Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 9,222
- Points
- 1,160
I wonder if any of the Chinooks that our troops will hitch a ride on, where one of the ones we used to own, that would be ironic wouldn't it?
Canadian Military/Defence procurement process (Mega Thread)
- Thread starter sdimock
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
If we're using Dutch lift in theatre, it's better than a 50/50 chance (7 out of 13)...
Brad Sallows
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 6,978
- Points
- 1,040
We can't afford to be paying to develop equipment to specs; we need to buy off-the-shelf and cut the mods until it hurts. That makes the bidding process largely irrelevant.
As for choppers and guns, I think it's hard to outrun an airlifted firebase on foot, and I know for sure you can't outrun "add 800".
As for choppers and guns, I think it's hard to outrun an airlifted firebase on foot, and I know for sure you can't outrun "add 800".
- Reaction score
- 889
- Points
- 1,060
My goodness Brad, I hope somebody in a position to influence such affairs writes that down and uses it someday as a response to stupid propositions.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Then again, we issued a contract to Oerlikon today for the so-called "Multi-mission Effects Vehicle", a made in Canada "one of" boondoggle if I've ever seen one... :brickwall:
FormerHorseGuard
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 422
- Points
- 760
i have a feeling this no bidding kind of shopping might be the boost the forces need.
some generals and full colonels know what the army needs and wants. same for the airforce and the navy.
those are the guys who get to go on TD trip all over the NATO side of the world and various other parts to see and check out new purchases by other armed services. they get to talk to the troops who drive it, fly it, ride in it, shoot it, and sit behind the desk and operate it.
if we could take the politics of purchasing out of the game, there might be a serious money saving that can put more funds into operations, training, or into the next purchase program.
look at MLVW , most people agree it needs to be replaced.
how many other NATO countries have left hand drive 2.5 t cargo trucks or bigger,
how many countries are replacing, upgrading or just ordering more?
for sake of this post
country CVBV is ordering new trucks, they are a close match to what Canada requires
can Canada tagg a few hundred more trucks on the order and get them at the same cost as the larger order from country CVBV?
can the company maing the trucks provide if the need be, english tech manuals and french? spare parts can a deal be worked out for quick replacement? can the trucks be delivered on time
that is all good if that can happen, if we can save a few bucks so be, do we get the employment in canada, maybe , or maybe not, but i think it is time that we do not look for jobs thru military purchases but best bang for the buck.
I am railroad fan , you guys know the weapons, the frame work from the tires to the cooking pot in the back of LAV III all very impression.
But I will tell you how large and small railroads work together to buy locomotives
Large railroads in the States order locomotives from two companies
One use to be GM out of london ontario same plant where the LAV fleet was built, and the other was GE ( General Electric )
large railroads order locomotives by the 100s and sometimes by the 1000s
Union Pacific Railroad ordered one model from GM a few years ago and the order was just finished in the past year for over 1700 one model. it was a huge order. they got a deal on the bulk purchase and parts etc.
Smaller railroads went to the company who sold the locos and wanted to order the same loco model, and get the same price.
the company told the smaller railroads they could keep the production line open and built X numbers of models above the UP order, there could be no changes to made in extras or items deleted from the order that UP made with them.
the smaller company got fewer locomotives, got the same great price but they had to agree to keep it the same as the larger order. only diff was the paint shop details. UP came out Yellow in the UP paint job the smaller companies locomotives came out in thie rpaint job. same locomotive on the inside and out but painted another colour and name on the side.
this is what Canada needs to do for it forces when purchasing.
send some guys down, test, fly it, test drive it, test fire it, do what ever testing is needed then decided if they want it as is or what mods they want. I think we should stop ordering mods just to make work for Canadians if we can save money over all.
CUCV was not ordered by the Canadian Forces, GM sold the army one hell of a deal , over run of production from the USMC order.
saved money had a good truck for most taskings it was used in
HL truck was a great truck, plant opened to build it, soon as the last truck came out the doors the plant was closed. Good truck, job spin offs were short lived.
