Author Topic: COMMENTARY: Canada’s military procurement legacy somehow gets even stupider  (Read 6290 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline CBH99

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 26,755
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 801
I know I'm probably just venting here more than anything, so I have a feeling this post will be rhetorical...

But why not arm all federal agencies with the same sidearm?  RCMP & CBSA I imagine could use the same sidearm, why not CAF also?


Streamline supplies, parts, contracts, ammo, etc etc.  Keep it simple.  (Or if the CAF really needs to go down it's own road on this one, which I'm sure there are plenty of valid arguments for, why not keep the pistol uniform across the CAF and go with the Navy's Sig?)
Fortune Favours the Bold...and the Smart.

Wouldn't it be nice to have some Boondock Saints kicking around?

Offline dapaterson

    Mostly Harmless.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 448,250
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 16,441
The theory of all of government doing the same is very sound for all the reasons you mentioned.

The practice of departments trying to work together is something akin to a three stooges movie, where all three want their own way (even if it is the same), all three want to be in charge, all three want the other two to pay...

Having been peripherally involved in at least four interdepartmental initiatives with a fair number of zeroes at the end of them, the unfortunately reality is that sometimes, the juice isn't worth the squeeze...


Or, to put it another way: Putting all the CAF in the same uniform has the same logic of savings and simplicity.  How did that work out?
This posting made in accordance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 2(b):
Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/1.html

Offline DetectiveMcNulty

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 58,450
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,487
Pretty sad when three generations of my family have carried the BHP...




Offline Dimsum

    West coast best coast.

  • Mentor
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 171,200
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,051
  • I get paid to travel. I just don't pick where.
The theory of all of government doing the same is very sound for all the reasons you mentioned.

The practice of departments trying to work together is something akin to a three stooges movie, where all three want their own way (even if it is the same), all three want to be in charge, all three want the other two to pay...

Having been peripherally involved in at least four interdepartmental initiatives with a fair number of zeroes at the end of them, the unfortunately reality is that sometimes, the juice isn't worth the squeeze...


Or, to put it another way: Putting all the CAF in the same uniform has the same logic of savings and simplicity.  How did that work out?

I don't know if the example of Unification is completely in line with what you said before that though.  I wasn't there (obviously) but I thought a lot of the backlash was due to service traditions (especially the Navy). 

I think the pistol thing is more like the boots issue - the 3 services know they need boots, but have various contracts based on the service.  Why, for instance, couldn't the RCAF get the Navy boots?  They are safety toed (forget for a second that not all RCAF folks need that feature...) and from most reports they are comfortable and functional unlike the CEMS ones that the RCAF ended up with. 

But I digress.
Philip II of Macedon to Spartans (346 BC):  "You are advised to submit without further delay, for if I bring my army into your land, I will destroy your farms, slay your people, and raze your city."

Reply:  "If."

Offline dapaterson

    Mostly Harmless.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 448,250
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 16,441
Merely pointing out that "it's cheaper if everyone is the same" rarely works out well.

Likely a similar story for boots.  If I adopt your boot, I don't get "leading change" on my PER.  I have often observed that we need to rewrite that as "leading effective change"...
This posting made in accordance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 2(b):
Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/1.html

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 139,935
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,356
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Buy 1,000 G17`s as part of field testing, issue them to the most operational unit. Send a few gun mechs to get the armourer course, they train the others. The Manual of arms can be lifted from the Brits. Cost is likely to be under $500,000. Next year repeat the 1,000 buy and repeat every year.

The other option is say: `We want a polymer pistol that has been accepted by a NATO army within the last 10 years. Make will be decided on price and availability to supply 5,000 a year for the next 4 years, with the contract split in 4 payments upon delivery of each batch. That narrows the field to about 3 guns and likley it will be the G17, as they can beat everyone on price.

Offline SupersonicMax

    is back home.

  • Mentor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 82,495
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,809
Contract splitting?

Offline ArmyVern

    is awake.

  • Army.ca Myth
  • *****
  • 207,766
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 15,541
Gender Employment Advisors?

GENADs - Gender Advisors. NATO.

