CAN Enhanced (Permanent?) Fwd Presence in Latvia

[GK .Dundas]

And the Maxim is still a machine gun, it will kill you as dead as a C6

And depending on the caliber at a slightly longer range.

 

[The Bread Guy]

This just in ....

In Riga, Carney extends Canadian military mission in Latvia by three years to 2029

RIGA - Prime Minister Mark Carney has announced that Canada will keep troops in Latvia through to 2029, as part of a mission to deter Russian aggression in Europe that

www.thecanadianpressnews.ca

... with this from the info-machine.

Canada strengthens ties with Latvia and renews key NATO mission

In Riga, Prime Minister Carney met with the Prime Minister of Latvia, Evika Siliņa, and announced Canada’s renewal of Operation REASSURANCE for another three years.

www.pm.gc.ca

This bit from the PM statement:

 

[daftandbarmy]

For want of a nail, a shoe was lost...

Parts shortages, snarled supply chains are sidelining Canadian vehicles and troops in Latvia: documents​

Canadian units deemed combat ineffective in recent training exercise​

During a recent brigade-level training, known as Exercise Strike, which took place alongside other NATO allies this summer, the Canadian mechanized infantry company, Leopard tank squadron, combat support units and headquarters were considered combat ineffective (CBT IE) because of the off-road rate, said the undated briefing.

The slide deck said the affected equipment included LAV 6 light armoured vehicles, Leopard 2A4s (the roughly three-decade-old main battle tanks), command-and-control vehicles and utility vehicles including the trucks that tow howitzers.

Due to the high rate of vehicles not being available, "more than 150 personnel" were left out of battle (LOB) or unable to participate in the training exercise. That represented more than 30 per cent of the Canadian personnel involved in the drill, said the briefing.

The Canadian commander of the NATO brigade acknowledged there are issues with spare parts and used Leopard tanks as an example.

"Spare parts directly contribute to the serviceability of the tanks that are here. So, we have not completely squared that away," said Col. Kris Reeves.

He said the Canadian contingent has the "priority of parts that are available in the Canadian system" and must be ready to fight at all times.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadian-army-vehicles-parts-latvia-1.7623561#:~:text=CBC%20News%20has%20learned%20the,a%20decade%20of%20funding%20cuts.

 

[MJP]

For want of a nail, a shoe was lost...

Parts shortages, snarled supply chains are sidelining Canadian vehicles and troops in Latvia: documents​

Canadian units deemed combat ineffective in recent training exercise​

During a recent brigade-level training, known as Exercise Strike, which took place alongside other NATO allies this summer, the Canadian mechanized infantry company, Leopard tank squadron, combat support units and headquarters were considered combat ineffective (CBT IE) because of the off-road rate, said the undated briefing.

The slide deck said the affected equipment included LAV 6 light armoured vehicles, Leopard 2A4s (the roughly three-decade-old main battle tanks), command-and-control vehicles and utility vehicles including the trucks that tow howitzers.

Some thoughts having been there on Roto zero and working with peers over the years as they go there.

Current Issues

Lack of Parts Availability
Around 50-60% of all outstanding orders against the depots are for items that aren’t in stock at either location. Some of these are outdated items that probably shouldn’t be ordered anymore, but a big part of the problem is that we simply don’t have the inventory.

To be clear I am not saying 50-60% of outstanding orders from Latvia don't have parts in stock just that at a macro level the main reason an order is outstanding against the depot is lack of stock

System Limitations
The supply system follows a strict linear supply path, similar to a 1st-2nd-3rd line structure, and it doesn’t check outside that path. So even if a part exists elsewhere, the system won’t source it unless it’s in the designated supply line. For example, all mission orders are pegged to 25 CFSD. If they don’t have the part, but 7 CFSD does, the system still won’t issue it from 7 CFSD. It just sits there unless someone manually redirects the order.
There’s no simple fix for this, it can be done manually but it is time consuming. You could create an overnight process where the system follows a set of rules but to get changes to how the system does its job like that takes an incredible amount of time.

