The Defence Budget [superthread]

[QV]

This 2% is really about a country having a capable military in relation to the size and wealth of said country.

Does Canada have a capable military?  Based on our deteriorating fighter fleet, our older and few warships, and small ground force, I would say no absolutely not.  We couldn't defend our own sovereignty let alone make any major contribution somewhere else.  It bothers me immensely that this doesn't bother the average Canadian. 

And if NATO comes calling for a serious contribution because the Russians or Chinese, what happens then?

 

[Eland2]

This 2% is really about a country having a capable military in relation to the size and wealth of said country.

Does Canada have a capable military?  Based on our deteriorating fighter fleet, our older and few warships, and small ground force, I would say no absolutely not.  We couldn't defend our own sovereignty let alone make any major contribution somewhere else.  It bothers me immensely that this doesn't bother the average Canadian. 

And if NATO comes calling for a serious contribution because the Russians or Chinese, what happens then?

The reason why the average Canadian isn't bothered by this is manifold. First off, average Canadians don't think much about defence, if they think of it all. Second, they assume that Canada is too large in physical terms and offers too many geographical and topographical obstacles to be easily invaded. Third, the general assumption is that if the fecal material hits the rotary impeller, the Americans will simply come to our aid and do all the heavy lifting anyway, and if that doesn't work/isn't feasible, they will simply bring out their nuclear clubs to beat the enemy into submission. On our behalf, of course.

If NATO called on us to make a substantial contribution, we'd be screwed and simply unable to make that contribution. It isn't just the small size of our combat forces and their relative obsolescence that explain why we couldn't make such a contribution, it's the fact that currently we don't have any mechanisms in place to induct, train, equip, mobilize and deploy very large numbers of people in a relatively short period of time.

If you recall what happened during the Second World War, Canada was totally unprepared to fight any kind of significant enemy force in 1939. It wasn't until 1942 that the country was able to just begin to make a meaningful ground contribution. In my estimation, the ill-starred attempt to seize Dieppe was a trial run for deploying a much larger force, which didn't happen until 1943. In other words, it took Canada nearly four years to sufficiently ramp up the size and capability of its ground forces. We were fortunate that we had the luxury of lots of time to prepare.

The next major war is likely to erupt very quickly and proceed at a very rapid pace, thanks to the sheer speed and striking power of current weapon systems. By the time Canada mobilizes any kind of meaningful contribution, the war may well be over. That is more or less what happened during the Gulf War in 1991.
At that time we had too little in the way of men and materiel to be able to do anything more than mount a token effort.

My personal take is that a rise in the defence budget to 2% of GDP will only be efficacious if Canada spends a lot more money beforehand to develop the infrastructure to induct, equip, train and mobilize large numbers of troops in a short period of time.

 

[Blackadder1916]

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

As previously identified in this thread.

https://army.ca/forums/threads/82898/post-1476606.html#msg1476606
https://army.ca/forums/threads/82898/post-1476628.html#msg1476628


NATO definition of defence expenditure
http://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/pdf_2016_07/20160704_160704-pr2016-116.pdf

NATO defines defence expenditure as
payments made by a national government
specifically to meet the needs of its armed
forces or those of Allies. A major component
of defence expenditure is payments on Armed
Forces financed within the Ministry of Defence
(MoD) budget. Armed Forces include Land,
Maritime and Air forces as well as Joint
formations such as Administration and
Command, Special Operations Forces,
Medical Service, Logistic Command etc. They
might also include "Other Forces" like Ministry
of Interior troops, border guards, national
police forces, customs, gendarmerie,
carabinierie, coast guards etc. In such cases,
expenditure should be included only in
proportion to the forces that are trained in
military tactics, are equipped as a military
force, can operate under direct military
authority in deployed operations, and can,
realistically, be deployed outside national
territory in support of a military force. Also,
expenditure on Other Forces financed through
the budgets of ministries other than MoD
should be included in defence expenditure.

Pension payments made directly by the
government to retired military and civilian
employees of military departments should be
included regardless of whether these
payments are made from the budget of the
MoD or other ministries.

