# Alan Williams Makes Procurement Suggestion



## Kirkhill (16 Oct 2006)

I have to admit that I have never been a fan of men who wear bow ties. On this occasion however I find myself agreeing with one.



> Monday, Oct 16, 2006
> Political intervention needed to fix defence purchasing: ex-official
> 
> 
> ...



http://www.mytelus.com/news/article.do?pageID=canada_home&articleID=2418304


----------



## tlg (16 Oct 2006)

I've heard of red tape before but TWO departments? No wonder it takes a lifetime to procure anything. And why is the public works dept. involved? If anyone has info regarding their use please enlighten me.


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 Oct 2006)

See: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/49914/post-456710.html#msg456710

With all due respect to Mr. Williams (and he is a very smart fellow) even the PM cannot prevent or forbid inter-departmental turf wars - not for long, anyway.  The cumbersome, indeed broken system we use now is, essentially, the excellent one put in place by C.D. Howe, _circa_ 1942.  The problems are:

•	Nearly 65 years have passed and with each of them we have had less and less urgency for procurement and more and more requirements (government requirements) to get more and more _benefits_ from each defence dollar spent.  Getting *real* ‘bang for the buck’ is DND’s problem;

•	Bureaucracies are, naturally, competitive and imperialistic – Mr. Williams is quite correct that there are too many competing departments and agencies but it is not clear to me that the PM can – or would want to – put a stop to that and keep it stopped.  Supply & Services Canada (or whatever it is called this year) is the main culprit; 

•	Canadians are accustomed to the (entirely mistaken) idea that there really are _regional and industrial benefits_ and _offsets_.  Many politicians are, like their constituents, stupid enough to believe this, too.  This is where Industry Canada enters the fray; and

•	DND is a ‘whipping boy’ for every social-engineering programme and quota which comes down the pike so we have, usually, a half dozen or more departments and agencies looking over the shoulder of the project team.

I didn’t even mention the Treasury Board which can put up new, exciting hurdles for each and every project.

I remain convinced that the only way to break the cycle – and I agree it *must* be broken - is to create an arm’s length _corporation_ to buy unique, operational military systems and equipment.


----------



## Rodahn (16 Oct 2006)

It is the same in all government departments, not just DND.... Public Works and Government Services Canada is the procurement/contracting agency for all government departments for the most part, with a few exceptions Defence Construction Canada comes to mind. DND does the leg work discovering the actual requirements/SOW, etc and then issues a request for PWGSC to procure according to the requirements. (Having dealt with the process' while in service and after the fact on the civilian side) Just an attempt to clarify some of the mysteries of the procurement process.

Cheers

Rod


----------



## ArmyRick (16 Oct 2006)

It may be the same for all govt departments BUT IT SHOULDN'T BE !!!    Soldiers, sailors and Airman have unique requirements that they place there lives on the line relying on the equipment.  

Interesting that defence construction canada is exempt from this schmozzle.  :rage:


----------



## Rodahn (16 Oct 2006)

Defence Construction Canada is just another contracting agency for the military utilized on building projects over 200K. Or they used to be based upon that financial limitation, it may have changed somewhat since I retired....


----------



## pbi (17 Oct 2006)

> DND is a ‘whipping boy’ for every social-engineering programme and quota which comes down the pike so we have, usually, a half dozen or more departments and agencies looking over the shoulder of the project team.



I recall, years ago, during one of the interminable briefings on the seemingly endless development process for TCCCS, hearing the project officer brief that all the various Govt Depts were having a look at the project in terms of what was in it for them. Just to show how far this went, Indian Affairs wanted to know what was in TCCCS for First Nations people.

Sorry, Mr Williams: nine years is far too long. That would have been too long for WWII (by three years) and is certainly too long for today. We have recently shown that certain items can be purchased very quickly (M777 howitzer). All we need to do is extend that process (whatever it was...) to any other vital operational purchases. At the same time, we should not abuse it by trying to fast track every purchase in DND: that would just clog the system and undercut our argument.

Cheers


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (17 Oct 2006)

The fact that 9-years is an acceptable turnaround time for ANY department shows just how brutally inefficient our bureaucracy is.

Mr Harper, it's time to clean up more than DND.


Matthew.


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 Oct 2006)

When I served in DLR (before many of you were even born) we _quesstimated_ five to seven years from Statement of Requirement (SOR) to initial delivery.  That was, in my experience, a pretty good number and it held for e.g. the CP-140 long range patrol aircraft and the Cougar direct fire support vehicle.

When what became TCCCS was _conceived_ it was called ACCS 85 – Army Command and Control System 1985.  The ‘sponsor’ – then Col (later LGen) Jim Fox, then Director of Army Plans (or something like that) – proposed a larger project, including a computer based digital C2 ‘system’ and the requisite, integrated, digital signalling system.  That was in the mid/late ‘70s, say 1975 for simplicity.  By 1985 ACCS 85 was dead and a smaller, communications only TCCCS project was on ADM(Mat)’s desk with projected initial delivery in about 1990 – money was approved.  I believe TCCCS initial delivery actually occurred in about 1995 – is that right?  The point is that during the ‘80s and ‘90s we, civil and military _leaders_ and bureaucrats alike – stretched the planned procurement timeframe from five to 20 years!

