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....

 

[MJP]

I don't even think we are JIT anymore. We are "Maybe in time" or "Nil Stock Avail CFSS, no fill date".

What we seem to do now is jump from fire to fire putting them out, HPR process I'm looking at you, and now the HPR process is believed to be the only way to get timely resupply.

This all comes back to us need warehouses full of spare parts just waiting to be used. Which we don't have.

HPR usage has actually dropped quite significantly over the past few years from a year over year from an average 8% to 4% of all orders. It is hard to say if this is a COVID related fall or a tightening of HPR usage in policy that has trickled down to the formations and units. I suspect it is a little of both.

That said there is a pervasive distinct lack of faith in the supply chain hence the use of HPR. 3rd line is trying to get better at distribution as that is a key driver of delays that is within their control. Unfortunately stock levels falls under ADM(MAT) and they are having issues given the depth and breadth of what they do.

Looking across the two depots there are roughly 11.5K STOs outstanding from before FY 2021 which means at a macro level there are 11.5K Pur Req out to ADMMat that have been actioned for purchase. Now that is a macro nuanced number as many of those STOs are from closed work orders, or are no longer required (51 from 2013 for example) or the stock exists just not at the depot the STO is pointed at but does highlights the backlog that ADM Mat is dealing with on top of their ongoing procurement projects.

Exactly, in my opinion as an end user the shortages, and supply difficulties we face due to the global economic situation could be softened or mitigated if we actually carried a substantial stock of spare parts in warehouses, properly preserved.

There is a good argument for buying key stocks in large enough quantities to weather short terms storms or when the lead time is long however, a properly aligned supply chain would have a way of ordering stocks in advance of running out of them without storing a lifetime's worth. Unfortunately we are not there yet but we should be buying material incrementally as needed for most things but that comes with the caveat that scaling needs to be properly done along with good thresholds that trigger procurement.

Space is limited in current infrastructure and new infra takes decades. There are ok interim ways to solve infra issues and the depots are revamping internally to utilize space better but regardless of what they do buying mountains of parts is likely not going to happen so the rationale way to solve the issue is make the supply chain more robust and automated all along the chain.

 

[MilEME09]

Space is limited in current infrastructure and new infra takes decades. There are ok interim ways to solve infra issues and the depots are revamping internally to utilize space better but regardless of what they do buying mountains of parts is likely not going to happen so the rationale way to solve the issue is make the supply chain more robust and automated all along the chain.

One solution I have would be to have CnC machines in every mat shop and negotiate for the specs for various small widgets. That way our mat techs can local manufacture simple parts in a pinch.

 

[MJP]

One solution I have would be to have CnC machines in every mat shop and negotiate for the specs for various small widgets. That way our mat techs can local manufacture simple parts in a pinch.

That and 3D printing are good initiatives but there are huge challenges to overcome; resourcing and IP rights being the largest hurdles.

I haven't checked in a while but interested to see a summary of the 3D printing trial they were doing in Latvia.

 

[MilEME09]

That and 3D printing are good initiatives but there are huge challenges to overcome; resourcing and IP rights being the largest hurdles.

I haven't checked in a while but interested to see a summary of the 3D printing trial they were doing in Latvia.

There are articles about the testing in issues 8 and 9 of the LEMS journal, including the testing results of different materials, very fascinating work.

 

[Halifax Tar]

HPR usage has actually dropped quite significantly over the past few years from a year over year from an average 8% to 4% of all orders. It is hard to say if this is a COVID related fall or a tightening of HPR usage in policy that has trickled down to the formations and units. I suspect it is a little of both.

That said there is a pervasive distinct lack of faith in the supply chain hence the use of HPR. 3rd line is trying to get better at distribution as that is a key driver of delays that is within their control. Unfortunately stock levels falls under ADM(MAT) and they are having issues given the depth and breadth of what they do.

Looking across the two depots there are roughly 11.5K STOs outstanding from before FY 2021 which means at a macro level there are 11.5K Pur Req out to ADMMat that have been actioned for purchase. Now that is a macro nuanced number as many of those STOs are from closed work orders, or are no longer required (51 from 2013 for example) or the stock exists just not at the depot the STO is pointed at but does highlights the backlog that ADM Mat is dealing with on top of their ongoing procurement projects.


There is a good argument for buying key stocks in large enough quantities to weather short terms storms or when the lead time is long however, a properly aligned supply chain would have a way of ordering stocks in advance of running out of them without storing a lifetime's worth. Unfortunately we are not there yet but we should be buying material incrementally as needed for most things but that comes with the caveat that scaling needs to be properly done along with good thresholds that trigger procurement.

