The Defence Budget [superthread]

[blacktriangle]

Don't worry PuckChaser, the new berets should only take a year or so to procure.

 

[Kirkhill]

I expect I shall have as much faith later this month in things getting significantly better under this government as I do now, which is slim to none.  A Trudeau never changes his spots.  Too much like the elder I fear.

JJT - I am at the "willing to hold my breath for a week or two stage"  ie very cautiously optimistic.

The reality of Canada is that the only people that can get things like this done ARE the Liberals.  I don't like it but that is the way it is.  Canadians have been immersed in George Brown's ink for way too long so that the only people many of them are willing to trust are the Liberals.

For their part the Liberals have been successful by having no principles.  And I say that in a surprised "good way".  When stuck between principle and survival the Liberals will choose survival every time.

The Donald is the impetus - without doubt.  But Canadians would never let the Conservatives bow to the Donald.  On the other hand they will let the Liberals paint it red, put a flag on it and declare victory even as they bend over.

 

[sandyson]

Even if new money is budgeted for Defence, will Treasury allow them to spend it?  In a couple of years the Liberals have to go to the poll and Defence procurement won't win as many votes as the heritage garden at the corner of main and fourth, or the new drop-in centre gazebo. Very few people see Defence except on the news. An important question is what is the dollar/vote return? 

 

[jmt18325]

I think this is one of those things that you need too just wait and find out about.  All the political grandstanding on this site really changes nothing.

 

[jollyjacktar]

JJT - I am at the "willing to hold my breath for a week or two stage"  ie very cautiously optimistic.

I have had my hopes dashed too many times or felt the lash of my first Trudeau (post Clark) - Chrétien and subsequent years up to this day to have much, if any, faith in the masters I see across the river daily.  (I have a splendid view of Parliament Hill in the distance from work)  As I've said before, I don't know which is crueler, the hand that promises food and just makes a show of it (Cons) or the hand that you already know doesn't want to feed you (Libs).

 

[PuckChaser]

I think this is one of those things that you need too just wait and find out about.  All the political grandstanding on this site really changes nothing.

As opposed to the political grandstanding done around the Defense budget by the politicians? Lets keep in mind Sajjan blamed the Tories for cuts as his government deferred $8B CAD in equipment purchases. Garneau is the first minister of anything to come out and say that defense spending has been chronically low by both parties. Allow us to be at least a little bit skeptical of someone who has as almost as much time as a politician than in the CAF finally having a "come to Jesus" moment on defense spending.

 

[sandyson]

Re: I think this is one of those things that you need too just wait and find out about.  All the political grandstanding on this site really changes nothing.

Yeah, but it's fun.

 

[jmt18325]

As opposed to the political grandstanding done around the Defense budget by the politicians? Lets keep in mind Sajjan blamed the Tories for cuts as his government deferred $8B CAD in equipment purchases.

Actually, he didn't single them out for that.  He was in fact very careful to blame past governments going back a long way for the problems that exist.  The reality is, the system is so broken that the CAF can't spend the money that it has.  This isn't the first time that money has been profiled for that reason, and it wasn't only by this government.

 

[PuckChaser]

Actually, he didn't single them out for that.  He was in fact very careful to blame past governments going back a long way for the problems that exist.

He strongly implied, but did not name the Tories directly.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2017/05/03/harjit-sajjan-hole-defence-spending_n_16407284.html

'Troubling position'

"We are now in the troubling position where status quo spending on defence will not even maintain a status quo of capabilities," the minister said.

"Current funding has us digging ourselves into a hole. A hole that gets deeper every year. As a percentage of GDP, we are spending less on defence today than we were in 2005."

Yet Sajjan was light on details when it came to how the Liberals intend to get out of that hole.

In case you've forgotten, 2005 was the last year the Liberals were in power before the Tories took over in 2006.

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.GD.ZS?locations=CA For reference, our military spending by % of GDP from 1988 to 2015. 2017 has us at 0.88%, lower than its ever been, even under the decade of darkness. It also wouldn't be dropping if the Liberals hadn't reneged on their promise to maintain the Tory spending increase escalator.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Even if new money is budgeted for Defence, will Treasury allow them to spend it?  In a couple of years the Liberals have to go to the poll and Defence procurement won't win as many votes as the heritage garden at the corner of main and fourth, or the new drop-in centre gazebo. Very few people see Defence except on the news. An important question is what is the dollar/vote return?

If the money spent creates jobs in key ridings, then I suspect it will be spent.

 

[Kirkhill]

If the money spent creates jobs in key ridings, then I suspect it will be spent.

Does it work any better if you start by accepting political realities and asking what single-sourced national suppliers could bring to the warehouse right now? 

What small arms can you acquire through Diemaco?  What ammunition can you acquire through GD Canada?  What can you acquire through Rheinmetall? GDLS? L-M? Local suppliers of boots, radios, civilian vehicles?

I suggest that is the way that CD Howe and Beaverbrook looked at their problem.