I advocate a _corporate_ and, more important *arm’s length* (from cabinet/caucus) procurement agency such as exists, more or less, in Australia -   http://www.defence.gov.au/dmo/index.cfm .  The DMO is accountable to parliament and is (as all crown corporations ought to be in Canada) audited by their equivalent to our Auditor General but it, like the UK’s Defence Procurement Agency - http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/MicroSite/DPA/WhatWeDo/ - is not under the *control* of the MND and cabinet; it has a board of directors who have responsibilities for its governance which _protect_ the process from political interference and pork barrelling.  *I must point out that the UK backed away, in about 2000, from my really preferred model because defence procurement is too big, too important to be managed in a fair, efficient and effective manner.  Government’s cannot bring themselves to be businesslike in the doing the people’s business.  In fairness, some deeper integration (with the MOD) was required – for legal liability reasons, perhaps? – to integrate military people into the corporate structure.*


----------



## cplcaldwell (17 Oct 2006)

Dealing with Govt at any time can be daunting. In this life, as opposed to my cadpat life, I have spent many weekends and evenings nuancing an RFP to fit the exact specifcations. 

*tlg* You're surprised at two departments? As PBI pointed out many departments can get involved. And it's not just that a department is monolithic, it is not unusual for offices, bureaus and other sub units to end up at the table on a fairly simple matter, each one of course bringing their own slant to the project, each one capable of torpedoing a deal if they don't like what they see. 

I had a friend who used to remark sardonically that DND was the finest bureaucracy that 1945 could ever have produced, too bad it had reached perfection and ceased to evolve. But such is the nature of bureaucracies. As Mr Campbell pointed out above the system is/was a very good one, after all CD Howe designed it. 

I am sure this will end up on the front page of the Toronto Star sooner rather than later. A furor will erupt. 

But let's be careful. To be sure, a lot of fackery is involved, but remember, these departments are spending huge sums of money, and implementing incredibly complex systems, sometimes 'go slow' is the best course of action. Yes, fastballs are required and the M777 is a prime example of using the fastball methodology.

The system probably needs tweaking, but expecting to be able to buy tanks and trucks by the hundreds or thousands over the course of a few months is not realistic. Is there stupidity, yup, but checks and balances ensure the dollar is well spent, and they take time to navigate..

We should careful not to rant on this. Like I say I've spent a lot of time trying to fulfil conditions on govt RFP's, I've made a fair amount of cash in the end when judged to be the winner, and as a taxpayer I'm content with that. ;D

Having said that, I think an arm's length agency, given 'marching orders' from important stake-holder departments is a _reasonable _ evolution. *For heaven's sake let's keep the deal by deal, project by project elements as far away from the cabinet table as possible.* I would rather some faceless bureaucrat with twenty years experience nuancing a billion dollar deal than an MND (who may have been a druggist in Moose Jaw two years ago) nuancing it. Bureaucrats are professionals, give them a streamlined structure to work in and it will get done. Not a great deal of need to drop the standards or element or steps in the process.

A lot of people talk about rushing off to raise new battalions, IMHO, given the neglect of DND in the last 30 years or so, we would be better off to renovate these sorts of foundational issues than rushing off to raise a lot of new units or buy new gucci kit (quite a separate set of issues from tailoring existing units to a new world or replacing worn out kit mind you....)

After all isn't that what Mr Williams is saying?

Refine not revolutionize.


----------



## geo (17 Oct 2006)

with respect to warships, there should be new keels being lain each year.... this BS of doing a BLITZ every 20-25 years is insane IMHO


----------



## cplcaldwell (17 Oct 2006)

geo's point is an interesting one.

Take for example the Dutch. A quick look at www.hazegray.org shows us the following


F805   Evertsen                      (De Zeven Provincien  AD Destroyer)    2005	building
F804   De Ruyter                    (De Zeven Provincien  AD Destroyer)    2004	building
F803   Tromp                         (De Zeven Provincien  AD Destroyer)    2003	building
F802   De Zeven Provincien      (De Zeven Provincien  AD Destroyer) 4/2002 Trials
L 800   Rotterdam                   (Amphib Transport Dock)                   1998
F 828   Van Speijk                   (M Class frigate)                               1995
A 836   Amsterdam                  (AOR)                                              1995
F 833   Van Nes                       (M Class frigate)                               1994
F 834   Van Galen                    (M Class frigate)                               1994
F 831   Van Amstel                  (M Class frigate)                               1993
F 832   Abraham Van Der Hulst (M Class frigate)                               1993
F 830   Tjerk Hiddes                 (M Class frigate)                              1992
F 827   Karel Doorman              (M Class frigate)                              1991
F 829   Willem Van Der Zaan     (M Class frigate)                              1991

Nice even progression. Logical structure. About one ship a year.

Four destroyers, twelve frigates (haven't included the older L and Standard frigates here), four subs, AOR's, an LPD, minehunters.

How come we can't do that?


