CAN Enhanced (Permanent?) Fwd Presence in Latvia

[MJP]

Gotcha, I missed the MRP nuance.

Do Army units not have entitlements for what they can hold ? Or do you mean misusing the W/O process to get stock ?

They have entitlements for equipment similar to MAST but that is for big end items needed to do their jobs (vehs, weapons, generators etc). There is no scaling for parts except where someone has set it up ad hoc

Do Army units not have entitlements for what they can hold ? Or do you mean misusing the W/O process to get stock ?

You don't have to misuse the work order process to get stock you just order it and it comes. That is a bit over simplified but there are few guardrails holding back units from ordering things to hold as stockJust going over your great outline of the issues again @MJP - thanks again.

On this one, how many would guess that this ain't gonna happen as long as there's a chance that Canada will eventually change its mind re: GTFO Latvia?

Wonder how many minds were thinking "hey, it's not forever, we can make do, no?" as opposed to "what's the best way to get stuff to them quickly?"

There already is the Operational Support Hub - Europe in Germany so the backbone is there. Ironically they hold a bunch of spare parts but are not in the sourcing chain in our system so the Latvian folks would have to manually request a part from their stocks. Whether we set something up or expand the role of the OSH remains to be seen.

Am I the only one who feels this sounds a bit like "THAT" stores guy saying, "hey, if I give it to you, I won't have it," or "I'm the only place you can get it - too bad, so sad"?

And I say that about institutional logistics, not necessarily about the individual(s) at the Canadian end of the supply chain.

I think its more that there are so few parts in the system the end users tend to hoard what ever than get their hands on.

At least that what's causes this in the RCN.

Bunch of reasons some valid, some not so much but largely these are the main two issues

 

[Halifax Tar]

They have entitlements for equipment similar to MAST but that is for big end items needed to do their jobs (vehs, weapons, generators etc). There is no scaling for parts except where someone has set it up ad hoc

CFFETs, right ? Not up on my Army stuff.

Do the units not carry max/min level for spare parts ?

Sub Paras D and E govern our stores and sparing levels:



Definitions:

You don't have to misuse the work order process to get stock you just order it and it comes. That is a bit over simplified but there are few guardrails holding back units from ordering things to hold as stockJust going over your great outline of the issues again @MJP - thanks again.

There are many ways to acquire more material.

What we find is the Eng depts create fictitious W/Os to get parts in and as we simply issue the parts to that W/O and they are consumed by the W/O. TheEng Depts really don't give two about the returns process so they never bat an eye when we expect a part to be returned to R&O.

And then it becomes a Supply problem anyways on the KPIs. Outstanding Accountable Returns.

 

[MJP]

Simply put no, DGLEPM has failed to provide proper scaling for years and the CA has been agnostic about doing anything about it themselves. There are local initiatives some supported by various EMT inputting min/maxes but that is not truly scaling, just people making the best in the absence of central direction.

Ironically the TAPV has the best data and for operations and major exercises the contractor will provide 1st and 2nd line scaling packed in TEUs.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Simply put no, DGLEPM has failed to provide proper scaling for years and the CA has been agnostic about doing anything about it themselves. There are local initiatives some supported by various EMT inputting min/maxes but that is not truly scaling, just people making the best in the absence of central direction.

Ironically the TAPV has the best data and for operations and major exercises the contractor will provide 1st and 2nd line scaling packed in TEUs.

Wow... That's all I got... wow...

 

[FJAG]

Simply put no, DGLEPM has failed to provide proper scaling for years and the CA has been agnostic about doing anything about it themselves. There are local initiatives some supported by various EMT inputting min/maxes but that is not truly scaling, just people making the best in the absence of central direction.

Ironically the TAPV has the best data and for operations and major exercises the contractor will provide 1st and 2nd line scaling packed in TEUs.

Bang on. It's been going on for years.

Many of the issues were pointed out in a 2016 Auditor General's report.

Report 7—Operating and Maintenance Support for Military Equipment—National Defence

 

[MilEME09]

If the funding is made available I think 3D printing could help a lot, Ive read through the direction for what is and isn't allowed to be 3D printed, and how to determine that. Most shops dont have a spare $30k+ to drop on a metal or resin/plastic 3D printer. I think if it was properly supported though, local manufacture of non critical components could greatly effect our availability rate.

