The Defence Budget [superthread]

[McG]

If we're letting the US dictate our GDP numbers then maybe we should look at the US active component to reserve (NG and AR) ratios:
Army: Active 487k, NG/AR 660k;
Navy: Active 323k, NR 111k;
Air Force: Active 307k, ANG/AFR 211k;
Marines: Active 183k, MR 111k;
Coast Guard: Active 39k, CGR 8k

Our numbers are:
Army: Reg 23k, Res 17k, Rangers 5k;
Navy: Reg 8.5k, Res 5.1k
Air Force: Reg 14.5k Res 2.6k
Other: Reg F 22k, Res 1.8k

With the exception of the navy, our reg to Res ratios are all skewed significantly in favour of the Reg F.

And, with the exception of the army, the American reg to res ratios are also all skewed significantly in favour of the active duty.  But let’s just agree this comparison is too shallow an analysis from which to make any conclusions.  A first principles analysis of Canada’s requirements is a better start.

We let equipment drive our doctrine when it should be the other way around.

You are giving too much credit to some major capital acquisition decisions.  We buy shinny things without thought to doctrine, organization, training, supporting resources, personnel, etc.  When projects deliver it is high-fives and commendations all around … and the field force gets stuck figuring out how to fill the holes.

We can't presuppose that the three CMBGs are what we need / where we need / how we need things to be.

…
2.  The Brigade - Every Army in the world worth its salt works around the Brigade concept, why change what works? 

In those armies, a brigade is a deployable entity.  If you intend to neither use it nor manage its readiness so that it can be used, is it really that valuable a building block to Canada?  Don’t answer that here.  It is probably too into the weeds for this budget discussion, but we have another thread for that idea: What Should the Army's Role, Capabilities & Structure Be?

We need to change our training from "just enough, just in time"  to the right amount as soon as possible to allow people to gain experience. Surges just result in a lowered standard of training, because we need boots on the ground now.

We used to say “train two up” which meant to train every individual to do the job two positions higher so that the machine could keep grinding forward as leaders became casualties.

… the performance envelope of the new system has allowed us to do more than the same with half as much kit. We didn't need four fighter wings (10 to 15 squadrons) in Europe when the F-104 replaced the F-86 Sabre. The F-104 could do much, much more with fewer aircraft. Ditto with ships: the Halifax class frigates were qualitatively so much better than the old "steamers" they replaced that 12 could do what we needed 15 to 20 to do before. You, yourself, must know that a regiment of, say, just 50 Leopard 2 tanks could do more than a regiment of 80 Centurions.

I am not sure that the “able to do more with fewer platforms” statement has been true every time we have said it (let alone true for the numbers being discussed).  If you buy trucks twice as big as the current fleet, you could conceivably do the job with half as many trucks … until you realize that time & space realities prevent any smaller of a fleet from completing deliveries to all required locations even if the trucks had infinite capacity.  In the case of main battle tanks, fifty Leopard 2 can certainly do more on a battlefield than eighty Centurions against the same threat.  But, the Leopard 2 should not be measured against what it can do against a battlefield of T54.  Can the Leopard 2 do on a battlefield of T90 (or Armata) what the Centurion could do on a battlefield of T54?  Where physical numbers mean that fewer Leopard 2 cannot necessarily be at the right places at the right times to do what a Centurion would have done 50 years ago, do we have an alternate tool in the box to cover the capability gap?

If the future surface combatant is so capable that we can replace Destroyers and Frigates with a new smaller fleet and our current operational commitments see single ships joining coalition task forces, will we send fractions of ships on operations in the future?

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

And, with the exception of the army, the American reg to res ratios are also all skewed significantly in favour of the active duty.  But let’s just agree this comparison is too shallow an analysis from which to make any conclusions.  A first principles analysis of Canada’s requirements is a better start.
You are giving too much credit to some major capital acquisition decisions.  We buy shinny things without thought to doctrine, organization, training, supporting resources, personnel, etc.  When projects deliver it is high-fives and commendations all around … and the field force gets stuck figuring out how to fill the holes.
…

I agree that comparing our military to the American one is a colossal waste of time.  The active US Army is larger than 99% of armies in the world, it's a useless comparison.

As for equipment, I'm not giving any credit to some capital acquisition organizations.  The Army controls Doctrine and DLR, has a pulse on DGLEPM and runs the Technical Staff Program which feeds staff officers to the machine.  How those organizations came up with TAPV as a suitable Armoured Reconnaissance vehicle is perplexing?

