CF Funding Discussion - A Merged Thread

[GAP]

Tories unveil Canada's long-term military strategy
CTV.ca News Staff Updated: Thu. Jun. 19 2008 11:32 PM ET
Article Link

One month after Stephen Harper announced major plans for the Canadian military without actually having a document to show the media, the Tories have quietly put their Canada First Defence Strategy online.

The report calls for clearly defined missions and capabilities for the military.

The plan has six core missions:

Daily domestic and continental operations, including in the Arctic and through Canada's commitment to NORAD.
Supporting a major international event in Canada, like the 2010 Olympics.
Responding to any potential terrorist strikes.
Support for civilian authorities for natural disasters.
Conducting a major international mission for a extended period .
Deploying to world crisis spots for shorter periods.

The Tories have committed to provide stable funding over 20 years. It is expected the military will have a budget of $45 to $50 billion for big-ticket purchases.

One chart shows that personnel accounts for $250 billion of defence spending,  2008-09 to 2027-28 (Accrual Numbers), or 51 per cent of the funding. This would see 70,000 regulars and 30,000 reserves by 2028, and includes a 25,000-strong civilian workforce.

The report uses charts and pictures to show where increased spending will go, explaining "...the Government increased defence funding through Budget 2006 by $5.3 billion over five years, including a baseline increase of $1.8 billion starting in 2010-11. In doing so, it established a firm foundation for the future and raised the baseline on which future efforts to rebuild the Canadian Forces will be anchored.
More on link

 

[Edward Campbell]

Here is the document.

 

[Teddy Ruxpin]

Of course, CBC is reporting that the plan calls for $490 billion in spending (link here: CBC story), without providing the least bit of context to that number.  As CTV points out above, a huge chunk of defence spending is on personnel, a point lost on the Bush-bashers making comments on the CBC story.  Once again, I'm at a loss to explain why some "journalists" can be so immune from the effects that their poorly researched and abysmally written work causes.

As for Dawn Black (see CBC's link), don't get me started...

 

[Edward Campbell]

I don’t want to rain on anyone’s parade but I’m not impressed.

First “real dollars” are not a useful measure of defence spending on any sensible comparative basis. That may seem counterintuitive at first glance - what else, besides “real dollars” should we use to measure expenditures, after all? – but those “real dollars” cannot be compared to anything. How, for example, an we assess the priority the government assigns to defence relative, say, to health or education or infrastructure? We need to be able to compare expenditures against some common reference point. How do we compare how important defence is to Canada compared to, say, other NATO members or to Australia, Brazil or China? Once again we need to compare against some standard reference. The most common standard is GDP (Gross Domestic Product – the measure of a nation’s wealth (publicly available for almost all countries – including China).

Using the government’s own data: the graph (Chart 1) on page 11 of the ”Canada First” document and GDP (for 1st quarter of 2008) as reported by Statistics Canada* we can see that:

• Defence spending in 2008/09 (about $18 Billion according to page 4 of the document) will be 1.14% of GDP;

• It will rise to 1.16% of GDP in 2013/14 (when the defence budget is projected (page 11, again) to rise to $20 Billion);

• To 1.29% in 2019/20; and then

• Finally, to 1.34% in 2026/27.

Now, that is a real increase in the measure that matters, so kudos to the Conservative government for that.

We should be able to compare those rates to those of other big spending “envelopes” but, sadly, other ministers are, generally, unable, to project their budgets as far forward as DND is doing. We can, however, compare historical trends. For example, according to one (US) source, Canada’s health care spending increased at an average annual rate of 3.1% per years from 1980 to 2003. That is a rate which is higher than the average annual rate of GDP growth – in other words, health spending was a high priority because it grew at a rate that (slightly) exceeded the rate of GDP growth (which was about 3% for much of that period). Defence spending was a lower priority for much of that period (see page 11, yet again) having, for the 1986-2005 period an average annual rate of real growth of -0.4%.

