• 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]

Can anyone shed light on trade specific budgets for training and exercises like infantry as opposed to Pilot? I would think it cheaper to spend money on exercises and training for Combat Arms where I assume money is spent just on bullets, explosives, usage of trucks, LAV's etc. as opposed to maintanence time on aircraft, spares etc. for the Air Force. That being said going forward will the crunch in budget affect Combat Arms, specifically Infantry, in regards to range time, ex's and/or opportunities for courses like Basic Para?
 
The retirement of a few ships and scrapping half the truck fleet has previously had its mention in the media, now budget cuts to flying hours are getting attention:

Budget cuts hit RCAF flying hours
Cutbacks affect aircraft upkeep, documents show

Lee Berthiaume
Ottawa Citizen
12 Feb 2015

Federal budget cuts have been quietly clipping the wings of the Canadian military, with the air force's fighter jets, search-and-rescue helicopters and other aircraft spending more time on the ground in an attempt to save money.

The belt-tightening, combined with increasing fuel, utility and training costs, has also made it more difficult for the Royal Canadian Air Force to pay for such essentials as removing snow and ice from runways, and has forced it to cut back on preventive aircraft maintenance.

The revelations are contained in internal business plans prepared by 1 Canadian Air Division, which manages the RCAF's numerous aircraft fleets. The documents predate the current conflict in Iraq, raising further questions as to how that action is affecting the air force's already stressed budget.

RCAF spokesman Maj. James Simiana says the air force "is always exploring ways and means aimed at ensuring we can effectively and responsibly maintain and deliver operational effect in support of Canadians and Canada's national interests, both at home and abroad.

"The RCAF will continue to maintain its current level of operational and readiness excellence by examining and implementing new ways of achieving the military effects required, becoming more innovative, more agile, and more adaptable."

But 1 Canadian Air Division's 2014-15 business plan says the "extremely limited manning and financial flexibility that exists in the Air Force restricts the effectiveness with which we can fulfill our mandate." It adds that underfunding "will eventually impact the RCAF's ability to conduct operations."

NDP defence critic Jack Harris says the "damning warning" makes it even more important for the Conservative government to reveal how much the Iraq war is expected to cost, and whether the Department of National Defence will have to pay for it from its shrinking budget.

Canada has six CF-18 fighter jets, two Aurora surveillance aircraft and a Polaris refuelling plane participating in the U.S.-led bombing campaign against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, or ISIL.

All three types of aircraft have seen their planned flying hours cut since 2009, and increasing them beyond the planned rates, for Iraq or any other reason, would require additional government money or diverting resources from other areas.

"They're shaving pretty close to the bone there when it comes to cutting back on these hours," Harris said.

"The question becomes: Where is the money coming from for Iraq? If they hide it by cutting back on flying hours outside of that, then we're going to have a significant impact on other operations for the air force."

Liberal defence critic Joyce Murray accused the Conservative government of having the wrong priorities by promising to introduce income-splitting while "compromising the ability of the air force to protect Canadians.

"Clearly the government's priority is to be able to deliver a tax cut to families that need it the least," she said.

"They've used the National Defence budget over the last few years as a giant piggy bank to accomplish that objective, which is to deliver tax cuts for the 2015 election."

The Conservative government has slashed billions of dollars from DND's budget and let billions more go unspent in recent years to help eliminate the federal deficit and pay for the government's promises before this year's election.

But the cuts have had visible impacts.

The army has parked a large number of trucks and other support vehicles to reduce maintenance costs; the navy has docked coastal patrol ships; training exercises have been scaled back; and orders for spare parts postponed or cancelled.

Less obvious has been a gradual reduction in the amount of flying hours for the Royal Canadian Air Force's numerous aircraft fleets.

1 Canadian Air Division's business plans show total planned flying hours were cut 11 per cent from 2009 to 2014.

That includes 13-per-cent fewer flying hours for the RCAF's CF-18 fighter-jet fleet, 30-per-cent less for its Aurora surveillance planes, a 26-per-cent cut for its Globemaster transport aircraft, and a 44-percent reduction for the Polaris refuelling planes.

Planned flying hours also dropped by five per cent for the RCAF's ancient Buffalo searchand-rescue airplanes and Tutor jets used by the Snowbirds aerial acrobatic team, and nearly four per cent for the air force's aged Sea King helicopters.

The cuts were partially offset with the addition of new Chinook transport helicopters, Cyclone search-and-rescue helicopters and King Air training planes. But the only previously existing aircraft with more airtime in 2014 were the Cormorant search-and-rescue helicopters and executive Challenger planes.

The 2014-15 business plan also states that "aircrew/ground crew training are increasing in cost as funding levels continue to drastically decline."

In addition, plans to cut costs with simulators and other measures, "although promising, are not immediately possible as they are either not yet available or lack the required fidelity."

