Government hints at boosting Canada’s military spending

I have long said that you could fund the CAF to 4 percent of GDP, but we would still lag behind in NATO and be much the same where we are.

It's never the money, it's politics. It's procedures. It's the pork-barreling in our defence spending that makes us a paper tiger in NATO.

My only hope in all of this for the CAF and the GoC, whatever the political stripe that may be, is that it will rouse them out of the "Peace Dividend" slumber. The world has been unstable since 1945. We have used geography, proximity, and association as a Defence Policy ever since. ICBMs don't care how close to the U.S. or how far from Russia/China we are.

Don't give us a dime more, but let us spend money on defence like it matters. The fact we follow the same rules for purchasing a fighter aircraft as we do for buying office furniture for a Service Canada office is disgraceful. Don't treat defense procurement as a stimulus package for Canadian Industry. There I said it.

We spend so much money, time, and effort trying to get that money to stay in Canada; be it by awarding contracts to companies with no capability to produce items without first "retooling" and"developing the production lines", or by hamstringing perfectly competent and competitive bidders by forcing the project to be made in St. Margaret de Poutain de Champignon, QC because the ruling government either lost the seat in the election, or won it with promises.

We spend so much money and staff hours jumping through TBS regulations that are great for other departments, but are terrible for defence procurement. Some items you have to sole source, because there are technologies and capabilities no one else makes. By doing the bid process, you get companies clamoring for a project they can't deliver on, but because they tick the bright boxes on the score sheet....

I truly and honestly belief we need to split from PSPC and legislate that its not beholden to TBS, only to the PBO/PCO. The guiding principles of this new Defence Procurement department should be "Off the shelf, from somewhere else" if there isn't an industry in Canada.

BOOTFORGEN has demonstrated how well we do when we are able to actually get what we need, instead of lining the pockets of a Canadian company that got lucky.

That, but with tanks, fighters, ships, weapons systems....

 

[dapaterson]

Elements of the RCAF learned the wrong lessons from C130J, C17 and Chinook acquisitions. There are material differences between having only one source of supply and competitive processes.

Not that that was the fault of the requirements or acquisition teams. They did the best with what they had. They lacked the necessary top cover to force important issues.

 

[ytz]

Elements of the RCAF learned the wrong lessons from C130J, C17 and Chinook acquisitions. There are material differences between having only one source of supply and competitive processes.

I dunno....personally I think the RCAF made a mistake not stapling a FWSAR annex to the 130J sole source.....

 

[dapaterson]

I dunno....personally I think the RCAF made a mistake not stapling a FWSAR annex to the 130J sole source.....

Herc J was an ACAN, so technically not sole source.

 

[Good2Golf]

Herc J was an ACAN, so technically not sole source.

Yup, actually ACP-T, ACP-S (initial) and MHLH were all considered single bidder compliant, IIRC…certainly ACP-T and MHLH were. As you note, ACAN is just the advanced award notification. That said, ACP-S Amdt was directed sole-source.

 

[ytz]

Herc J was an ACAN, so technically not sole source.

Distinction without difference?

End of the day, the alphabet soup of procurement acronyms are nothing but political choices with some formalization. Whenever the politicians find it convenient, they can simply change "the process". That's my broader point.

I am curious what you mean by the RCAF learning the wrong lesson from that era. I think the takeaway is that the government isn't willing to entertain difficult and expensive procurement choices until wartime. And then all of a sudden, IRBs and offsets become less important.

I would submit that if we have an A380 go down in the Arctic and the RCAF suddenly demonstrates a lack of capacity to respond to a MAJAID, you will find whatever government of the day is suddenly a lot more comfortable with buying Hercs for SAR. And they'll use whatever instrument they need to get it done, without prioritizing IRBs.

 

[dapaterson]

I am curious what you mean by the RCAF learning the wrong lesson from that era. I think the takeaway is that the government isn't willing to entertain difficult and expensive procurement choices until wartime. And then all of a sudden, IRBs and offsets become less important.

The NGFC project tried and failed to make the case that only one platform met their needs, while the platform they were advocating for was still under development and did not in fact meet the SOR.

GoC can be convinced to do what's right. But too much of the senior leadership meekly accept what gets thrown at them and do not aggressively support their staff / requirements.

No matter what platforms the CAF ever has for SAR, a MAJAID like an A380 in the Arctic will be an ad hoc response, taking anyone who can jump and anything that can be dropped.

