quote:

---

Canadian military faces collapse and a generation of rebuilding, says study
Tue Dec 2, 6:34 PM ET
- JOHN WARD
OTTAWA (CP) - Years of penny-pinching have left the Canadian Forces on the brink of collapse and it could take an entire generation to recover, a bleak Queen's University study warns.

The document tells the incoming Paul Martin government that it is about to walk into a disaster, with a military that can't be used because of shortages of people and equipment. "The problem will rapidly disarm foreign policy as Canada repeatedly backs away from international commitments because it lacks adequate military forces," said the report, entitled Canada Without Armed Forces?, released Wednesday.
It says the problems can't be solved overnight, because it takes years to purchase major weapons systems and years to train combat-ready soldiers, sailors and flyers.
"There is not much Canadians can do to save this situation, at least not in the term of the next government or even the government after that," the report says. "The descending slope is too steep and it will take too long to turn it upwards for tomorrow's government to benefit from altered policies."
The new government can only start the recovery, but the report says the recovery has to start now if there is to be any hope of restoring the military.
The study was a collaboration between the School of Policy Studies at Queens and the Conference of Defence Associations Institute, an independent defence think-tank.
It outlines major problems hobbling the military, including rusting equipment, aging infrastructure and imbalance in the ranks.
For years, the brass tried to deal with government budget cuts by robbing Peter to pay Paul. Now Peter and Paul are both broke.
Capital budgets were raided to support operations. It was a case of paying for today by mortgaging the future, but the future is now here and there's no money to buy new transport planes, new vehicles and high-tech weapons.
The report estimates that capital needs over the next five years will fall $15 billion short of what's needed.
The air force is likely to lose the oldest half of its C-130 transport fleet, without replacements, while the navy will end up without replenishment ships or replacements for its big destroyers with their anti-aircraft missiles. The army will have problems replacing its heavy truck fleet, which is grinding toward the junkyard.
"The effect on CF operational capabilities will be the complete loss of logistics sealift, airlift and landlift," the paper says.
The ability to meet the modest requirements of the 1994 defence white paper and conduct modest overseas operations with the help of allies "will disappear within the immediate time-frame."
The paper noted that life-extension programs can refit ships and planes for a few extra years of service, but they add crippling maintenance and operations costs.
There's more bad news in the makeup of the Forces, the authors say.
Scrimping over the last decade, as defence spending was cut by 23 per cent, left recruitment at the whim of the budget process. In good years, the military would sign people up. In bad years, recruiting was ignored.
That has left serious imbalances in the ranks in terms of age and experience. Some technical trades are desperate for people and can't find them, while other specialities have a surplus.

The military has a personnel ceiling of 60,000, but that includes every last person in uniform. However, at any time, about 10,000 of those uniforms are people who can't be used - those on sick leave and retirement leave, those in training schools and every last raw recruit.

---

quote:

---

Too many generals spoil the forces: study
Too much inefficiency, authors conclude in call for overhaul
Chris Wattie
Wednesday, December 03, 2003
The Canadian Forces face dire, even terminal, consequences after decades of government neglect and underfunding, but a comprehensive new report on the future of Canada's military has also concluded more money is not the answer.
"About half of the defence budget is spent on military capability related to operations and the remainder on various managerial activities," said the 125-page report by researchers at Queen's University and the Conference of Defence Associations.
"Even though the Canadian Forces has been reduced by 50% over the last 40 years, overhead (measured as the increase in supervisory groups) has increased in the same time frame by 300%."
The Canadian military is overburdened with generals and senior staff officers and a structure that is three decades out of date, the report said.
"National Defence Headquarters (NDHQ), designed in 1972 to meet Cold War commitments and the demands of the Ottawa officialdom, remained essentially unchanged in structure throughout the 1990s."
Canada's military has long been criticized for its high ratio of generals and senior officers to privates and corporals, and the paper concludes the Canadian Forces also needs a top-to-bottom overhaul of its structure, "a huge redistribution of the resources allocated to national defence and the Canadian Forces, and a reordering of attitudes as well."
However, the authors of "Canada Without Armed Forces?" conclude: "Even in the best of circumstances, it might take many years before this transformation is fully effective."
Colonel Howard Marsh, a retired army officer and co-author of the study, said inefficiency and orders imposed by politicians waste "perhaps 40 to 50%" of the defence budget.
For example, the study says the military's training system is too often forced to deal with ad hoc recruiting drives that deliver more new soldiers, sailors and airmen than it can handle.
This May, for example, there were 7,872 troops awaiting or receiving training. "Given that the recruiters are annually pumping 5,000-6,000 candidates into an individual training system that was downsized in the 1990s to handle fewer than 3,000 trainees a year, one should not be surprised to discover that thousands of paid but unqualified ... people are waiting to begin or to complete [basic] training," the study notes.
But in addition to increased funding, more troops and newer equipment, the study also calls for wholesale changes to the way new weapons and vehicles are purchased.
Col. Marsh, a former senior army planner, is scathing in his analysis of the military's purchasing programs, which eat up scarce defence dollars by requiring equipment be bought at a premium from certain Canadian manufacturers.
He cites the example of the army's heavy, medium and light trucks, including the ageing Iltis jeep-type vehicles, which were purchased from manufacturers in B.C., Ontario and Quebec.
"The Department of National Defence paid an exorbitant premium for these regionally manufactured trucks, a premium estimated at 250% of the original manufacturers' retail price. In other words, the DND should have obtained twice the number of vehicles for the same price, or paid half as much for what it got."
The pattern of "regional development strategies imposed on DND by Cabinet" make such equipment more expensive to operate, as spare parts must eventually be ordered from the original foreign manufacturer.
And the study notes that buying even the simplest pieces of kit require years of study and requisitioning.
"Acquiring equipment and bringing it to operational standards require a minimum of eight to 12 years," the study said. "Even the seemingly straightforward project to replace combat clothing started in 1992 and was not completed by 2002."
One of the most serious shortcomings, according to the study, is the absence of an up-to-date plan for the future of the military.
The study notes that since the last Defence White Paper was issued in 1994, the international scene has changed dramatically -- particularly since Sept. 11, 2001.
"But so far as research into public records and other primary sources reveal, no Canadian review of the implications of this strategy on Canada's defence situation has been conducted in Ottawa.
"Certainly, the realities of what some Americans now call 'the Fourth World War' have not caused Canadian ministers to spring to the garrison's walls."
cwattie@nationalpost.com

