Canadian Military/Defence procurement process (Mega Thread)

[MarkOttawa]

Plus ça change...note RCN A/OPS, JSS:

Defence Department reports new delays in 10 major procurement projects

The Defence Department is reporting fresh delays in 10 major military procurement projects, even as defence officials cast about for better ways to predict and manage when new equipment will get to the troops.

The schedule slippage is detailed in a new report to Parliament and runs the gamut from a minor snag in the final delivery of engineering vehicles for the army to years of delays in the planned delivery of naval vessels.

Many of the projects, such as the naval vessels and new transport trucks for the army, were already several years behind schedule, meaning they are now extra late.

In an interview with The Canadian Press, the Defence Department's head of procurement touted the last year as one of the more successful in terms of getting new equipment to the Forces.

But Patrick Finn, the assistant deputy minister of materiel, also conceded that more must be done to address the scheduling problems, which he described as the factor that "we struggle with the most, much more than scope and cost.

"There's not a day that goes by that we're not delivering stuff and doing stuff," Finn said.

"There's also almost not a day that doesn't go by that we're not dealing with a technical issue or a schedule issue, whether it's a vendor, whether it's us causing delay or whatever it is. We're spending a lot of time trying to get in front of it all."

That is why the department, which changed the way it estimates the cost of new equipment as part of the Trudeau government's new defence policy, is looking to do the same with schedules.

"How do we build in kind of schedule contingency, other best practices that we're looking at so that, again, we don't have unrealistic schedules we're marching to," Finn said.

The focus on schedules comes as the government is preparing to unveil the next leg of its defence policy in the coming weeks, namely a plan detailing the investments it will make on new military equipment over the next five years [emphasis added].

The 10 major projects identified in the Defence Department report as having experienced new delays include:

— The navy's new Arctic offshore patrol ships. Finn attributed the delay to problems with a subcontractor. The first vessel was supposed to arrive this year, but now won't be delivered until 2019 [emphasis added].

— The air force's CP-140 surveillance planes, which are due to be upgraded. The report appeared to pin the blame on the company responsible for the work, saying negotiations had "increased cost and reduced flexibility."

— The navy's new support ships, with delivery of the first pushed to 2023 from 2021. The government has recently approved a plan to start work early on the vessels, which officials are hoping will result in delivery in 2022 [emphasis added].

— The army's new transport trucks, with the delivery scheduled pushed back six months at the company's request, though Finn also indicated that there were some design concerns.

Some of the equipment listed as delayed have already been delivered, such as the army's M777 howitzers, which saw service in Afghanistan, but parts of the contract, in this case a new type of ammunition, remain outstanding.

There are several reasons that delays in the military procurement system are considered a serious problem. In some cases, such as fighter jets, a delay means the Forces is required to keep using old equipment longer than expected...
http://www.richmondsentinel.ca/Lateststories/3442/defence-department-reports-new-delays-in-10-major-procuremen

Mark
Ottawa

 

[CBH99]

https://www.armytimes.com/industry/2018/05/21/sikorskys-pitch-for-canada-our-new-helos-are-cheaper-than-upgrading-yours/


I don't suppose it's too much to ask, to provide us with a working helicopter FIRST, before we suggest purchasing more? 

 

[MarkOttawa]

CBH99: In fact Sikorsky is pitching a SAR version of its civilian S-92 helo which does work (the H-92/CH-148 Cyclone, though derived from S-92, is effectively a new aircraft):

1) S-92

...In December 2005, an order was placed by CHC Scotia for four S-92 helicopters for the UK Maritime and Coastguard Agency. Deliveries began in March 2007...
https://www.aerospace-technology.com/projects/s92/

2) H-92--RCAF only customer:
https://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/superhawk/

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Two thoughts spring to my mind:

First, didn't somebody already figured it out in the past, that using the same helicopter for SAR and Maritime Helicopter was a good idea? Oops! Sorry! I forgot someone else, after that fact, said "I'll write zai-roo helicopters!"

Second: 2023 for the first JSS!!! Can we revisit getting Obelix 16 months from ... now, per chance?

 

[dimsum]

I, for one, am shocked that there are issues with the Aurora Block 4, which is supposed to be integrating a bunch of new systems.

:

 

[dapaterson]

Are the issues with integration, or with keeping the mod line on time?