 

[daftandbarmy]

No matter what platforms the CAF ever has for SAR, a MAJAID like an A380 in the Arctic will be an ad hoc response, taking anyone who can jump and anything that can be dropped.

Except for something like, you know, and Airborne Regiment

 

[ytz]

The NGFC project tried and failed to make the case that only one platform met their needs, while the platform they were advocating for was still under development and did not in fact meet the SOR.

Indeed. Part of why FWSAR got screwed was because that PMO was swept up in accusations of bias that were tagging the fighter jocks at NGFC. But the FWSAR did have actual data to support their requirements. Unfortunately, they just lined up a bit too closely with the capabilities of one particular aircraft. Hence, the accusations of bias.

GoC can be convinced to do what's right. But too much of the senior leadership meekly accept what gets thrown at them and do not aggressively support their staff / requirements

I'm not sure that's a fair assessments. What's the CAS supposed to do in a case like this where the Minister of Industry stuck to his guns? Does he/she simply run down the current fleet and stop offering SAR while waiting for the government to come to their senses? Or do they just accept reality and try to make the best of it. I got to see this panic developing in real time at the moment. The CAS/DAR folks trying to do the best they could to get this project moving.

I do think we have an executive class that isn't as outspoken as they should be. But far too often they wear the consequences of the poor choices of the political class.

No matter what platforms the CAF ever has for SAR, a MAJAID like an A380 in the Arctic will be an ad hoc response, taking anyone who can jump and anything that can be dropped.

Absolutely. But something like that would quickly reveal the inadequacy of having only 16 FWSAR aircraft and all without the range, speed and payload to reach the High Arctic in fighting form. I am fairly sure we'd start getting demands for public inquiries if something like that ever happens.

 

[dapaterson]

CAS, ADM Mat, CDS and the DM should have better advocated and prepared MND to push back.

SAR in Canada is a huge set of problems...air coverage is only part of it.

 

[ytz]

CAS, ADM Mat, CDS and the DM should have better advocated and prepared MND to push back.

To a point. I don't know how we can be sure that they didn't advocate hard and that MND got overruled by his cabinet colleagues.

 

[Good2Golf]

Except for something like, you know, and Airborne Regiment

I think dapaterson meant “jumping and help” vs…you know…

I do think we have an executive class that isn't as outspoken as they should be. But far too often they wear the consequences of the poor choices of the political class.

Yes and yes. And the second yes is what it is, and a result of civilian control of the nation’s military.

To a point. I don't know how we can be sure that they didn't advocate hard and that MND got overruled by his cabinet colleagues.

MND isn’t part of The Four Corners, so even if they advocated for pure operational capability, that exigency is most often of secondary or even tertiary consideration.

 

[dapaterson]

Ten years in ID/OA, amended PA Def three years after the initial PA Def... These are signs of a project that, unfortunately, did not have top level interest. Again, not the fault of the staff trying to push rope uphill.

Fixed-wing search and rescue procurement project - Canada.ca

The Government of Canada is acquiring 16 CC-295s to take over the search and rescue duties undertaken by legacy fleets, CC-115 Buffalo aircraft and CC-130H Hercules aircraft.

www.canada.ca

 

[ytz]

MND isn’t part of The Four Corners, so even if they advocated for pure operational capability, that exigency is most often of secondary or even tertiary consideration.

Honestly, I wish we'd accept our political reality and work towards capabilities and a procurement plan that our industry will support. That's how we'd get real buy in.

The upcoming AEW buy is a good example. GlobalEye lacks two capabilities the Wedgetail has. AAR and 360° coverage. Instead of setting up a long fight, why not just work with Bombardier to build an airplane that has those two things.

The above process is how Australia works. And now they are selling kit to the US. Admittedly, this might require consistency beyond what Canadian governments are capable of.

 

[Good2Golf]

Honestly, I wish we'd accept our political reality and work towards capabilities and a procurement plan that our industry will support. That's how we'd get real buy in.

I agree. More astuteness across the board would likely move things more than presently.

 

[KevinB]

Honestly, I wish we'd accept our political reality and work towards capabilities and a procurement plan that our industry will support. That's how we'd get real buy in.

The upcoming AEW buy is a good example. GlobalEye lacks two capabilities the Wedgetail has. AAR and 360° coverage. Instead of setting up a long fight, why not just work with Bombardier to build an airplane that has those two things.

Or maybe just buy a compliant A/C that has other NATO users, and is similar to the P-8A you just bought...

 

[daftandbarmy]

Or maybe just buy a compliant A/C that has other NATO users, and is similar to the P-8A you just bought...

