• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

The Defence Budget [superthread]

Bruce Monkhouse said:

Ok, you win that round, but while they have a secondary GSAR tasking, they'd be a poor choice to inherit our SAR tasks.

And I appologise, as this is dragging the thread off-topic, but it was joined with larger budget thread after I made my initial post about SAR, I don't suppose you could split it could you Bruce?
 
OK we are sidetracked but before someone steers us back I have this to say about SAR:

I do not beleive for one minute that another government department nor a civilian company could provide the quality of Search and Rescue that the CF already provides. Nor do I believe divesting ourselves of the SAR task would save us any money at all. The CF has the national SAR tasking and it shoudl remain that way.

I say what I say for a few reasons:

1.  Unlimited Liability - SAR techs are ordered into extremely hazardous circumstances routinely some of which are life threatening. Would another department or a civilian company be willing to order their employees into a situation where the employee could be at serious risk?
2. The issue of unions - and before you discount this - the issue of unions has to be dealt with. What "unionized" SAR techs would be allowed to do, hours of work etc would need to be hashe out.
3. The CF has the command, control and infrastructure in place. What would be the benefit of divesting ourselves of the SAR tasking?
 
I'm actually with Sig Op on this one.

I've seen the amount of staff and command attention SAR gets in the Air Force.  Frankly, it sucks alot of heat and light away from our core combat capabilities.

I don't buy the argument that SAR gives the CF great press.  Half of the time a newspaper photo caption of a Cormorant or a Buffalo identifes it as Coast Guard anyway.

I would argue that the only reason the CF does SAR at all is because of institutional inertia.  We were given the task after WW2, because no one else could do it.  In 2011- I'm not so sure either another Govt Dept or a Civilian Company couldn't carry out the task, with the Cf tasked to augment as secondary SAR in the event of something really big or particularly remote.

Even if we gave another govt dept all of the PYs, aircraft and funding currently associated with primary SAR, I think the CF would still be further ahead.

My 2 cents worth, of course.
 
More on savings... and I hate to do it this way, because suggesting a base closure makes me feel dirty, but bare with me... picking on 103 Sqn because they're technically the only pure SAR squadron...

Transfer assets/role of 103 Sqn to the coast guard, operate out of Gander International as opposed to CFB Gander (They can't be moved to St. John's or Halifax, that's been made clear by a recent study), and administered by CCG Base St. John's. Give anyone currently posted to 103 Sqn the option of taking a posting somwhere else, or doing exactly the same job they used to do, wearing a slightly different shade of blue. They can even already transfer their pension time.

Which leaves us for what role for CFB Gander? Support of Leitrim's operations, and 5CRPG HQ? Move 5 CRPG HQ to CFB Goose Bay, close CFB Gander, stand up CFS Leitrim Det Gander, administered by Leitrim and supported by CFS St. John's. Hand over the now surplus assets of CFB Gander to the town of Gander, to help off-set political fallout from base closure.


Now, holy-political-hell would be raised by the base closure, but holy-political-hell would be raised at the transfer of SAR assets anywhere anyway even if it makes operational and financial sense. Which is why we still have the SAR taskings we have.
 
Well, if you're adamant about making the most of your 'snow day' by saving the Airforce budget, argue for scrapping the Snowbirds.  :stirpot:
 
I was under the impression that the "Sky Hawks" is a secondary tasking? That's a minimal cost for a great public relations asset.

I'm totally in favor of giving the snow birds the boot. Not nearly enough PR bang for the bucks, they're recognized as the snow birds, they're seldom recognized as the Canadian Forces Snow Birds, no matter how much we might like to think other wise.

Not too fond of the ceremonial guard either, but at least there's a few hundred years of tradition there, and there's no aircraft to pay for/support.
 
The Sky Hawks are a full time parachute demo team.

Well since I stuck my foot in this earlier, I disagree with getting rid of the Snowbirds, SkyHawks and the CG. For what its worth, I think these units tell the Canadian poplulation that the CF is a valuable institution and their expense is offset by the good PR and recruiting opportunities.

My 2 Cents, plus GST
 
Fair enough, they do provide valuble PR (Even if I don't see the snow birds as cost effective).

They're far to easy targets for budget cutting anyway, given that the options are disband completely, or keep, and they're far to visible, they'd never be cut.

But back to search and rescue, there wouldn't be any disbanding, just moving, making things more efficient. Same service, money spent more efficiently.
 
a Sig Op said:
But back to search and rescue, there wouldn't be any disbanding, just moving, making things more efficient. Same service, money spent more efficiently.
OK, this has gone on for most of the day (and really should be split from the Defence Budget thread), without any substantive evidence to back your claims.

Are your opinions informed by any link to SAR experience or Airforce budget and operations planning? Can you provide any details of the SAR budget, preferably including O&M costs? Can you even define "efficiency"? Is there any indication that the Coast Guard, or whatever anonymous private agency you are imagining, has the desire or ability to even take over the task, let alone provide "same service, money spent more efficiently"?

