The Defence Budget [superthread]

[a_majoor]

In real economic terms, direct spending on the military only moves dollars around on a ledger (or putting money from your right pocket into your left, if you want an analogy). Military spending by itself does not create growth.

If Canada were to be actively selling its warships around the world (building 35 Halifax class frigates and selling them to other nevies) then that would be an example of defense spending paying off in real economic benefits. You can think of other military goods and services which *could* be leveraged to provide economic benefits, but these are secondary effects of our initial military spending (i.e. we paid the R&D, and bought the first units), not primary effects. Indeed, in theory we could be building and selling al kinds of military kit that the CF does not even have access to, if some corporation were willing to get into the global arms market (think of Gerald Bull and his high powered 155mm artillery shells and cannon, for example).

Our economic prosperity that derives from military spending is pretty much all second and third order effects: companies have confidence in the long term stability of Canada, interest rates are somewhat lower, corporations have less need of security forces of their own etc. Third order effects are the "Seat at the Table"; other nations are willing to treat Canada as a serious partner and we get to enjoy benefits like diplomatic support for our initiatives and interests or entry into trade blocks that would otherwise not want to deal with us.

 

[Monsoon]

If Canada were to be actively selling its warships around the world (building 35 Halifax class frigates and selling them to other nevies) then that would be an example of defense spending paying off in real economic benefits.

Just because we're not selling whole ships, it's naive to suppose there haven't been durable economic benefits to previous military industry investments. To use just one example from the Halifax class frigates, a whole division of CAE (now under L-3) has been employing hundreds of solidly upper-middle class engineers and technicians in Montreal for decades solely in selling the machinery control systems developed in that project to buyers abroad.

As military folk, we resent Canadian-sourced procurement because it means our acquisition dollars don't go as far as we'd like. Even still, the benefits of in-sourcing defence development from an national industrial standpoint can't just be hand-waved away.

 

[Good2Golf]

Just because we're not selling whole ships, it's naive to suppose there haven't been durable economic benefits to previous military industry investments. To use just one example from the Halifax class frigates, a whole division of CAE (now under L-3) has been employing hundreds of solidly upper-middle class engineers and technicians in Montreal for decades solely in selling the machinery control systems developed in that project to buyers abroad.

As military folk, we resent Canadian-sourced procurement because it means our acquisition dollars don't go as far as we'd like. Even still, the benefits of in-sourcing defence development from an national industrial standpoint can't just be hand-waved away.

:nod:

And sometimes Canadian industry benefits greatly from value proposition of a production and/or support contract with major manufacturers as a result of an initial Canadian program:

Heroux-Devtek wins Boeing H-47 Chinook helicopter landing gear contract
CP | By Ross Marowits, The Canadian Press ( article link )

MONTREAL - Heroux-Devtek Inc. has been awarded a five-year contract from Boeing to manufacture landing gear for the H-47 Chinook helicopter for the U.S. army.

Delivery of the landing gear for the medium- to heavy-lift helicopters are scheduled to begin in the first half of 2014 and be spread out over five years.

The U.S. army has contracted for 155 aircraft, but has options for an additional 150 helicopters.

Heroux-Devtek didn't provide a value for the contract but an industry analyst estimated it is worth about $40 million, or $8 million a year, which is three per cent of Heroux's overall annual sales.

It is the Quebec-based manufacturer's third H-47 contract in three years. The first contract in September 2009 involved fabrication, assembly, testing and delivery of the landing gear for H-47F aircraft delivered to customers outside the United States, including the CH-147 used by the Canadian Forces.

The second agreement, announced last September, was for a license to fabricate replacement parts and carry out repair and overhaul services for the landing gear of all Chinook variants.

Heroux-Devtek (TSX:HRX) CEO Gilles Labbe said the new contract reinforces Boeing's (NYSE:BA) confidence in the company's abilities to manufacture quality landing gear.

"This additional contract firmly positions Heroux-Devtek as the leading landing gear supplier on this important and longstanding program," he stated.

