The Defence Budget [superthread]

[The Bread Guy]

That's why they call it the Comical Herald!

There may be a reason the free online paper set up by striking Herald workers is nominated for more awards than the now-management-run hard copy a year into a strike there ...

 

[jollyjacktar]

There may be a reason the free online paper set up by striking Herald workers is nominated for more awards than the now-management-run hard copy a year into a strike there ...

Thanks, Tony, for putting this out there for guys like me who are away from kith and kin in Nottawa and other extremes.  This will enable me to keep in touch with home and what's going on there, better than the Herald.  Especially if they're going to put out nonsense like that. 

 

[dapaterson]

That's why they call it the Comical Herald!

And here I thought it was the Chronically Horrible.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

And speaking of said Canadians, you'll find one man's opinion as stated in today's Chronicle Herald.  This guy is, I believe, a full civilian and not defence analyst or any sort... but everyone has an opinion and this is his.

http://thechronicleherald.ca/opinion/1454557-opinion-five-ways-we-can-remake-canada%E2%80%99s-defence-strategy

 

[NavyShooter]

Chronicle Herald?

Try the Chronically Horrible.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Article Link

Canada's top general says military not hurting for money, defends spending delay

'There's no point giving us billions when we can't spend it,' says Vance

The country's top soldier has pushed back on suggestions the armed forces is struggling from a lack of cash, saying he's not convinced it is making the most of the money it already gets.

Yet chief of defence staff Gen. Jonathan Vance says he is also eager to see the government's new defence policy, which has promised to put the military on a strong financial footing over the long term.

"The here and now is fine, we're delivering," Vance said in an interview with The Canadian Press. "But going forward, that's when the government committed to sustainable, progressive armed forces."

The question of military spending has taken on a life of its own over the last year, after U.S. President Donald Trump called on NATO allies to contribute more to their own defence.

Canada currently spends about one per cent of its GDP on defence, which is half the agreed-upon NATO target of two per cent and puts it in the bottom half among the allies.

Rather than increase defence spending, however, last week's federal budget saw the Liberal government delay hundreds of millions of dollars in planned equipment purchases by several years.

Vance said defence officials asked for the delay because several projects weren't ready for the money, which Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan's office has blamed on a shortage of procurement staff.

"The reprofiling was our choice," Vance said. "I know people have a hard time believing that, but it is true. There's no point giving us billions when we can't spend it."

Defence policy review

Officials have insisted the money will be available when it's actually needed in future years.

One of the big questions posed by defence analysts, however, is whether there will be enough money to sustain the military over the long term.

Some have flagged what they see as a gap between the amount of money available for new military equipment in the coming years, and what the government has promised to spend.

Vance noted the government is working on a new defence policy, which is expected in early May and which the budget promised will be rigorously costed and sustainable.

"We're waiting for the defence policy review and that investment," he said. "That's going to be the expression of investment by the government of Canada."

Ensuring efficiency

In the meantime, the general said defence officials are looking at the current $19-billion budget to ensure it is being used as effectively as possible.

Vance acknowledged there are some areas of the military that need more money, starting with its crumbling bases, armouries and other infrastructure.

"But my gut instinct right now tells me we have way too much infrastructure in the armed forces for the size that we are," he said.

"We have a lot of buildings that we're paying tax on that we don't use. So before we blame government for a lack of money, we've got to make certain that in-house we are the most efficient we can be."

Finance Minister Bill Morneau said last week that the armed forces was "appropriately provisioned" to meet Canada's needs, while leaving the door open to future "adjustments" as needed.

But space for additional investments looks to be quite limited, at least in the short term, as the budget predicted the federal deficit will stay above $20 billion until 2021-22.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

WTF.  I can't get new t shirts, thermals or flight suits right now because there AREN'T any.  Maybe he can chuck some bucks at the operational clothing budget so, you know, there isn't shortages or NO STOCK of certain items.

I know I'm just a small cog and I don't pretend to know how the CAF budget stuff runs, BUT...I know when someone says "we don't need money" and I can't even get my basic operational clothing exchanged, I want to put my hand up and wave my *excuse me!* flag.

