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 Apparently Canada's defence and foreign affairs ministers will be giving their US counter parts a ...


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 1 votes, 4.00 average.
Old May 15th, 2017   #76
New Member
Private
No Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Ipswich
Posts: 48
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Fedup View Post
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
All very interesting, why the delay? It's done, it's for Canadians, let them see it.
The Canadian media analysis on what may be in the review suggests an increase in expenditure but numbers could be "spun" by:
Quickly re-installing into the next 2 -3 budgets the 8 billion of capital expenditure deferred to the future. Looks like you are adding 8 billion but every year you defer all or part of that amount by delaying purchasing decisions.
Pledge to increase to 2% of GDP with a funding plan over 10 years but start the plan just before the next election. You can make big announcements and deflect any criticism that you are weak on defence.
Put most of the additional major planned capital expenditure in the final years of the plan. Makes it a future government's problem.
When you get to those final years, the economy has changed and everything was just best intentions and you are off the hook because voters have forgotten what you or your party said 7 years ago.
If it was a good review, why release it after the NATO summit? Am I too cynical?
BigM60 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 15th, 2017   #77
Defense Enthusiast
Master Sergeant
No Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 346
Threads:
The report has been written hopefully with at least a bit of input taken from the public consultations last year. The senate report that is out is very direct in some of the actions that the upper house would like to see done with and for the Armed Forces.

It takes resolve and political bipartisism to present a viable plan for the future without political party spin. This is what I would hope we can have but I am pretty sure the Liberals will stumble and present a report full of double speak and like others have said push out the funding to a point that makes it impossible to recapitalize the military in a timely manner.

I'm a realist. Never been an optimist.
Novascotiaboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 15th, 2017   #78
Defense Aficionado
Major General
John Fedup's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Vancouver and Toronto
Posts: 2,342
Threads:
Needless to say I am pretty cynical of junior and his minions. This preview for the Americans is likely nothing other than a test to see how low they can set the defence bar. Hopefully their American counterparts set them straight.
John Fedup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 16th, 2017   #79
Defense Aficionado
Major General
John Fedup's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Vancouver and Toronto
Posts: 2,342
Threads:
The defence review report public release date is June 7. I guess they think 3 weeks is enough time to modify it to include any American "suggestions".

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/nation...eleased-june-7

Last edited by John Fedup; May 16th, 2017 at 12:04 AM. Reason: Forgot link
John Fedup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 16th, 2017   #80
New Member
Private
J_Can's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Canada
Posts: 26
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Fedup View Post
Needless to say I am pretty cynical of junior and his minions. This preview for the Americans is likely nothing other than a test to see how low they can set the defence bar. Hopefully their American counterparts set them straight.
I totally agree after this review has been deferred constantly I have developed a cynical feeling that the government has spread out this report before to allies and got shouted down for it. Either because of not enough budget or contribution to collective/ continental defence, that is just me though. I do not except much from this current government in the defence portfolio personal. Yet even if they deliver only on what the defence minister talked about in his is speech to the defence industry I would be very relieved. Not happy mind you but air defence, new trucks, mlu for the helo fleets, the replacement frigates, and a fast air fleet would make my eyes water. In Canada we have not seen such a recapitalisation like that since the 1980's maybe even the golden era of defence spending in the late 1950's.
J_Can is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 16th, 2017   #81
Defense Enthusiast
Master Sergeant
No Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 346
Threads:
While I agree an MLU of the Cormorant is needed and the return to the air of the stored Kestrels I believe we should be seeking military fit for service helicopters as replacements for the Griffin fleet sooner rather than later.

The Griffon fleet should be sold off to foreign militaries of smaller nations. Acquire a mixed fleet of aircraft better suited to ARH and a medium lift than the civil 412.

Let's hope that the navy receives a second Resolve tanker as noted in the Senate report. As to the other items all of it can be funded if the government would stop meddling on a local level. Cut bases and amalgamate our limited resources in centralized super bases instead of having so much physical infrastructure to look after. Many of the bases that were built during WW2 or the Cold War are in poor locations that only serve to support a local civilian population. Nova Scotia hosts three bases in Greenwood SAR and LRMP/ ISR, Halifax for navy and Shearwater for naval air. Shearwater is the only base in all of Canada with rail, sea and air capability. If anything this base should be expanded as our expiditionary launch point. But because it's in NS and there is no political buy from investing in improvements nothing will happen.