Expenditures for peacekeeping and
humanitarian operations (paid by MoD or other
ministries), the destruction of weapons,
equipment and ammunition, and the costs
associated with inspection and control of
equipment destruction are included in defence
expenditures.

Research and development (R&D) costs are to
be included in defence expenditures. R&D
costs should also include those for projects
that do not successfully lead to production of
equipment.

Expenditure for the military component of
mixed civilian-military activities is included, but
only when this military component can be
specifically accounted for or estimated.

Financial assistance by one Allied country to
another, specifically to support the defence
effort of the recipient, should be included in the
defence expenditure of the donor country and
not in the defence expenditure of the receiving
country.

Expenditure on NATO Common infrastructure
is included in the total defence expenditure of
each NATO country only to the extent of that
country's net contribution.

War damage payments and spending on civil
defence are both excluded from the NATO
definition of defence expenditure.

NATO uses United States dollars (USD) as the
common currency denominator. The exchange
rate applied to each Ally is the average annual
rate published by the IMF. The values for
defence expenditure are expressed in current
prices; constant prices; current prices and
exchange rates; as well as constant prices and
exchange rates.

 

[RCPalmer]

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

To further muddy the waters, I was told by my French Army course DS that the Paris fire service is a unit of the French Army.  Really interesting historical precedent around that, but quite separate from what most states would consider to be part of their national security apparatus.

 

[MarkOttawa]

Eland2:

It wasn't until 1942 that the country was able to just begin to make a meaningful ground contribution.

Well, there was this:

Canadian 1st Infantry Brigade in France: 13-18 June 1940

After the defeat and evacuation of the British Expeditionary Force, the German army launched a second offensive against the remainder of the French army south of the Seine and Marne rivers on 5 June. The British War Cabinet organized a second expeditionary force under the command of General Sir Alan Brooke. This force included the 1st Canadian Division commanded by Major-General Andrew McNaughton.

The first wave, or, to use the military term, advance guard, of the 1st Canadian Division, 1st Canadian Infantry Brigade, arrived at the French port of Brest on 13 June. The following day, the battalions of the 1st Canadian Infantry Brigade moved by rail toward Le Mans. The German army entered Paris on 17 June 1940, and the French government requested an armistice. As a result, the second British Expeditionary Force including the Canadian 1st Infantry Brigade immediately withdrew and, by 18 June, had boarded troopships in Brest and St. Malo and returned to Britain. Fortunately, the rest of 1 Canadian Division had never left England. The Canadian Brigade was forced to abandon most of its vehicles, but it was able to save all of its artillery.
http://lermuseum.org/index.php/second-world-war-1939-45/1940/canadian-1st-infantry-brigade-in-france-13-18-june-1940

Lots more here, note:

...Early on the 14th [June] the Germans entered undefended Paris. The same morning General Brooke, who had set up at Le Mans his extremely rudimentary headquarters (one of his staff said later that they had "not even a typewriter"), discussed the situation with Generals Weygand and Georges. It was quite apparent from these conferences that the French Army was falling into a "general state of disintegration". Brooke therefore at once recommended to the War Office that all movement of British forces to France should be stopped, and arrangements made for evacuation. That afternoon orders arrived from London for the withdrawal to England of all parts of the B.E.F. not actually fighting under French orders...
https://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/UN/Canada/CA/OpSumm/OpSumm-1.html

In fact Brooke saved the Canadians and Brits--Churchill wanted them to stay to encourage the French and tried to harangue Brooke on the phone into agreeing.  Brooke with great courage stood his ground that the Second BEF must withdraw: "...it was impossible to make a corpse feel, and that the French army was, to all intents and purposes, dead..."  Churchill finally and reluctantly agreed to the withdrawal that Brooke had already ordered to begin.  Read his account in his War Diaries:
https://books.google.ca/books?id=SruMeCBkw1oC&pg=PA81&lpg=PA81&dq=1940+alan+brooke+second+BEF+%22le+mans%22+churchill&source=bl&ots=jMGFLFBYB_&sig=8_aTY1ihJrKk0MX70nEqVwc3wo0&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjrjqjhjaTSAhVn2IMKHaocCCUQ6AEIODAF#v=onepage&q=1940%20alan%20brooke%20second%20BEF%20%22le%20mans%22%20churchill&f=false

