Re: Navy ties up its fleet

[Navy_Blue]

Its amazing how three months before March31st everyones buggets get frozen and the head shed is screaming "my god where are we going to get money for that!!!"  Then March rolls around and they are screaming "my god how are we going to spend all this money by April!!!"

:dontpanic:

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

From NavyGuy2006:

There are 3 280's awaiting some much needed Drydock time.

You do know ALQ just finished or is about to finish a major refit in BC, ATH will be going in sometime in the NEW Year and IRO most likely next year so all and all the 280s are look after.....

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Its amazing how three months before March31st everyones buggets get frozen and the head shed is screaming "my god where are we going to get money for that!!!"  Then March rolls around and they are screaming "my god how are we going to spend all this money by April!!!"

:dontpanic:

ain't that the truth, I don't care how you spend it, just spend it!!!!!!

 

[Gunner_Pyza]

From NavyGuy2006:
You do know ALQ just finished or is about to finish a major refit in BC, ATH will be going in sometime in the NEW Year and IRO most likely next year so all and all the 280s are look after.....

Algonquin isn't in refit right now...they haven't decided if we're going into refit or if we're going to have a long work period.  Whatever they decide it's going to start in 08.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Really so this pics in the trident from 2006 in drydock were in error?

Appreciate the update then

 

[Stoker]

Even with no trips for the next few months, there is a silver lining. This is an excellent opportunity for the ships to catch up with preventive and corrective maintenance, EC's, refresher training, medical appointments, courses etc. This shortfall is only on the operations side of things , so far it hasn't affected our maintenance.

 

[IN HOC SIGNO]

This is not a media made up thing. The shortfall is real...as the one the Air Force is suffering. As I said at the beginning of this thread...the Minister protests too much.

 

[Good2Golf]

This is not a media made up thing. The shortfall non-optimized apportionment from existing allocations is real...as the one the Air Force is suffering. As I said at the beginning of this thread...the Minister protests too much.

In Hoc, I propose a slight modification to your quote.

G2G

 

[Stoker]

Cutting patrols may have backfired



By CHRIS LAMBIE Staff Reporter and The Canadian Press

The East Coast navy's decision to cancel patrols earlier this week looks like a clever tactic to leverage more money out of Ottawa, says a defence analyst.The Halifax-based fleet reinstated fisheries patrols Thursday after getting a $5-million cash infusion from the Defence Department."I think they feel they're hard done by and maybe this was a way of trying to put a bowling ball on somebody's foot," said David Bercuson, director of the Centre for Military and Strategic Studies at the University of Calgary.The tactic may have backfired, however. The military has come up with enough money to reinstate the cancelled fisheries patrol, but only after going through its books to redirect funding from other areas of the Forces. Officials said Thursday they have reallocated $5 million from all aspects of Defence , including the air force, army and the department itself.The decision came after the navy's Atlantic branch cancelled a scheduled fisheries patrol and suspended overtime, certain types of travel and professional development because it had run out of money.Mr. O'Connor must have been upset over the leaked news about the cancelled patrols, Mr. Bercuson said."I'm sure that there was the proverbial shit all over the fan in the minister's little suite."While the $5 million has saved the patrols, other naval units are still hurting from the cash crunch. The budget for the Canadian Forces Naval Operations School at Stadacona has been frozen, said a source."Until further notice, we cannot order any new stock and the bottom line is we have to borrow our neighbour's pencils. Funny, but true," said the source.A trip to England the navy was planning for HMCS Corner Brook may also be in jeopardy due to budget constraints, said a submariner who spoke on condition of anonymity.Submarine movements are classified, Lt. Marie-Claude Gagne of navy public affairs said Thursday. "Nothing has been cancelled to date," she said of Corner Brook's schedule.HMCS Halifax will leave port Monday, a week late, to begin a patrol of the Grand Banks."To make up for the patrolling days that were lost due to the initial departure delays, because she is leaving a week later, we've shortened the time that she was scheduled to spend in port," Lt. Gagne said.
Due to the extra $5 million, the navy will also be able to do another similar patrol before the end of March, said Lt. Gagne, adding there will be some money left over for other unspecified projects.The Halifax-based fleet had cancelled fisheries patrols until the end of March because it was facing a $25-million shortfall from last year. Officials said about 20 per cent of the East Coast's navy's planned sea days were jeopardized by a lack of funding.The entire navy's initial allocation rose to $696.8 million this
fiscal year from $685.7 million in 2005-06.But Maritime Forces Atlantic, which got almost $315 million from the navy in 2005-06, has only received just short of $290 million in this fiscal year.The region's top sailor issued a belt-tightening directive to his officers this week, telling them to look for ways to save money. Besides postponing Halifax's fisheries patrol, he told them to reduce spending on several items, including professional development, travel and overtime.New Democrat MP Peter Stoffer was happy to see the fisheries patrols reinstated, but upset the Conservatives didn't provide enough money to keep them running in the first place."It looks like they're budgeting on the fly here," said Mr. Stoffer, who represents Sackville-Eastern Shore. "There's no appearance of long-term, stable funding."Mr. Stoffer said he heard from a sailor Thursday that a NATO
deployment may also be in jeopardy due to money problems."There's still a shortfall of money there," he said. Critics blamed the country's mission in Afghanistan for the East
Coast navy's money woes, something Mr. O'Connor has strongly denied.