---

quote:

---

Air Force may vanish by 2013, study says
Military on verge of 'rapid collapse' if funding doesn't soar
David Pugliese
CanWest News Service
Wednesday, December 03, 2003

OTTAWA - Canada's air force, as well as either the army or navy, will likely cease to exist around the end of this decade unless the federal government orders a massive infusion of cash, warns a Queen's University study to be released today.
In Canada Without Armed Forces?, researchers paint a gloomy picture of the country's defences.
If the situation is not fixed, Canada will have trouble exerting control over its own territory, as well as in making a contribution to the international scene and repairing the country's damaged relationship with the United States, the study concludes.
"The next government will be caught up in a cascading policy entanglement initiated by the rapid collapse of Canadian Forces core assets and core capabilities. This problem will inevitably disarm foreign policy as Canada repeatedly backs away from international commitments because it lacks adequate military forces."
If funding for new equipment continues to decline and is not increased, "then the air force will likely disappear through the 2008-2013 time frame, and either the army or navy will disappear in the same time frame."
It recommends the direct intervention of Paul Martin to halt the decline and begin to lay the groundwork for revitalizing the armed forces.
It also says the defence budget should be boosted to $18.5-billion annually, an increase of about $5- billion from present levels.
The report was produced by researchers with the defence management studies program at Queen's University in collaboration with the Ottawa-based Conference of Defence Associations.
Doug Bland, who led the study, said the crisis in the military is so extensive that even if Mr. Martin earmarks a substantial amount of money for the Canadian Forces, the situation would not change immediately.
"Even if he found $3-billion a year for the armed forces, it's not going to solve his problem because of the legacy he's been left with by [Brian] Mulroney and [Jean] Chrétien," said Mr. Bland, chairman of the defence management studies program. "We ran out of armed forces."
Mr. Bland predicted Mr. Martin, who becomes prime minister on Dec. 12, will likely cut military capabilities to solve other problems.
The country's dwindling military will further hurt relations with the United States, which has voiced concerns about Canada not pulling its weight in defence matters, he added. It will also have a direct impact on Canadian sovereignty.
"The real cost to Canadians if this $18.5-billion allocation is not provided will be not simply a loss of international respect, but most likely the loss of control over most of Canada's territory and, ultimately, the forfeiting of national sovereignty," according to the study. "Canadians, it would appear, had best prepare themselves for these ominous apprehensions."
John McCallum, the Minister of National Defence, has dismissed such reports in the past, saying he does not take advice from retired senior officers and military analysts but from the Canadian Forces leadership. To counter such claims, Canada Without Armed Forces? relies heavily on National Defence reports and statistics, as well as studies produced by the Senate and the Commons defence committee.
Mr. Chrétien has also dismissed suggestions that a large infusion of cash is needed for the Canadian Forces. "We treat the military very well," Mr. Chrétien said in October when he visited Canadian troops in Kabul. "They are very well equipped."
"Canada Without Armed Forces?" presents a very different picture. The report notes there are two main problems facing the Canadian Forces for the future: There are not enough trained people nor the resources to train them; and major equipment is falling apart but there is not enough money to replace the gear.
Over the next 15 years, the Canadian Forces will need close to $50-billion to replace obsolete equipment. But current projections indicate there will be only about $20-billion available.
The list of equipment that needs to be replaced includes everything from transport trucks and maritime helicopters to Hercules aircraft and fuel supply ships.
Some of the concerns voiced in the report are already starting to materialize. Next month the navy on the East Coast will be without a refuelling ship after the one such vessel based in Halifax goes into dry dock. The 33-year-old HMCS Preserver will receive an $18-million overhaul from January to November. In the meantime, the navy's ships will have to come into port more often to refuel or rely on allies, such as the Americans, to provide supplies and fuel at sea.
The report also points out that much of the military's capability to transport troops, whether by air, land or sea, will need replacing.
Mr. Bland said he expects the government will argue the problems are not as bad as they are portrayed and that the military has been receiving funding and new equipment such as the $600-million Stryker Mobile Gun System. But he said that in the case of the Strykers, it will be several years before the armoured vehicles are delivered.
The study traces the decline of the Canadian military over decades. From 1985 to 1987, the Canadian defence budget accounted for 2.2% of the country's gross domestic product. Since 1994, the defence budget has dropped from 1.7% to 1.1%, according to the report.
The study also raises concerns about the cost of overseas operations and where the money will come from to pay for those. It estimated the price-tag for the mission in Kabul, along with other operations, will be approximately $2-billion, but it is unclear where the military will get the funds.
"Afghanistan is a bottomless pit for money," Mr. Bland said.
Over the years, the military's equipment budget has been raided to pay for such operations, he added.
The study recommends a planned review of defence issues deal immediately with the crisis and recommend ways in which current forces might be stretched and preserved until replacements come on line. The review should also focus on how to rebuild and transform the military, including looking at the reform of how the federal government buys equipment.
(Ottawa Citizen)

