Which Defence Item Would You Delay?

I don't normally put that much faith in single-source stories, but the Globe and Mail seems to have this idea in its head that government-wide spending cuts aren't going to exempt the Department of National Defence (while health care and provincial transfers for education are safe -- but that's a subject for another post). They're basing this on the comments of "one senior government official":

In a briefing this week, a senior government official told journalists that starting in 2011, the government will look for savings by scaling back the rate of growth in program spending. The official indicated that while health care and education transfers to the provinces will be exempt, defence spending will not.

Note what I've bolded. That's probably an indirect quote from the official's remarks, which means that there won't be cuts in terms of less actual money than there was last year. But that's not quite how government budgets work.

How government budgets work is this: The department gets X amount of dollars to work with in Year 1, Y amount in year 2, and so on. The department then plans its spending to happen within those years, as money is made available: project A gets started with year 3's money, project C will use money from years 2 to 5, and so on.

So a government budget cut works as a revision that happens on an annual basis: Z amount for year 3 turns out to be less than expected, therefore project A must either be dropped, or delayed until year 6 when project C will have been completed. Or someone will negotiate a longer payment period for project C in order to accommodate project A, if spending happens sooner.

Now, the Globe focuses on five major capital projects for DND, as targets for reduced spending. None of these items are in danger of actually being cut, mind you; but they can be delayed. Here's what's on the Globe's block:

• Next-generation fighter planes. The current fleet of CF-18s is finishing its third decade in service. Canada needs fighter planes for its NATO commitment, and also for airspace patrols.


• Search-and-rescue aircraft. The current SAR fleet is even older than the CF-18s, and it's never good optics to delay spending on a service that everyone agrees has to be provided by government.


• Land-combat vehicles. This has already been hit by delays due to changing combat requirements. It's a tempting target for delaying due to two reasons: (a) anticipation of a "peace dividend" due to the 2011 Afghan withdrawal, and (b) a serious re-think of the type of operations that Canada should undertake.


• Supply ships. Again, we needs them for our NATO commitment (this time, naval), but our current supply ship fleet is in its sixth decade.


• Arctic patrol ships. Arctic sovereignty has really been a big subject for the current government, which means higher-up decisions on this project are more subject to political pressure than the others.

So: the object of this particular exercise. Note that there is no "all of them equally" or "none at all" choice; such a decision merely avoids the point. You're going to pretend that you're the Defence Minister, and your people have just told you that one project has to be pushed back a year in order to meet your budget restraint goals. Which one will it be?