Mark
Ottawa

 

[TCM621]

I think part of the problem is that senior leadership won't,  or can't, publicly say we have any issues According to LGen Hood, during  his appearance before the standing armed forces committee, the air force has all the people  and all the resources it needs. Thats not what it looks like on the ground floor,  I can tell you that. I don't know if this is mandated from on high or what but if our generals can't be honest to parliament how can we fix anything? Maybe I am not conversant in political speak and can't read between the lines,  but it did not seem like an accurate portrayal of daily readiness in the airforce.
I understand that we want to be problem solvers and the standard military answer to a problem is "I'll get it done Sir".

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk

 

[Remius]

I think part of the problem is that senior leadership won't,  or can't, publicly say we have any issues According to LGen Hood, during  his appearance before the standing armed forces committee, the air force has all the people  and all the resources it needs. Thats not what it looks like on the ground floor,  I can tell you that. I don't know if this is mandated from on high or what but if our generals can't be honest to parliament how can we fix anything? Maybe I am not conversant in political speak and can't read between the lines,  but it did not seem like an accurate portrayal of daily readiness in the airforce.
I understand that we want to be problem solvers and the standard military answer to a problem is "I'll get it done Sir".

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk

Or is those that are reporting directly to them that aren't being honest?  to be honest the Navy I believe has been screaming to anyone that would listen that they have problems with manning, equipment etc for the last twenty years, including the guys at the top if I'm not mistaken. 

 

[QV]

Military leadership is politized and it shouldn't be. 

I was half expecting (hoping) the CAS would have resigned in protest over the F35/SH/number of fighters Canada needs/has/enough to meet our commitments debacle earlier. 

The CAF needs a few big wigs to resign in protest in order to bring the heat and light to the true state of the CAF.  Maybe that is the only way the rest of Canada will start to pay attention to defence funding.  As it stands the average Canadian just assumes the CAF is properly equipped and staffed to do everything it needs to do.

Trudeau et al opining about Canada "punching above our weight" or how we somehow contribute far more to NATO then our lackluster budget would have you believe runs counter to reality. 

On defence spending per GDP I heard a liberal pundit comment how the USA would surely rather have 100 Canadian soldiers with them then 100 Greeks (who are at the 2% target).  We are being compared to the Greeks, how bad is that?  If you want to compare military spending and actual capability Canada should be somewhere north of Australia but south of the U.K.  That would be a reasonable place to be given our geography, population and economic power. 

 

[a_majoor]

^ This, and Thucydides' words.  Call it 4GW, IW, whatever, there are threats on planes other than the physical/kinetic that will manifest themselves to great effect against liberal democracies far sooner than we'll have Presidents Putin or Xi send bombers or hypersonic cruise missiles in over our Northern approaches.  Defence investment needs to be balanced, but needs to plus up our cyber capabilities as much as politicians are willing to temper the general Canadian population's aversion to such electronic intervention (which many believe to be an invasive attack on their privacy, whether they believe themselves to be Government targets or not).

:2c:

Regards
G2G

The real issue isn't that these threats do or don't exist, but too many people seem to see them as binary: more tanks/airplanes=less cyber/SoF, for example.

 

[The Bread Guy]

... On defence spending per GDP I heard a liberal pundit comment how the USA would surely rather have 100 Canadian soldiers with them then 100 Greeks (who are at the 2% target).  We are being compared to the Greeks, how bad is that? ...

If you want to pick on liberal pundits, go for it, but I suspect the comparison was being made (professional, volunteer) soldier-to-(conscript) soldier.  And that's a bit of an apples-vs-bicycle comparison when talking global defence budgets, no?

