- Reaction score
- 10,940
- Points
- 1,040
Heckuva PR gambit. Suppose you plan to increase annual DND spending by $300M. First you tell DND to "find", say, $200M in savings. Then you can stage a press conference and announce $500M in "new" money for DND!
Now Grits want $700M military cut
- Thread starter pegged
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 36
- Points
- 560
Since the public and hence the Government never give the military much thought, all this fun with figures is fairly meaningless. It is not so much "how much" money you have, as how you plan to spend it. Previous posts have compared the Indian Armed forces to ours, noting the very different capabilities despite the near pairity in dollars spent.
The Indians have a limited nuclear capability, a fairly impressive air-force (whupped the Americans in an air combat wargame Sukhois vs F-15c Eagles), reasonably modern mechanized army and a blue water navy. On the other hand, they DON't have employment equity, great pension plans, IMPs, education plans, several orders of dress and all the other amenities we take for granted. Then again, India has two nuclear armed neighbours who have demonstrated hostile intent, so their Government has an incentive to take things seriously.
We could have a Liberal "pork fest" with all kinds of money showered on the CF, without improving our capabilities one bit. It will always be nice to have a few more resources, but until there is a sea change in public attitudes (Starting with a new White Paper, and incorporating something like the "quadrennial review" process to stay current), the real question has to be "what do we think the public wants?" and react accordingly.
The Indians have a limited nuclear capability, a fairly impressive air-force (whupped the Americans in an air combat wargame Sukhois vs F-15c Eagles), reasonably modern mechanized army and a blue water navy. On the other hand, they DON't have employment equity, great pension plans, IMPs, education plans, several orders of dress and all the other amenities we take for granted. Then again, India has two nuclear armed neighbours who have demonstrated hostile intent, so their Government has an incentive to take things seriously.
We could have a Liberal "pork fest" with all kinds of money showered on the CF, without improving our capabilities one bit. It will always be nice to have a few more resources, but until there is a sea change in public attitudes (Starting with a new White Paper, and incorporating something like the "quadrennial review" process to stay current), the real question has to be "what do we think the public wants?" and react accordingly.
- Reaction score
- 36
- Points
- 560
Right now the CF is in "reactive" mode. We go off on expeditionary forces, usually in support of American political or diplomatic initiatives. (The Dayton peace accords, IS AF, OP Athena and OP Apollo are all examples of this. Pretty slick work for a bunch of "Morons", eh?) If the public is mostly concerned about "soft power" issues, the CF DART team will become the premier army formation.
While we are getting great new kit like the LAV series of vehicles (DFSV excepted), the types and numbers of things we do get are not driven by a coherent doctrine or expression of our needs, but just plain political posturing. The air force now has two entirely separate helicopters (EH 101 and SH-92) to do exactly the same job at an incredible cost. The taxpayers have been suckered out of far more money than the original EH 101 purchase would have cost (especially when you factor in the maintenance of the Sea Kings in the interim) without understanding why...
Without a White paper to clearly state what sort of defense capabilities the public wants and is willing to pay for, we twist in the wind, sending troops to Kabul to patrol and Toronto to shovel snow, not really able to justify why we need "x"
new dollars or explain why losing $700 million is a really bad idea (or why the Navy needs subs, etc. etc.)
While we are getting great new kit like the LAV series of vehicles (DFSV excepted), the types and numbers of things we do get are not driven by a coherent doctrine or expression of our needs, but just plain political posturing. The air force now has two entirely separate helicopters (EH 101 and SH-92) to do exactly the same job at an incredible cost. The taxpayers have been suckered out of far more money than the original EH 101 purchase would have cost (especially when you factor in the maintenance of the Sea Kings in the interim) without understanding why...
Without a White paper to clearly state what sort of defense capabilities the public wants and is willing to pay for, we twist in the wind, sending troops to Kabul to patrol and Toronto to shovel snow, not really able to justify why we need "x"
new dollars or explain why losing $700 million is a really bad idea (or why the Navy needs subs, etc. etc.)
