The Department of Defence says it is underfunded by at
least R7.335 billion for the new financial year that
begins tomorrow. This emerged during a briefing where
the department was seeking to assure Members of
Parliament that Treasury concerns regarding its
strategic plan for the next three years were misplaced.
Treasury earlier this month briefed the Portfolio
Committee on Defence and Military Veteran that the plan
contained no “credible vision of what the Defence Force
should be doing”, partly because it was based on the
1996 White Paper on Defence that Treasury director
Phillip van Schalkwyk said was “14 years out of date”.
He also complained that resources were “severely diluted
across the military” and that although the defence
budget for the coming years had been cut the defence
department has not appreciably reduced its fixed costs.
Briefing MPs on the prescribed form and content of
strategic plans, he said that for defence lacked
strategic goals and objectives as well as a “higher
order focus on outcomes.” In addition, it was “far too
detailed in terms of outputs per subprogramme”, had too
many core objectives (more than 10 is apparently
difficult to manage) and included administrative support
functions that “should not be in a strategic plan.”
About 49 pages of the bulky 108 page document dealt with
operational issues that also did not belong in a
strategic plan. Van Schalkwyk concluded there was a need
for “planners with a new vision for defence that could
be accommodated within the budget.”
The DoD last week responded with a 40+ page Powerpoint
presentation that it hoped would persuade the committee
“beyond doubt” that the strategic plan did provide “a
coherent picture regarding how the department aims to
deliver on its mandate through its core objectives”.
However, the presentation did note a budget shortfall of
R7.335 billion and an operating shortfall of R3.851
billion. It is presumed the latter is a component of the
former.
The DoD was also short some R797 million to fund the
rejuvenation of the SA Army and SA Military Health
Service and needed R411 million to operate the fighters,
helicopters, ships and submarines acquired under the
1999 Strategic Defence Package (SDP). The consequence of
the latter shortfall would be “limited compliance with
maintenance schedules” DoD briefers said.
The presentation added the shortfalls, in addition, had
forced the DoD to “reprioritise.” It added that the
“effects of reprioritisation may not always have the
desired result. It is in light of this that the DoD
calls for additional funding.” The presenters further
noted that the “space to reprioritise is very limited”
as all DoD programmes are important to achieve the
mandate of the department.
One economy is flying hours for the South African Air
Force. According to one slide shown MPs, only flying
training has the same optimal as planned hours (7825).
flying hours allocated to the fighter force, helicopter
capability and transport fleet are all less than
optimal, with the Saab Gripen C and D fighter fleet
particularly hard hit.
The Democratic Alliance earlier this
month – before the latest briefings – called the
situation a disgrace, noting that the implication was
that the SDP acquisitions would spend most of the next
three years either in port or in their hangars. DA
defence spokesman David Maynier noted the strategic plan
cut the Gripen flying hours from this coming years' 550
hours to just 250 in 2011 and 2012, by when all 26
Gripen will be delivered.
Defence analyst Helmoed-Römer Heitman described this as
ludicrous. He noted NATO nations required fighter pilots
to log 20 flight hours per month (240 flight hours per
year per fighter pilot) to remain qualified. This
compared with 550 hours for the 12 Gripen SA now operate
this year and just 250 in the two years thereafter. This
translates to 9.6 flying hours per aircraft.
Te strategic plan notes the Navy will d also spend just
10 000 hours on patrol at sea – despite being
responsible for sea border patrol. In 2012 and 2013 this
would be cut a 1000 hours to just 9000 hours. Divided
between the operational fleet – three frigates, two
submarines, two offshore patrol vessels, one
hydrographic ship and two minehunters – this translates
to just over 41 days per ship for the financial year
starting in the morning; or about one ship or submarine
on patrolling SA's 71 460 square km territorial waters
on any given day. Each ship will spend about 324 days in
port.
"As far as our navy is concerned, it is now clear that
the frigates and submarines were only bought for show,"
Heitman said.
With acknowledgements to Leon Engelbrecht and defenceWeb.
Comments
#1 Helmoed Heitman 2010-03-31 17:34
Mr van Schalkwyk has it entirely wrong. It is not for
the DoD to come up with a vision that will fit an
inadequate budget. It is for the Cabinet to revise what
it wants the SANDF to do and be able to do, and for the
Treasury to provide adequate funding.
#2 Editor 2010-03-31 18:08
Hi Helmoed
You are absolutely right. The DoD must be mandate - not
finance - driven. The last Parliamnt said as much in
early 2009. Let's see if this Parliamet has the courage
of that conviction to use the Money Bills Act to enforce
that view. The problem, of course is the same approach -
mandate v finance - can be aplied everywhere else,
leaving us with a deficit rivalling Greece. AS you say
though, it is in the end for Cabinet to say what it
wants from the military and then make Treasury fund
it...
Shall we watch that space?
#3 Richard
Young 2010-03-31 19:00
The problem is that Cabinet has no clear idea what the
SANDF should be doing.
The last time it had so was probably around 1986.
It's been all downhill from then, mainly post-1995 in
purchasing what wasn't required and what wasn't
affordable.
Added to some serious tricks pulled in the SDPs to get
the equipment then at all costs, only to drain the
running budgets for all time.
It makes for the unfunniest of jokes.
But some among us are smiling all the way to their piggy
banks in Liechtenstein and the British Virgin Islands.
One even in the City of London.
#4 Editor 2010-03-31 19:11
Sigh.
Well put.
It is said it is better to travel hopefully than too
arrive. I don't ever expect a mandate driven budget and
think the"defence update, should it ever emerge from the
DoD (awaited now since 2004), will make little
difference. I'm a pessimist and would love to be
wrong... But I'm not holding any breath.