The Defence Budget [superthread]

[Humphrey Bogart]

BUT...if the people HB is speaking about cutting was taken, as much as possible, from trimming the fat off the meat, maybe you could go up to 3, possibly 4 crews.  Consider how much of the pay budget is chewed up by the fat year after year.  Cpls are far less expensive than surplus CWOs, Snr Officers and GOFOs.

I know, we are already an embarrassingly small military but the message has come across loud and clear if this government is going to bump up defence spending (nope!  and no one should be surprised...the overall Canadian population likes things like the Snowbirds and CAF members on parade in DEU on Nov 11th...and then it starts to peter off support-wise).

If funding is not going up, what option based on reality is there to consider?

See post I made here:

Ladies & Gentlemen,

In March 2015, The Parliamentary Budget Office published a report titled “Fiscal Sustainability of Canada’s National Defence Program”.

Link to document provided:

http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiauoW05uzSAhVMzIMKHUmnAEAQFgg1MAQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pbo-dpb.gc.ca%2Ffiles%2Ffiles%2FDefence_Analysis_EN.pdf&usg=AFQjCNHclg1rlehU0cXYrco9lLrlI1pJsg&sig2=QsrC6u_G9xcIbrHzUa99OA

The document highlights, in succinct detail, what exactly the problems are with respect to Canada’s current National Defence Program.  I’ll give you the conclusion of the document to save you some reading:

“As a result of the underinvestment through the 1990s, the model illustrates the cumulative affordability gap that existed until the early 2000s. The model shows that it was only with the significant spending increases seen in the latter half of the 2000s that the affordability gap was closed and capability was able to be maintained and to some extent re-built. However, the recent cuts to the defence budget point to an impending affordability gap beginning in this fiscal year.
The outcomes of a fiscal gap in the defence program are beyond the scope of this paper. However, if program costs and the budget allocation are not brought to equilibrium, there will be a reduction in the capabilities of the current force structure. This means a reduction in the numbers and types of equipment and potentially a reduction in the number of personnel in the Armed Forces42. This would also result in the government falling short of its CFDS commitments.
Ultimately, it is the role of policy makers to decide on the future role of the defence program, the makeup of the force structure to support that role, and the budgetary allocation required to support that force structure.”

I’ve also uploaded a couple of charts which show the current predicament we’re in and also explain how we got there.  If you read the document and look at Fig 3-6 in the document, you’ll note that the only way to afford our military is to revert to a 1997 Force Structure Calibration, which is the historic low point in our Defence Expenditure.

One of two things needs to happen:v

1.  We drastically increase the Defence Budget; or
2.  We make significant adjustments to our present Force Structure by cutting personnel, equipment, operations, etc.  No more doing more with less, the future is all about doing less with less.

I'll reattach the graphic:

BLUF, current force structure is unaffordable with our current funding.  Do you want good kit with lots of time to use it or do you want no kit with excess amount of folks sitting around twiddling their thumbs?

We can make all sorts of emotional arguments about how important certain folks, rice bowls, pieces of kit, etc. are.  The thing I love about numbers is they don't lie and they're worth a heck of a lot more coming from the PBO than some internally produced document.

Parliamentary Budget Officer:  The mandate of the Parliamentary Budget Officer (PBO) is to provide independent analysis to Parliament on the state of the nation’s finances, the government’s estimates and trends in the national economy; and upon request from a committee or parliamentarian, to estimate the financial cost of any proposal for matters over which Parliament has jurisdiction.

 

[Journeyman]

If you're going to suggest a capability be fully divested, at least get the terminology right.

If we really want to divest an asset that serves no purpose.....

OK, let me try again:
I suggest that decisions on divestment, or honestly supporting, any  capability be decisions informed by government expectations of military purpose.

While personally,  I think what we've done with GBAD is borderline criminal, the decision was completely self-inflicted from within the military, and arguably had no basis in what deliverables the CAF may be required to produce.  I suspect the rationale was little more than, "it's too expensive; make it go away  give it to the Militia."

I gather by your online name that this is a personal issue.  Got it.  However, saying "oh...oh ya !?  Well how about dumping the jump companies," is equally uninformed by requirements that may or may not come out of rethinking the way ahead.  If any capability is determined to be a legitimate requirement, then support it realistically (funding, PYs, training, doctrine, integration with the other arms, etc, etc);  otherwise it's expendable.  Désolé.

