Justin Trudeau hints at boosting Canada’s military spending

I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[dapaterson]

Inadequate resources assigned to maintenance. Inadequate funding to acquisition of sparing and ammunition.

And yet, RCN holds the line on 12 frigates; CA holds the line on 9+3+3+3 combat arms units in the Reg F...

Better ineffetive, inoperable potempkin units than a smaller number of combat capable ones that can be sustained, apparently.

 

[YZT580]

Inadequate resources assigned to maintenance. Inadequate funding to acquisition of sparing and ammunition.

And yet, RCN holds the line on 12 frigates; CA holds the line on 9+3+3+3 combat arms units in the Reg F...

Better ineffetive, inoperable potempkin units than a smaller number of combat capable ones that can be sustained, apparently.

It takes what 2 years minimum from keel to launch for a frigate. Better to build and lay them up for when you need them than wait until the shells start to fly.

 

[Navy_Pete]

It also allowed the DSC to receipt/use a material right away as the previous process to get an NSN # assigned would take months, causing us to create PSCNs just to get material into the system and then re-identifying it down the road when the NSN was assigned. Now the record can be created and used right away and the NSN added later as an attribute. The NSN only needs to be added if that material is going to be used in a NATO context, so if it just something for domestic use then no needs to codify it with an NSN

Or until we buy something; the NSN/PSCN and associated tech standards is what is required to do an RFP. I can't use just an MMR because it's sole sourcing to a single supplier, were as the PSCN/NSN is open to anyone that has a compliant part.

Simple example, there is an NSN for a 1.5" fire hose, which has a standard length, hose fitting type, and material requirement. Last bid had something like a dozen or so bidders, all were technically compliant. That NSN already had something like 20 different acceptable MMRs. The last one we bought and entered is automatically entered as 3 2, and the others are 5 2 (apparently only allowed a single 3 2 type for an NSN).

There are a lot of things like that, especially for components where the NSN is basically a standard part (defined by something like a milspec standard or a commercial one) so things like cables, switches, sensors, machined adapters, fire fighting nozzles, bulbs etc can have dozens of MMRs and may be associated with a lot of different ERNs across all elements.

Our CFTOs and part lists are also built around NSNs so that it doesn't matter who supplied it, and why the primary attribute in CGCS is NSNs and the MMRs are secondary.

It might have made sense from a limited perspective if all you do is parts movements or storage, but our overall system is built around NSNs, not MMRs, so they probably didn't actually talk to the people who understood the overall system.

 

[FJAG]

.... I don't know if it's still holds true but in recent years out West we moved maintainers from 3rd battalion over to the LdSH to help balance out the work load that tanks have, but that was just rebalancing with the numbers we have so it is was a zero sum game

This is one of the reasons why I like the American brigade support battalion concept where the BSB owns not only its maintenance and distribution company but also the forward support companies which are the CSS companies of each of the manoeuvre and arty battalions. They are generally allocated to these battalions and structured specifically for the equipment held by them but it also allows surging and reallocation of support personnel within the brigade and also provides for a single technical supervision line within the whole brigade.

But that's just a way to improve support. The most important is resourcing maintenance properly.

There is something to be said about resourcing our maintenance assets properly. Much of the manning still looks as if we were trying to fix 1960s to '80s vehicles which had the total of like 10 parts and were relatively easy to fix.

That's a fair point. A lot of parts and assemblies are of the same character that we had but I expect modern power packs are a bit more complex (I used to be able to work on my own car, there's no way I can do that now except change the odd filter). I used to be able to keep my M109 battery running with one technician for sights and other optics. Maybe one still can as long as the replacement parts are available but I really didn't need an electronics tech, I presume those are like scarce gold now and that their jobs are much more complex. But even with the simpler gear, my battery alone had 13 technicians in an M578 light recovery vehicle, a 2 1/2 ton parts and tool crib, a 5/4 MRT, a 5/4 Rad tech, a 5/4 wpns and optics tech. That's 10% of the personnel strength in the battery as techs. Over three years it was always fully manned. I wonder how many the average battery/company has today.

