# F-35 saga may make picking the new chief of defence staff a complicated task



## GAP (9 Apr 2012)

F-35 saga may make picking the new chief of defence staff a complicated task
 By Matthew Fisher, Postmedia News April 9, 2012
Article Link

As the collateral damage from the F-35 saga begins to pile up, it is perplexing to hear and read demands that Canada's top soldier, Gen. Walt Natynczyk, should resign or be fired.

Viewed from the outside, it may be assumed that as the chief of defence staff (CDS) and the public face of the Canadian Forces, Natynczyk was ultimately responsible for the serious shortcomings that the auditor general found in the Joint Strike Fighter procurement process. But the procurement system does not work that way.

It is the chief of defence staff's job to prepare the Armed Forces to deliver troops to carry out missions assigned by the government. Part of that is defining what the requirements are for equipment and advising the government about them. After that it becomes a procurement issue and that is not the CDS's responsibility.

The person responsible for that at the Department of National Defence is Dan Ross, the assistant deputy minister-materiel. Ross is accountable to the department's deputy minister, Rob Fonberg. He in turn reports to the defence minister, Peter MacKay.

The communications strategy for the F-35 - which has clearly been a colossal failure - was led by Fonberg's longtime assistant deputy minister public affairs, Josee Touchette.

Also mired in the mud because they have important procurement responsibilities are Public Works and Industry Canada.

Natynczyk is probably only a couple of months away from retiring after 37 years in uniform. Given the current frenzy over the F-35, if he leaves soon it may look as if he has been pushed to retire in disgrace.

This is unfair.

As well as having had little to do with the F-35 procurement process, on Natynczyk's watch Canadian combat troops slowly turned the situation around in Kandahar and Canadian warplanes and warships had success against Libya. Before becoming CDS, senior U.S. commanders raved about Natynczyk's work as the deputy commanding general of a multi-national force of more than 30,000 soldiers in Iraq.

The loud demands for change at National Defence could influence who Prime Minister Stephen Harper selects as the next CDS.

Until recently, when the succession plan suddenly became opaque, conventional wisdom had it that after seven years with army officers Rick Hillier and Natynczyk in charge, the next CDS would come from the navy or air force.

The leading candidates, have long been Vice-Admiral Bruce Donaldson, who is Natynczyk's deputy, Vice-Admiral Paul Maddison, the navy commander, Lt.-Gen. Andre Deschamps, the air force commander and, more recently, Lt.-Gen. Tom Lawson, who is No. 2 at NORAD but was Deschamps' assistant until last summer.

However, the chances of all these officers may have been hurt by the F-35 brouhaha and the navy's much delayed, multi-billion dollar submarine project.

With feelings being as raw as they are, Harper may wish to maximize damage control by casting a wider net to replace Natynczyk.

If so, bearing in mind that John de Chastelain was brought out of retirement in the 1990s to serve a second term as CDS, two recently retired flag officers come to mind. Air force Lt.-Gen. Chuck Bouchard, a helicopter pilot who led NATO's war in Libya, has no political baggage, having spent the past few years in Italy. And army Lt. Gen. Andy Leslie, whose last job in uniform was to prepare a report on transformation that was highly critical of the way the military is currently structured and whose recommendations informed many of the cuts that were undertaken in the government's austerity budget a few weeks ago.

The other candidates with little or no connection to the F-35 or to the submarines are from the army.

Three-star generals Peter Devlin, Walt Semaniw, Stu Beare and Marquis Hainse are all of the right rank to be promoted, although it is not clear how many of them want the job.

If the prime minister wanted to hugely shake the brass up, he could reach down to the two-star level where there are two charismatic army officers who would not normally be considered for the top job for several more years. They are Maj.-Gen. Jon Vance, who commanded twice in Kandahar and is director of the Strategic Joint Staff in Ottawa and Maj.-Gen. Mike Day, who ran special forces and now heads NATO's crucial Afghan army and police training program.

Whoever succeeds Natynczyk, he will have his hands full making sure the military leadership does not become paralyzed by dramas surrounding the F-35 and the submarines.
end


----------



## matthew1786 (10 Apr 2012)

Too add to this:

http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20120409/f-35-procurement-questions-continue-120409/


----------



## lethalLemon (10 Apr 2012)

"three-star".... *shudder*

I met General Beare a couple years ago, nice man and very well spoken. I could definitely see him take the reigns as the CDS and be okay, however, I don't think he'd take the job though. Like the article says, Mr Harper could appoint General Vance, which not only would I support, I'd encourage. While it's unorthodox to appoint one under LGen, MGen Vance seems to be a man who knows what our military needs - especially after being head of Afghanistan operations, twice.