Cameron Doerksen of National Bank Financial said the contract is an important win for Heroux and probably represents three times as much revenue as the contract to non-U.S. landing gear.

"A key investor concern for Heroux-Devtek is the exposure to the military segment, but this contract win will help offset any weakness in existing military programs and also demonstrates the company's ability to grow its market share," he wrote in a report.

The commercial segment is a bigger driver for the company's growth, but Doerksen said the military segment's heavy focus on aftermarket activity means it shouldn't be a significant drag on growth.

The H-47F Chinook's primary mission is to move troops, artillery, ammunition and other equipment on the battlefield. It is also used for medical evacuation, disaster relief, search and rescue, aircraft recovery, fire fighting, parachute drops, heavy construction and civil development.

The aircraft type has been used by the U.S. army since 1962 and has been selected by nearly 20 other defence forces around the world.

Heroux-Devtek also said Monday that all investors who acquire its shares until markets close on Dec, 19 will be entitled to a special distribution that follows the company's sale of a large portion of its operations at the end of August.

The payment will consist of $2.70 per share consisting of a partial reduction and return of capital, and $2.30 per share in dividend.

On the Toronto Stock Exchange, Heroux's shares gained one cent at $12.79 in morning trading.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Just because we're not selling whole ships, it's naive to suppose there haven't been durable economic benefits to previous military industry investments. To use just one example from the Halifax class frigates, a whole division of CAE (now under L-3) has been employing hundreds of solidly upper-middle class engineers and technicians in Montreal for decades solely in selling the machinery control systems developed in that project to buyers abroad.

As military folk, we resent Canadian-sourced procurement because it means our acquisition dollars don't go as far as we'd like. Even still, the benefits of in-sourcing defence development from an national industrial standpoint can't just be hand-waved away.

No question ... but MCS was a winner on its own merits, ditto the LAV III and so on and so forth. There is nothing wrong, ever, with buying the best a first rate product when it sells at a fair price. Equally, there is nothing wrong with "Canadian-sourced procurement" when there is a good product at a competitive price ... even at a slight price  premium, for the reasons you state. (There is a very, very good economic argument against subsidies to the defence (or any other) industry but I never make them because I recognize that we live in a world in which e.g. America, Germany, Israel and Netherlands heavily subsidize their industries and if we want to give some sectors a "level playing field" we must do the same - it's not right but it is necessary.) But "Buy Canadian" is just a foolish in both economic and bureaucratic terms as is "Buy American." "Buy Right" is the right answer; providing lots of direct government funding for Research and BIG indirect subsidies for Development are good ways to promote the sorts of innovation that produce winners in the market. Subsidizing specific industry projects on national security grounds is legal and proper under current international trade law and we should do it, too, even though it makes less than perfect economic sense.

 

[MilEME09]

No question ... but MCS was a winner on its own merits, ditto the LAV III and so on and so forth. There is nothing wrong, ever, with buying the best a first rate product when it sells at a fair price. Equally, there is nothing wrong with "Canadian-sourced procurement" when there is a good product at a competitive price ... even at a slight price  premium, for the reasons you state. (There is a very, very good economic argument against subsidies to the defence (or any other) industry but I never make them because I recognize that we live in a world in which e.g. America, Germany, Israel and Netherlands heavily subsidize their industries and if we want to give some sectors a "level playing field" we must do the same - it's not right but it is necessary.) But "Buy Canadian" is just a foolish in both economic and bureaucratic terms as is "Buy American." "Buy Right" is the right answer; providing lots of direct government funding for Research and BIG indirect subsidies for Development are good ways to promote the sorts of innovation that produce winners in the market. Subsidizing specific industry projects on national security grounds is legal and proper under current international trade law and we should do it, too, even though it makes less than perfect economic sense.

From what I've seen reading Canadian Defense Review over its past 4 issues (including one which ranked Canada's top 50 defense firms) we have a lot of smaller companies starting to land large contracts for minor equipment, which is good. What Canada lacks though is the ability to accomplish large scale R&D, and later manufacturing and testing of larger equipment like vehicles, ships, helicopters and such. I know Bombardier has a defense branch but they dont have to big of a name, that might be a good place to start, sure its not going to compete with the big names right away but we may be able to get into the low cost marts like south and central america, africa, eastern europe, and central asia.

