Justin Trudeau hints at boosting Canada’s military spending

I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[Jarnhamar]

,so I feel there is still hope that we will see a good boost once SSE mk 2 gets approved.

I think you mean SSE&I

That's a clever sounding rumor but the government knows exactly where the problem and has done nothing to fix it.

15 years and 100 million dollars to buy a handgun.

Lets call a spade a spade.

 

[KevinB]

I’ll argue SSE allows for whatever the CAF, DND and Cdn Government want.

You could easily field a Heavy DIV, a Medium DIV, and a Light DIV under SSE and justify it with a straight face. The same goes for major RCAF and RCN expansion.

Canada has promised a Bde to NATO - to relive that Bde and maintaining other contingency forces as required by SSE means you need at least three Bde, but you may not know what sort of force is needed, therefore you have Heavy, Medium, and Light.

Let’s also not forget the massive holes in GBAD, Anti-Tank Weapons, Artillery, UAS, Logistics, Combat Support Enablers and Combat Service Support.

That doesn’t even get past the CA, let alone the other elements.

 

[WLSC]

I’ll argue SSE allows for whatever the CAF, DND and Cdn Government want.

You could easily field a Heavy DIV, a Medium DIV, and a Light DIV under SSE and justify it with a straight face. The same goes for major RCAF and RCN expansion.

Canada has promised a Bde to NATO - to relive that Bde and maintaining other contingency forces as required by SSE means you need at least three Bde, but you may not know what sort of force is needed, therefore you have Heavy, Medium, and Light.

Let’s also not forget the massive holes in GBAD, Anti-Tank Weapons, Artillery, UAS, Logistics, Combat Support Enablers and Combat Service Support.

That doesn’t even get past the CA, let alone the other elements.

Exacly my thought. It was there, they just wanted to shovel the snow forward. I would have be happy with named commitment, timelines, CLEAR rushed procurement reform and money for CAF reconstitution. With the current inflation, it's almost a nil growth.

 

[Czech_pivo]

Exacly my thought. It was there, they just wanted to shovel the snow forward. I would have be happy with named commitment, timelines, CLEAR rushed procurement reform and money for CAF reconstitution. With the current inflation, it's almost a nil growth.

It is nil growth.

 

[WLSC]

It is nil growth.

I'm bad in finance and I manage to figured that out...

 

[Navy_Pete]

We have an issue with this. Our SC and Procurement is littered with Engineers.

Sure, we're the ones that are responsible for both the technical requirements and project management. When things aren't in stock it's the LCMMs who get shitty grams from the units.

There is also a big impact from contract terms on the actual projects, so it's a big team effort. If not, things go sideways.

Lot of LCMMs are doing cross training on the supply side to make sure they understand that side of things (and to help train the new supply managers), but I'm not sure how you'd do procurement without the tech staff (aside from straight buys of existing NSNs).

It's not like we don't buy a lot of things; we pump through billions every year, and manage more contracts then any other department by far. It's just that the actual LOE is more then the capacity, and it takes years to get people trained up to be competent. Believe it or not, DND is much better at buying things than any other department.

The integrated project teams (IPTs) with embedded PSPC actually works pretty well but at the end of the day, if there are 40 hoops to jump through, doesn't really matter how good people are, it all takes time.

I'd like to fire TBS and FIN into the sun though; they are constantly moving the goal posts (or having black box processes) and like to criticize PMs for not reading their minds and anticipating that something that worked the last 10 times has changed. I'm all for competent, responsible oversight but they aren't it.

 

[Czech_pivo]

I understand why everyone is chattering on about fixing Procurement but what about addressing the shortfall of 6,500 personnel below stated levels?
Should fixing both of these not be A level priorities? How do you address shortfalls in GBAD, Anti-Tank Weapons, Artillery, UAS, Logistics, Combat Support Enablers and Combat Service Support, if you don't have the warm bodies to stand-up these new units/capabilities?

 

[Underway]

Sure, we're the ones that are responsible for both the technical requirements and project management. When things aren't in stock it's the LCMMs who get shitty grams from the units.

There is also a big impact from contract terms on the actual projects, so it's a big team effort. If not, things go sideways.

Lot of LCMMs are doing cross training on the supply side to make sure they understand that side of things (and to help train the new supply managers), but I'm not sure how you'd do procurement without the tech staff (aside from straight buys of existing NSNs).

It's not like we don't buy a lot of things; we pump through billions every year, and manage more contracts then any other department by far. It's just that the actual LOE is more then the capacity, and it takes years to get people trained up to be competent. Believe it or not, DND is much better at buying things than any other department.

