The Defence Budget [superthread]

[Edward Campbell]

It seems to me that this is a continuation of the discussion in our (existing) Defence Budget [merged, Bruce] thread. The Great Recession is still with us, and despite the real, pressing needs in National Defence (and a very few other spending envelopes) governments are not inclined to spend on anything that is not a "vote getter" - and defence spending is never popular with more than a small minority of Canadians.

 

[chrisf]

Search and rescue, now there's a thought. Why are there any domestic military units with SAR as a primary task when a civillian agency could accomplish exactly the same task cheaper, and potentially more efficiently due to less reduced red tape?

 

[vonGarvin]

Search and rescue, now there's a thought. Why are there any domestic military units with SAR as a primary task when a civillian agency could accomplish exactly the same task cheaper, and potentially more efficiently due to less reduced red tape?

First of all, awesome profile pic!

Anyway, I think part of the answer may lay in the fact that any national search and rescue organisation ought to be that: national.  I realise that provinces have their own, and if I'm not mistaken, there are clear boundaries for "who searches when".  The other part of why may be due to the unlimited liability "clause" that the military has.  If a search and rescue agency were comprised solely of civilians, then there would perhaps be issues.  I'm not sure.  But I think the main reason is that the national level search and rescue "task" is best suited for the military, given its experiences, and expertise, in the area.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Because for all the talk of private enterprise saving "tons" of money, time, etc., that seems to only work out on paper, never in real life.

Lets see, same planes, same fuel, same wages, add in profit margin,......oh, oops......

 

[chrisf]

First of all, awesome profile pic!

THANK YOU! I changed that a few months ago and have been secretly hoping somone would comment on it.

Anyway, I think part of the answer may lay in the fact that any national search and rescue organisation ought to be that: national.  I realise that provinces have their own, and if I'm not mistaken, there are clear boundaries for "who searches when".  The other part of why may be due to the unlimited liability "clause" that the military has.  If a search and rescue agency were comprised solely of civilians, then there would perhaps be issues.  I'm not sure.  But I think the main reason is that the national level search and rescue "task" is best suited for the military, given its experiences, and expertise, in the area.

I could understand if they were combat SAR units, but they're not, they have little to no defence application (If there is, I've missed it and appologize), yet they're lumped into the defence budget.

If we rid ourselves of primary SAR taskings, that frees up a lot of people, a lot of resources, and we never again have to hear "Well ok, but what does this do for search and rescue" when trying to buy a fighter jet or a tank. (We even get to say "None. It's a tank. It kills people.")

According to the Canada command website, we have approx 160 SAR techs. That's arguably 160 of our best troops tied up in a role that has no combat application (Admitedly, anyone working in a SAR tech role is there because they want to be there, but that's beside the point). Plus associated staff and logistic tail.

So either make a new federal agency, or better yet use an existing federal agency. The coast guard would be a prime candidate for this tasking, they already have SAR taskings, they have facilities in most areas of Canada, and have experience maintaing air assets. Give them our primary SAR taskings (As well as sufficient resources to handle the increased work load, and expand inland), and they'd probably do it more efficiently (Not better, but more efficiently).

Money is saved in cutting the logistics tail that comes with a military unit. No annual postings, operate air assets out of private air strips, etc.

Of course, it's only fair that we'd be expected to maintain secondary SAR roles in the air force and navy (Heck make army pers available for GSAR on a limited basis, when they're in garrison, most units can spare at least a few), but if it doesn't have a combat application, it shouldn't be on our budget.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

I am certainly no expert on SAR, but I would venture every ship that has needed someone taken to hospital, every plane that has 'landed', not of its own accord, or even a lost soldier in the Artic might think it would have a "combat application".

IMO, of course.

 

[chrisf]

I am certainly no expert on SAR, but I would venture every ship that has needed someone taken to hospital, every plane that has 'landed', not of its own accord, or even a lost soldier in the Artic might think it would have a "combat application".

None of those things have anything to do with a combat application.

Don't get me wrong, it's very important, but it's not somthing that ONLY the military can do.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

None of those things have anything to do with a combat application.

I think we're taking this thread far of it's topic, however, I'm sure a torpedoed ship or a shot down pilot might like to think they are "combat".

Or are we just talking about what you consider "combat"?


..and to get back on "Defence Budget", can you come up with some sort of numbers that show the saving?  I've been doing the 'Govt" thing pretty much since I was 17 and have seen many 'save money' schemes that have, and some that still are, costing us lots of dollars. And just to clarify, my ideology is less govt., however my experience hasn't borne that out yet.

Bruce

 

[captloadie]

From Wikipedia:

"Canadian defence policy today is based on the Canada First Defence Strategy,[12] introduced by the Conservative Government of Stephen Harper after he took office in 2006. Based on that strategy, the Canadian military is oriented and being equipped to carry out six core missions within Canada, in North America and globally. Specifically, the Forces are tasked with having the capacity to:

Conduct daily domestic and continental operations, including in the Arctic and through NORAD (the North American Aerospace Defense Command);
Support a major international event in Canada, such as the 2010 Winter Olympics;
Respond to a major terrorist attack;
Support civilian authorities during a crisis in Canada such as a natural disaster;
Lead and/or conduct a major international operation for an extended period; and
Deploy forces in response to crises elsewhere in the world for shorter periods"

I would say that SAR is one of the CF's primary roles, whereas true combat applications fall further down the list.

