• 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]

Wookilar

Sr. Member
Reaction score
0
Points
210
Agreed. If there is anyone in the procurement stream that doesn't realize that spending $75K, at any time of the year, is going to take a great deal more time/planning than spending $3k, they need to be a bit more aware.

I've spent $500K, sole-source, within 4 weeks (in Feb). I've also had purchases of $35K go south months in advance.

Once you get over that NAFTA limit, the SOR/SOW gets more complicated, translations are picked apart (more), and there are a lot more eyes on at PWGSC. That's the way its supposed to work.

Bird_Gunner, I understand your frustration, seriously, been there more times than I care to remember. If the old SO is no longer in force (which makes me wonder what the hell they are doing not having the new one ready beforehand), there are other ways to do it..... just might need to be a bit more creative.

Say.....find a treadmill for under $25K maybe? Buy one now, better than none.

PWGSC may want to shut things down, but they simply can't. The show must go on and toilet paper must be purchased in bulk.

And don't confuse the difference in "spare" operational budget because of missed/cancelled EX's. Usually has very little to nothing to do with procurement of items that are considered permanent. Different pots of money.
 

Edward Campbell

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Mentor
Reaction score
2,614
Points
1,160
dapaterson said:
Lots of flexibility... but it requires planning ahead.  And HHQs that don't wait for months to devolve funding.

The rules have not dramatically changed, yet every year people are surprised by what happens.  Is the problem absolutely "the system", or those who make up the organization who don't ever seem to learn, year after year?


I think that's it. My old boss, the one I mentioned in the anecdote, was surprised, 35 years ago, that this ("March Madness") was still going on when we took over his branch ... maybe he, over the next couple of years, only damped it down, rather than stamping it out, but maybe, also, the culture in the ADM(Mat) Group did change. But September/October is the time when leaders should review spending to date and look at budget realignments to spend efficiently and effectively; Jan/Feb is way too late. National standing offers are great tools but they require regular review and tweaking and people have to know how to use them.

I remember a very wise senior officer (he was then something like the Comptroller General for Mobile Command) telling us (unit COs) that the money in our units' accounts was "real" money, not just numbers that some "gnomes with green eyeshades" moved about in ledgers ... "Those were real dollars when they came out of your bank accounts last spring, to pay your income tax" he explained,"and they're real dollars when a contractor gets them and then gives you some goods or services in return." "They're real dollars that can only be spent once and need to be spent on things we really need, not wasted, because they are OUR real dollars and our parents' real dollars and our kids' real dollars, too." Too many people seem to forget that.


 

ballz

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
462
Points
910
Wookilar said:
Agreed. If there is anyone in the procurement stream that doesn't realize that spending $75K, at any time of the year, is going to take a great deal more time/planning than spending $3k, they need to be a bit more aware.

It's not the procurement people tha say "yes, you can go buy stuff now."

Being an Infantry Officer who now works for a G8, the 3rd Division G8 in fact (aka the Div HQ above 1 CMBG whom this issue of treadmills / gym equipment is being discussed), my observation has remained the same since I was a Platoon Commander and now being on the finance side has only strengthened my belief.

We have completely separated the user (ie the "operators" as they call them in the Log world) from the process. There are Combat Arms LCols, Cols, and Generals filling extremely important positions that need to have a Log O sit down beside them and "help them" in order to complete their Expenditure Management Course so they can get their DOA for their own cost centre.

Everyone in the finance world so far has basically looked at me like I have 18 heads when I suggest that Pl Comds should be given a DOA and a small budget. Rifle Coy OC's (or their Coy 2ICs) should have their own Cost Centre and be an actual RC Manager. For some reason this is just a crazy idea, despite the fact that the entire Financial Administration Act is designed to do exactly that... allow the person in charge of something to have the financial authorities required to do their jobs.

Perhaps if the first time a Combat Arms officer (the ones who are ultimately going to fill most Command roles and therefore the only people with authority to really address this problem) sees a dollar sign wasn't when he is the CO of a Unit, and is now too far in over his head and just simply signs whatever the QM tells the DCO to tell him to sign, we wouldn't be so financially incompetent at every level.