The guys and gals at the wishing well already know what is out there and in some cases they might know what is coming into being ahead of time. let them do the shopping for the Forces, they know what the big picture is they know the fiscial funding for a program.
let us see if this no bidding idea works, we are not going to lose anything , we might gain
some generals and full colonels know what the army needs and wants. same for the airforce and the navy.
those are the guys who get to go on TD trip all over the NATO side of the world and various other parts to see and check out new purchases by other armed services. they get to talk to the troops who drive it, fly it, ride in it, shoot it, and sit behind the desk and operate it.
if we could take the politics of purchasing out of the game, there might be a serious money saving that can put more funds into operations, training, or into the next purchase program.
look at MLVW , most people agree it needs to be replaced.
how many other NATO countries have left hand drive 2.5 t cargo trucks or bigger,
how many countries are replacing, upgrading or just ordering more?
for sake of this post
country CVBV is ordering new trucks, they are a close match to what Canada requires
can Canada tagg a few hundred more trucks on the order and get them at the same cost as the larger order from country CVBV?
can the company maing the trucks provide if the need be, english tech manuals and french? spare parts can a deal be worked out for quick replacement? can the trucks be delivered on time
that is all good if that can happen, if we can save a few bucks so be, do we get the employment in canada, maybe , or maybe not, but i think it is time that we do not look for jobs thru military purchases but best bang for the buck.
I am railroad fan , you guys know the weapons, the frame work from the tires to the cooking pot in the back of LAV III all very impression.
But I will tell you how large and small railroads work together to buy locomotives
Large railroads in the States order locomotives from two companies
One use to be GM out of london ontario same plant where the LAV fleet was built, and the other was GE ( General Electric )
large railroads order locomotives by the 100s and sometimes by the 1000s
Union Pacific Railroad ordered one model from GM a few years ago and the order was just finished in the past year for over 1700 one model. it was a huge order. they got a deal on the bulk purchase and parts etc.
Smaller railroads went to the company who sold the locos and wanted to order the same loco model, and get the same price.
the company told the smaller railroads they could keep the production line open and built X numbers of models above the UP order, there could be no changes to made in extras or items deleted from the order that UP made with them.
the smaller company got fewer locomotives, got the same great price but they had to agree to keep it the same as the larger order. only diff was the paint shop details. UP came out Yellow in the UP paint job the smaller companies locomotives came out in thie rpaint job. same locomotive on the inside and out but painted another colour and name on the side.
this is what Canada needs to do for it forces when purchasing.
send some guys down, test, fly it, test drive it, test fire it, do what ever testing is needed then decided if they want it as is or what mods they want. I think we should stop ordering mods just to make work for Canadians if we can save money over all.
CUCV was not ordered by the Canadian Forces, GM sold the army one hell of a deal , over run of production from the USMC order.
saved money had a good truck for most taskings it was used in
HL truck was a great truck, plant opened to build it, soon as the last truck came out the doors the plant was closed. Good truck, job spin offs were short lived.
The guys and gals at the wishing well already know what is out there and in some cases they might know what is coming into being ahead of time. let them do the shopping for the Forces, they know what the big picture is they know the fiscial funding for a program.
let us see if this no bidding idea works, we are not going to lose anything , we might gain
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
One aspect of current contract trends is "CLS" Contractor Logistical Support, two recent examples are for the Cdn LAV III and the Sikorsky Maritime Helicopter project. In both instances Maintenance Contracts were awarded to Defense companies, I haven't had the opportunity to read the terms of the contract but I understand if the maintenance contract is for Depot Level Maintenance (Major Overhaul, and Engineering Changes) but if it is at the lower level maintenance, (ie engine repair, electronics test/repair), it doesn't make sense to me to pay a contractor mechanic/technician were it is cheaper and more operationally effective to pay a CF mechanic / technician to do the same job.
Another thing on procurement, I think it would be advantageous to have a competitive bid for the Heavy lift Helo, put the Chinook up against the CH-53, especially forcasting amphibious and Spec Ops, I think the CH-53 or the MH-53, would be a better purchase.