As to parts - yeah - we had the odd hanger queen in 2nd line every once in a while where some esoteric part came slowly while they had to manufacture it in Dubuque but generally things went quickly. The one event that always sticks out in my mind is the year on a spring exercise where the regiment lost four powerpacks on M109s due to the engines ingesting poplar fluff which blocked the air intake and very rapidly overheated the engines. It happened so quickly no one had time to figure out what was going on. Long story short, we replaced all four of those power packs within a week and had all the guns back up before the exercise was over. IMHO that's the capability that the system should be able to deliver year-round.

I think the problem is that the army has, for too long, concentrated on the troops deployed on rotations. If there is enough gear that's serviceable there than the gear back home is secondary. I got that feel when looking at Afghanistan and the UORs which were all pointed at equipping the deployed troops an a little for training gear back home. Never enough to outfit the entire force back home. It's the same now when you look at the UORs for air defence, ATGMs etc. I guess that's the nature of a UOR, but it shows that our standard capital projects simply aren't providing to deeply for an army as a whole. The system is out of balance.

I've said this several times - there's a large part of the army that could be taken over by a properly trained reserve force (gunners and tankers to name two obvious ones). Their PYs should go to full-time maintainers and a properly designed parts system. There are a lot of wasted PYs in administration (including Class Bs) that should also go into maintenance (including planes and ships.)

In one respect I'm glad to see more honest VOR reporting on the CAF's performance reports. What troubles me is that leadership reaction to these is that "we need more money" rather than taking the hard steps to fix what they can first.

 

[MilEME09]

There is something to be said about resourcing our maintenance assets properly. Much of the manning still looks as if we were trying to fix 1960s to '80s vehicles which had the total of like 10 parts and were relatively easy to fix. I don't know if it's still holds true but in recent years out West we moved maintainers from 3rd battalion over to the LdSH to help balance out the work load that tanks have, but that was just rebalancing with the numbers we have so it is was a zero sum game

Problem with that is, it's a specialized course to work on the tanks and you only get it if posted to the tanks. So borrowing techs, if they aren't already qualified from a previous posting, will be able to help with the rest of the fleet but not the tanks. As you aren't going to borrow a person only to have to send them to borden for a couple months to learn leopard.

Perhaps it's time we uncouple the service battalions and return to maintenence units. Maint battalions/Technical Regiments etc

 

[Rifleman62]

Who is causing these parts supply problems? Civil Servants in Ottawa or military on a normal posting cycle?

 

[FJAG]

Problem with that is, it's a specialized course to work on the tanks and you only get it if posted to the tanks. So borrowing techs, if they aren't already qualified from a previous posting, will be able to help with the rest of the fleet but not the tanks. As you aren't going to borrow a person only to have to send them to borden for a couple months to learn leopard.

True enough that it's specialized but a lot of the components replicate what a vehicle tech would understand. More importantly they could assist someone who has been trained. You can save a lot of time if there is a second pair of hands and someone can go to fetch tools or parts or even a cup of coffee. They aren't 100% interchangeable but they are useful and can increase throughput.

Perhaps it's time we uncouple the service battalions and return to maintenence units. Maint battalions/Technical Regiments etc

I'm with you on uncoupling the CSS companies in line battalions. I don't think we can completely uncouple the service battalions until we get a real division together. Even then there is the geography of the country and the small size of the force working against you.

 

[MilEME09]

True enough that it's specialized but a lot of the components replicate what a vehicle tech would understand. More importantly they could assist someone who has been trained. You can save a lot of time if there is a second pair of hands and someone can go to fetch tools or parts or even a cup of coffee. They aren't 100% interchangeable but they are useful and can increase throughput.

100%, and its what the reserves do best with our techs, because lets face it, reserve techs do not have the experience of regular force techs, so we easily fill in those manor roles or a extra pair of hands. Given our shortage of techs I am actually surprised we haven't seen Class B's pop up for techs in the various Admin Coy's.

 

[Kirkhill]

Interesting that the G4 maint felt that publishing DRMIS data wasn’t a breach. I always assumed it was protected.

Reads like a paper from JCSP at CFC. There are a range of "interesting" papers available from there; I'd be curious to know if any threat / risk assessment was done prior to the decision to make them avaiable to the broad public.

