• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Industrial Strategy - Capitalizing the Canadian Forces

Kirkhill

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
3,133
Points
1,060
D&B: You're right!

'Nudder thought.

How do you keep the inventory in the warehouse fresh. Turnover.

You exploit the National Defence Act



This will also keep the production lines in Canadian factories open. 8x8 trucks from Quebec. Utility ACSVs from London. etc.

Sell or donate a portion of the inventory to Global Affairs for international donations, to the provinces, to municipalities, NGOs, Crown Surplus for sale of secure items to the general public.

That office already exists somewhere in your structure. The poor buggers just have nothing to sell except beaten and abused crap.

So.

In summary.

Buy lots of utilitarian support stuff from Canadian suppliers.
Park it in Canadian warehouses scattered across Canada
Establish a sales plan to keep turning the inventory.

Make the inventory available to qualified personnel for domestic crisis management.
Establish the Militia as the key to warehouse and the source of qualifications for volunteers
In exchange to access to this federal largesse the volunteers of the Militia agree to supply a supplement to the Regular Force and also to provide a Reserve in time of Federally declared emergency.

The Regs get a reserve force, augmentation, access to a solid logistical base, freedom from domestic crisis concerns, while gaining kudos and creating an employment situation more likely to attract those that would rather serve locally in a field ambulance than in a rifle platoon in Afghanistan. A situation more likely to attract the service volunteers and the local women of Canada. And the Army gets political credit and budget relief and freedom to concentrate on developing its Expeditionary Force - with the kit immediately available in warehouses all across Canada.

And coming soon to a Theatre near you - Obelix - your floating warehouse and show room.


We can get all of that stuff already on contract, I think, without having to incur the overhead commitment. D&B

But.

Nudder idea.


Subsidize Inventory.


The short form is that manufacturer's of militarily useful kit should be subsidized to maintain minimum stock levels in inventory.

Canada to cover the costs of storing, maintaining and securing inventory of militarily useful equipment. The manufacturer is permitted to sell from inventory on the understanding that the minimum inventory level is maintained and the remaining inventory is maintained at "NTM" in regional warehouses.

Minimum maintenance level to be established as DND's estimated surge requirement to cover emergencies.
DND guarantees a constant usage rate permitting the manufacturer to maintain an economical Low Rate of Production.
Broken and Worn kit to be replaced immediately from inventory and disposed of.
Disposition could also include return to manufacturer for refurbishment and return to inventory if valid.

Big benefit to industry - Inventory. Low lead times sell fast.

Benefit to DND - Inventory. Goods on hand.


This is a variant of the WalMart consignment strategy. WalMart doesn't own the stock. It sells the stock for others.


Applicability?

GDLS - ACSV TCVs for inventory
Prevost - MSVS-SMP for inventory
GM - Milverados and Infantry Squad Carriers
Chrysler? - Jeeps?
Ford? - Broncos?
Argo?
Rheinmetal?


Bell - Griffons? Or Venoms? Or even Valors?
Viking - Twin Otters?
Bombardier - Challengers? BRP Products?

Harris - Radios?
L3 - EO stuff?

How about even F35s from Lockmart? MPV hulls from Seaspan? CSC hulls from ISY? Hercs? Chinooks? A400Ms?

Ammo from GD-OTS in Montreal?


Canada gets a steadily refreshed capital and consumable fleet. The vendors get a sellable asset, inventory and a steady income from the wear and tear resulting from training.


Thoughts?


Edit - further extrapolation

With respect to new, exploratory, kit the government agrees to buy one or two models for inventory and experimentation. If acceptable government orders more. If unsuccessful the trials units are returned to inventory for improvement or disposal by the vendor.
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
3,133
Points
1,060
Not a new idea - again

The Dutch have beat me to it

Damen inventory.


Select a product cluster​

Select a product cluster DOP Pumps Dredging Installations & Components Interceptor Modular Vessel Pilot Vessel Rigid Hull Inflatable Boat Tanker Utility / Support Vessel Barge Cutter Suction Dredger Escort Tug Harbour Tug Crew Supply Vessel Patrol Vessel Platform Supply Vessel Pontoon Sea Tug

Select a product range​

Select a product rangeInterceptorRigid Hull Inflatable BoatRigid Inflatable BoatStan Patrol
 

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Relic
Reaction score
10,208
Points
1,160
D&B: You're right!








But.

Nudder idea.


Subsidize Inventory.