For the M777, I do think it the CF will need to jump through hoops to get the guns for A-stan, but I think it is possible, the CF should just try to lease / purchase deal and hold competitive bids for a 155 towed Howitzer, and scrap the MAVs concept/developed.
Another thing on procurement, I think it would be advantageous to have a competitive bid for the Heavy lift Helo, put the Chinook up against the CH-53, especially forcasting amphibious and Spec Ops, I think the CH-53 or the MH-53, would be a better purchase.
For the M777, I do think it the CF will need to jump through hoops to get the guns for A-stan, but I think it is possible, the CF should just try to lease / purchase deal and hold competitive bids for a 155 towed Howitzer, and scrap the MAVs concept/developed.
ArmyRick
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 1,953
- Points
- 1,010
Anybody in the Ary world can confirm that their was a rushed M777 order placed ? (If you really do not know, don't respond please).
I am all for ditching the bidding and all the crap that goes with it. Why the hell can't the military (who knows what we we need) do its own research. HOWEVER, we should put a contract clause that any CF general that retires can not be hired by a defence industry for say 5 years. This will ensure impartialliaty.
I am all for ditching the bidding and all the crap that goes with it. Why the hell can't the military (who knows what we we need) do its own research. HOWEVER, we should put a contract clause that any CF general that retires can not be hired by a defence industry for say 5 years. This will ensure impartialliaty.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 110
Are we finally getting AN-124s? If so this will be a great boost in capability and we won't have to wait for the US to have a plane available.
But why only 2? Four would be much better and we could loan them out to smaller allies.
I agree the Conservatives are no better then Liberals on defence. They suggesting buying a Garibaldi class aircraft carrier for the navy. Just what every Admiral wants strip his air cover so it can unload vehicles on a potentially hostile shore using his flag ship.
But why only 2? Four would be much better and we could loan them out to smaller allies.
I agree the Conservatives are no better then Liberals on defence. They suggesting buying a Garibaldi class aircraft carrier for the navy. Just what every Admiral wants strip his air cover so it can unload vehicles on a potentially hostile shore using his flag ship.
ArmyRick,
Take a look at the New Guns for 1 RCHA on the artillery forum. In the meantime, the short answer is yes.
As for barring generals from working from defence contractors, as I understand the military procurement process, the actual selection and contracting is handled by the ADM (Mat) world with all sorts of input from other government departments and the political world. Thus, the army staff does not have the final say.
In my opinion, the equipment procurement process is meant to keep lots of people busy for a very long time, not necessariy to get kit to the troops. If I was a cynic, I would say it was to justify ljobs when there isn't any money to buy stuff.
Take a look at the New Guns for 1 RCHA on the artillery forum. In the meantime, the short answer is yes.
As for barring generals from working from defence contractors, as I understand the military procurement process, the actual selection and contracting is handled by the ADM (Mat) world with all sorts of input from other government departments and the political world. Thus, the army staff does not have the final say.
In my opinion, the equipment procurement process is meant to keep lots of people busy for a very long time, not necessariy to get kit to the troops. If I was a cynic, I would say it was to justify ljobs when there isn't any money to buy stuff.
C
couchcommander
Guest
Probably a stupid question, but I am going to ask it anyway...
Why are we purchasing M777's instead of using our existing LG 1 Mark II's (from what I understand the LG's are lighter, have comparible range, and a faster rate of fire)? Of course I understand 155mm has a lot bigger punch than 105, but would not 105 suffice, allowing this money to be better used for other things (such as more, working, Sperwar's so that we can actually track the Taliban and kill them?)
Just a thought...
Why are we purchasing M777's instead of using our existing LG 1 Mark II's (from what I understand the LG's are lighter, have comparible range, and a faster rate of fire)? Of course I understand 155mm has a lot bigger punch than 105, but would not 105 suffice, allowing this money to be better used for other things (such as more, working, Sperwar's so that we can actually track the Taliban and kill them?)
