CAN Enhanced (Permanent?) Fwd Presence in Latvia

[Colin Parkinson]

Some items are restricted because of cost and limited availability, to ensure commanders can direct repair priorities.

That I get, but perhaps the requirement to get the unserviceable part back just for control purposes needs to be looked at. That alone requires the old part to be secured by the unit, properly tagged, transported, accepted, recorded by both the unit and the Svc Bat, then stored, then moved back, possible through several layers to a disposal location. Then disposed of and then struck off the record.

 

[dapaterson]

That I get, but perhaps the requirement to get the unserviceable part back just for control purposes needs to be looked at. That alone requires the old part to be secured by the unit, properly tagged, transported, accepted, recorded by both the unit and the Svc Bat, then stored, then moved back, possible through several layers to a disposal location. Then disposed of and then struck off the record.

Parts can be BLR but not BER, and normally it's not first or second line that makes that call.

 

[MJP]

Other than for security (radios and such), or for use as a core for rebuilding, why do you have so many "accountable parts"?

You are mixing up our need to know where something is, with having to account for it. A enterprise resource system is useless if you can't pinpoint who is holding what. Hence parts that every level of the CAF are holding are in the system and we can quickly determine who has what.

Now everyone of those parts also has a cycle count where we have to account for them within certain timeframes. Most vehicle parts are every four years and even then the requirements to do those counts are less stringent than what we expect of weapons, ammo or major end systems which range from every 3 months to once every two years.

That I get, but perhaps the requirement to get the unserviceable part back just for control purposes needs to be looked at. That alone requires the old part to be secured by the unit, properly tagged, transported, accepted, recorded by both the unit and the Svc Bat, then stored, then moved back, possible through several layers to a disposal location. Then disposed of and then struck off the record.

You are mixing a bunch of materiel management concepts together. In addition, you quoted my breakdown of tactical DOS which is not how we institutionally manage our materiel in a garrison setting.

Non-repairable parts do not go back through the system, they are consumed in the system when issued to a work order. Institutionally only repairable parts return through the system. In rare cases due to controlled goods some non-repairable things need to be send to an appropriate Repair and Disposable section who can then properly de-mil the materiel IAW instructions. Those items generally do not get consumed when issued to a work order but they are also not common

In a operation where combat is being conducted there would be no focus on getting parts back for repair at 1st and 2nd line. 3rd line tactical org would likely turn the parts over to the national support element who would do all of the prep work to return a part for repair (clean, tag, arrange shipping)

 

[MilEME09]

With the new reorg now public, thre will be the return of division level CSS in the form of a log battalion and a maint battalion. Given the training backlog I can only imagine it will be a long time before its actually up and running (if it ever does) but if it does happen a division maintenance battalion, fully staffed would be 6 companies, plus a training platoon and would be taking on that 3rd line mantle. The problem I see here is going to be a legal one with our contracts, most of what a 3rd line maint org does on paper would be what we contract out to do, so how would we create this capability and maintain it without getting our selves sued for breach of contract?

 

[MJP]

With the new reorg now public, thre will be the return of division level CSS in the form of a log battalion and a maint battalion. Given the training backlog I can only imagine it will be a long time before its actually up and running (if it ever does) but if it does happen a division maintenance battalion, fully staffed would be 6 companies, plus a training platoon and would be taking on that 3rd line mantle. The problem I see here is going to be a legal one with our contracts, most of what a 3rd line maint org does on paper would be what we contract out to do, so how would we create this capability and maintain it without getting our selves sued for breach of contract?

Meh, that is the weakest part of the AM plan. I would be surprised if it survives contact. There will be very little actual 3rd line work (actual repairs), so why have more people doing 2nd line maint? You could split out aspects of current 2nd line maint (powerpack rebuilds as an example) but that doesn't justify a unit on its own

Plus let's not forget the division is dispersed so the Sus Bde would need to be dispersed which really just means you have more smaller orgs overtop of the same orgs already doing the same work.

Don't get me wrong there is great value in a Sus Bde for a combat scenario, I just don't think we have the ability to pull it off well domestically without watering down the purpose of a Sus Bde. I could see us building a mixed Sus brigade resp for core tasks but also pulling in some of the tasks that are traditionally done by CFJOSG, similar to the Brit 104 Brigade.

It will be an interesting space to watch develop but not holding my breathe.

 

[MilEME09]

It will be an interesting space to watch develop but not holding my breathe.

I tend to agree, the only way i could see the sustainment brigade located in one spot is if we saw a massive infrastructure initiative that brought rail heads to it from every base, plus an airfield to fly in and out transport aircraft. Requiring the transport battalion to have a dedicated rail element. Thus enabling quick transport across the country, even then Im not sure its sustainable in peace time.

 

[FJAG]

even then Im not sure its sustainable in peace time.

I guess the overriding questions are: Is it necessary in wartime? If so how de we structure the system in peacetime so that when the need to deploy comes, it's ready to go?

When I look at this I always try to determine the effect is needed on an LSCO operation and how is it provided and structured and then ask - So what? What needs to be done to have that capability relatively rapidly? If the first question identifies an essential capability requirement then you can't simply slough it off during peacetime.