 

[Monsoon]

No question ... but MCS was a winner on its own merits, ditto the LAV III and so on and so forth. There is nothing wrong, ever, with buying the best a first rate product when it sells at a fair price.

I don't know about that... CAE/L-3's IMCS was developed bespoke for the FFH project based on the extensive consultation with industry that preceded construction during requirements definition. There's a case to be made that any first-world military procurement should be about enhancing the state of the art, and that that will necessarily mean developing new technology. That being the case, it only makes sense to target those R&D dollars domestically.

 

[Edward Campbell]

I don't know about that... CAE/L-3's IMCS was developed bespoke for the FFH project based on the extensive consultation with industry that preceded construction during requirements definition. There's a case to be made that any first-world military procurement should be about enhancing the state of the art, and that that will necessarily mean developing new technology. That being the case, it only makes sense to target those R&D dollars domestically.

At the time, beginning of the 1980s, the very idea of 'control systems' was new. The PM Frigate (then Cmdre Ed Healey) directed that work be done to create (semi) automated control systems for his new as yet undefined ships. Yes,, the project - the defence budget - took some risks, but RAdm Healey understood that he needed such things and automation was the only way to get what the admirals demanded within the budget constraints (and remember further, please, that in the late early 1980s the best available minicomputer processor we had was a 16 bit machine and microprocessors were 8 bit).

 

[Monsoon]

At the time, beginning of the 1980s, the very idea of 'control systems' was new. The PM Frigate (then Cmdre Ed Healey) directed that work be done to create (semi) automated control systems for his new as yet undefined ships. Yes,, the project - the defence budget - took some risks, but RAdm Healey understood that he needed such things and automation was the only way to get what the admirals demanded within the budget constraints (and remember further, please, that in the late early 1980s the best available minicomputer processor we had was a 16 bit machine and microprocessors were 8 bit).

Interesting bit of background history. At the time the contract was awarded CAE was an aircraft simulator company; the R&D contract to develop the IMCS from scratch could have just as easily been given to Lockheed Martin or any one of a number of more established international (read: US) defence R&D consortia. The fact that it was awarded to CAE has been durably good for Canada, even if it cost more to develop domestically than it would otherwise have. In any case, I'd be inclined to agree with you that this sort of "industry-developing" R&D should be funded out of Industry Canada rather than DND.

 

[Edward Campbell]

That's one of the cases where I think the charge against the defence budget is legitimate.

(Then) Cmdre Healey wasn't funding development, he knew, at 'block diagram' level what he wanted, he just needed someone to translate his notion into something practical. I have no idea why he chose CAE. He may well have seen that this was a potential winner and he was a 'fan' of supporting Canadian industry ... when it made economic sense. We were, also, a bit nervous about the US habit of restricting access to any technology in the development of which they may have made some contribution.

(Circa 1990, when the CPF was newly in service, we sent one to the Persian Gulf and Asia on a "friendly visit" (sales mission). It was interesting to note that our visit was followed, very quickly, by bigger and better (in terms of hospitality funding) visits by thr American, British, French, German and Italian navies.)

 

[Edward Campbell]

E.R. Campbell's theme is again repeated in the media:  Defence spending does not pay-off for Canadian politicians, because it is not important to Canadians.  This article goes farther and hings that it does not gain anything for the nation from our allies.

As expected, author, academic and "talking head," Jack Granatstein, of the Canadian Defence and Foreign Affairs Institute, also weighs in, saying "I voted CPC before but not this time; this time I'll vote for .... doh," in this article which is reproduced under the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/how-the-harper-government-lost-its-way-on-defence-spending/article20859264/#dashboard/follows/

How the Harper government lost its way on defence spending

J.L. GRANATSTEIN
Special to The Globe and Mail

Published Wednesday, Oct. 01 2014

J.L. Granatstein is a fellow of the Canadian Defence and Foreign Affairs Institute.

