Government hints at boosting Canada’s military spending

I have long said that you could fund the CAF to 4 percent of GDP, but we would still lag behind in NATO and be much the same where we are.

It's never the money, it's politics. It's procedures. It's the pork-barreling in our defence spending that makes us a paper tiger in NATO.

My only hope in all of this for the CAF and the GoC, whatever the political stripe that may be, is that it will rouse them out of the "Peace Dividend" slumber. The world has been unstable since 1945. We have used geography, proximity, and association as a Defence Policy ever since. ICBMs don't care how close to the U.S. or how far from Russia/China we are.

Don't give us a dime more, but let us spend money on defence like it matters. The fact we follow the same rules for purchasing a fighter aircraft as we do for buying office furniture for a Service Canada office is disgraceful. Don't treat defense procurement as a stimulus package for Canadian Industry. There I said it.

We spend so much money, time, and effort trying to get that money to stay in Canada; be it by awarding contracts to companies with no capability to produce items without first "retooling" and"developing the production lines", or by hamstringing perfectly competent and competitive bidders by forcing the project to be made in St. Margaret de Poutain de Champignon, QC because the ruling government either lost the seat in the election, or won it with promises.

We spend so much money and staff hours jumping through TBS regulations that are great for other departments, but are terrible for defence procurement. Some items you have to sole source, because there are technologies and capabilities no one else makes. By doing the bid process, you get companies clamoring for a project they can't deliver on, but because they tick the bright boxes on the score sheet....

I truly and honestly belief we need to split from PSPC and legislate that its not beholden to TBS, only to the PBO/PCO. The guiding principles of this new Defence Procurement department should be "Off the shelf, from somewhere else" if there isn't an industry in Canada.

BOOTFORGEN has demonstrated how well we do when we are able to actually get what we need, instead of lining the pockets of a Canadian company that got lucky.

That, but with tanks, fighters, ships, weapons systems....

 

[PrairieFella]

Officers who have no sense of the time value of money who propose solutions that are unaffordable that spend multiple years circling the drain can step forward.

Then why is no one holding them accountable? Are you suggesting every single officer at DLR is useless? Where are the SNCOs doing their job to hold officers to account when dereliction of duty is happening? Why aren't heads rolling over the inefficiency?

 

[daftandbarmy]

Then why is no one holding them accountable? Are you suggesting every single officer at DLR is useless? Where are the SNCOs doing their job to hold officers to account when dereliction of duty is happening? Why aren't heads rolling over the inefficiency?

Meanwhile, the 2023 Auditor General's Report...

Procurement processes and their impact on the readiness of the Canadian Armed Forces

 

[PrairieFella]

Meanwhile, the 2023 Auditor General's Report...

Procurement processes and their impact on the readiness of the Canadian Armed Forces

Big ole sigh on my part is all I can say to that.

 

[rmc_wannabe]

Then why is no one holding them accountable? Are you suggesting every single officer at DLR is useless?

The staff at DLR/ADM(Mat) are working within the parameters set by much bigger fish in the pond.

ISEB, TBS, PSPC, and a host of people who haven't even heard the word "CADPAT" ensure DND's and even less so the CAF's priorities are subordinate to a host of other political ones.

LCol Bloggins can be the best and smartest Project Director in history, but he's still bounded by a bureaucracy that very much would rather not spend a dime if they didn't have to.

Where are the SNCOs doing their job to hold officers to account when dereliction of duty is happening?

Seeing a SNCO (Sergeant), let alone the compliment of Warrant Officers of varying rates, in the Projects world sees them as Technical SMEs and less Comd Team partners.

You'd be more likely to see Jalapeño Poppers in the mess on Thursday than you would a Sergeant or WO taking and officer to task in a project cell.

Why aren't heads rolling over the inefficiency?

What is your definition of inefficiency?

To a dude who is missing the capability they need right meow to keep them and their buddies alive if SHTF, its wholly inefficiency.

To various ADMs, DMs, Ministers, and our own CoC... they see a mechanism to ensure every defence dollar is thoroughly spent in the most prudent and fiscally responsible manner. If that takes 20 years, well, at least they did their due dilligence.

Where we fall down every time is that we refuse to see the hybrid approach of expediency met with value for money.