A poor pair of boots is better than no boots.  Fill the bins with what's available to buy some breathing room.  Next work on improving the quality of the product (life expectancy).  Finally look to add new capabilities.

And bugger TB rules.  They are set by the politicians in any case.  That which is made can be unmade.

 

[FSTO]

My worry is that nobody is looking at the root problem which is the layers upon layers of oversight, reports and returns and sticky fingers from departments and interest groups that have no business having a say in defence equipment procurement. When DND says it cannot spend the money its not because they don't want to spend it, its that time runs out before contracts can be signed.
On CTV's Question Period, Lew Mackenzie touched on this issue. But Marc Garneau (the de facto DND Spokesman now) did not mention procurement process as an issue just the lack of money.
I'm not very confident that the root causes will be looked at in the coming weeks, months, years.

 

[Kirkhill]

My worry is that nobody is looking at the root problem which is the layers upon layers of oversight, reports and returns and sticky fingers from departments and interest groups that have no business having a say in defence equipment procurement. When DND says it cannot spend the money its not because they don't want to spend it, its that time runs out before contracts can be signed.
On CTV's Question Period, Lew Mackenzie touched on this issue. But Marc Garneau (the de facto DND Spokesman now) did not mention procurement process as an issue just the lack of money.
I'm not very confident that the root causes will be looked at in the coming weeks, months, years.

And the back of mind there is a lingering suspicion that the politicians and bureaucrats don't really want the system fixed.

The bureaucrats get paid regardless if anything shows up in the warehouse.  In fact the less that shows up the less they have to do.

The politicians, in the meantime, get to blame non-performance on the soldiers and bureaucrats and the rule of law, make grandiose announcements (repeatedly) and never have to worry about having capabilities they don't really want to use and spending money they don't really want to spend.

 

[jollyjacktar]

I'm not very confident that the root causes will be looked at in the coming weeks, months, years.

Agreed.  The elephant in the room that nobody at the decision level wants to acknowledge. Even if they have the balls to do so, I'm not confident they would take any action that would correct the issue.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

And bugger TB rules.  They are set by the politicians in any case.  That which is made can be unmade.

And the back of mind there is a lingering suspicion that the politicians and bureaucrats don't really want the system fixed.

Think on the Project Resolve: That is exactly what happened. The Conservatives changed the rules so the contract could be let out in a timely fashion. That really pis**d off the civil servants at procurement. When the new government came in they tried to block it and go back to the old rules. I find it funny that nobody in that scenario questioned how ISL knew to send a letter demanding review and that it would be considered by the government. I guess civil servants that leak in order to advance their pet projects are OK, it's just the uniformed personnel that can't maneuver to get the materiel they know to be required for the job instead of just anything the civil servants want.

 

[Good2Golf]

And the back of mind there is a lingering suspicion that the politicians and bureaucrats don't really want the system fixed.

The bureaucrats get paid regardless if anything shows up in the warehouse.  In fact the less that shows up the less they have to do.

The politicians, in the meantime, get to blame non-performance on the soldiers and bureaucrats and the rule of law, make grandiose announcements (repeatedly) and never have to worry about having capabilities they don't really want to use and spending money they don't really want to spend.

^ Quoted for the truth!  :nod:

 

[MilEME09]

From the Senate.

Cancel Super Hornets jet order, Senate defence committee urges

Ottawa – The federal government should scrap the planned purchase of Super Hornet fighter jets to spare taxpayers from funding a costly stopgap solution that risks isolating Canada from the United States, the Senate Committee on National Security and Defence said in a report released Monday.

The report, Reinvesting in the Canadian Armed Forces: A Plan for the Future, concludes the committee’s analysis of the Canadian Armed Forces.

The recommendation to cancel a government decision to sole source 18 new Super Hornets to replace Canada’s aging CF-18s comes after expert testimony that long-term costs would outweigh any short-term savings and that these aircraft would reduce interoperability with Canada’s allies.

The committee urges the government to immediately begin a competition to replace the CF-18s and to make a decision by June 30, 2018.

Senators also made recommendations to create a more robust and egalitarian Army Reserve Force. Defence experts identified reservists as having extraordinary skill sets; the value of their contributions could be greatly increased with sufficient support.

Given the challenges of recruitment and retention, the committee recommends the government introduce a signing bonus for people skilled in in-demand trades, as well as for women, Indigenous Canadians and visible minorities.

This recommendation is also meant to reduce the barriers women and minorities face in the armed forces. Indigenous peoples and visible minorities account for a very small percentage of Canada’s military; former Supreme Court Justice Marie Deschamps’ 2015 report noted an “undeniable link” between the prevalence of sexual misconduct in the military and the poor integration of women.

Chief of Defence Staff Jonathan Vance told the committee that diversity “increases our operational capability.” While senators welcome this view and the soon-to-be-established Recruiting and Diversity Task Force, the committee recommends that the government ensure the military provide a progress report on its efforts to see if words are translating into action.

