I'll believe it when I see it.
Justin Trudeau hints at boosting Canada’s military spending
- Thread starter Maxman1
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 21,706
- Points
- 1,260
Hey at least you aren't as bad as the USMC, when they conduct UNS (Urgent Needs Statements) if by 3 years their isn't a program requirement for those UNS items, and if there is, and it isn't identical to the UNS bought items, the system takes them away for disposal.
Lot of fantastic gear got it's start via UNS, but a lot has also been sent to DMRO to be disposed of.
The Army tends to be a bit more pragmatic than that - but a lot of gear still ends up being destroyed or offered to others via DRMO.
Sometimes an OEM will step in, if they where the UNS manufacturer as well as the Program of Record OEM to "swap" the UNS items for a Delivery Order item - but it can be a nightmare that can end up biting the last guy standing when the music stops (ask me how I know when I did some Mk11 Mod1 exchanges for USMC M110's and Army XM110's for M110's...)
FJAG
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 13,664
- Points
- 1,160
The arty experience with UORs during Afghanistan was mixed. A good one was that the 12 M777s bought on UOR were incorporated into a life cycle when the 25 were subsequently bought by project. On the down side manning wasn't adjusted from 7 man dets to the required 10 which slid them into four gun batteries. That has resulted in a misconception in many minds (including some gunners) that a four gun battery is enough and normal. The problem is perpetuated by the operational building block usage concept that a deployed battery is formed around a tactical group of a BC, FSCC, FOOs and JTACs with whatever number of 2-gun troops, STA troops and other resources appropriate for the mission.
The initial UOR radars and UAVs (one bought the other leased) developed skilled operators while the equipment was quickly left behind for newer and better items (although post-war there has been a partial slump and some stagnation)
IMHO, the continued reliance on UORs is a symptom of the fact that the army's combat capability development process is undisciplined and badly broken.
The initial UOR radars and UAVs (one bought the other leased) developed skilled operators while the equipment was quickly left behind for newer and better items (although post-war there has been a partial slump and some stagnation)
IMHO, the continued reliance on UORs is a symptom of the fact that the army's combat capability development process is undisciplined and badly broken.
daftandbarmy
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 31,883
- Points
- 1,160
The Natty Post weighs in, of course 
Trudeau Liberals will never hit NATO target if DND can't even spend the money it has
'Government policy without money is basically rhetoric,' says David Perry, head of the Canadian Global Affairs Institute
The Trudeau government is trying to assure NATO allies it’s moving in the direction of spending two per cent of Canada’s GDP on defence. Meanwhile, billions of dollars committed to new military equipment is being handed back, lapsed, re-profiled or simply not requested by the Department of National Defence.
“Government policy without money is basically rhetoric,” chides David Perry, the PhD in defence procurement heading up the Canadian Global Affairs Institute, a non-partisan think tank in Ottawa.
Perry has studied Canada’s bureaucratic defence procurement process — clogged with bureaucrats from Public Services and Procurement Canada, National Defence, Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada and Treasury Board — and can follow the money.
In just the past few years, David confirms, Canada’s Department of National Defence failed to spend over $9 billion that was in its budget or the government’s fiscal framework for capital acquisitions under Strong, Secure, Engaged (SSE) — Canada’s defence policy. While there’s a general phenomenon across the federal government of departments asking for money and not being able to spend it by the year-end, thus having the money lapse, Perry reports, “it’s been a particularly pernicious problem at National Defence.”
“We took way too long getting that money moving and actually getting it out the door,” Perry says, and now it’s being exposed to a return of normal levels of interest. He’s not alone in his concerns. Canada’s Parliamentary Budget Officer (PBO) — an independent financial expert tasked with tracking planned and actual capital expenditures by the federal government — is raising the same red flags.
Canada has lost buying power at a time when the “international defence industrial market is going bananas, supplying the largest conflict in Europe in 80 years, plus the Middle East, plus everybody preparing to deal with the China contingency,” Perry continues, more urgently.
Not only will Canadians pay far more to fund defence purchases as a result of this flawed procurement process, there are less obvious yet potentially graver hits — to our efforts to recruit and retain military personnel, to our reputation with allies, and to our state of military preparedness. “For the near term, things are pretty grim for the Armed Forces,” Perry cautions, “in the next five-year window, the cupboard is pretty bare.”