If we (CAF) know that our needs and wants are very low in the pecking order... we need to meet the other priorities half way whenever possible.

The others (ADM, PSPC, ISED, et al) in turn need to understand we are not buying furniture for Service Canada offices over the next 20 years; we need these systems to keep people alive in some cases and to project that foreign influence the government asks of us. That may mean skirting the procurement process, sacrificing benefits to Canadian industry, or gasp buying MOTS/COTS from international vendors.

 

[dimsum]

What is your definition of inefficiency?

To a dude who is missing the capability they need right meow to keep them and their buddies alive if SHTF, its wholly inefficiency.

To various ADMs, DMs, Ministers, and our own CoC... they see a mechanism to ensure every defence dollar is thoroughly spent in the most prudent and fiscally responsible manner. If that takes 20 years, well, at least they did their due dilligence.

Where we fall down every time is that we refuse to see the hybrid approach of expediency met with value for money.

If we (CAF) know that our needs and wants are very low in the pecking order... we need to meet the other priorities half way whenever possible.

That should be taught in every class.

 

[Good2Golf]

The staff at DLR/ADM(Mat) are working within the parameters set by much bigger fish in the pond.

ISEB, TBS, PSPC, and a host of people who haven't even heard the word "CADPAT" ensure DND's and even less so the CAF's priorities are subordinate to a host of other political ones.

LCol Bloggins can be the best and smartest Project Director in history, but he's still bounded by a bureaucracy that very much would rather not spend a dime if they didn't have to.


Seeing a SNCO (Sergeant), let alone the compliment of Warrant Officers of varying rates, in the Projects world sees them as Technical SMEs and less Comd Team partners.

You'd be more likely to see Jalapeño Poppers in the mess on Thursday than you would a Sergeant or WO taking and officer to task in a project cell.


What is your definition of inefficiency?

To a dude who is missing the capability they need right meow to keep them and their buddies alive if SHTF, its wholly inefficiency.

To various ADMs, DMs, Ministers, and our own CoC... they see a mechanism to ensure every defence dollar is thoroughly spent in the most prudent and fiscally responsible manner. If that takes 20 years, well, at least they did their due dilligence.

Where we fall down every time is that we refuse to see the hybrid approach of expediency met with value for money.

If we (CAF) know that our needs and wants are very low in the pecking order... we need to meet the other priorities half way whenever possible.

The others (ADM, PSPC, ISED, et al) in turn need to understand we are not buying furniture for Service Canada offices over the next 20 years; we need these systems to keep people alive in some cases and to project that foreign influence the government asks of us. That may mean skirting the procurement process, sacrificing benefits to Canadian industry, or gasp buying MOTS/COTS from international vendors.

TBS happy it avoids detection, yet again…

 

[Good2Golf]

Oops, my shame, @rmc_wannabe, I see you actually got them in there. They normally stealth themselves out of mind by others…

 

[McG]

Are you suggesting every single officer at DLR is useless?

There are a lot more fingers in the procurement pie than just the staff in DLR.

Where are the SNCOs doing their job to hold officers to account when …

That is not the job of Sr NCOs. Also, unlike in a regiment, the WOs & MWOs in DLR, CFD, CProg, ADM(Mat), etc are generally not more experienced than the officers in the business of the unit.

LCol Bloggins can be the best and smartest Project Director in history, but

Army PDs are Majors, Captains, and sometimes MWOs. Many PMs in ADM(Mat) are LCol (though they should probably all be Mr/Mrs/Ms). So your PM (whose priority is schedule & budget) is typically senior to your PD (whose priority is ensuring the right capability).

 

[Good2Golf]

Army PDs are Majors, Captains, and sometimes MWOs. Many PMs in ADM(Mat) are LCol (though they should probably all be Mr/Mrs/Ms). So your PM (whose priority is schedule & budget) is typically senior to your PD (whose priority is ensuring the right capability).

Maybe if the Army was a stronger sponsor of its requirements it would see improved responsiveness from Mat Group?

 

[McG]

Maybe if the Army was a stronger sponsor of its requirements it would see improved responsiveness from Mat Group?

Maybe. What would that look like?

 

[Good2Golf]

Maybe. What would that look like?