Parts Positioning
There’s a strong preference for holding parts at 1st line across Canada. This often results in the majority of stock being held there, making it inaccessible to others without using technets or, in some cases, needing command net. There’s also a broader issue with where parts are positioned, most items go only to 25 CFSD instead of 7 CFSD, or sometimes the reverse. Since orders do not automatically cross pollinate nor do LCMMs/SM reposition stock it causes orders to just sit there unfilled unless someone takes manual action

Long Resupply Timelines
If the part isn’t local, it’s coming from Canada. Aside from HPRs and sensitive items, everything is consolidated at 3 CSU and then shipped overseas by a third-party vendor using TEUs. This process takes time and adds to the delay.

Latvia Parts Holdings.
In Latvia, parts are stored in TEUs and spread across several 1st line and one 2nd line organization. A few challenges with this setup:

1. There is a large volume of parts, but tracking them is difficult without proper inventory infrastructure such as shelving, binning, and labeling.
2. The system technically allows for bin location tracking, but it's tedious and not user-friendly.
3. The same personnel responsible for parts management are also being pulled into field tasks, reducing available time for inventory control.
4. Combined all that with six-month iteration cycles, this leads to poor maintenance of stock records.

Solutions

Create a Euro Depot (similar to CFSD in Poland or Germany).
Ideally placed under OSH-E, although likely not in its current location due to space constraints. These locations offer geographic standoff if conflict breaks out. Currently, most stock in Latvia is vulnerable, and we don’t have the lift capacity to move it quickly. Even with advance warning, repositioning would be difficult and we’d likely lose visibility of what is stored where.
Suggested Model: Keep only 15 to 30 days of supply in Latvia and move the rest to the Euro depot. This would reduce the workload on brigade personnel.
Alternative Option: Move the bulk of the holdings to the NSE and have them manage the inventory. The main downside is that parts would still be located in-theatre, which presents its own risks

Build Proper Scaling and Holdings for Latvia’s Vehicle Fleets.
There have been efforts made, mostly initiated at the local level with DGLEPM support. While well-intentioned, these actions mostly resulted in more stock being pushed into Latvia without significantly improving fleet serviceability. DGLEPM and LEMS used to have a parts scaling tool, but that seems to have fallen by the wayside. As a result, we’re now managing inventory in a reactive, ad hoc manner.

Improve Training and Integration Between Maintenance and Supply.
In many cases, parts are actually available, either locally or elsewhere, but users don’t know how to search or request them properly within the system. We have tools like the Outstanding Demand Report, which lists all open work orders and shows high-level parts availability. Effective teams can filter out irrelevant items and focus on outstanding orders where parts are truly unavailable or delayed.

 

[dapaterson]

Also: Provide adequate numbers of support personnel, and stop double hatting them.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Some thoughts having been there on Roto zero and working with peers over the years as they go there.

Current Issues

Lack of Parts Availability
Around 50-60% of all outstanding orders against the depots are for items that aren’t in stock at either location. Some of these are outdated items that probably shouldn’t be ordered anymore, but a big part of the problem is that we simply don’t have the inventory.

System Limitations
The supply system follows a strict linear supply path, similar to a 1st-2nd-3rd line structure, and it doesn’t check outside that path. So even if a part exists elsewhere, the system won’t source it unless it’s in the designated supply line. For example, all mission orders are pegged to 25 CFSD. If they don’t have the part, but 7 CFSD does, the system still won’t issue it from 7 CFSD. It just sits there unless someone manually redirects the order.
There’s no simple fix for this, it can be done manually but it is time consuming. You could create an overnight process where the system follows a set of rules but to get changes to how the system does its job like that takes an incredible amount of time.

Parts Positioning
There’s a strong preference for holding parts at 1st line across Canada. This often results in the majority of stock being held there, making it inaccessible to others without using technets or, in some cases, needing command net. There’s also a broader issue with where parts are positioned, most items go only to 25 CFSD instead of 7 CFSD, or sometimes the reverse. Since orders do not automatically cross pollinate nor do LCMMs/SM reposition stock it causes orders to just sit there unfilled unless someone takes manual action

Long Resupply Timelines
If the part isn’t local, it’s coming from Canada. Aside from HPRs and sensitive items, everything is consolidated at 3 CSU and then shipped overseas by a third-party vendor using TEUs. This process takes time and adds to the delay.

