance, possibly Dallas-Fort Worth, in primer only, to be painted. The last time that I was at the Bell factory in Mirabel, a few years ago, it was pretty packed and busy. Bell is providing employment in, and generating revenue for, this Country already as it is. They may already be building some components for UH-1Y and AH-1Z here.

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 198,590
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,363
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: The Defence Budget [superthread]
« Reply #1808 on: May 10, 2017, 18:48:02 »
The UH-1Y is more than an "upgrade". Little of the UH-1N likely survives. Everything above and aft of the main cabin area is new, and the cabin area has been extended.

The new LAVs are not "upgrades" either, but new hulls and turrets and many other components. The US Marines had their LAVs stripped and the bottoms of the hulls cut off and new double-V bottoms welded on. It is cheaper to build new hulls, as we did, and that is why so many were offered as monuments.

Whether it is worth Bell's while (and ours, if it costs more) to open a short-run second production line, I don't know. In any case, Bell makes various components in various places - and, as we found out with late-run Griffons, not everything fits as it should. A number were delivered with collectives rubbing against the left-hand doors. Ours were assembled in Mirabel, and then (at least some, if not all) individually flown a long distance, possibly Dallas-Fort Worth, in primer only, to be painted. The last time that I was at the Bell factory in Mirabel, a few years ago, it was pretty packed and busy. Bell is providing employment in, and generating revenue for, this Country already as it is. They may already be building some components for UH-1Y and AH-1Z here.

I understand you Loachman.  The UH-1Y is to the UH-1N as the F18-E is to the F18-C.  But this country doesn't seem to see much below the headlines.  And if, as you suggest, Mirabel might already be engaged in the USMC programme, maybe that is another point in its favour.
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline GK .Dundas

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 17,945
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 444
Re: The Defence Budget [superthread]
« Reply #1809 on: May 11, 2017, 01:34:41 »
The Marines UH 1 Y programme reminds me of two different US Programmes separated by almost a hundred years
 The first was the US Navy post civil war modernization of more then a few ships It seems Congress  would not fund any new building programs at all but it seemed there was if not plenty  than adequate funding for  improving and modernizing .
So what the navy did was replaced everything but the ships bell with a new , well new everything .
 The second one was the CIA and the US Air Force  had ONMark engineering  rebuild B 26 C's into A 26 K's the story goes that ONMark replaced everything but the windshield .
In short if we buy into the Yankee  we will not be upgrading  we will be purchasing new builds .
« Last Edit: May 11, 2017, 11:03:23 by GK .Dundas »
"Norman. You know my policy on arming morons.If you arm one you have arm them all. Otherwise it 's just not sporting!"

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 127,150
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,936
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: The Defence Budget [superthread]
« Reply #1810 on: May 11, 2017, 10:11:26 »
Many a DHC Beaver are a new plane built around the Registration plate

Offline milnews.ca

  • Info Curator, Baker & Food Slut
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Relic
  • *
  • 406,945
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 21,531
    • MILNEWS.ca-Military News for Canadians
Re: The Defence Budget [superthread]
« Reply #1811 on: May 24, 2017, 19:21:15 »
I know, people will be shocked to see this from ceasefire.ca/Rideau Disarmament Institute* ...
Quote
I don't want Canada's military spending increased by $20 billion.

Use available public dollars to improve social programs, to conserve the environment, and to build peace.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is being pressed to increase Canada's military spending. The pressure is coming from United States President Donald Trump, who is being supported by a large military establishment within Canada with close ties to the U.S. military and American-based weapons-builders.

They want Canada to double its military spending to reach 2 per cent of our national economy, measured as Gross Domestic Product (GDP). This would be an increase of more than $20 billion a year for the military.

Instead of increases to military spending, the Canadians who have signed this petition support our tax dollars being used to improve social programs, to prevent climate change, and to build peace.

Add your name to the petition
President Trump has pledged to increase U.S. military spending by $54 billion, creating a defence budget that will exceed $600 billion each year. His plan includes efforts to "bomb the Hell out of ISIS," increase the total number of ships in the US Navy fleet, build additional F-35 fighter jets to expand the Air Force, and increase America's nuclear forces.

To pay for it, he's slashing spending on foreign aid, environmental protection, health, education, and housing.

The United States is already the highest military spender in the world. American military spending is nearly three times the spending of China, the second highest globally, and is nine times that of Russia, the world's third-highest military spender ...
You get the gist ...