More LCol and Maj PDs…at the working level. Army SRBs also seem to have lesser co-chair attendance than the other services from what I observed.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Maybe. What would that look like?

It might look like it did 50 or even 35 years ago when there were, generally, three "partners" in any project:

• A PD from the then Directorate of Land Plans, one of a half dozen LCols for projects likely to be above a certain dollar value, a few million in those days;
• A Tech Staff Officer usually a major, sometimes captain, occasionally a CWO, from DLR, who translated the "capability deficiency" identified by the PD into a statement of requirement with a much less rough idea of costs and which the engineers could use to identify actual hardware; and
• A PM, usually a major, from the appropriate engineering branch.

That triumvirate dealt, on most routine matters, with Supply and Service and industry Canada and so on. When the going got rough they escalated the matter to a more senior group: DLP (Col), DLR (Col) and the. appropriate engineering director or, often, the engineering DG.

When the going got really rough, e.g. regional industrial benefits, especially for Québec vs military operational requirements or the defence budget, then I saw even relatively small (less than $10M, which was still "something" in the the 1970s) projects escalated to general officer and ADM(Mat) and even the DM level. In later years, when the DM, the much feared Bob Fowler, got involved DND almost always won even when John Manley was Minister of Industry and Kevin Lynch was DM of that department.

 

[Good2Golf]

In later years, when the DM, the much feared (but also much respected) Bob Fowler, got involved DND almost always won even when John Manley was Minister of Industry and Kevin Lynch was DM of that department.

…the ‘lads’ still respect him greatly. Had he not been freed when he was, I’d wager some bubbas would have taken leave to take a short vacation to Africa.

 

[dapaterson]

Estimates from five years earlier are refined as the project enters OA. Oh no, inflation! That estimate will now only buy 75% of the quantity we think we need. Let's circle back and validate the requirement again (another year or two of inflation). Numbers change a bit, but now, since the budget hasn't changed, we can only buy 60%.

Let's look at other projects, lower in priority. But they have champions (for good or for ill) protecting them. We just lost another year, and can now only fford 55% of the capability we are replacing - that now is three years closer to obsolescence. And technology has advanced - do we double down and buy something that will be obsolete on arrival?

The Army also suffers from internal warfare - the RCN wants ships and the RCAF wants planes. So an Artillery commander of the Army may well be prioritizing MLRS in 2007, but he moved on (less than 40km), but other, higher priorities like CCV replaced that. And so on...

 

[Good2Golf]

So an Artillery commander of the Army may well be prioritizing MLRS in 2007, but he moved on (less than 40km), but other, higher priorities like CCV replaced that.

I wonder who…..

 

[FJAG]

why does the UOR have to be limited? Seems very stupid to do everything twice if we get around to it. If we have an UOR for a capability either because we have let it atrophy or just dont have it then its urgent right versus replacing things on a somewhat regular rate. Is it because everything is urgent?

UORs are also known as Unforecasted Operational Requirements which indicates they are not part of the forecasted planning process for combat capability acquisition. A proper project will examine for and incorporate not just the equipment acquisition but also the adjustment if any to the manning structure of the agency deploying it, any additional infrastructure needed to support it , its life cycle management and any capability divestments that are generated as a result of its deployment.

A UOR, on the other hand is none of the above. It is designed to rapidly field a piece of equipment for a specific operation. It generally includes no additional manning but merely uses manning already in place; if the duration of the operation is known it may include a form of technical support for that duration but not life cycle management; and, particulalry for longer operations, may include a stock of training and tech reference equipment to allow manning and tech support for the duration of the operation. Typically, once the operation ends the equipment becomes surplus to requirements and is disposed of.

Then why is no one holding them accountable? Are you suggesting every single officer at DLR is useless? Where are the SNCOs doing their job to hold officers to account when dereliction of duty is happening? Why aren't heads rolling over the inefficiency?

I know a number of gunners who've worked in the DLR world and none of them are slouches. The trouble is that its a soul sucking job. Procurement is such long cycle that one never sees the delivery of the systems one is working on coming to fruition during one's tour. Projects frequently make it to the cusp of approval only to be supplanted by something else because $ became unavailable or priorities shifted during the interval.