- Reaction score
- 11,945
- Points
- 1,160
I think we are all in agreement on the need for a White Paper. And I think each one of us would like to write it. But essentially it is a Government paper and Politicians will write it. And that is correct. They are our elected representatives. However imperfect the electoral process or the outcome that is their job.
What I think that the Military side of the house should be doing at this stage is preparing a series of cost estimates. In business this is the first step in preparing a business plan and deciding on a course of action, and like it or not that is what this exercise is all about.
The Military should prepare, and publish for general consumption, the costs of raising a parachute battle group, a light infantry battle group, a mech battle group, an armoured battle group, a commando squadron, an arty battery, various brigades, the cost of airforce surveillance squadrons, naval patrol flotillas, naval task forces. The costs of deploying and recovering single roto elements. The cost of Roto 0 vs the Cost of Subsequent Deployments. The Cost of Maintaining 1, 2 battle groups. The comparative costs for Brit, Aussie, Yank, Dutch, Danish, French..... units. The capabilities that that investment buys.
That is what the Canadian Taxpayer needs at this time from the people who should know. What can we do and what will it cost us.
Blue Sky it. Price out the reasonable and the unreasonable. Price out a Peacekeepers Brigade. Price out a fully Air Portable Armoured Division complete with "Gavins.....shudder" and Challenger 2s.
I don't really care what options you choose to price out but price them out and publish them.
And point out the basis for the analysis - specifically the price if bought out of British, Dutch or American yards for an Air Defence Destroyer and how that impacts on the feasibility of deploying a Task Force vs a PWGSC Canadian purchase.
If this is all about dollars for the politicians then make it about dollars for the citizens. This is what is possible. This is how much it could cost. This is how much Canadian policies cost us.
Focus on the budget.
Follow the money.
What I think that the Military side of the house should be doing at this stage is preparing a series of cost estimates. In business this is the first step in preparing a business plan and deciding on a course of action, and like it or not that is what this exercise is all about.
The Military should prepare, and publish for general consumption, the costs of raising a parachute battle group, a light infantry battle group, a mech battle group, an armoured battle group, a commando squadron, an arty battery, various brigades, the cost of airforce surveillance squadrons, naval patrol flotillas, naval task forces. The costs of deploying and recovering single roto elements. The cost of Roto 0 vs the Cost of Subsequent Deployments. The Cost of Maintaining 1, 2 battle groups. The comparative costs for Brit, Aussie, Yank, Dutch, Danish, French..... units. The capabilities that that investment buys.
That is what the Canadian Taxpayer needs at this time from the people who should know. What can we do and what will it cost us.
Blue Sky it. Price out the reasonable and the unreasonable. Price out a Peacekeepers Brigade. Price out a fully Air Portable Armoured Division complete with "Gavins.....shudder" and Challenger 2s.
I don't really care what options you choose to price out but price them out and publish them.
And point out the basis for the analysis - specifically the price if bought out of British, Dutch or American yards for an Air Defence Destroyer and how that impacts on the feasibility of deploying a Task Force vs a PWGSC Canadian purchase.
If this is all about dollars for the politicians then make it about dollars for the citizens. This is what is possible. This is how much it could cost. This is how much Canadian policies cost us.
Focus on the budget.
Follow the money.
- Reaction score
- 12,799
- Points
- 1,260
Definitely like that proactive approach.
As well, I don't think we should take an "all or nothing" approach to rationalization of TO&E's, equipment, and deployability. I think it would be more efficient for the CF to "modularize" Air, Naval, and Ground assets into joint "deployable and sustainable units of action" (does that make sense?); this would allow us to make a clear case for budgetary increases.
For example. Organize and price out the cost of an Army Brigade which can be backed by the appropriate level of tactical and strategic Air Support and delivered and sustained by an appropriate naval taskforce. I guess it would be something to the USMC MEB. If the government believes we need more resources to meet our and national security commitments, the solution in building another "CEB" offers an easy sell as opposed to mega decisions related to budgets like "cut tanks, by trucks, settle with what we got for helicopters, etc, etc".