“If you ask the Air Force, right now, what they could commit to a real contingency, it’s virtually nothing,” Perry says. For the Navy, “unless it was a real catastrophe, they wouldn’t really want to send our upgraded frigates because of the age, the structure of the hull; for a high-intensity conflict, you wouldn’t want to send something that was built 32 years ago, that’s been sitting in salt water, rusting that long and having all the systems age out.
“Our allies have made clear that they actually see a reputational problem with the performance of our procurement system,” Perry says. And that’s left us on the outside, looking in, on initiatives like AUKUS (the security arrangement with the U.K., the U.S., and the Australians) because, Perry reports: “One, they don’t think that we’ve been serious about it; two, we haven’t committed enough real resources to do it; and then the third piece is they want to see us actually come forward with a credible mechanism to translate a commitment of money and intent into an actual acquisition of something.”
Basically, Perry concludes, our allies don’t have confidence in our ability to take a large assignment of money from the government and go buy something in a timely fashion.
So much has been said about the abysmal state of Canada’s defence procurement, it’s difficult to imagine any young leader being motivated to delve into this morass. Yet this articulate, level-headed, 41-year-old not only has the patience to follow the money, Perry is highly motivated to see Canada do procurement better. “Having just made a commitment to spend two per cent of GDP (on defence) eight years from now, there’s no way to actually achieve that, I don’t think,” he says, “without some meaningful procurement reform.”
nationalpost.com
Trudeau Liberals will never hit NATO target if DND can't even spend the money it has
'Government policy without money is basically rhetoric,' says David Perry, head of the Canadian Global Affairs Institute
The Trudeau government is trying to assure NATO allies it’s moving in the direction of spending two per cent of Canada’s GDP on defence. Meanwhile, billions of dollars committed to new military equipment is being handed back, lapsed, re-profiled or simply not requested by the Department of National Defence.
“Government policy without money is basically rhetoric,” chides David Perry, the PhD in defence procurement heading up the Canadian Global Affairs Institute, a non-partisan think tank in Ottawa.
Perry has studied Canada’s bureaucratic defence procurement process — clogged with bureaucrats from Public Services and Procurement Canada, National Defence, Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada and Treasury Board — and can follow the money.
In just the past few years, David confirms, Canada’s Department of National Defence failed to spend over $9 billion that was in its budget or the government’s fiscal framework for capital acquisitions under Strong, Secure, Engaged (SSE) — Canada’s defence policy. While there’s a general phenomenon across the federal government of departments asking for money and not being able to spend it by the year-end, thus having the money lapse, Perry reports, “it’s been a particularly pernicious problem at National Defence.”
“We took way too long getting that money moving and actually getting it out the door,” Perry says, and now it’s being exposed to a return of normal levels of interest. He’s not alone in his concerns. Canada’s Parliamentary Budget Officer (PBO) — an independent financial expert tasked with tracking planned and actual capital expenditures by the federal government — is raising the same red flags.
Canada has lost buying power at a time when the “international defence industrial market is going bananas, supplying the largest conflict in Europe in 80 years, plus the Middle East, plus everybody preparing to deal with the China contingency,” Perry continues, more urgently.
Not only will Canadians pay far more to fund defence purchases as a result of this flawed procurement process, there are less obvious yet potentially graver hits — to our efforts to recruit and retain military personnel, to our reputation with allies, and to our state of military preparedness. “For the near term, things are pretty grim for the Armed Forces,” Perry cautions, “in the next five-year window, the cupboard is pretty bare.”
“If you ask the Air Force, right now, what they could commit to a real contingency, it’s virtually nothing,” Perry says. For the Navy, “unless it was a real catastrophe, they wouldn’t really want to send our upgraded frigates because of the age, the structure of the hull; for a high-intensity conflict, you wouldn’t want to send something that was built 32 years ago, that’s been sitting in salt water, rusting that long and having all the systems age out.
“Our allies have made clear that they actually see a reputational problem with the performance of our procurement system,” Perry says. And that’s left us on the outside, looking in, on initiatives like AUKUS (the security arrangement with the U.K., the U.S., and the Australians) because, Perry reports: “One, they don’t think that we’ve been serious about it; two, we haven’t committed enough real resources to do it; and then the third piece is they want to see us actually come forward with a credible mechanism to translate a commitment of money and intent into an actual acquisition of something.”
Basically, Perry concludes, our allies don’t have confidence in our ability to take a large assignment of money from the government and go buy something in a timely fashion.