* - The "Disarmament" is silent.
“The risk of insult is the price of clarity.” -- Roy H. Williams

The words I share here are my own, not those of anyone else or anybody I may be affiliated with.

Tony Prudori
MILNEWS.ca - Twitter

Offline MilEME09

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 35,460
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,532
Re: The Defence Budget [superthread]
« Reply #1812 on: May 24, 2017, 19:58:07 »
If it was upto them, we would have no military. At that point we might as we raise the american flag.

Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk

"We are called a Battalion, Authorized to be company strength, parade as a platoon, Operating as a section"

Offline Sandyson

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Member
  • *
  • 3,220
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 108
Re: The Defence Budget [superthread]
« Reply #1813 on: May 24, 2017, 20:39:45 »
Well considering the frequency of seeing the American flag in this country, I'd say we already have raised it.  As for the CF budget, we would probably keep peace with the Pentagon if we sent half of it to them as tribute and closed the local shop.  Then we'd have more money for the variety of welfare cheques needed.  (Hey! You have a pretty good idea there.) [Xp

Offline Dimsum

    West coast best coast.

  • Mentor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 161,245
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,738
  • I get paid to travel. I just don't pick where.
Re: The Defence Budget [superthread]
« Reply #1814 on: May 24, 2017, 23:38:11 »
Well considering the frequency of seeing the American flag in this country, I'd say we already have raised it.

Where do you live?  Aside from sports games where we're playing against the US, the border, or at American institutions/companies, I'd be hard-pressed to see the US flag at all.  We get American programming on TV but so does everyone else, to varying degrees - you see US programs in the UK or Australia just as much.
Philip II of Macedon to Spartans (346 BC):  "You are advised to submit without further delay, for if I bring my army into your land, I will destroy your farms, slay your people, and raze your city."

Reply:  "If."

Offline milnews.ca

  • Info Curator, Baker & Food Slut
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Relic
  • *
  • 406,945
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 21,531
    • MILNEWS.ca-Military News for Canadians
Re: The Defence Budget [superthread]
« Reply #1815 on: May 25, 2017, 14:51:57 »
Trump to NATO today - also attached if link doesn't work ...
Quote
Thank you very much, Secretary General Stoltenberg.  Chancellor Merkel, thank you very much.  Other heads of state and government, I am honored to be here with members of an alliance that has promoted safety and peace across the world. 

Prime Minister May, all of the nations here today grieve with you and stand with you.  I would like to ask that we now observe a moment of silence for the victims and families of the savage attack which took place in Manchester.  (A moment of silence is observed.)  Thank you.  Terrible thing.

This ceremony is a day for both remembrance and resolve.  We remember and mourn those nearly 3,000 innocent people who were brutally murdered by terrorists on September 11th, 2001.  Our NATO allies responded swiftly and decisively, invoking for the first time in its history the Article 5 collective defense commitments. 

The recent attack on Manchester in the United Kingdom demonstrates the depths of the evil we face with terrorism.  Innocent little girls and so many others were horribly murdered and badly injured while attending a concert -- beautiful lives with so much great potential torn from their families forever and ever.  It was a barbaric and vicious attack upon our civilization.

All people who cherish life must unite in finding, exposing, and removing these killers and extremists -- and, yes, losers.  They are losers.  Wherever they exist in our societies, we must drive them out and never, ever let them back in. 

This call for driving out terrorism is a message I took to a historic gathering of Arab and Muslim leaders across the region, hosted by Saudi Arabia.  There, I spent much time with King Salman, a wise man who wants to see things get much better rapidly.  The leaders of the Middle East have agreed at this unprecedented meeting to stop funding the radical ideology that leads to this horrible terrorism all over the globe.

My travels and meetings have given me renewed hope that nations of many faiths can unite to defeat terrorism, a common threat to all of humanity.  Terrorism must be stopped in its tracks, or the horror you saw in Manchester and so many other places will continue forever.  You have thousands and thousands of people pouring into our various countries and spreading throughout, and in many cases, we have no idea who they are.  We must be tough.  We must be strong.  And we must be vigilant. 

The NATO of the future must include a great focus on terrorism and immigration, as well as threats from Russia and on NATO’s eastern and southern borders.  These grave security concerns are the same reason that I have been very, very direct with Secretary Stoltenberg and members of the Alliance in saying that NATO members must finally contribute their fair share and meet their financial obligations, for 23 of the 28 member nations are still not paying what they should be paying and what they’re supposed to be paying for their defense.