I promise you if Pl Comd's had even the smallest budget there wouldn't be a cent left in it at the end of the year. And they'd actually spend it on useful stuff that they *want* to do. I have had this discussion with enough of my peers, they all feel the same way. But by the time people hit Major, they are bred to afraid of and purposefully avoid learning about anything outside of Ops.

Wookilar said:
Say.....find a treadmill for under $25K maybe? Buy one now, better than none.

That's pretty much textbook definition of contract splitting. In fact, that very kind of example exists in the CDWT course. You are splitting the contract in order to keep the approval level lower.

Wookilar said:
PWGSC may want to shut things down, but they simply can't. The show must go on and toilet paper must be purchased in bulk.

While that's true, PWGSC doesn't belong to DND so how is a G4(contracts) person supposed to influence this? PWGSC won't touch anything over 25k after November 1st. No one has asked the MND to talk to his peer Minister about the issue yet I guess.

Wookilar said:
And don't confuse the difference in "spare" operational budget because of missed/cancelled EX's. Usually has very little to nothing to do with procurement of items that are considered permanent. Different pots of money.

Almost all of the surpluses used to buy stuff in March are from O&M. Op Plans are always over-programmed and the costs are overestimated... again... we reap what we sow with financial incompetence.
 

ModlrMike

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
1,104
Points
960
End year spending is totally messed up. I have four >5K projects funded in the last week and I'm only certain that one of them will actually succeed, because I can get the cost under 5K and approve it at my level. 17 Wing is up to their eyeballs, and my most time sensitive project is priority number 23. This with one month to go, and the restriction that the goods have to be in hand by 31 Mar.
 

MarkOttawa

Fallen Comrade
Fallen Comrade
Reaction score
147
Points
710
Conference of Defence Associations Institute on 2018 federal budget:

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
...
Overall, the Budget has a strong orientation of the budget towards social equity issues with the
designation of explicit targets for changing activities and outcomes in keeping with this orientation. This will
influence DND and CAF activities and operations over time as the Government looks for progress in these areas as part of the pan-Governmental effort...

ANALYSIS

Measures Announced Directly Affecting DND/CAF

Nil...
http://files.constantcontact.com/aacbce66101/00e344e7-220a-4552-a2ec-acecfeb7bbde.pdf

Nil. That's all they gender-neutral, whatever, wrote.

Mark
Ottawa



 

Rifleman62

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
186
Points
680
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/military-brass-shakeup-1.4559620 -2 Mar 18

CBC article re senior appts ends with:

The shuffle comes at critical time for the military, as it begins to implement the nuts and bolts aspects of the Liberal government's defence policy. It will be up to the new leadership to set down the plans to spend the money the federal government has earmarked for the military over the next two decades. Those implementation plans — for equipment purchases and programs — are still being put together, according to a senior defence official who testified before the Senate finance committee this week.

Skepticism about government's spending plans

Asked to provide a list of the department's capital and program spending, Julie Charron, the defence department's deputy chief financial officer, said: "We are not in the position at this point to provide you with the information itemized by project, simply because there may be some delays in the projects."

The Liberals promised to inject an additional $14 billion into the military budget on an annual basis in the coming years. They even went the extra step of earmarking it in the federal government's long-term financial plan, known as the fiscal framework — a measure that required both the prime minister and the finance minister to sign off.

There was virtually no mention of defence in this week's budget, prompting expressions of skepticism from defence analysts, including Sen. Elizabeth Marshall, the former auditor general of Newfoundland and Labrador.
 

McG

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
2,562
Points
1,160
ballz said:
... finance world so far has basically looked at me like I have 18 heads when I suggest that Pl Comds should be given a DOA and a small budget. Rifle Coy OC's (or their Coy 2ICs) should have their own Cost Centre and be an actual RC Manager. For some reason this is just a crazy idea, despite the fact that the entire Financial Administration Act is designed to do exactly that... allow the person in charge of something to have the financial authorities required to do their jobs.