So much has been said about the abysmal state of Canada’s defence procurement, it’s difficult to imagine any young leader being motivated to delve into this morass. Yet this articulate, level-headed, 41-year-old not only has the patience to follow the money, Perry is highly motivated to see Canada do procurement better. “Having just made a commitment to spend two per cent of GDP (on defence) eight years from now, there’s no way to actually achieve that, I don’t think,” he says, “without some meaningful procurement reform.”
Trudeau Liberals will never hit NATO target if DND can't even spend the money it has
"Government policy without money is basically rhetoric," says David Perry, who heads the non-partisan Canadian Global Affairs Institute.
nationalpost.com
- Reaction score
- 21,706
- Points
- 1,260
Netherlands boosts their military capabilities
www.defensenews.com
Seems like everyone but Trudeau seems to have gotten the memo.
Netherlands to add tanks, F-35s, frigates amid warnings of war
With a Russian attack on NATO no longer deemed inconceivable, the Dutch plan to bolster all branches of their military forces.
www.defensenews.com
Seems like everyone but Trudeau seems to have gotten the memo.
- Reaction score
- 5,868
- Points
- 1,090
I don't expect Pierre has that memo either based on his complete and utter avoidance of directly answering questions on military spending (or any questions really). Canadian public memo issue overall.Netherlands boosts their military capabilities
Netherlands to add tanks, F-35s, frigates amid warnings of war
With a Russian attack on NATO no longer deemed inconceivable, the Dutch plan to bolster all branches of their military forces.
Seems like everyone but Trudeau seems to have gotten the memo.
- Reaction score
- 1,360
- Points
- 1,160
But, he doesn't read anything.
- Reaction score
- 21,706
- Points
- 1,260
I'm worried you may be correct - but one can only hope that if he takes power, that he will listen and learn.
- Reaction score
- 1,802
- Points
- 1,260
Quite frankly, the only way any of them will listen is if the US, the UK and the rest of NATO continuously publicly shame us and/or the US begins to seek out other alliances similar to AUKUS and 5 Eyes becomes 4 Eyes or even 3 Eyes.
- Reaction score
- 5,868
- Points
- 1,090
US is back doing regional alliances. We aren't in AUKUS because its regional. Also its kinda myopic (or perhaps cultural chavanistic) of us to complain about AUKUS (or even focus on it), when realistically we should be worrying about alliances with Japan and S. Korea who are far more important for Canada's security then Australia.
We already have a regional alliance with the US that goes well beyond AUKUS, and NATO alliance as well as historial connections to UK.
- Reaction score
- 5,963
- Points
- 1,260
You're right. It took an article in early 1995 in The Wall Street Journal which described us as an "honorary member of the Third World" and our
$ being the "Northern Peso" to wake enough Canadians up to our debt/deficit crisis to give Brian Mulroney the 'political room' he needed to bring in the GST in 1997.
Maxman1
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 1,535
- Points
- 1,160
You're off on those dates.You're right. It took an article in early 1995 in The Wall Street Journal which described us as an "honorary member of the Third World" and our
- Reaction score
- 5,963
- Points
- 1,260
You're right. Mulroney introduced the GST in 1991. He replaced it with the HST in '97. But the impact of the WSJ article remains vital to his (and Chrétien/Martin's) efforts to address the deficit/debt issue. Many, too many Canadians need to be wakened up by the foreign media before they pay attention to important domestic issues.
- Reaction score
- 1,944
- Points
- 1,160
- Reaction score
- 1,802
- Points
- 1,260
You're right. It took an article in early 1995 in The Wall Street Journal which described us as an "honorary member of the Third World" and our
PP is in pretty much the exact same situation that Mulroney was in 1984 - being handcuffed thanks to the ill advised spending of a Trudeau. Anyone remember the handwringing of the 'Brian Drain' that occurred during the early-mid 1990's because of the lack of meaningful work for young Canadians? I have little doubt that this will be happening over the next 4-7yrs when the belt-tightening starts to take hold here in Canada.
I was a product that exodus, I left in 93 when unemployment was over 11% nationally and much much higher for those in the 18-25yr old range. I didn't come back until the fall of 2000, 7yrs later. So many of my high school and undergrad friends left Canada during the same time period and unlike me, none came back.
