Far too much to unpack, but let's go for some low hanging fruit:
* The priority of lack thereof is in the Army's court.
* It's the Army, owner of the requirement, who define what IOC is. It will never be something as facile as "pull lanyard, make boom". Integration, test and evaluation, delivery schedules all factor into that decision.
I'm not defending the army. "Home Office" is everyone in Ottawa. Eight years! Integration is not a big issue for the initial delivery of the system. It's effectively a stand alone component that connects with numerous communication sources. The integration really comes with the Joint Fires Modernization (JFM) project which needs to be largely equipment agnostic to cater to the wide variety of current equipment and foreseeable future equipment. Testing and evaluation are valid critical path events but the last time I saw a timeline, options analysis was to have happened in the spring of 2023. What has happened in the intervening two years? Potential delivery schedules should have been explored during option analysis and I would suggest any contractor wanting to make a deal would put forward a fairly robust timeline to meet early IOC for a minimum deployable capability even if FOC is necessarily far downstream.
* M109 barns are not adequate infra. They are 40+ years old, likely with lead paint and asbestos, inadequate design for maintenance (we don't pour oil down the drain any more), inadequate utilities provisioning, lack of midlife maintenance, lack of security.
* Bases have not had utility infrastructure maintained. Electric grids are insufficient and failing. There is critical infrastructure running 24/7 on generators, with backup generators on standby, because the CAF leadership repeatedly underfunded infrastructure.
We ran M109 barns out of N118 in Shilo in a post war building (not sure of exact date - I think early 1950s) up until 1998. It was not luxury but adequate because army equipment is designed to live outdoors. That building still serves as the RCA museum now and has done so since 1998 when 1 RCHA moved into a
brand-spanking-new multi-purpose facility. I've never been to 5 RALC but from photos that I've seen their multi-purpose facilities are on a par with 1 RCHA. Same with 2 RCHA. They have a good sized hanger for that but have no idea how old it is (the gun park from my day barely held the L5s and C1s we had and desperately needed upgrading)
What I'm saying is that those facilities would be more than adequate for IOC.
* Increased security requirements are already making the RCAF panic, and are starting to filter down to the Army as well. Most ops activity takes place on secure networks which require secure facilities to operate out of (current workarounds are almost at the point of "la la la I can't hear you everything is secure and fine la la la"); and new equipment is driving much more robust security. In several instances, if the secure facilities and secure systems are not in place the vendors will not deliver equipment.
The last time I looked radios were removeable, and between exercises could easily be secured in armoured and alarmed facilities. I have no idea as to what facilities are in use now but I expect they're accredited for existing system. If JFM needs higher accredited facilities then I presume that will be part of that project's critical path evaluation.
* Projects that skip adequate definition work fail or run long. Very long. There's an RCAF project running 20+ years late; the Army has one at 12+ and counting, and another that's being cancelled. You can plan upfront or later, but later takes longer and is more costly.
I agree. Definition is important. But this isn't rocket science and it should be off-the-shelf technology bought with the realization that within a decade the technology will have changed dramatically. You can wait perpetually for the next best thing or buy in on the best on the shelf today with the greatest ability for upgrades of key system components. For God's sake don't make the ability to shoot on the move part of the SOR - SPs aren't tanks. They can stop for the minute that it takes to fire their mission. From what I understand RCH only does that on low charges and you don't want your SPs cruising around the FEBA waiting for a mission that's within range.
We don't have the technical manufacturing base to design a new and better system from scratch anyway so the SOR should be kept simple and encompassing all the key available systems. Honestly; this project should be a one-year shoot-off between manufacturers that have a system in production or with existing and viable prototypes.
The fact that we have 20+ and 12+ year late projects only confirms that the system isn't working right. It's tantamount to saying that we should set IOC so far down the road so that we can meet it with our calcified system. Report after report says the system is consistently failing and needs to be overhauled to meet customer needs in a timely manner.
I guess procurement should be no different from the lack of speed in the recruiting system or the delay in court martials (I note that herd of judges, prosecutors and defence counsel are doing even less cases now than they did back in my day). I also note that court martial timelines aren't even being reported on in the annual reports like they are for summary hearings. I expect they're still crawling along.