Defence spending of other nations, measured as a percentage of their GDPs, were dealt with by Ruxted here.

  We decided to examine a few of the middle powers Canada aspires to lead. We selected ten countries (Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Italy, Malaysia, Mexico, Netherlands, Thailand, Singapore and Sweden). Some are larger than Canada, others richer, some others are smaller and poorer. We used an old (2002/03) but consistent data base* to measure defence budgets as a percentage of GDP and permanent force military manpower as a percentage of population. According to that database Canada spent 1.12% of its GDP on defence and 0.18% of its population are in the full time military. Amongst the other 10 middle powers the numbers range from 0.53% of GDP (Brazil) to 4.8% of GDP (Singapore) – nearly a full order of magnitude difference, and military manpower range from 0.11% (Mexico) to 0.61% (Sweden). The averages for the 10 are: 2.36% of GDP is spent on defence and 0.46% of the population serves in the military. Canada, in other words, spends less than half than the average middle power on defence and has just over ⅓ of the average full time military manpower.

Ruxted suggested that Canada should strive soon – by 2012 – to approach a spending level of 2% of GDP by 2012. That is, clearly, not in the cards.

In fact, it appears that while defence spending in Canada will actually grow at a “real” rate over a long period – if successive governments, of whatever stripe, toe the Conservative line – it will not increase at anything like the general rate of inflation, much less at the rate at which prices for sophisticated military hardware increase – but that’s another topic.

A major flaw in the Conservative plan is visible on page 13 (Chart 3a). During most of my service (35+ years) most military experts recommended that a sound defence budget – any country’s defence budget – needed to apply 20% of its resources to equipment, just in order to avoid the periodic episodes of ”rust out” that continue to bedevil the CF and to prevent the need to cut muscle and bone rather than trimming fat. In order to get to 70,000 permanent force military people, 30,000 part time force people supported by 25,000 civil servants Canada will need to spend over half its budget on personnel. A better number would be 35%, in my opinion (but an opinion grounded in data that I am just to lazy to dig out and present here).

All that being said: The laundry list of capabilities (page 3) is most welcome. It is the only acceptable method of justifying expenditures.

• Conduct daily domestic and continental operations, including in the Arctic and through NORAD;
• Support a major international event in Canada, such as the 2010 Olympics;
• Respond to a major terrorist attack;
• Support civilian authorities during a crisis in Canada such as a natural disaster;
• Lead and/or conduct a major international operation for an extended period; and
• Deploy forces in response to crises

The “laundry list” is fleshed out with real numbers of people (page 13) and weapon systems (page 17) that allow Canadians to measure the government’s performance.

On balance, in my opinion, not good enough - but better, much better, that anything we were promised by Trudeau or Chrétien. (Actually, and in fairness, Trudeau delivered more than he promised – under intense pressure from e.g. Helmut Schmidt and Valerie Giscard d’Estaing. Mulroney, on the other hand, promised much and delivered little, but he did, at least, deliver something.)


--------------------
* I have grown GDP at the same rates DND used in the "Canada First" document: 1.5% and then 2%. I think that's seriously below what most economists forecast and that means the projected "real" growth in spending, for which I give the government credit, may be illusory.

Edit: added note.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Of course, CBC is reporting that the plan calls for $490 billion in spending (link here: CBC story), without providing the least bit of context to that number.  As CTV points out above, a huge chunk of defence spending is on personnel, a point lost on the Bush-bashers making comments on the CBC story.  Once again, I'm at a loss to explain why some "journalists" can be so immune from the effects that their poorly researched and abysmally written work causes.

As for Dawn Black (see CBC's link), don't get me started...

Well, DND did toss that number out, in the Executive Summary, so they must have wanted the media to talk about it. The law of unintended consequences and all that, I suppose.

 

[karl28]

        Well I think its great that the CF is starting to get some of the money it needs  to survive .    I have always thought  that Canada needs a small military ( 80,000 or so in troop strength  )  but have enough modern equipment to handle any operations that may come up  . 