The short form is that manufacturer's of militarily useful kit should be subsidized to maintain minimum stock levels in inventory.

Canada to cover the costs of storing, maintaining and securing inventory of militarily useful equipment. The manufacturer is permitted to sell from inventory on the understanding that the minimum inventory level is maintained and the remaining inventory is maintained at "NTM" in regional warehouses.

Minimum maintenance level to be established as DND's estimated surge requirement to cover emergencies.
DND guarantees a constant usage rate permitting the manufacturer to maintain an economical Low Rate of Production.
Broken and Worn kit to be replaced immediately from inventory and disposed of.
Disposition could also include return to manufacturer for refurbishment and return to inventory if valid.

Big benefit to industry - Inventory. Low lead times sell fast.

Benefit to DND - Inventory. Goods on hand.


This is a variant of the WalMart consignment strategy. WalMart doesn't own the stock. It sells the stock for others.


Applicability?

GDLS - ACSV TCVs for inventory
Prevost - MSVS-SMP for inventory
GM - Milverados and Infantry Squad Carriers
Chrysler? - Jeeps?
Ford? - Broncos?
Argo?
Rheinmetal?


Bell - Griffons? Or Venoms? Or even Valors?
Viking - Twin Otters?
Bombardier - Challengers? BRP Products?

Harris - Radios?
L3 - EO stuff?

How about even F35s from Lockmart? MPV hulls from Seaspan? CSC hulls from ISY? Hercs? Chinooks? A400Ms?

Ammo from GD-OTS in Montreal?


Canada gets a steadily refreshed capital and consumable fleet. The vendors get a sellable asset, inventory and a steady income from the wear and tear resulting from training.


Thoughts?


Edit - further extrapolation

With respect to new, exploratory, kit the government agrees to buy one or two models for inventory and experimentation. If acceptable government orders more. If unsuccessful the trials units are returned to inventory for improvement or disposal by the vendor.

I'm right for a change?

Whoa, dude, don't encourage me like that! ;)

season 1 friends GIF
 

Dale Denton

Full Member
Reaction score
125
Points
580
Glad a new thread was made for this. Thoughts read here are similar to what's been discussed in he C3 Howitzer replacement, Force 2025 thread among a handful of others.

I'll add an idea for a 'Canadian Northern Shipping Corp.':

  • Have Vard and one of our icebreaking excellence centres (whatever its called) build a small fleet of commercial-spec RO-ROs converted/modified for ice-strengthening. Multi-Role Support Ships for the Royal Navy – one size fits all? | Navy Lookout
  • Enable the ship to launch barges or similar vessels to deliver to more austere villages. Use of Mexeflote Rafts? – Canadian Naval Review
  • Set up a Crown Corp to act as a commercial shipping company in the Arctic to subsidize food/transportation/fuel costs to isolated northern communities.
  • Use them to allow for better logistics, infrastructure in the Arctic circle for Canadian and CAF.
  • RCN could enter into an agreement to use the ship in emergencies, or build additional hulls for the RCNs version instead.
  • Open an Arctic Navigation Centre of Excellence to train industry in best practices up there, teach them our relevant laws/regulations.
  • It can be a pillar of a MUCH needed northern sovereign strategy, one that actually has details at least..

If industry and the rest of the world is gonna want to travel through the NWP then at least we should at least allow them to use it under our conditions. How long is the strategy of the 'no go away its ours' or the status-quo neglect going to help?

At the end of it all, we have a small fleet of easier to sustain ships to make life easier and cheaper up there, a new CAF capability, and action to our now empty words on arctic and indigenous support.
 
Last edited:

MilEME09

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
3,519
Points
1,090
One has to look at our industrial base as a start, 13 steel mills, 10 aluminum smelters, this gives us a good base for raw materials. The problem then comes in refined material, and rare earth metals. Computer chips are made by about 12 companies in Canada, but not on the large scale needed to feed manufacturers here.

We have all the building blocks we need, just not the will to exploit them into an industrial power house. We could ramp up with government subsidies, which could then feed the green effort to make industrial development more friendly
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
3,133
Points
1,060
Further to my Subsidize Inventory thought

Why not extend the concept to uniforms and IMPs?

And how generous could we afford to be on qualifying vendors for the program?

Could we afford to give a Gold Star Sticker to every company that makes something we MIGHT want to buy? Stuff that could come in useful but we don't need now? Prototype stuff made with the vendor's own capital?