Perhaps if the first time a Combat Arms officer (the ones who are ultimately going to fill most Command roles and therefore the only people with authority to really address this problem) sees a dollar sign wasn't when he is the CO of a Unit, and is now too far in over his head and just simply signs whatever the QM tells the DCO to tell him to sign, we wouldn't be so financially incompetent at every level.
My observations have been that it is unique in 3 Div to not give budgets to sub-units. In speaking to Engineers who collectively have been OCs in all the divisions, all of the ones from 4 ESR through 2 CMBG and 5 CMBG had owned their budgets.  Only the 1 CMBG guys needed the DCO to approve all spending.
 

ballz

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
462
Points
910
MCG said:
My observations have been that it is unique in 3 Div to not give budgets to sub-units. In speaking to Engineers who collectively have been OCs in all the divisions, all of the ones from 4 ESR through 2 CMBG and 5 CMBG had owned their budgets.  Only the 1 CMBG guys needed the DCO to approve all spending.

I just came from 2 RCR and I know it wasn't the case there. Because we've been having this discussion in our cell, I searched on DRMIS the fin structures and the DOAs associated with them and it appears 2 CMBG is set up the exact same way as 1 CMBG (didn't check 5 CMBG). Also checked out a few units within each formation (didn't feel like I had to check them all based on what I was seeing). Mind you, some units may be giving their sub-units a budget, but there isn't a cost centre assigned to them with their own DOA (neither RC Manager or RC Administrator)* so it's not even marginally better to do that in my mind.

Interestingly enough about your post, 1 CER as well as some other units in 1 CMBG have been asking to have more than one cost centre. That's what's caused the discussion to come up in the office.

*I have seen some varied use of RC Admin DOAs but its few and far between. For example, some Units do have all of their Majors set up on an RC Admin DOA for the unit's cost centre, so it's a step in the right direction... but even those examples seem rare from my DRMISing.
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Myth
Reaction score
5,818
Points
1,160
Humphrey Bogart said:
I remember all the hate I got at my old job when I started throwing out office furniture to try to give the Coord Bullpen a more professional and organized appearance. 

"We can't throw that out, we only bought it three years ago!"

My reply:

1.  Nobody uses it
2.  It sits in the corner along with all that other stuff you bought collecting dust
3.  It's a sunken expense
4.  You only bought it to spend money at the end of the fiscal year

The CAF is worse than a lot of hoarders when it comes to keeping useless stuff.  I am against big workdesks for a number of reasons, they are disorganized, people fill their drawers with all sorts of useless stuff.  They also cause files to get lost.  A gigantic table with no drawers is my style.  An office can have a centralized file cabinet that can be locked should it be required.

Depends on the work you do, when you still look at 36x36 plans, charts, the office 2.0 stuff becomes a hindrance. I had a boss that was a neat freak, went through our file room, tossed out the complete record of all our archived files, instruction manuals for equipment we still had and tossed out the transducer for the expensive depth sounder, all in one week...

For March madness, we restrict it to equipment or supplies we will use in the coming year, my current department is very good at releasing budgets early and tracking expenditures, so march madness is not that great, working at DFO, they would release your budget in August, freeze it in October and then release a crapload of money in January, contributing to the March madness greatly.   
 

MarkOttawa

Fallen Comrade
Fallen Comrade
Reaction score
147
Points
710
Note the author of this CGAI piece--excerpts:

Use It or Lose It: SSE and DND’s Chronic Underspending Problem
...
by Eugene Lang
CGAI Fellow
...
On June 7 of last year the Trudeau government gifted the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) and the Department of National Defence (DND) with a new defence policy, titled Strong, Secure, Engaged (SSE), and a corresponding commitment to grow the defence budget (on a cash basis) from $18.9 billion in 2016-2017 to $32.7 billion in 2026/2027 – a 70 per cent increase.

