The Defence Budget [superthread]

[Monsoon]

You mean take the statistical report from DHRIM dated yesterday, take the total number of officers (Gen through OCdt), and divide by the total number of Reg F personnel?

That's what I did.


EDIT:  Alternatively, I could take the PSRs from DPGR and compare the TEE for officers vs NCMs.  I do not have those figures at hand; maybe that can be a tomorrow thing to do.

Nah, I re-ran mine and you were right - about the numbers. Your point is obviously that 24% is too many, but I don't see any reason to accept that at face value. The entire CAF isn't an infantry battalion.

 

[dapaterson]

Nor would I expect the whole CAF to be organized like an infantry battalion.  To pick on my background, the Army has a fetish for large, over-officered HQs, that is slowly infecting the rest of the CAF organization.  While geographic spread requires some additional overheard, there are economies to be found.  The current Div Support Group HQ structures have grown to be larger than the Area Support Group  HQs they replaced in the name of "economy".

And there is still in theory in force the 1997 direction from the PM to restrict the CAF to about 65 General and Flag officers (from The Report to the PM on the Management and Leadership of the Canadian Forces).  Progress towards that goal was reported annually by the CDS until the early to mid 2000s, at which point it began to be ignored.  We're still (more or less) enforcing the degreed officer corps, another recommendation from that report.

 

[McG]

The entire CAF isn't an infantry battalion.

That's a weak excuse.  Both the US and UK achieve 17% across all services, and they too are accused of bloat.

www.militaryonesource.mil/12038/.../2012_Demographics_Report.pdf
https://www.gov.uk/.../uk-af-personnel-report-1-april-2013-revised.pdf

 

[Edward Campbell]

That's a weak excuse.  Both the US and UK achieve 17% across all services, and they too are accused of bloat.

www.militaryonesource.mil/12038/.../2012_Demographics_Report.pdf
https://www.gov.uk/.../uk-af-personnel-report-1-april-2013-revised.pdf

There is a matter of "economies of scale" at play: we do require some people, many of them officers, to do HQ staff work that everyone, even me, agrees needs to be done and to do some of the that is imposed upon DND and the CF by the government. The fact that we have a small army makes the officer ratio look bad ... but I remain convinced that even if, say, 17% is lower than we can, reasonably, achieve, 24%, which is what we have, is too high.

My first solution is to reduce the rank levels: make directors in NDHQ, and their equivalents in other HQs commanders/lieutenant colonels ~ that's our "first level" executive rank and that's what a director is in a HQ. If directors and equivalents are commanders/lieutenant colonels then directors generals and equivalents will be navy captains and colonels and we will need far fewer of them. Concomitant rank reductions can be and should be made ~ including, in my personal opinion, at the very top ~ and we should be able to cut somewhere between 20% and 35% of flag and general officer and a similar number of navy captains and army and air force colonels. Thos people will, sooner rather than later, retire and the positions can be converted to urgently needed able and leading seamen and privates and corporals.

 

[PuckChaser]

And you're probably going to get 2-3 Cpl/Ptes out of every GOFO you cut, on a simple salary basis.

 

[McG]

There is a matter of "economies of scale" at play: we do require some people, many of them officers, to do HQ staff work that everyone, even me, agrees needs to be done and to do some of the that is imposed upon DND and the CF by the government.

Understood, and I unsuccessfully attempted to find similar Officer:NCM ratios for Australia, Belgium, Neatherlands, Sweden, Poland and a few others (I did find a questionable source that points to Germany being 18%).  If I were to make a wild guess, I would say that we should be able to get down to 20% ... but that 20% should not be the objective as opposed to getting the organization right.

... rank reductions can be and should be made ~ including, in my personal opinion, at the very top ~ and we should be able to cut somewhere between 20% and 35% of flag and general officer and a similar number of navy captains and army and air force colonels. Thos people will, sooner rather than later, retire and the positions can be converted to urgently needed able and leading seamen and privates and corporals.