----------



## geo (17 Oct 2006)

why can't we?

you need forethought & a big picture plan....

How can you even expect a Cdn Shipyard to tool up once in a blue moon BUT maintain the xpertise needd to design & build modern fighting ships....


----------



## kilekaldar (17 Oct 2006)

No doubt it's been mentioned elsewhere, but I believe it bears repeating here that some of the best gear we are using out here in Afghanistan where short notice purchases, like the m777, RG-31 and the off the civi shelf AN/PRC 117F Tac Sat.

Some of the biggest POS gear I've personnaly used was the LSVW, and the TCCCS(which works only as advertised in a static climate controlled enviroment). The tragic sagas of both these procurements has been covered elsewhere.

Questions arise, such as what is so broken about our system that a rapid, bureaucracy circumventing aquirement produces such great gear when the 'proper' official and slow way gives us junk.
And what is being done to fix this, if anything.


----------



## Kirkhill (17 Oct 2006)

Perhaps there is a difference between buying a single 1 Billion dollar ship, 1000 Million dollar vehicles and 1Billion 1 dollar rounds?

And still a greater difference if we are only talking about 100 vehicles at 100,000 dollars?


----------



## dapaterson (17 Oct 2006)

It's easy to buy off the shelf, when the needs are immediately identified.  "Let's get a towed 155 gun" isn't that difficult to translate into a signed contract.  It's harder to look out several years, figure out what will be needed (both at that time and for several years or decades beyond), translate that into a statement of requirements for something that may not exist... and then have regional economic benefits become the driving factor (LSVW) or see currency fluctuations all but bankrupt the provider (TCCCS).  Or have regimental politics influence the allocation of equipment (R22eR must get the same as RCR who must get the same as PPCLI).  And then consider personnel - training and possible establishment changes to man the new equipment.  And infrastructure to accommodate and train with it.  And spares.  And... all the other things that should be considered so the equipment will be usable, both immediately and in the long term.

The new kit coming online through UORs has no lifecycle plan; minimal spares; minimal training stocks; no infra plan for it back in Canada; no training plan...  It looks good, but there's no concept of support.  Fine for meeting short-term needs; but we'd be better off if we planned ahead.


----------



## geo (17 Oct 2006)

biggest problem is always (ALWAYS) an economic issue of "economic benefits" to the various areas of the Country.  When you make decisions by commitee and take 9 years to bring on line, "that's what you're going to get"  When you buy "off the shelf" there are no economic benefits to the constituency UNLESS you have had some forethought and encourage our manufacturers to maintain R&D AND production facilities operating year after year.

We never buy one single ship - we buy em by the bunch.... so why not build em one at a time, one every year (or every other year).  Between the building and refits, we could support a shipbuilding industry on both coasts........... IMHO


----------



## Kirkhill (17 Oct 2006)

> We never buy one single ship - we buy em by the bunch.... so why not build em one at a time, one every year (or every other year).  Between the building and refits, we could support a shipbuilding industry on both coasts........... IMHO



Agreed. Now can you get governments for the next twenty-five years to agree to adhere to a common policy?  Also, are we williing to wait 9 to 15 years to build domestic production capability that can supply a new combat capability?

We should have a long-term commitment to ship building but we don't.
We should be able to build ships domestically to meet Canada's needs but we aren't.

(To drag this a little further on to the ship building topic it has occured to me that Canada's international freight requirements suggest that Canada needs to create a vessel that doesn't exist - one that is a combination bulk carrier and either RoRo or Container ship.  We currently have vehicles and containers delivered from Asia that either continue on their merry way around the globe or else return empty to Asia to pick up more supplies.  Meanwhile we bring in bulk ships in ballast to send them back to Asia full of coal, sulphur, ore, wheat etc.  I couldn't help but wonder if their wasn't a place for Canada to build its own ships that can carry bulk loads below and containers as deck cargo or even as hold cargo.  Then they could bring full containers in with our computers and return with coal and empty containers.)  Mods - separate to another thread if this gains traction.


----------



## Rodahn (18 Oct 2006)

geo said:
			
		

> We never buy one single ship - we buy em by the bunch.... so why not build em one at a time, one every year (or every other year).  Between the building and refits, we could support a shipbuilding industry on both coasts........... IMHO



What you say is true, I now work in the marine industry on the west coast, the only problem with your idea of laying a keel on a yearly basis is getting the manpower to man the ships.... Currently the navy cannot fully man the ships they have.... Hence Huron being mothballed and then decommissioned.


----------



## geo (18 Oct 2006)

Rodahn, you're looking at it from a now perspective......
DDHs are coming up to term & so are the support ships - all in allm that could account for new keels for the next 5 years and the laying up of the old girls..... Then there is the refit & later replacement of Frigattes and Maritime / Coast guard patrol vessels....


----------



## Rodahn (18 Oct 2006)

geo said:
			
		

> Rodahn, you're looking at it from a now perspective......
> DDHs are coming up to term & so are the support ships - all in all that could account for new keels for the next 5 years and the laying up of the old girls..... Then there is the refit & later replacement of Frigates and Maritime / Coast guard patrol vessels....