The original paper

https://www.cfc.forces.gc.ca/259/290/23/192/Rock.pdf

 

[Kirkhill]

JIT works great, but requires a lot of ongoing resupplying and a very updated understanding of the entire supply chain, which we don't have the people to do either function, let alone both. It alsosacrifices resiliency for 'efficiency' though by limiting warehousing, and really bit some very big companies in the ass during COVID. It doesn't actually make sense for the military or any other organization that needs contingency plans and the ability to surge for new things, but at least there are somethings like supply arrangements to at least make it easy to order readily avaible consumables locally from a pre-approved list with the contracting already done.

Not really sure if they are changing at all, but wouldn't be surprised if some of those companies adjusted their JIT to more a 'reduced warehousing' model so they have more of a buffer for supply chain disruptions, which includes things like extreme weather a lot more frequently now. I think some of the car plants were running on something like an 8-12 hour supply so doesn't take long for an issue in one plant to trickle through an entire assembly across multiple plants basically shutting down, then also a cascade to get back up and running.

JIT works great, but requires a lot of ongoing resupplying and a very updated understanding of the entire supply chain,

That is true of every inventory management system. Filling bins with large amounts of inventory just delays the day that the bin is empty and you discover that your supplier has been bought up by LockMart and that your system is no longer supported but they will be pleased to supply you their latest system at a discount.

 

[Kirkhill]

It takes what 2 years minimum from keel to launch for a frigate. Better to build and lay them up for when you need them than wait until the shells start to fly.

You will then have a pile of rust at the bottom of Bedford Basin before the Government decides to employ those ships. And those that are still floating will have ancient hardware that is unsupported and ineffective against the threats of the day.

The correct answer is the NSPS answer - a steady build.

But

If the requirement is for 15 hulls and they are being built at the rate of one a year then when the last one is built the first one should be sold off and the first of the new designs should be building.

And

Given that the current fleet is thrashed and past its best before date then it is obvious to me that there needs to be a UOR plan to bridge the gap between where you are now and whenever the CSC fleet is a reality.

To my way of thinking that means looking at all possibilities including buying/leasing used and getting other countries with active capacity to build cheap runabouts that actually float. My preference is for a half-dozen new "goodenuffs" given the state of our allies fleets and shipyards.

Get Damen and Vard involved in a hurry and have them produce some large OPVs.

 

[KevinB]

That is true of every inventory management system. Filling bins with large amounts of inventory just delays the day that the bin is empty and you discover that your supplier has been bought up by LockMart and that your system is no longer supported but they will be pleased to supply you their latest system at a discount.

What’s in the contract?

Most DoD and all IDIQ contracts down here have a sustainment clause, that for 5 years after the end of the contract the supplier must provide parts for the system.


So on top of support packages, the manufacturer is on the hook to provide parts after contact end.

Honestly if there isn’t contractual obligations to maintain obsolete systems and components why would any company then do it?

I really don’t get what you have against some of the larger Defense Contractors, as a lot of the issues you bring up aren’t issues for most nations.

Canada has some pretty terrible contractual requirement’s (from a suppliers side), but is missing some of the more important national security guarantees that most other nations put into contracts.

As a supplier, one generally doesn’t want an unhappy customer, so most will work with the customer, but sometimes the value added for the Manufacture just isn’t there, and without a contract mechanism to ensure parts supply, no one is going to go out of their way to lose money providing something that is out of production and needs to have a new line opened for it. So either the government needs to buy enough to support that request, or they need to accept the system isn’t maintainable anymore and they probably should have been looking for a replacement a long time before this.

 

[Halifax Tar]

What’s in the contract?

Most DoD and all IDIQ contracts down here have a sustainment clause, that for 5 years after the end of the contract the supplier must provide parts for the system.


So on top of support packages, the manufacturer is on the hook to provide parts after contact end.

Honestly if there isn’t contractual obligations to maintain obsolete systems and components why would any company then do it?

I really don’t get what you have against some of the larger Defense Contractors, as a lot of the issues you bring up aren’t issues for most nations.

