- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
More budget slashing, great. Love it. GREAT!!! :endnigh:
The Defence Budget [superthread]
- Thread starter Edward Campbell
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 8,330
- Points
- 1,160
Many folks here would like the government to buy the CV90 for the Canadian Army.
How did the CV90 get to market?
The Swedish government had the Swedish Army talk to the Swedish vehicle supplier Haegglunds and the Swedish arms supplier Bofors about what could be done and what was wanted. The Swedish government then paid for design work and prototyping. It then bought some 400 CV90s for its own use.
All costs were borne by the Swedish taxpayer, who also got paid to build it and who also was required to come out for a couple of weeks training every year or two to learn how to drive it.
The Swedes then turned around and sold the equipment at whatever price the market would support and took the profits to defray the costs (defray - not eliminate but reduce) to the greatest extent possible. In the process they keep Swedes employed building CV90s and supply foreign income so that Swedish taxpayers don't have to pay so much.
They also get to maintain a body of expertise that allows them to put out the Bv206, the BvS10 and a variety of other weapons systems that they get to trade on the open market allowing them to buy weapons and radars that they don't manufacture themselves.
And they retain the ability to produce a piece of kit that, apparently, many people on this site want to buy.
Why can't you substitute Canada for Sweden and International Submarine Engineering producing AUVs and USVs (as an example) for Haegglunds producing CV90s?
The CV90 design was commissioned in the early 1980s - a Marder with a bigger gun.
How did the CV90 get to market?
The Swedish government had the Swedish Army talk to the Swedish vehicle supplier Haegglunds and the Swedish arms supplier Bofors about what could be done and what was wanted. The Swedish government then paid for design work and prototyping. It then bought some 400 CV90s for its own use.
All costs were borne by the Swedish taxpayer, who also got paid to build it and who also was required to come out for a couple of weeks training every year or two to learn how to drive it.
The Swedes then turned around and sold the equipment at whatever price the market would support and took the profits to defray the costs (defray - not eliminate but reduce) to the greatest extent possible. In the process they keep Swedes employed building CV90s and supply foreign income so that Swedish taxpayers don't have to pay so much.
They also get to maintain a body of expertise that allows them to put out the Bv206, the BvS10 and a variety of other weapons systems that they get to trade on the open market allowing them to buy weapons and radars that they don't manufacture themselves.
And they retain the ability to produce a piece of kit that, apparently, many people on this site want to buy.
Why can't you substitute Canada for Sweden and International Submarine Engineering producing AUVs and USVs (as an example) for Haegglunds producing CV90s?
The CV90 design was commissioned in the early 1980s - a Marder with a bigger gun.
- Reaction score
- 8,330
- Points
- 1,160
Further to my last:
And with potential repercussions for the JSS/AOR project (Berlins) as well as the AUV-UUV-USV market.
Despite the West Coast location it might also impact the AOPS and CSC projects.
Atlas Electronik establishes Canadian subsidiary in Victoria
And with potential repercussions for the JSS/AOR project (Berlins) as well as the AUV-UUV-USV market.
Despite the West Coast location it might also impact the AOPS and CSC projects.
Atlas Electronik establishes Canadian subsidiary in Victoria
- Reaction score
- 35
- Points
- 560
Emotionalism aside, it would be very interesting to see a detailed examination of how Sweden, a nation with similar geography, population and GDP to Canada (and also bordering on a region with very large and sophisticated military industries) was able to develop, build and field advanced military equipment for such a long time.
While most of us would be somewhat agog over the details of such things as SAAB jet fighters, the S tank, FH-77, AIP subs (powered by Stirling engines) and their Stealth missile boats, there can be little doubt that these were (and are) effective pieces of kit quite capable of doing the job needed by the Swedish military, and satisfying the few foreign customers that were allowed to purchase from Sweden. While this isn't to say we should rush into producing our own (name piece of kit here), there should be no reason to nix the idea outright, and if intelligently applied, could well work to our advantage as the current government suggests.