We need to rationalize the bases and free up cash. Buy the right gear in the right numbers. Give our men and women to tools to do their job safely. Protect those that protect us. Stop buying junk.
Novascotiaboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 16th, 2017   #82
Defense Aficionado
Major General
John Fedup's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Vancouver and Toronto
Posts: 2,342
Threads:
I agree base consolidation would be an important way to increase savings and improve efficiency. However, the political blowback, both federally and provincially, is a bridge too far IMHO. Base closings are also a painful process for the US as well. As for improvements to the helicopter fleet, yes ARHs and better medium lift helicopters are needed. At this point, I am not sure about medium lift. If the Cyclones are finally sorted, then adding some more without all the specialized kit in the naval version makes sense. Maybe 2-3 of the Kestrels could be be made flight worthy and keep the rest for parts. I sure hope the RCN get Cyclones that meet the agreed to specs. AFAIK, they still have serious deficiencies. Are they still grounded?
John Fedup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 16th, 2017   #83
New Member
Private
J_Can's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Canada
Posts: 26
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Fedup View Post
I agree base consolidation would be an important way to increase savings and improve efficiency. However, the political blowback, both federally and provincially, is a bridge too far IMHO. Base closings are also a painful process for the US as well. As for improvements to the helicopter fleet, yes ARHs and better medium lift helicopters are needed. At this point, I am not sure about medium lift. If the Cyclones are finally sorted, then adding some more without all the specialized kit in the naval version makes sense. Maybe 2-3 of the Kestrels could be be made flight worthy and keep the rest for parts. I sure hope the RCN get Cyclones that meet the agreed to specs. AFAIK, they still have serious deficiencies. Are they still grounded?
they were re-grounded if I remember correctly about a month ago they never announced anything new about them. In regards to base closures all that has needed to be said has been. I think the real savings in the CF is structural imo (ill speak more about the army because that is what I know).

I for the life of me do not understand why the army has 10 reserve brigades plus another five regional divisional hq? You know the army does not take these as serious combat formations when divisional commander posting are brigadier generals and brigade commander posting are colonels. Keep the reg force brigades but cut down the reserve brigades to five. One in Vancouver, one in Winnipeg, one in Toronto, one in Montreal, and one Halifax. Actually recruit the remaining reserve units to fully strength battalions/ regiments (800 odd personal). The unit locations would not change but you would not have all this bloated reserve hq for a battalion that manage a company battlegroup sized unit at most. We have such a large amount of our in strength in these needless or duplicate army hqs. Why have a joint-op regional commands when the army duplicates those through their divisional hq, its so crazy.

Only the 1st Divisional HQ based out of Kingston is deployable but has nothing organic to it outside orphaned units such as ew and a supposed aa regiment. Our construction works regiment is spread out across the country for some reason, even though they know have no base support purpose, they literally construct. Keep the 1st Divison as is give it actual combat enablers; rockets, aa, nbcr, mp, ew, field hospitals ext... Essentially pool all non-brigade army combat enablers into this divisonal hq.

Then leave another actually full divisonal hq to command the reserve brigades, top to bottom. That or directly place the reserve brigades under joint ops command task forces. While keeping the reg force brigades under 1st Divisional command. This would actually make joint-ops command, joint and useful.

When you think about it we have a joint ops commanded by a three star but nothing is organic to everything is seconded from the different branches in ad hoc manner, that has to change or the joints op command should heavily decreased in size. Either option works but what we have now does not its the worst of both worlds.

Last edited by J_Can; May 16th, 2017 at 07:10 PM.
J_Can is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 17th, 2017   #84
Just Hatched
Private
No Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Sydney
Posts: 5
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Fedup View Post
Needless to say I am pretty cynical of junior and his minions. This preview for the Americans is likely nothing other than a test to see how low they can set the defence bar. Hopefully their American counterparts set them straight.
Amid the uncertainty of the defence review report and the future funding for the RCN and defence in general, it's pleasing to see that Canada still has an eye on their strategic interests as seen through the Southeast Asian deployment of HMCS Winnipeg and Ottawa under Poseidon Cutlass 17.

