To my great surprise I recently noticed that, despite being deeply engaged in wars against at least four determined enemies, Israel doesn’t spend all that much more on their military than Canada does on its forces.
‘The IDF is based on conscription. Their “regulars” are conscripts.
The CAF is staffed by professionals - people who do it for a career. Personnel costs are vastly higher. Our “defence spending” also includes military pensions and veterans affairs benefits - again vastly higher.
Then factor in the massive discounts Israel receives from the US by way of indirect subsidies…
It would be far, far better to compare Canada with another country with a fully professional military. For now, you’re comparing apples and oranges.’
David, a few questions come to mind. Primarily, what's included in the defense expenditure figures in the third paragraph? Apparently there are games played when it comes to counting that sort of thing, for example by including spending on Veteran support which is unrelated to the listed equipment. Another question is that you appear to assume that the listed equipment was purchased, whereas some of it is operated under a lease agreement.
Honestly I have no clue what numbers drove those figures - and I acknowledge that everything here is built on estimates. But I think it's reasonable to expect a government to answer to what at least appear to be official totals.
You're right that there are equipment leases here (particularly the main battle tanks). But the total TCO amortized costs of a lease certainly won't be lower than up-front capital expenses.
From Substack ‘Black Cloud Six’:
‘The IDF is based on conscription. Their “regulars” are conscripts.
The CAF is staffed by professionals - people who do it for a career. Personnel costs are vastly higher. Our “defence spending” also includes military pensions and veterans affairs benefits - again vastly higher.
Then factor in the massive discounts Israel receives from the US by way of indirect subsidies…
It would be far, far better to compare Canada with another country with a fully professional military. For now, you’re comparing apples and oranges.’
That is a very good point. Although I doubt it explains the full difference.
David, a few questions come to mind. Primarily, what's included in the defense expenditure figures in the third paragraph? Apparently there are games played when it comes to counting that sort of thing, for example by including spending on Veteran support which is unrelated to the listed equipment. Another question is that you appear to assume that the listed equipment was purchased, whereas some of it is operated under a lease agreement.
Honestly I have no clue what numbers drove those figures - and I acknowledge that everything here is built on estimates. But I think it's reasonable to expect a government to answer to what at least appear to be official totals.
You're right that there are equipment leases here (particularly the main battle tanks). But the total TCO amortized costs of a lease certainly won't be lower than up-front capital expenses.