Beware starving Canadian Forces
By PETER WORTHINGTON 27th April 2009, 2:53am
Article Link
Although there are two years to go before Canadian combat troops are scheduled to be withdrawn from Afghanistan, there are signs the government is cooling on its commitment to expand funding and improve the military.
In the National Post, military historian Jack Granatstein noted that DND budget projections for 2010 and 2011 show a slight decrease from the current $20.993 billion budget.
Last spring, Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Defence Minister Peter MacKay were more gung-ho, promising to raise our regular forces to 75,000 from the present 55,000 effective, and to spend some $30 billion on new aircraft, ships, combat vehicles.
DND's projected budget in 2030 was $30-$35 billion. Some figure this would represent roughly 2% of our GDP going to Defence -- up from the present 1% to 1.5% of GDP.
Granatstein, a military realist, is uneasy that DND's present $20 billion budget "will likely seem to be ripe for the plucking" when the Treasury Board looks for ways to reduce government spending.
"There is little sympathy for the Canadian Forces in the Privy Council Office," he says. He's right. Never has been in that section of the government.
Traditionally, 40% of the DND budget goes to personnel, whose projected numbers keep getting downscaled (now down to 66,000 regulars).
Granatstein also notes that the capital equipment program is not aimed at acquiring new fighter aircraft or warships, but in modernizing and upgrading existing long range patrol aircraft, Leopard II tanks, armoured personnel carriers (APCs), and such.
Sound familiar? It's what we've always done -- keeping equipment, vehicles, aircraft and ships long past their "use before" date. Our equipment is older than most soldiers.
There's also a fishhook embedded in pulling out of Afghanistan.
Put bluntly, it's likely every Canadian fighting vehicle isn't worth bringing home because of the wear and tear of what will be close to nine years in action.
Afghanistan is hard on mechanized vehicles of any sort.
One only has to think back to Canada's peacekeeping days when roughly 50% of our Leopard tanks were out of commission and being repaired at any one time. And they were only used for training in pretend war games.
CASUALTY RATE
Our APCs were originally used by the Americans in the Vietnam War -- and discarded as being too vulnerable. In the Balkans we reinforced them with metal siding and sandbags on the floor. Still, their casualty rate soared.
The Iltus was to be a replacement for the jeep -- and was essentially useless. At the Canadian base in Kabul there was a graveyard of Iltus' stacked in rows. Troops recall we offered them to the Afghan army, which refused unless they were guaranteed a year's supply of gasoline.
More on link
By PETER WORTHINGTON 27th April 2009, 2:53am
Article Link
Although there are two years to go before Canadian combat troops are scheduled to be withdrawn from Afghanistan, there are signs the government is cooling on its commitment to expand funding and improve the military.
In the National Post, military historian Jack Granatstein noted that DND budget projections for 2010 and 2011 show a slight decrease from the current $20.993 billion budget.
Last spring, Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Defence Minister Peter MacKay were more gung-ho, promising to raise our regular forces to 75,000 from the present 55,000 effective, and to spend some $30 billion on new aircraft, ships, combat vehicles.
DND's projected budget in 2030 was $30-$35 billion. Some figure this would represent roughly 2% of our GDP going to Defence -- up from the present 1% to 1.5% of GDP.
Granatstein, a military realist, is uneasy that DND's present $20 billion budget "will likely seem to be ripe for the plucking" when the Treasury Board looks for ways to reduce government spending.
"There is little sympathy for the Canadian Forces in the Privy Council Office," he says. He's right. Never has been in that section of the government.
Traditionally, 40% of the DND budget goes to personnel, whose projected numbers keep getting downscaled (now down to 66,000 regulars).
Granatstein also notes that the capital equipment program is not aimed at acquiring new fighter aircraft or warships, but in modernizing and upgrading existing long range patrol aircraft, Leopard II tanks, armoured personnel carriers (APCs), and such.
Sound familiar? It's what we've always done -- keeping equipment, vehicles, aircraft and ships long past their "use before" date. Our equipment is older than most soldiers.
There's also a fishhook embedded in pulling out of Afghanistan.
Put bluntly, it's likely every Canadian fighting vehicle isn't worth bringing home because of the wear and tear of what will be close to nine years in action.
Afghanistan is hard on mechanized vehicles of any sort.
One only has to think back to Canada's peacekeeping days when roughly 50% of our Leopard tanks were out of commission and being repaired at any one time. And they were only used for training in pretend war games.
CASUALTY RATE
Our APCs were originally used by the Americans in the Vietnam War -- and discarded as being too vulnerable. In the Balkans we reinforced them with metal siding and sandbags on the floor. Still, their casualty rate soared.
The Iltus was to be a replacement for the jeep -- and was essentially useless. At the Canadian base in Kabul there was a graveyard of Iltus' stacked in rows. Troops recall we offered them to the Afghan army, which refused unless they were guaranteed a year's supply of gasoline.
More on link