 

[Edward Campbell]

If you want another view go to page 10 of this recent (Oct 06) report from the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence.

Here is the pertinent extract:
My emphasis added

Although this Government has at least promised to invest more money than its predecessor, its budget projection for 2011-2012 still works out to about $20 billion. The Committee is convinced that DND needs a budget of at least $25 billion and more likely $35 billion by 2011-2012.* Senior military sources tell us that the higher figure is far more realistic.

Not only will the extrapolated current budget fall short down the road, commitments in the current budget are back-loaded so that relatively little money is being spent upfront. Our Committee believes that quickness is essential – adequate military strength delayed is adequate military strength denied when it may well be needed.

Canadians spend $343 apiece on the most important role of any society – defending itself, and advancing its citizens’ interests abroad. The Dutch, who aren’t exactly known as warmongers, spend $658. The Australians spend $648. The British spend $903. Responsible countries are spending in the neighbourhood of 2 percent of GDP on defence. Our Committee’s proposed budget would place Canada in that category. This government’s budget, if spending continues to increase in the same pattern in the coming years – will not come close.

I don’t know how the good senators found the $343.00 figure; my guesstimate is about $400.00 per Canadian based on a budget (2005/06) of $13.3 Billion and a population of just under 33 Million.

But, on that basis, if the population (same ref) rises to 37.6 Million in 2025 and the budget has indeed risen to just under $30 Billion then we will be spending about $800 per person on defence – ‘better’ than Australia or Holland do now. But, it will still be waaaaaay below the current UK level of 2% of GDP.

Fun with numbers, anyone?


--------------------

* Just about what Ruxted said.

 

[The Bread Guy]

It appears someone else likes your 2% figure, ERC.....

"Many allies face the dilemma of either spending money on operations or investing in new acquisition programs.  Many allies’ failure to respect the 2 percent of GDP target for their defense budgets exacerbates this dilemma and also widens the capability gap with those allies that are investing in usable and deployable forces."
Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, "A fair and equitable burden for Europe’s NATO allies", Taipei Times, 21 Jun 08

 

[TrexLink]

While I am pleased to see the promise of more funding, I find myself a bit confused about what the document actually says. 

Q12. Will the Canadian Forces be receiving a new Northern utility aircraft?

A12. Much work remains to be done to continue implementing the Canada First Defence Strategy, and further details regarding key projects, including equipment decisions, will be forthcoming in the future.

Q13. Is the government still planning on establishing a maritime commando regiment?

A13. The Canada First Defence Strategy focuses on maintaining the key core capabilities that the CF requires to deliver excellence at home and project leadership abroad. The investments included in the Strategy represent our most urgent fundamental requirements. Much work remains to be done to continue implementing the Canada First Defence Strategy, and further details regarding key projects will be forthcoming.


Q14. Will the airborne regiment be reinstated? What about JTF2 moving?

A14. The Canada First Defence Strategy focuses on maintaining the key core capabilities that the CF requires to deliver excellence at home and project leadership abroad. The investments included in the Strategy represent our most urgent fundamental requirements. Much work remains to be done to continue implementing the Canada First Defence Strategy, and further details regarding key projects will be forthcoming.

The govt's own website asks three questions (OK, four). Were any of them answered? 

 

[The Bread Guy]

I deal with government writing a bit, so let me try to translate:

Q12. Will the Canadian Forces be receiving a new Northern utility aircraft?

A12. Much work remains to be done to continue implementing the Canada First Defence Strategy, and further details regarding key projects, including equipment decisions, will be forthcoming in the future.

Q13. Is the government still planning on establishing a maritime commando regiment?

A13. The Canada First Defence Strategy focuses on maintaining the key core capabilities that the CF requires to deliver excellence at home and project leadership abroad. The investments included in the Strategy represent our most urgent fundamental requirements. Much work remains to be done to continue implementing the Canada First Defence Strategy, and further details regarding key projects will be forthcoming.

