• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ

I hate to be that guy but every war or battle is a test of logistics. And the RCN is just a big Logistics FP organization.

Until we get leadership that isn't impressed by flashy lights and big sounds; and instead focuses on the creation and sustainment of power we wont get out of our current doldrums.

Fighting is boring, Logistics is where the real action is. Want to impress me ? Show me a CO who gives a shit about their HPR list and warehouse levels.
I think the key is to make some AR glasses that show how much shit is missing from stores, overlays HPRs on the hull, and then some extra LEDs for the 'oooh' factor.

WOrking in the LCMM side appreciate how much we are currently getting bent over by decisions on the logistics side a decade ago, compounded by continuous reduction/deferral of maintenance.

@Oldgateboatdriver heard a variation on that one with 'Amateurs talk avoidance, professionals talk survivability' so I guess we're clown shoes all around. Really frustrating to have to explain to people that MBS (and Naval Ship code, and safe at sea) include zero combat survivability, and could be functionally met by a fishing boat. So if you sail a ship with defects that fall below it, you don't meet the same commercial survivability standards as a fishing boat, let alone a combatant.
 
WOrking in the LCMM side appreciate how much we are currently getting bent over by decisions on the logistics side a decade ago, compounded by continuous reduction/deferral of maintenance.

Can you expand on this ? Feel free to move to DM.
 
Can you expand on this ? Feel free to move to DM.
At one point around 2009 or 2010ish (timeline in my head is a bit fuzzy) there was a major funding crunch within MEPM for NP, and things like the HCM Felex and SM program took priority over unsexy part buys, the 280s, AORs etc. I think that all coincided with some funding cuts or budget freezes at DND under Harper who was trying to get the budget under control as Afghanistan was winding down and the 2008 recession (again, things are fuzzy). Because we had some big NP projects on the go on the RCN side that meant other stuff got the bare minimum to keep going, with some contracts having all work stopped with only the MCO paid out. All makes sense at the 10,000 foot level, but it was really shitty to be down in the weeds for that, and not have the tools to actually do your job, and provide the sailors with the basics they needed to keep doing their job.

Things like mechanical and hull repairs on the CPF DWPs at the time were kept to a bare minimum with one of the DWPs coming out with absolutely zero 1379s (the change request form orders), where they normally have a few hundred or more for growth work or scope change, so was all pretty weird to work through with some pretty ruthless cuts needed.

In around that time the NICP buys were arbitrarily capped and we were doing HPRs only because we didn't have enough NP. Shortly after that there was directive to significantly cut back on warehousing, (which is fair up to a point), so kind of cumulatively we stopped buying a lot of routine restocking spares, and never really restarted.

Because there was work not done for various reasons (including lack of parts) the material condition degraded a lot, so again a good practical demonstration of why professionals talk logistics (and contracting and supply chain).

Since then there have been a lot of changes to procurement policies that add LOE to every single buy, further HR cuts, huge turnover so lot of experience lost, some significant policy updates to things like the Log SOW (that were never resourced to do things like the QA checks), big DRMIS changes that add a lot of LOE, plus massive inflation with no updates to the dollar values where processes kick in. All that means we have less people, to do a big backlog of buys, that now take more LOE than they used to, so when we do our 'annual review' we are setting our max levels at what we figure would be enough for 3 years, so if the buy goes out we are good for a bit. In other cases where we have parts at end of life with very little previous failures we are buying arbitrary numbers of ship sets, which goes pretty quickly when you are suddenly replacing 50-60% of them if you do a proper survey.

Really more of a long term institutional thing that overall impacts logistics/supply/material management, vice something specific to the logistics branch, but basically we have dug our self a huge F-off hole, never made up for it, and are now struggling to just slow down the rate at which that grows. Especially when things are critically broken across the board so a lot of individual 'yellow' defects are starting to turn into overall 'red' capability gaps on basic safety stuff (if we were honest).

It is really frustrating on a personnel level, as I thought we had really turned a corner on a lot of things like filling bins, starting to replacing obsolete equipment (60 down, 923 to go), updating manuals and PM etc. and then the budget cut that is dropping for next year may just end up stopping work all together in a lot of areas. Expect that may include part buys being HPRs only again (which is dumb for a lot of reasons and results in a lot of TRANREQs). At the moment our impacts of just our subsection not getting some extra funding is things like a lot of the ships not meeting safe alongside within 6 months, training stopping (again impacting safe alongside), and a lot of other basic obsolescence stuff just grinding to a halt, so huge fleet impacts.