Geo;
What you say is true, however if the navy cannot man the vessels that they currently have, even the MCDV's are having problems with manning, and they are done primarily by reservists, how do you propose that they man the vessels in the future?

Chimo

Rod


----------



## warrickdll (18 Oct 2006)

Rodahn said:
			
		

> ...however if the navy cannot man the vessels that they currently have, even the MCDV's are having problems with manning, and they are done primarily by reservists, how do you propose that they man the vessels in the future?
> ...



I think you are just misunderstanding what is proposed here. This isn't about naval expansion (more ships); it's about replacing hulls incrementally. For example: the usual CF way is to wait until all the ships are too old and then quickly replace all over a short time frame; what is proposed is to replace a ship about once a year (and probably refit one once a year as well).

Providing the crew for any current, new, or replaced ship is a separate issue.


----------



## Rodahn (18 Oct 2006)

Iterator said:
			
		

> I think you are just misunderstanding what is proposed here. This isn't about naval expansion (more ships); it's about replacing hulls incrementally. For example: the usual CF way is to wait until all the ships are too old and then quickly replace all over a short time frame; what is proposed is to replace a ship about once a year (and probably refit one once a year as well).
> 
> Providing the crew for any current, new, or replaced ship is a separate issue.



Understood, but one also has to look at the life cycle of the equipment being replaced, in this case  believe that the life cycle for the frigates is 20 - 25 years. Laying a new keel yearly would give us say 25 ships, and currently the navy can't man the 15(?) major vessels it currently has. Though I did not take into account Geo's use of the Coast Guard vessels, was only thinking of the military ships


----------



## Kirkhill (18 Oct 2006)

Also, Rodahn, the tendency in new classes of ships it to take advantage of available technologies to reduce manning levels.  The latest 6300 tonne Danish vessels with C2 and Support facilities as well as 5" gun, Harpoons and Medium Helicopters has a permanent crew of only 100 all ranks (rooms for 169) vs 200+ on the CPFs.

http://www.navalhistory.dk/English/TheShips/Classes/Absalon_Class(2004).htm

But as noted by Iterator, the point here is about the viability of establishing a production line that can produce 1-2 ships a year into the indefinite future - and despite my having decided capitalist tendencies I would willingly accept that such an industry could/should be nationalized if that was the only way to maintain such a capability and if there was some way to keep prices under control and pork-barreling out.


----------



## GAP (18 Oct 2006)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> I would willingly accept that such an industry could/should be nationalized if that was the only way to maintain such a capability and if there was some way to keep prices under control and pork-barreling out.



But what it does is get the government union bureaucracy attitude (see: Air Canada) totally ingrained in it.


----------



## Kirkhill (18 Oct 2006)

GAP said:
			
		

> But what it does is get the government union bureaucracy attitude (see: Air Canada) totally ingrained in it.



Agreed.  But note that I said accept not prefer. There are times when a state monopoly may be the only answer.  Even an inefficient capability is better than no capability.


----------



## GAP (18 Oct 2006)

granted


----------



## warrickdll (18 Oct 2006)

Rodahn said:
			
		

> Understood, but one also has to look at the life cycle of the equipment being replaced, in this case  believe that the life cycle for the frigates is 20 - 25 years. Laying a new keel yearly would give us say 25 ships, and currently the navy can't man the 15(?) major vessels it currently has. Though I did not take into account Geo's use of the Coast Guard vessels, was only thinking of the military ships



True. I see your point (and note the recognition of CCG)

There is now a new focus on more practical uses for the navy - ship to shore operations (with both land and air assets). The new littoral role does not diminish the need for ASW or Air Defence, so perhaps there will be an increase (if only slight) in the overall number of hulls, or larger vessels might require more work and a year may be skipped to accommodate this.


I am also on the side that, even though there is a trade off of economics and defence, and as much as COTS may lower the cost of some items, there may always be the desire to maintain some production capacity.


----------



## cplcaldwell (18 Oct 2006)

RE Iterators post


> ...if the navy cannot man the vessels that they currently have, even the MCDV's are having problems with manning, and they are done primarily by reservists, how do you propose that they man the vessels in the future?...



There need not be _more_ ships. 

_I'll probably get a name wrong so bear with me my naval Jane's is at home on top of the loo._ I'll try to make the point with the limits of my oldish memory as sole support, forgive any errors...

If we return to my example of the Dutch, the _De Zeven Provincen 's _ are replacing the _Tromp's_. This latter group were younger than the 280's. The _L class _ replace the older _Karel Doorman _ class (mid 70's (?)). Which in turn replaced the older _vanSpeij_k class (essentially broad-beamed_ Leanders _ of the late sixties). It seems the Dutch never really wear out their ships the way we do.

Look also at the British. The _Duke_ FFG's are replacing the _Broadsword_ Type 22's (mid 80's- _roughly_ contemporaries of our 330's) which in turn replaced the _Amazon_ Type 21's  of the late 70's (and others, Type 12 _Leander's_ for example-viz our Steamers). The _Daring_ DDG Type 45's are replacing the _Manchester_ and _Sheffield_ Type 42's. Again constant rollover. 