This is not fair to the people and taxpayers of the United States.  And many of these nations owe massive amounts of money from past years and not paying in those past years.  Over the last eight years, the United States spent more on defense than all other NATO countries combined.  If all NATO members had spent just 2 percent of their GDP on defense last year, we would have had another $119 billion for our collective defense and for the financing of additional NATO reserves.

We should recognize that with these chronic underpayments and growing threats, even 2 percent of GDP is insufficient to close the gaps in modernizing, readiness, and the size of forces.  We have to make up for the many years lost.  Two percent is the bare minimum for confronting today’s very real and very vicious threats.  If NATO countries made their full and complete contributions, then NATO would be even stronger than it is today, especially from the threat of terrorism. 

I want to extend my appreciation to the 9/11 Memorial and Museum in New York for contributing this remnant of the North Tower, as well as to Chancellor Merkel and the German people for donating this portion of the Berlin Wall.  It is truly fitting that these two artifacts now reside here so close together at the new NATO Headquarters.  And I never asked once what the new NATO Headquarters cost.  I refuse to do that.  But it is beautiful.

Each one marks a pivotal event in the history of this Alliance and in the eternal battle between good and evil.  On one side, a testament to the triumph of our ideals over a totalitarian Communist ideology bent on the oppression of millions and millions of people; on the other, a painful reminder of the barbaric evil that still exists in the world and that we must confront and defeat together as a group, as a world.

This twisted mass of metal reminds us not only of what we have lost, but also what forever endures -- the courage of our people, the strength of our resolve, and the commitments that bind us together as one. 

We will never forget the lives that were lost.  We will never forsake the friends who stood by our side.  And we will never waiver in our determination to defeat terrorism and to achieve lasting security, prosperity and peace.

Thank you very much.  It’s a great honor to be here.  Thank you.

END 
Interesting tidbits ...
Quote
... The NATO of the future must include a great focus on terrorism and immigration, as well as threats from Russia and on NATO’s eastern and southern borders ...
Good on him for naming the underlined bit - interesting including "immigration" as a potential NATO issue (although there's always been more than just defence @ play with the Alliance).
Quote
... 23 of the 28 member nations are still not paying what they should be paying and what they’re supposed to be paying for their defense.

This is not fair to the people and taxpayers of the United States.  And many of these nations owe massive amounts of money from past years and not paying in those past years.  Over the last eight years, the United States spent more on defense than all other NATO countries combined.  If all NATO members had spent just 2 percent of their GDP on defense last year, we would have had another $119 billion for our collective defense and for the financing of additional NATO reserves ...
On the bit in orange, who do the countries "owe" this money to?  If there's going to be billing/accounting, does that mean Canada gets  a credit for helping out the last (only) time Article 5 was invoked?  Also, what's that yellow underlined bit mean?  More reserve military forces or $ reserves?
“The risk of insult is the price of clarity.” -- Roy H. Williams

The words I share here are my own, not those of anyone else or anybody I may be affiliated with.

Tony Prudori
MILNEWS.ca - Twitter

Offline Rifleman62

    Retired.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 86,345
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,875
Re: The Defence Budget [superthread]
« Reply #1816 on: May 25, 2017, 17:15:00 »
Quote
Also, what's that yellow underlined bit mean?  More reserve military forces or $ reserves?

Financial funds (contingency reserve funds). In context:
Quote
If all NATO members had spent just 2 percent of their GDP on defense last year, we would have had another $119 billion for our collective defense and for the financing of additional NATO reserves ...
in the NATO kitty.
Never Congratulate Yourself In Victory, Nor Blame Your Horses In Defeat - Old Cossack Expression

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 198,590
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,363
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: The Defence Budget [superthread]
« Reply #1817 on: May 25, 2017, 17:35:19 »
To whom is the money owed?

Well, for the last umpteen years Johnny has been inviting his buddies over to his annual potluck kegger.  23 out of 28 have been showing up with a bag of chips while Johnny puts dogs, burgers and steaks on the grill.  Johnny made lots of friends but his family was going broke. 

Johnny has asked that somebody else supply the steaks and beer this year.

