# Quote of the Day from the New Defence Procurment Strategy



## trustnoone73 (11 Feb 2014)

"We have had procurement successes" - Robert Nicholson,  Minister of National Defence


I had a Monty Python flashback with that one:







Maybe procurment of this was a success.  These vehicles just won't die:






But they won't start in colder than -10 either, I probably just need a longer view here.

Currently the high water mark for procurment, the 2014 Pattern Mukluk:






Oh wait...2015 you say.  Thankfully, we have mild winters planned for the next 3 to 10 years during roll-out"

The real aim of course is to "...recognize the need to improve. "  Not going for TC here, just "Most Improved."  

Shouldn't be too hard.  Good luck.


----------



## Tibbson (11 Feb 2014)

trustnoone73 said:
			
		

> The real aim of course is to "...recognize the need to improve. "  Not going for TC here, just "Most Improved.
> 
> Shouldn't be too hard.  Good luck.



When one strives for mediocrity they leave plenty of room for improvement.  Lets not peak too soon and set the bar so high we can't maintain it in the future.   :


----------



## pbi (11 Feb 2014)

> "...recognize the need to improve.



Yes, indeed. A recurring theme throughout history.

Overheard at Lakehurst, NJ (above the crashing sounds): _"We recognize the need to improve airship design"_

Caught in passing in the Fuehrerbunker in 1945:_ "Mein Fuehrer we recognize the need to improve our force management models in the near to mid-term horizons"_

Well, I'm glad they recognize it. The first step toward redemption is the admission of sin.

But, the great thing is that procurement is now out of the evil slimy hands of the wicked and untrustworthy military, and firmly in the hands of PWGSC and Industry Canada.

But...wait...wasn't it there before?


----------



## dapaterson (11 Feb 2014)

No word on any of the current players in procurement giving up people or reforming their internal systems.

So, it appears that the solution to an overly bureaucratic system is to impose more bureaucracy.

I think we can describe this as "Transformation inaction."


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (11 Feb 2014)

Dixit Jim Hacker to the B.B.C.: Well, its logical really, You have to take on more staff , in order to reduce staff.


----------



## daftandbarmy (11 Feb 2014)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> No word on any of the current players in procurement giving up people or reforming their internal systems.
> 
> So, it appears that the solution to an overly bureaucratic system is to impose more bureaucracy.
> 
> I think we can describe this as "Transformation inaction."



A piece of spaghetti or a military unit can only be led from the front end.

George S. Patton

Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/g/george_s_patton_2.html#yYiQYSrGh4LoLuF6.99


----------



## ArmyRick (11 Feb 2014)

The LSVW, a true Canadian success story! (Ducking from rotten fruit being thrown at my head).

Now how about those EH101s we got back '93? Oh wait, right, "no 'elicopters" as promised by a former PM.

At some point, I think we simply stop caring about we are given, issued or procured for us. Maybe someday we will get everything on our Christmas wish list and put the warfighters as a priority.


----------



## George Wallace (11 Feb 2014)

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> At some point, I think we simply stop caring about we are given, issued or procured for us. Maybe someday we will get everything on our Christmas wish list and put the warfighters as a priority.



Or we become one of those 'Militias" that one finds in the back woods of some US States.


----------



## OldSolduer (11 Feb 2014)

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> The LSVW, a true Canadian success story! (Ducking from rotten fruit being thrown at my head).
> 
> Now how about those EH101s we got back '93? Oh wait, right, "no 'elicopters" as promised by a former PM.



Loud Squeaky Vehicle Wheeled - yes a true success.  :facepalm:

And they were "Cadillac elicopters"

Backwood Militia - I will start the "Elm Creek Rangers"


----------



## The Bread Guy (11 Feb 2014)

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> Now how about those EH101s we got back '93? Oh wait, right, "no 'elicopters" as promised by a former PM.


And the file hasn't moved appreciably quicker under current management, either ....  



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> ArmyRick said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 :nod:


----------



## Danjanou (11 Feb 2014)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Or we become one of those 'Militias" that one finds in the back woods of some US States.