 

[MilEME09]

Deadline given to have a plan to meet 2%

U.S. gives NATO allies 2 months for defence spending plans


RUSSELS -- U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson warned NATO allies Friday to boost defence spending or come up with plans to reach the alliance's budget guidelines within two months.

Tillerson, in his first talks with NATO counterparts in Brussels, said that Washington is spending a "disproportionate share" on defence compared with its 27 partners, and that he expects action by the time President Donald Trump meets with other alliance leaders on May 25.

NATO leaders pledged in 2014 to halt defence spending cuts and move toward a guideline target of 2 per cent of gross domestic product within a decade. Only four other nations currently meet the target: Britain, Estonia, Greece and Poland.

"Our goal should be to agree at the May leaders meeting that by the end of the year all allies will have either met the pledge guidelines or will have developed plans that clearly articulate how, with annual milestone progress commitments, the pledge will be fulfilled," Tillerson told the ministers.

Tillerson did not say what would happen if European allies and Canada fail to respect their pledges. During election campaigning, Trump suggested that he might not come to the defence of those allies who do not do their fair share, rocking allies near an increasingly aggressive Russia, such as Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland.

However, Tillerson sought to calm any fears, saying Friday that "we understand that a threat against one of us is a threat against all of us, and we will respond accordingly. We will uphold the agreements we have made to defend our allies.

The United States is by far NATO's most powerful ally. It spends more on defence than all the others combined; 3.61 per cent of GDP in 2016, according to NATO estimates, although U.S. spending, too, has tapered off in recent years.

Germany spent 1.19 per cent of its overall budget on defence last year.

But German Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel said it would be "unrealistic" for his country to hike spending from 35 billion euros ($37 billion) a year to over 70 billion euros, which would see Berlin allocate more to defence than Russia currently.

"I don't know a politician in Germany who believes that this would be achievable or even desirable," Gabriel said.

He said security is also about crisis prevention, not just combat, and noted that Germany spends a lot of money on refugees who arrive because military interventions have failed.

Seven countries -- including Canada, Italy and Spain -- would have to virtually double their spending to reach the target.

Canadian Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland said that beyond money, "it's also really important to look at capabilities and what countries are actually doing."

"We really feel that we're doing our share," she said, highlighting Canada's troop deployment to Latvia to help deter Russian aggression.

Tillerson also urged NATO to do more to fight the Islamic State group and other extremists, notably by countering IS online messaging and propaganda.

NATO has fought insurgents in Afghanistan, and is training Iraqi officers so that local forces can make a strong stand against extremists. There is no appetite to deploy troops in counter-terrorism operations. Allies believe that the international coalition against IS should be leading combat operations, not NATO.

NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said the lesson learned from operations in Afghanistan, but also in Kosovo and Bosnia-Herzegovina, is that "in the long run it is much better to fight terrorism and project stability by training local forces, building local security institutions, instead of NATO deploying a large number of combat troops.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/world/u-s-gives-nato-allies-2-months-for-defence-spending-plans-1.3348890

though the liberals will tout their new defense policy review to say they have a plan. Also reference the above article posted by Eye in the Sky, who else caught the line that the CDS hasn't seen the new defense policy? It is highly concerning that the top soldier is not involved in the process.

 

[The Bread Guy]

... I know I'm just a small cog and I don't pretend to know how the CAF budget stuff runs, BUT...I know when someone says "we don't need money" and I can't even get my basic operational clothing exchanged, I want to put my hand up and wave my *excuse me!* flag.

I'm not even in, but looking from the outside in as a fat civilian, I've seen more than one post over a few governments saying money is going back because it's not being spent by year end.  I'm all for mo' $ for the troops, but it also sounds like there's a need to fix the "how it's spent?" system.

... who else caught the line that the CDS hasn't seen the new defense policy? It is highly concerning that the top soldier is not involved in the process.

Is it possible "Vance says he is ... eager to see the government's new defence policy" = "Vance hasn't seen the FINAL version"?  I'd be surprised if even Team "Just Not Ready" didn't let the CAF provide input into the defence policy ...