Strangely there is some talk of abandoning the "tradition".  And not much talk of how to help Johnny.
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline MilEME09

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 35,460
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,532
Re: The Defence Budget [superthread]
« Reply #1818 on: September 06, 2017, 11:04:14 »
atleast someone has high hopes for the new defense policy

Quote
Canadian Army commander hopes days of scrounging to train soldiers are over

By Lee BerthiaumeThe Canadian Press
Tues., Sept. 5, 2017

OTTAWA—Canadian Army commander Lt.-Gen. Paul Wynnyk is hoping the federal government’s new defence policy means the days of pinching pennies to properly train his soldiers are finally in the past.

Much of the attention around the Liberals’ defence policy has focused on the large amounts of money promised for new equipment such as fighter jets and warships.

The army will benefit from this bonanza, with new air-defence weapons and logistical vehicles among the extra $62 billion that the government has promised for the Canadian Forces over the next 20 years.

But what has Wynnyk most excited is that the government has — for the first time — promised to train Canada’s soldiers to what he considers the required level.

“Throughout the years, when I look back at my career, we haven’t always had a government promise or a government commitment to do that, and by extension the funding to do that,” Wynnyk told The Canadian Press.

“So I think that’s an incredibly important thing that was included in this defence policy, which we haven’t necessarily seen in the past.”

The defence policy specifically states that training to what is known as the “brigade-group level” is the minimum required to be able to conduct large military operations that include non-army units and allies.

Yet funding hasn’t always been available to train to that level, especially following the end of the combat mission in Afghanistan and deep spending cuts under the Harper Conservatives starting in 2012.

The army managed to keep training at the brigade-group level, Wynnyk said, but “it was almost on an ad hoc-basis in terms of cobbling together the funding, having to borrow from one area to go to another.”

One of the areas from which money was drawn? Infrastructure, which has been historically underfunded across the Canadian Forces because of a shortage of funding in other priority areas.

“We had to make hard choices,” Wynnyk said. “We didn’t cut on (training), but we had to skimp and penny-pinch in a number of areas to make sure that that continued.”

The army commander also has high hopes for the future of the military reserves, which are facing a dramatic overhaul after struggling with a shortage of people and equipment for years.

The fate of the part-time force is especially important to Wynnyk given that between 65 and 70 per cent of its members belong to the army reserve, which plays a huge role in virtually all army operations.

The Canadian Forces is supposed to have 28,500 reservists, but the actual number has been thousands less because of problems with recruiting and retention.

The defence policy calls for the reserve force to be expanded to 30,000, as well as shorter recruiting times and four years of guaranteed summer employment to keep them in uniform.

Wynnyk, who started his own 36-year career as an army reservist, is hoping those changes will reverse what had become a steady decline in the size of the part-time force in recent years.

The defence policy also plans to turn reserve units into specialized troops capable of supporting regular-force units with special skills or abilities, such as mortar units, linguists, cyber operators and technicians.

Some reservists have previously complained about a lack of resources to do even their basic jobs right; Wynnyk said there is some validity to those complaints, but the plan is to fix all those issues.

“What we will end up doing is making sure that every reserve unit has an operational role, and they have the force-generation base to actually deploy people on a sustained basis,” Wynnyk said.

“This is actually pretty significant. We haven’t been there in the past, we haven’t been funded to do this in the past.”


https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2017/09/05/canadian-army-commander-hopes-days-of-scrounging-to-train-soldiers-are-over.html
"We are called a Battalion, Authorized to be company strength, parade as a platoon, Operating as a section"

Offline Brad Sallows

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 61,045
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,650
Re: The Defence Budget [superthread]
« Reply #1819 on: November 30, 2017, 11:13:20 »
Fiscal reference tables for 2017 have finally been published.

"Direct Program Expenses - National Defence" is down from $28.5B in 2015-2016 to $25.5B in 2016-2017.  The new government is very efficient at doing more with less.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error.

"It is a damned heavy blow; but whining don't help."

Despair is a sin.

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 127,150
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,936
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: The Defence Budget [superthread]
« Reply #1820 on: November 30, 2017, 11:33:10 »
The money for the fairy dust he is sprinkling has to come from somewhere.

Offline Rifleman62

    Retired.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 86,345
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,875
Re: The Defence Budget [superthread]
« Reply #1821 on: February 26, 2018, 10:05:13 »
https://www.opencanada.org/features/forget-more-defence-dollars-canada-needs-fix-its-procurement-process/

Forget more defence dollars — Canada needs to fix its procurement process - 23 Feb 18
If the new budget touches on defence, it must consider increasing the number of staff and calibre of experts that take care of procuring military equipment, argues Steve Saideman.