This would actually be best served (at least at first) by going into "niche" markets which are otherwise not well served. A strange example that I could think of off the top of my head is space surveillance capabilities. A consortium of Canadian Universities built a small space telescope (called MOST) which was about the size and weight of a barracks box, yet capable of high degrees of pointing accuracy, for the price of @ $10 million CAD. Launching a fleet of similar satelites in time of crisis would provide a very robust surveillance capability (especially when multiple satelites are ganged together in a process called optical interferometry, which creates a virtual telescope with an arbitrarily large aperture). Since our actual defense needs are rather small, "boutique" manufacturers could compete for certain contracts that other arms dealers would ignore (replacing the LSVW, G Wagon and MilCOT with a robust vehicle based on a commercial frame like a Ford F-450 could be possible using this sort of strategy).
While most of us would be somewhat agog over the details of such things as SAAB jet fighters, the S tank, FH-77, AIP subs (powered by Stirling engines) and their Stealth missile boats, there can be little doubt that these were (and are) effective pieces of kit quite capable of doing the job needed by the Swedish military, and satisfying the few foreign customers that were allowed to purchase from Sweden. While this isn't to say we should rush into producing our own (name piece of kit here), there should be no reason to nix the idea outright, and if intelligently applied, could well work to our advantage as the current government suggests.
This would actually be best served (at least at first) by going into "niche" markets which are otherwise not well served. A strange example that I could think of off the top of my head is space surveillance capabilities. A consortium of Canadian Universities built a small space telescope (called MOST) which was about the size and weight of a barracks box, yet capable of high degrees of pointing accuracy, for the price of @ $10 million CAD. Launching a fleet of similar satelites in time of crisis would provide a very robust surveillance capability (especially when multiple satelites are ganged together in a process called optical interferometry, which creates a virtual telescope with an arbitrarily large aperture). Since our actual defense needs are rather small, "boutique" manufacturers could compete for certain contracts that other arms dealers would ignore (replacing the LSVW, G Wagon and MilCOT with a robust vehicle based on a commercial frame like a Ford F-450 could be possible using this sort of strategy).
- Reaction score
- 6,012
- Points
- 1,260
Further to "Tories plan ‘buy Canada’ military budget", this is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Winnipeg Free Press:
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/ambrose-appoints-businessman-to-work-with-defence-industry-government-171539721.html
Please note that this is not about reforming a terribly cumbersome bureaucratic process, it is, as stated, about leveraging military procurement to try to create Canadian jobs.
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/ambrose-appoints-businessman-to-work-with-defence-industry-government-171539721.html
Please note that this is not about reforming a terribly cumbersome bureaucratic process, it is, as stated, about leveraging military procurement to try to create Canadian jobs.
- Reaction score
- 4,338
- Points
- 1,260
What doesn't come through in PWGSC's news release on Tom Jenkins' appointment is that he's not alone - more on who else is helping out here (highlights mine).....
Bios also attached in case link doesn't work for you.
$2.5B carved out of Defence budget
by The Canadian Press - Sep 30, 2012
Article Link
An independent analysis has concluded the waves of federal budget cuts washing over National Defence will run deeper and likely be more painful than advertised by the Harper government.
While it won't exactly be a return to the "decade of darkness" the Conservatives attribute to the Liberal years, the reductions will be significant and are expected to cut into the military's "readiness," or ability to respond quickly to a crisis.
The days of soldiers rationing their training ammunition, fuel and money used to make equipment operationally ready may be about to return, the report warned.
The research paper, written for the Centre for Security and Defence Studies at Carleton University, estimates the cumulative effect of the Harper government's strategic review and the overlapping deficit reduction action plan will carve up to $2.5 billion out of the nearly $21 billion National Defence budget by 2014-2015.