Many of our problems, I suspect, come from situating estimates based on cap badges, empires, ...or even school ring.  We can be our own worst enemy.

 

[Journeyman]

The thing I love about numbers is they don't lie...

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."
~attributed to UK PM Benjamin Disraeli


It was that quote, or make some reference to the US election 'discussions'  >

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

OK, let me try again:
I suggest that decisions on divestment, or honestly supporting, any  capability be decisions informed by government expectations of military purpose.

While personally,  I think what we've done with GBAD is borderline criminal, the decision was completely self-inflicted from within the military, and arguably had no basis in what deliverables the CAF may be required to produce.  I suspect the rationale was little more than, "it's too expensive; make it go away  give it to the Militia."

I gather by your online name that this is a personal issue.  Got it.  However, saying "oh...oh ya !?  Well how about dumping the jump companies," is equally uninformed by requirements that may or may not come out of rethinking the way ahead.  If any capability is determined to be a legitimate requirement, then support it realistically (funding, PYs, training, doctrine, integration with the other arms, etc, etc);  otherwise it's expendable.  Désolé.

Many of our problems, I suspect, come from situating estimates based on cap badges, empires, ...or even school ring.  We can be our own worst enemy.

Ding ding on highlighted bit in yellow.  We can't have a discussion on Defence Spending because every discussion immediately reverts to lowest common denominator. 

It's the equivalent of doing a Combat Estimate in a Large auditorium and asking the audience, each person individually, what they think the MLCOA and MDCOA is.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."
~attributed to UK PM Benjamin Disraeli


It was that quote, or make some reference to the US election 'discussions'  >

Attributed to google  ;D

 

[Occam]

If you knew then what you know now would you still have supported ABC?

You betcha.

I wasn't impressed with Harper or the Conservatives at the end of their tenure but I believed the alternative was much worse. I don't feel I was wrong.
Harper caused that himself but I wasn't very appreciative how the ABC message seemed to impart they spoke on behalf of veterans in many cases I seen. They also didn't seem to put Canada's defense needs first. The Conservatives are hardly indulgent towards military spending but I think we'd be much better off than where we are now.  ABC chose to contribute to it so IMO it's something they wear.
I share your disgust but ABC is hardly the sole target or victim of 'Veteran online rage'.

I agree the wording they used sometimes was poorly chosen, and implied that the veterans community at large was being spoken for by ABC, and that shouldn't have happened.  There's plenty of data to support that the Conservatives' spending on defence was on track to be the lowest in history by percentage of GDP, so neither the CPC nor the Liberals are doing us any favours.

I agree that there's a fair bit of "veteran online rage" out there, but to direct it at other veterans for their political beliefs?  Here's a taste of what I've seen in a public group, and even condoned ("liked") by the administrators.

https://www.facebook.com/vetsfortheCPC/posts/1816742851982682

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

OK, let me try again:
I suggest that decisions on divestment, or honestly supporting, any  capability be decisions informed by government expectations of military purpose.

While personally,  I think what we've done with GBAD is borderline criminal, the decision was completely self-inflicted from within the military, and arguably had no basis in what deliverables the CAF may be required to produce.  I suspect the rationale was little more than, "it's too expensive; make it go away  give it to the Militia."

I gather by your online name that this is a personal issue.  Got it.  However, saying "oh...oh ya !?  Well how about dumping the jump companies," is equally uninformed by requirements that may or may not come out of rethinking the way ahead.  If any capability is determined to be a legitimate requirement, then support it realistically (funding, PYs, training, doctrine, integration with the other arms, etc, etc);  otherwise it's expendable.  Désolé.

Many of our problems, I suspect, come from situating estimates based on cap badges, empires, ...or even school ring.  We can be our own worst enemy.

Its actually not personal. There is an identified need in our largest ally for GBAD and the only use I've seen for jump companies is delaying/prolonging Maple Resolves and creating a niche. Even talking to 3 PPCLI jump company guys the best rationale they could come up with for their existence was some magical requirement to jump a company into the arctic. I use that as a Rice bowl that is being protected. Perhaps they can find a role defending the BSA?