Fully expect that at some point we'll get that money (which is overall a rounding error on the total budget), after a few exhausting rounds of 'NP funding survivor', but I've been on that merry go round a few times before and I want to get off this ride as it's just stupid, and fighting the bureaucracy without even abstract results is an insane waste of life.

Wouldn't be surprised to see a raft of retirements for some of the key people that are the glue holding a lot of the MEPM house of cards together as they've also had enough. There are a few procurement officers that have keep entire sections functional and have trained a few generations of PGs now (who quickly realize they can do the same job at any other department or within DND without the lunatic stress levels, so only last a year or two for a lot of them), so when they go we will be well and truly foxed. Just a general feeling, but a lot of other people also feel like we aren't collectively accomplishing very much for the LOE required, so when people are tired or starting to burn out reasons to push through are disappearing.

It's really quite sad to see the organization grinding down really committed and competent people via death by 10,000 cuts and giving zero fucks about it, but does put things in perspective I guess about where to draw your line in the sand and get that work/life balance for real.
 
Re Timelines -

Slash civilian staff at Defence HQ: report​

Author of the article:
Postmedia News
Published Aug 21, 2011 • 3 minute read
by Jeff Davis

OTTAWA • Bureaucrats tried to stymie a report by Lieutenant-General Andrew Leslie that calls for deep cuts to civilian ranks at National Defence Headquarters, interfering in his study months before the still secret document was finished.

“The team was directed to stop further work on the civilian structures in late November,” says the report, parts of which were shared with Postmedia News on Friday.

Lt.-Gen. Leslie was named chief of transformation in June 2010 after finishing his term as chief of land staff. Assisted by a team of military and civilian staff, he spent the last year preparing a report on how to make the Canadian Forces a leaner, meaner and more cost-effective organization.

But he began encountering resistance some six months before the tough report was finished.

Lt.-Gen. Leslie writes that his team had only examined the top two layers of the civilian bureaucracy — the deputy minister and assistant deputy ministers — before the order to halt was given in November. The report does not specify who gave the order to stop examining the civilian side of the department.

“At that point we had only examined the senior levels — levels 1 and 2 — and had not yet had time to drill down below the level 2 (assistant deputy ministers),” the report says.

His team reported only to Deputy Minister Robert Fonberg and Chief of Defence Staff General Walter Natynczyk. In his report, Lt.-Gen. Leslie writes that his superior said NDHQ’s civilian staff was none of his concern.

His report has been circulating within the military for more than a month. Despite repeated requests, bureaucrats and political staff have refused to release the report to the public.

One of Lt.-Gen. Leslie’s 43 recommendations was to cut 3,500 civil-service jobs from the department, as well as 3,500 regular force positions at headquarters that “serve little purpose.”

John MacLennan, the national president of the Union of National Defence Employees, said Mr. Fonberg briefed union chiefs and told them staffing cuts were coming, but did not say how many positions would be eliminated.

Mr. MacLennan said the unions have not been consulted on the upcoming staffing cuts.

Even before the report was released, Lt.-Gen. Leslie writes, internal resistance to his recommendations was already crystallizing.

“[At] a large meeting in December 2010 involving the generals, admirals and senior DND civil servants … it became apparent the tendency was to argue for the preservation of the status quo,” the report says.

“Though grimly amusing, these interactions proved that consensus has not and probably never will be achieved on any significant change.”

Of the 28,000 civilians working for the department, union president Mr. MacLennan said, many — such as technicians and cooks — are essential. He said he expects cuts to focus on the mass of about 4,000 managers and desk jockeys at NDHQ.

“The bloating of the organization is the bureaucrats,” he said.

David Bercuson, director of the Centre for Military and Strategic Studies at the University of Calgary, said cutting military bureaucracies is never easy.

“Militaries are inherently conservative bureaucracies and they don’t like change,” he said.

Mr. Bercuson said such cuts will need a strong minister, who isn’t afraid to “stand on the necks” of officials and force staffing cuts through.

He said he does not see Defence Minister Peter MacKay — who has not commented on the report — as taking the leadership required.

NDP defence critic Jack Harris called the revelations of bureaucratic growth in the report “shocking,” particularly given “massive failings” in areas such as procurement.

“It does echo some other complaints about the headquarters and the bureaucracy being bloated, and at the same time the people on the front line are being underserviced,” he said.

Mr. Harris said he has not received the report, and called on Mr. MacKay to release it “right away.”

He said it is wrong that services provided by the military — such as maritime search and rescue — are being downgraded while more and more bureaucrats are hired in Ottawa.

“That’s a bit of a shock when you see the bureaucracy itself increasing substantially when there is work that needs to be done is not being done,” he said.