The deployment has them visiting numerous countries in the region including China but not Australia. That said there are some nice shots on the Australian Department of Defence website (sorry but cannot post link) of the two RCN ships in company with HMAS Ballarat conducting passage exercises and cross decking.
pgclift is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 17th, 2017   #85
Defense Professional / Analyst
Major General
ASSAIL's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Darwin NT Australia
Posts: 2,017
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by pgclift View Post
Amid the uncertainty of the defence review report and the future funding for the RCN and defence in general, it's pleasing to see that Canada still has an eye on their strategic interests as seen through the Southeast Asian deployment of HMCS Winnipeg and Ottawa under Poseidon Cutlass 17.

The deployment has them visiting numerous countries in the region including China but not Australia. That said there are some nice shots on the Australian Department of Defence website (sorry but cannot post link) of the two RCN ships in company with HMAS Ballarat conducting passage exercises and cross decking.
Here's the link to the RAN news article.

HMAS Ballarat exercises with Canadian Navy | Navy Daily
ASSAIL is online now   Reply With Quote
Old May 17th, 2017   #86
Defense Enthusiast
Master Sergeant
No Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 346
Threads:
The deployment of two frigates so far from home port without the aid of a support ship. How sad for the RCN. There should be an AOR with them to support operations and provide our own fuel. The additional helicopters and medical facilities that we do not have in the event of loss of either of the two embarked choppers or serious injury to crew.
Novascotiaboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 17th, 2017   #87
Moderator
General
ngatimozart's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 4,201
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Novascotiaboy View Post
The deployment of two frigates so far from home port without the aid of a support ship. How sad for the RCN. There should be an AOR with them to support operations and provide our own fuel. The additional helicopters and medical facilities that we do not have in the event of loss of either of the two embarked choppers or serious injury to crew.
That's where allies and friends come in. The RNZN, RN and RAN have always deployed far from home sans and with support ships.
________________
"There is one immutable truth we cannot prevent; war is coming, we just don’t know when or where." Brigadier Andrew Harrison DSO MBE
ngatimozart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 25th, 2017   #88
Defense Aficionado
Major General
John Fedup's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Vancouver and Toronto
Posts: 2,342
Threads:
Trump just doubled down on the 2% of GDP at the the NATO meeting. With Canada at slightly less than 1% it is no wonder junior was hiding in the back row during the group photo. In any event it will be interesting to see the defence review report in early June to ascertain if there is any serious effort to improve DND.
John Fedup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 25th, 2017   #89
Defense Professional / Analyst
General
No Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,420
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Fedup View Post
Trump just doubled down on the 2% of GDP at the the NATO meeting. With Canada at slightly less than 1% it is no wonder junior was hiding in the back row during the group photo. In any event it will be interesting to see the defence review report in early June to ascertain if there is any serious effort to improve DND.
He was probably worried Trump would shove him too.
Volkodav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 26th, 2017   #90
Defense Aficionado
Lieutenant General
StingrayOZ's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Sydney
Posts: 2,748
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Fedup View Post
Trump just doubled down on the 2% of GDP at the the NATO meeting. With Canada at slightly less than 1% it is no wonder junior was hiding in the back row during the group photo. In any event it will be interesting to see the defence review report in early June to ascertain if there is any serious effort to improve DND.
It was pretty blatant.

I don't agree with nearly anything Trump says, but I do agree many NATO members aren't carrying the load they should. Of course US presidents before Trump even came on to the scene have been complaining about it for a long time.

If you want to go to <1%, fine, withdraw out from NATO, you are ideologically opposed to the interests of that organisation. I don't think the 2% should be a hard and fast target, but there is an acceptable range. Most countries have plans now to increase and get to near 2%, (even Germany).

I look in to Justin's eyes and I see glassy inaction when Trump was speaking.
StingrayOZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:16 PM.