The integrated project teams (IPTs) with embedded PSPC actually works pretty well but at the end of the day, if there are 40 hoops to jump through, doesn't really matter how good people are, it all takes time.

I'd like to fire TBS and FIN into the sun though; they are constantly moving the goal posts (or having black box processes) and like to criticize PMs for not reading their minds and anticipating that something that worked the last 10 times has changed. I'm all for competent, responsible oversight but they aren't it.

I agree entirely with this.

Engineers don't manage the contracts side and we certainly don't manage the supply side. Or we are not supposed to do that. Would be nice if the supply section actually had more than just one LCdr in it, had the two civis and supply Chief that is supposed to work there. Engineers do Project Management but have to be trained in that, and frankly, that's in the career path for most of us.

Would be nice if the Engineers were not having to deal with ITAR, Security certificates, and other such administration and if we had people staffed to actually deal with that so we could focus on the technical approvals/reviews that we are required to do.

It would also be nice if the LCMM's were funded to a level where they could be proactive instead of reactive.

 

[Underway]

I understand why everyone is chattering on about fixing Procurement but what about addressing the shortfall of 6,500 personnel below stated levels?
Should fixing both of these not be A level priorities? How do you address shortfalls in GBAD, Anti-Tank Weapons, Artillery, UAS, Logistics, Combat Support Enablers and Combat Service Support, if you don't have the warm bodies to stand-up these new units/capabilities?

I'm confident that if in many cases we had the equipment to do that job for some people (not all) the job becomes more attractive. Failing that Penal Battalions, Conscription, Mercenaries, Contractors. (you can figure out the jokes from the actual ideas in there. )

But yah, priority A is people. If we don't have people then it doesn't really matter.

 

[FSTO]

I agree entirely with this.

Engineers don't manage the contracts side and we certainly don't manage the supply side. Or we are not supposed to do that. Would be nice if the supply section actually had more than just one LCdr in it, had the two civis and supply Chief that is supposed to work there. Engineers do Project Management but have to be trained in that, and frankly, that's in the career path for most of us.

Would be nice if the Engineers were not having to deal with ITAR, Security certificates, and other such administration and if we had people staffed to actually deal with that so we could focus on the technical approvals/reviews that we are required to do.

It would also be nice if the LCMM's were funded to a level where they could be proactive instead of reactive.

Fixing the procurement, its their fault!

 

[calculus]

The story circulating around the office is the Minister was presented with a number of options to get to 2%, but most of them represented new capabilities. They realized that they were hamstrung by their own bureaucratic processes in that they didn't have a vehicle to raise new projects against, that vehicle being a policy clearly outlining the need for these new capabilities. So, DND was sent packing with direction to get SSE updated, and to do it ASAP. Again, this is third hand, but what we were told is the government was quite willing to jack up defence spending, and in fact is resigned to it, but felt that without a policy to justify where the extra moneys would go, they could not commit any large amounts of additional funding at this time. This makes sense to me, having worked in government for many years at a level where budgets get set, so I feel there is still hope that we will see a good boost once SSE mk 2 gets approved.

Interesting: Canada's plan to boost military spending ‘falls flat’ amid high hopes

Also suggests a lot hinges on the defence policy review.

 

[Haggis]

Believe it or not, DND is much better at buying things than any other department.

The RCMP have initiated their first attempt to buy new pistols while DND is on at least their third attempt. Both contracts will be about the same size. Let's see who gets new pistols first.

 

[WLSC]

I understand why everyone is chattering on about fixing Procurement but what about addressing the shortfall of 6,500 personnel below stated levels?
Should fixing both of these not be A level priorities? How do you address shortfalls in GBAD, Anti-Tank Weapons, Artillery, UAS, Logistics, Combat Support Enablers and Combat Service Support, if you don't have the warm bodies to stand-up these new units/capabilities?

I need to be both in the same time. You reconstitute while you purchase the kit and reorganized the current kit in line with the futur organisation. Dont need to shop for long, production may take time. We just have to look around what's good in the market (local benefit being a welcome bonus) and you buy. By the time the troops arrives in the units, the current kit is reorganized and new kit should start arriving. We do not have the luxury of the deliberate attack right now. It need to go faster. I thing we can walk and shew gum in the same time. But that's just me.

 

[Czech_pivo]

Interesting: Canada's plan to boost military spending ‘falls flat’ amid high hopes

Also suggests a lot hinges on the defence policy review.