Just a thought...
ArmyRick
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 1,953
- Points
- 1,010
Stick to the couch, commander.
M777 and LG1 are WORLDS apart, my friend. 155mm and 105mm have different effects on target and the ranges with extended range ammo is alot different. Plus a few of my RCHA friends have told me there are numerous problems with the LG1.
Several arty rounds have been fired in A-stan for your info. If they are going to use it, then give the troops the best kit. M777 was the choice for US army, marines and UK army.
M777 and LG1 are WORLDS apart, my friend. 155mm and 105mm have different effects on target and the ranges with extended range ammo is alot different. Plus a few of my RCHA friends have told me there are numerous problems with the LG1.
Several arty rounds have been fired in A-stan for your info. If they are going to use it, then give the troops the best kit. M777 was the choice for US army, marines and UK army.
C
couchcommander
Guest
Hey ArmyRick,
Thanks for your response. I was not aware that the LG1 mk II's had problems (I was under the impression they were an effective weapon). Of course I would not want our armed forces going into battle with anything that is not going to fit the bill (I was confused, as it seemed, on paper, that the two systems were similar in capability, minus the extended range ammunition, but I was, once again, under the false impression we would not be using it, as we don't really (to my knowledge) have people trained to use it, and furthermore accuracy at 25+ km is really not that good).
This however brings out another (probably stupid) question, why then are we only buying 12 of them and not 28 to replace all of our LG's (is there a reason other than the one glaring me in the face, that being money)?
Thanks,
Thanks for your response. I was not aware that the LG1 mk II's had problems (I was under the impression they were an effective weapon). Of course I would not want our armed forces going into battle with anything that is not going to fit the bill (I was confused, as it seemed, on paper, that the two systems were similar in capability, minus the extended range ammunition, but I was, once again, under the false impression we would not be using it, as we don't really (to my knowledge) have people trained to use it, and furthermore accuracy at 25+ km is really not that good).
This however brings out another (probably stupid) question, why then are we only buying 12 of them and not 28 to replace all of our LG's (is there a reason other than the one glaring me in the face, that being money)?
Thanks,
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
I got stuck working in a "project" in the Canadian Building on Laurier st, after spending much of my time with line units, man...I've never seen so many cubicles in my life...I witnessed first hand why so little of our Defence money makes it out of Ottawa. I will not go into details, because it would probably embarass the brass, but frig, what a waste. As soon as FRP became available in '95 I jumped ship...not that I didn't love the Army, just that I didn't want to go through the embarassement of working downtown. Some folks enjoy it there, mostly place to go to get ready for retirement, but I didn't have the stomach for it.
Gnplummer421
Gnplummer421
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
There is a procurement system that works, it could use our current system tailored to industry. The approach is effective, inexpensive and fast for the buyer and allowes for modifications and best bid price without compromise of capability. It is fast and will develop a well oiled industrial military materials industry like we used to have. Problem is the CF Log system cant get there head out of there arses log enough to see it for fear that they may lose control of a sand castle.
The approach works like this:
The user drafts the requirement not the LOG/PWGS rats, the requirement goes to Industry as a Request For Proposals (RFP). Industry provides the prototypes and RD to develop them and arrives on contract day to show off the goodies. The user then selects the best design and price combinations of kit from all designs and then goes away to evaluate the bids or re-offer the contract with mods selected from a combination of all prototypes. For example if the bid is for a truck then lets say three bidders show up with vehs the user may like one or different parts of each. Since each manufacturer brings to the table there own unique approaches many ideas can be brought to the forefront that the user never thought of thus provide special extra capabilities without the cost of mods after the buy. The user may select features from all the bidders and then re-tender the RFP with a specific design spec thus incorporating all the mods they want that they saw from all the prototypes. Industry goes away with a set requirement and they all rejigg thier vehs to conform to the change in contract and return with the final product. The best final product with most competitive price wins and then we buy. Using this system insures a better price as the 3 companies bidding are all playing off the same sheet of music in the second stage of the procurement and thus the final product of each will be very similar. This ensures that price and delivery becomes the issue on final tender and the user gets everything they wanted without compromising lost capabilities found on the losing bidders veh.