A form of organizing to budgetary constraints such as this ensures that quality will never be in doubt, the quantity is the variable. I'd rather have 1 completely independent Canadian Expeditionary Brigade (well equipped) that can project Canadian Combat Power as we see fit rather then the smattering of units operating to their own tune, all struggling with various forms of equipment shortage and manpower issues.
As well, I don't think we should take an "all or nothing" approach to rationalization of TO&E's, equipment, and deployability. I think it would be more efficient for the CF to "modularize" Air, Naval, and Ground assets into joint "deployable and sustainable units of action" (does that make sense?); this would allow us to make a clear case for budgetary increases.
For example. Organize and price out the cost of an Army Brigade which can be backed by the appropriate level of tactical and strategic Air Support and delivered and sustained by an appropriate naval taskforce. I guess it would be something to the USMC MEB. If the government believes we need more resources to meet our and national security commitments, the solution in building another "CEB" offers an easy sell as opposed to mega decisions related to budgets like "cut tanks, by trucks, settle with what we got for helicopters, etc, etc".
A form of organizing to budgetary constraints such as this ensures that quality will never be in doubt, the quantity is the variable. I'd rather have 1 completely independent Canadian Expeditionary Brigade (well equipped) that can project Canadian Combat Power as we see fit rather then the smattering of units operating to their own tune, all struggling with various forms of equipment shortage and manpower issues.
- Reaction score
- 22,281
- Points
- 1,010
a_majoor said:
Actually, our EH-101s (we call them Cormorants) and the new H-92s do not do exactly the same job. Cormorants are shore-based rescue helicopters and are laid out as such. Period. (a debatable use of scarce military bodies and cash in this day and age IMHO)
H-92s will replace our Sea-Kings in the Maritime Helicopter role as the CFs only ship-based aviation asset and will perform the following functions and will be one of three fleets of CF aircraft that deliver weapons (CF-18, Aurora are the others) :
1. surface search and surveillance (detecting, identifying and tracking surface shipping)
2. subsurface search and surveillance (aka ASW- finding submarines, tracking them and dropping weapons as required)
3. anti-surface warfare (with either it's own weapon or, more likely in the short-term, by third party targetting a ship's weapon)
4. Boarding party support (mostly recce and topcover gun platform right now)
5. Fleet logistcal support (hauling stores and personnel around the fleet at sea)
6. Search and rescue (we do this as a secondary role. the Sea King fleet often picks up the SAR standby posture from the Cormorant fleet when they are all unserviceable. This why it is not a great idea to have ALL your aircraft of exactly the same type- it limits your options.)
7. Support to other government departments (ie fisheries, RCMP, etc. Not my favourite thing, but it pays some of the bills)
Maritime Helicopters do alot of things on a daily basis and are inherently flexible. We often shift through many of these missions in the same and we greatly multipy the effectiveness of the ship we fly from.
I agree the that the Sea King replacement program has been a convoluted mess from day one, however.
- Reaction score
- 22,281
- Points
- 1,010
PPCLI Guy said:
You would think so, except that we contracted out the SAR fleet maintenance. My understanding is that we don't "buy" a part for the Cormorant until it is required to be installed, so no savings on the spares issue.
We would have saved money on simulators.
Which would have been eaten up by the cost of processing the Redress of Grievances from SAR pilots once they started getting posting messages telling them to start reporting for sea-duty.
(just joking...)
- Reaction score
- 22,281
- Points
- 1,010
PPCLI Guy said:
Bring it on- I'm the guy who took (then) Col Beare for a Sea King ride when he was Comd 1 Bde and pointed out that we ACTUALLY could sling an LG1. If not for Sept 11 happening, we may have ended up on Bde Ex the next spring, helping out.
I look forward to hauling you guys ashore someday... and going back to the ship to sleep!
(hey- I've slept in mud before. I prefer the racks on a ship...)Cheers!