I am one.  And, it has nothing to do with "employment" advising or "women" advising. Rather, it's about the 75% of the world who are not fighting age.
Hard by MCpl Elton Adams

If you or someone you love is having difficulty & would like to speak to someone who has been through a similar experience, who understands, & will respect your need for privacy and confidentiality, contact OSISS toll-free at 1-800-883-6094. You can locate the peer closest to you by logging on to www.osiss.ca, clicking on “Contact us” link & then choosing the “Peer” or “Family Support Network”. Help IS out there.

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 139,935
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,356
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Contract splitting?

Whatever we do don`t hold a competition, just base the buy off of what either the US or the UK did.

Offline dapaterson

    Mostly Harmless.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 448,250
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 16,441
Is the strategic imperative to get the CAF pistols, or to sustain a Canadian small arms industry?  A valid question, that has implications for timelines and cost.  If we want CAF pistols that sustain Cdn industry, the equation gets more complex - not all vendors will license their IP.

And once we start talking about large dollar figures (including ammo, tooling and spares) there's a possibility that regardless of the low complexity, the TB ministers might want to
steer contracts to favoured suppliers assert their authority over procurements.

This posting made in accordance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 2(b):
Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/1.html

Offline Brihard

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 205,125
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,479
  • Non-Electric Pop-Up Target
Whatever we do don`t hold a competition, just base the buy off of what either the US or the UK did.

They absolutey have to. There’s nothing exigent here that justifies not, and there are several good options on the market. Whatever they end up doing, a competition will have to be a part of it.
Pacificsm is doctrine fostered by a delusional minority and by the media, which holds forth the proposition it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 139,935
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,356
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
They absolutey have to. There’s nothing exigent here that justifies not, and there are several good options on the market. Whatever they end up doing, a competition will have to be a part of it.

Depends quite a bit on how they word the requirements and how much balls they have to go through with it. The good news is even 25,000 is a smallish buy in the scheme of things, and less likley to be challenged. To give you an idea, the French police contract was for 500,000 Sig 2022.

Offline Cloud Cover

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 37,060
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,026
Are there any current procurement stories that are good news. What has worked out on time, in quantity and quality.
Bump. It can’t be all bad news and sarcasm. Defence expenditures 2008-2018 are greater than 250billion [2018 dollars].
What about the Chinook? outlier?
Living the lean life.

Offline Dimsum

    West coast best coast.

  • Mentor
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 171,200
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,051
  • I get paid to travel. I just don't pick where.
Bump. It can’t be all bad news and sarcasm. Defence expenditures 2008-2018 are greater than 250billion [2018 dollars].
What about the Chinook? outlier?

C-17?  C-130J?  M777?
Philip II of Macedon to Spartans (346 BC):  "You are advised to submit without further delay, for if I bring my army into your land, I will destroy your farms, slay your people, and raze your city."

Reply:  "If."

Offline Log Offr

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 2,425
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 65
There are hundreds of projects in the pipeline across all the Level 1's. New equipment is constantly being delivered. I'm not pimping for our procurement system but although it is painfully slow and insanely intricate, it does constantly deliver new equipment. All we ever read about is the negative aspects of procurement, told through the story of a half dozen major projects.  Personally I pin that to an ill-informed media and even a media that is strongly anti-military. The storyline about failed procurement is merely one of a half-dozen or so storylines that each represent micro attacks against DND and the CAF. Is YOUR day to day experience as awful as the media makes it out to be?

Anyhow, they tell us about the big ticket items that go wrong, but we never read about the big ticket items that go right, or the medium and small programs that go extremely well (extremely well within the context of a ponderous, byzantine government procurement system). The link below provides only a small snapshot of some of the current initiatives that you've probably never heard of. If you want to know more, find someone in DLR or DAR or DMR or CJOC Force Development and just ask them for a list of what projects are in the hopper. Or, find your way on DWAN to the Capability Investment Database (CID - it is somewhere in the VCDS' pages), and you will be able to read in horrifying detail, the hundreds of current projects - the official ones that have registration numbers and everything - for equipment as well as infrastructure.