The 27-page report, penned by defence expert Dave Perry, is believed to be the first comprehensive snapshot on the post-war military of the impact of the federal government's duel-tracked deficit reduction plan and spending freezes.
"With the economy once again the government's top priority, the Canadian Forces will need to adjust to a new fiscal climate, one which will reduce its budget by at least 11 per cent over the next three years," said the research report, a copy of which was obtained by The Canadian Press.
"At the same time, the military's ability to make budgetary adjustments has been tightly constrained by the decision to retain its frontline military capabilities. As a result, the Operations and Maintenance budget will bear the brunt of these budget cuts."
The Harper government has repeatedly said it wants Canada playing a leading role internationally alongside allies, but the report warns, the way the cuts are shaking out, the military will be strained almost as badly as in the 1990s.
"As a result, it will be very difficult for the military to play the same expeditionary role that it has in recent years," said the report. "While the pursuit of influence may not be over, with less funding available for operational readiness, the prospects of making influential military contributions abroad will be greatly reduced."
More on link
by The Canadian Press - Sep 30, 2012
Article Link
An independent analysis has concluded the waves of federal budget cuts washing over National Defence will run deeper and likely be more painful than advertised by the Harper government.
While it won't exactly be a return to the "decade of darkness" the Conservatives attribute to the Liberal years, the reductions will be significant and are expected to cut into the military's "readiness," or ability to respond quickly to a crisis.
The days of soldiers rationing their training ammunition, fuel and money used to make equipment operationally ready may be about to return, the report warned.
The research paper, written for the Centre for Security and Defence Studies at Carleton University, estimates the cumulative effect of the Harper government's strategic review and the overlapping deficit reduction action plan will carve up to $2.5 billion out of the nearly $21 billion National Defence budget by 2014-2015.
The 27-page report, penned by defence expert Dave Perry, is believed to be the first comprehensive snapshot on the post-war military of the impact of the federal government's duel-tracked deficit reduction plan and spending freezes.
"With the economy once again the government's top priority, the Canadian Forces will need to adjust to a new fiscal climate, one which will reduce its budget by at least 11 per cent over the next three years," said the research report, a copy of which was obtained by The Canadian Press.
"At the same time, the military's ability to make budgetary adjustments has been tightly constrained by the decision to retain its frontline military capabilities. As a result, the Operations and Maintenance budget will bear the brunt of these budget cuts."
The Harper government has repeatedly said it wants Canada playing a leading role internationally alongside allies, but the report warns, the way the cuts are shaking out, the military will be strained almost as badly as in the 1990s.
"As a result, it will be very difficult for the military to play the same expeditionary role that it has in recent years," said the report. "While the pursuit of influence may not be over, with less funding available for operational readiness, the prospects of making influential military contributions abroad will be greatly reduced."
More on link
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
I love it. "Hey, we still want the political benefits of sending soldiers overseas, but we don't want to spend the money the properly prepare and equip them for such a task."GAP said:
The word frustrating doesn't even begin to describe the situation.
- Reaction score
- 6,012
- Points
- 1,260
Back in the 1990s, when Prime Minister Chretien and Finance Minister Martin were attacking the (far too large) Canadian budget deficit, the message to DND was, roughly: the country is in dire straits and we must all "pull together" to win our "war on the deficit;" DND and the CF must do their full and fair share, too. We did a more than full and a more than fair share, but we knew that was coming because good, solid public opinion polling - the kind you can trust - told us, then, and tells us know that Canadians do not like spending on their defence. DND and the CF rank, consistently, at the bottom of most Canadians' public spending priorities lists ~ we are down with symphony orchestras and ballet companies.
Despite all the red t-shirts and yellow ribbons, Canadian's support for their military, which may be a mile wide, is only an inch deep.
Despite all the red t-shirts and yellow ribbons, Canadian's support for their military, which may be a mile wide, is only an inch deep.
E.R. Campbell said:
To add to that, we can also say that regardless of who is in power be it Conservative, Liberal or NDP, if push comes to shove and times are lean, they will all cut into the Defence budget regardless of how much they say they are commited to the CF and DND.