Well most of them are better armed and clothed than some of our units, and have less paperwork to deal with.  8)


----------



## pbi (11 Feb 2014)

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> ...At some point, I think we simply stop caring about we are given, issued or procured for us. Maybe someday we will get everything on our Christmas wish list and put the warfighters as a priority.



Actually, if we're honest, the last ten years were pretty amazing. Before 9/11 I served 20+ years under a string of governments, of both colours, and we never did as well as we did when the Afghan war was on. 

We struggled in the pre-Afghan years, and you're going to struggle now.  It's what happens in democracies when the fighting stops. Just remember, no matter what happens, to keep the basics alive and don't let the flame go out. A good model is the German Reichsheer from about 1920 to 1933: they learned to do well with very little. You can too.

I know that sounds like a smug Old Retired Guy talking, but what realistic choice is there?

The world will  come calling again. It always does, when we least expect it to. And when it does, the Canadian government of the day will do what it always does: open the money tap.


----------



## armyvern (11 Feb 2014)

pbi said:
			
		

> ...
> It's what happens in democracies when the fighting stops. Just remember, no matter what happens, to keep the basics alive and don't let the flame go out. ....



Well, I don't know about you, but as a citizen of an Arctic nation with a military whose primary role is to defend Canada's sovereignty, I consider Arctic mukluks (ie:  winter boots!!!) pretty darn *basic*.  Everyone should have a set and we should have spares to back up loss, damage and disposal of such basic necessities.   If we can't get even that basic necessity correct ... ooopps; Jesus wept.


----------



## pbi (12 Feb 2014)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Well, I don't know about you, but as a citizen of an Arctic nation with a military whose primary role is to defend Canada's sovereignty, I consider Arctic mukluks (ie:  winter boots!!!) pretty darn *basic*.  Everyone should have a set and we should have spares to back up loss, damage and disposal of such basic necessities.   If we can't get even that basic necessity correct ... ooopps; Jesus wept.



You're right.

I'm not saying there isn't going to be stupidity and irrational penny-pinching: there will be. What I am saying is that despite all the idiotic BS that is happening now (and is coming, I'm quite sure...), somebody has to keep the lights on for next time.

Because, if we know just one thing, there will be a "next time". And we won't see it coming any better than we ever have.


----------



## Journeyman (12 Feb 2014)

pbi said:
			
		

> And we won't see it coming any better than we ever have.


Given the Int empire's growth, I'm sure we'll have _plenty_ of accurate, timely forewarning.  :nod:

/sarcasm


----------



## pbi (12 Feb 2014)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Given the Int empire's growth, I'm sure we'll have _plenty_ of accurate, timely forewarning.  :nod:
> 
> /sarcasm


As ever....


----------



## ArmyRick (12 Feb 2014)

Thats the scary part when i think on recent history. The next time is??? God only knows.

In 1999 or 2000, if someone said the CF would be heavily involved for more than a decade in Afghanistan, I would thought "yeah right". Ultimately, one terrorist attack, changed everything.

Middle east? South America? Asia? Europe? Our own land? next year or ten years from now? Only time will tell and PBI is right, we must carry the torch as best we can (even if its with the torch made from the lowest bidder)


----------



## pbi (12 Feb 2014)

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> Thats the scary part when i think on recent history. The next time is??? God only knows.
> 
> In 1999 or 2000, if someone said the CF would be heavily involved for more than a decade in Afghanistan, I would thought "yeah right". Ultimately, one terrorist attack, changed everything.
> 
> Middle east? South America? Asia? Europe? Our own land? next year or ten years from now? Only time will tell and PBI is right, we must carry the torch as best we can (even if its with the torch made from the lowest bidder)



Or a bombing campaign in Europe (Kosovo)? Or another bombing campaign in North Africa? The one thing that always makes me laugh is when I hear people pontificate about what the future security environment will look like. Nobody ever gets it right.


----------



## brihard (12 Feb 2014)

Any reference in the new strategy to the 'self divestment' of older vehicle stocks? That one had me in stitches when I saw it...