 

[CombatDoc]

The real issue isn't that these threats do or don't exist, but too many people seem to see them as binary: more tanks/airplanes=less cyber/SoF, for example.

If neither the defence budget nor the number of CAF personnel increase, it is indeed a zero sum game. More personnel for cyber and SOF would require a reduction from some other line of operation (1 x infantry battalion, for example). More F35s could equal fewer surface combatants for the RCN. More support enablers (eg sigs, log, medical) in an austere environment  = fewer bayonets on ops with a force cap. This is the  calculus that we must conduct for every operation.

 

[MarkOttawa]

By CGAI's Dave Perry--in fact these figures pretty gruesome, hope The Donald doesn't notice:

GOC Main Estimates 2017-18: The Good, Bad and Ugly for Defence
http://www.cgai.ca/opedfebruary242017

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Good2Golf]

Looks like a planned descent back down to Chretien-levels of spending...

G2G

 

[dapaterson]

Looks like a planned descent back down to Chretien-levels of spending...

G2G

Or an acknowledgement of DND's chronic inability to advance its capital program... it would be more interesting to see how much DND actually spent in prior years as the basis for comparison, and not how much was allocated.  The amounts lapsed are traditionally very significant.

 

[Good2Golf]

Or an acknowledgement of DND's chronic inability to advance its capital program... it would be more interesting to see how much DND actually spent in prior years as the basis for comparison, and not how much was allocated.  The amounts lapsed are traditionally very significant.

Which would be a 100% fair comment if DND was 100% in control of procurement. 

Regards
G2G

 

[dapaterson]

Which would be a 100% fair comment if DND was 100% in control of procurement. 

Regards
G2G

If there wasn't PSPC, DND would create it, just to have someone to blame things on.  But in many instances "the fault lies not with our stars but with ourselves".

 

[Eaglelord17]

Looks like a planned descent back down to Chretien-levels of spending...

G2G

We are already at Chretien-levels of spending if you base it on GDP. Just looking at how many billion was allocated is somewhat redundant unless you adjust the numbers for inflation. If our spending goes back to the exact same amount we had in the Chretien years we would actually have less money than then.

 

[GnyHwy]

If there wasn't PSPC, DND would create it, just to have someone to blame things on.  But in many instances "the fault lies not with our stars but with ourselves".

Let's put spending at the tactical level and see how that goes!

 

[Old Sweat]

According to this CP story, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act, the members of the Commons Defence Committee are hearing demands for increased defence spending during their visit to Washington. It remains to be seen (a) how the excuse that we are doing extra stuff and (b) attempts to recalculate defence spending by adding certain civilian activities will work.

Canadian MPs in Washington hear the call for more money spent on defence
By The Canadian Press — Mar 8 2017

WASHINGTON — Canadian MPs visiting Washington this week say they keep hearing a familiar message in the U.S. capital: Canada and other NATO partners will be expected to pony up more money for the military.

It's something that members of the parliamentary committee on national defence say they'll be taking home after three days of meetings at the Pentagon, the U.S. Capitol and think-tanks.

But they also say the U.S. recognizes Canada's non-financial contributions — such as volunteering for roles in combat zones including Afghanistan, Libya and Iraq, in addition to efforts in Eastern Europe.

The committee's Liberal chairman, Stephen Fuhr, says there's no question U.S. policy-makers expect allies to spend more, but he says they also recognize that part of that contribution can be counted in other ways.

He says there's also discussion about how countries calculate their military spending — and whether things like the coast guard should be counted toward the NATO spending target of two per cent of GDP.

Canada is currently one of the lowest-spending members of NATO according to that metric; it spends less than half the guideline target and was already facing pressure from the Obama administration to increase its expenditure, before Donald Trump promised to take a harder line on defence spending.

 

[FSTO]

So we got hit by Real Property today that we had better come up with a damn good reason for a boatshed because they are thinking of not renewing the lease. Also my promotion and posting may (I'm going with the attitude that it is) be delayed til 2018.
So if anyone had any thoughts that there will be an increase in Defence Spending this year. Might as well put down the Kool-Aid right now.