- Reaction score
- 213
- Points
- 880
All we need is a pay/promotion freeze and then we will be able to have a real party in the coming years.
Spectrum said:
I would say after the next "pay raise" the pay effectively is frozen, but I think what you meant is pay incentive freeze ( as seen in the 90's) as well; I wouldn't doubt that is being considered.
As for promotions, who knows? The way things are going there may well be a high attrition rate, in which case the rate of promotions might actually increase slightly, although all that experience (and $ invested in creating it) going out the door will definitely make for a helluva party
- Reaction score
- 27,868
- Points
- 1,090
The CF's "high" attrition rates of a few years ago were largely driven by demographics: more personnel than usual who were eligible for an immediate annuity on release. With that bubble having gone through the system, and with the mid to late 90s cohort mostly missing from the Regular Force (FRP didn't make a huge difference in the Reg F's size; all but stopping recruiting did), we now have a Reg F with lower average years of service, and thus with fewer people able to release immediately (and fewer options for those who do, with the changes in Reserve employment and reductions in the public service).
All this to say: increased attrition is unlikely in the near term.
All this to say: increased attrition is unlikely in the near term.
- Reaction score
- 10,379
- Points
- 1,260
Meh, the usual post-war budget cutting. I'm not too concerned; although we aren't going to see any post-Korea, NATO fuelled expansion a la 1953-54, we aren't going to fall off the map as we did in 1919 or 1946.
We'll live.
We'll live.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
I will readily admit I got in when the ice cream and candy bar was just opening up and pouring out, so I didn't personally live through the decade of pain. However, I can live if someone cuts off my left nut with a rusty razor, hell I am probably still "effective". Doesn't mean I want to experience that pain, and if I do it's something that will have a lasting effect for a long time.Infanteer said:
- Reaction score
- 1,743
- Points
- 1,090
That there will be pain is without doubt. I just don't think it will be as bad as the 90s pain.
To put it in context... during the Liberal cuts Defence shouldered a 23% reduction, all other government offices grew. There's been nothing from Ottawa lately that appears to be setting us up for a repeat evisceration.
To put it in context... during the Liberal cuts Defence shouldered a 23% reduction, all other government offices grew. There's been nothing from Ottawa lately that appears to be setting us up for a repeat evisceration.
FJAG
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 13,916
- Points
- 1,160
I have to admit that being retired I get a little less enraged than I used to over these things - and I have to admit I'm a veteran of the Trudeau years when it was easy to work up a good rage over what the government was doing.
My biggest concern isn't whether we're spending an appropriate percentage of the GDP but rather where the hell is our money going?
In my mind we're losing billions on what I call bureaucratic friction. Stupid government procedures and processes that require a disproportionately large overhead in both military and civilian staff to administer.
Arbitrarily cutting budgets and reducing staff might lower the budget but not alleviate the problems within DND.
One needs a program to streamline and reduce policies and procedures which runs in combination with an integrated staff reduction plan.
My biggest concern isn't whether we're spending an appropriate percentage of the GDP but rather where the hell is our money going?
In my mind we're losing billions on what I call bureaucratic friction. Stupid government procedures and processes that require a disproportionately large overhead in both military and civilian staff to administer.
Arbitrarily cutting budgets and reducing staff might lower the budget but not alleviate the problems within DND.
One needs a program to streamline and reduce policies and procedures which runs in combination with an integrated staff reduction plan.
- Reaction score
- 1,743
- Points
- 1,090
FJAG said:
Bureaucratic mission creep is not limited to DND. There are too many departments with arcane procedures that serve only to chew up dollars and reduce the amount of service provided to the taxpayer. Sadly none of the government's efforts to increase efficiency will have much effect because the primary outcome of streamlining would be a reduction in the public service. PSAC has no interest in this outcome.
Similar threads