----------



## Navy_Pete (12 Feb 2014)

pbi said:
			
		

> Actually, if we're honest, the last ten years were pretty amazing for the army . Before 9/11 I served 20+ years under a string of governments, of both colours, and we never did as well as we did when the Afghan war was on.
> 
> We struggled in the pre-Afghan years, and you're going to struggle now.  It's what happens in democracies when the fighting stops. Just remember, no matter what happens, to keep the basics alive and don't let the flame go out. A good model is the German Reichsheer from about 1920 to 1933: they learned to do well with very little. You can too.
> 
> ...



Amended slightly...

Don't get me wrong, happy the folks in relish got what they needed when things hit the fan, and sure it saved a bunch of lives, so it was money well spent.

But did come at the expense of other things, and the navy and airforce could really use some new (read supportable) equipment.  FELEX is pretty big deal, but not having dependable tankers makes us severely dependent upon allies, who are also shrinking their navies.  FELEX only touched the combat suite though, so aside from some minor upgrades to support the whiz bangs, and a new control system, the propulsion plant and power generation is largely untouched. Given that the hulls are not as overengineered as the older ships, not too confident there won't be significant metal fatigue related cracking issues on the hulls over the next decade.

Unfortunately it just happens to coincide with some political BS so they are doing everything they can to delay any and all actual spending on new ships, but they don't want to hear that the 40+ year old ships are just done.  Despite the most optimistic predictions, they are doing a pretty good job of 'self-divesting' ahead of schedule.


----------



## Container (12 Feb 2014)

All the elements get their time in the sun. The Canada First Defence Strategy, to me, appears very RCAF and RCN heavy. Expect many photo ops and new ops that flex those capabilities.

From my own opinion of course.


----------



## Journeyman (13 Feb 2014)

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> But did come at the expense of other things, and the navy and airforce could really use some new (read supportable) equipment.


I suspect that your time is on the horizon.

Afghanistan didn't produce any clear-cut victories leading to VE Day-style parades, so there's no political mileage to be made there. While others have commented on the reliability of future threat forecasts, I suspect that _whatever_ government is in power will avoid a repeat performance any time soon, and find reasons to deploy CAF elements in less-costly ways (in direct money, lives' lost, post-war issues) in order to reduce Op Ed criticism.  This isn't a slight against my brother services, but the Air Force ops in Libya and the Navy in the Arabian Sea were largely ignored by the yammering crowd; because of that, those missions will likely be the way ahead.

As such, I can see Air and Navy funding being supported as the 'politically safe' course of action.  For the Army, it may be time to dust off the baby blue berets; the hand-wringers can rejoice in their return to the peacekeeping myth and the government can be seen deploying troops with minimal expensive equipment and reduced risk to life.



My  :2c: ...and worth exactly what you paid for it.


----------



## pbi (13 Feb 2014)

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> Amended slightly...
> ..But did come at the expense of other things, and the navy and airforce could really use some new (read supportable) equipment....
> Unfortunately it just happens to coincide with some political BS so they are doing everything they can to delay any and all actual spending on new ships, but they don't want to hear that the 40+ year old ships are just done.  Despite the most optimistic predictions, they are doing a pretty good job of 'self-divesting' ahead of schedule.



You might be surprised to find that, in my opinion, the defence of Canada and of North America (our two highest defence priorities) are really all about the RCN and the RCAF. If the Army is involved in operations to defend the soil of Canada, something has gone seriously wrong.

So, if we are going to focus on those two priorities (and there is no reason we shouldn't, and lots of good reasons why we should), then I agree with Container that there is "blue" sky ahead, literally. 

Both services are heavily dependent on large, expensive pieces of complex machinery that take a very long time to develop and to build, and can't be replaced easily, and require massive land-based infrastructure to support.  The services simply can't do their jobs without these things. Large, expensive procurement programs are a prerequisite for real capability in these services. This is not WWII where we can crank out a corvette a week in Joe's Boatyard.

My reflections on the last ten years were focused on the Army because that is what I know about, not because I wanted to dismiss the other three components.

If I controlled the purse strings, I would definitely order the priorities as RCAF (because its capability is vital to both maritime and land ops), then the RCN, then the Army. I haven't really thought through SOF, but then they aren't normally the consumers of massive, lengthy procurement programs.