But this site will probably be interesting enough reading for you. The link here is public; it is where DND directs industry to turn when it wants a quick summary of what we are buying, projects that should spend money in the next 5 years or so, give or take (lol).

http://dgpaapp.forces.gc.ca/en/defence-capabilities-blueprint/index.asp


Offline FSTO

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 48,155
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,743
There are hundreds of projects in the pipeline across all the Level 1's. New equipment is constantly being delivered. I'm not pimping for our procurement system but although it is painfully slow and insanely intricate, it does constantly deliver new equipment. All we ever read about is the negative aspects of procurement, told through the story of a half dozen major projects.  Personally I pin that to an ill-informed media and even a media that is strongly anti-military. The storyline about failed procurement is merely one of a half-dozen or so storylines that each represent micro attacks against DND and the CAF. Is YOUR day to day experience as awful as the media makes it out to be?

Anyhow, they tell us about the big ticket items that go wrong, but we never read about the big ticket items that go right, or the medium and small programs that go extremely well (extremely well within the context of a ponderous, byzantine government procurement system). The link below provides only a small snapshot of some of the current initiatives that you've probably never heard of. If you want to know more, find someone in DLR or DAR or DMR or CJOC Force Development and just ask them for a list of what projects are in the hopper. Or, find your way on DWAN to the Capability Investment Database (CID - it is somewhere in the VCDS' pages), and you will be able to read in horrifying detail, the hundreds of current projects - the official ones that have registration numbers and everything - for equipment as well as infrastructure.

But this site will probably be interesting enough reading for you. The link here is public; it is where DND directs industry to turn when it wants a quick summary of what we are buying, projects that should spend money in the next 5 years or so, give or take (lol).

http://dgpaapp.forces.gc.ca/en/defence-capabilities-blueprint/index.asp
BTW it's DNR (Naval vice Maritime) now.
For those on the DWAN here is the link to the CID page:
http://cid-bic.forces.mil.ca/cid/intro_e.asp

(there is supposed to be a replacement coming due to the database not being supported anymore but I don't know when)
« Last Edit: December 18, 2018, 10:15:20 by FSTO »

Offline Brihard

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 205,125
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,479
  • Non-Electric Pop-Up Target
There are hundreds of projects in the pipeline across all the Level 1's. New equipment is constantly being delivered. I'm not pimping for our procurement system but although it is painfully slow and insanely intricate, it does constantly deliver new equipment. All we ever read about is the negative aspects of procurement, told through the story of a half dozen major projects.  Personally I pin that to an ill-informed media and even a media that is strongly anti-military. The storyline about failed procurement is merely one of a half-dozen or so storylines that each represent micro attacks against DND and the CAF. Is YOUR day to day experience as awful as the media makes it out to be?

Anyhow, they tell us about the big ticket items that go wrong, but we never read about the big ticket items that go right, or the medium and small programs that go extremely well (extremely well within the context of a ponderous, byzantine government procurement system). The link below provides only a small snapshot of some of the current initiatives that you've probably never heard of. If you want to know more, find someone in DLR or DAR or DMR or CJOC Force Development and just ask them for a list of what projects are in the hopper. Or, find your way on DWAN to the Capability Investment Database (CID - it is somewhere in the VCDS' pages), and you will be able to read in horrifying detail, the hundreds of current projects - the official ones that have registration numbers and everything - for equipment as well as infrastructure.

But this site will probably be interesting enough reading for you. The link here is public; it is where DND directs industry to turn when it wants a quick summary of what we are buying, projects that should spend money in the next 5 years or so, give or take (lol).

http://dgpaapp.forces.gc.ca/en/defence-capabilities-blueprint/index.asp

The 'system' only gets so much of a pat on the *** for doing its job and fulfilling its basic function. Major foulups are still major foulups, and absurdities are still absurdities. There is nothing so inherently complex about a pistol that even under our bureaucracy of buying it should take a number of years to replace it. If we struggle to replace one of our simplest and most rudimentary small arms - something armies and police services do by the droves every year across the western world - then something is wrong, and I suspect there is a profound lack of 'ownership' of this program by whoever's it is to own.
Pacificsm is doctrine fostered by a delusional minority and by the media, which holds forth the proposition it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.

Offline Dimsum

    West coast best coast.

  • Mentor
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 171,200
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,051
  • I get paid to travel. I just don't pick where.
Good to know that the RPAS program (formerly JUSTAS) is looking at only being about 15 years late, and that I'll retire before the Aurora replacement is expected to come online. 