Now the RN is somewhat bigger than MarCom but the example of the Dutch is comparable to us. A small-ish navy can still sustain a new keel every couple of years, taking into account AOR's, a dozen frigates and six or so DDH's  as TOE and CCG.


----------



## warrickdll (18 Oct 2006)

I have to wonder though, since we are all so smart and have this figured out, why is this not happening?

	- Too difficult to buy votes by just maintaining jobs?
	- It is prohibitively expensive?
	- Some other reason(s)?


----------



## GAP (18 Oct 2006)

Iterator said:
			
		

> I have to wonder though, since we are all so smart and have this figured out, why is this not happening?



Someone else gets to build the bureaucratic kingdom associated with it...if it is not your empire, why hurry it along.


----------



## Kirkhill (18 Oct 2006)

Also, I think we have to fairly admit that not every government necessarily wishes to spend its revenues in the same areas. 

That is why I suggested early on that for this programme to work it has to be a multi-party consensus that will be handed down over the generations.  I mean generations literally. The European nations that have been maintaining a maritime capability have been at it uninterrupted for centuries and some claim over a millenia of ship building.  It is not a fad for them that goes in and out of political style.  It is who they are.


----------



## Good2Golf (18 Oct 2006)

geo said:
			
		

> biggest problem is always (ALWAYS) an economic issue of "economic benefits" to the various areas of the Country.  When you make decisions by committee and take 9 years to bring on line, "that's what you're going to get"  When you buy "off the shelf" there are no economic benefits to the constituency UNLESS you have had some forethought and encourage our manufacturers to maintain R&D AND production facilities operating year after year....



Geo hit the nail on the head!

Folks, look at the following links to get a flavour for why the operational requirement (in its purest form) does not always rule the day...

Industrial Regional Benefits policy - why things can take a long time...

Industry Canada - Aerospace and Defence - Current and Potential Projects

...and look at all the DND projects on the list that will have to have IRBs...
Potential Major Crown Projects that will have IRBs

...the irony of the bow-tie-wearing Mr. Williams and his reign service as ADM(Mat) and hearing these statements is not lost to those of us working or having worked projects within the DSP...so nice of him to try to recommend speeding things up from 15 years to 9 years...  :

G2G


----------



## geo (18 Oct 2006)

Iterator said:
			
		

> I have to wonder though, since we are all so smart and have this figured out, why is this not happening?
> - Too difficult to buy votes by just maintaining jobs?
> - It is prohibitively expensive?
> - Some other reason(s)?



Note that I do not haunt the halls of power (Nor those of the big puzzle palace)
If we can figure it out why hasn't anyone else?.... up until now, the CDS & the ministers were working with a closed ended budget.  you couldn't even bring up expendutures for big ticket items without having turned in umpteen million empties and saved your nickles.

Some people, including the current MND understand that you can't work it that way and maintain a credible force.........


----------



## Good2Golf (18 Oct 2006)

Iterator said:
			
		

> I have to wonder though, since we are all so smart and have this figured out, why is this not happening?
> 
> - Too difficult to buy votes by just maintaining jobs?
> - It is prohibitively expensive?
> - Some other reason(s)?



Nice tone, Iterator.  Perhaps you forgot a smilie?   :   

Most of us are not providing criticism while sitting around on our g.m.

Just because many of us know where much of the resistance is, doesn't mean we can change it.  I lived away from my family for years because a politician had my unit moved for absolutely no operational reason (in fact, undisputed reduced operational capability)

To help improve the system as much as I believe is possible for someone as far down the chain as I am, I have provided my input: a) through the CoC, b) to my MP, and c) through continuing to work as hard within the existing process as possible.

G2G


----------



## warrickdll (18 Oct 2006)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Nice tone, Iterator.  Perhaps you forgot a smilie?   :
> 
> Most of us are not providing criticism while sitting around on our g.m.
> 
> Just because many of us know where much of the resistance is, doesn't mean we can change it. ...



A smiley was not required, my post was minimally sarcastic and encompassed myself as a contributor to the topic.

Some solutions that seem ideal are not implemented for solid practical reasons (or even pragmatic political ones); I am inquiring if anyone is aware of any (or willing to guess).


----------



## warspite (18 Oct 2006)

Would it not be possible for there to be a board in charge of the procurement of ships, tanks etc. This board could be given a blank check or a set amount of money to buy the equipment that the forces needs as quickly as economically possible. Eventually they could fall into a pattern of buying new ships etc as they are needed or whenever there is an expansion of the forces, war, etc. 
  And then DND could then be in charge of supporting the costs of the equipment and personal over the long term. Each year they could give the government the bill. The bill gets paid, a new year begins, and the process rolls on.....

Just an idea, feel free to criticize ;D


----------



## geo (18 Oct 2006)

err.... you're back to the subjective when you state "as they are needed"......
but when you start talking about needing them, there is a 9 year lead time to delivery, not a good thing.  Better off having a 20 year cycle with a 20 ship navy/CCG fleet.  That way you have naval engineers at work all the time for you - ready for new builds AND refits.  At present, we have to reinvent the wheel every time (and reinvent = $$$$)


----------



## cplcaldwell (18 Oct 2006)

There is a bit of a hijack happening on this thread.