A few years ago I wrote that no government since that of Louis St. Laurent in the 1950s had done more to improve the defence of Canada than Stephen Harper’s Conservatives. The St. Laurent Liberals built up the armed forces to deal with the war in Korea and with the defence of North America and western Europe in the face of Soviet expansionism. At its peak, the defence budget took more than 7 per cent of Canada’s Gross Domestic Product, and the army, navy, and air force had as many as 120,000 men and women in the regular forces.

No one could expect any government in this century to spend on that scale, but the Conservative government did treat defence well in its first years in power. The commitment to the Afghan War, never very popular, was handled capably, and the troops received everything they needed – helicopters, new artillery, upgraded armoured personnel carriers, and tanks, not to mention new transport aircraft. The number of regulars rose slowly and slightly toward 65,000, and the government presented a schematic Canada First Defence Policy in 2008 that listed a range of objectives and equipment acquisitions. The budget projections were colossal, almost $500-billion to be spent over the next 20 years.

But somewhere along the way, the Harper government lost its sense of purpose on defence. We don’t know precisely what happened, but it seems likely that the Prime Minister realized that the war in Afghanistan – and the regular convoys of hearses from the air base at Trenton to the coroner’s office in Toronto – was increasingly unpopular and unsettling to Canadians. The soldiers had the public’s admiration and support, but the war did not. Similarly, he must have come to the conclusion that Canadians did not much like defence spending when their health care or child care or tax cuts were more important to them. Better to let the United States carry the load abroad and in the defence of North America. This might have been a foolish attitude on the part of the people, but Mr. Harper is very good at reading opinion polls and focus groups.

The result was that the defence budget was cut, in substantial part because deficit reduction and a budget surplus were more important than “toys for the boys.” From a peak of $21-billion in 2009-10, the defence budget in this fiscal year is $18.2-billion, about a 13 per cent reduction in dollars made worse by inflation. The percentage of GDP spent on defence is now hovering at 1 per cent, the lowest since the 1930s. In 2009, it was 1.3 per cent. Making matters even worse, the Department of National Defence somehow cannot spend all the money it gets, returning almost $10-billion to the Treasury since 2006.

There are still plans for equipment purchases – some day. Procurements grind forward at a glacial pace: new ships for the Royal Canadian Navy are in process but are unlikely to be afloat for a decade or more, and the costs, because everything has to be constructed in shipyards that had to be created anew, are going to be stratospheric; an expensive new fighter-bomber for the Royal Canadian Air Force is under study and up for consideration (and has been for years), but the F-35 is/is not the right fit, depending on which bureaucrat or general or minister or Opposition expert is talking on what day of the week; instead, the government may try to keep the aging fleet of CF18’s flying until 2025; and the Army, licking its wounds from Afghanistan, still has to get by without good trucks because, incredibly, no contract has yet been let to purchase them in this nation of automobile factories. Even if the Army had its trucks, the costs of operating and maintaining them and its helicopters and tanks is too high for real training under the present straitened circumstances.

Notwithstanding the funding-induced paralysis in the military, the Harper government talks tough. We are the best friends of Israel and Ukraine, and we will slap sanctions on the Russians and send a handful of soldiers on training exercises to Poland, a few fighter jets to Romania or the Baltic states, and a frigate to the Black Sea to show our teeth. Canadian rhetoric can match anyone’s, even as our equipment is slipping rapidly into obsolescence.

I voted for the Conservatives in the last two elections because I believed their promises to improve the nation’s military. I have been utterly disappointed, and I will not vote for them in 2015. My difficulty on election day, of course, will be that the NDP and Liberals will likely be even worse in their treatment of the Canadian Forces.

Dr. Granatstin is saying what many, many here, on Army.ca, have already said: 'Canada can and should spend more on defence; the post 2010 cuts really hurt; the CF is "rusting out," and I will run away and never vote Conservative any more!'

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
The same people also state the obvious: 'we live in a democracy; I want the government to do what I say, not what good policy or the law require.'