I don't think that the Submarines and the JSF will plague the CDS, present or future. I don't really know how the procurement process works but doesn't the CDS just make a recommendation and not necessarily an actual "be-all-end-all" decision-making type of position? Leaving the political body of the Military (MND etc) to decide whether or not the purchase will be made? The submarines have been nothing but problems for the CF, hell, the Brits got rid of them for the same reason didn't they? I'm sure the CDS at the time was pulling his hair out when he had to learn that the GoC was purchasing them. Therefore, it should be the politicians that _should_ take the heat for a _possible_ good (or bad) purchase, right?


----------



## Journeyman (10 Apr 2012)

GAP said:
			
		

> Whoever succeeds Natynczyk, he will have his hands full making sure the military leadership does not become paralyzed by dramas  surrounding the F-35 and the submarines.


...like the media   :


VAdm Donaldson...LGen Deschamps....LGen Leslie...Walt Semaniw....Marquis Hainse. 
Wow. It's like our very own Republican Party leadership.   :not-again:


----------



## OldSolduer (11 Apr 2012)

Mike Day. My nomination if I had one to make. But I don't, so this is all moot.


----------



## jollyjacktar (11 Apr 2012)

MGen Vance, my  :2c:.


----------



## fraserdw (11 Apr 2012)

RCN or RCAF, pick your choice, it will not be an army guy otherwise Leslie would have hung on!


----------



## Jed (11 Apr 2012)

The CF is in a pretty good spot for picking a new CDS. There is no shortage of good, capable leaders with stellar track records to pick from. Quite different from other areas ala the Republicans trying to pick a front runner for the upcoming Elections.


----------



## ArmyRick (12 Apr 2012)

Who says it has to be RCAF or RCN? there is no set rotation.
Last several CDS
Army-Army-Air Force-Army-Acting Navy-Air Force (This takes us back to 1996 now).


----------



## FSTO (12 Apr 2012)

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> Who says it has to be RCAF or RCN? there is no set rotation.
> Last several CDS
> Army-Army-Air Force-Army-*Acting Navy*-Air Force (This takes us back to 1996 now).



WTF??


----------



## OldSolduer (12 Apr 2012)

I beleive my young Jedi ArmyRick is referring to Vice Admiral Murray, who was not made a full Admiral, but was made "Acting CDS"  vice full CDS.


----------



## ArmyRick (12 Apr 2012)

FSTO, 

Exactly right. It was the nineties and a period post somalia, we were going through CDS pretty quick.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (12 Apr 2012)

In the 70's (good lord, I am dating myself!!!), we used to say that, when it came to selecting CDS:

If you want good leadership, select a General;
If you want good administration, select an Admiral;
and, if you want good politics, select an Air Force General.

Breakfast tomorrow, Air Marshall?


----------



## ModlrMike (12 Apr 2012)

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> Who says it has to be RCAF or RCN? there is no set rotation.
> Last several CDS
> Army-Army-Air Force-Army-Acting Navy-Air Force (This takes us back to 1996 now).



For the complete scorecard (going back to 1964 when the position was created):

Land: 8
Sea: 3
Air: 6

Mathematically we're due for a sailor. Politically, who knows? I think the Air Force may be out of the running due to the political backlash of the F35. That leaves Army and RCN... and it's been 15 years since we've had an admiral at the helm.


----------



## OldSolduer (12 Apr 2012)

So.....should we all be practicing saying Aye Aye sir in our bestest pirate voices?  >


----------



## Scoobs (12 Apr 2012)

Maybe we'll all get our ration of rum at the end of the day so that we all go home happy, even after all the cuts!!   ;D


----------



## OldSolduer (13 Apr 2012)

Scoobs said:
			
		

> Maybe we'll all get our ration of rum at the end of the day so that we all go home happy, even after all the cuts!!   ;D



Argghhhh matey....yo ho ho and a bottle of rum......argghhhhh where's me parrot?

Slow derail........and full tailspin.....


----------



## Kirkhill (13 Apr 2012)

Sounds like you buggers might need a bit of touching up.....anybody got a lash handy.


----------



## Journeyman (13 Apr 2012)

First rum......and then the lash; under Navy rule, what could _possibly_ be next?     >


----------



## Occam (13 Apr 2012)

"Sailors, with their built in sense of order, service and discipline, should really be running the world." 

     -Nicholas Monsarrat


----------



## dapaterson (13 Apr 2012)

I vote for Bloggins. Never met the man, but I've heard so much about him/her...


----------



## Cui (13 Apr 2012)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> First rum......and then the lash; under Navy rule, what could _possibly_ be next?     >



Liquid soap will be banned, and replaced with bar soaps that are formulated to be especially slippery in all CF showers.  :


----------



## OldSolduer (13 Apr 2012)

Occam said:
			
		

> "Sailors, with their built in sense of order, service and discipline, should really be running the world."
> 
> -Nicholas Monsarrat



Yeah, right.  :facepalm:  



			
				dapaterson said:
			
		

> I vote for Bloggins. Never met the man, but I've heard so much about him/her...



