Go Back   DefenceTalk Forum - Military & Defense Forums > Global Defense & Military > Geo-strategic Issues

Defense News
Land, Air & Naval Forces






Military Photos
Latest Military Pictures
Defense Reports
Aerospace & Defence


CANADA / NATO and 2% of GDP Budget

This is a discussion on CANADA / NATO and 2% of GDP Budget within the Geo-strategic Issues forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; Originally Posted by John Fedup Sadly true I think. I will wait until I get a report on what he ...


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 1 votes, 4.00 average.
Old May 5th, 2017   #61
New Member
Private
No Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Ipswich
Posts: 42
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Fedup View Post
Sadly true I think. I will wait until I get a report on what he actually says before commenting further.
Was the speech given to the Conference of Defence Associations Institute event? There is a Globe and Mail article about the speech but if the minister was sending a message, it looks lost. More, less, same funding? What are the essential 18 key procurement programs? Stronger military with less? I still don't quite understand how you can defer capital expenditure but can't find funding for these 18 essential programs? The "Review" should be an interesting read.
BigM60 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 6th, 2017   #62
New Member
Private
No Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Ipswich
Posts: 42
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigM60 View Post
Was the speech given to the Conference of Defence Associations Institute event? There is a Globe and Mail article about the speech but if the minister was sending a message, it looks lost. More, less, same funding? What are the essential 18 key procurement programs? Stronger military with less? I still don't quite understand how you can defer capital expenditure but can't find funding for these 18 essential programs? The "Review" should be an interesting read.
“And So It Begins”: CDA Institute Commentary on MND Speech “Towards a new Defence Policy for Canada” | CDA Institute

This is the CDA's analysis on the minister's speech. Six different accounting firms were used to review the departments costing methodologies in the defence review. I like things properly costed but you would have to ask why you would need six?

I can't see any good coming from this review. Overall, Canada is now trying to do too much, with aging capital equipment and with insufficient funding. It would need to lose or lower some capability to "square the circle". The Liberal government may give defence a post review sugar hit of some extra funding but I suspect something will have to go to free up the large amount of funding that would be needed to get even one or two "pet" Defence Review replacement recommendations up and running. Looking through the list of Canada's defence sacred cows (rightly or wrongly) that can't go to slaughter (SAR, NORAD, Super Hornets,domestic ship builds, bureaucracy, bases) - I am tipping the army may be the biggest loser.
BigM60 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 7th, 2017   #63
Defense Aficionado
Major General
John Fedup's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 2,178
Threads:
Not sure how much real money would be saved with army cuts other than salary and training costs. Their capital projects are less costly and modernization projects are already completed or underway. I think it will be the RCN that takes the major hit although the RCAF may also take a hit on their fast jet program. It will be influenced by NATO to a certain extent. If the $hit were to hit the fan in Europe I would think aviation and army assets might be more desirable than a RCN for NATO.
John Fedup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 7th, 2017   #64
New Member
Private
No Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Ipswich
Posts: 42
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Fedup View Post
Not sure how much real money would be saved with army cuts other than salary and training costs. Their capital projects are less costly and modernization projects are already completed or underway. I think it will be the RCN that takes the major hit although the RCAF may also take a hit on their fast jet program. It will be influenced by NATO to a certain extent. If the $hit were to hit the fan in Europe I would think aviation and army assets might be more desirable than a RCN for NATO.
Sorry, I forgot to add NATO into the list of many things that have to be maintained.
I note your defence minister has nominated an air defence/anti munition system for deployed forces with an approximate cost of 500 million, army engineering plus Griffon and Cormorant updates, as priorities. All important projects but unless there is more funding, then something else has to go or be reduced. The subs are probably on the chopping block and I suspect one less Berlin will come down the slipway. I nominated the army only because it would probably be the easiest to do politically. I don't see the Super Hornet project going, that's a capability gap..ha, ha.
BigM60 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 7th, 2017   #65
Defense Aficionado
Major General
John Fedup's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 2,178
Threads:
The SH interim purchase will likely proceed assuming Boeing doesn't get greedy. The possibility may exist that this interim purchase becomes the "only" purchase if the RCN CSC proceeds with 10-15 ships. Something has to give if the funding isn't increased.
John Fedup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 7th, 2017   #66
Defense Aficionado
Lieutenant General
No Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: NSW
Posts: 2,655
Threads:
I have to agree, submarines will likely not get replaced, and the current Victoria's will likely be paid off to free funds for other projects.

Last edited by t68; May 8th, 2017 at 04:41 AM.
t68 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 8th, 2017   #67
New Member
Private
No Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Ipswich
Posts: 42
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Fedup View Post
The SH interim purchase will likely proceed assuming Boeing doesn't get greedy. The possibility may exist that this interim purchase becomes the "only" purchase if the RCN CSC proceeds with 10-15 ships. Something has to give if the funding isn't increased.
Sorry, I don't see the Super Hornet project going "away" is what I should have said.