 

[The Bread Guy]

I don't think as many unions have settled as you indicate.  It may constitute enough for the CF to start looking at numbers, though.  I'll look into it.

PA group in our building voted this week.

 

[TCM621]

BUT...if the people HB is speaking about cutting was taken, as much as possible, from trimming the fat off the meat, maybe you could go up to 3, possibly 4 crews.  Consider how much of the pay budget is chewed up by the fat year after year.  Cpls are far less expensive than surplus CWOs, Snr Officers and GOFOs.

I know, we are already an embarrassingly small military but the message has come across loud and clear if this government is going to bump up defence spending (nope!  and no one should be surprised...the overall Canadian population likes things like the Snowbirds and CAF members on parade in DEU on Nov 11th...and then it starts to peter off support-wise).

If funding is not going up, what option based on reality is there to consider?

There is actually some justification for being a little top heavy. If we ever end up in a world war 3 like scenario ptes and LTs can be made pretty quick. SNCOs and Generals not so much. However, I take your point about HQs. HQs need to be cut and the people in them fired back to the front line units.

There are a lot of problems there as well though. For one, a decent number of people manning some of this bloat at HQs are career class B reservists, so they couldn't /wouldn't go to front line units. For another, it isn't like people at HQs sit around doing nothing. I have said before but I think most people agree HQs are over staffed just not in their office where they are swamped. We would have to have a culture shift where we pushed decision making back down to the front lines. Thirdly, the last time they were directed to cut HQs and leave the teeth, the cuts got push down until it hit the person who couldn't push it down any further, aka unit COs.

I get that we have to deal in reality but at some point we need to admit that given current funding and procurement practices a functional, international military might not be a reality for much longer.

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk

 

[jollyjacktar]

From a procurement perspective, it would make it almost impossible to make sure what's needed for the units, gets to the units if further cuts were made at HQ.  In many sections of the navy side we're already understaffed as it is, which only makes it more challenging to get things done.

 

[Jarnhamar]

You betcha.

Madness! But you're still cool in my books so don't beat yourself up too much 

I agree that there's a fair bit of "veteran online rage" out there, but to direct it at other veterans for their political beliefs?

Yup. Losers.

 

[suffolkowner]

:ditto:

I often disagree with you, jmt, but, then, I usually disagree with almost everyone on almost everything.

In fact I was going to post something to support your view that there are, essentially, "no new taxes" ~ at least not in the big scheme of things. I was going to add that there is, in fact, "no new anything," this is a timid, conservative, do nothing budget because no one in official Ottawa wants to do anything because no one knows what the global economic situation is going to be like in six days, much less in six weeks, six months or six years. Brexit, Donald Trump, the South China Seas, global terrorism, supply and demand and, and, and ... are all out of whack.

There are, generally, three major inputs to a budget: government, officials and allied experts, and the business community. In my opinion this budget is about 95% officialdom, and 2.5% each government/politics and business. The officials are, by their very nature and by the nature of their environment, very, Very, VERY conservative and this is a conservative, stand-pat, do nothing, signal nothing, wait and see budget. The verbiage is "Team Trudeau"trying to set the table for 2019 ~ they will shift away, I suspect, from the green, feminist and sunny ways agenda and towards an "innovation" agenda, but that's just a WAG ~ but the numbers, that "do nothing" are pure, cautious, timid, Canadian civil service.

Oh, and money for defence? Surely you all jest ... which amongst you can posit a coherent, sensible, comprehensible threat to Canada or its vital interests for which more military is the best answer? Overall, Journeyman has it about right.

Good post ERC, you may even have me considering Erin O'toole. I don't see how the CF's can survive 7 more years of this

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Thirdly, the last time they were directed to cut HQs and leave the teeth, the cuts got push down until it hit the person who couldn't push it down any further, aka unit COs.

If there is direction and someone with the nads to make it happen at the level they tell people to make it happen, that can be overcome.  We, at the end of the day, follow orders and lawful commands.  If the GoC and the CDS says "make it so", the folks below them should just make it so, or be treated like anyone else who doesn't follow direction from lawful authority.  :2c:

 

[Jarnhamar]

Good post ERC, you may even have me considering Erin O'toole. I don't see how the CF's can survive 7 more years of this

Easy. Keep CANSOF to do the fighty stuff, get rid of the regular combat arms and just have supporters supporting supporters.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

supporters supporting supporters.

