The Defence Budget [superthread]

[QV]

Hell, keep chipping away then.  What have you got to lose?

 

[Halifax Tar]

At historical levels, actually... 7%(+/-) attrition.

I have a hard time believing that.  But I am willing to eat crow if I am wrong.  Have a link for those stats ?

 

[dapaterson]

I have a hard time believing that.  But I am willing to eat crow if I am wrong.  Have a link for those stats ?

PARRA report (DPGR page on the CMP DWAN page); year end stats should be out in late April / early May.  Friction areas are lower intake than planned (which is lower than that required to go immediately to the target strength) for the past several years, and some increases in attrition due to increasing numbers of medical releases.

 

[Flavus101]

I found an open source report: http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/English/parl_oag_201611_05_e_41834.html#p109

5.109 Actual attrition. In the 2014–15 and the 2015–16 fiscal years, the Regular Force lost 5,487 and 4,804 members respectively, which represented about 8 percent and 7 percent of the total number of members in the Regular Force in each of the respective years. We found that attrition rates varied significantly among occupations and were particularly high in some. In the 2015–16 fiscal year, 23 occupations had attrition rates higher than 10 percent.

5.110 We found that whereas the total number of members leaving the Regular Force had outpaced the number of enrolments between the 2011–12 and 2014–15 fiscal years, this trend reversed in the 2015–16 fiscal year. We found that the total number of people leaving during the 2011–12 to 2014–15 fiscal years was about 2,400 more than the total of enrolments. Although the total number of people leaving was 500 fewer than the total number of enrolments in the 2015–16 fiscal year, we observed that in 44 occupations, the number of people leaving had still outpaced enrolments, as it had in the 2014–15 fiscal year.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

564 Billion dollars (80% of which will be borrowed, as the deficit is 446B) buys you a lot of things - including over 2 million people in uniform and 1.4 million civilian and contractors.  They have the critical mass that makes PXs and lifetime health care make sense.  We do not.

As an aside, our military spending represents 120% of our deficit, (19B vs 25B).

Does this mean we can't do *something* small for deployed OPs?  IIRC you've been to Camp Canada.  Sustained op now, would it really kill to set up a small Tim's?  Put it next to the barber, put it over on the LSA side.  A small touch of home that I think a lot of people would take advantage of...Green Bean is good but Tim's is Tim's ( I don't drink it myself regularly...just using as an example).

Defense is expensive.  To me, part of that expense is looking after your people.  Some of those costs are going to be parking lots, 'cause most people own cars to get around, and places to get/buy stuff like toothpaste when you're away from your postal code.  Again.

 

[blacktriangle]

I'm willing to bet technical trades are harder hit than average, with losses across all ranks but a higher rate in the Cpl/MCpls.

 

[Halifax Tar]

I found an open source report: http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/English/parl_oag_201611_05_e_41834.html#p109

5.109 Actual attrition. In the 2014–15 and the 2015–16 fiscal years, the Regular Force lost 5,487 and 4,804 members respectively, which represented about 8 percent and 7 percent of the total number of members in the Regular Force in each of the respective years. We found that attrition rates varied significantly among occupations and were particularly high in some. In the 2015–16 fiscal year, 23 occupations had attrition rates higher than 10 percent.

5.110 We found that whereas the total number of members leaving the Regular Force had outpaced the number of enrolments between the 2011–12 and 2014–15 fiscal years, this trend reversed in the 2015–16 fiscal year. We found that the total number of people leaving during the 2011–12 to 2014–15 fiscal years was about 2,400 more than the total of enrolments. Although the total number of people leaving was 500 fewer than the total number of enrolments in the 2015–16 fiscal year, we observed that in 44 occupations, the number of people leaving had still outpaced enrolments, as it had in the 2014–15 fiscal year.

Im not smart, but that sounds to me like more people are going to the release section than are going to the recruiting center(s)... Feel free to correct me

 

[dapaterson]

Attrition, its causes, models to predict it and such are interesting and important topics; I don't think this is the correct thread to discuss it.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Attrition, its causes, models to predict it and such are interesting and important topics; I don't think this is the correct thread to discuss it.

You are very right.

 

[PPCLI Guy]

Does this mean we can't do *something* small for deployed OPs?  IIRC you've been to Camp Canada.  Sustained op now, would it really kill to set up a small Tim's?  Put it next to the barber, put it over on the LSA side.  A small touch of home that I think a lot of people would take advantage of...Green Bean is good but Tim's is Tim's ( I don't drink it myself regularly...just using as an example).

Or, we could be on ops, and do our job, without a "small Tims".  Camp Canada and Mirage 2.0 is hardly a tough go....

 

[trooper142]

There are provisions in the policy to provide different pricing, where warranted, for shift workers.  As for lugging kit on the bus: been there, done that.  (Or buy a buddy a beer and carpool or... many ways around such problems)

And yes, driving to work is often a choice.  In Shilo, Wainwright or Cold Lake?  No.  In a major urban centre?  Yes.  And note that in those remote areas, there is no fee for parking...