He'll do. He's made every mistake that could be made. His experience will be beneficial.


----------



## The Bread Guy (13 Apr 2012)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> I vote for Bloggins. Never met the man, but I've heard so much about him/her...


A bit of a legendary icon, if you will....


----------



## Kibagami (25 Jul 2012)

How about 3 CDS instead of just 1?

You get the best man for each (Army, Navy and Air),

Then problem solve!!!  ;D


----------



## Jimmy_D (26 Jul 2012)

Then we would need to make a field marshal rank, like the brits, in the event of war time.


----------



## Edward Campbell (26 Jul 2012)

Jimmy_D said:
			
		

> Then we would need to make a field marshal rank, like the brits, in the event of war time.




Or we could go back to 1951 when the MND of the day, Brooke Claxton, established an embryonic _unified_ system: the Chiefs of Staff Committee, which consisted of the three (three star) service chiefs (Chief of the Naval Staff, Chief of the General Staff and Chief of the Air Staff) and a Chairman (a four star) who was charged with _coordinating_ (but not *commanding*) service activities. the first Chairman of the Chiefs of Staff Committee was Gen Charles Foulkes ~ he served as Chairman for nine years! The second and last was Air Chief Marshal Frank Miller who, in 1964, slid, seamlessly, into the newly created CDS position.







   
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



Gen Charles Foulkes                                 ACM Frank Miller


----------



## Old Sweat (26 Jul 2012)

The system worked when defence budgets were healthy and robust, as in the early and mid fifties, but it faltered when recession hit in the late fifties and then the Grits decided to concentrate on developing the European model welfare state we have now. To do so, the defence budget would have to be scaled back quite dramatically, which should have triggered an effective review and rationalization of the defence structure. However the Chairman really did not have enough power to control the spending by the various services and there were three budgets and three bureaucracies and a hockey sock full of coordinating committees. And, boys and girls, was a situation tailor made for a royal commission to uncover all sorts of duplication and waste. And then (dramatic pause) along came an ambitious politician who decided to integrate the three headquarters into one as the first step to creating a superbly managed, modern force which would be a model to the rest of the free world.


----------



## Edward Campbell (26 Jul 2012)

I would add that one of the reasons DND sufered from financial management problems was that, in 1955, Air Marshall Frank Miller was _dragooned_ into replacing the estimable C.M. (Bud) Drury as Deputy Minister of National Defence - a position he held for five years until he returned to uniformed military service to replace Gen Foulkes as Chairman of the Chiefs of Staff Committee. It was not, in my opinion, that Miller was a bad DM, but his focus was "off," I think. He remained, as he had been while in uniform, committed to building the armed forces when the better focus would have been on consolidating the gains he had helped to make and "battening down the financial hatches" when the costs of national defence began to spiral upwards. It is important to remember that defence policy, defence budgets and material (equipment) are all the responsibility of the DM, not the CDS. A tougher minded bureaucrat in the late 1950s _might_ have saved us from some of the worst political excesses of he 1960s.


----------



## Kirkhill (26 Jul 2012)

No sardonics or irony intended here:  This is a straight up legitimate question.

Has there ever been a time where upper management has delivered a system that generated results of the requisite efficiency?

My own sense, my own opinion, after having spent a lifetime chasing the elusive 95% efficiency, not to mention 99.999%, is that once the human element enters affairs we are doomed to operate at around the 70% mark with 80% being a very good week.

There are more B students than A students.


----------



## GAP (26 Jul 2012)

Didn't the LAVIII purchase go relatively smoothly?


----------



## Kirkhill (26 Jul 2012)

I think you are right GAP but it seems I should have been clearer.  

When I said system I was thinking more in terms of a system of management rather than a mechanical system like the LAVIII or the F35.  Has there ever been an uncontestable method for delegating Responsibility, Authority and Budget that kept everybody happy?


----------



## Old Sweat (26 Jul 2012)

I have been musing on the success rate on major projects and, without a lot of anything except anecdotal information, suspect cost overruns and delays along with technical glitches are a fact of life. This, by the way, is not restricted to the CF or to Canada. It seems to be a fact of life that these programs are almost impossible to manage properly, at least in part because the challenges that pop up are too, too often impossible to forecast. The more advanced the technology, the greater the probability that something or a bunch of things will go off the rails.