We are off on naval procurement. Yet there is something here

Recall Kirkhill's statement above _"The European nations that have been maintaining a maritime capability have been at it uninterrupted for centuries and some claim over a millenia of ship building." _ 

So I'll be selfish and come back to the Dutch. They _are_ a naval power. They made that choice a long time ago.

Why? well they sat out WWI, and 'got caught' n WWII, but yet, if it goes back to Tromp and deRuyter they committed to maritime power. Yes, they had something of an Empire in the IO, and yes they had  substantial maritime trade interests in this (last) century.

But it is deeper than that. We must put ourselves in _this_ mirror and ask ourselves. So what is Canada's contribution? 

It's not about this mandate or this party, it's about Canada.

In the end it's not IMHO about putting a Bty of triple 7's in the 'Ghan in a couple of months, it's about _what is Canada to do?_

I fear that if we do not establish ourselves as _something,_ for instance, a land force middle power, or a naval middle power, or an air middle power we are lost. Further I think that we must decide, and the issue has been forced on the Army, what _sort_ of middle power are to be? A LIB commitment? A BG commitment? When the phone rings what've we got?  

A white five quarter and a nice blue hat? Bahhhh!

Mr Williams point is a good one, but it's a band aid. I counter, Whither Canada?

Too bad the vision isn't there. 

Rant ends over.


----------



## KevinB (18 Oct 2006)

Its not the vision of the Gov't -- remember Perrin Betty's White Paper
the Liberals killed it -- and undre pressure the BM PC's axed a lot just after it was announced
its the Canadian public appetite to cut defence...


----------



## cplcaldwell (18 Oct 2006)

Well I6, you're right.  Beatty's White Paper was something that really motivated me to the CF (yes, I am that old). It was _vision_ary. Did it require temporing? to be sure, and hindsight _is_ 20/20, but it dreamed the big dream...

The _vision_ comes from the people, and the people are stuck in a Frank magazine/Taliban Jack _vision_. How sad.

The pols, and I mean as far back as PET (and farther...much), will do what they need to do to get re-elected. In DND/CF terms they (the Cdn public) take the easy way out. A beer commercial and a five dollar bill makes them think they are a world leader.

A very parochial viewpoint, I fear.


----------



## Rodahn (19 Oct 2006)

cplcaldwell said:
			
		

> There is a bit of a hijack happening on this thread.
> 
> We are off on naval procurement.



I don't believe that the intent was to hijack the topic to "Naval Procurement" I utilized somebody else's idea and pointed out flaws with the concept, based upon today's problems.... Will or can those problems be solved.. Who know's... However budget's being budgets, those personell in the puzzle palace also have priorities. Case in point, I was the QA Manager on a navel vessel that had, had refits  defered for a total of 10 years.... Normal cycle for a steel hull vessel for a major refit is 5 years.... Guess what happened? Costs where over twice what the original estimate/budget was for. Why? Lack of maintenance, due to other priorities...

The solution? God only knows.... I can remember a time when I as the diving storeman for the dive team in 4CER couldn't even get straps for our flippers.....


...


----------



## KevinB (19 Oct 2006)

true

BUT hindsight being 20/20 IF the White paper had been followed thru we'd be in amuch better spot now..

Sadly the Canadian public is a fickle master


----------



## cplcaldwell (19 Oct 2006)

Rodahn gives us first hand knowledge.

I6  renews the point.

Naval procurement is instructive as it has such long, and thus, strategic, implications. 

IMHO.speeding up the process does not answer the question.  To wit, what is the strategy?

Frankly, I don't  give a shite if we create 1000 jobs in Cape Breton or not. We need to capitalize our defence procurement dollars. What is the big picture? Thus, whither Canada?(I know you all know this. But what is the 'rubber the road' factor?) 

Mr Williams point is well taken, but how do we build for _our_ role?

 Bahhh must sleep...more to follow


----------



## STONEY (19 Oct 2006)

I noticed that the Aussies announced intensions to procure C-17's just a few short months ago and just last week the first one came off the production line to begin testing.

Canada announced a few short months ago its intention to procure C-17's  . Care to guess how long it will be before we see one. Will it be months or years(many) .

Cheers.


----------



## KevinB (19 Oct 2006)

I recall the US and allies shuttling thigns for the Aussies -- and IIRC us as well.

As long as we are a coalition of the willing the US and allies will allow the middle allied powers (us and Australia) to fit into things


----------



## Loachman (19 Oct 2006)

STONEY said:
			
		

> Canada announced a few short months ago its intention to procure C-17's  . Care to guess how long it will be before we see one. Will it be months or years(many) .



Months.


----------



## warrickdll (19 Oct 2006)

Regional Development isn't the new profanity. The problem for the CF and Regional Development is that the CF has such a large capability deficiency. 

For a military that has been focused almost completely on expeditionary deployment since the end of the Second World War, the CF somehow ends up with absolutely no sealift and only limited airlift. Add to this the fact that ships, aircraft, MBTs and other vehicles, that will need to be replaced should have had their replacements already designed and long since started.