This system will take time for industry to retool their minds but once in the swing they will easily fall in line. Defense industry has gotten very fat, dumb and happy with the way we procure. It does not have to be this way, we created it, we can change it. This is how civi industry does it so can we, problem is that the staff in NDHQ don't understand business and industry thus they leave it to Log/PWGSC who have a vested interest in leaving the system the way it is.
The RFP followed by tender was trialled a few years ago and resulted in a reduction of 50% on the contract price a better product with all mods completed before delivery at manufactures expense. Delivery was fast as they were already tooled and keen after the prototype was created to blast on and finish the run. The manufactured even brought to the table ideas that would improve the product that the military user had not thought of. End result was a very good product at a lower price then anticipated.
Change is good donkey!
The approach works like this:
The user drafts the requirement not the LOG/PWGS rats, the requirement goes to Industry as a Request For Proposals (RFP). Industry provides the prototypes and RD to develop them and arrives on contract day to show off the goodies. The user then selects the best design and price combinations of kit from all designs and then goes away to evaluate the bids or re-offer the contract with mods selected from a combination of all prototypes. For example if the bid is for a truck then lets say three bidders show up with vehs the user may like one or different parts of each. Since each manufacturer brings to the table there own unique approaches many ideas can be brought to the forefront that the user never thought of thus provide special extra capabilities without the cost of mods after the buy. The user may select features from all the bidders and then re-tender the RFP with a specific design spec thus incorporating all the mods they want that they saw from all the prototypes. Industry goes away with a set requirement and they all rejigg thier vehs to conform to the change in contract and return with the final product. The best final product with most competitive price wins and then we buy. Using this system insures a better price as the 3 companies bidding are all playing off the same sheet of music in the second stage of the procurement and thus the final product of each will be very similar. This ensures that price and delivery becomes the issue on final tender and the user gets everything they wanted without compromising lost capabilities found on the losing bidders veh.
This system will take time for industry to retool their minds but once in the swing they will easily fall in line. Defense industry has gotten very fat, dumb and happy with the way we procure. It does not have to be this way, we created it, we can change it. This is how civi industry does it so can we, problem is that the staff in NDHQ don't understand business and industry thus they leave it to Log/PWGSC who have a vested interest in leaving the system the way it is.
The RFP followed by tender was trialled a few years ago and resulted in a reduction of 50% on the contract price a better product with all mods completed before delivery at manufactures expense. Delivery was fast as they were already tooled and keen after the prototype was created to blast on and finish the run. The manufactured even brought to the table ideas that would improve the product that the military user had not thought of. End result was a very good product at a lower price then anticipated.
Change is good donkey!
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Thought I'd try to get "letter of the day" in tomorrow's Sun. I hope it will stir up conversation.. :brickwall:
*Note - I've never tried attaching anything on a post so here it goes....
*Note - I've never tried attaching anything on a post so here it goes....
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
What was the author of the original piece in the Sun trying to get at about the Cormorant?
At the same time, the Liberals?
From what I know, the Cormorant is one of, if not the best helicopter out there for the job we use it for. It has the computers for anything, and a three-engine safety margin.
Sure it is more expensive, but when it comes to getting the job done right, and saving lives, why would you go for anything less?
The EH helicopter is also very versatile, so in the case of a war, we could get a few and use them as our potentially better equivelent to the Blackhawk, in the case that we need more than the Griffon, but I am rambling on...
At the same time, the Liberals?
From what I know, the Cormorant is one of, if not the best helicopter out there for the job we use it for. It has the computers for anything, and a three-engine safety margin.
Sure it is more expensive, but when it comes to getting the job done right, and saving lives, why would you go for anything less?
The EH helicopter is also very versatile, so in the case of a war, we could get a few and use them as our potentially better equivelent to the Blackhawk, in the case that we need more than the Griffon, but I am rambling on...
Similar threads