 

[daftandbarmy]

Article Link

Canada's top general says military not hurting for money, defends spending delay

'There's no point giving us billions when we can't spend it,' says Vance

The country's top soldier has pushed back on suggestions the armed forces is struggling from a lack of cash, saying he's not convinced it is making the most of the money it already gets.

Yet chief of defence staff Gen. Jonathan Vance says he is also eager to see the government's new defence policy, which has promised to put the military on a strong financial footing over the long term.

"The here and now is fine, we're delivering," Vance said in an interview with The Canadian Press. "But going forward, that's when the government committed to sustainable, progressive armed forces."

The question of military spending has taken on a life of its own over the last year, after U.S. President Donald Trump called on NATO allies to contribute more to their own defence.

Canada currently spends about one per cent of its GDP on defence, which is half the agreed-upon NATO target of two per cent and puts it in the bottom half among the allies.

Rather than increase defence spending, however, last week's federal budget saw the Liberal government delay hundreds of millions of dollars in planned equipment purchases by several years.

Vance said defence officials asked for the delay because several projects weren't ready for the money, which Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan's office has blamed on a shortage of procurement staff.

"The reprofiling was our choice," Vance said. "I know people have a hard time believing that, but it is true. There's no point giving us billions when we can't spend it."

Defence policy review

Officials have insisted the money will be available when it's actually needed in future years.

One of the big questions posed by defence analysts, however, is whether there will be enough money to sustain the military over the long term.

Some have flagged what they see as a gap between the amount of money available for new military equipment in the coming years, and what the government has promised to spend.

Vance noted the government is working on a new defence policy, which is expected in early May and which the budget promised will be rigorously costed and sustainable.

"We're waiting for the defence policy review and that investment," he said. "That's going to be the expression of investment by the government of Canada."

Ensuring efficiency

In the meantime, the general said defence officials are looking at the current $19-billion budget to ensure it is being used as effectively as possible.

Vance acknowledged there are some areas of the military that need more money, starting with its crumbling bases, armouries and other infrastructure.

"But my gut instinct right now tells me we have way too much infrastructure in the armed forces for the size that we are," he said.

"We have a lot of buildings that we're paying tax on that we don't use. So before we blame government for a lack of money, we've got to make certain that in-house we are the most efficient we can be."

Finance Minister Bill Morneau said last week that the armed forces was "appropriately provisioned" to meet Canada's needs, while leaving the door open to future "adjustments" as needed.

But space for additional investments looks to be quite limited, at least in the short term, as the budget predicted the federal deficit will stay above $20 billion until 2021-22.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

WTF.  I can't get new t shirts, thermals or flight suits right now because there AREN'T any.  Maybe he can chuck some bucks at the operational clothing budget so, you know, there isn't shortages or NO STOCK of certain items.

I know I'm just a small cog and I don't pretend to know how the CAF budget stuff runs, BUT...I know when someone says "we don't need money" and I can't even get my basic operational clothing exchanged, I want to put my hand up and wave my *excuse me!* flag.

The answer? More staff officers so we can do the work ups required on those spending plans

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Deadline given to have a plan to meet 2%

We just deferred what, $8+ billion in spending to the 2030s? 

op:

 

[The Bread Guy]

The answer? More staff officers so we can do the work ups required on those spending plans

That, and more consultants to guide them, should get the budget up to 2% GDP lickety-split ...

 

[Kirkhill]

That, and more consultants to guide them, should get the budget up to 2% GDP lickety-split ...

Did somebody say they needed a consultant?  Let me check my calendar....  ;D

 

[MilEME09]

That, and more consultants to guide them, should get the budget up to 2% GDP lickety-split ...

I had to shake my head the other day reading an article about the Change of Command for the Military Personal Command, though i take the numbers with a grain of salt it stated that MPC has about 14,000 military and civilian members to manage all the personal in the Canadian forces. 14,000 people... to manage 68,000 careers, hmmm

 

[The Bread Guy]

I had to shake my head the other day reading an article about the Change of Command for the Military Personal Command, though i take the numbers with a grain of salt it stated that MPC has about 14,000 military and civilian members to manage all the personal in the Canadian forces. 14,000 people... to manage 68,000 careers, hmmm

That's a looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooot of "managing" right there - see what I mean about how the CAF may need to fix how it spends before pouring more money into the bucket?