So an Artillery commander of the Army may well be prioritizing MLRS in 2007, but he moved on (less than 40km), but other, higher priorities like CCV replaced that. And so on...

CCV and LRPRS (Long Range Precision Rocket System - not MLRS but something more HIMARSy) both came into vogue as part of the Family of Land Combat Systems in 2006. LRPRS was one of the top six projects the army was advancing in 2008 (as was CCV, TAPV, CIED, LWTH, and LAV3 UP)(LWTH ie the 25 additional M777s was funded and approved and delivered - as was TAPV, LAV UP and CIED). CCV died a horrible death on December 19, 2013. It had been funded (to the tune of $2.1 billion) LRPRS never got that far along the path. I don't think it was ever funded. (I'm not sure, my research for WAFG Vol 2 will be looking at that later this fall) I've heard that in 2010 it was still on stream but and was almost a done deal but quickly turned into a twinkle in people's eyes and went into limbo. CCV didn't replace LRPRS. I think it was always below CCV in the order of priority even before a fixed end date to Afghanistan was promulgated.

LRPRS has been revived under Long Range Precision Fires (LRPF) as either a rocket or loitering munition or both capability to bridge the gap between gun delivered and aircraft delivered munitions. CCV has not been revived.

 

[Pelorus]

I know a number of gunners who've worked in the DLR world and none of them are slouches. The trouble is that its a soul sucking job. Procurement is such long cycle that one never sees the delivery of the systems one is working on coming to fruition during one's tour. Projects frequently make it to the cusp of approval only to be supplanted by something else because $ became unavailable or priorities shifted during the interval.

A former boss of mine once told me that Force Development is a great field to work in, so long as you can consistently follow the cardinal rule of "don't get emotionally invested into any of your projects" for the reasons you described above. I generally don't have the strength of character to completely divest myself from my professional projects, and for that reason I've never worked in FD.

 

[FJAG]

A former boss of mine once told me that Force Development is a great field to work in, so long as you can consistently follow the cardinal rule of "don't get emotionally invested into any of your projects" for the reasons you described above. I generally don't have the strength of character to completely divest myself from my professional projects, and for that reason I've never worked in FD.

Yeah, I didn't want to leave JAG CIMP before it rolled out but at age 60 you become corporately unemployable (presumably senility sets in on your 60th birthday - it might have but I didn't notice any change from the day before )

Strangely, the day I left Ottawa and started planning the addition to the new house we just purchased on Lake Erie, ended up with me never looking back to see how the project was doing. 600 kilometres of separation as the crow flies and a new project really refocuses the mind.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Estimates from five years earlier are refined as the project enters OA. Oh no, inflation! That estimate will now only buy 75% of the quantity we think we need. Let's circle back and validate the requirement again (another year or two of inflation). Numbers change a bit, but now, since the budget hasn't changed, we can only buy 60%.

Let's look at other projects, lower in priority. But they have champions (for good or for ill) protecting them. We just lost another year, and can now only fford 55% of the capability we are replacing - that now is three years closer to obsolescence. And technology has advanced - do we double down and buy something that will be obsolete on arrival?

The Army also suffers from internal warfare - the RCN wants ships and the RCAF wants planes. So an Artillery commander of the Army may well be prioritizing MLRS in 2007, but he moved on (less than 40km), but other, higher priorities like CCV replaced that. And so on...

There is also...

 

[KevinB]

They are intended as gap fillers and do not generally include long term sustainment.

Hey at least you aren't as bad as the USMC, when they conduct UNS (Urgent Needs Statements) if by 3 years their isn't a program requirement for those UNS items, and if there is, and it isn't identical to the UNS bought items, the system takes them away for disposal.

Lot of fantastic gear got it's start via UNS, but a lot has also been sent to DMRO to be disposed of.

The Army tends to be a bit more pragmatic than that - but a lot of gear still ends up being destroyed or offered to others via DRMO.

Sometimes an OEM will step in, if they where the UNS manufacturer as well as the Program of Record OEM to "swap" the UNS items for a Delivery Order item - but it can be a nightmare that can end up biting the last guy standing when the music stops (ask me how I know when I did some Mk11 Mod1 exchanges for USMC M110's and Army XM110's for M110's...)