Annual increases to the price of chemicals for removing snow and ice from runways "continue to erode budgets," the report says, while diesel shortages had resulted in cuts to heavy equipment driver training "critical" to keeping runways clear and supporting overseas missions.

"Manning shortfalls and inadequately funded vehicles maintenance budgets have resulted in a reduction of preventive maintenance at the Wings, resulting in increased corrective maintenance at an overall higher cost," the business plan adds.
 
One option is to move the cost of procuring from the DND budget, not the actual final cost of the equipment itself, but the cost of running a competition to PW or similar. That would free up more money from the defense budget to buy actual kit, employ more PY's. If PW can't charge DND for the costs but is responsible, then there might be incentive to streamline the process.
 
So, it would appear that Op IMPACT has cost over $122M from Oct to today.  This is all actual cost to the CAF and does not include fixed costs like pay.  Also missing is the month of Sep when CANSOF first deployed.

The Canada First Defence Strategy pledged overseas missions would be paid for through a special budgetary appropriation from Parliament.  Too bad that policy has been silently dropped.  Instead, these costs have will be added to the Afghan training mission in Kabul and the Libya campaign as expenses cut out of the defence budget.
 
A little late but they are doing it.  The government has asked Parlaiment for almost $140 million to cover the costs of Op IMPACT and Op REASURANCE in the 14/15 FY.

http://news.gc.ca/web/article-en.do?nid=935889&tp=980

... but, when that money arrives and previously diverted funds flow back to where they were formerly budgeted, what is our ability to spend all of that before end FY?
 
MCG said:
... but, when that money arrives and diverted funds flow back to where they were previously budgeted, what is our ability to spend all of that before end FY?

I can't remember where, but I read somewhere that that is not exactly the case - Departments can move money forward to another FY for certain things like capital procurement.  It's the baseline O&M that can't carry over.  If that's the case (and I may have it all wrong) then I'd hope it goes into some projects (Mukluks anyone?)
 
But this does not look like capital funds, and it would have been O&M taken from elsewhere in the budget to feed these operations prior to these new funds being approved.
 
What civvy organization would include "footwear" in the Capital Budget?  That is considered a consummable and comes out of Ops and Maintenance.  If suddenly the Ops and Maintenance budget was enriched by a windfall (like an inter-departmental transfer of funds) then the manager would run out and immediately run out and restock his shelves - no tenders, no questions.

Which brings us back to McG's question:

... but, when that money arrives and previously diverted funds flow back to where they were formerly budgeted, what is our ability to spend all of that before end FY?

Actually, the "no questions" bit is a lie.  One question would be asked of the manager: "Why did you allow the shelves to go empty in the first bloody place?"
 
The initial procurement to kit the Army with new footwear is capital.  Stocking the shelves after the new footwear is implemented then becomes O&M.
 
Both capital and O&M can be re-profiled, but there are specific limits to how much I each, and it's generally much less for O&M than for capital.  The amount that can be re-profiled is a matter of public record and usually in the order of several hundred million dollars.
 
So, there is reasonable hope that we can spend the Op IMPACT and Op REASURANCE 14/15 money over the next FY?
 
Build me a much needed ammo compound and I think it's safe to say we could make that money disappear.
 
Good2Golf said:
MCG, if I read between the lines of publicly available activities, I would figure a fair amountr could be expended in the new fiscal year. :nod:
Excellent.
 
MCG said:
The initial procurement to kit the Army with new footwear is capital.  Stocking the shelves after the new footwear is implemented then becomes O&M.

So Mukluks, which are not new footwear, is not capital?  They are O&M?
 
The new mukluk project, to replace the old one, is a capital procurement project.
 
Infanteer said:
The new mukluk project, to replace the old one, is a capital procurement project.

Begging everyone's pardon, but I was not aware there was anything wrong with the old mukluks......or am I missing something?
 
Kirkhill said:
So Mukluks, which are not new footwear, is not capital?  They are O&M?
The in-service mukluk is to be replaced with a new mukluk.  Everyone with an in-service mukluk will have it replaced and every in-service mukluk sitting on a supply system shelf will be replaced.  This is capital.  The attrition replacement afterwards will be O&M

If the plan were to not replace every in-service mukluk but to just start buying a new design and to buy it at attrition replacement rates, then it could be done with O&M.  We can see this example with the improved combat uniform.  Pers with the old style uniform will continue to wear it until it is worn-out and can be replaced, old uniforms on shelves will continue to be issued until stock is depleted and then new style uniforms will be issued.
 
Hamish Seggie said:
Begging everyone's pardon, but I was not aware there was anything wrong with the old mukluks......or am I missing something?

That is why it is being changed.


 
Hamish Seggie said:
Begging everyone's pardon, but I was not aware there was anything wrong with the old mukluks......or am I missing something?

The boot does not provide much ankle support.  As well, it is not very effective in wetter snow - while it is an alright arctic boot, it is not ideal for winter in the sub-tundra climates.
 
Back
Top