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Well, the majority, a real majority of Canadians, verified, consistently, by the polling of all major political parties and the media, is getting what it wants: lower and lower defence spending. Canadian 'support for the troops' goes no father then a few yellow ribbons and red T-shirts; most Canadians fear that new ships, new boots, new airplanes and new support systems means less "pogey".

The fact is that there is a defence plan. I might not think much of the Canada First Defence Strategy, which is now under revision, because I thought the original version was all 'smoke and mirrors,' or 'fun with numbers' that didn't add up, but there is a plan and there are projects ~ they get pushed farther and farther into the future because the government's only real, firm priority is getting re-elected and it believes, firmly, that the route to re-election runs through a balanced budget followed by focused tax cuts ~ but there are projects, too: new helicopters, new ships, new planes, new stuff is 'on the books.'

Prime Minister Harper, like many other conservative Conservatives, like Margaret Thatcher, for example, is not a fan of defence spending: he likes having his picture taken on the deck of a warship, but he doesn't like paying for warships, or planes or guns, or ... in that he reflects the very deeply ingrained conservatism of most of his fellow Canadians.

Get over it, Jack.

 

[FortYorkRifleman]

With missions like Afghanistan and more recently Iraq does the budget for those expenditures come out of the existing budget or is money set aside specifically for them like in the US?

 

[Cloud Cover]

Dr. Granatstin is saying what many, many here, on Army.ca, have already said: 'Canada can and should spend more on defence; the post 2010 cuts really hurt; the CF is "rusting out," and I will run away and never vote Conservative any more!'

To be honest, I am a big supporter of national defence but I cannot support an increased defence budget until (1) Parliament, (2) Government, (3)Bureaucracy and (4) the Canadian Armed Forces partner together and prove themselves to be responsible stewards of (a) a coherent and meaningful defence policy and (2) and actually defending the country itself through proper means.  The 4 partners are failing individually and jointly, do not act rationally or pragmatically, and consequently I cannot support an increase in defence spending. To be clear I am not looking for national defence that is the most economical, I am looking for national defence and a military force that makes logical sense.

We don't have those things in place, nothing logical or rational is on the horizon. Even to a guy like me, compared to what we have right now, I would take Trudeau's doves over Harpers BS. (and I happen to personally dislike Trudeau, would never vote for him or Harper (again) but it seems to me that Trudeau whether he realizes it or not, has at least metaphorically described our current defence policy/capability correctly.)

   

 

[Kirkhill]

To be honest, I am a big supporter of national defence but I cannot support an increased defence budget until (1) Parliament, (2) Government, (3)Bureaucracy and (4) the Canadian Armed Forces partner together and prove themselves to be responsible stewards of (a) a coherent and meaningful defence policy and (2) and actually defending the country itself through proper means.  The 4 partners are failing individually and jointly, do not act rationally or pragmatically, and consequently I cannot support an increase in defence spending. To be clear I am not looking for national defence that is the most economical, I am looking for national defence and a military force that makes logical sense.

Whiskey - Unfortunately I find myself inclined to agree with you on this.  Why can't Canadians be more like the Swedes, the Danes, the Norwegians, the Dutch, the Australians?  ....... But there again, as I write this, I struggle to find other examples of nations that have got their act together.  The Brits, they Yanks, the French and the Germans don't.  Singapore, Korea and perhaps Japan seem to be doing alright in Asia. 

We don't have those things in place, nothing logical or rational is on the horizon. Even to a guy like me, compared to what we have right now, I would take Trudeau's doves over Harpers BS. (and I happen to personally dislike Trudeau, would never vote for him or Harper (again) but it seems to me that Trudeau whether he realizes it or not, has at least metaphorically described our current defence policy/capability correctly.) 

Here, I'm afraid, I can't follow your lead.  It may be just my visceral reaction to the name Trudeau, but given the alternatives I will vote for a disappointing Harper until Trudeau is consigned to the dustheap of history.  Or Harvard (same place actually).

 

[Journeyman]

..... until Trudeau is consigned to the dustheap of history.  Or Harvard (same place actually).