Space is limited in current infrastructure and new infra takes decades. There are ok interim ways to solve infra issues and the depots are revamping internally to utilize space better but regardless of what they do buying mountains of parts is likely not going to happen so the rationale way to solve the issue is make the supply chain more robust and automated all along the chain.

That lack of faith in the CFSS is not unfounded. I cant tell you from when I started to where I am now, I have seen the daily HPR reports go from one or items per ship to upwards of 20. And lead times go from next port of call (NPOC) to LCMM/SM state no fill of requirement until _______ .

 

[dapaterson]

Better asset visibility and proper disposal of obsolete materiel also has a major role to play; having warehouses filled with spares for fleets divested 20+ years ago is not optimal resource utilization.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Better asset visibility and proper disposal of obsolete materiel also has a major role to play; having warehouses filled with spares for fleets divested 20+ years ago is not optimal resource utilization.

Yup, like LCMMs arguing that I need to keep burlap sacks in stock in 2 Gen Stores because the Navy may reinstall the glass and tin crushers someday...

 

[Colin Parkinson]

There is a good argument for buying key stocks in large enough quantities to weather short terms storms or when the lead time is long however, a properly aligned supply chain would have a way of ordering stocks in advance of running out of them without storing a lifetime's worth. Unfortunately we are not there yet but we should be buying material incrementally as needed for most things but that comes with the caveat that scaling needs to be properly done along with good thresholds that trigger procurement.

Space is limited in current infrastructure and new infra takes decades. There are ok interim ways to solve infra issues and the depots are revamping internally to utilize space better but regardless of what they do buying mountains of parts is likely not going to happen so the rationale way to solve the issue is make the supply chain more robust and automated all along the chain.

Challenge with NOS is that seals have dried out and rubber has perished. I am a believer in having stock, but sadly some parts have a finite life span.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

One solution I have would be to have CnC machines in every mat shop and negotiate for the specs for various small widgets. That way our mat techs can local manufacture simple parts in a pinch.

Working with the US Army National Guard in Ft Lewis, they had a full machine shop mounted on the back of an extended 5 Ton. We needed some pins for our Deuces. The guys were all older and loved our old trucks, so they made us new pins on the spot and some other stuff. We paid them back with time behind the wheel of a Deuce and Canadian beer.

 

[MilEME09]

Working with the US Army National Guard in Ft Lewis, they had a full machine shop mounted on the back of an extended 5 Ton. We needed some pins for our Deuces. The guys were all older and loved our old trucks, so they made us new pins on the spot and some other stuff. We paid them back with time behind the wheel of a Deuce and Canadian beer.

As part of our trials of 3D printing, we have created a SEV with 3D printers and scanners. Experimental technology but could prove fruitful. That said I'd prefer a full matshop, but like the rest of the army, the mat trade is hurting right now.

 

[MJP]

Challenge with NOS is that seals have dried out and rubber has perished. I am a believer in having stock, but sadly some parts have a finite life span.

Yea it is easy to manage spare parts like seals, rubbers and the like through batch management. It is a whole other game to do that for major assemblies. Our 3rd line Tech teams are really not stablished to do periodic maintenance/inspections on major assemblies. Inspections are generally Mk 1 eyeball which can't catch internal issues. They do catch issues and invaluable in providing advice on any particular item though due to the depth of teams and their experience

 

[PPCLI Guy]

That and 3D printing are good initiatives but there are huge challenges to overcome; resourcing and IP rights being the largest hurdles.

I haven't checked in a while but interested to see a summary of the 3D printing trial they were doing in Latvia.

That is indeed the way ahead...and IP is the biggest stumbling block.

As to the supply chain, we need to find the right balance between Just in Time, Just in Case, and Just Because. I am doing some work with Supply Ontario and they will face some of the same issues as they ramp up to full capacity.

 

[rmc_wannabe]

That is indeed the way ahead...and IP is the biggest stumbling block.

As to the supply chain, we need to find the right balance between Just in Time, Just in Case, and Just Because.

You don't get those two with IP/ITAR. A lot of it has to do with the fact that most technology we have today is designed to be a "run'er til she breaks, replace the unit or replace the whole damn thing."

The fact that most SLAs and Warranties now specify that any part level repair needs to be done by the vendor is a testament that. Right to Repair gets in the way of profits.

Even if we wanted to have parts on the shelf for certain kit, there may not be an incentive for vendors to provide it.

 

[Kirkhill]

The 3D printing situation, as applied in Ukraine, is intriguing.

The USN is applying it on USS Essex.

U.S. Navy equips USS Essex warship with Xerox 3D printing technology - 3D Printing Industry

COMNAVSURFPAC and the Navy Postgraduate School (NPS) have installed a 3D printer on the USS Essex, a Wasp-class amphibious assault ship.