I would like nothing better than to see an RCN that could put up a very good fight on all of our coastlines, while having a respectable capability for joint force projection. That, in my Army mind, would require capable surface and sub-surface combatants, air defence and C2 vessels, a credible maritime air capability, expeditionary theatre-level sustainment capability (not just two old AORs), and the ability to project and sustain a ground force of reasonable size. That would be a very nice Navy.


----------



## Infanteer (13 Feb 2014)

pbi said:
			
		

> You might be surprised to find that, in my opinion, the defence of Canada and of North America (our two highest defence priorities) are really all about the RCN and the RCAF. If the Army is involved in operations to defend the soil of Canada, something has gone seriously wrong.



Except for the Humanitarian Assistance and Disaster Relief (HADR) operations we get called out for every year.  The Army provides two things; C2 in a time of crisis and manpower.



> If I controlled the purse strings, I would definitely order the priorities as RCAF (because its capability is vital to both maritime and land ops), then the RCN, then the Army.



Shades of 1934.  I'd argue that Canada is defended forward.  Threats to our coasts (real threats) are most risky, but least likely to occur.

_edit to fix quote box_


----------



## pbi (13 Feb 2014)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Except for the Humanitarian Assistance and Disaster Relief (HADR) operations we get called out for every year.  The Army provides two things; C2 in a time of crisis and manpower.



True, but that doesn't require the Army to have a higher priority in continental defence than the RCAF or Navy. To be brutally honest, much of what the Army does under HADR could be done by the Army Reserve (it is very much a USARNG job in the US, not an active Army job), or by a civil force similiar to the German TNHW or the old Civil Defense Service that disappeared back in the 1960's. It isn't much to pin the _raison d'etre _of an Army on.



			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> Shades of 1934.  I'd argue that Canada is defended forward.  Threats to our coasts (real threats) are most risky, but least likely to occur.



I agree that Canada is defended forward. And the two most forward reaching components, capable of the greatest strategic mobility, are the air and the naval components.

I'm not saying "get rid of the Army" or even "trash the Army". What I am saying is that *IF* we are going to focus on Continental defence, while retaining the ability to reach out further, the order of priority for major procurement puts the Army last.

Our problem, I think, is that Canada's military image of itself has always focused primarily on the expeditionary activities of the Army, almost to the exclusion of the other services. Maybe we shouldn't assume that our most important committment is always going to be land-centric.


----------



## MilEME09 (13 Feb 2014)

pbi said:
			
		

> Our problem, I think, is that Canada's military image of itself has always focused primarily on the expeditionary activities of the Army, almost to the exclusion of the other services. Maybe we shouldn't assume that our most important committment is always going to be land-centric.



Well aside from helicopters, and transport to and from, the air force doesn't really have that projection of power ability, I mean what will we send maybe 4 F-18's? sure we could do it but from a budget standpoint the entire weapons load and fuel for one sortie costs about the same as a small task force. As for the navy some one with more knowledge of naval operations could probably point out why we don't commit more to NATO and UN operations. (other then the small size of the fleet).


----------



## pbi (13 Feb 2014)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Well aside from helicopters, and transport to and from, the air force doesn't really have that projection of power ability, I mean what will we send maybe 4 F-18's? sure we could do it but from a budget standpoint the entire weapons load and fuel for one sortie costs about the same as a small task force. As for the navy some one with more knowledge of naval operations could probably point out why we don't commit more to NATO and UN operations. (other then the small size of the fleet).



I'm not defending what "is". I'm arguing what "should be". And we will only get to that "should be" through very expensive and lengthy procurement programs, which would require some pretty strict prioritizing of funds. 

And, I beg to differ: a *properly resourced* Air Force or Navy has more immediate strategic mobility than an Army can ever have (unless it owns its own ships and planes). The Army relies on the other two components for its strategic mobility.


----------



## Container (13 Feb 2014)

Also, Libya styled projections cost lots of money- but no Canadians die. Canadians expect the military to cost money- but they dont have the back bone for dead soldiers/sailors/airmen


----------



## Colin Parkinson (14 Feb 2014)

yet we did a decade in Afghanistan with a number killed. It's how the mission is sold and or led.


----------