If we subsidize inventory, and the maintenance of inventory, countering the global Just In Time trend, is that something that Canadian vendors could exploit internationally by becoming a source of immediately available materials?


piles-of-sulphur-in-the-port-for-shipping-from-vancouver-vancouver-KPK5BW.jpg


tour3.2.jpg


38_3-col_REL-GSI-pile-storage-1.jpg



Sulphur, Potash and Wheat.

Does the concept extend to Rifles, Chips and Rare Earth Metals?
 

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Relic
Reaction score
10,208
Points
1,160
One has to look at our industrial base as a start, 13 steel mills, 10 aluminum smelters, this gives us a good base for raw materials. The problem then comes in refined material, and rare earth metals. Computer chips are made by about 12 companies in Canada, but not on the large scale needed to feed manufacturers here.

We have all the building blocks we need, just not the will to exploit them into an industrial power house. We could ramp up with government subsidies, which could then feed the green effort to make industrial development more friendly

We've apparently got the industrial assets, but we just don't have the supply chain etc to match. We consistently prefer to do the national equivalent of making bike lanes, which gets votes on the cheap and looks good, in preference to fixing the arteries of commerce which is harder, less 'Instagram worthy' and more expensive.

Here's a report about that kind of stuff:

The Canadian Infrastructure Report Card (CIRC) - 2019

This year’s report provides a timely update on the state of Canada’s public infrastructure across all core public infrastructure asset categories: roads and bridges; culture, recreation and sports facilities; potable water; wastewater; stormwater; public transit; and solid waste. It finds that the state of our infrastructure is at risk, which should be cause for concern for all Canadians. In order to change course, Canada’s public infrastructure will require significant attention in the coming decades. The evidence for the poor state of Canada’s infrastructure comes from the voluntary and federally administered Canadian Core Public Infrastructure Survey (CCPIS). Responses to the CCPIS provide the foundational performance measurement data on the state of Canada’s public infrastructure. The questions align with those used to create the 2012 and 2016 CIRC. This facilitates a direct comparison and gives us an exceptional view of the state of our assets over time.

 

Brad Sallows

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
2,731
Points
1,010
Not just bike lanes; rail transit also.

One of the things about a road is that everyone can use it. The thing about a network of roads is that it is fault-tolerant (ie. traffic can be rerouted). Central planners are not needed to sort out who should use roads for what.
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
3,133
Points
1,060
Is there money to be made from converting from a Just In Time economy to a Just In Case economy?


Bulk transport by rail and road.
Rapid transport by road and air.


Global Transportation Hub Authority located in Regina, Saskatchewan is one of Canada's several inland ports, along with Centre Port in Manitoba and Port Alberta in Edmonton, Alberta. As a Crown corporation of the Government of Saskatchewan, the authority is responsible for marketing, financing, planning and attracting investment for an inter-modal transfer and logistics facility in Regina.[1]

The port consists of a 1,800-acre logistics park a few kilometers from the City of Regina, Saskatchewan. It is situated on the Canadian Pacific mainline and near the Trans-Canada Highway and Highway 11.[2]

As an autonomous government entity, the GTH operates much like a municipality. It is responsible for its own land-use planning and development regulations, governance structure, sub-division approvals, permitting, and enforcement services.

The Global Transportation Hub is also one of nine Foreign Trade Zone points in the country, and the only FTZ in Saskatchewan.

 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
3,321
Points
1,060
The shipping companies will whine if you take away their work in the North. However I like the idea of the Royal Canadian Fleet Auxiliary having 1-2 ice strengthened RO/RO and cargo ship that can provide the north food security and mobility to the Forces. Also one landing ship such as these would provide a lot of mobility for the military and the ability to move engineering resources.

One thing the Feds can stock pile is bridging equipment, the Provinces like using Arcow and other modular bridges, keep a stock of these in depots across the country, Provinces can buy/rent as required and we can even rent/sell to other countries or gift them to missions. The bridge components are already made here. Maybe it's time we devolp a "Made in Canada bridging solution" that meets military and industrial needs?
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
3,133
Points
1,060
Do we have take work away from the northern shipping companies? Or any other companies for that matter?

Can't we just encourage them to acquire more militarily useful ships and aircraft by subsidizing the inherent "inefficiencies" associated with military design?

Subsidize equipment that is heavier because of redundancy, that has more austere environment connectors. Engines that are more rugged. That may not get used as often. That can't carry as much cargo as cheaply as a thin skinned civil carrier.

Don't compete with the civilians. Engage them.