Too much political capital invested in that decision to reverse out of it without looking like gooses. Boeing must be over joyed, it is hard to see how they wouldn't be in the box seat for a future follow-on order from Canada regardless of how open and fair any future competition was.
BigM60 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 8th, 2017   #68
Defense Aficionado
Major General
John Fedup's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 2,178
Threads:
Another report on Canadian defence spending recommendations is coming today.....yawn. Note the last paragraph in this article, re procurement.

Liberals talk of significant boost in defence spending, Senators to release new report | Ottawa Citizen
John Fedup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 8th, 2017   #69
Defense Aficionado
Lieutenant General
No Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: NSW
Posts: 2,655
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Fedup View Post
Another report on Canadian defence spending recommendations is coming today.....yawn. Note the last paragraph in this article, re procurement.

Liberals talk of significant boost in defence spending, Senators to release new report | Ottawa Citizen
Any chance you can qoute the relevant paragraph, as it keeps crashing everyone I try to down load the link.
t68 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 8th, 2017   #70
Defense Aficionado
Major General
John Fedup's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 2,178
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by t68 View Post
Any chance you can qoute the relevant paragraph, as it keeps crashing everyone I try to down load the link.
Here's the paragraph. I am leaving Canada for a week or so but will try to provide a link as to what 'this latest senate report" actually says.

" The procurement process, the senators argued, has too many federal departments involved. Current government plans to change the procurement process for large ticket items is unlikely to lead to improvements, they added".(from the Ottawa Citizen)
John Fedup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 8th, 2017   #71
Defense Aficionado
Lieutenant General
No Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: NSW
Posts: 2,655
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Fedup View Post
Here's the paragraph. I am leaving Canada for a week or so but will try to provide a link as to what 'this latest senate report" actually says.

" The procurement process, the senators argued, has too many federal departments involved. Current government plans to change the procurement process for large ticket items is unlikely to lead to improvements, they added".(from the Ottawa Citizen)
Cheers thanks for that, a little bit puzzling how getting some of the cooks out of the kitchen won't lead to a better system.
t68 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 8th, 2017   #72
Moderator
General
ngatimozart's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 4,117
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by t68 View Post
Cheers thanks for that, a little bit puzzling how getting some of the cooks out of the kitchen won't lead to a better system.
I had no probs with the link. I would agree that reducing the number of departments involved must increase efficiency of the system. As an outsider I cannot understand why the Department of Public Works and Procurement is so actively involved in defence acquisitions. Treasury, Foreign or External Affairs, Internal Affairs, Customs having input I can understand. If there are a set of rules and / or guidelines established, then all the Department of Public Works and Procurement should do is audit defence procurement and offer any guidance if such is requested.
________________
The Rules - read them. Ignorance of them is not an excuse.
The Introduction thread for new members to tell the rest of us something about you.
ngatimozart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 10th, 2017   #73
Defense Enthusiast
Lieutenant
No Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Marton NZ
Posts: 538
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by ngatimozart View Post
I had no probs with the link. I would agree that reducing the number of departments involved must increase efficiency of the system. As an outsider I cannot understand why the Department of Public Works and Procurement is so actively involved in defence acquisitions. Treasury, Foreign or External Affairs, Internal Affairs, Customs having input I can understand. If there are a set of rules and / or guidelines established, then all the Department of Public Works and Procurement should do is audit defence procurement and offer any guidance if such is requested.
Many years ago we in NZ had an equally complicated system , involving a department called The Government Stores Board which got it's self involved in all government purchases including spare parts. Dealing with them (I had to during my time at D.Eng.) was at total pain as they had a controlling input but no tech expertise.
Rob c is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 10th, 2017   #74
Moderator
General
ngatimozart's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 4,117
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob c View Post
Many years ago we in NZ had an equally complicated system , involving a department called The Government Stores Board which got it's self involved in all government purchases including spare parts. Dealing with them (I had to during my time at D.Eng.) was at total pain as they had a controlling input but no tech expertise.
Yep remember those muppets well. Had to have a contract for everything. Bureaucracy upon bureaucracy.
________________
The Rules - read them. Ignorance of them is not an excuse.
The Introduction thread for new members to tell the rest of us something about you.
ngatimozart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 15th, 2017   #75
Defense Aficionado
Major General
John Fedup's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 2,178
Threads:
Apparently Canada's defence and foreign affairs ministers will be giving their US counter parts a preview of our defence review paper. To be a fly on the wall for that meeting

No release of new Defence policy just yet but U.S. might get a preview | Ottawa Citizen
John Fedup is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:33 PM.