Defining Foreign and Defence Policy (and hence our Military Force)

[Eye In The Sky]

The fact that they are doing the nation wide tour to sell the plan is a positive sign.

:rofl:

 

[PuckChaser]

I really want to sit down with the "policy" document and compare previously announced spending to what's included in here before making full comment. However my first impression is that this is significantly less than a transformational and far-reaching policy that the Canadian public was led to believe. It reads more like CFDS and simply throws money at problems.

 

[Old EO Tech]

I really want to sit down with the "policy" document and compare previously announced spending to what's included in here before making full comment. However my first impression is that this is significantly less than a transformational and far-reaching policy that the Canadian public was led to believe. It reads more like CFDS and simply throws money at problems.

For that matter, if you look at the tasks that the CAF has in this policy, they are not that different from the CFDS, or the 1993 White Paper on Defence for that matter...only the proposed cash is different.  And for that I will reserve judgement until FY 18/19 when the first 1.2B is supposed to be allocated.  Time will tell.

Jon

 

[Kirkhill]

https://youtu.be/MA2hk_CIZeo

 

[Underway]

Doing some random spitball maths here.  DND is expecting a 6% pay increase for end of June retroactive back a till April 2014 IIRC.  6% of 18 billion is approx 1 billion.  Half the CAF budget is pay.  So as far as I can tell any increases in the defence budget for this year will go almost entirely to pay for the pay increase both current and retroactive.

So basically there is a pay increase, so we'll sell it like we are helping the CAF.  I might be entirely off base with that, and I understand that next year the pay increase will not have as many retroactive accounts to settle, but for this year not to much new money that is usable.

 

[jollyjacktar]

Speak for yourself, I'll find the raise usable.    :nod:

 

[George Wallace]

Doing some random spitball maths here.  DND is expecting a 6% pay increase for end of June retroactive back a till April 2014 IIRC.  6% of 18 billion is approx 1 billion.  Half the CAF budget is pay.  So as far as I can tell any increases in the defence budget for this year will go almost entirely to pay for the pay increase both current and retroactive.

So basically there is a pay increase, so we'll sell it like we are helping the CAF.  I might be entirely off base with that, and I understand that next year the pay increase will not have as many retroactive accounts to settle, but for this year not to much new money that is usable.

I think you are catching on to the reality of these promises.

 

[Brad Sallows]

>So if the LPC actually manage to provide the biggest funding increase to the CAF in decades, does that change people's viewpoint on the party or no?

No.  My opinion already acknowledges all of the acquisitions and improvements that were, in fact, initiated and delivered by past Liberal governments.  Also, consider that "people" are not necessarily single-issue voters.

Regardless of the aspirational statements (which are all budgets really are), I'll need to see it in the accounting facts.  This could all end up on the Corps 86 shelf.

 

[Kirkhill]

OK - Disclaimers

I am not an accountant.
I just end up fighting with them for fun and profit.

Pulling up the CFDS paper's numbers, the numbers that Brad pointed to and the new numbers I come up with the attached spreadsheet.

The spreadsheet covers the period from 1987 to 2037
History is available from 1987 to 2016
Harper's plan covers 2008 to 2028
Trudeau's plan covers 2017 to 2037.
Harper's delivery is available in the history from 2008 to 2016 leaving 12 years of his plan at the discretion of future governments
Trudeau's history is only available for one year and I assume that the working plan for comparison was Harper's Plan.

Trudeau has now published his plan.

First, some changes - always fun.  Trudeau has redefined terms.  Instead of Personnel, Readiness, Maintenance, Capital and Infrastructure the emphasis is now on Capital and Operations - operations to include crewing and staffing (ie personnel?).  Also, the scope of the accrual budget has changed. 

For the amateur, (me) this makes it interesting when trying to find apples to compare with my oranges.

Somethings do stick out though.

Harper budgeted 490 BCAD to fund his DND for 20 years (2008 to 2028)
Trudeau is budgeting 497 BCAD to fund his DND for 20 years (2017 to 2037) on an accrual basis or 553 BCAD on a cash basis.  Is this an increase or isn't it?  Allowing for inflation etc?  I leave that to the experts to inform me.

On the Capital front Harper budgeted 60 BCAD as a 20 year accrual for capital gear.
Trudeau, on entering, and in my view maintaining the equipment standard of the Canada First Defence Strategy with the exception of adding 33% more fighters (65 to 88) has determined that:

He needs to increase Harper's capital accrual by 5.9 BCAD.  Given that the Harper accrual was 60 BCAD and the new accrual for existing projects is 74.2 BCAD can only assume that Harper increased his accrual from 60 BCAD to 68.3 BCAD (a 14% overage) to which Trudeau has added his new 5.9 BCAD.  That means that projects costed in the 2006-2008 timeframe are now expected to cost about 25% more than originally anticipated. 

In addition he is accruing an additional 33.8 BCAD over the next 20 years to fund 52 critical new capital projects. 

