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

Government hints at boosting Canada’s military spending

Status
Not open for further replies.
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....
 
It's 2 ½ ton, which is the lightest Mercedes offers it. It's more of an MLVW replacement.

We need something in the ¾ to 5/4 ton range for the G-Wagen, Milcot and LSVW.
I agree. And quite a few can be unarmored.

Here's a thought. The US Army is cutting back on JTLVs in exchange for more, and cheaper, ISVs. Why not take the two-pax version as a utility vehicle?

05-ISV2_Road.jpg


There's also a 4 and 5-pax version.


GM_Defense_Expeditionary_Logistics_Mission_Support_Concept_Vehicle_4_passenger.jpg


And for the places where armour is an absolute necessity, well . . . there seems to be lots of spare JTLV production available and there is always this line by some local folks:

Roshel-Senator-Pickup3.jpg


This is not a hard problem.

🍻
 
I agree. And quite a few can be unarmored.

Here's a thought. The US Army is cutting back on JTLVs in exchange for more, and cheaper, ISVs. Why not take the two-pax version as a utility vehicle?

05-ISV2_Road.jpg


There's also a 4 and 5-pax version.


GM_Defense_Expeditionary_Logistics_Mission_Support_Concept_Vehicle_4_passenger.jpg


And for the places where armour is an absolute necessity, well . . . there seems to be lots of spare JTLV production available and there is always this line by some local folks:

Roshel-Senator-Pickup3.jpg


This is not a hard problem.

🍻

Nice looking truck!
 
The first two are ISV options. The third one is a Senator option. In line with the issues up-thread, there are medical evacuation versions of each.

🍻
The way it's going LUV phase 2 will pretty much fill the size the LSVW was, everything keeps getting bigger. Hopefully with budget increases we get a crab ton more vehicles then we originally planned.
 
The way it's going LUV phase 2 will pretty much fill the size the LSVW was, everything keeps getting bigger. Hopefully with budget increases we get a crab ton more vehicles then we originally planned.
Scope increases take project time in addition to more money. Would you accept a 2 year delay in LUV so that the scope can be rewritten, re-approved, re-costed, and then funded to include some replacements for LSVW variants?
 
Scope increases take project time in addition to more money. Would you accept a 2 year delay in LUV so that the scope can be rewritten, re-approved, re-costed, and then funded to include some replacements for LSVW variants?
LUV phase 2 was already split as a seperate contract, DND is already looking to just add numbers to existing contracts to help hit 2%. Amb varients might be out of scope and require a new contract but just increase say the cargo varient is easier.
 
LUV phase 2 was already split as a seperate contract, DND is already looking to just add numbers to existing contracts to help hit 2%. Amb varients might be out of scope and require a new contract but just increase say the cargo varient is easier.
Unfortunately, it is not as simple as throwing money at a named project. Adding new variants to scope sends a project back to seek options analysis phase approvals, with all the documentation and approval gateways that are associated with that. The project would likely be sent back to the Independent Review Panel, which will add months even after internal DND gateways are achieved. Then you are probably losing another year to get new industry costing for variants that were not previously considered in order to cost accuracy to satisfy the subsequent reviewers and gateways for funding approval.

If it is really important, it can be done with the application of additional experienced project staff and general officer engagement to jump queues in the approval gateways. But even then the risk of significant delay remains. There is currently no easy button, and finding manufactures with suitable products is never the critical path. So the question remains, are you ready to risk a multi-year delay in LUVW replacement for the sake of also getting some better suited LSVW replacements?
 
Unfortunately, it is not as simple as throwing money at a named project. Adding new variants to scope sends a project back to seek options analysis phase approvals, with all the documentation and approval gateways that are associated with that. The project would likely be sent back to the Independent Review Panel, which will add months even after internal DND gateways are achieved. Then you are probably losing another year to get new industry costing for variants that were not previously considered in order to cost accuracy to satisfy the subsequent reviewers and gateways for funding approval.

If it is really important, it can be done with the application of additional experienced project staff and general officer engagement to jump queues in the approval gateways. But even then the risk of significant delay remains. There is currently no easy button, and finding manufactures with suitable products is never the critical path. So the question remains, are you ready to risk a multi-year delay in LUVW replacement for the sake of also getting some better suited LSVW replacements?
Really it boils down to then is once again we need procurement reform to get what we need
 
The LUV is basically a modern version of the Iltis.

Maybe we could take a 1 ton Silverado chassis and have someone build a military truck body on top.

Though, it will probably be great for some MLVW tasks that the MSVS is too monstrous to do.
By pure accident, it's an excellent MLVW replacement. The smart move would be to select a 5-8 ton 6x6 Zetros to eventually replace the MSVS.
 
The LUV is basically a modern version of the Iltis.

Maybe we could take a 1 ton Silverado chassis and have someone build a military truck body on top.
GM has their LUV that does basically exactly that.
By pure accident, it's an excellent MLVW replacement. The smart move would be to select a 5-8 ton 6x6 Zetros to eventually replace the MSVS.
You and your logic.
 
We need a Wayne’s Word reaction emoji, because only laugh, cry, and hurl are sufficient to acknowledge that truism.
And then someone finds a new way to fuck up magnificently.

"What if we converted 50hz to 60hz? No way for things to go sideways!"
 
And then someone finds a new way to fuck up magnificently.

"What if we converted 50hz to 60hz? No way for things to go sideways!"
I mean, it is possible to build a grid that supports both but you are going to be disappointed if you think that duality should exist down to each outlet.
 
I mean, it is possible to build a grid that supports both but you are going to be disappointed if you think that duality should exist down to each outlet.
Systems integration into other 60hz systems is overrated.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top