If not, then you remain merely a Reserve SigOp sitting at home, repeating uninformed, unqualified opinions; hardly the "intelligent discussion" you claim.
 
Journeyman said:
OK, this has gone on for most of the day (and really should be split from the Defence Budget thread), without any substantive evidence to back your claims.

Are your opinions informed by any link to SAR experience or Airforce budget and operations planning? Can you provide any details of the SAR budget, preferably including O&M costs? Can you even define "efficiency"? Is there any indication that the Coast Guard, or whatever anonymous private agency you are imagining, has the desire or ability to even take over the task, let alone provide "same service, money spent more efficiently"?

If not, then you remain merely a Reserve SigOp sitting at home, repeating uninformed, unqualified opinions; hardly the "intelligent discussion" you claim.

I'm sorry, has putting the sacred cow that is airforce SAR out to pasture struck a nerve? Does anyone who has more experience with air force budget and operations planning care to tell me I'm wrong?

No one is imagining a private agency, you're putting those words in my mouth. I already gave a full example of how 103 Sqn, and CFB Gander can be transferred and shut down.

If you're having difficulty with the definition of efficiency, would "accomplishment of or ability to accomplish a job with a minimum expenditure of time and effort" work?

Any other agency is going to have to spend exactly what we spend to maintain the same SAR assets. It's the associated costs that you won't have to spend any more. Packing people up and moving them every four or so years. A large, well equipped gym, with PSP staff. Mess facilities. Career courses. Combat training. Etc.

I don't mean to give the impression I have anything against SAR. Like it or not, we've got base closures coming, and more cutbacks. At the end of the day, would you like to transfer SAR squadrons and cut their logistcs tail, or shut down combat units?

The storm seems to have subsided and I have a driveway to shovel.
 
The nerve struck, after watching you go on and on all day, is some peoples' inability to stay in their lane.

You see, I was merely asking you to provide some evidence to back your claims. Repeating an unsubstantiated claim over and over again does not constitute proof.

Since YOU provided the thesis that dropping SAR is a brilliant, cost-effective move, then YOU are obligated to provide proof of your argument. Again, "oh...oh YA, well you prove I'm wrong" just doesn't provide you with any credibility.

You dismiss away the fact that our Defence Policy mandates the CAS to conduct SAR.

You seem unaware that most SAR Squadrons are Transport and Rescue; without access to the O&M budget (do you know what O&M means?), one cannot begin to estimate the potential cost saving of divesting ourselves of the SAR task. Again, you can say it over and over again, but you've provided absolutely no evidence.

If you're going to hang your hat on a dictionary definition of efficiency, which emphasizes "minimum expenditure of time and effort," then there really is no task that wouldn't be better served by letting someone else do it. Again, no logic to back you.
.....unless you're saying that without those pesky SAR Techs around, there'll be no more need for "gyms, with PSP staff. Mess facilities. Career courses. Posting cycles" -- you do know that the rest of the squadrons' personnel also use those things.

You've also ignored the request for info on the Coast Guard's desire/ability to acquire and maintain this task; you do know a SAR capability can't be invented overnight, right? But I guess, if you're dismissing all the other requests to validate your argument, what's one more problem to be simply wished away. And I guess it wouldn't be the CF's problem anyway.

a Sig Op said:
No one is imagining a private agency, you're putting those words in my mouth.
Why are there any domestic military units with SAR as a primary task when a civillian [sic] agency could accomplish exactly the same task cheaper, and potentially more efficiently due to less reduced red tape

Oh, and budget cuts aren't a zero-sum game -- it's not SAR vs "Combat" (whatever you believe that to be); there are other options available through adjusting personnel, training, headquarters....


So, no, no "SAR as Sacred Cow" nerve;
just a desire to see contributors to the site provide evidence of their assertions (or at a minimum, some hint that their opinions are professionally credible through their training, experience, knowledge).
I wouldn't have thought that was such a difficult concept.

But then, I've never felt a need to go on and on about Res SigOps either -- it's not "my lane."


 
Journeyman said:
You dismiss away the fact that our Defence Policy mandates the CAS to conduct SAR.

Fine, I give up.

I'm well aware it's in our mandate to provide SAR. My original point was that it makes no sense to have it in our mandate, and that the government would be well served to transfer that mandate and associated budget and assets to another agency.

If you don't like the alternative scenario I've presented, honestly, I don't care. It makes sense to me.

I can also get into the garage again.
 
You know a Sig Op....you're 26. You don't have all the answers as NONE of us do. So go run for Parliament and become MND. Please, you are starting to irritate some of us.
I'd like to know if you're like this on a training night....
 
a Sig Op said:
Fine, I give up.
It's not a win/lose exercise; it's an ongoing effort, by some, to improve the intellectual status of Army.ca (and CF members as a knock-on effect) -- hence often-repeated posts on "spelling, grammar, logic, and evidence."
 