Personal note - back circa 1966 I was a lieutenant posted as a liaison officer in HQ 4 CIBG. Among my duties was the operations overwatch of the introduction of the brand new M113A1s along with the VRC 12 family of radios. Despite both being proven systems and despite the CFHQ requirements and technical staffs being pretty well on the ball, a major glitch occurred with each. In the case of the M113A1, which was diesel powered, the vibration caused by the tracks on the German cobblestones and pavement cracked a large number of the fuel tanks. The gasoline models had a bladder inside the tank, but this could not be done with our version. The fix was to repair the tanks by welding, but welding aluminum required a technique and maybe kit not readily available in the army. In time personnel were trained and equipment came on line, and the problem went away. As for the radios, the 1780 box, which was the main controller for the system that connected intercom, headsets, antenna matching units, power supplies and the radios, had a major construction flaw which resulted in a replacement program.


----------



## rgc1957 (28 Jul 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Or we could go back to 1951 when the MND of the day, Brooke Claxton, established an embryonic _unified_ system: the Chiefs of Staff Committee, which consisted of the three (three star) service chiefs (Chief of the Naval Staff, Chief of the General Staff and Chief of the Air Staff) and a Chairman (a four star) who was charged with _coordinating_ (but not *commanding*) service activities. the first Chairman of the Chiefs of Staff Committee was Gen Charles Foulkes ~ he served as Chairman for nine years! The second and last was Air Chief Marshal Frank Miller who, in 1964, slid, seamlessly, into the newly created CDS position.



As I recall, Foulkes retired as a lieutenant general.  Frank Miller didn't get his fourth star until he became CDS; rank inflation under Hellyer wasn't limited to corporals and captains.


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Jul 2012)

rgc1957 said:
			
		

> As I recall, Foulkes retired as a lieutenant general.  Frank Miller didn't get his fourth star until he became CDS; rank inflation under Hellyer wasn't limited to corporals and captains.




My recollection is fuzzy and I cannot (quickly and easily) find and authoritative bio, but Charles Foulkes is buried (at Beechwood in Ottawa) as a General:






According to this (which is detailed and full of citations, albeit not all helpful) Frank Miller "... dusted off’ his air marshal’s uniform and commenced his second career in the RCAF, this time as its oldest recruit. On 2 June, he chaired his first COSC meeting. And *on 1 September 1961, Frank Miller was promoted to Air Chief Marshal* (General), the only active Canadian airman to hold that rank."


----------



## rgc1957 (28 Jul 2012)

The original source for the rootsweb page is the _Canadian Military Journal_ (http://www.journal.forces.gc.ca/vol10/no2/doc/08-stouffer-eng.pdf).

Thus, I stand corrected.  However, the claim about Miller's fourth star was something I had read.  I wish I could remember where, so that I could see to it that it was corrected.

Foulkes was promoted in January 1954.  His comments at the time: "This new promotion to the rank of general is another first in my career. I was the only officer to rise from the rank of captain to lieutenant-general during the last war.  I was the youngest officer at 43 to become Chief of the General Staff.  I was the first permanent Chairman of the Canadian Chiefs of Staff and now I am the first Canadian to be appointed a general in peacetime.  I am, of course, very pleased.  It is one of those things a person looks for in life."


----------



## Edward Campbell (30 Jul 2012)

rgc1957 said:
			
		

> The original source for the rootsweb page is the _Canadian Military Journal_ (http://www.journal.forces.gc.ca/vol10/no2/doc/08-stouffer-eng.pdf).
> 
> Thus, I stand corrected.  However, the claim about Miller's fourth star was something I had read.  I wish I could remember where, so that I could see to it that it was corrected.
> 
> Foulkes was promoted in January 1954.  His comments at the time: "This new promotion to the rank of general is another first in my career. I was the only officer to rise from the rank of captain to lieutenant-general during the last war.  I was the youngest officer at 43 to become Chief of the General Staff.  I was the first permanent Chairman of the Canadian Chiefs of Staff and now I am the first Canadian to be appointed a general in peacetime.  I am, of course, very pleased.  It is one of those things a person looks for in life."




Thanks for that rgc1957. Can you point me towards the source of that quote, please? Thanks, in advance.



Edit: typo


----------



## Old Sweat (30 Jul 2012)

And Foulkes, who was lucky to not have been relieved in Normandy, managed to forget that Sir William Otter, anorther Royal, was the second Canadian to be promoted to the rank of General after Sir Arthur Currie, and the first to reach that rank in peacetime. And I am looking for a source to confirm the date, but Currie was promoted to General after he returned to Canada after the end of the war.

http://www.biographi.ca/009004-119.01-e.php?&id_nbr=7848


----------



## Kirkhill (30 Jul 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Thanks for that rgc1957. Can you point me towards the source of that quote, please? Thanks, in advance.
> 
> 
> 
> Edit: typo



He makes Monty and Patton sound like shrinking violets......


----------