 

[CBH99]

CBH99: In fact Sikorsky is pitching a SAR version of its civilian S-92 helo which does work (the H-92/CH-148 Cyclone, though derived from S-92, is effectively a new aircraft):

1) S-92

2) H-92--RCAF only customer:
https://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/superhawk/

Mark
Ottawa

Thanks for the clarification Mark.  Initially my thoughts were "Wow, that's pretty ballsy to suggest we buy more of the helicopter they've failed to deliver" -- but I see the difference now.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Two thoughts spring to my mind:

First, didn't somebody already figured it out in the past, that using the same helicopter for SAR and Maritime Helicopter was a good idea? Oops! Sorry! I forgot someone else, after that fact, said "I'll write zai-roo helicopters!"

Second: 2023 for the first JSS!!! Can we revisit getting Obelix 16 months from ... now, per chance?

In my little "perfect world" Start the Obelix now, continue with the Kingston class, replace 1 Griffon squadron with H-92's rigged for troop/cargo/slinging and guns. Upgraded the remaining Griffons the same was the USMC "upgraded" their helo's. 

 

[Good2Golf]

...replace 1 Griffon squadron with H-92's rigged for troop/cargo/slinging and guns...

???

Which one?  The schoolhouse, or one of the two conventional line units?  If one of the line units, you'd wish to see the three operational line units then look like:  1 x Griffon, 1 x S-92 & 1 x Chinook?  How would you assign armed escort support of the Griffons to the two different heavier types of helicopters?

G2G

 

[Colin Parkinson]

???

Which one?  The schoolhouse, or one of the two conventional line units?  If one of the line units, you'd wish to see the three operational line units then look like:  1 x Griffon, 1 x S-92 & 1 x Chinook?  How would you assign armed escort support of the Griffons to the two different heavier types of helicopters?

G2G

I thought we had 3 squadrons of Griffons and the school?

 

[Good2Golf]

408 in Edmonton and 430 in Valcartier are the two conventional line Griffon squadrons.  438 in St-Hubert is a Reserve unit that augments and provides technical evaluation and maintenance training, but is not used to provide a main basis of rotation capability.  Arguably, 408 and 430 are stretched to support the utility/armed helo demand. Rarely is the issue about numbers of hardware, but rather about personnel to operate, maintain and support the hardware.  Re-equipping 408 or 430 with S-92s would worsen the situation currently balancing Griffon and Chinook capabilities.

Regards
G2G

 

[Colin Parkinson]

What can a Griffon do that the H-92 could not do? Perhaps slinging and small LZ's. In "My perfect world" I would raise up a new squadron, but have heard the issue of manning, it would seem you would get more bang for your personal manning buck with the H-92 than the Griffon.

 

[Kirkhill]

With 427 being Special Ops (in support of CANSOFCOM) doesn't that leave 408, 430 and 450 to support the CMBGs?  Am I wrong to assume that on deployment, as opposed to garrison, that 450 and the Griffon squadrons would swap some flights to produce 3 mixed squadrons of both CH-146s and CH-147s?  Leave that as an Army-Centric force multiplier (with reservists in some of the billets as they have now).

If there is money for more CH-148s where would you put them and where would you find the crews to man them?

A Naval Task Group will only have hangars for 5 CH-148s:  2 in the AOR and one in each of the three CSCs.  At a push those aircraft could lift Company of infantry (22 in the back of each if the electronic stuff is kicked out).  More generally I would imagine that the aircraft would be employed with all the electronic gear on patrols, occasionally dropping a boarding party and once in a decade invading a distant shore.

I like the idea of more helos on the CSCs. I even like the idea of increasing either the number of 148s or 149s. 

But most of all I like the idea of a large flat deck from which 146s and 147s could lift when and as the need arose.

 

[daftandbarmy]

408 in Edmonton and 430 in Valcartier are the two conventional line Griffon squadrons.  438 in St-Hubert is a Reserve unit that augments and provides technical evaluation and maintenance training, but is not used to provide a main basis of rotation capability.  Arguably, 408 and 430 are stretched to support the utility/armed helo demand. Rarely is the issue about numbers of hardware, but rather about personnel to operate, maintain and support the hardware.  Re-equipping 408 or 430 with S-92s would worsen the situation currently balancing Griffon and Chinook capabilities.

Regards
G2G

If the Reg F worked Saturdays and Sundays (and took Mondays and Tuesdays as their 'weekend') you'd have way more troops (reservists) available to both service and utilize these airframes....

Heads exploding in 3....2....1....  ;D

 

[Good2Golf]

If the Reg F worked Saturdays and Sundays (and took Mondays and Tuesdays as their 'weekend') you'd have way more troops (reservists) available to both service and utilize these airframes....