3dprintingindustry.com

Essex works in Aluminum. The Ukrainians are using a lot of plastics.

How about the manufacture of explosives on site? Stockpiling and transporting inert materials and then mixing them just prior to filling into 3D printed munitions? Is there work being done in that field?

 

[Colin Parkinson]

The 3D printing situation, as applied in Ukraine, is intriguing.

The USN is applying it on USS Essex.

U.S. Navy equips USS Essex warship with Xerox 3D printing technology - 3D Printing Industry

COMNAVSURFPAC and the Navy Postgraduate School (NPS) have installed a 3D printer on the USS Essex, a Wasp-class amphibious assault ship.

3dprintingindustry.com

Essex works in Aluminum. The Ukrainians are using a lot of plastics.

How about the manufacture of explosives on site? Stockpiling and transporting inert materials and then mixing them just prior to filling into 3D printed munitions? Is there work being done in that field?

Making explosive at the site is not that uncommon for large industrial sites like mines. PLX and ANFO are two types in use.

 

[rmc_wannabe]

Making explosive at the site is not that uncommon for large industrial sites like mines. PLX and ANFO are two types in use.

Worked well enough for the Taliban in a conflict zone.

 

[Kirkhill]

Worked well enough for the Taliban in a conflict zone.

Perhaps something a little less sensitive?

 

[rmc_wannabe]

Perhaps something a little less sensitive?

With more competent manufacturers? Most definitely

 

[Navy_Pete]

Yup, like LCMMs arguing that I need to keep burlap sacks in stock in 2 Gen Stores because the Navy may reinstall the glass and tin crushers someday...

On the flip side the RCN is still operating the Oriole and other ships past their EOL, so some of the ancient gear is still in use.

I did inherit a bit of a TA code of misfit toys though; I think it was a catchall for legacy NSNs that no one knows who they belonged to, so managed to find parts from the old chemox, some kind of air defence system from the 60s, and some other completely random items. At some point I had to go to ebay to figure out what it was, and got lucky the NSN was cross referenced.

@Halifax Tar, usually takes a week or two for the HPR to work it's way to us and then turn into an RFP. Once it's awarded delivery times can be anywhere from 6-12 weeks to 6 months+ (with a few now in years). Pretty nuts, but we did raise this as a significant risk years ago when they told us to not stockpile things, and trust the min/max to autofill (which they quickly turned off). A lot of the shortages probably date back to decisions made around a decade ago.

The fun bit about EOS/EOL is that it can take years to create an engineering change, and years to implement it, so for a lot of items we would almost need to start the process to replace it when we install it; our configuration managment system is way too labour intensive and time consuming, and requiring full on projects to replace a widget creates an unbelievable amount of extra overhead on the already short staff. We have a few ECs that we have stuck in the review process, but already have the spec and parts for, so we've been installing them 'at risk' using deviations in DRMIS. It's nuts.

 

[Halifax Tar]

On the flip side the RCN is still operating the Oriole and other ships past their EOL, so some of the ancient gear is still in use.

I did inherit a bit of a TA code of misfit toys though; I think it was a catchall for legacy NSNs that no one knows who they belonged to, so managed to find parts from the old chemox, some kind of air defence system from the 60s, and some other completely random items. At some point I had to go to ebay to figure out what it was, and got lucky the NSN was cross referenced.

@Halifax Tar, usually takes a week or two for the HPR to work it's way to us and then turn into an RFP. Once it's awarded delivery times can be anywhere from 6-12 weeks to 6 months+ (with a few now in years). Pretty nuts, but we did raise this as a significant risk years ago when they told us to not stockpile things, and trust the min/max to autofill (which they quickly turned off). A lot of the shortages probably date back to decisions made around a decade ago.

The fun bit about EOS/EOL is that it can take years to create an engineering change, and years to implement it, so for a lot of items we would almost need to start the process to replace it when we install it; our configuration managment system is way too labour intensive and time consuming, and requiring full on projects to replace a widget creates an unbelievable amount of extra overhead on the already short staff. We have a few ECs that we have stuck in the review process, but already have the spec and parts for, so we've been installing them 'at risk' using deviations in DRMIS. It's nuts.

That's a false equivalency Oriole, no matter what you and I think of her place in service or value, is still in service. The tin and glass crushers are gone.

So when a ship submits an HPR, the HPR cell receives it and starts searching for stock. If its not local in one of the Naval depots they search nationally. If nothing is found their emails go right out to LCMMs and SMs. This is all done within an hour of the HPR being received by the DST or the HPR cell. Someone in Ottawa is either not checking their emails or forwarding them on in a timely fashion.

There is a massive disconnect, animosity even, between the ships and LCMMs/ADM(Mat). And the fault lays somewhere in-between.