---

quote:

---

Cutbacks crippling Armed Forces, Martin told
By DANIEL LEBLANC
From Wednesday's Globe and Mail

Ottawa — Prime-minister-in-waiting Paul Martin will inherit a military that lacks the personnel and the equipment for the overseas missions that would normally be dictated by Canada's foreign policy, a report to be released Wednesday says.
Edited by Professor Douglas Bland of Queen's University, the report argues that the Canadian Forces will be unable to perform crucial functions in coming years — at home and abroad — because of the funding cutbacks of the 1990s.
When Mr. Martin was the minister of finance in 1995, he cut funds to the Department of National Defence by about $2-billion a year. As a result, DND was forced to dip into its capital budget, which is designed to build the Canadian Forces for the future, not to pay for day-to-day operations.
DND received a $1-billion boost to its annual budget this year, bringing it back to its 1993 level of $13-billion a year.
But the new report — called Canada Without Armed Forces? — says that military personnel and assets will keep deteriorating in coming years before the impact of the new money is felt and things start to improve.
The report, prepared with the Conference of Defence Associations, says this will affect Canada's ability to defend its territory and embark on overseas missions.
"The next government will be caught up in a cascading policy entanglement initiated by the rapid collapse of Canadian Forces core assets and core capabilities," the report says.
"Even if the next government were to provide nearly unlimited funds in an attempt to overcome this deficit, little can be done before the apprehended crisis becomes fact. The downward slope of the capabilities curve is too steep, and the slide is too fast."
In an interview, Defence Minister John McCallum rejected the argument that the Canadian Forces are teetering on the edge of irrelevance. However, Mr. McCallum acknowledged that the military will soon be limited in their deployments, after going through a wide variety of land, sea and air operations since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
"It is true that we have had large deployments. The navy, for example, has done a two-year marathon," he said.
Canada is in the midst of deploying almost 4,000 soldiers to Afghanistan over a one-year period, and the army will be looking to catch its breath afterward.
"We cannot sustain the numbers that we currently have in Afghanistan beyond a one-year commitment. . . . As I said, you cannot be on a permanent marathon, so there will be a period where we are required to do less than we have been doing since Sept. 11," Mr. McCallum said.
Over all, the report says the Canadian Forces are facing a $15-billion shortfall for major equipment purchases over the next five years. While the Canadian Forces are promising to buy billions of dollars worth of new vehicles in coming years, including helicopters and armoured vehicles, the report says the military will have to cope with inferior equipment while it waits.
In particular, the report says the Canadian Forces will lose air- and sea-cargo capabilities over the next five years. This will "severely limit participation in international peace and stability operations throughout this decade and the next."
While Mr. Martin has vowed to make defence a priority, the report says that any attempt at a quick fix is doomed to fail.
"The time required to replace major equipment, develop coherent military capabilities, and rebuild the 'trained effective strength' of the armed forces simply exceeds the mandate of the next government," the report says.
Today, Mr. McCallum will scold his NATO partners for their lack of political commitment to the war on terrorism in a speech in London, England.
Mr. McCallum will say that he cannot understand why no country from the North Atlantic Treaty Alliance has stepped up to replace Canada in Kabul next August.
"The engagement of only a few countries is not enough. Afghanistan needs greater commitment from all NATO nations. And so far, this commitment seems to be lacking," reads the written copy of Mr. McCallum's speech.
"For example, we still do not know who will take over from the Canadian Forces after we will have completed our one-year commitment, at the end of August, 2004. This should not be the case."
Mr. McCallum points out that NATO — "the most successful military alliance in history" — had only three helicopters at its disposal in Afghanistan and struggled to find a dozen more.

---

quote:

---

The military has a personnel ceiling of 60,000, but that includes every last person in uniform. However, at any time, about 10,000 of those uniforms are people who can't be used - those on sick leave and retirement leave, those in training schools and every last raw recruit.

---