So, if you start here:  http://www.army-armee.forces.gc.ca/en/about-army/leadership.page (with 7 x BGen, 3 x MGen and 1 x LGen)

CADTC and 1 Cdn Div could each be reduced from MGen to BGen (to match the other "divisions").  At that point, the DComd does not need to be of higher rank than all the subordinate commanders, so that position can also be reduced from MGen to BGen.  The Army Comd could then be filled by a MGen. DG Land Reserves could probably be a Col.  That would leave the Army with 9 x BGen and 1 x MGen.  Is that about where you would put things in the CA?

 

[Brasidas]

...Dentists could easily be outsourced (perhaps moving the military to the public service model of finding their own dental services on the economy, with contract dentists to confirm dental fitness for deployment).
..

That assumption was made in the 90s, and it was implemented. It didn't work - after the expense of paid early releases, the lack of pers to fill positions, both in general and deployable, caused them to do a 180 and wound up offering bonuses to re-hire uniformed dental officers.

 

[dapaterson]

That assumption was made in the 90s, and it was implemented. It didn't work - after the expense of paid early releases, the lack of pers to fill positions, both in general and deployable, caused them to do a 180 and wound up offering bonuses to re-hire uniformed dental officers.

They reduced dental officers; the occupations of the Dental Branch (or Royal Canadian Corps of Teeth or whatever their Pips-and-Crownsified name is) were not eliminated.

 

[Brasidas]

They reduced dental officers; the occupations of the Dental Branch (or Royal Canadian Corps of Teeth or whatever their Pips-and-Crownsified name is) were not eliminated.

Yes, and the reduction was in part reversed.

 

[OldSolduer]

That assumption was made in the 90s, and it was implemented. It didn't work - after the expense of paid early releases, the lack of pers to fill positions, both in general and deployable, caused them to do a 180 and wound up offering bonuses to re-hire uniformed dental officers.

Despite most people having a bigger noggin than I, I think we still need a number of uniformed medical and dental specialists. We can't outsource Med Techs, MOs and nurses.
Same with Supply and Log folks.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Despite most people having a bigger noggin than I, I think we still need a number of uniformed medical and dental specialists. We can't outsource Med Techs, MOs and nurses.
Same with Supply and Log folks.

You're right, Hamish we spent the better part of 200 years learning that communications, logistics and medical services need to be in the combat zone and that civilian contractors, the wagon train and commissariat and a semi-civil Army Medical Department were not the right answer.

Some services do quite well: the UK's Royal Fleet Auxiliary is one example of one that does; but it may the exception that proves the rule.

We need some of each supporting arm and service, and we need some at various levels: logisticians, for example, must be 'expert' at running DPs in the combat zone and managing national depots. They have to have some experience at every level. The trick is: how much of, say, our third and fourth line supply, transport, maintenance and telecomm/IT services do we contract and how much do we staff with military folks? Can we gain some (enough?) useful higher level experience through well designed (one way) exchange programmes, for example? How about 'mixed' depots, etc?

:dunno:  If I knew the answers I'd probably have retired with a helluva lot bigger pension.

 

[McG]

The former PBO reiterates the recent defence spending message of the current PBO.

Government gets poor grade for military spending
Ex-PBO Kevin Page says the government failed to live up to its own promises
David McKie, CBC News
14 April 2015

As Canada gets set to deploy 200 troops to help Ukraine's military in its fight against Russian-backed rebels, Canada's former parliamentary budget watchdog gives the Conservative government a barely passing grade for its defence spending.

In his inaugural Money Page segment for CBC News Network's Power & Politics, Kevin Page says the government has been unable meet its own expectations of boosting military spending and giving the troops the hardware they need, adding "spending in real terms is even lower than when they came into office in 2006."

"[The mark] has to be something like a D, D+," Page told host Evan Solomon. "As a result of the expectations that were raised... you have to give them a very weak mark."

The promise to usher in a new era of military spending occurred under the watch of then-defence minister Peter MacKay, some six years after former chief of the defence staff Rick Hillier coined the phrase "decade of darkness" to denounce the previous Liberal government's military cuts.

"We won't see our military return to the difficult years of Liberal governance," MacKay wrote in a 2013 op-ed piece. "Our government remains committed to delivering a modern, multi-role, combat-capable Canadian Armed Forces able to respond to current and future challenges."