 

[McG]

The ease with which most units can run back to base & the huge fleets of TEUs that formations were ready to pile in Wainwright meant there was no need for units to consider minimum quantities needed on hand to self-sustain. The more you hold, the quicker you are likely to fix a fault. Force units to carry everything they need on wheels and people will start thinking about what they need on hand … but if you want to follow that tactical approach, you need more local warehouses that fill a general support role and hold 2nd and 3rd line scaling for their local area.

 

[FJAG]

The more you hold, the quicker you are likely to fix a fault. Force units to carry everything they need on wheels and people will start thinking about what they need on hand

Do unit/subunit (I'll use the old WW2 RCEME term here) LADs still have a parts/stores vehicle with a first line stock. My battery had a 2 1/2 caged/binned truck just for parts for my RCEME det? Rad techs, Wpns techs, and BQMS all carried a fairly large stock of what was needed if stuff went down.

 

[MJP]

Do unit/subunit (I'll use the old WW2 RCEME term here) LADs still have a parts/stores vehicle with a first line stock. My battery had a 2 1/2 caged/binned truck just for parts for my RCEME det? Rad techs, Wpns techs, and BQMS all carried a fairly large stock of what was needed if stuff went down.

There are probably a few HLVW bin trucks hanging around still domestically. We also have bin SEVs but generally most parts sit in sea cans, some modified by ends users with shelves and the like for holding parts. There are some other side loading ones that are better suited, but in general like everything pretty ad hoc.

 

[FJAG]

There are probably a few HLVW bin trucks hanging around still domestically. We also have bin SEVs but generally most parts sit in sea cans, some modified by ends users with shelves and the like for holding parts. There are some other side loading ones that are better suited, but in general like everything pretty ad hoc.

I suppose that those sea cans don't go in the field on exercise like our RCEME det and their parts truck did.

 

[MJP]

I suppose that those sea cans don't go in the field on exercise like our RCEME det and their parts truck did.

No, they do. Considering most of our vehicles are now capable of carrying sea cans we now take way too many into the field.

We also bring a whole bunch out and just leave them in situ or pile them on base and go back and treat it like it's a mini "2nd or 3rd" line.

We are addicted to having stuff with us

 

[Halifax Tar]

We are addicted to having stuff with us

Its probably a bias of mine because the difference in the way we, the RCN, do business but shouldn't you want to have stuff with you ? Or least a tactical bound behind ?

Isn't this really what the FOBs were ? forward deployed logistical hubs ...

 

[MJP]

Its probably a bias of mine because the difference in the way we, the RCN, do business but shouldn't you want to have stuff with you ? Or least a tactical bound behind ?

Isn't this really what the FOBs were ? forward deployed logistical hubs ...

An infantry Bn has a basic load of ammo, rations/water and POL (Class I,III,V) for three days (3 DOS) because that is reasonable to carry and can fit within their means to carry it. CSS elements should do the same for parts (not necessarily 3 days, just carry within integral means).

2nd Line will then carry the maintenance load (one day of Class I,III,V) and a further amount of spares and general and technical stores that is tailored to the mission. Anything else is held further back at 3rd line Division and/or Corp support area. We don't need the kitchen sink forward.

From doctrine (Sustainment of Land Ops):
Basic Load. The basic load is held by the unit. It represents the amount required to give the unit a limited degree of self-sufficiency to operate for a specific period of time without replenishment. Considerations for the establishing a basic load are:

• The quantity of each commodity held will vary depending on the nature of the mission, the environment, etc.;
• Holdings of materiel within the unit are normally spread throughout the unit’s F and A echelons81;
• The basic load should be sufficient to mitigate temporary disruptions to normal replenishment;
• Three days of combat supplies and 15 days of general and technical stores (class II) are the initial planning figures as this is normally the maximum a unit can carry without unduly affecting mobility; and

What constitutes the basic load will be determined by a sustainment estimate that will consider distances to be travelled and the intensity of combat anticipated.
Our problem is that scaling is the basic load and maintenance load but we haven't done it properly in years!

Now we need to be careful because garrison institutional needs =/= tactical but the more units hold the less that is avail for everyone else. It also tends to bleed over to the tactical where folks now need to bring everything to the field. If 1st lines units were limited to what they can reasonable lift themselves, a lot of other materiel management issues would also disappear as parts and computers/electronics are the two biggest areas of write offs for the CA. Why do we write off lots of parts? Because 1) we hold too many and 2) because like the RCN accountable parts are not properly returned.