On February 27, the Liberals table their next budget. Whatever it says about defence spending, it is probably best to be skeptical.

When Stephen Harper was prime minister, there seemed to be annual announcements that the budget of the Department of National Defence was going to be under-spent by billions of dollars. While there was much suspicion that this was part of an effort to reach a balanced budget, the fact that the Trudeau government may be forced to make similar announcements — which may very well happen when this year’s budget is released — suggests something is broken besides campaign promises.

Indeed, when the Defence Policy Review, Strong, Secure, Engaged, was released in 2017 with promises of much greater defence spending, there was much criticism, as people anticipated that the Liberals had no intention of actually fulfilling those promises.

It turns out that there is a feature in Canadian defence that is enduring, regardless of the party in power: it is hard to spend large amounts of defence dollars.

This seems counter-intuitive, since most defence projects are expensive, and increasingly so, as defence costs inflate faster than most of the economy. Yet it is precisely that the big projects require complex processes to make the decisions, issue the contracts and then build the weapons systems that make it so easy for spending to slip from one year to the next.

Simply put, Canada does not have enough procurement specialists to do all of the work, as prior defence cuts have meant expertise is lagging when it comes to how to estimate costs quickly, how to develop clear requirements for contracts, and how to write contracts. On top of that, there is a cumbersome bureaucracy involving multiple ministers which means diffuse accountability — no single minister is accountable because several partially are. This means that decisions get delayed, which in turn means that money goes unspent.

The National Shipbuilding Strategy illustrates these problems quite well. It seemed simple. The shipyards were chosen years ago (in 2011) — Irving in Halifax for the frigates and the arctic offshore patrol vessels and Seaspan in Vancouver for the support ships. While that was the big political decision, it did not mean that designs of ships were chosen or subcontractors determined for various parts of the project. Picking ship designs is a complicated process, since the design that wins may influence which subcontractors get more or less of the work, and also because the Navy values flexibility, which means that tradeoffs may be deferred. Moreover, delays increase the costs in a variety of ways, so as governments change and tweak the requirements, deferring decisions causes the budgets to grow.

"No single minister is accountable because several partially are. This means that decisions get delayed, which in turn means that money goes unspent."   

To be clear, while it often seems like the defence contractors are at the mercy of capricious politicians and delayed by the understaffing of procurement officials, they also can make everything more complicated. Currently, the highest-ranking officer in the Royal Canadian Navy, Vice Admiral Mark Norman, is suspended due to unproven claims he was embroiled in the rivalry the Irving shipbuilding company has with the Davie shipyards. The story is complex, but the ruthless desire by Irving to get every potential project made it more difficult to produce interim ships to supply the Navy at sea. In short, everyone involved is mismanaging defence procurement.

The F-35 story is very similar but “benefits” from more politicization. No major party can oppose the shipbuilding effort, nor can they be too critical, since it involves thousands of clearly identified jobs — and voters. The effort to replace the current fighter planes has been fraught from the outset, as politicians have attacked competing parties over decisions and non-decisions alike. Whatever “offsets” there might be that lead to high tech jobs in Canada, they are not so clearly tied to particularly communities, like ships in Halifax and Vancouver. This means that the various parties can politicize and threaten to cancel all they want.

To what effect? The Royal Canadian Navy simply cannot do as much as it once could. It cannot send as many ships to sea since the RCN has fewer ships. Because Canada is not at war, this does not endanger Canadian security — the absence of a few ships will not lead to our invasion.  But it may mean that Canada cannot keep all of its commitments to its allies, that it cannot always show up when it is expected to do so. Politically, it is problematic; Canada was able to assure US President Donald Trump last year that while we may not spend two percent of GDP on defence anytime in the near future, Canada was going to be increasing its defence spending. But stories of deferring spending may cause Trump to overreact, as he will not read beyond the headline to realize that news is the result of procurement problems. 

Politically, of all the promises Justin Trudeau made, the broken commitments on the defence file will probably cost him the least. Unless one works for a defence contractor, most people do not vote based on defence spending. The Conservatives can try to argue that they are more serious about national defence, but their lousy record of procurement is recent enough that they probably do not want to focus on it. The New Democratic Party will never try to outflank the Liberal Party to its right. So, the political consequences are probably minimal.