 

[Good2Golf]

...New Democrat MP Peter Stoffer was happy to see the fisheries patrols reinstated, but upset the Conservatives didn't provide enough money to keep them running in the first place."It looks like they're budgeting on the fly here," said Mr. Stoffer, who represents Sackville-Eastern Shore. "There's no appearance of long-term, stable funding."Mr. Stoffer said he heard from a sailor Thursday that a NATO deployment may also be in jeopardy due to money problems.

Tha absolute irony of Mr. Stouffer's statements and his party's policies is nothing short of mind-boggling! 

 

[geo]

What Mr Stouffer fails to understand is that it is 100% impossible to maintain a budget while fighting a foe.

If the beligerent threat is there, you have to counter it. 
Beligerents don't have budgets to worry about... and the NDP would be better off understanding that.

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

What Mr Stouffer fails to understand is that it is 100% impossible to maintain a budget while fighting a foe.

If the beligerent threat is there, you have to counter it. 
Beligerents don't have budgets to worry about... and the NDP would be better off understanding that.

That's not exactly true.

If you used the following model, you wouldn't have a problem:

Defence Budget includes funding for all Domestic Defence Operations including:
1)  Salaries
2)  Equipment & Building Maintenance, Upgrade & Renovation
3)  All Normal Cycle Procurement based on an updated and followed White Paper

Foreign Affairs Budget includes all funding for International Deployments including:
1)  Incremental increases in salary (Combat Zone Pay)
2)  Transportation Costs
3)  Additional Logisitics, Supply & Ammunition
4)  Battle Damage Repair & Replacement
5)  All PRT Costs
6)  Incremental Training Costs
7)  Deployment-specific procurement required

The fact is in my humble opinion (as a finance guy, and not a soldier) the two need to be separated as the current model in which the CDS has to bury overseas operations costs into a budget that should be stable and designed for domestic operations and sustainment of a known force size, is beyond nuts.  No business would ever try to account in such a fashion.  If a boss told them try, the accountants and CFO would tell them to take a flying leap.

Frankly, I'm surprised Hillier hasn't broached this topic publicly because I don't think without correcting this imbalance, you'll ever get the funds necessary for proper force regeneration. 

That and for the love of God, stop providing press releases with full life cycle costs.  The sticker shock kills any good will the public has.  It's the equivalent of telling your friends you just bought a bungalow in Petawawa for $450,000.  The sticker costs was only $195,000 but the 30-year life cycle costs including projected roof replacement, window replacement, furnace replacement, indoor/outdoor painting and municipal taxes will be another $245,000.


Matthew. 

 

[Edward Campbell]

That's not exactly true.

If you used the following model, you wouldn't have a problem:

Defence Budget includes funding for all Domestic Defence Operations including:
1)  Salaries
2)  Equipment & Building Maintenance, Upgrade & Renovation
3)  All Normal Cycle Procurement based on an updated and followed White Paper

Foreign Affairs Budget includes all funding for International Deployments including:
1)  Incremental increases in salary (Combat Zone Pay)
2)  Transportation Costs
3)  Additional Logisitics, Supply & Ammunition
4)  Battle Damage Repair & Replacement
5)  All PRT Costs
6)  Incremental Training Costs
7)  Deployment-specific procurement required

The fact is in my humble opinion (as a finance guy, and not a soldier) the two need to be separated as the current model in which the CDS has to bury overseas operations costs into a budget that should be stable and designed for domestic operations and sustainment of a known force size, is beyond nuts.  No business would ever try to account in such a fashion.  If a boss told them try, the accountants and CFO would tell them to take a flying leap.

Frankly, I'm surprised Hillier hasn't broached this topic publicly because I don't think without correcting this imbalance, you'll ever get the funds necessary for proper force regeneration. 