Q14. Will the airborne regiment be reinstated? What about JTF2 moving?

A14. The Canada First Defence Strategy focuses on maintaining the key core capabilities that the CF requires to deliver excellence at home and project leadership abroad. The investments included in the Strategy represent our most urgent fundamental requirements. Much work remains to be done to continue implementing the Canada First Defence Strategy, and further details regarding key projects will be forthcoming.

Note a pattern here?

Optimist's translation:  "Wait, out"

Neutral translation:  "We've got a lot more stuff to sort out on DOING this, including (issue of question), and we'll let you know once we know."

Pessimist's translation:  "We're going to announce something down the road (but there's no guarantee it'll be this"

 

[Fishbone Jones]

.......or their going to reiterate it, with specifics, as part of the election platform. Something like this is best digested by the proletariat in small chunks. The only ones that want it all now, are the MSM and the opposition, and their only reasoning to tear it apart with a jaundiced eye. I trust the chess skills of Harper.

 

[Kirkhill]

http://blog.macleans.ca/2008/06/20/defence-policy-less-than-it-seems/

From Paul Wells blog a couple of points:

1 - this budget does not include operations - major operations will be financed out of general revenues
2 - it is not clear if these are current dollars or future dollars (adjusted for inflation)
3 - regardless of the amount a banker would look fairly favourably at a client that had a stable income of 490 Billion spread over 20 years when it came to making loans on major capital expenditures.

Now if only this government could guarantee the long term funding --- act of parliament calling for a regular outlay rather than having to do it King Charles's  way and have to come cap-in-hand every year?

 

[Harry Potter]

Does anyone really believe we will be able to meet the 70,000 regular force strength in 20 years?  We cannot even meet current ceilings, let alone increase them.  Its not a training capacity issue.  It is a demographic reality.  There are less and less people available to the workforce, and when they do join the workforce, the new generation is looking at benefits to them, not responding to a higher calling.  They hop form one job to the next, always looking for increased benefits, lower hours even if it means less pay.  There was a report on Generation "Y" in the Globe about four months ago.  This is also mentioned in the Future Security Strategy.  So what does this new Security Strategy do about it?  Zilch.  It increases strength ceilings we will never be able to meet, and plans on buying new equipment that shows zero adaptation to the new workforce reality.  Examples?  Leo 1 crew: 4.  Leo 2 crew 4.  same amount of people to do the same job, 40 years later.  Where is the innovation??  Same thing for artillery; how many gunners are needed to man the M777?  Same number as the older howitzers i bet.  Lighter gun, but who cares if you don't have the people to fire it.  The navy?  15 new Single Class Surface Combatants that will replace 15 frigates and destroyers...  Same capability, same crew size. 

Now I would have been really impressed if the paper had said something along the lines of :  We think that despite our best efforts, we will not be able to increase effective troop strength above, say 55,000.  Therefore we will be buying tanks that can be twice as effective as what we have today, and can be operational and sustain that operational capability with half the crew of today's tanks.  We will be launching new automated ships that can do the work of a Halifax-Class Frigate with a crew of 70 sailors.  etc... 

Okay, now let me have it... 

 

[blacktriangle]

Not everyone is in the army for the pension and coverage etc. Some of us just want to do cool high speed shit and deploy. People like that will not stay in long term if they spend 3 years sitting around in gagetown or wainwright and don't get to do what they signed up for. I'll say it again, it seems easy to get people in, keeping them is the hard part.