For the first three years of its tenure, the Conservative government increased defence spending, but then it began to cut back.

"What we found is that we're still in the age of darkness," Page said, comparing Conservative military spending to previous administrations.

Another way of comparing the Conservatives' military spending to that of previous administrations is by looking at the cash outlay as a percentage of GDP, Page said.

Here, too, the Conservatives come up short compared to the targets set out in their Canada First Defence Strategy, which promised "stable and predictable defence funding."

But a look at the Harper government's defence spending suggests predictability has been difficult to achieve in the wake of budget cuts and the government's determination to balance the budget so it can offer tax breaks.

In 2013, Peter MacKay said his government was succeeding in procuring equipment and preparing Canada's troops where the Liberal Party had "failed and failed again."

But this spending has not lived up to expectations, Page said. It's still an open question when, or if, the government will buy fighter jets to replace the aging CF-18s that are nearing the end of their shelf life. And it was only recently that the government finally announced it was asking companies to bid on a contract to replace search-and-rescue aircraft that the auditor general warned in 2013 needed replacing.

Since 2006, much of the money set aside for equipment went unspent. According to Power & Politics' analysis of the Public Accounts, National Defence has allowed about $9.6 billion in funding to lapse over this period.

"We're asking Parliament for the money. Parliament is authorizing the money, and the government is still not spending it," said Page. "National Defence is becoming a source of funds to reduce the deficit.

"We're going to need a whole new capital plan for National Defence."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/government-gets-poor-grade-for-military-spending-1.3030862

 

[FortYorkRifleman]

Is it possible that once the election is over and the Conservatives (presumably) win we'll see an increase in Defence spending?

 

[OldSolduer]

Is it possible that once the election is over and the Conservatives (presumably) win we'll see an increase in Defence spending?

I'm not holding my breath. My initial response was to laugh at you.....

 

[FortYorkRifleman]

I'm not holding my breath. My initial response was to laugh at you.....

Wishful thinking on my part, I guess

 

[MilEME09]

Wishful thinking on my part, I guess

It is possible as defense spending doesn't win elections. We know the capital budget was pushed off till 2016 after all or atleast part of it.

 

[TCBF]

- There are entrenched 'sleeper agents' from the anciene regime whose sole purpose in the bureaucracy is to de-militarize the defence budget in every way possible. They try to spend as much of it as possible on tearing down old buildings that are still good, building new buildings that are not as functional as the old ones, handing out 'sweet heart' contracts for glossy communications and IT, and at the same time stalling, dumbing down, delaying and sabotaging equipment purchases and recruiting policy.

- Why a majority gummint led by an old Reform Party tiger has failed to clean out this nest of whores and thieves is beyond me, but the truth may lay in some misplaced sense of national unity.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Some Twitter teases from the federal finance minister before budget time this afternoon ....

• "#Budget2015 will support our Canadian Armed Forces in the fight against ISIS."
• "#Budget2015 will help equip the Canadian Armed Forces to keep Canadians safe. "
• "#Budget2015 will contain measures to help disabled veterans."

 

[The Bread Guy]

Attached is the def/security highlights handout, and the highlights from the full budget document ....

 

[McG]

So, four points for defence:

Strengthening the Canadian Armed Forces by providing $11.8 billion over 10 years through an increase to the annual escalator for National Defence's budget to 3 per cent, starting in 2017-18

This looks good, but we will be waiting two years before it kicks in.  Is this enough to close the funding gap for sustaining our force structure (as identified by the PBO here -  http://army.ca/forums/threads/82898/post-1359065.html#msg1359065)?

• Providing up to $360.3 million in 2015-16 for the Canadian Armed Forces to extend its mission to counter the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL)
• Providing $7.1 million in 2015-16 for the Canadian Armed Forces to deliver training assistance to the Ukrainian Security Forces

This is good and in keeping with promisses to provide specific provisions for international operations and not cover costs out of the defence budget.

Providing $23 million over four years on a cash basis, starting 2015-16, to upgrade the physical security of Canadian Armed Forces bases.

Multi-lane base gates with guard shack for each lane so that we have the capacity to check everybody's ID while not congesting peak hour traffic?