Life is about making choices.  If you choose to have a large house on a big piece of property far outside town, then that's a choice you made.  If that choice means you have to drive to work instead of taking a bus or subway (in an urban area where that's an option) - that was your choice as well.

On to "The government pays for that" comment.  How wonderful.  Government gets its money from where, exactly?  (Hint: Look at your T4)  Maybe the people who benefit from it (the folks who drive in and park on the lot) should pay for it?

As far as I have seen, there are no provisions for shift workers.  The MPs at Windsor park in the patrol section park 5 days on the base per month where a parking pass is required, and are required to pay 69$ a month.  Fair market eh? Choices? 

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Or, we could be on ops, and do our job, without a "small Tims".  Camp Canada and Mirage 2.0 is hardly a tough go....

Yup, we could and are.  *Nothings too good for the troops!*  :nod:

I just don't know where the line will stop.  Next thing, I'll be forced to stay in hotels that don't have maids and share a room!!  :not-again: 

 

[jollyjacktar]

Well any more "Pyrrhic victory" type of management decisions/style and continued budget cuts and we will be out of business.  With the imbalances in retention and recruitment as of late we'll bleed out in the not too far distant future.  If we don't, as a country want to spend etc to defend ourselves, we'll become someone's prison bitch down the road.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

Or, we could be on ops, and do our job, without a "small Tims".  Camp Canada and Mirage 2.0 is hardly a tough go....

Screw the Tims, PX, etc... I'd be happy with half a case of beer per week, nothing like a nice refreshing pint after a workout in the Desert.  Now that's real morale and welfare right there.

 

[Journeyman]

The Canadian Global Affairs Institute has published a 2017 Defence Budget Primer, which provides some points on things to consider ahead of the 22 March budget release date.



I'll save some bandwidth by pre-emptively adding, "the author doesn't have a clue what he's talking about because the numbers haven't been released."  :

 

[Remius]

I'll save some bandwidth by pre-emptively adding, "the author doesn't have a clue what he's talking about because the numbers haven't been released."  :

That's a little unfair.  I read the article and thought it was quite a measured approach tempered with some cautious caveats about what to expect and how any increase needs to be looked at in context.  I found this part to be particularly well measured.

"Any discussion about defence budget increases in the 2017 budget should be evaluated carefully to see whether they represent additional previously unplanned budget increases, or restatements of existing plans to increase defence funding which are already built into the fiscal framework"

What is it in particular about it that makes him not know what he's talking about? It is a primer.  Basically things to look for, historical context,  capital expenditures  etc etc.  It basically sets a good tone to understand what may come out on the 22nd.  In fact he's not making any real predictions about anything really, just pointing to trends and explaining how everything needs to be considered.

I thought it was a very good analysis. 

 

[jmt18325]

That was directed at me.  I thought it was a good article, btw (even though he does actually have little if any idea what will actually happen, just like almost everyone else in the world).

 

[Underway]

I'll just leave this poll/survey from Angus Reid here...

Half of Canadians say Trump right on increased NATO spending, but fewer actually want to meet that mark.

 

[Good2Golf]

The Canadian Global Affairs Institute has published a 2017 Defence Budget Primer, which provides some points on things to consider ahead of the 22 March budget release date.


I'll save some bandwidth by pre-emptively adding, "the author doesn't have a clue what he's talking about because the numbers haven't been released."  :

That was directed at me.  I thought it was a good article, btw (even though he does actually have little if any idea what will actually happen, just like almost everyone else in the world).

Q.E.D.

 

[jmt18325]

In the lead-up to the federal budget, there have been several hints that the Trudeau government might make additional investments in defence. When evaluating the information published in Budget 2017, it is important to consider that significant, additional future spending is already set aside in the fiscal framework for defence. DND is unique in the federal government in having a built-in automatic increase to its budget. Under the current arrangements, this additional funding, known as the defence escalator, gives DND several hundred million dollars of additional budget funding each year. Since 2008 and through the fiscal year ending March 31, 2017, DND has been receiving a compounding two per cent annual increase.

In the 2015 budget, the Harper government pledged to add another compounding one per cent to the escalator, increasing it to three per cent annually for a decade, starting on April 1, 2017. The Main Estimates for fiscal year 2017/2018 show that the Trudeau government has stuck to this plan, which is increasing DND’s operating budget by $550 million for this fiscal year.

Any discussion about defence budget increases in the 2017 budget should be evaluated carefully to see whether they represent additional previously unplanned budget increases, or restatements of existing plans to increase defence funding which are already built into the fiscal framework.

http://www.cgai.ca/2017_defence_budget_primer?utm_campaign=budget_primer&utm_medium=email&utm_source=cdfai

BTW, that's what I've been saying (in far less eloquent language).  The main estimates take into account capital deferment of billions by both Harper and Trudeau.  If there is new money, it will be interesting to see if it's money that is pulled forward (again), or money that is actually new.

I mean, a lot of it really can't be pulled forward, as it's tied up in the shipbuilding schedule.