A financial boost to DND of this magnitude was totally unexpected from this government. It was not an election commitment. Military funding was conspicuously absent from the Liberal platform, which made financial promises in virtually every other federal domain.

The coalition of voters that elected the Trudeau Liberals was not calling for an increase in military spending. (Nor is boosting the defence budget ever identified in opinion polls as a top priority for Canadians). Not surprisingly, there were no strong voices in the Liberal cabinet or caucus for a big financial boost to DND...

Whatever the reason [for the commitment], the bottom line is that National Defence got lucky in 2017 and it is now time for DND’s senior leadership to capitalize before their luck runs out. Simply put, this means DND needs to figure out how to spend the capital funds authorized to it by Parliament.

As David Perry has documented, over the past decade National Defence has shown a chronic inability to spend anywhere near its approved capital vote. According to Perry, since 2007-2008 DND has underspent its vote 5 capital by $9.92 billion (in 2014-2015 dollars) in total. By way of comparison, 15 years ago, National Defence was underspending about two per cent of its vote 5 capital, whereas between 2009-2010 and 2013-2014 that number had ballooned to 20- to 30 per cent.1 The problem persists to this day, such that in the run-up to the release of SSE, the Chief of Defence Staff, General Jonathan Vance, told the media “there is no point giving us billions when we can’t spend it.”2 He got the billions nonetheless.

The chief reason for this underspending relates to a dysfunctional defence procurement system. The government acknowledged this to some degree in SSE...

These admissions are based on the pre-SSE volume of procurement, a level of output about one-quarter of what DND envisages in the medium term. Which means the underspending is poised to get a lot worse absent some significant reforms to the way defence procurement is conducted...

The hard reality, however, is that the other departments involved in defence procurement have no incentive to end the [procurement] game. They face no pressure to improve or streamline their part of the process to help DND spend its capital. In fact, those other departments couldn’t care less about DND’s capital spending performance...

And no one should expect the political level of this government to care very much about whether DND manages to spend its capital. The dominant political view is likely that the National Defence box was more than ticked with SSE, and it’s now up to DND to figure out how to spend the money it has been pledged.

In other words, for National Defence, procurement streamlining and reform must begin at home, with a concentration on those aspects of the system over which it has control. Chief among these is getting real on project priority setting; streamlining the byzantine approvals processes within the department and developing better two-way dialogue and transparency with industry. It must also establish more genuine co-operation with other departments involved in the process, and design better governance within DND itself. In short, clean up your own house first, even if you think your neighbour is the source of the mess...

A cursory look at the history of defence white papers over the past 30 years should also tell us that the policy and funding commitments made in such well-intentioned documents rarely survive half a decade.4 Defence funding pledges can be and have been easily undone in an afternoon’s work at the Department of Finance, or in a 30-minute meeting in the Prime Minister’s Office, regardless of what is written down in a government white paper. This is one of the few areas of federal policy where there has been consistent bipartisan behaviour over many years.

In the final analysis, the message is straightforward. DND got a big gift in 2017, but it has a narrow window of opportunity to seize upon it. This requires an admission that the department needs to take procurement reform much more seriously than it has to date. Which means DND getting its own house in order so it can spend the largesse gifted by a government that two years ago showed no interest in national defence and to this day is neither philosophically nor politically invested in the file...

About the Author

Eugene Lang is Adjunct Professor, School of Policy Studies, Queen’s University, and Fellow, Canadian Global Affairs Institute. He was chief of staff to two ministers of National Defence in the Chrétien and Martin governments and served as an official in the Department of Finance.
https://www.cgai.ca/use_it_or_lose_it_sse_and_dnd_s_chronic_underspending_problem

Bonne flipping chance.

Mark
Ottawa
 

MarkOttawa

Fallen Comrade
Fallen Comrade
Reaction score
147
Points
710
Trudeau government's planned defence spending from Dave Perry of CGAI--note big capital boost in mid-2020s, for new RCAF fighters and RCN CSCs (via a tweet):
https://twitter.com/DavePerryCGAI/status/1016363536971436034

DhrZG26U0AAv1FR.jpg

Bets on those 88 new planes and 15 new ships?