Judging from what I've seen deployed over the past few years, we'd be good at that!!

 

[Eye In The Sky]

So some retired guys are opting for replacing "trips to the low ground" or "generator maintenance" for the cyber versions because people were talking as if the represented them, and in actuality they didn't.  If someone spoke for me without asking me, saying stuff I wouldn't say, I'd be pissed off to. 


I'd be more concerned about the guy in Montreal preaching about how Jews should be killed, that's a big deal but everyone picks their own flag to wave I guess.  This "punch ABC in the face" stuff is *meh* to me.  People need thicker skins, or to not do things that make people want to punch them in the face.  Then they'd have nothing to worry about...

:dunno:

 

[PPCLI Guy]

supporters supporting supporters.

The JTF(I) motto.....

 

[Kirkhill]

I just have to say this.

I know most of you won't believe it.  I was angry earlier.  The truth is, I really enjoy this place.  It's a place where I've learned a lot from people that have a lot of information.  I realize now that for me, what's just a discussion, is real life for many of you.  I guess I didn't understand how that would impact your perspective on some pretty forceful outside views.  That's not the way I meant to or mean to come across.  On (some) military matters, I should probably shut up most of the time (and indeed, I do most of the time, but I should shut up more often), because even if I can't verify who you are, you're most likely who you claim to be.

I'm sorry for offending people and coming across as a jerk.  If I stay, I'll probably do it again.  It's not necessarily intentional (we're all intentional jerks sometimes).

That said, I do know a fair bit about government.  I don't know as much about government as a senior bureaucrat or politician, but I've studied it as my main hobby for about 15 years.  I've always loved it.  When I said that there was basically no new taxes, I meant just that.  It wasn't meant to be a confrontational or controversial statement.  It was simply my view that all of that tax increases (none of which I will pay [okay, I'll pay the alcohol and tobacco ones, but not as an end consumer]) amounted to nothing when compared with the size of the budget and the economy.  If you disagree, that's fine - it's simply my assessment.

I'm not trolling.  I know some of you see me that way, but I'm not.  I'm sorry for that perception as well.  Have a good night and or day, whenever you read this.

Well said jmt.  Hope to talk to you in a bit.

Cheers.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

The JTF(I) motto.....

And, as it is relevant to the recent discussion about bloat, top heavy trend and the way we do business, I'll offer the picture below.  I got it from one of the CAF FB pages but I can assure you this is the Camp Canada Kuwait Remembrance Day parade 2016.

On the far side of the picture is the WOs and Sgts section of the hollow square; we were 4 ranks.  With their backs to us is the picture is the Officers section of the hollow square;  8 ranks.

We had the same frontage in the WOs and Sgts as the Officers did, as did the Jnr Ranks who were 3-4 ranks as well.  In fact, some Jnr Officers were moved from their section to the Jnr Ranks one "so it wouldn't look like there was so many officers".  I guess 8 ranks was ok...9 would be WAY too many.  ???

We HQ top heavy, we deploy top heavy.  Our tooth to tail ratio is horrible.  IMO, JTF-I is an example of deployed bloat.

 

[Occam]

So some retired guys are opting for replacing "trips to the low ground" or "generator maintenance" for the cyber versions because people were talking as if the represented them, and in actuality they didn't.  If someone spoke for me without asking me, saying stuff I wouldn't say, I'd be pissed off to. 


I'd be more concerned about the guy in Montreal preaching about how Jews should be killed, that's a big deal but everyone picks their own flag to wave I guess.  This "punch ABC in the face" stuff is *meh* to me.  People need thicker skins, or to not do things that make people want to punch them in the face.  Then they'd have nothing to worry about...

I'm not particularly happy about the Royal Canadian Legion Dominion Command claiming that it advocates for all veterans, when in reality its position statement on the return to lifetime disability pensions tosses modern veterans under the bus - but you don't see me calling for throat punches all around for the RCL Executive. 

Jeez, maybe that's what we're doing wrong.  Sorry for the thread tangent.