That brings his Capital Accrual up to 108 BCAD over the 2017  to 2037  period.

However........

Many of those new projects replace existing capabilities.  In my opinion those capabilities would likely be maintained regardless of the government in power.  Therefore any government, confronted with a capital envelope that terminated in 2028 would have find new money to fund those capabilities for the 9 years between 2028 and 2037.

In the same vein, when the government says it will not need cash for capital projects beyond 2028 ..... I have my doubts.

Partisan source.  Mileage may vary.

On the plus side - where the Opposition used to find it appropriate to big up number yugely in order to make the Government look bad the Government now finds it expedient to big up numbers yugely to make the Government look good.  IMHO the numbers are pretty much the same.  But that's just me.

An amateur.  :cheers:

 

[QV]

Wait, didn't Canada have about 130 CF18s? And due to life cycling/loss there are only 60 or 70 remaining.... so how is getting 88 planes an increase if our original number was 130+?  Unless we are keeping the old 18s flying also....

In years ahead our fighter inventory will be 12... buts ok because they will be 7th gen!

 

[Kirkhill]

My idea of the perfect defence system:

Anything that will Zot the miscreant in front of me anytime I want and doesn't cost anything.

I don't know how many fighters that requires.

:cheers:

 

[RocketRichard]

My idea of the perfect defence system:

Anything that will Zot the miscreant in front of me anytime I want and doesn't cost anything.

I don't know how many fighters that requires.

:cheers:

This says it all. Good post.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[The Bread Guy]

My idea of the perfect defence system:

Anything that will Zot the miscreant in front of me anytime I want and doesn't cost anything.

That certainly makes for an accurate, brief & clear project outline  ;D

 

[Old Sweat]

That certainly makes for an accurate, brief & clear project outline  ;D

Especially if you add "I get the option of shooting first."

 

[Loachman]

Wait, didn't Canada have about 130 CF18s? And due to life cycling/loss there are only 60 or 70 remaining.... so how is getting 88 planes an increase if our original number was 130+?

We had three operational squadrons in Germany, with a total of 54 machines. Those squadrons were deactivated, along with 4CMBG, after we won the Cold War and we cashed in the "peace dividend".

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Wait, didn't Canada have about 130 CF18s? And due to life cycling/loss there are only 60 or 70 remaining.... so how is getting 88 planes an increase if our original number was 130+?  Unless we are keeping the old 18s flying also....

In years ahead our fighter inventory will be 12... buts ok because they will be 7th gen!

We replaced a fleet of 33 Argus MPAs with 18 Aurora MPS...which are now down to 14 total (that's not 14 fliers at any given point).

We replaced the old 77 and 46? set radios with less when they were replaced with the TCCCS stuff.

*Do more with less*  It's the expectation AND reality.  *Well, we only have 70 or 80 CF-18s left now, and we're doing fine.  We don't need more than that.*

The original plan for F35s was 65 airframes wasn't it?

 

[suffolkowner]

I think the 88 fighters derive from the 65 fighters to provide 36 for NORAD the remaining 23 allow 12 for NATO and other expeditionary engagements

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

We replaced a fleet of 33 Argus MPAs with 18 Aurora MPS...which are now down to 14 total (that's not 14 fliers at any given point).

We replaced the old 77 and 46? set radios with less when they were replaced with the TCCCS stuff.

*Do more with less*  It's the expectation AND reality.  *Well, we only have 70 or 80 CF-18s left now, and we're doing fine.  We don't need more than that.*

The original plan for F35s was 65 airframes wasn't it?

You are being kind, EITS.

When the Aurora came on line, we still had 20-25 Trackers operating from shore facilities. While nowhere near the capacities of the Aurora, they nevertheless were useful in coastal surveillance, sovereignty and fisheries patrol and to that extent, increased the capacity that the Aurora's alone would have provided.

These duties are now all carried out by the Aurora fleet. Sure, the Trackers were retired as the cold war wrapped up so, their duties were picked up by the Aurora community at the same time as counter-soviet ASW operations scaled right down.

I shudder to think, however, where your community would be tomorrow if the Russians decided to scale up their submarine ops in the Atlantic and Pacific to even half the level of the cold-war ops.

 

[MarkOttawa]

The cyber side, major post at Lux et Umbra Blog:

Canadian Forces to get offensive cyber capability — but questions remain
https://luxexumbra.blogspot.ca/2017/06/canadian-forces-to-get-offensive-cyber.html

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Blair Gilmore]

I got to sit in on MP Scott Brison's recent talk about the Defence Policy at the CFB Halifax MFRC. The Liberals are fanning out across the country and making all the right noises about the new plans. MND will be probably speaking about the new ships when he addresses the sailors on Monday here in Halifax. Mr. Brison had good thoughts about having the backs of the military and admitted that the transition process has let former service members down in the past. The personnel portion of the policy certainly has good things planned to help members and their families. You can read more about what the MP had to say at the following link:

http://www.happydiver.space/?p=452