Mark
Ottawa
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Relic
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
5,382
Points
1,160
Looks like the intention is for a constabulary force right about the time the oilsands are phased out.......

The future's so bright I've got to wear shades.
 

Ostrozac

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
366
Points
930
Chris Pook said:
Looks like the intention is for a constabulary force right about the time the oilsands are phased out.......

The future's so bright I've got to wear shades.

There's really nothing wrong with building a constabulary/counterinsurgency force. There is room for such a force in the world's spectrum of conflict. What is wrong is if we delude ourselves that such a force can go toe to toe with any serious fighting force. A constabulary force has no business in the Baltics or North Korea, but might prove quite useful in places like Mali or Haiti. But that would require cutting our coat according to the cloth, instead we seem to be existing in a strange half-world, where our doctrine says we can fight a high-end opponent, but our equipment says we only fight low-end rag-tag insurgents. This contradiction has significant risk; the truth may catch us up one day, and we may end up in a fight with an enemy that we simply can't handle.
 

suffolkowner

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
956
Points
1,060
Are we actually making progress on Strong Secure Engaged?

https://defence-blog.com/aviation/canada-confirms-spy-planes-acquisition-plan.html

https://www.skiesmag.com/press-releases/leonard-welcomes-ch-149-cormorant-mid-life-upgrade-fleet-augmentation/

Does anyone have any updates on the other points of action?


 

PuckChaser

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Mentor
Reaction score
2,131
Points
1,060
suffolkowner said:
Are we actually making progress on Strong Secure Engaged?

Considering the current speed of the procurement process, I strongly doubt any of these projects were started after the 2015 Election, or even after SSE was released in early 2017.
 

Good2Golf

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
11,965
Points
1,360
PuckChaser said:
Considering the current speed of the procurement process, I strongly doubt any of these projects were started after the 2015 Election, or even after SSE was released in early 2017.

Both those projects were on public record and published in DND’s Defence Acquisition Guide (DAG) before the 2015 election and certainly before SSE.

Perhaps the CANSOF King Airs may advance, but not sure Cormorant upgrade will happen before the 2019 election. ???

Regards
G2G
 

Rifleman62

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
186
Points
680
Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
« Reply #4379 on: Yesterday at 19:22:52 »
Quote
Quote from: Colin P on Yesterday at 12:22:01 Sigh we will be a "near peer" to Singapore


FJAG: I don't think that we'll measure up.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equipment_of_the_Singaporean_Army

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Singapore_Air_Force#Aircraft

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Singapore_Navy#Current_fleet
:brickwall:

MILITARY SPENDING LESS THAN PROMISED - National Post - 5 Mar 19 - LEE BERTHIAUME

OTTAWA • The federal government will invest billions of dollars less in new military equipment than promised this year, raising concerns about the readiness of the Canadian Forces and the prospect that Canada will fall short on another NATO spending target. The Trudeau government in 2017 released a defence policy that included dramatic increases in the amount of money to be spent on new aircraft, ships, armoured vehicles and other military equipment each year for the next two decades. The investments are considered vital to replacing the Canadian Forces’ aging fighter jets, ships and other equipment with state-of-theart vehicles and weapons.

Yet while the government is on track to invest more in new equipment for the second year in a row, budget documents show the Defence Department will still fall short more than $2 billion (35% is a huge amt) on the government’s plan to spend $6.5 billion.The government spent $2.3 billion less than planned last year, largely because of delays in projects such as the government’s huge plan to buy new warships, though also because some things ended up costing less than expected.

The department’s top civil servant, deputy minister Jody Thomas, told a House of Commons committee last week that about $700 million was because some projects came in under budget (gov't/Cdn military procurement under budget??) and other “efficiencies (don't buy anything), so we didn’t need that money. (??)