Heads exploding in 3....2....1....  ;D

Often done in the East.  Sorry, no pipeline, no weekend support for you, D&B! 

G2G

 

[daftandbarmy]

Often done in the East.  Sorry, no pipeline, no weekend support for you, D&B! 

G2G

:alone:

 

[Good2Golf]

What can a Griffon do that the H-92 could not do? Perhaps slinging and small LZ's. In "My perfect world" I would raise up a new squadron, but have heard the issue of manning, it would seem you would get more bang for your personal manning buck with the H-92 than the Griffon.

Considering the -92 family (S and H) was based on the Super Hawk, it's not a bad base airframe, but it would lose benefits in its present form, the further and further dry/away it gets from the Littorals.  If I were doing 'stuff' over the water that didn't need a fast flying and floating fortress (147), the 92 wouldn't be a bad machine at all, compared to the 146, but back feet-dry, 146 is not at all a bad airframe - it gets a bad rap, but much of that was based on non-optimal to poor (mis-)employment in the past.

Regards
G2G

 

[MarkOttawa]

Cabinet committee Treasury Board now in charge of defence procurement--PM's announcement:

Prime Minister announces changes to the Cabinet committees
...
The Treasury Board will assume responsibility for key delivery challenges including defence procurement and modernizing the public service pay system. As the management board of government, the Treasury Board is well-placed to lead the whole-of-government approach needed on these key files...

The Prime Minister is also creating a new Incident Response Group, similar to those in place with our Five Eyes allies. It will be a dedicated, emergency committee that will convene in the event of a national crisis or during incidents elsewhere that have major implications for Canada. The Group will bring together relevant ministers and senior government leadership to coordinate a prompt federal response and make fast, effective decisions to keep Canadians safe and secure, at home and abroad...

The Treasury Board – as the management board of government – will actively assume responsibility for the issues previously addressed by the Cabinet Committee on Defence Procurement...
https://pm.gc.ca/eng/news/releases

New committees:

...
Treasury Board

Acts as the government’s management board. Provides oversight of the government’s financial management and spending, as well as oversight on human resources issues. Provides oversight on complex horizontal issues such as defence procurement and modernizing the pay system. Responsible for reporting to Parliament.

Is the employer for the public service, and establishes policies and common standards for administrative, personnel, financial and organizational practices across government.

Fulfills the role of the Committee of Council in approving regulatory policies and regulations, and most orders-in-council.

Chair
The Hon. Scott Brison

Vice-Chair
The Hon. Jane Philpott

Members
The Hon. Jean-Yves Duclos
The Hon. William Francis Morneau
The Hon. Mary Ng
The Hon. Carla Qualtrough

Alternates
The Hon. Marie-Claude Bibeau
The Hon. James Gordon Carr
The Hon. Patricia A. Hajdu
The Hon. Ahmed Hussen
The Hon. Mélanie Joly
The Hon. Seamus Thomas Harris O’Regan
The Hon. Ginette C. Petitpas Taylor
The Hon. Harjit Singh Sajjan [emphasis added--industry min. Bains not on]
...
Cabinet Committee on Canada in the World and Public Security 

Considers issues concerning Canada’s engagement with and participation in the international community.  Responsible for issues related to domestic and global security and the consideration of intelligence reports.

Chair
The Hon. Ginette Petitpas Taylor

Vice-Chair
The Hon. Kirsty Duncan

Members
The Hon. Marie-Claude Bibeau
The Hon. William Sterling Blair
The Hon. Scott Brison
The Hon. Chrystia Freeland
The Hon. Marc Garneau
The Hon. Ralph Goodale
The Hon. Karina Gould
The Hon. Harjit Singh Sajjan [emphasis added]
https://pm.gc.ca/eng/cabinet-committee-mandate-and-membership

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Good2Golf]

Sounds like TB doing what it always did, now with six members (and seven alternates) in stead of the original five members. Since it’s now considered a Committee, does this mean all the members and alternates now get the additional Cabinet Committee stipend added to their salary? 

 

[MarkOttawa]

Important procurement qualification from Mercedes Stephenson (now Global) at twitter:
https://twitter.com/MercedesGlobal/status/1034576184019890176

@MercedesGlobal

Ok SO very important information to correct and clarify what is in the PMO release about changes to cabinet. The responsibilities for defence procurement and Phoenix are changing cabinet committees NOT Ministers

Mark
Ottawa