The most serious cost involved is that older equipment might endanger Canadian soldiers, sailors and aviators. They may not be able to perform their assigned missions to the best of their ability because their equipment may not function as well as it should, or as well as the equipment of their adversaries. So, while a navy reliant on leased supply ships or on an interim vessel might seem like a joke, this is not really a laughing matter.

When it comes to the realities of the modern military, the risks are significant and the consequences can be fatal. Getting better at procurement, something that Strong, Secure, and Engaged promised to do, is not just about saving money and preventing the government from being embarrassed. It is what we owe the people who risk their lives for Canada at home and abroad.

So, whatever promises are made in this budget, the focus should be on whether it includes significant improvements, including increased staffing, of Canada’s defence procurement specialists. Alas, these people don't just appear from thin air — they require training and experience. The question remains whether the new budget will create incentives and processes that begin to reverse the shortfalls. All we can be certain of is that if the procurement process is not fixed, more dollars will be pushed further into the future, and so will the ships, planes and other kit that the Canadian Armed Forces need.

Never Congratulate Yourself In Victory, Nor Blame Your Horses In Defeat - Old Cossack Expression

Offline pbi

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 52,725
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,961
Re: The Defence Budget [superthread]
« Reply #1822 on: February 26, 2018, 10:33:17 »
https://www.opencanada.org/features/forget-more-defence-dollars-canada-needs-fix-its-procurement-process/

Forget more defence dollars — Canada needs to fix its procurement process - 23 Feb 18
If the new budget touches on defence, it must consider increasing the number of staff and calibre of experts that take care of procuring military equipment, argues Steve Saideman. ...The question remains whether the new budget will create incentives and processes that begin to reverse the shortfalls. All we can be certain of is that if the procurement process is not fixed, more dollars will be pushed further into the future, and so will the ships, planes and other kit that the Canadian Armed Forces need.

A very good article, and actually quite objective. IMHO this is not really a "Liberal" or a "Tory" problem: it's a "Govt of Canada" problem, including the DND and CAF. This can't just be blamed on politicians, as much as military people love doing that.

I recently read a history of the ill-fated Bobcat APC project which the Canadian Army launched back in the early 1960's. (IIRC you can see the sole surviving prototype in the RCAC Park at Borden). This sad story had all the sordid earmarks of a typical Canadian defence project, with all the usual suspects (or their contemporary equivalents). One thing was quite clear: the Army created some of its own grief with unrealistic "Cadillac" expectations for the vehicle, some of which were in advance of contemporary AFV technology. I think we may still have problems like this.

Remember that politicians, of any stripe, are usually opportunists. If defence spending doesn't offer any attractive opportunities for them, it will not have much priority.
The Nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done by fools. ...

The true measure of a man is what he would do if he knew he never would be found out...

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 127,150
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,936
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: The Defence Budget [superthread]
« Reply #1823 on: February 26, 2018, 12:34:28 »
defense procurement in Canada has been broken since 1867, with only a few bright spots along the way.

Offline Bird_Gunner45

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 52,421
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,106
Re: The Defence Budget [superthread]
« Reply #1824 on: February 26, 2018, 18:18:47 »
A very good article, and actually quite objective. IMHO this is not really a "Liberal" or a "Tory" problem: it's a "Govt of Canada" problem, including the DND and CAF. This can't just be blamed on politicians, as much as military people love doing that.

I recently read a history of the ill-fated Bobcat APC project which the Canadian Army launched back in the early 1960's. (IIRC you can see the sole surviving prototype in the RCAC Park at Borden). This sad story had all the sordid earmarks of a typical Canadian defence project, with all the usual suspects (or their contemporary equivalents). One thing was quite clear: the Army created some of its own grief with unrealistic "Cadillac" expectations for the vehicle, some of which were in advance of contemporary AFV technology. I think we may still have problems like this.

Remember that politicians, of any stripe, are usually opportunists. If defence spending doesn't offer any attractive opportunities for them, it will not have much priority.

Defence procurement, even at the lowest levels, is seemingly designed to make people not procure anything. As an example- the current surplus in 1 CMBG is $4 million, give or take. But, because the PSPC purchasing deadline was in November, the Brigade can't purchase large items that it needs as nothing over $25k can be procured. So, the Bde will just inevitably turn the money in. the units can't even just buy gym equipment as it's over $25k, which gets you a grand sum of 3 treadmills.

If we can't have a system flexible enough to buy gym equipment for infantry battalions (which isn't controversial in any way) than how can we expect to buy vehicles or aircraft with any sort of competency?