It's only been 5yr since the last review.

From a 'measurable' perspective - what stated goals/deliverables in the 2017 review have been met in the last 5yrs?

Are we doing a new review policy because there is acknowledgement that the last one was a failure? Did the last one in no way predict that Russia might go all in on Ukraine when the Crimea and Donbass issues were already 3yrs old? Are we doing it as a way to 'look busy' or, that a serious attempt to right a listing ship is being attempted?

How long is the stated timeline to stand up, define scope, assign tasks, responsibilities, deliverables and project end date? Is it 6 months? 1yr? 3yrs? Who is the 'Champion' for this project - the PMO, Finance, CDS, the Minister of Defence directly?

Based on past deliverables, initiatives, attempts, I have little faith that a new policy review/deliverable will achieve much at all.

 

[Navy_Pete]

I need to be both in the same time. You reconstitute while you purchase the kit and reorganized the current kit in line with the futur organisation. Dont need to shop for long, production may take time. We just have to look around what's good in the market (local benefit being a welcome bonus) and you buy. By the time the troops arrives in the units, the current kit is reorganized and new kit should start arriving. We do not have the luxury of the deliberate attack right now. It need to go faster. I thing we can walk and shew gum in the same time. But that's just me.

How do you think procurement works? We put out a tender, bids come in, off you go only applies to existing catalogued items. If it hits a certain value, it goes to PSPC, otherwise we do it ourselves.

New capitol procurements have a big process with a whack of non-DND requirements. If you go past a certain value, it goes through PSPC, and when you hit other thresholds, about 10 other departments involved.

'Deliberate attack' isn't the plan, it's more like you show up as into a project, and there is a massive bureaucratic obstacle course to jump through, which you have to tackle one at a time. Some is internal DND, most of it is external. Some of the internal DND processes were mandated by TBS.

If we could just whip out a credit card, we would. But sure, tell us how it 'should' go.

 

[Underway]

Fixing the procurement, its their fault!

Don't give me that shit. I know exactly where I can improve, but don't be going on blaming engineering for things that are very much outside our lane. Engineering is understaffed as well, leading to delays. And I've certainly made mistakes along the way I would have done better in hindsight. There is more then enough blame to go around.

 

[Good2Golf]

 

[FSTO]

Don't give me that shit. I know exactly where I can improve, but don't be going on blaming engineering for things that are very much outside our lane. Engineering is understaffed as well, leading to delays. And I've certainly made mistakes along the way I would have done better in hindsight. There is more then enough blame to go around.

Apologies, I meant (should have amplified more) the finger pointing throughout the Public Service/DND/CAF/PMO that is frustrating. When during the announcement of the F35 the minister of procurement basically stated the process is just fine I just about put my foot through the TV. Everyone knows what the issue is, nobody wants to take responsibility and the risk to actually fix the problem.

 

[MilEME09]

It's only been 5yr since the last review.

From a 'measurable' perspective - what stated goals/deliverables in the 2017 review have been met in the last 5yrs?

Are we doing a new review policy because there is acknowledgement that the last one was a failure? Did the last one in no way predict that Russia might go all in on Ukraine when the Crimea and Donbass issues were already 3yrs old? Are we doing it as a way to 'look busy' or, that a serious attempt to right a listing ship is being attempted?

How long is the stated timeline to stand up, define scope, assign tasks, responsibilities, deliverables and project end date? Is it 6 months? 1yr? 3yrs? Who is the 'Champion' for this project - the PMO, Finance, CDS, the Minister of Defence directly?

Based on past deliverables, initiatives, attempts, I have little faith that a new policy review/deliverable will achieve much at all.

5 years yes but the past 2 months have thrown everything on its head, and we are about to walk into a very turbulent period in history. A weakened Russia will lead to more issues in Africa and else where. SSE was written about theoretical threats, not the emerging real ones.

 

[Underway]

Apologies, I meant (should have amplified more) the finger pointing throughout the Public Service/DND/CAF/PMO that is frustrating. When during the announcement of the F35 the minister of procurement basically stated the process is just fine I just about put my foot through the TV. Everyone knows what the issue is, nobody wants to take responsibility and the risk to actually fix the problem.

No worries. I've done the exact thing more than once here.

UK did something that was interesting to fix their procurement. They put the Defence Minister directly responsible for procurement to Parlament. Shocking I know that a Minister might be responsible for a portfolio instead of spreading it out through 3 different Ministries.