They already have their quota of failed Liberal leadership; Ignatieff went back there this summer. 

 

[dimsum]

Whiskey - Unfortunately I find myself inclined to agree with you on this.  Why can't Canadians be more like the Swedes, the Danes, the Norwegians, the Dutch, the Australians?  ....... But there again, as I write this, I struggle to find other examples of nations that have got their act together. 

I can't (and won't) speak for the other countries, but I believe that with the current governments in both Australia and Canada, the deciding factor that affects the differing foreign/military policies is geographical distance from US (and formerly UK) support.  I wouldn't say that the ADF has totally got its act together, but being the big "Western" power in the region, it is definitely aware that the US may not respond to threats in time - in WWII, Japan managed to bomb Darwin and other parts of the Northern Territory, and subs attacked Sydney and Newcastle. Both history and distance temper any real argument to reduce the size/capability of the ADF, especially the RAAF and RAN.  I'm sure that it would be the same if Canada didn't have the US next door and was attacked as well.

Australian public support for Afghanistan and now Iraq is comparable to Canadian support, and I believe that if next year wasn't an election year in Canada, the anti-mission rhetoric wouldn't have been as strong.  As well, the "peacekeeper" myth doesn't really exist in Australia - there are ADF members in UN peacekeeping missions, but the idea that a nation's military should be primarily conducting peacekeeping is not something that Australians share.

All that being said, while Australians know that (despite their new toys) they are essentially dependent on the US military, Australians really do not like being compared similarly to Americans in any way (even more so than Canadians).  One of the first things that Aussies regularly ask me is whether I find that Australia has become too "American" - yes, it has. 

 

[Journeyman]

One of the first things that Aussies regularly ask me is whether I find that Australia has become too "American" - yes, it has.

A Kiwi once told me (with beer and Aussies present) that Australia has become England, filled with Americans.

I don't know how I manage to attract such shit-disturbers.  >


Mind you, with the Wallabies and the All-Blacks both losing their rugby matches last weekend, there's a great disturbance in the force.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Whiskey - Unfortunately I find myself inclined to agree with you on this.  Why can't Canadians be more like the Swedes, the Danes, the Norwegians, the Dutch, the Australians?  ....... But there again, as I write this, I struggle to find other examples of nations that have got their act together.  The Brits, they Yanks, the French and the Germans don't.  Singapore, Korea and perhaps Japan seem to be doing alright in Asia. 

Here, I'm afraid, I can't follow your lead.  It may be just my visceral reaction to the name Trudeau, but given the alternatives I will vote for a disappointing Harper until Trudeau is consigned to the dustheap of history.  Or Harvard (same place actually).

Further to the Germans, see this article which is reproduced under there Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from The Economist:

http://www.economist.com/news/europe/21621876-germany-able-give-its-allies-more-military-help-chinks-armour

Germany’s army
Chinks in the armour
Is Germany able to give its allies more military help?

Oct 4th 2014 | BERLIN | From the print edition

URSULA VON DER LEYEN, Germany’s first female defence minister and a possible successor to Angela Merkel as chancellor, likes a good photo opportunity. One that backfired recently had her standing under a dramatic sky with an army transport aircraft in the background, gazing into the distance as though on the look out for geopolitical derring-do. The derision was instantaneous. The image matched both her ambition and the vision she outlined in January of Germany’s armed forces playing a bigger role in international crises. Given post-war Germany’s radical pacifism, that was controversial.

She is now at risk of failing her first two practical tests. Last month she dispatched German army volunteers to Africa to help in the struggle against Ebola. And although Germany has not joined its allies in bombing the Islamic State (IS), she sent weapons to the beleaguered Iraqi Kurds. Sensing another photo-op, she boarded a Transall transport plane and flew to Iraq for a ceremonial delivery. But the anti-tank weapons, rifles and machine guns had not arrived, nor the German trainers, because the planes carrying them (one of them leased from the Dutch) were grounded en route for repairs. Another Transall, bound for Senegal with the German volunteers to fight Ebola, was stranded with technical difficulties in the Canary Islands.

