Justin Trudeau hints at boosting Canada’s military spending

I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[dapaterson]

There is room for improvement, CAF is experimenting with metal 3D printing to reduce costs for example. US navy for example successfully implemented it for parts needed for changing tires on a F18. Reduced the cost from 100k to under 10k

There are areas for innovation and improvement. But in many areas there are IP considerations of security considerations that limit the ability to do things in house.

 

[MilEME09]

There are areas for innovation and improvement. But in many areas there are IP considerations of security considerations that limit the ability to do things in house.

Yes, take Rheinmetall for example, they are the only ones manufacturing leopard components and won't allow IP to be bought or loaned to other companies to produce parts, even ones they don't currently make. It is a huge problem for every leopard 1 and 2 user.

 

[KevinB]

Additive Manufacturing (3D printing) can be cheaper - but it’s not generally exponentially cheaper.

Yes, take Rheinmetall for example, they are the only ones manufacturing leopard components and won't allow IP to be bought or loaned to other companies to produce parts, even ones they don't currently make. It is a huge problem for every leopard 1 and 2 user.

Generally most companies will either offer the TDP as part of the sales package or as an extra support item — OFC that raises the prices unless you’re buying massive quantities.

 

[FJAG]

Yes, take Rheinmetall for example, they are the only ones manufacturing leopard components and won't allow IP to be bought or loaned to other companies to produce parts, even ones they don't currently make. It is a huge problem for every leopard 1 and 2 user.

C1 to C3 howitzer conversion and bankruptcy of the IP holder enters the chat.

One other thing is that the issue of IP on parts is frequently overclaimed when no real IP exists any longer, or didn't actually exist in the first place. The trouble is organizations like DND take IP at face value and don't do a detailed patent examination and are too averse to challenge a false claim. Many items in an assembly are generic parts where the IP belongs to someone else, if it still exists.

I'm not sure how much of an issue this really is within the contracting arm of DND but, IMHO, every contract for machinery that we have should have a provision that allows DND to manufacture a given component or sub assembly if the vendor isn't able to provide it within a specified reasonable period of time and on the provision that DND pays a reasonable royalty to the vendor and does not resell such parts to other parties.

 

[MilEME09]

C1 to C3 howitzer conversion and bankruptcy of the IP holder enters the chat.

One other thing is that the issue of IP on parts is frequently overclaimed when no real IP exists any longer, or didn't actually exist in the first place. The trouble is organizations like DND take IP at face value and don't do a detailed patent examination and are too averse to challenge a false claim. Many items in an assembly are generic parts where the IP belongs to someone else, if it still exists.

I'm not sure how much of an issue this really is within the contracting arm of DND but, IMHO, every contract for machinery that we have should have a provision that allows DND to manufacture a given component or sub assembly if the vendor isn't able to provide it within a specified reasonable period of time and on the provision that DND pays a reasonable royalty to the vendor and does not resell such parts to other parties.

Or have companies hand over IP to DND to be placed in storage as a incase of bankruptcy we reserve the right to take these blue prints to another company to be manufactured to ensure continuality of defense articles.

 

[dapaterson]

I'm not sure how much of an issue this really is within the contracting arm of DND but, IMHO, every contract for machinery that we have should have a provision that allows DND to manufacture a given component or sub assembly if the vendor isn't able to provide it within a specified reasonable period of time and on the provision that DND pays a reasonable royalty to the vendor and does not resell such parts to other parties.

Good luck with finding any reputable vendors willing to sign off on that.

 

[FJAG]

Or have companies hand over IP to DND to be placed in storage as a incase of bankruptcy we reserve the right to take these blue prints to another company to be manufactured to ensure continuality of defense articles.

That's not even the big issue. Real IP has to be disclosed in order to get the protection that patent laws offer. Every patent application has to adequately describe the innovative elements and is usually supported by diagrams that explain the patent's claims. Technical drawings aren't a big issue either for many mechanical components because if you have the part, you can deconstruct it. High performance parts, like a barrel, are obviously much harder to match up, but in an automotive assembly there are many parts that routinely wear out or break that can be easily replicated or substituted if it becomes a critical issue.

Good luck with finding any reputable vendors willing to sign off on that.

Vendors want $ and no competition. If they can't manufacture a part in a timely fashion then a royalty will do. Royalties are often a remedy in patent infringement cases. If there is a high degree of confidence that the other contracting party will not release the part (e.g.) into the wild, but in a controlled and compensated way, then a reasonable vendor will get on board. Particulalry if the provision is a take it or leave it one where the purchaser has options to go to other manufacturers. South Korea seems to be willing to make agreements with foreign companies to set up manufacturing facilities in the customer's country. My guess is they'd go for something like this and especially if they keep a permanent company presence in the purchaser's country.

But we're debating an issue that is out of both of our hands. My guess is that pretty much everyone in the Canadian government chain is quite content to keep their Pollyanna rosy glasses on and believe that it will never be an issue. Tell that to the gunners who can't get parts for the C3 recoil systems and can't take the majority of their guns out for live firing - and the RCAF's, RCN's and CA's equipment unserviceability rates of 55%, 54% and 46%. Jesus - heads should be rolling. But they aren't; which says it all, doesn't it?

 

[KevinB]

Eminent Domain…

Down here DoD has indemnified some manufacturers against patent infringement when the patent holder hasn’t played ball.
My experience with that was rifle scope reticles for a SOCOM contract, when the parent holder would only permit one type of optic to be used with the reticle - and the Gov didn’t want that optic. It didn’t allow the manufacturer or KAC as the system provider to sell them commercially - but SOCOM got their stuff.

