Defence roles, organization, equipping and HQ (a split thread on everything)

[Good2Golf]

...If I knew how to do that I'd probably be rich and famous ...

Get KPMG to hire you as a Special Consultant to advise the Government? 

Regards
G2G

 

[Edward Campbell]

Get KPMG to hire you as a Special Consultant to advise the Government? 

Regards
G2G

The operative word was IF. IF anyone could square that circle they would be famous ... most of those who promised, but couldn't, are already rich.  :not-again:

 

[Old Sweat]

Some things are best done within a service specific structure: defining the right capabilities required in the next generation of warships, or rifles, or tanks or fighter planes, for example; others are best done in a joint environment: defining force structures and, broadly, the right mix of systems and ensuring that e.g. the air force can provide CAP for the navy and CAS for the army, when required. The trick is to find the right staff mix to:

    1. Define, broadly and at the joint/CF level, the capabilities required;

    2. Translate those capabilities required into specific proposals for combat and support systems;

    3. Allocate (financial and human) resources for the life cycle of each system;

    4. Procure the systems, balancing military operational requirements and national industrial requirements;

    5. Support those systems throughout their (extended) service lives; and

    6. Dispose of the systems.

If I knew how to do that I'd probably be rich and famous ...

Not trying to be too cynical, but we have extreme difficulty getting past the first two with any sort of sensible result that can then drive the rest, especially the next one. Maybe that is too critical, so then add in a timely manner. One could also note that whining is not an acceptable management technique.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Not trying to be too cynical, but we have extreme difficulty getting past the first two with any sort of sensible result that can then drive the rest, especially the next one. Maybe that is too critical, so then add in a timely manner. One could also note that whining is not an acceptable management technique.

My own personal view (coloured by the fact that I've been retired for the better part of a generation) is that the CF, at large, is piss poor to incompetent at 1, 2 and 3. The Government of Canada is weak to impotent at 4, and we, DND and the whole of government are barely acceptable at 5 and 6.

 

[MedCorps]

Not trying to be too cynical, but we have extreme difficulty getting past the first two with any sort of sensible result that can then drive the rest, especially the next one. Maybe that is too critical, so then add in a timely manner. One could also note that whining is not an acceptable management technique.

I think we are in the process of getting better at this with the new Joint Capability Based Planning. 

The Chief of Force Development (2-star) has created a number (10-12) mission-based scenario's that he envisions the CAF might become involved in in the next 10-30 years (horizon 3).  These scenario's have been endorsed by the CDS and I am told run by PCO (NSA) and PMO to ensure that these scenarios are acceptable and palatable to the Government in power. The scenarios range from a large domestic disaster to a large war joint fighting scenario and everything in-between.

These scenarios are then being war gamed (3-4 week sessions) by the Joint Capabilities Planning Team using current capabilities or capabilities that are to be fielded in horizon one. Capability gaps found in the CAF's ability to conduct mission success in the mission-based scenarios are then going to be further war gamed to set the conditions for identifying capability requirements amongst the three services. I am told about about 2/3rd of the scenarios are complete so far with notable gaps identified in some situations.

Cheers,

MC 

 

[Good2Golf]

Agree with MC that #1 is getting somewhat better. 

#2 still seems to many to be an ongoing battle over rice and how big each service's bowl is. 

#3 just plain scares the heck out of many folks and it will take courage to trim/constrain other starts so that #3 can be done properly. 

#4 is what it is, and people have to accept that industrial resilience costs but there is a case for it within the Nation's interests.

#5 is doable so long as #3 is set-up properly, then #5 is (or should be) "just follow the agreed plan."

#6 often seems to be a surprise...not just how much to disposal will require, but doing it...when the time comes.  It seems that in some cases, the assets are telling US when they're packing it in (AORs and DDHs for example).

 

[Kirkhill]

Agree with MC that #1 is getting somewhat better. 

#2 still seems to many to be an ongoing battle over rice and how big each service's bowl is. 

#3 just plain scares the heck out of many folks and it will take courage to trim/constrain other starts so that #3 can be done properly. 

#4 is what it is, and people have to accept that industrial resilience costs but there is a case for it within the Nation's interests.

#5 is doable so long as #3 is set-up properly, then #5 is (or should be) "just follow the agreed plan."

#6 often seems to be a surprise...not just how much to disposal will require, but doing it...when the time comes.  It seems that in some cases, the assets are telling US when they're packing it in (AORs and DDHs for example).

So, are you saying the CF has "Commitment Issues"?

 

[Good2Golf]

So, are you saying the CF has "Commitment Issues"?

I wouldn't limit it just to DND, nor would I limit it to Government...it also applies to industry and private individuals; it is only the scale that makes it seem like a larger issue for the Gov't/DND.  Heck, people buy cars based on a capital acquisition price and usually don't take into account the through-life cycle costs.  If citizens are crappy at that, why should we expect our government to be any better at it?  :nod:

[/cynical view ends]

Regards
G2G

 

[Baz]

#2: I've had lots of talks about this, given what I do.

The CF (Canadian Government) is deafly afraid of a spiral program; their worry comes from "scope creep."  Unfortuantely, these systems are too complex to get the requirement right.  There needs to be a better try, fix, try, fix system in place...

DRDCs need to be better involved.  They are where the big brains figure things out.

We need to encourage feedback of good ideas into Canadian Industry.  The fleets try, DRDC thinks, and the good things are passed to industry to implement for us and to sell to others.

Some of this used to exist...

 

[Kirkhill]

#2: I've had lots of talks about this, given what I do.

The CF (Canadian Government) is deafly afraid of a spiral program; their worry comes from "scope creep."  Unfortuantely, these systems are too complex to get the requirement right.  There needs to be a better try, fix, try, fix system in place...