Latvia Parts Holdings.
In Latvia, parts are stored in TEUs and spread across several 1st line and one 2nd line organization. A few challenges with this setup:

1. There is a large volume of parts, but tracking them is difficult without proper inventory infrastructure such as shelving, binning, and labeling.
2. The system technically allows for bin location tracking, but it's tedious and not user-friendly.
3. The same personnel responsible for parts management are also being pulled into field tasks, reducing available time for inventory control.
4. Combined all that with six-month iteration cycles, this leads to poor maintenance of stock records.

Solutions

Create a Euro Depot (similar to CFSD in Poland or Germany).
Ideally placed under OSH-E, although likely not in its current location due to space constraints. These locations offer geographic standoff if conflict breaks out. Currently, most stock in Latvia is vulnerable, and we don’t have the lift capacity to move it quickly. Even with advance warning, repositioning would be difficult and we’d likely lose visibility of what is stored where.
Suggested Model: Keep only 15 to 30 days of supply in Latvia and move the rest to the Euro depot. This would reduce the workload on brigade personnel.
Alternative Option: Move the bulk of the holdings to the NSE and have them manage the inventory. The main downside is that parts would still be located in-theatre, which presents its own risks

Build Proper Scaling and Holdings for Latvia’s Vehicle Fleets.
There have been efforts made, mostly initiated at the local level with DGLEPM support. While well-intentioned, these actions mostly resulted in more stock being pushed into Latvia without significantly improving fleet serviceability.DGLEPM and LEMS used to have a parts scaling tool, but that seems to have fallen by the wayside. As a result, we’re now managing inventory in a reactive, ad hoc manner.

Improve Training and Integration Between Maintenance and Supply.
In many cases, parts are actually available, either locally or elsewhere, but users don’t know how to search or request them properly within the system. We have tools like the Outstanding Demand Report, which lists all open work orders and shows high-level parts availability. Effective teams can filter out irrelevant items and focus on outstanding orders where parts are truly unavailable or delayed.

A great example of a 'wicked problem'.

We're lucky we don't have more troops and kit in-theatre, which sounds really dumb now that I said it

 

[The Bread Guy]

Some thoughts having been there on Roto zero and working with peers over the years as they go there.

Current Issues

Lack of Parts Availability
Around 50-60% of all outstanding orders against the depots are for items that aren’t in stock at either location. Some of these are outdated items that probably shouldn’t be ordered anymore, but a big part of the problem is that we simply don’t have the inventory.

System Limitations
The supply system follows a strict linear supply path, similar to a 1st-2nd-3rd line structure, and it doesn’t check outside that path. So even if a part exists elsewhere, the system won’t source it unless it’s in the designated supply line. For example, all mission orders are pegged to 25 CFSD. If they don’t have the part, but 7 CFSD does, the system still won’t issue it from 7 CFSD. It just sits there unless someone manually redirects the order.
There’s no simple fix for this, it can be done manually but it is time consuming. You could create an overnight process where the system follows a set of rules but to get changes to how the system does its job like that takes an incredible amount of time.

Parts Positioning
There’s a strong preference for holding parts at 1st line across Canada. This often results in the majority of stock being held there, making it inaccessible to others without using technets or, in some cases, needing command net. There’s also a broader issue with where parts are positioned, most items go only to 25 CFSD instead of 7 CFSD, or sometimes the reverse. Since orders do not automatically cross pollinate nor do LCMMs/SM reposition stock it causes orders to just sit there unfilled unless someone takes manual action

Long Resupply Timelines
If the part isn’t local, it’s coming from Canada. Aside from HPRs and sensitive items, everything is consolidated at 3 CSU and then shipped overseas by a third-party vendor using TEUs. This process takes time and adds to the delay.

Latvia Parts Holdings.
In Latvia, parts are stored in TEUs and spread across several 1st line and one 2nd line organization. A few challenges with this setup:

1. There is a large volume of parts, but tracking them is difficult without proper inventory infrastructure such as shelving, binning, and labeling.
2. The system technically allows for bin location tracking, but it's tedious and not user-friendly.
3. The same personnel responsible for parts management are also being pulled into field tasks, reducing available time for inventory control.
4. Combined all that with six-month iteration cycles, this leads to poor maintenance of stock records.