The problems extend far beyond unreliable transport aircraft. Reporting to parliament last month, inspectors said that only a fraction of Germany’s helicopters, submarines and tanks are fit to be deployed. The problem is a lack of spare parts. Ordering and making them will take time. On September 30th another blow came when it emerged that technical defects affecting the air force’s Typhoon fighter jets had been found.

Mrs von der Leyen has some explaining to do. Airbus should finally deliver the first of its new A400M aircraft to replace the old Transalls this autumn, she said. The other maintenance problems, she claims, date back to her predecessors and have come to light because more is being asked of the army.

All true, but the question remains whether in a crisis Germany could meet its obligations as part of NATO. With Russia’s aggression in Ukraine on their minds at their summit in Wales last month, the 28 allies renewed their pledge to commit at least 2% of GDP to their armed forces. Germany has steadily cut its defence budget. It spends only 1.3%, putting it 14th among alliance countries.

The shoddy state of the armed forces is now Mrs von der Leyen’s biggest problem. It is causing tension within the grand coalition of the centre-right camp (to which she and Mrs Merkel belong) and the centre-left Social Democrats. Their parliamentary leader, Thomas Oppermann, accused Mrs von der Leyen of poor management but simultaneously ruled out spending more. Another senior Social Democrat, Thorsten Schäfer-Gümbel, suggested that she should do more work and “fewer photo shoots”.

So, it's not just us ... and we don't even get a 'hot' MND.

 

[Kirkhill]

And her name is Ursula no less......

I think I have been a bad boy.

 

[Kirkhill]

I can't (and won't) speak for the other countries, but I believe that with the current governments in both Australia and Canada, the deciding factor that affects the differing foreign/military policies is geographical distance from US (and formerly UK) support.  I wouldn't say that the ADF has totally got its act together, but being the big "Western" power in the region, it is definitely aware that the US may not respond to threats in time - in WWII, Japan managed to bomb Darwin and other parts of the Northern Territory, and subs attacked Sydney and Newcastle. Both history and distance temper any real argument to reduce the size/capability of the ADF, especially the RAAF and RAN.  I'm sure that it would be the same if Canada didn't have the US next door and was attacked as well.

Australian public support for Afghanistan and now Iraq is comparable to Canadian support, and I believe that if next year wasn't an election year in Canada, the anti-mission rhetoric wouldn't have been as strong.  As well, the "peacekeeper" myth doesn't really exist in Australia - there are ADF members in UN peacekeeping missions, but the idea that a nation's military should be primarily conducting peacekeeping is not something that Australians share.

All that being said, while Australians know that (despite their new toys) they are essentially dependent on the US military, Australians really do not like being compared similarly to Americans in any way (even more so than Canadians).  One of the first things that Aussies regularly ask me is whether I find that Australia has become too "American" - yes, it has.

Dimsum - you are probably onto something there.

The Norwegians, Dutch and Danes were all invested by the Nazis and suffered accordingly.  The Swedes have been heavily focused on keeping the Russians at bay for a three or four hundred years.  I don't suppose Putin is much of a surprise to them.

The Easterners, led by the Poles and the Balts have got good reason to get their heads straight having just go rid of the Russians, kind of.

But then there is the French.....There is always the French. Its own bizarre form of exceptionalism.  It has the same history as all of the rest of the Europeans I mentioned but it just can't find its footing on anything, anywhere, anytime.  Ah, le bon dieu. :facepalm:  (ou se trouve le Gallic Shrug).

 

[McG]

And, as the budget starts to ballance, is the military about to see better funding?  Likely not, according to some predictions.

Military starved to balance budget
Forgoing reduction in taxes for a military cash jolt is an unlikely choice for Tories
Michael Den Tandt
The Starphoenix
10 Oct 2014

"The government took office with a firm commitment to stand up for Canada," declared Prime Minister Stephen Harper in the Canada First Defence Strategy. "Fulfilling this obligation means keeping our citizens safe and secure, defending our sovereignty, and ensuring that Canada can return to the international stage as a credible and influential country, ready to do its part."