None of the current deficiencies should be corrected by anything but fast tracked purchases. But that shouldn't stop Canada from being able to better plan a way to produce and repair some major items locally in the future. Local design and production should, as much as possible, be done exclusively for long term projects (ship building/refitting being the example of choice).

An awareness of the Regional Development aspect of local production should be made visible to Canadians by having the DND side of the budgeting reflect what would have been the Off The Shelf Cost, and then have the rest budgeted from the Regional Development Agencies. We should also abandon the fantasy of offsetting costs by predicting phantom overseas sales; these seldom happen in quantity (if they even happen at all).

We don't need everything built in Canada, and many foreign purchases will already have Canadian components, but it would be a mistake to allow all of our military design and production capacity to just disappear. But yes, the process does need fixed.






			
				cplcaldwell said:
			
		

> ...
> In the end it's not IMHO about putting a Bty of triple 7's in the 'Ghan in a couple of months, it's about _what is Canada to do?_
> 
> I fear that if we do not establish ourselves as _something,_ for instance, a land force middle power, or a naval middle power, or an air middle power we are lost. Further I think that we must decide, and the issue has been forced on the Army, what _sort_ of middle power are to be? A LIB commitment? A BG commitment? When the phone rings what've we got?
> ...




For the most part, Canada should be a middle power capable of independent global expeditionary deployment. This leaves little room for missing capabilities, everything needs to be able to move quickly by sea or by air and be combat capable when it gets there. This serves almost every situation that the CF is used for overseas, and it is the best way to attend to any domestic issues due to the extreme expanse of our nation.


----------



## Edward Campbell (19 Oct 2006)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> Its not the vision of the Gov't -- remember Perrin Betty's White Paper
> the Liberals killed it -- and undre pressure the BM PC's axed a lot just after it was announced
> its the Canadian public appetite to cut defence...



Actually, I6, three _parties_ got together to kill Beatty’s White Paper.  In reverse (chronological order) they were:

3. Chrétien – who delighted in pleasing Canadians by undoing anything and everything with Mulroney’s name on it;

2. Mulroney – who understood that Canadians were unmoved, to put it mildly, by a programme to rearm Canada when even the US was talking _peace dividend_.  Mulroney understood, as did Beatty, that we Canadians had already taken one or two peace dividends – in 1968 and again in the late ‘70s – but he understood that they felt _*entitled*_ to another; and

1. DND – because Beatty had _freelanced_ the WP, ignoring DND’s strategic assessment (the Cold War is almost over, USSR is verging on collapse, at least major change, etc) and because he ignored financial realities.  There was, as I recall, $10B earmarked, in the WP, for nuclear subs but the Navy and ADM(Mat) agreed that $20B++ was required, at least.


----------



## Edward Campbell (19 Oct 2006)

I am of the view, and have been since the ‘70s, that Regional Development (using the defence procurement budget), Regional Industrial Benefits and Offsets are all chimaeras (defined as: _grotesque products of the imagination_).

I am prepared to concede that the very first _offset_ programme may have worked – it was, I believe, invented in the Netherlands during their scandal plagued Long Range Patrol Aircraft procurement, Canada followed suit on our version of the same project but ours didn’t work very well because there was no (useful) competitor for LocheeLockheed-140 – our AF wanted a North American made propeller driven aircraft, the (UK) Nimrod was offered but was effectively, in the competition for show only.

I am convinced that:

We pay, 100% and often (usually?) more, for every dollar we describe as _benefits_; and

Defence related jobs, especially in Canada but – as I think the marketplace reveals - in the US, too, are not ‘good’ long term, high _flow through_ jobs which build communities.  They tend to be short(er) term – GMDD/General Dynamics (London) being one of the exceptions which proves the rule.  The more evident rule, exemplified by Boeing and GD, is that the defence industry chews up companies, and jobs and investments, from the inside out. 

I, personally, would favour a lowest *fully compliant* bid wins process – then spend some money on supporting (subsidizing) companies which make goods (and services) we sell in the world market.  Some of those companies, sometimes will be defence related companies – _viz_ GMDD/GD(London)’s LAVIII.  I am happy to make a few exceptions to the general rule, for example:

•	I have no problem with a Canadian maritime construction strategy which aims to keep X Canadians yards open, up-to-date and *productive* by building Canadian ships in Canadian yards against a made-in-Canada requirement/schedule – IF such a monster can be created; and

•	I believe that major, long-life cycle systems (aircraft and helicopters come to mind) should be 100% supportable from within North America.  That means we can buy a European, Asian or Brazilian system IF the prime contractor established 3rd line support facilities here. 

Otherwise. I say: establish and validate a military operational requirement, secure funding from cabinet, pass the SOR and money to an _arm’s length_ (‘reformed’ and accountable Crown Corporation) procurement agency; and it buys a fully compliant product from the lowest (life cycle cost) bidder.


----------



## GAP (19 Oct 2006)

That makes good business sense. No politician in power will buy it for simply that reason. He/She will be slammed by the opposition on the Made in Canada fairy tale, etc.. What system of purchasing would give us the product and cut out the vote gathering/power brokering?