But Thomas acknowledged the department was to blame for some of the other underspending, and industry has also faced challenges in delivering on projects — although she said it shouldn’t be a surprise there have been some problems given the number of projects underway. “There are going to be some slowdowns by us,” she said, adding: “If money isn’t moving quite quickly enough because of a problem with a particular supply chain, a particular supplier, a contract, the way we’ve defined a project, we work with industry to try to resolve that.”

Still, Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan acknowledged to the same committee that while the government is spending more on military equipment than previous years, “we need to get enough people to be able to handle the volume of projects. (more civ/mil at HDHQ) We need to get better at that.” Defence officials have previously blamed a shortage of procurement experts for some project delays and cost overruns. That shortage was created by successive cuts to the department starting under the Liberals in the 1990s and continued under the Conservatives earlier this decade.

While the fact the department saved money on some projects was seen as a positive development, Conservative defence critic James Bezan said he is nonetheless concerned that hundreds of millions of dollars in promised new investments aren’t being realized.
“Despite the explanation that was given by officials at committee, we still feel projects are falling behind, promises are going to be broken and ultimately the Canadian Armed Forces will not get the equipment that it needs in a timely manner,” Bezan told The Canadian Press. “The whole idea that they’re finding efficiencies is good news. But at the same time, those dollars should be getting re-invested in other capital projects that aren’t off the books yet.”

The underspending doesn’t just mean delivery of some promised equipment will be delayed, said defence analyst David Perry of the Canadian Global Affairs Institute; it also threatens Canada’s ability to meet a key NATO spending target. “So the military is not getting re-equipped as fast as intended when the defence policy was published,” Perry said in an interview. “And we had basically reassured NATO that we were going to really do a good job at spending on recapitalization, and we’re not nearly as far ahead as we should be on that.”
 

Rifleman62

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
186
Points
680
https://nationalpost.com/opinion/once-again-the-federal-budget-turns-a-blind-eye-to-canadas-military-needs

Once again, the federal budget turns a blind eye to Canada's military needs - National Post - David Krayden - 27 Mar 19
    Opinion: Were the Liberals ever serious about their big defence plan? They cut defence spending in 2018 and are ignoring it in 2019

Last week’s federal budget offered relatively modest spending with targeted funding after years of spending from a government that seemed to believe the deficit will solve itself. Unfortunately, the Canadian Armed Forces again escaped the finance minister’s gaze and for the second consecutive year, national defence is conspicuous by its absence from the budget.

You might recall the fanfare when Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan released the Liberals’ defence policy review in 2017: “Strong, Secure, Engaged.” It was already more than six months overdue and there was a feeling among defence analysts and most journalists that the Liberals had to deliver a document that suggested serious resolve. Sajjan promised a whopping 70-per-cent increase in defence spending, pledging to drive funding up to $32.7 billion from $18.9 billion. Naval ships, combat-support vehicles and 88 fighter jets would be replaced through “an open and transparent competition.”

There was one large disclaimer

But there was one large disclaimer. All of this would happen over the next decade, assuming the realities of 2017 would remain constant during that period. How well would any government have done predicting the military needs of 1942 based on the geopolitics of 1932?

In any case, we’ve yet to see any indication that the Liberals were serious about the plan. They cut defence spending in 2018 and have ignored it in 2019. Was there an alternative motive to the 2017 defence review? Canada was still in the midst of NAFTA negotiations with an American president who was increasingly critical of our defence contribution, especially as it pertained to NATO. Donald Trump had repeatedly cited Canada as one of the deadbeat members of NATO that refuses to fund its military at two per cent of its GDP — despite having promised to do so and notwithstanding that we have done so in the past. With Budget 2019, Canada is no closer to meeting that pledge, spending 1.23 per cent of its GDP on national defence.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s desultory approach to defence capital acquisition may well be defined by the fighter jet fiasco that grows more bizarre with every twist and turn of the story. It was the Liberal government of Jean Chrétien that joined the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter development program. It was Stephen Harper’s Conservative government that dithered on procuring the aircraft. It is the current Trudeau government that decided to start the whole process again. In the meantime, the Liberals considered buying some interim Super Hornets from Boeing before ultimately deciding to pick up some used Australian F-18s — just as the Royal Australian Air Force took delivery of its first F-35s.