That and for the love of God, stop providing press releases with full life cycle costs.  The sticker shock kills any good will the public has.  It's the equivalent of telling your friends you just bought a bungalow in Petawawa for $450,000.  The sticker costs was only $195,000 but the 30-year life cycle costs including projected roof replacement, window replacement, furnace replacement, indoor/outdoor painting and municipal taxes will be another $245,000.


Matthew. 

That would mean that DFAIT would have to cover huge and hugely unpredictable costs from within (relative to DND) a tiny budget.

I agree with the principle of what you are proposing but Parliament should be asked to vote supplementary estimates – more than once per year, if necessary – to provide funds for military operations which exceed the planned/programmed/budgeted expenditures.  This accomplishes two things:

1. It gives DND some planning certainty; and

2. It gives Parliament some addition control over the Executive’s capacity to wage war – as was planned back in around 1265 (Simon de Montfort, etc).

In a perfect world all government departments would be required to express all spending plans, including personnel costs, in life cycle cost terms.  It is a bit more difficult than the preferred capital cost + lies and evasions model currently in use, but not impossible. 

 

[Cloud Cover]

That would mean that DFAIT would have to cover huge and hugely unpredictable costs from within (relative to DND) a tiny budget.

I agree with the principle of what you are proposing but Parliament should be asked to vote supplementary estimates – more than once per year, if necessary – to provide funds for military operations which exceed the planned/programmed/budgeted expenditures.  This accomplishes two things:

1. It gives DND some planning certainty; and

2. It gives Parliament some addition control over the Executive’s capacity to wage war – as was planned back in around 1265 (Simon de Montfort, etc).

In a perfect world all government departments would be required to express all spending plans, including personnel costs, in life cycle cost terms.  It is a bit more difficult than the preferred capital cost + lies and evasions model currently in use, but not impossible. 

In our parliamentary system, this is the role of the Treasury Board and the War Cabinet. A munitions and logistics minister is required [ala CD Howe], with the ministerial authority to speed up procurement of equipment and supplies to meet the requirements of the Minister of National Defence. In turn the MND can do the job of overseeing the militayr's implementation the political policy that defines success in the war as set out by the War Cabinet. 

Take the example of the present war. As far as I can see, the ongoing method of giving effect to all of the above is too vague and rather indistinguishable from any other government policy of the day.  In other words, since 911 (and the 40 years preceding that day) no Canadian government and no sitting parliament has seriously turned its mind to fighting "the war", or any war for that matter. Thus far, they have only "participated" without "leading" for fear of the political cost. This applies to the current government and the last. For the army, even with the creeping cost of dead and wounded, worn out or wearing out equipment, no where near enough practical effort is being put into this problem. Too much theory, not enough action. For the Navy, even less.

For the record, I am not saying the current war requires anything near a total war footing by Canada and Canadians, but somebody please step up to the plate and get serious about this thing from a wholistic, long term point of view. If we are not prepared to do that, we should get out of it altogether on the understanding that Canada would very quickly suffer the consequences.

There is a visible dysfunctionality that is drastic and unsettling in both government and parliament attitude towards defence and more generally, the attitude of Canadians about it's Navy. That is to say the neither the government or parliament do anything beyond marginal consequence in its maritme naval oversight role. Certainly neither institution makes real any serious effort at all to explain to Canadians the purpose and need for a Navy. In the case of the Navy, a cyclical approach to fleet planning is required for purposes of self preservation. The cycle requires clear political and parliamentary support so that it is clear to all concerned what the intentions of Canada are as a Maritime nation with an interest in international affairs. Right now, all indications are the intent is to reduce scope and scale of capability.

Fine- accept the consequences and formalize that reduction so that all concerned know where they stand.  Right now, the Navy seems to feel it needed a few headlines to wake people up. Unfortunately, they either picked the wrong issue to make headlines, [albeit it was a better choice than denying that a burning, sinking sub was not a good investment] or they failed to contain what appears to be a non-issue. Either way they may have scuppered themselves until they refloat the next idea.   


     

 

[warspite]

whiskey601...
+1

 

[navymich]

I wonder how much money they will save by doing this:

R 191730Z JAN 07
FM NAVRESHQ QUEBEC
TO NAVRESGEN
BT
UNCLAS NAVRESGEN 002-07 N71 00362
SIC TAA
SUBJ: NAVRES DIRECTION FOR NAVAL FINANCIAL PRESSURES

1. LAST WEEK YOU RECEIVED THE INITIAL DIRECTIVE OF CMS IN REACTION
TO THE VCDS DIRECTIVEFOLLOWING PMB S DECISION, DENYING EXTRA
FUNDING FOR THE NAVY. IN ORDER TO SUPPORT CMS EFFORT WITH THE
CURRENT FINANCIAL PRESSURE, IT IS CRITICAL THAT ALL NRD S REVISE AND
CUT BACK THEIR ALLOCATION BY IDENTIFYING ANY SURPLUSES WITHIN THEIR
ORGANIZATION. TO DO SO THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA SHOULD BE FOLLOWED:

A. TEMPORARY DUTY: TD MUST BE LIMITED TO MISSION ESSENTIAL.

B. PERSONNEL:
(1) OJT/CONSOLIDATION, OUTSIDE OF THAT ALREADY COMMITTED FOR, WILL
NOT BE AUTHORIZED
(2) POSITIONS CREATED THROUGH THE EC (ESTABLISHMENT CHANGE) PROCESS
WILL NOT BE FILLED WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF N01
(3) ALL EXISTING EMPLOYMENT COMMITMENTS WILL BE HONOURED
PAGE 2 RCESCGA0039 UNCLAS NAVRESGEN 002-07
(4) EMPLOYMENT ENDING BEFORE 31 MAR 07 WILL BE CONSIDERED ON A CASE
BY CASE BASIS
(5) BACKFILLING OF ESTABLISHED POSITIONS (REG OR RES) WILL BE
CONSIDERED ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS
(6) BACKFILLING OF INCREMENTAL POSITIONS WILL NOT BE AUTHORIZED

C. TRAINING:
(1) LOADING FOR CAREER COURSING WILL CONTINUE
(2) PERSONNEL LOADED ON NON CAREER COURSES WILL BE REVIEWED ON A
CASE BY CASE BASIS AND MAY BE CANCELLED OR RESCHEDULED
(3) ALL NROTD ACTIVITIES APPROVED BY NAVRESHQ N01 WILL CONTINUE
UNLESS OTHERWISE DIRECTED
(4) NRD TRAINING IN EXCESS OF THOSE INCLUDED WITHIN THE UNIT CP
SHOULD ONLY BE CONDUCTED AFTER CONSULTATION WITH THE NAVRES
COMPTROLLER

2. NAVRES COMPTROLLER WILL CONTACT EVERY CO IN ORDER TO CONFIRM THAT
THERE IS NO CHANGE WITH THEIR Q4.1 SUBMISSION DUE ON 19 JAN 07. YOUR
IMMEDIATE COLLABORATION IS REQUIRED AS NAVRES REPLY TO CMS IS
REQUIRED NLT THURSDAY 25 JAN 07
END OF ENGLISH TEXT/

 

[navymich]

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/nova-scotia/story/2007/01/26/navy-nato.html


No NATO exercise for cash-strapped navy
Last Updated: Friday, January 26, 2007 | 5:00 PM AT
CBC News

The Canadian navy is pulling three ships out of planned NATO exercises off Nova Scotia next week, citing a lack of funding.

There's no money for the warships to join the U.S. and German ships, navy officials said Friday.

"It looks like we're going to wait to use our training assets, our training funds, and what we have available for later on in the quarter," said Canadian Commodore Denis Rouleau, who handed over command of the NATO fleet.

The decision to tie up the three ships follows a decision two weeks ago to cancel a scheduled sovereignty exercise.

HMCS Halifax was supposed to patrol off Newfoundland, but the navy couldn't afford fuel. Hours after CBC News aired the story, Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor said $3.5 million would be made available and the ship was ordered to sea.

Now the navy says other exercises and missions could be cancelled because of the budget crunch.

Defence analyst Steve Staples suggested the navy may be playing politics to get more money in the next budget.

"I think they're playing a dangerous game by trying to embarrass the government," said Staples, with the Ottawa-based Rideau Institute.

Canadians want a military that defends our sovereignty, he said, so the defence minister should tell the navy to get those ships out and "quit playing games."

The American admiral who heads the NATO fleet said Canada's ships will be missed.

"I'm sure it would be valuable to us to have Canadian ships sail with us," said Rear Admiral Michael Mahon.

At this point, only American and German ships will take part in the NATO exercise, which begins Monday plying the waters between Halifax and Boston.

 

[IN HOC SIGNO]

It's embarrassing all right but it should be the politicians that embarrassed. Our friends have come to call and asked us to play but we're not allowed out.  :rage:

 

[navymich]

Our friends have come to call and asked us to play but we're not allowed out. 

And not only asked us to come out and play, but planned for us to play.  It's not like they would be waiting until startex to plan the flex and the events.  :

 

[geo]

Again... the cash crunch must have been building up for a long time
is this an issue where the fleet had overlooked the dwindling $$$ resources or something like DND not responding to CF/ Fleet requests for extra cash?

Going to the press is, regardless, hanging out your dirty laundry for all to see AND, someone is going to pay in the end...

Look out/look out!