DRDCs need to be better involved.  They are where the big brains figure things out.

We need to encourage feedback of good ideas into Canadian Industry.  The fleets try, DRDC thinks, and the good things are passed to industry to implement for us and to sell to others.

Some of this used to exist...

My daily life as well Baz.  On a much lesser scale.

As G2G says the problem is not limited to officialdom.

People come to our company every day and ask us to solve a problem for a fixed price at a single meeting.  We then spend a bunch of time trying to divest them of the notion and convince them that we are not trying to gouge them.

I work on the basis of ever reducing circles coupled with ever changing realities - which is why I am so cynical with regards to planning, life-cycle costs and accountants.

The real world is defined by Harold MacMillan's "Events" and Harold Wilson's "Weeks".

It is countered by "Pugh's Wheel", "Boyd's Loop" and "Continuous Improvement".  As much as accountants would like it to be so, there is no certitude. There is no exactitude.  Budgets are made to be missed.

Events - well, markets change just like enemies capabilities change.  Plants that were designed to separate fish oil from fish meal, in order to sell oil discover that the market swings away from oil toward meal and they have to refocus on the meal only to have the market swing back to the oil but now with an emphasis on quality because it is going to a different end user - people are eating it rather than burning it.

The plant fundamentally hasn't changed in a hundred years but, like grandpa's axe, everthing has been replaced, renewed, adapted, locally modified and had modern controls overlaid on it while management philosophies move from Ford to Bell to Ford to Toyota to the acronym of the day.

Like ERC said if I knew the answers I'd have been rich a while ago (and Consultants would be out of business  > )

This is how progress is made

 

[Old Sweat]

Was it this process or a previous one or something similar or what that in the previous decade:

a. declared there was no place for tanks in the Canadian Army;

b. ditto for mortars, pioneers, air defence anti-armour and was headed that way with field branch artillery; and

c. caused a epidemic of bureaucratic obesity with a dysfunctional maze (I won't use the word 'system') of self-licking ice cream cones disguised as headquarters?

Having said that, I don't think very many countries, if any, do the major systems procurement very well.

 

[Kirkhill]

Was it this process or a previous one or something similar or what that in the previous decade:

a. declared there was no place for tanks in the Canadian Army;

b. ditto for mortars, pioneers, air defence anti-armour and was headed that way with field branch artillery; and

c. caused a epidemic of bureaucratic obesity with a dysfunctional maze (I won't use the word 'system') of self-licking ice cream cones disguised as headquarters?

Having said that, I don't think very many countries, if any, do the major systems procurement very well.

The hardest thing in any process is the first principle all of us were taught:

Selection and MAINTENANCE of the aim.

 

[Good2Golf]

The hardest thing in any process is the first principle all of us were taught:

Selection and MAINTENANCE of the aim.

The nuance being selection by whom or what body? 

Each successive individual involved who has selected their own aim would tell you how they maintained their focus on that aim...  :nod:

As CLS, Hillier had come to grips with the tank disappearing as part of the transition to a medium mech-focused Army.  Once he was CDS, however, all bets were off....and Hillier wasn't an exception to that way of doing business.

 

[Kirkhill]

The nuance being selection by whom or what body? 

Each successive individual involved who has selected their own aim would tell you how they maintained their focus on that aim...  :nod:

As CLS, Hillier had come to grips with the tank disappearing as part of the transition to a medium mech-focused Army.  Once he was CDS, however, all bets were off....and Hillier wasn't an exception to that way of doing business.

There's that continuity thing again.  It's hard enough when the Commander changes.  Its hard enough when circumstances change.  Its hard enough when the Commander changes his mind.  When all of those things happen concurrently - and the Commander only has 12 to 24 months to actually influence the situation - confusion will occur.

By contrast, Trident Seafoods has had the same commander at the wheel  since 1973 (Chuck Bundrant). 

American Seafoods has been directed by Kjell Inge Rokke (Aker, STX, Vaers) since 1988

There is benefit in the long tenure of Samuel Pepys and the slow turnover on the old Navy Board.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

Want to keep people in jobs for longer, get rid of half the officer corps.  We will never do it though so the madness will continue.

The Irving group of companies have had the same three brothers in charge since old KC passed on.  That's the type of continuity the CF can only dream of. 

 

[Baz]

I've been doing the same job, with different nuances, since 2006, and before that from 1996-02.  Does that mean I'm special :-?

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

I've been doing the same job, with different nuances, since 2006, and before that from 1996-02.  Does that mean I'm special :-?

Strategic ASSet  ;D

I suppose that's better than me... I'm just a pain in the .....

 

[Good2Golf]

I've been doing the same job, with different nuances, since 2006, and before that from 1996-02.  Does that mean I'm special :-?

Baz, if that means designing and implementing a capable ASW system that GDC couldn't, then yes, you're at least a little bit 'special.' 

 

[Baz]

Baz, if that means designing and implementing a capable ASW system that GDC couldn't, then yes, you're at least a little bit 'special.' 

G2G, you know that is a little bit disengenious; thanks however.

We had some things on our side:
- direct access to the crews during the entire development cycles
- the ability to do it in spirals, each one adding more capability
- being allowed to take operational risk; the biggest of which was supportability

From all accounts, what ASP does it does it well.  However, is a transitional tool into Cyclone, not a replacement thereof.

I did also have (alot of) help.  Also learned alot 

 

[Good2Golf]

From all accounts, what ASP does it does it well.  However, is a transitional tool into Cyclone, not a replacement thereof.

Hopefully the capability post-transition will reflect the time and effort (and modest resources) spent on ASP!  :nod:

Cheers
G2G