 

[George Wallace]

Does anyone really believe we will be able to meet the 70,000 regular force strength in 20 years?  We cannot even meet current ceilings, let alone increase them.  Its not a training capacity issue.  It is a demographic reality.  There are less and less people available to the workforce, and when they do join the workforce, the new generation is looking at benefits to them, not responding to a higher calling.  They hop form one job to the next, always looking for increased benefits, lower hours even if it means less pay.  There was a report on Generation "Y" in the Globe about four months ago.  This is also mentioned in the Future Security Strategy.  So what does this new Security Strategy do about it?  Zilch.  It increases strength ceilings we will never be able to meet, and plans on buying new equipment that shows zero adaptation to the new workforce reality.  Examples?  Leo 1 crew: 4.  Leo 2 crew 4.  same amount of people to do the same job, 40 years later.  Where is the innovation??  Same thing for artillery; how many gunners are needed to man the M777?  Same number as the older howitzers i bet.  Lighter gun, but who cares if you don't have the people to fire it.  The navy?  15 new Single Class Surface Combatants that will replace 15 frigates and destroyers...  Same capability, same crew size. 

Now I would have been really impressed if the paper had said something along the lines of :  We think that despite our best efforts, we will not be able to increase effective troop strength above, say 55,000.  Therefore we will be buying tanks that can be twice as effective as what we have today, and can be operational and sustain that operational capability with half the crew of today's tanks.  We will be launching new automated ships that can do the work of a Halifax-Class Frigate with a crew of 70 sailors.  etc... 

Okay, now let me have it... 

Let you have it?

You haven't got it.

 

[Harry Potter]

Let you have it?

You haven't got it.

Care you explain what you mean? 

 

[George Wallace]

Care you explain what you mean? 

Sure.

You just haven't got it.  You have no idea of what you are talking about.  You haven't grasped anything about what life is about in the military. Army.  You have commented on things, demonstrating that you have no concept of what you were commenting on. 

As they would say in Monty Python, "your parrot has expired".

 

[Harry Potter]

You just haven't got it.  You have no idea of what you are talking about.  You haven't grasped anything about what life is about in the military. Army.  You have commented on things, demonstrating that you have no concept of what you were commenting on. 

As they would say in Monty Python, "your parrot has expired".

George,

I am sharing an informed opinion, hoping for some INTELLIGENT dabate.  Your reply not only doesn't quite measure up, but falls far short of the sort of intelligent debate that usually takes place here.  If you would care to explain where you think I am wrong, I will be very happy to listen and perhaps even change my mind.  But if this is the best you can do, you sound more like a troll than like an experienced retired service member interesting in bettering the future of the Canadian Military. 

 

[George Wallace]

You have commented on things as if you were nothing more than a "Bean Counter".  The type of person who thinks they can save the CF money by making cuts in areas (s)he has no experience or knowledge of.  An example being some high ranking Engineer Officer in a cubical in Ottawa, who decides (s)he can save the Government and DND $100K if they shave 12 inches off the width of twenty-two doors in a Tank Hangar to be built on a CF Base.  Sure, it initially saved the Government and DND $100K, but when they tried to fit a tank through the doors, it didn't fit.  Another hangar had to be built next door for $40 million.  Brilliant.

Same goes for your example of streamlining the CF.  The idea of a Tank that had half the crew and could do the same thing as a tank with a crew of four.  Sure it is possible.  Would the CF be able to do anything besides go on parade with such vehicles?  No.  There is a lot of work to maintain a Tank.  Too much for two people.  The crews would not last longer than 24 hours on an operation.  Crew fatigue would cripple the Army.  Sentries have to be manned.  Maintenance has to be done.  Vehicles have to be fueled and bombed up.  Camouflage has to be maintained.  Radio watches have to be done.  Officers have to leave for Orders.  There are a multitude of things that a crew have to do.  It is hard enough with four.  Any less makes it impossible.  This is not the Air Force where a Pilot flies his mission and then has a whole Ground Crew in a safe area in the Rear, with nice comfy beds (in hotels while on Exercise).

Your whole post can be dissected and everything debunked to prove that you really don't have a clue.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Do you know something that we don't know in the Navy? Where are the documents that state the replacement ships for the frigates and the 280s will only have 70 man crews? We hope to reduce crew size and we hope to introduce a high degree of automation but as of yet there is nada in the works.