Britain's Point Class RoRos are a good starting point.

Engage the shipping and air transport companies to keep, and use, militarily useful kit in their fleets in return for tax credits and direct subsidies.

Darius's Royal Roads and the British Royal Mail both started as public endeavours that were exploited to build the economy and bring in revenues for the Royal coffers.
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
3,133
Points
1,060
As an example of a militarily useful, but commercially costly appurtenance might be a helipad on every northern vessel over a certain tonnage. It would also benefit the locals during SAR evolutions and civil emergencies. And it would do the crew no harm if one of their number needed evacuation.
 

KevinB

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Reaction score
7,465
Points
1,140
The only problem I see with any of this - it used the DND budget - rather than Emergency Preparedness or Industry Canada, or a plethora of other .ca governmental functions and ministries.


The CF cannot support the costs of the enablers.
It works in the US for the Airlines - as it is only used for transport - not any real military activity.

When you make the Military a society net - it unfortunately drives competition out -- and you no longer get best value for your dollar - or sometimes (as we have seen in the past) even a viable Military item.
 

dapaterson

Army.ca Relic
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
6,272
Points
1,090
You also end up with uncompetitive industry (because they have guaranteed revenue streams and become indolent), who, since they have close connections to the military and to procurement, drive out innovation in the space that may challenge their consistent revenue streams.
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
3,133
Points
1,060
The only problem I see with any of this - it used the DND budget - rather than Emergency Preparedness or Industry Canada, or a plethora of other .ca governmental functions and ministries.


The CF cannot support the costs of the enablers.
It works in the US for the Airlines - as it is only used for transport - not any real military activity.

When you make the Military a society net - it unfortunately drives competition out -- and you no longer get best value for your dollar - or sometimes (as we have seen in the past) even a viable Military item.
Who said it all had to come out of DND?
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
3,133
Points
1,060
You also end up with uncompetitive industry (because they have guaranteed revenue streams and become indolent), who, since they have close connections to the military and to procurement, drive out innovation in the space that may challenge their consistent revenue streams.

I agree there will be a cost. Question is how much do we value keeping ahold of this treasure chest?

And how do we sell that cost to our fellow shareholders?
 

KevinB

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Reaction score
7,465
Points
1,140
I agree there will be a cost. Question is how much do we value keeping ahold of this treasure chest?

And how do we sell that cost to our fellow shareholders?
You make the assumption it is a Treasure chest - not a bag full of crap.

I think for an effective National Defence Industry Base in Canada - it needs to be leveraged with other Allies - and most specifically 5I's.
That's means signing on to more joint programs - and not pork barrel program running.

In some areas that will mean a made in Canada ( but designed by XYZ ) solution, but sometimes it will means certain modules are built in Canada - and others are made in the US or Uk (or less likely AUS or even less likely than a snowballs chance in Hell - NZ).

Now that doesn't mean that Northern Infrastructure cannot be encouraged - or that maybe Canada should start to require certain features on vessels (air, land or sea) that operate above a certain point - but saying one will buy XXX of something just to keep the doors open - doesn't lead to innovation or cost efficiency.
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
3,133
Points
1,060
You make the assumption it is a Treasure chest - not a bag full of crap.

I think we differ.






How much security would you recommend for a 5 to 10 Trillion dollar asset held by 35,000,000 people in trust?
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
3,133
Points
1,060
You make the assumption it is a Treasure chest - not a bag full of crap.

I think for an effective National Defence Industry Base in Canada - it needs to be leveraged with other Allies - and most specifically 5I's.
That's means signing on to more joint programs - and not pork barrel program running.

In some areas that will mean a made in Canada ( but designed by XYZ ) solution, but sometimes it will means certain modules are built in Canada - and others are made in the US or Uk (or less likely AUS or even less likely than a snowballs chance in Hell - NZ).

Now that doesn't mean that Northern Infrastructure cannot be encouraged - or that maybe Canada should start to require certain features on vessels (air, land or sea) that operate above a certain point - but saying one will buy XXX of something just to keep the doors open - doesn't lead to innovation or cost efficiency.


And nobody is saying that we are building inventory just to keep the doors open, or just to employ Canadians.

I am talking about the targeted building of inventory of goods that are critical to the defence of Canada and the ability of Canada to respond to emergencies when the Just In Time supply chains fail. And that includes not just an adequate stock of Standard Missiles, or 7.62mm Ball. Toilet Paper anyone?
 
Top