I mean, the 'Kings lasted 55 years; surely the Auroras can do it as well.   :whistle:
Philip II of Macedon to Spartans (346 BC):  "You are advised to submit without further delay, for if I bring my army into your land, I will destroy your farms, slay your people, and raze your city."

Reply:  "If."

Offline Furniture

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 26,577
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 388
Anyhow, they tell us about the big ticket items that go wrong, but we never read about the big ticket items that go right, or the medium and small programs that go extremely well (extremely well within the context of a ponderous, byzantine government procurement system).

The ponderous, and byzantine system is what the fuss is about. That a procurement system usually happens to eventually deliver things isn't something to be proud of.

Ships, aircraft, tanks, etc. people expect to be long procurement processes(not generations long though). Buying boots, and pistols shouldn't be a decades long processes, and the media is rightly pointing that out.

Offline Journeyman

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 542,955
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,997
There are no shortages of examples in these pages suggesting that it's not a "media is picking on us" problem;  these are troops making these statements (you know, serving members -- 'our best assets; we love them' TM ). 

Yes, I'm well aware that troops *****, but perhaps their perspective just isn't as sunny as in some cubicles.  But I guess working with equipment older than their parents, sometimes they lose focus on the excel/powerpoint.


Edit: typo

« Last Edit: December 19, 2018, 05:02:34 by Journeyman »

Offline Dimsum

    West coast best coast.

  • Mentor
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 171,200
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,051
  • I get paid to travel. I just don't pick where.
There are no shortages of examples in these pages suggesting that it's not a "media is picking on us" problem;  these are troops making these statements (you know, serving members -- 'our best assets; we love them' TM ). 

Yes, I'm well aware that troops *****, but perhaps their perspective just isn't as sunny as in some cubicles.  But I guess working with equipment older than their parents grandparents, sometimes they lose focused on the excel/powerpoint.

FTFY, at least for the Sea King.  That's not even an unrealistic concept if people had kids in their mid-20s. 

Honest question:  Do people in DAR/DLR/DNR see the workarounds/minor miracles being performed so that said equipment is at least serviceable 50% of the time, or the amount of deferred defects or operational restrictions that are imposed to keep those things working?  The amount of spares that we (don't) have?  Or is it purely "we have x out of y things serviceable", not "we have x out of y things serviceable, but z out of x can't do 70% of the stuff we need to b/c q things are missing or robbed to keep another thing working"?  At what point do we just put our foot down and say that despite our "can do attitude", which I'm surprised hasn't bit us in the *** fatally in the past few decades, we just can't anymore?
Philip II of Macedon to Spartans (346 BC):  "You are advised to submit without further delay, for if I bring my army into your land, I will destroy your farms, slay your people, and raze your city."

Reply:  "If."

Offline QV

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 8,955
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 331
Lets be honest about this, this pistol project is probably far less complicated than boots.  The CAF could go out and buy 25,000 Glock 17s or something similar with some spare parts and be just fine for many years to come.  All the churn and grunt over this study and that study and this test and that test is completely wasted effort.  But that is why it takes ten years to have a sidearm replaced.     

Offline NavyShooter

    Boaty McBoatface!

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 183,976
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,024
  • Death from a Bar.....one shot, one Tequilla
The last time a Browning High Power pistol was manufactured for the Canadian Armed Forces at the John Inglis Plant in Toronto was 1945.

Those pistols are all at least 73 years old.  Any magazine that is stamped with "JI" on the base is also 73 years old. 

There is not a single currently serving member of the Canadian Armed Forces who was born when the last of those pistols was manufactured. 