Doesn't sound much like 'leading change' to me though

 

[ytz]

Or maybe just buy a compliant A/C that has other NATO users, and is similar to the P-8A you just bought...

This is what I'm getting at. Sometimes we gotta accept that the only way to get buy in with more defence spending is to actually give work to industry.

Going to be very hard for a whole bunch of Ontario and Quebec MPs to sell a Wedgetail purchase when there's a Canadian supplier that can actually provide a decent enough solution that is used by a (now) NATO ally. There's no shame on admitting reality. It's better than fighting reality causing a decade long delay because no politician wants the embarrassment and wrath that comes with buying foreign when a home option was available.

My personal fantasy? We buy Wedgetails for AEW and give Bombardier a contract to develop a SIGINT platform on the Global, to be based in Ottawa, alongside a Global VVIP fleet. Sadly I'm a lowly peon.

Something like this:

Australia's New MC-55 Peregrine Electronic Warfare Jet Breaks Cover (Updated)

Peregrine aircraft will bring Australia's electronic attack and surveillance capabilities up to par with the U.S. and allies in the region.

www.twz.com

 

[Good2Golf]

My personal fantasy? We buy Wedgetails for AEW and give Bombardier a contract to develop a SIGINT platform on the Global, to be based in Ottawa, alongside a Global VVIP fleet. Sadly I'm a lowly peon.

…or an Canadian Indigenous company thin primes for Gulfstream to put the same suite on a G650 that gets its final finishing in a hangar at CYHU…

 

[dimsum]

Going to be very hard for a whole bunch of Ontario and Quebec MPs to sell a Wedgetail purchase when there's a Canadian supplier that can actually provide a decent enough solution that is used by a (now) NATO ally. There's no shame on admitting reality. It's better than fighting reality causing a decade long delay because no politician wants the embarrassment and wrath that comes with buying foreign when a home option was available.

Completely spitballing here, but the SOR arguments for the E-7 over the Bombardier would be range/endurance and interoperability, especially in the Arctic. I doubt that a business jet will have the range of a 737 airframe, and while Sweden is (now) a NATO ally, the E-7 is being used by 1 (soon to be 3) of the FVEY partners - currently Australia, but later the US and UK. There aren’t too many northern airfields in Canada or Alaska that could take a business jet, let alone a 737, so any missions will be pretty long.

ITBs aren’t a “veto” - they’re a percentage of the total bid (and not usually the largest percentage). The local lobby will lobby of course, but SOR requirements are given to the companies upfront. If one company doesn’t meet a mandatory requirement and the other one does…

 

[ytz]

Completely spitballing here, but the SOR arguments for the E-7 over the Bombardier would be range/endurance and interoperability, especially in the Arctic. I doubt that a business jet will have the range of a 737 airframe, and while Sweden is (now) a NATO ally, the E-7 is being used by 1 (soon to be 3) of the FVEY partners - currently Australia, but later the US and UK. There aren’t too many northern airfields in Canada or Alaska that could take a business jet, let alone a 737, so any missions will be pretty long.

You are thinking like a military member/supporter. Not a politician. From the latter's POV, buying a GlobalEye is win-win. The CAF gets the AEW they want and the voters get the jobs they want. Being ignorant of this kind of thinking or simply wishing it was is a foundational error on the part of CAF and departmental senior leadership. We can't avoid this mindset. So it's better if we just use it to our advantage.

On your specific example, it's quite easy for the government to buy GlobalEye's and simply improve airfields up north. "Hey look at our new Arctic Infrastructure Program that also counts as defence spending. Oh that development cheque we cut to Bombardier also counts towards our 2%."

ITBs aren’t a “veto” - they’re a percentage of the total bid (and not usually the largest percentage). The local lobby will lobby of course, but SOR requirements are given to the companies upfront. If one company doesn’t meet a mandatory requirement and the other one does…

You have only half the story. Not all ITBs are equal. There are two kinds of ITBs. Direct and Indirect. The latter is closer to traditional offsets. "We buy $10B from your company. You need to spend $10B in Canada." It's the directs that are the problem. This is the percentage that goes into the related industry. "We bought $10B worth of airplanes from your company. You need to spend $1.5B in our AEROSPACE SECTOR." Companies are usually okay with indirect offsets. They can buy a lot of Amish furniture for all their offices around the world if needed. They fight hard against direct offsets. Because that means rejigging their supply chain to replace an existing supplier with a Canadian supplier. And that's a lot harder to do, for a whole host of reasons.