Perhaps the best speech of this year’s just-concluded Manning Networking Conference in Ottawa was delivered by former chief of defence staff Gen. Rick Hillier. Hillier, whose career was defined by integrity and a politics-be-damned leadership style, told the conservative gathering that if Canada “buys a fighter aircraft that is anything but the F-35, we will have lost our minds.”

The last prime minister who consistently funded the Canadian military was Louis St-Laurent. All successive administrations — Liberal and Conservative — have to varying degrees played the shell game with defence spending. While lauding a capital acquisition project here, they will starve another project over there to pay for it. While promising consistent funding, they will squeeze the military at the first opportunity when a fiscal need emerges elsewhere.

They will squeeze the military at the first opportunity

With defence procurement being so hamstrung by petty politics and policy inertia, no amount of government funding can guarantee a combat-capable military if those dollars are not efficiently and effectively spent. As Hillier said, “Our acquisition process in Canada, in particular for the Department of National Defence, is abhorrent. It is pointless to give the Department of National Defence increased spending if you then tie them in a Gordian knot where they can’t actually spend the money.” Sadly, that’s exactly what we’re doing.

— David Krayden is a former Royal Canadian Air Force public affairs officer and legislative assistant on Parliament Hill. He has worked in print, radio and television journalism and is currently the Ottawa bureau chief for The Daily Caller, a Washington-based media outlet.


 

MarkOttawa

Fallen Comrade
Fallen Comrade
Reaction score
147
Points
710
Australian defence spending--smaller armed forces--getting close to twice Canada's (with 2/3 the population), soon at 2% of GDP; Canada' 2019-20 defence budget is at C$ 21.6 billion, scroll way down to Table A2.13a (https://budget.gc.ca/2019/docs/plan/anx-02-en.html#33-Outlook-for-Program-Expenses):

Australia’s 2019-20 defence budget increases to $38.7bn

The Australian Government’s 2019-20 defence budget has increased by A$2.3bn ($1.6bn) to A$38.7bn [Oz dollar almost same as Canadian] ($27.52bn) and A$175.8bn ($125.02bn) to 2022-23.

In its annual budget statement, the government said the rise from the last financial year is in line with its commitment to increase the defence budget to 2% of GDP by 2020-21.

The defence budget aims to increase the country’s commitment to regional and global security, boost investment in advanced defence capabilities and create several Australian job opportunities.

In a statement, Australian Defence Minister Christopher Pyne said: “The Morrison Government’s number one priority is keeping Australians safe and secure. The 2019-20 budget sees continued strong investment in Australia’s national security, with a particular focus on enhancing our regional security, building defence capability and supporting Australia’s sovereign defence industry.”

The country will continue to support the US-led international Counter-Daesh coalition in Iraq, assist Afghanistan in controlling its security and increase support level to South East Asian countries.

Currently, more than 2,300 Australian defence personnel are deployed around the world in support of several operations.

More than A$200bn ($142.23bn) will be invested by the government in defence capabilities over the next decade until 2028-29.

Capabilities include the purchase of F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, P-8A Poseidon aircraft, E-7A Wedgetail and EA-18G Growler upgrade, as well as continuing the country’s ship and submarine building.

In order to safeguard the government and Australian Defence Force networks from cyber-attacks, investments will continue to be made to strengthen cyber defence.

The budget has also allocated funds for investment in the Australian Signals Directorate, including the Australian Cyber Security Centre, and for the establishment of cybersecurity ‘SPRINT teams’ and a Cyber Security Response Fund...

Approximately A$47.5bn ($33.78bn) has been dedicated by the government for the procurement of new capabilities since the 2018-19 budget release.
https://www.army-technology.com/news/australian-defence-budget-increases/

Some governments and countries are serious.

Mark
Ottawa


 
Top