2.  The Brigade - Every Army in the world worth its salt works around the Brigade concept, why change what works?  In those armies, a brigade is a deployable entity.  If you intend to neither use it nor manage its readiness so that it can be used, is it really that valuable a building block to Canada?  Don’t answer that here.  It is probably too into the weeds for this budget discussion, but we have another thread for that idea: What Should the Army's Role, Capabilities & Structure Be?

You're right that I'm digging in to the weeds with this post but I think it's relevant to the discussion from the perspective that we try and reinvent the wheel continuously without asking the most important question:

"Does what I'm doing or the decision I'm making conform to Doctrine?  If it doesn't what is the reasoning it doesn't validated against the Principles of War?"

This is important because in a time of tight budgets, equipment procurement should be managed even more carefully.  We should be very skeptical of any new equipment we bring on because we will likely be stuck with anything we do buy for a very long time, whether it works or not.

As for the Brigade:

The Brigade is an administrative formation in Canada but that doesn't make it any less relevant.  All Battalions, Brigades, Divisions, Corps, Armies are is a way of managing a group of soldiers.  Without the C2 all we have is a very well armed Mob.

Even the tiny NZ and Norwegian Armies use the Brigade so why, in a country as big as Canada do we think we need to get rid of it?  Before you get rid of the Brigade as an organized formation in the Canadian Army, ask yourself, "does what I'm doing conform to doctrine?" If not, what's my reasoning for doing it?" 

BACK ON TOPIC

I'm on E.R. Campbell and Journeyman's side on this one.  We haven't had clear policy direction from the government in a very long time and I think this is partially what's to blame for some of our hair brained decisions.  Until we get firm policy direction from the government, no new money should be allocated to the Defence portfolio.  Even if the money was allocated, we likely wouldn't know how to spend it anyways. 

I think what's really needed in Canada isn't a Defence White Paper, what's actually needed is a National Security Strategy.  Numerous folks have mentioned terrorism, cyber, espionage, natural disasters, civil insurrection, etc. As possible threats to Canada.  Those aren't really our responsibility though, the majority of the above are actually law enforcement/intelligence responsibilities.  Does the military have a role to play in these issues, possibly but that role should be outlined clearly in a National Security Stratrgy.

In reality, the national military strategy is nested within the national security strategy and is but one component.  What I would like to see is a white paper which covers the spectrum of instruments at the disposal of the federal government, CSIS, RCMP, CSEC, CAF, etc... and how they all work together IOT implement a National Security Strategy.

 

[Good2Golf]

I think what's really needed in Canada isn't a Defence White Paper, what's actually needed is a National Security Strategy.  Numerous folks have mentioned terrorism, cyber, espionage, natural disasters, civil insurrection, etc. As possible threats to Canada.  Those aren't really our responsibility though, the majority of the above are actually law enforcement/intelligence responsibilities.  Does the military have a role to play in these issues, possibly but that role should be outlined clearly in a National Security Stratrgy.

In reality, the national military strategy is nested within the national security strategy and is but one component.  What I would like to see is a white paper which covers the spectrum of instruments at the disposal of the federal government, CSIS, RCMP, CSEC, CAF, etc... and how they all work together IOT implement a National Security Strategy.

^ This.  :nod:

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

^ This.  :nod:

The responsible department for National Security is actually Public Safety Canada. 

Public Safety Canada Mandate: "Our mandate is to keep Canadians safe from a range of risks such as natural disasters, crime and terrorism."

"Public Safety Canada works with five agencies and three review bodies, united in a single portfolio and all reporting to the same minister.

We also work with other levels of government, first responders, community groups, the private sector and other nations, on national security, border strategies, countering crime and emergency management issues and other safety and security initiatives, such as the National Information Exchange Model.
"

Source:

https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/bt/index-en.aspx

Now lets look at this interesting Org Chart:

Department of National Defence & CSEC are nowhere to be found.  It's as if the government is looking at the problem of National Security in only a domestic context. 

EDIT:

The last actual National Security Strategy was written by Paul Martin's government: "Securing an Open Society, Canada's National Security Policy".  An archived copy can be found here:  http://publications.gc.ca/collections/Collection/CP22-77-2004E.pdf 

That was published in 2004, it seems the CAF isn't the only department suffering from a lack of intellectual de rigueur.

 

[Good2Golf]

...
Department of National Defence & CSEC are nowhere to be found.  It's as if the government is looking at the problem of National Security in only a domestic context.