Billions in shipbuilding contracts will make waves for Harper
STEVEN CHASE OTTAWA— From Thursday's Globe and Mail Thursday, Feb. 03, 2011
Article Link

Stephen Harper is poised to kick off the greatest round of government shipbuilding in Canada since the Second World War.

The massive equipment purchase is also going to give him a political headache.

Pegged at $35-billion, the sums involved easily dwarf the funds committed for the Conservatives' controversial and hotly contested plan to buy $9-billion worth of F-35 fighter jets from Lockheed Martin.

It will ultimately pit three regions of Canada against each other and force a difficult choice upon Mr. Harper. He'll have to decide which region to leave in the cold during what could be an election year: the East, the West or Quebec.

The federal shopping list includes a fleet of new defence, patrol and scientific research vessels, from frigates to the John G. Diefenbaker, which will be the most powerful icebreaker Ottawa has ever owned.

The Conservative government will select two marine construction yards for the job of building $33-billion in large vessels – companies that will end up dominating public shipbuilding in Canada for decades.

But by giving two yards the bulk of the work, Mr. Harper is inviting trouble.

Regional anger over procurement decisions are stuff of legend in Canadian politics and have damaged incumbent governments. A 1986 decision by the Mulroney government to award a CF-18 fighter maintenance contract to a Quebec firm over a superior bid by a Winnipeg-based company enraged western Canadians and helped spur the rise of the Reform Party.

Five yards are expected to bid for either one or both of the shipbuilding packages: the larger order to assemble frigates, destroyers and patrol ships – and the smaller to build non-combat vessels including the polar-class Diefenbaker icebreaker.

Ottawa hasn't attached an official dollar figure to these packages, but sources familiar with the matter value the combat order at roughly $25-billion, the non-combat around $8-billion. In the first five to eight years, both packages will pour roughly the same level of investment in shipyard work – and the non-combat order is expected to grow over time to include more replacement Coast Guard vessels.

The bidding competition will heat up this month when Ottawa invites bids for the two large-vessel packages. The federal government is expected to render its decision by August or September.

Winning a contract will mean the right of first refusal to build all the vessels in the package.

Of the five yards that have made the shortlist for bidding, three are considered major contenders. They include Irving Shipbuilding Inc.'s Halifax yard, Davie Yards of Lévis, Que., and Washington Marine Group's Vancouver Shipyards in North Vancouver, B.C.

Mr. Harper's National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy is an attempt to change the playbook for Canada's boom and bust shipbuilding industry, laying out a 30-year plan that ensures a steady stream of construction work for at least two yards.

There's a strategic military reason for this too. It ensures Canada, like many of its NATO allies, maintains a constant capacity to build naval vessels.

A politically risky feature of this new procurement style however, is that it concentrates the work into just two shipyards. From an accountant's perspective this makes sense: The winners have better economies of scale, thereby reducing costs – as well as ensuring a buildup of skilled labour at the yards in question.

It's a departure from the way regional politics have forced Ottawa to conduct government shipbuilding in the past, when contracts have been chopped up and spread around. Traditionally, a single ship might be assembled by different yards – ultimately increasing the vessel's price tag.

The consolation price for three losing shipyards is they will be able to bid on an estimated $2-billion of construction work for smaller non-combat ships.

Ottawa says there's enough of these smaller jobs to suffice.
More on link and second page
 
More at the Canadian Defence & Foreign Affairs Institute's 3Ds Blog:

The Government’s Fun with Shipbuilding Money and Numbers
http://www.cdfai.org/the3dsblog/?p=93

The Globe and Mail today runs a major piece on the “National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy” the government announced in June 2010:

    "Billions in shipbuilding contracts will make waves for Harper"

In typical Canadian media fashion the article concentrates on the politics involved - and misses the really interesting thing.  The government’s numbers just don’t add up, especially for the poor Canadian Coast Guard...

Mark
Ottawa
 
Mark . . . they aren't doing New Math, they are doing Government Math.

What you have proved:

A)  Bureaucrats can't do math
B)  Bureaucrats can do math but they know Journalists can't
C)  Journalists can do math but they are too lazy to do math
 
Haletown: C) certainly, but also I think that politicians don't give a flying fig for truth in figures.  Not exactly news, but...

Mark
Ottawa
 
A propose f not very much: a few, well 25 or so, years ago I had occasion to learn that, in Canada, most universities required at least one math course (usually statistics) for pretty much every honurs undergraduate and prety much every graduate programme - even e.g. hstory. The theory is that anyone taking "honours" should have at least some mathematical ability and even historians need to be able to understand data. There were a couple of notable exceptions - two programmes in which those who could not possibly, ever, pass a math course could find refuge:

1. Education/BEd; and

2. Journalism - at both the BA and MA levels.

Perhaps, I hope, that's changed but, with a handful of exceptions, I always assume that journalists do not comprehend e.g. compound interest or inflation and I assume that they just regurgitate whatever drivel they get from someone, anyone, who the journalist thinks can do basic arithmetic - i.e. a bureaucrat, lobbyist, politician, the civvie cleaner, anyone ...
 
Back
Top