----------



## geo (19 Oct 2006)

STONEY said:
			
		

> I noticed that the Aussies announced intensions to procure C-17's just a few short months ago and just last week the first one came off the production line to begin testing.
> Canada announced a few short months ago its intention to procure C-17's  . Care to guess how long it will be before we see one. Will it be months or years(many) .
> Cheers.


Stoney,
Per a deal struck with the Aussie gov't we're to get one of their new C17s as it comes off the production line in exchange for one of ours that will come off the line slightly later.  Immaginative queue jumping to "share" scarce resources.


----------



## Kirkhill (19 Oct 2006)

Quote from Iterator:


> For a military that has been focused almost completely on expeditionary deployment since the end of the Second World War, the CF somehow ends up with absolutely no sealift and only limited airlift.



Operationally that pigeon came home to roost with the CAST (Canadian Air Sea Transportable) Brigade in the 1970s that was supposed to go rescue Norway - aka Hong Kong North.  The government of the day, PET if I am not mistaken, agreed to task Canadian based troops to support NATO rather than bolstering/maintaining Germany, but neglected to find the means to get them there.  The position seems to have been "if you want us to come to the party, pick us up at the front door."

Quote from Edward:



> I am prepared to concede that the very first offset programme may have worked – it was, I believe, invented in the Netherlands during their scandal plagued Long Range Patrol Aircraft procurement, Canada followed suit on our version of the same project but ours didn’t work very well because there was no (useful) competitor for LocheeLockheed-140 – our AF wanted a North American made propeller driven aircraft, the (UK) Nimrod was offered but was effectively, in the competition for show only.
> 
> I am convinced that:
> 
> We pay, 100% and often (usually?) more, for every dollar we describe as benefits;



I have been trying to find on the internet and buried on my hard-drive a Dutch study of about seven years ago.   Like Canada they had bought into the offsets bafflegab but being Dutch they decided to count their pennies and put it to the test.   They discovered that the average "benefit" Gilder cost the treasury 1.2 Gilders (IIRC).  The government of the day then revamped the purchase process.

(Proving that even the Dutch are not immune to politics I understand that subsequent minority parliaments have slowly been reinstating the "benefits".)


----------



## MarkOttawa (19 Oct 2006)

A bit of heresy.  Although most of the major military actions Canadian governments have engaged in are "interventionary" (in one way or another) since the end of the Cold War, we have never equipped the CF as a whole with that type of mission as their main focus overall.  Instead Canada has tried (for reasons that are obvious) to maintain three services, each with a wide spectrum of modern capabilities.  And ending up short-changing all of them, a situation I fear will not change much in the future.

The logical thing is the reconfigure the CF as *primarily* an expeditionary force along the lines of the USMC--BHSs, CAS, etc.

Make the Navy an effective sovereignty protection force (including the Arctic if that makes people happy and gets votes) with ships much better than the MCDVs, maybe a few frigates to support the BHS--but the latter would always operate as part of a combined force with naval and air support from others.  No subs.  JSSs to support whole navy but not as fancy if we have the BHS--AORs.

Air Force: Enough fighters to do sovereignty protection, sufficient maritime patrol, transport and attack helos, whatever is the most cost-efficient fixed-wing CAS/interdiction plane, tactical and strategic lift.  Get out of SAR which should be a civilian role.

Shoot me for the quick thoughts.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## warrickdll (19 Oct 2006)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> ...
> Operationally that pigeon came home to roost with the CAST (Canadian Air Sea Transportable) Brigade in the 1970s that was supposed to go rescue Norway - aka Hong Kong North.  The government of the day, PET if I am not mistaken, agreed to task Canadian based troops to support NATO rather than bolstering/maintaining Germany, but neglected to find the means to get them there.
> ...



Yes. And if the need became real then the Canadian Government would use the usual "we'd like to help but we're just not capable", "don't have the means", "don't have the troops", and yet somehow that lack of capability is (was?) never addressed.





			
				MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> ...
> The logical thing is the reconfigure the CF as *primarily* an expeditionary force along the lines of the USMC--BHSs, CAS, etc.
> ...



Not that the USMC organization is the be-all-and-end-all, but I would completely agree, except I find none of our current capabilities superfluous to this. 

Some major items are missing, but even without them it is the extremely disjointed (and thus - ironic) nature of the CF that seems to be the problem. And for emphasis: this is what the CF should have been for more than half a century.



But back to procurement: I don't believe that our current lack of capabilities (and thus the need to acquire them quickly) should be viewed as the natural state of affairs. If the capability gap was closed, and the National procurement policy fixed, then we should be able to have some Regional Development projects.


----------



## civmick (23 Oct 2006)

The Aussies ordered the -17s a good while before CF did, hence the deal struck between best buds Howard and Harper.  

They also have a A330K in the shop (in Madrid I think) for fit-out while the RAF, who started before them, are still wrapped up in knots with PFI nonsense while their already ageing AT fleet is being flogged up and down to Iraq and Afg.


----------