As well as they have just taken some stuff when the OEM wasn’t playing ball, the court assigned a value to the IP that the Gov wished to acquire, and the .gov had to pay the OEM for the IP.

Again fairly small sub 30 Million dollar aspects in both cases.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Good luck with finding any reputable vendors willing to sign off on that.

Big software development deals sometimes have a provision in which the source code is held in escrow. If the provider fails, the customer can take over.

 

[KevinB]

Most recent DoD contracts have the TDP being assigned to the .gov after 5-10 years from the contract date.

However the biggest mistake that a lot of people make is the TDP simple tells you what the end item(s) are, not necessarily how to build them properly or efficiently. Which is why first article testing for new suppliers of a part are so important.

 

[CBH99]

I can remember one public facing document highlighting defence spending where they used an image of a Kresta II class cruiser ... in the mid 2000's.

We. Desperately Need. A. Facepalm. Emoji...

 

[FJAG]

Anand defends hesitation to further invest in defence as NATO secretary general arrives in Canada​

Staffing cuts undermined department's ability to purchase new equipment​

The folks working on new army uniforms are almost done - they could start working on tanks, self propelled guns, precision rockets, ATGMs and UAVs next.

Okay. Sure. That was facetious, but really, its a long process, one could plan for growing the procurement work force, reassigning personnel from lower priority projects, simplify the procurement processes, reassess acquisition priorities, plan a new force vision and target, allocate funding ... Do all those things we've known for decades that need doing.

 

[IKnowNothing]

The folks working on new army uniforms are almost done - they could start working on tanks, self propelled guns, precision rockets, ATGMs and UAVs next.

Ignorant civvy question.

Harper took office - with Gordon O'Connor heading up defense- in February 2006. By April 2007 MGS was cancelled and a layered procurement plan with an immediate equipment loan, equipment purchase, equipment upgrades was in place.

How much of that is a demonstration of the ability of political will to cut the Gordian Knot of procurement bureaucracy and how much was unique circumstance? If the government were to decide, we want x number of SP155's by x date, and y by y date, put the ask out to all Allied governments, and the US came up with a 109 solution that mirrored the Leopard- could we execute?

 

[Maxman1]

The Harper government also bought a CB9035 for evaluation.

 

[MilEME09]

The Harper government also bought a CB9035 for evaluation.

For the cancelled CCV program that the CV90 probably won. Imo they should of released who won even if they decided not to buy.

 

[IKnowNothing]

For the cancelled CCV program that the CV90 probably won. Imo they should of released who won even if they decided not to buy.

My completely unfounded speculation is that the VCBI was doing better than expected due to loosely written requirements, and between the London pork-barreling plus a desire to avoid the PR and functional absurdity of trotting out a split fleet of foreign purchased VCBI's and essentially equal upgraded LAV's there was no way to carry the project forward and not look stupid.

Doubling up on the tinfoil- this happened by design.

 

[suffolkowner]

The folks working on new army uniforms are almost done - they could start working on tanks, self propelled guns, precision rockets, ATGMs and UAVs next.

Okay. Sure. That was facetious, but really, its a long process, one could plan for growing the procurement work force, reassigning personnel from lower priority projects, simplify the procurement processes, reassess acquisition priorities, plan a new force vision and target, allocate funding ... Do all those things we've known for decades that need doing.

In the early 1990s, the federal government employed 9,000 staff members tasked with buying military equipment. There were just over 4,300 by 2009, and those people were responsible for pushing through double the number of projects.

"Set against this significantly increased workload, there is simply not enough capacity in the acquisition workforce to manage it," said the 2015 assessment by Dave Perry (now of the Canadian Global Affairs Institute) and retired colonel George Petrolekas.

Since their return to power in 2015, the Liberals have not rebuilt DND's purchasing section.

While Anand was defence minister, a 2023 internal report noted there were only 4,200 positions in the department's material branch and 30 per cent of them were vacant. The report, posted online, warned that a "lack of trained resources puts the department at risk of failing to meet defence policy obligations."

So much wrong. Missing over 1200 positions out of 4200 which is half what we used to have and now double the work. On the other hand maybe just maybe we are creating too much of this work

Also are these just CAF position or CAF and DND?

 

[Halifax Tar]

The folks working on new army uniforms are almost done - they could start working on tanks, self propelled guns, precision rockets, ATGMs and UAVs next.

Okay. Sure. That was facetious, but really, its a long process, one could plan for growing the procurement work force, reassigning personnel from lower priority projects, simplify the procurement processes, reassess acquisition priorities, plan a new force vision and target, allocate funding ... Do all those things we've known for decades that need doing.

We do not cycle material well.

Example: 2024 Canada delivers new Leo Tanks to its troops. That project office should stay open and now start on that fleets replacement. With an RDD of 20-25 years.

 

[KevinB]

We do not cycle material well.

Example: 2024 Canada delivers new Leo Tanks to its troops. That project office should stay open and now start on that fleets replacement. With an RDD of 20-25 years.

There should be various PM shops that are staffed to conduct programs as well as work on their support (with the LCMM) and replacement / upgrades.

Yes it’s position heavy in the Captain-Col and Sgt-MWO ranks as well as GS civilians (I forgot what DND calls their civilian staff), and their can be some rationalizations between programs but short of just buying into other NATO programs and putting some LO’s into their PM shops there isn’t a real alternative.

 

[Good2Golf]

as well as GS civilians (I forgot what DND calls their civilian staff)

Most at ‘AS-0#’ positions, administrative services. AS-07 would be a close analogue to GS-15