Ding - ding - ding!  :nod:

The irony is in the procedure whereby MPS will temporarily sign over operational control of a crappy situation to MND when PSC's machinery can't handle a domestic 'bad situation.' 


If I were King for a day, I'd get at least three line-Departments together on Canadian Security:  GAC-PSC-DND 

:2c:

Regards
G2G

 

[Journeyman]

I think what's really needed in Canada isn't a Defence White Paper, what's actually needed is a National Security Strategy.

Concur.....theoretically.  (Always a caveat  ;D  ).

I think that a Defence White Paper could  be produced, if the government had the will and any interest in being informed by facts.

I also think, sadly, that any attempt at a National Security Strategy would be quickly derailed by considerations of peripheral (or completely irrelevant) aspects, ranging from Motion M-103, Status of Women, Tips for mobile dating apps (if you don't believe me, check the Public Safety Canada home page  : ), etc, etc ...  It would be irretrievably bogged down before coffee on Day 1.

While a Defence White Paper should  be nested within a National Security Strategy, that would be a bridge too far.

 

[PPCLI Guy]

Ironically, Iraq has a robust National Security Strategy and they are working on a Security Sector Reform Campaign Plan.

If only we could follow the example of those that we have been sent to advise and assist....

[size=10pt][size=8pt]<<edited for PERSEC>>[/size][/size]

 

[Old Sweat]

I fear if we tried to write one, it would soon concentrate on LBGTQ issues and the need for national childcare and pharmacare programs.

 

[McG]

The Army controls Doctrine and DLR, has a pulse on DGLEPM and runs the Technical Staff Program which feeds staff officers to the machine.  How those organizations came up with TAPV as a suitable Armoured Reconnaissance vehicle is perplexing?

One problem with doctrine and requirements is that they are in different cities, reporting to different general officers, and not talking often enough.  The tech staff program is only able to help so far as the system insist that tech staff grads fill tech positions (and there are many examples where the opposite is done).  As for TAPV, that did not come from DLR; it was the product of a discussion between (then) LGen Leslie as CLS and Mr Ross as ADM(Mat).  I recall visiting DLR the next day to be told "Yesterday we did not know what CCV, TAPV and LRPR were.  Today they are the Army's top three equipment priorities."  Subsequent rumours have suggested to me that the Army made concessions to get ADM(Mat) support for LAV-Up, because ADM(Mat) did not like GDLS and wanted the army to have vehicles designed all for survivability.

 

[Kirkhill]

The responsible department for National Security is actually Public Safety Canada. 

Public Safety Canada Mandate: "Our mandate is to keep Canadians safe from a range of risks such as natural disasters, crime and terrorism."

"Public Safety Canada works with five agencies and three review bodies, united in a single portfolio and all reporting to the same minister.

We also work with other levels of government, first responders, community groups, the private sector and other nations, on national security, border strategies, countering crime and emergency management issues and other safety and security initiatives, such as the National Information Exchange Model.
"

Source:

https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/bt/index-en.aspx

Now lets look at this interesting Org Chart:

Department of National Defence & CSEC are nowhere to be found.  It's as if the government is looking at the problem of National Security in only a domestic context. 

EDIT:

The last actual National Security Strategy was written by Paul Martin's government: "Securing an Open Society, Canada's National Security Policy".  An archived copy can be found here:  http://publications.gc.ca/collections/Collection/CP22-77-2004E.pdf 

That was published in 2004, it seems the CAF isn't the only department suffering from a lack of intellectual de rigueur.

Peculiar that NATIONAL DEFENCE is now focused on Expeditionary Warfare.

Orwell wins again I guess.

How much of this is driven by Vimy Ridge and the dominance of an Infantry-Centric Army in an Army-Centric Force?

To be honest - I find it hard to argue for a large Army budget on grounds of NATIONAL DEFENCE. 

On NATIONAL DEFENCE grounds I find it easy to justify CSEC, Satellites, Radars, Air Forces and the Navy. 

I can also justify, in my mind at least, a small force (roughly of the current man-power) of highly trained rapid response professionals to counter the unexpected here within our Area of Operations/Interest.

Beyond that there is a useful debate to be had on how much money we wish to spend influencing the world beyond our borders.

It seems to me that it is an easier sell to sell National Defence as an element of Public Security than it is to sell Expeditionary Forces to maintain World Order.

The fact that many of the resources purchased for Public Security / National Defence could be purchased in surplus with the surplus elements allocated overseas for training and diplomatic reasons could be sold as a necessity/benefit.

 

[Journeyman]

...influencing the world ....