Canada has some pretty terrible contractual requirement’s (from a suppliers side), but is missing some of the more important national security guarantees that most other nations put into contracts.

As a supplier, one generally doesn’t want an unhappy customer, so most will work with the customer, but sometimes the value added for the Manufacture just isn’t there, and without a contract mechanism to ensure parts supply, no one is going to go out of their way to lose money providing something that is out of production and needs to have a new line opened for it. So either the government needs to buy enough to support that request, or they need to accept the system isn’t maintainable anymore and they probably should have been looking for a replacement a long time before this.

I see three issues for Canada.

(1) We insist on building a lot of our own kit which means we don't build/buy enough to keep manufacturers profitable in making our spares. The crane on the aft end of AOPs is a good example.

(2) We don't like warehousing. We large need depots in place all over and we need the funds to fill them with large amounts of spares and stuff just in case.

(3) We don't start the replacement process of our kit until it's too late. CPFs are another fine example. Their replacement should have got underway half an hour after the last one was commissioned. Old stuff is harder to find spare parts for.

All of this requires a robust and efficient procurement process and a country thats interested in military affairs.

 

[Kirkhill]

What’s in the contract?

Most DoD and all IDIQ contracts down here have a sustainment clause, that for 5 years after the end of the contract the supplier must provide parts for the system.


So on top of support packages, the manufacturer is on the hook to provide parts after contact end.

Honestly if there isn’t contractual obligations to maintain obsolete systems and components why would any company then do it?

I really don’t get what you have against some of the larger Defense Contractors, as a lot of the issues you bring up aren’t issues for most nations.

Canada has some pretty terrible contractual requirement’s (from a suppliers side), but is missing some of the more important national security guarantees that most other nations put into contracts.

As a supplier, one generally doesn’t want an unhappy customer, so most will work with the customer, but sometimes the value added for the Manufacture just isn’t there, and without a contract mechanism to ensure parts supply, no one is going to go out of their way to lose money providing something that is out of production and needs to have a new line opened for it. So either the government needs to buy enough to support that request, or they need to accept the system isn’t maintainable anymore and they probably should have been looking for a replacement a long time before this.

LockMart is an easy button to push.

Choose any other large conglomerate in any industry from any company and my comments apply. They apply equally to Swedish ones.

The key point is that managing anything, including inventory, demands vigilance and that requires effort and people.

DND, as some have been pointing out, needs to spend more of its resources on supporters rather than operators. Operators can be plussed up relatively easily. Supporters, kit and functioning systems are harder to come by.

 

[GR66]

You will then have a pile of rust at the bottom of Bedford Basin before the Government decides to employ those ships. And those that are still floating will have ancient hardware that is unsupported and ineffective against the threats of the day.

The correct answer is the NSPS answer - a steady build.

But

If the requirement is for 15 hulls and they are being built at the rate of one a year then when the last one is built the first one should be sold off mothballed for fleet expansion/war loss replacement/Reserve training and the first of the new designs should be building.

FTFY

 

[dapaterson]

We have sought artificial front end savings that create long term sustainability problems, but those problems manifest when someone else is in charge.

We also refuse to properly fund readiness and sustainment, since those are easily games metrics. And so we keep ORIOLE, Skyhawks, Snowbirds and an array of unneeded pet projects over needed capabilities.

 

[Kirkhill]

FTFY

For how long?

 

[GR66]

For how long?

Figure out how many you might need. Four maybe? A pair on each coast? When you're 5th "new" ship is decommissioned you scrap the oldest/worst condition mothballed ship.

Effectively gives you a rolling 19 ship fleet. Your 15 newest active and the four "newest" of the retired ships mothballed. Continuous build of one ship per year to the latest standards and 16, 17, 18 & 19 year old ships being laid up. At 20 years they are sold off.

 

[Halifax Tar]

For how long?

There is or used to be a NATO requirement of how many hulls we were required to have.

When I got in (Late 90s) we kept a few steamers unmanned and tied up in the dockyard annex to meet that commitment.

So it should be years.

 

[GR66]

There is or used to be a NATO requirement of how many hulls we were required to have.

There's also a NATO requirement to spend 2% of GDP on defence. How's that working out?