It was ambitious rhetoric, and politically suited to the times. In 2008 Canada was at war. Though there was continuing controversy about the Afghan mission in the Commons, Canadians were deeply engaged. The newspapers were filled with stories of soldiers returning safely home, and of those who didn't come home. The government rarely missed an opportunity to praise "our brave men and women in uniform."

At last, in 2008, Canadian soldiers in Kandahar seemed well equipped for their jobs. That was the era, not coincidentally, during which Ottawa's defence spending as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product was climbing rapidly, from 1.29 in January of 2008, to 1.46 in 2009, and 1.45 in 2010. This was still well off the North Atlantic Treaty Organization target of two per cent, but it was light years ahead of the paltry 1.16 per cent the Liberals had spent in 2002.

But then, beginning in 2010, a series of light bulbs went off in the Langevin Block that houses the Prime Minister's Office.

First, it was realized that the Afghan government under then-president Hamid Karzai would never be a reliable ally, and that consequently much of the money being spent on "institution-building" was being frittered away.

Second, as it began to grapple with political blowback from its sole-source F-35 fighter jet purchase, the Harper government began to perceive what every Canadian administration since the Trudeau years has understood: In Canada, you can beggar the military and pay no political price. By late 2012, the new jets had become an impossible liability, and they were shelved.

Which is why now, nearly two years on, and with another war in the offing, there is still no replacement pending of Canada's Boeing F-18 Hornets, the first of which flew in 1982, and the last of which will be flying until 2025. There are 79 of the planes still operational: Many of the original 138 are now in storage or used for parts to keep the others serviceable.

Last spring, Canada deployed a half-dozen F-18s to eastern Europe, in a NATO "reassurance" mission aimed at deterring Russian aggression. Now another half-dozen are being readied to join the air war over Iraq, and possibly Syria.

Best not to consider where that leaves the Royal Canadian Air Force's capacity to fulfil what was, after 9/11, considered its most important task, that of providing over-flight protection for major Canadian cities.

More than 600 Canadian Forces personnel, the six fighters, their ammunition, two Aurora observation planes and a refuelling aircraft will soon be deployed to Kuwait to join the aerial bombardment of Islamic State, the government said Tuesday, confirming an earlier report by Postmedia's Matthew Fisher.

This means, in effect, that Canada will build a new base, perhaps within an existing allied base, as occurred in Afghanistan and in the United Arab Emirates years ago. It means an aerial supply line will wend its way to Kuwait, likely from CFB Trenton in Ontario, via Germany, made up of Boeing C-17s, Airbuses and, in-theatre, Hercules C-130s. Those serving in Kuwait will need vehicles, transport trucks, portable shelters or sea containers, and all the other myriad gear required to keep people fed, fit and combat-ready in a desert war.

Yet unlike in the early years of the Afghan conflict, when military spending was rising steadily each year from 2002 on, the defence budget in the past four years has dropped - to the point where spending as a ratio to GDP may actually be hovering at or just below one per cent, which is Liberal "decade of darkness" territory, to repeat former Chief of Defence Staff Rick Hillier's famous expression.

In the 2014 budget, the Defence Department was shorn of $3 billion that had been earmarked for imminent procurements. In addition to the stalled jets, the National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy is mired in delays; a plan to buy high-flying spy drones has gone nowhere; fixed-wing search and rescue aircraft have been in limbo for a decade.

The government is to issue its fall fiscal update at the end of this month. There has been speculation that, because the budget is de facto in balance now, it will include tax cuts - the beginning of the bonanza that is to bring middle-Canadians back into the Tory fold just in time for next fall's federal election.

Forgoing any of that, or slowing the pace of deficit and debt reduction, in favour of renewed spending on "our brave men and women in uniform," is not something any member of the Conservative caucus will want to consider.

One wonders how long they can keep that up, while at the same time sending the Canadian Forces back to war, for an undetermined length of time.

We will have to stick with what we can control: better use (ie. less waste) of the funds that we do get.