Solutions

Create a Euro Depot (similar to CFSD in Poland or Germany).
Ideally placed under OSH-E, although likely not in its current location due to space constraints. These locations offer geographic standoff if conflict breaks out. Currently, most stock in Latvia is vulnerable, and we don’t have the lift capacity to move it quickly. Even with advance warning, repositioning would be difficult and we’d likely lose visibility of what is stored where.
Suggested Model: Keep only 15 to 30 days of supply in Latvia and move the rest to the Euro depot. This would reduce the workload on brigade personnel.
Alternative Option: Move the bulk of the holdings to the NSE and have them manage the inventory. The main downside is that parts would still be located in-theatre, which presents its own risks

Build Proper Scaling and Holdings for Latvia’s Vehicle Fleets.
There have been efforts made, mostly initiated at the local level with DGLEPM support. While well-intentioned, these actions mostly resulted in more stock being pushed into Latvia without significantly improving fleet serviceability. DGLEPM and LEMS used to have a parts scaling tool, but that seems to have fallen by the wayside. As a result, we’re now managing inventory in a reactive, ad hoc manner.

Improve Training and Integration Between Maintenance and Supply.
In many cases, parts are actually available, either locally or elsewhere, but users don’t know how to search or request them properly within the system. We have tools like the Outstanding Demand Report, which lists all open work orders and shows high-level parts availability. Effective teams can filter out irrelevant items and focus on outstanding orders where parts are truly unavailable or delayed.

Thanks for the granular micro-look - appreciated!

 

[Jarnhamar]

Couldn't they just jump into cars like the Russians? Its also hard to believe there arent 3000 rental cars at the Canadian base in Latvia- gotta improvise.

 

[childs56]

Simple fix, hire Amazon to run your parts and distribution system.
I still can not believe after so many years they still have not sorted out the supply system.
Someone will go its not that simple. But it is.
Put all the parts 1,2,3 line 25 and 7 CFDS into one computer program.
You can even separate it into Tanks, LAVs, small arms etc.
Set it up with identifiers for specific location and allow it to be ordered by anyone authorized. Them ship the part direct.

Similar to how Rock Auto and other parts places work.
If we dont have the part in the system anywhere then the guy in Ottawa or Quebec pics up their cell phone and sources it out.
Failing that, you find a German,Dutch or Polish Leopard supply place and use a credit card to buy the part..worse case you leave a IOU as you borrow the part.

Time to figure it out or we won't be able to fix it.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

For want of a nail, a shoe was lost...

Parts shortages, snarled supply chains are sidelining Canadian vehicles and troops in Latvia: documents​

Canadian units deemed combat ineffective in recent training exercise​

During a recent brigade-level training, known as Exercise Strike, which took place alongside other NATO allies this summer, the Canadian mechanized infantry company, Leopard tank squadron, combat support units and headquarters were considered combat ineffective (CBT IE) because of the off-road rate, said the undated briefing.

The slide deck said the affected equipment included LAV 6 light armoured vehicles, Leopard 2A4s (the roughly three-decade-old main battle tanks), command-and-control vehicles and utility vehicles including the trucks that tow howitzers.

Due to the high rate of vehicles not being available, "more than 150 personnel" were left out of battle (LOB) or unable to participate in the training exercise. That represented more than 30 per cent of the Canadian personnel involved in the drill, said the briefing.

The Canadian commander of the NATO brigade acknowledged there are issues with spare parts and used Leopard tanks as an example.

"Spare parts directly contribute to the serviceability of the tanks that are here. So, we have not completely squared that away," said Col. Kris Reeves.

He said the Canadian contingent has the "priority of parts that are available in the Canadian system" and must be ready to fight at all times.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadian-army-vehicles-parts-latvia-1.7623561#:~:text=CBC%20News%20has%20learned%20the,a%20decade%20of%20funding%20cuts.

What a fucking embarrassment. Good thing we spent all that time and money on social engineering and purple fucking hair.

 

[daftandbarmy]

What a fucking embarrassment. Good thing we spent all that time and money on social engineering and purple fucking hair.

 

[FJAG]

What a fucking embarrassment. Good thing we spent all that time and money on social engineering and purple fucking hair.

Social engineering and purple hair and a high level of professionalism are not mutually exclusive.

Lack of funding and taking risk on sustainment and poor downstream VOR rate issues do, however, share space on your typical Venn graph.