The pistol replacement project was originally scheduled to see a new pistol in the hands of our troops in 2015.  https://army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,102435.0.html

The thread there (dating from 2011) describes some of the criteria for pistol selection:

Quote
I've been doing some research on NATO member pistols, and I think there are a few likely candidates, but they all seem to be disqualified on a few minor points.
GSP Requirements (condensed):
1. Full Size, DAO Trigger
2. Current NATO Service + 2 years
3. 9mm
4. Magazine >13rds, >15rds is better
5. Unloaded weight + empty magazine must be < 950g
6. Barrel must be 102mm or longer
7. Trigger pull must be between 4-8 lbs
8. Ambidextrous magazine release
9. Must not need to pull the trigger to disassemble
10. No magazine safety
11. No safety devices to manipulate
12. Must have an M1913 accessory rail
13. Trigger pull weight must be consistent every time

Kevin Boland submitted the following evaluation of available pistols that would meet the selection criteria: https://army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,102435.msg1177165.html#msg1177165

Quote
Color me confused but I don't actually see a pistol that meets the criteria anywhere?
Several Federal Entities down here issue Glock's and Smith&Wesson M&P guns - but in either .40S&W or .45ACP.
Hk seems to have the only truly ambo mag release - with their dual lever.  But the USP is a brick, and a poor contender to their new designs.

28 NATO Countries use the following

Albania - M9/Beretta 92
Belgium - Hi-Power and FN 5.7
Bulgaria - Sig Pro 2022
Canada - No2 Mk1* (Browning Hi-Power) and Sig P225
Croatia - HS2000 / Springfield XD
Czech Republic - CZ-75
Denmark - Glock 17
Estonia - Hk USP
France - Hk USP and Glock 17
Germany - Hk USP
Greece - Glock 17
Hungary - Hk USP
Iceland - Glock 17
Italy - Beretta
Latvia - Glock 19 and Glock 17
Lithuania - Glock 17
Luxembourg - Mk1 Browning Hi-Power
Netherlands - Glock 17
Norway - Glock 17
Poland - well GROM uses the Hk USP
Portugal - Glock 19 (replaced the Hk USP in 2009)
Romania - appears to still be their version of the Tokarev
Slovakia - appears to still be their version of the Makarov
Slovenia - I cannot locate any info
Spain - Hk USP
Turkey - Zignana C45 - a .45 ACP gun
United Kingdom - BHP and Sig P226
United States - M9 Beretta, Glock 19, and 1911

Okay so the current Browning Hi-Power is out, as is the SigP225.

Leaving the remaining 9mm guns as:

Sig P226R -
Sig P228R -
Sig Pro 2022 -
Glock 17 - squeeze trigger on disassembly
Glock 19 - squeeze trigger on disassembly
HS2000/Springfield XD - pretty poor performance in any US LE entity testing.
Beretta M-9 - Not DOA in issue configuration - and too big/heavy
CZ 75 B - not DOA
CZ PO1 - to small
HK USP – expensive and no 1913 rail

Based on the above I believe that the spec has been written for the Sig Pro 2022 exclusively to justify a sole source award.

The long, drawn out process that failed in 2011 to deliver a pistol by 2015 is now going to be drawn out for another 8 years...to 2026...?  So, now we'll have had this pistol replacement project on the go for 15 years.

Seems pretty silly to me.  On the other hand, one of my comments in the other thread I've referenced details the comparison to the JSS ship replacement...which will be going on 15 years as well soon...soooooo....not too far off.

Personal opinion - having owned or fired many of the above pistols over the years.  Buy 15,000 Glock 17's, issue them, call it done. 

But what do I know...this is just another example of our broken supply chain.  LogOffr, I will politely disagree with you.

NS
« Last Edit: December 18, 2018, 14:27:58 by NavyShooter »
Insert disclaimer statement here....

:panzer:

Offline Rifleman62

    Retired.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 97,780
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,148
Sounds like a Centenary replacement of the HP is looming. Think of all the spin for the PR people when the replacement is announced in Quebec City.
Never Congratulate Yourself In Victory, Nor Blame Your Horses In Defeat - Old Cossack Expression

Offline MJP

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 161,460
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,422
Lets be honest about this, this pistol project is probably far less complicated than boots.  The CAF could go out and buy 25,000 Glock 17s or something similar with some spare parts and be just fine for many years to come.  All the churn and grunt over this study and that study and this test and that test is completely wasted effort.  But that is why it takes ten years to have a sidearm replaced.     

Its also because we want to own have the IP rights signed over to Canadian industry, something most big arms manufacturers balk at.  Especially considering the relatively low amounts we are buying.  We need to get our heads out of our asses and buy things like that off the shelf and not worry about propping up a non-exsistent home industry.
Hope is not a valid COA