I swear the wheel turns faster the older I get. The same news keeps being rewritten.

Harper to MacKay: cut more administration, sell surplus property at DND​

The Canadian Press
Published Wednesday, October 24, 2012 4:29PM EDT

OTTAWA -- A leaked letter shows the prime minister told Defence Minister Peter MacKay last spring that his initial budget proposals did not cut deep enough on the administrative side of National Defence.

The three-page letter -- dated June 15, 2012, and obtained by The Canadian Press -- was written to provide "guidance" to MacKay and General Walt Natynczyk as the Conservatives embarked on a rewrite of their marquee defence policy.

The document sheds light on the divide between Stephen Harper's office, determined to wrestle the deficit to the ground, and a defence establishment resolved to protect the budget gains of the last five years.

Harper's missive set out what cuts he was prepared to accept, what wouldn't work, and even suggests National Defence unload some of its surplus property.

A spokesman for MacKay says the government doesn't comment on leaked documents and remains focused on getting the military the resources and equipment it needs.

Harper to NDHQ. Cut staff. Cut real estate.
NDHQ to Harper. We'll get back to you.
 
Re Timelines -



I swear the wheel turns faster the older I get. The same news keeps being rewritten.



Harper to NDHQ. Cut staff. Cut real estate.
NDHQ to Harper. We'll get back to you.
Since this is a procurement thread, a significant part of the reason why these things take longer than they should is because we don’t have the staff (civilian or military) at the project offices.
 
Since this is a procurement thread, a significant part of the reason why these things take longer than they should is because we don’t have the staff (civilian or military) at the project offices.
Can't be true, people that have never been to Ottawa, and don't understand the processes, all say there are too many people in Ottawa.

Cut the tail to add another three battalions of infantry, we need a RegF Black Watch again.
 
And yet the course of action was suggested by a serving officer and his Prime Minister, both of whom resided in Ottawa.
 
Can't be true, people that have never been to Ottawa, and don't understand the processes, all say there are too many people in Ottawa.

Cut the tail to add another three battalions of infantry, we need a RegF Black Watch again.
Whenever someone on CAF Reddit or wherever says “it’s easy, just…” about fixing the CAF, it’s my cue to tune out.
 
And yet the course of action was suggested by a serving officer and his Prime Minister, both of whom resided in Ottawa.
That was also a time when the GoC wanted to aggressively cut deficit, as far as I remember. We had just ended the combat mission in Afghanistan.
 
And yet the course of action was suggested by a serving officer and his Prime Minister, both of whom resided in Ottawa.
Leslie, a man with an axe to grind, and PM more worried about getting re-elected than doing the right thing.

We could cut tail if we cut the byzantine processes for everything, but since 2014 we have just added more layers of process.
 
Leslie, a man with an axe to grind, and PM more worried about getting re-elected than doing the right thing.

We could cut tail if we cut the byzantine processes for everything, but since 2014 we have just added more layers of process.

In that you are not alone. It seems as if process has escalated exponentially in every field, civilian included.

Concurrency with improved communications and computing power? Everybody can phone a friend any time, look up new information all the time and calculate everything every time. Everything is possible.

There is a bit of Ukrainian effect that might be relevant. Hopefully it is catching.

NTC and JRTC in the States are promoting new old ways.

Yet some units are relearning lessons hardly changed since WWI, such as: low-ranking commanders must make decisions on their own; U.S. forces will be under threat from the air; soldiers must learn to dig foxholes.

For one, the risk of communications being jammed or tracked means that commanders must now become skilled at issuing clear yet simple instructions, said Gardner.

That’s no easy task, said Mahood, noting that officers must now write clear, succinct orders even as they battle stressful situations. It’s also a “mental shift” for senior officers, he said, who are used to their staff producing more detailed plans. Officers must adjust to seeing that orders are “good enough,” he said.

 
Since this is a procurement thread, a significant part of the reason why these things take longer than they should is because we don’t have the staff (civilian or military) at the project offices.
I suggest there is a lot of mis employed positions.
Certain Project Offices should have a much more robust ‘green suit’ and civilian staff. While a lot of other positions in Ottawa are bloated beyond belief.

I’m also of the opinion that DND needs its own contracting/procurement system outside of Public Works (whatever it’s called today).
 
I suggest there is a lot of mis employed positions.
Certain Project Offices should have a much more robust ‘green suit’ and civilian staff. While a lot of other positions in Ottawa are bloated beyond belief.

I’m also of the opinion that DND needs its own contracting/procurement system outside of Public Works (whatever it’s called today).
PSPC - Public Services and Procurement Services
 
Back
Top