Fortunately, that's covered. There's a select, elite bunch of Reservists addressing that concern.  :nod:

 

[Kirkhill]

Fortunately, that's covered. There's a select, elite bunch of Reservists addressing that concern.  :nod:

Two weeks a year and one Saturday a month until May.  Assuming that the Regs don't claw back the funding.

 

[Jed]

Fortunately, that's covered. There's a select, elite bunch of Reservists addressing that concern.  :nod:

Isn't that the truth.  [

 

[Edward Campbell]

The responsible department for National Security is actually Public Safety Canada. 

Public Safety Canada Mandate: "Our mandate is to keep Canadians safe from a range of risks such as natural disasters, crime and terrorism" ...
...
Source:

https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/bt/index-en.aspx
...
Department of National Defence & CSEC are nowhere to be found.  It's as if the government is looking at the problem of National Security in only a domestic context ...

Actually, from a national security point of view, I would be a helluva lot happier if CSEC wasn't mentioned at all, ever, by anyone, except, en passant, by the MND at some late night meeting of an obscure sub-committee dealing with the boring bits of the budget. There are some capabilities, CSEC is one of them, about which the less is said the better.

I think one can make a case that DND ought not to be part and parcel of the national security regime ... I think everyone, even politicians and voters, can understand that DND and the CF can be called in by almost any government "envelope" to provide direct or indirect support.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

Actually, from a national security point of view, I would be a helluva lot happier if CSEC wasn't mentioned at all, ever, by anyone, except, en passant, by the MND at some late night meeting of an obscure sub-committee dealing with the boring bits of the budget. There are some capabilities, CSEC is one of them, about which the less is said the better.

I think one can make a case that DND ought not to be part and parcel of the national security regime ... I think everyone, even politicians and voters, can understand that DND and the CF can be called in by almost any government "envelope" to provide direct or indirect support.

I agree that the less is said, the better; however, that doesn't preclude us from having an overarching strategy which these organizations draw their marching orders from.  I'm seeing none of that right now. 

 

[MarkOttawa]

Further to this post,
http://milnet.ca/forums/threads/82898/post-1476496.html#msg1476496

the Globe and Maiil has published my letter (scroll down):

Costs of defence

Michael Byers makes an heroic effort to exaggerate the scale of Canada’s defence spending by claiming that spending should include elements of the budgets of the RCMP, Canadian Border Services Agency and Canadian Coast Guard (Canada Doesn’t Deserve Its Reputation As A Defence Laggard, Feb. 16 http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/canada-doesnt-deserve-its-reputation-as-a-defence-laggard/article34030524/ ).

I am shocked the professor failed to include monies allocated to fishery officers of Fisheries and Oceans Canada. These federal enforcement personnel are uniformed and often armed, and they work on land, fresh water and the oceans. Their funding would have helped to raise his supposed defence dollars even higher.

Mark Collins, Ottawa
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/letters/feb-21-the-fentanyl-problem-and-other-letters-to-the-editor/article34073890/

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Colin Parkinson]

he does show an inability to live up to a ethical standard in that article, basically saying "lie through your teeth"

 

[Good2Golf]

he does show an inability to live up to a ethical standard in that article, basically saying "lie through your teeth"

Not sure if that's a fair comment.  If there is a (generally) accepted list of contribution elements that most NATO nations are using to calculate the baseline, it would not be unreasonable for Canada to at least investigate what a greater level of alignment with such reporting would do to its contribution ratio.

:2c:

Regards
G2G

 

[Lightguns]

Not sure if that's a fair comment.  If there is a (generally) accepted list of contribution elements that most NATO nations are using to calculate the baseline, it would not be unreasonable for Canada to at least investigate what a greater level of alignment with such reporting would do to its contribution ratio.

:2c:

Regards
G2G

I am willing to bet we maxed out any possible deferments long ago or our government would be launching a massive propaganda campaign to tell everyone how wonderful we are.  Self congratulation, it's something Canadian governments do well.  There is something to be said when only the media is making stuff up so we don't look bad. 

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

Not sure if that's a fair comment.  If there is a (generally) accepted list of contribution elements that most NATO nations are using to calculate the baseline, it would not be unreasonable for Canada to at least investigate what a greater level of alignment with such reporting would do to its contribution ratio.

:2c:

Regards
G2G

I don't personally see a problem with it, in many European countries, Policing at the federal/national level falls under the jurisdiction of the Armed Forces, in fact many National Police Forces are actually administrated by the respective Ministries of National Defence.