 

[McG]

That number probably includes all of health services, recruiting centres, and students at RMC & CMR.

 

[dapaterson]

No, it does not take 14K to manage 68K.  CMP and MPC do include ~14,000 personnel (mil and civ).  However, there's a wide variety of folks in that number, performing a wide array of jobs.

That includes the ~8000 regular force personnel on the BTL - those not yet trained.

That includes the ~1000 regular force personnel on the ATL - those on career courses of a year or more.

That includes the recruiting system.  It includes the recruit school.  The military colleges.  The CF college.  Most of the schools in Borden.  Base staff in Borden.  The health care system, including Reg F, Res F and civilian personnel.  NDHQ elements that do things like career management, personnel policy, occupational management, research, history & heritage...

 

[Journeyman]

... history & heritage...

Oh, that  idiot.  rly:

 

[a_majoor]

The Trump Administration lights a fire under the NATO alliance WRT their 2% spending. I notice that a lot of the countries are already trying to fined weasel words to suggest that spending on other things should be considered part of the 2%, but we will see how that goes:

http://bigstory.ap.org/ce256f31a023483b8ed5d246abd49290

US gives NATO allies 2 months for defense spending plans
By LORNE COOK
Mar. 31, 2017 7:47 AM EDT

BRUSSELS (AP) — U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson warned NATO allies Friday to boost defense spending or come up with plans to reach the alliance's budget guidelines within two months.

Tillerson, in his first talks with NATO counterparts in Brussels, said that Washington is spending a "disproportionate share" on defense compared with its 27 partners, and that he expects action by the time President Donald Trump meets with other alliance leaders on May 25.

NATO leaders pledged in 2014 to halt defense spending cuts and move toward a guideline target of 2 percent of gross domestic product within a decade. Only four other nations currently meet the target: Britain, Estonia, Greece and Poland.

"Our goal should be to agree at the May leaders meeting that by the end of the year all allies will have either met the pledge guidelines or will have developed plans that clearly articulate how, with annual milestone progress commitments, the pledge will be fulfilled," Tillerson told the ministers.

Tillerson did not say what would happen if European allies and Canada fail to respect their pledges. During election campaigning, Trump suggested that he might not come to the defense of those allies who do not do their fair share, rocking allies near an increasingly aggressive Russia, such as Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland.

However, Tillerson sought to calm any fears, saying Friday that "we understand that a threat against one of us is a threat against all of us, and we will respond accordingly. We will uphold the agreements we have made to defend our allies.

The United States is by far NATO's most powerful ally. It spends more on defense than all the others combined; 3.61 percent of GDP in 2016, according to NATO estimates, although U.S. spending, too, has tapered off in recent years.

Germany spent 1.19 percent of its overall budget on defense last year.

But German Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel said it would be "unrealistic" for his country to hike spending from 35 billion euros ($37 billion) a year to over 70 billion euros, which would see Berlin allocate more to defense than Russia currently.

"I don't know a politician in Germany who believes that this would be achievable or even desirable," Gabriel said.

He said security is also about crisis prevention, not just combat, and noted that Germany spends a lot of money on refugees who arrive because military interventions have failed.

Seven countries — including Canada, Italy and Spain — would have to virtually double their spending to reach the target.

Canadian Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland said that beyond money, "it's also really important to look at capabilities and what countries are actually doing."

"We really feel that we're doing our share," she said, highlighting Canada's troop deployment to Latvia to help deter Russian aggression.

Tillerson also urged NATO to do more to fight the Islamic State group and other extremists, notably by countering IS online messaging and propaganda.

NATO has fought insurgents in Afghanistan, and is training Iraqi officers so that local forces can make a strong stand against extremists. There is no appetite to deploy troops in counter-terrorism operations. Allies believe that the international coalition against IS should be leading combat operations, not NATO.

NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said the lesson learned from operations in Afghanistan, but also in Kosovo and Bosnia-Herzegovina, is that "in the long run it is much better to fight terrorism and project stability by training local forces, building local security institutions, instead of NATO deploying a large number of combat troops."