S
Sam69
Guest
PPCLI Guy said:
The original plan (NSA/NSH) was to purchase 50 EH-101s (35 Maritime and 15 SAR - later scaled back to 44 total by Kim Campbelll's Tories) and use the aircraft to cover both roles with great economies to be realized in training, maintenance, and spare parts. With the cancellation of the EH-101 purchase by Jean Chretien, the two contracts were separated and, once the EH-101 had been purchased for SAR, the MHP competition was not allowed to consider any of the potential economies that could be realized through a common airframe. This is but one example of the subtle political "tweaking" that went on throughout the entire MHP competition to lessen the chance that we would buy EH-101s for the MHP contract and embarass the government by buying the same aircraft that the PM had labelled a "Cadillac."
In any case, putting on my "glass half full" glasses, there are a few benefits to a mixed fleet. For example, the entire Cormorant fleet is currently ops restricted due to a series of tail hub cracks that were discovered in one aircraft. Having a different Maritime helicopter means that the MH can carry some of the SAR duties when the SAR fleet is grounded.
Sam
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Just got this from my MP
Grant:
Thought you might find this news release of interest.
Allison Sigstad
Administrative Assistant
for: Carol Skelton, M.P.
Saskatoon-Rosetown-Biggar
Office of the
Leader of the Opposition
Bureau du
Chef de l'opposition
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
October 20, 2004
MEDIA ADVISORY
Conservative Party Proposes Motion on Support for Canadian Forces
OTTAWA â “ The Conservative Party of Canada has tabled the following motion for debate Thursday, October 21, 2004, in the House of Commons. This Opposition Motion is votable, and stands in the name Gordon O'Connor, MP (Carleton-Mississippi Mills, ON). Debate will begin at approximately 10:15 AM:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government's national defence policies are seriously out of date and funding has fallen dramatically short of what is needed to meet defence commitments, the combat capabilities of the Canadian Forces have been permitted to decay and the government is continuing this trend by proposing to raise a peace keeping brigade at the expense of existing combat ready forces; accordingly,
This House call on the government to commit to maintaining air, land and sea combat capability by ensuring that members of the forces are trained, equipped and supported for combat operations and peacekeeping, in order to enhance Canada's status and influence as a sovereign nation.
-30-
For more information, please contact:
Official Opposition Press Office (613) 947-2400
Grant:
Thought you might find this news release of interest.
Allison Sigstad
Administrative Assistant
for: Carol Skelton, M.P.
Saskatoon-Rosetown-Biggar
Office of the
Leader of the Opposition
Bureau du
Chef de l'opposition
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
October 20, 2004
MEDIA ADVISORY
Conservative Party Proposes Motion on Support for Canadian Forces
OTTAWA â “ The Conservative Party of Canada has tabled the following motion for debate Thursday, October 21, 2004, in the House of Commons. This Opposition Motion is votable, and stands in the name Gordon O'Connor, MP (Carleton-Mississippi Mills, ON). Debate will begin at approximately 10:15 AM:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government's national defence policies are seriously out of date and funding has fallen dramatically short of what is needed to meet defence commitments, the combat capabilities of the Canadian Forces have been permitted to decay and the government is continuing this trend by proposing to raise a peace keeping brigade at the expense of existing combat ready forces; accordingly,
This House call on the government to commit to maintaining air, land and sea combat capability by ensuring that members of the forces are trained, equipped and supported for combat operations and peacekeeping, in order to enhance Canada's status and influence as a sovereign nation.
-30-
For more information, please contact:
Official Opposition Press Office (613) 947-2400
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
"In contrast, the American armed forces have personnel in Washington whose job is to keep senators and congressmen informed ... (i.e. to prevent ignorance)."
Too bad that's not going to happen here. I can't really see any Liberal gov't actually taking advice from the military on military matters.
Too bad that's not going to happen here. I can't really see any Liberal gov't actually taking advice from the military on military matters.
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 410
The gov't doesn't even listen to their own senators who have investigated the military situation and said we need more money.