 

[chrisf]

There's no question that (domestic) SAR is a primary tasking of the military, my point is it shouldn't be on our budget, it should be on somone elses.

Here's a question, theoretically, we invade north korea tommorow. Can you pick up 103 sqn, drop them in Seoul, and put them on standby for combat SAR?

 

[captloadie]

So you have your opinion on what our priorities should be.

Unfortunately for you, Stephen Harper and the Government set the priorities, and domestic and continental operations come first, and always will. The role of the military is and will likely always be, Canada first. Ask Joe Bloggins on the street if they think their tax dollars are better spent doing National SAR, or fighting a war in the middle east, and I would feel confident on betting on what the answer would be.

 

[aesop081]

Can you pick up 103 sqn, drop them in Seoul, and put them on standby for combat SAR?

No, you can't.

But make no mistake. If you take National SAR and give it to another department, the money and everything that goes with it ( personel, aircraft,etc...) will not stay with DND. It will not simply be funded from someone else's budget. The money for national SAR will follow national SAR.

 

[chrisf]

No, you can't.

But make no mistake. If you take National SAR and give it to another department, the money and everything that goes with it ( personel, aircraft,etc...) will not stay with DND. It will not simply be funded from someone else's budget. The money for national SAR will follow national SAR.

I know. I wouldn't expect it not to. It's a big tasking. No department would be able to do it without the funding and assets.

But, you also stop providing combat training to people who's only tasking is SAR, you stop spending money on annual postings, you stop spending money on career courses where the focus is defence. You get more SAR bang for your buck as a result, and we never again would have to hear "Yes, but what about search and rescue?", because we reply "Remember, we don't do that any more?"

Arguably, the only way a SAR unit has a combat application is if it's deployable, and in order to be deployable, it can't leave a hole in domestic SAR by going.

Capt Loadie:  This is a discussion forum. Specificly, this is a discussion thread about defence budget. The intent is to discuss this things. Shy of running for office, none of us have any effect on any of the political subjects we discuss, and very little effect on any of the military subjects we discuss.

If you're not interested in intelligent discussion, may I suggest Yahoo! answers as a much more appropriate destination? I'm in the middle of a snow day at the moment and have little else to do, as I'm waiting on some linseed oil to harden.

You're quite right, I'm also certain that Joe public would prefer to see their tax dollars spent on SAR. My point is if what we take from our budget what we spend on SAR, and transfer it to another agency, Joe Public gets a more efficient use of their tax dollars, and we ultimately save money.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

My point is if what we take from our budget what we spend on SAR, and transfer it to another agency, Joe Public gets a more efficient use of their tax dollars, and we ultimately save money.

A point without facts isn't all that sharp. Just in a few posts you have gone from give SAR to the private sector to give it to another Govt. agency, and not shown how either one saves a single dime.

Just speculation......

 

[chrisf]

A point without facts isn't all that sharp. Just in a few posts you have gone from give SAR to the private sector to give it to another Govt. agency, and not shown how either one saves a single dime.

Fee free to point out where I suggested transferring SAR to the private sector. If you can find it, I'll buy you a beer.

The money is saved in not training people who have no combat role for combat, and in eliminating the extra logistic tail imposed by being attached to the military. I've pointed these things out as well.

 

[aesop081]

But, you also stop providing combat training to people who's only tasking is SAR, you stop spending money on annual postings, you stop spending money on career courses where the focus is defence.

What combat training ?

Postings ? Thats making the broad assumption that any department taking over SAR would not have to move people around.

 

[chrisf]

What combat training ?

Basic training, any trade courses, career courses, as well as on going training and operations prior to either transferring to the SAR tech trade, or being posted to a SAR unit in a support role, as well as any on going annual qualifications, such as range time. As well as tactical/combat flying training for pilots. Have I missed anything?

Postings ? Thats making the broad assumption that any department taking over SAR would not have to move people around.

Show me another department that will pack up and move it's employees/families every four years.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

civillian agency could accomplish exactly the same task cheaper, and potentially more efficiently due to less reduced red tape?

This is where it appears I thought you meant private. Not being military and all, my thought was civilian meant private,.....my bad.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Show me another department that will pack up and move it's employees/families every four years.

RCMP?

 

[chrisf]

This is where it appears I thought you meant private. Not being military and all, my thought was civilian meant private,.....my bad.

Fair enough, I can see the ambiguity. Though aside from the RCMP, I can't think of any other federal government agency that isn't "civillian".

Like I said, best option would be to transfer the tasking (and associated funding) to the coast guard, they already have SAR experience, SAR taskings, facilities in most regions of Canada, and experience maintaining and operating air assets.