 

[Halifax Tar]

An infantry coy has a basic load of ammo, rations/water and POL (Class I,III,V) for three days (3 DOS) because that is reasonable to carry and can fit within their means to carry it. CSS elements should do the same.

2nd Line will then carry the maintenance load (one day of Class I,III,V) and a further amount of spares and general and technical stores that is tailored to the mission. Anything else is held further back at 3rd line Division and/or Corp support area. We don't need the kitchen sink forward.

From doctrine (Sustainment of Land Ops):
Basic Load. The basic load is held by the unit. It represents the amount required to give the unit a limited degree of self-sufficiency to operate for a specific period of time without replenishment. Considerations for the establishing a basic load are:

• The quantity of each commodity held will vary depending on the nature of the mission, the environment, etc.;
• Holdings of materiel within the unit are normally spread throughout the unit’s F and A echelons81;
• The basic load should be sufficient to mitigate temporary disruptions to normal replenishment;
• Three days of combat supplies and 15 days of general and technical stores (class II) are the initial planning figures as this is normally the maximum a unit can carry without unduly affecting mobility; and

What constitutes the basic load will be determined by a sustainment estimate that will consider distances to be travelled and the intensity of combat anticipated.
Our problem is that scaling is the basic load and maintenance load but we haven't done it properly in years!

Now we need to be careful because garrison institutional needs =/= tactical but the more units hold the less that is avail for everyone else. It also tends to bleed over to the tactical where folks now need to bring everything to the field. If 1st lines units were limited to what they can reasonable lift themselves, a lot of other materiel management issues would also disappear as parts and computers/electronics are the two biggest areas of write offs for the CA. Why do we write off lots of parts? Because 1) we hold too many and 2) because like the RCN accountable parts are not properly returned.

I appreciate the info.

Is a Svc BN a 2nd or 3rd line organization, Div or Corp asset ?

I have always likened a Svc Bn to one of our tankers, which is a weird mix of 1st and 2nd line.

 

[MJP]

They are second line brigade asset, but we have blurred the lines at times because we don't do 3rd line well because they simply don't exist in a meaningful way (Sorry CFJOSG, but it is true). In a tactical situation 3rd line provides theater level sustainment, ideally in the form of a sustainment brigade within the division.

Just a note I altered my first para, as it is the entire unit that carries 3 DOS. One at F ech, one in the A1 ech (Company/Sqn) and one at the A2 Ech (Bn Admin Coy).

 

[daftandbarmy]

No, they do. Considering most of our vehicles are now capable of carrying sea cans we now take way too many into the field.

We also bring a whole bunch out and just leave them in situ or pile them on base and go back and treat it like it's a mini "2nd or 3rd" line.

We are addicted to having stuff with us

There are options

 

[McG]

I suppose that those sea cans don't go in the field on exercise like our RCEME det and their parts truck did.

You can find fields filled with seacans that were shuttled out in the week(s) preceding an exercise. In Wainwright, units try to arrive with enough spare & replacement parts to support the full duration of an FTX.

 

[FJAG]

Is a Svc BN a 2nd or 3rd line organization, Div or Corp asset ?

The concepts of what is 2nd and 3rd line and where it is located is not set by any universal law of nature. It varies between countries and even in a given country is governed from time to time by the situation. How Canada did service support was much more centralized in WW2 with no service battalions at the brigade level. Effectively an infantry brigade owned its three infantry battalions. Everything else was owned by the div and allocated as necessary. It's best to look at lines of support as specific types of activities which are generally, but not always, attached to a certain level of organization

Over time as we evolved into the the NATO years we created brigade groups as they generally did not operate with the same support structures in multinational organizations. In short, artillery, engineers and CSS became brigade group assets and service battalions were created to cater to all the needs of the brigade group came into existence. Even in the days when we had a notional deployed Canadian division, in its various forms, we had a Div Svc Gp (DISGP) which had a DISGP Maintenance battalion, logistics battalion and transportation battalion but it also held a service battalion (with a maintenance, logistics and transport company) for each manoeuvre brigade assigned to it.

But even here, the doctrine at the time was that within the division, the highest level of maintenance done was 2nd line with maybe a bit of level 3 regardless of whether it was the maint coy of the service bn or the DISGP's maintenance battalion. 3rd line maintenance really only began within the corps maintenance brigade. 4th line is behind that in various workshops including civilian agencies.

You can see where that structure doesn't work well when the real tactical organization that is deployed is roughly a battle group with a brigade-sized headquarters in a multinational context. It generally needs adapting.