For Canada’s military to thrive the government must provide adequate resources — in material but also in personnel.
Quick Facts

    A number of former Royal Canadian Air Force generals noted technical concerns with the Super Hornets purchase, including the need for flight simulators, logistic support and maintenance organizations. They estimated the cost at between $5 billion and $7 billion.
    Membership in the Reserve Force dwindled from 25,500 in 2012 to 21,350 in 2015. As a result, the Chief of Defence Staff issued a directive to grow the Reserve Force to 28,500 by July 2019 and to train members to the same high standard as those of the Regular Force.

    As of 2016, women made up only 14% of the Regular Force. Indigenous peoples represent just 2.5% of the military, while visible minorities represent 6.5%.

Quotes

“When the federal government is offering no new money to our underfunded military, it is particularly important that what funding there is does not go to waste. The Super Hornets purchase is a costly mistake that will limit our ability to work with our allies and hamper efforts to provide the military with the equipment it really needs.”

- Senator Daniel Lang, Chair of the committee.

“Our military often serves as the face of Canada during overseas operations. We believe it should reflect the diverse Canadian population as much as possible. Bringing more women, visible minorities and Indigenous peoples into the forces should remain a priority so that our military benefits from different perspectives, backgrounds and experiences.”

- Senator Mobina Jaffer, Deputy Chair of the committee.

https://sencanada.ca/en/newsroom/cancel-super-hornets-jet-order-senate-defence-committee-urges/

Final report

https://sencanada.ca/content/sen/committee/421/SECD/Reports/SECDDPRReport_FINAL_e.pdf


reading it my self now, especially the section on the reserves




Some highlights:

Airforce- -start an open competition to replace the CF-18 by june 18th 2018, the target fleet should be three squadrons of atleast 120 aircraft
-replace 55 of the giffons with non-civilian medium to heavy lift helicopters, and purchase 24 attack helicopters to protect our chinooks in theatre

Navy: -Four AoR's needed
-Article patrol vessels are not up to par, will need a coast guard ice breaker escort, slower then a BC ferry "That the Government of Canada conduct a fully independent and impartial review of the capabilities of the Arctic Off shore Patrol Ships (AOPS) "
- Replace our current sub fleet with 12 modern subs

 

[Kirkhill]

Re the AOPS:

For me the key question is "value for money".

The AOPS as planned is probably "value for money" at 70 to 100 MCAD per hull (Svalbard pricing)
The AOPS as planned is questionable "value for money" at 500 MCAD per hull (6 Hulls for 2.5 to 3 BCAD depending on how you add up the contracts).

 

[jollyjacktar]

From the Senate.
https://sencanada.ca/en/newsroom/cancel-super-hornets-jet-order-senate-defence-committee-urges/

Final report

https://sencanada.ca/content/sen/committee/421/SECD/Reports/SECDDPRReport_FINAL_e.pdf


reading it my self now, especially the section on the reserves




Some highlights:

Airforce- -start an open competition to replace the CF-18 by june 18th 2018, the target fleet should be three squadrons of atleast 120 aircraft
-replace 55 of the giffons with non-civilian medium to heavy lift helicopters, and purchase 24 attack helicopters to protect our chinooks in theatre

Navy: -Four AoR's needed
-Article patrol vessels are not up to par, will need a coast guard ice breaker escort, slower then a BC ferry "That the Government of Canada conduct a fully independent and impartial review of the capabilities of the Arctic Off shore Patrol Ships (AOPS) "
- Replace our current sub fleet with 12 modern subs

Those sneaky, sneaky, bastards...  saying things that make sense and I can agree with.  WTF?  They've obviously been reading my thoughts, where I think they're a bunch of useless pricks who never come up with anything useful to say.  Too bad in this case that all they can do is make noise and not make changes in policy and direction.

 

[Loachman]

replace 55 of the giffons with non-civilian medium to heavy lift helicopters, and purchase 24 attack helicopters to protect our chinooks in theatre

The entire Griffon fleet should be replaced with a decent utility helicopter. I would not, not, not replace any with Chinooks. They are big baskets with a lot of eggs in each. We lost one in Afghanistan, and came within seconds of losing everybody aboard - saved by a skilled crew and a bunch of luck. The Americans lost a few. An Infantry section-carrying machine is ideal - UH-60 and UH-1Y conform to that concept. Four small targets with a section of troops and elements of a platoon HQ on each is better than one large target with a platoon on it.

AHs are essential. Twenty-four would be insufficient to sustain ops in even low-level conflict. With just under seventy Griffons in service, and eight of them overseas plus a small non-flying reserve correctly configured in Canada, we were down to nine serviceable across Canada on a few days at the end of Athena and for a year or so afterwards, with twenty being a good day. Take a third out of any fleet for major inspections and unserviceabilities, then a percentage for OTU requirements (conversion to type), plus pre-deployment work-ups and regular training support to ground troops, and there are not a lot left to deploy.