I've said this before on here, the interest costs on the new Federal debt taken on by Trudeau will be a large millstone around the neck of the country for a few decades. Those interest only payments will stifle our ability to recapitalize/expand the CAF and many other national level initiatives.
EDIT: adding some info on the Interest Payments on the Federal Debit and a link to more information on it.
In the two years from 2020/21 to 2022/23, federal interest payments rose from 11.7 per cent of PIT revenues to 16.8 per cent. And by the end of the upcoming fiscal year in 2024/25, debt interest payments will reach a projected 23.4 per cent of PIT revenues. In four years, debt interest payments are expected to have gone from consuming about one in nine dollars of PIT revenue to nearly one in four dollars. Put differently, nearly one quarter of the money taxpayers send to Ottawa in the form of personal income taxes will not go towards any programs or services in 2024/25.
BLOG: Federal debt interest will consume nearly one quarter of income tax revenue in 2024
From 2015/16 to 2022/23, the government added more than $820 billion in gross federal debt.
- Reaction score
- 21,706
- Points
- 1,260
Regional? UK on the East of Canada, America below, and Australia on the West (or Far East Depending on ones point of view)
You aren't in AUKUS because you are not reliable - it has zero to do with geography.
Keep telling yourself that.
You are in NORAD because it suits us, and mainly because Canada used to be reliable...
- Reaction score
- 21,840
- Points
- 1,360
Doesn’t matter, really. The math will be public when the time comes - though perhaps the here to then plan won’t be known for now. The Government must publicly disclose every fiscal year’s main estimates (and supplemental spending [Supp A, B and C]) and that can be compared to the GDP.
- Reaction score
- 5,868
- Points
- 1,090
Australia isn't important to Canada any more then Canada is important to Australia. UK and Canada, US and Canada have their own regional bilateral treaties. And we have NATO as well. Australia doesn't have NATO. They need other deals.
Canada isn't in AUKUS primary (we are in the technology development and sharing part of the treaty BTW), because its irrelevant to us and irrelevant for US and UK to include us. So we weren't included nor do we need to be.
AUKUS is a nuclear technology agreement to box in China, in exchange for a basing, repair and supply of nuclear submarines. US needs a southern flank, Japan and Korea box them in through the north. If China wasn't a threat AUKUS wouldn't exist at all. It has everything to do with geography. Canada doesn't want nuclear submarines and there is no need to base anything here as the continental US is right there.
Of course it suits the US, that's what all alliances are based on! What do you think they were otherwise? NORAD suits us as well. Used to be reliable isn't a thing, cold hard strategic calculations are a thing. Nations have no friends, only interests. Alliances are based on intrests and geography not reliability or friendship. Friendship comes when interests align.
But please keep telling yourself that being a "reliable" partner ends alliances. It doesn't, otherwise France and Turkey (in particular), wouldn't be in NATO (and a bunch of others as well).
God forbid I point out a logical reality that is unpopular on this board because it doesn't match the "Canada is diplomatic losers" narrative. Carry on with the flagilation.
- Reaction score
- 21,706
- Points
- 1,260
You actually aren’t even a AUKUS Pillar 2 member sorry to be a buzzkill.
Pillar 1 being the nuclear sub part, and Pillar 2 being the non nuclear defense and technology section. They are non 5E in Pillar 2…
Reliability or lack therefore has folks go around you to make new alliances. When someone no longer aligns with your interests you stop helping them. Turkey and France have a lot of issues from their various stunts over the years, not sure I’d want to be compared to them…
Canada as a country hasn’t pulled it’s weight in a long time.
Pillar 1 being the nuclear sub part, and Pillar 2 being the non nuclear defense and technology section. They are non 5E in Pillar 2…
Reliability or lack therefore has folks go around you to make new alliances. When someone no longer aligns with your interests you stop helping them. Turkey and France have a lot of issues from their various stunts over the years, not sure I’d want to be compared to them…
Canada as a country hasn’t pulled it’s weight in a long time.
OldSolduer
Army.ca Relic
- Reaction score
- 15,346
- Points
- 1,260
Sadly I think it will take a real shooting war, and in the first six months troops will die because of OUR lax view on National Security in the 21st century. Only then will Canada "buck up" so to speak.You're right. It took an article in early 1995 in The Wall Street Journal which described us as an "honorary member of the Third World" and our
- Reaction score
- 1,944
- Points
- 1,160
No we won’t. This country will quit before the mass dying starts and everybody knows it.
Similar threads
- Article