 

[jollyjacktar]

If they want to take off the hand cuffs, leg shackles and gag ball from my mouth (process wise), I and my co-workers, I assure you can go a long ways towards not returning monies and seeing that shit gets procured within a short time frame.  But then, the adults didn't like that before and thus why we're cuffed, shackled and gaged now...

 

[jollyjacktar]

Opinion piece I agree on.  Shared under the fair dealings provisions of the copyright act.

Opinion
Canada has a 'colonial mentality' when it comes to funding our military
We expect the U.S. to make up for the ever-increasing gaps in our defence capabilities
By Robert Smol, for CBC News Posted: Mar 31, 2017 5:00 AM ET Last Updated: Mar 31, 2017 6:04 AM ET

The stated objective in the Trudeau government's recent budget was to "continue to deliver on the things that matter most to Canadians."  
But what mattered most when it came to defence procurement, apparently, was to defer the purchase of much-needed equipment for an already emaciated military to the 2030s.

As with past military cuts, this government banked on the belief that their refusal to commit to Canada's defence would be met with little more than passive concern. And they were right.

Indeed, whatever diplomatic language might be used to soften this hit, the fact remains that this budget is only the latest installment in the slow and painful devolution of Canada's commitment to defend its territory and interests.  

Dependence on the U.S.

Canada is not entirely leaving its shores and airspace open to violation, mind you. But we should take Justin Trudeau's polite reneging on his promise to maintain our military as silent acknowledgement of Canada's military dependence on the United States.  

We Canadians have what can only be described as a "colonial mentality" when it comes to defence. This means that we inherently expect the U.S. to make up for the ever-increasing gaps in our military capabilities. And, like the classic enabler, the U.S. unwittingly continues to allow Canada to live its traditional "middle power" delusion of global significance, while carrying the burden of our defence.

With that as the status quo, why would Canada duplicate the billions of dollars the U.S. already devotes to defending its country — and its continent?
 
Of course, Canada isn't the only country looking at U.S. military might as a sort of defence safety net. But when it comes to defence procurement, even smaller NATO countries — Denmark, Norway and the Netherlands, for example — have far superior records when it comes to maintaining well-equipped militaries.  
 
Canada's aging fleet

These and other allied countries in Europe have their new fighter fleets ordered and coming into operation, while Canada has barely started the process of putting in a request. Twenty-seven F-35 Lightning fighters are scheduled for the Danish Air Force, for example, and 52 and 37 planes have been purchased and are coming into operation for the Norwegian and Netherlands air forces respectively.

Even if Canada does eventually acquire and stick with the 18 interim Super Hornets as currently proposed, each of these tiny European countries will have a larger fleet of modern fighter aircraft than Canada, which should be embarrassing for a country of our size and status.

It's just as bad if we look at Canada's navy fleet. Today, the Royal Canadian Navy has been shed of its outdated supply ships and destroyers, leaving the country with the largest coastline in the world with 12 aging patrol frigates and four dysfunctional second hand diesel submarines.

Meanwhile the Danes, over the last 15 years, have constructed and commissioned three modern air defence frigates, two combat support ships, two ocean patrol vessels and six smaller patrol vessels. Today, the "grandmothers" of the Royal Danish Navy are their four Thetis-class frigates, which were built in the early 1990s — the same time as Canada's front-line Halifax patrol frigates.
 
Then there's Norway, which has 12 per cent of the coastline as does Canada, and 14 per cent of our population, but has managed to launch 12 new warships and one new supply ship in the same amount of time that Canada has managed to launch… zero.

U.S. President Donald Trump has insisted that America's NATO allies are not spending their fair share on defence, and if that's true — which, according to NATO numbers, it most certainly is — then Canada is unquestionably among the military deadbeats of the bunch. That will continue just as long as we remain content in our freeloading stupor, banking on the U.S. to bail us out if things get bad.
Smaller NATO members, meanwhile, are showing they are ready to do their part.
 
This column is part of CBC's Opinion section. For more information about this section, please read this editor's blog and our FAQ.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/canada-defence-spending-1.4048409