Preserving Army Fleets

[Underway]

So the cost of a 50,000 sq ft (5000 m2) insulated shed for storing 200 Bisons is now 2x new ACSVs or about $10,000,000?

ACSV program for 360 of them is ~$2.3 billion. But that's spares, training etc... cycle cost so not sure where you get the $10 million is double from.

 

[GR66]

One of the lessons of this current war is that AFV's and trucks are very expendable, so you will need a good supply of them. The war stock of AFV's does not need instantly mobile, you could have semi stripped hulls outside, properly preserved, with the engines, weapons, FCS, stored away in a smaller warehouse. If you combine this with a NSPS like AFV manufacturing ability, then as you renew the fleet and mothball the older generation, excess old mothballed AFV's are disposed of, either put together for sale or sold to another country as is. In fact create agreements to sell older stuff to friendly nations, so they become stable customers and you have a system to renew, store and dispose of AFV's. This also gives a cushion when the government of the day decides to "gift" your combat capability as well. So you can do the same with artillery, ATGM's, etc.

If we were to consolidate to 6 Infantry Battalions (4 x LAV and 2 x Light) then we'd have 2 x Battalions of LAV spares for war stocks. Equip the two Light Battalions with the Arctic Mobility program vehicle and secure at least one additional Battalion's worth for Reserve Transport Companies (ideally one Battalion worth per Division)

 

[MilEME09]

I brought this up in the F-35 thread, but I think this applies to the CA as well.

Essentially, we buy a luxury car for top money and expect it to last and be top of the line for 30-40 years. A 1982 Lincoln Continental, even if well maintained, is no longer a luxury car. Heck, even an iPhone from 15 Years ago is archaic by 2022 standards. Technology now shifts at a rate of 5-10 years, depending on the industry. We do very poorly at life cycling to keep up with technology.

In 30-40 years time, we might not have diesel to fuel vehicles, as well as the various armaments and sensors associated with platforms will be vastly different than what we currently have on the shelf. Additionally, the spare parts and tooling for the platforms are usually depleted and not sustained because, well, the vendor and manufacturers move on and its no longer profitable to keep LSVW parts in production.

What needs to happen is changing our lifecycle management for platforms. We need to buy "good enough" kit, in solid numbers to support both Reg F and P Res, and have a plan to replace at least a third of the fleet in 5-10 years time. Over a 30 year period, you have replaced the entire fleet, gradually, with minimal impacts form inflation and defense industry gouging.

To continually swapping a full fleet every 40 years, when we're done and broken with the kit leaves us vulnerable to these capability gaps recurring every time.

Why not just stick with an item and upgrade it every 10 years? Technology changes yes, but I'd argue we have reached the Aprex of tank and armoured vehicles design. So why not create a platform, from the start that would make upgrading the tech easy, so that we just continually upgrade, and build new hulls as needed.

 

[Kirkhill]

2,300,000,000 / 360 = 6,400,000 CAD

4,900,000 USD Unit Cost of a Stryker in 2012 from United States Department of Defense, Program Acquisition Costs By Weapon System, Office of the Under-Secretary of Defense, 2012, pp. 3–6. per Wikipedia

So, on my napkin, allowing 5,000,000 CAD for a single ACSV without parts and infrastructure but allowing for project management.

2x 5,000,000 CAD = 10,000,000 CAD

At 200 CAD/sq ft that would buy 50,000 sq ft of warehousing or enough to park 280 Bisons at 178 sq ft per Bison (21 ft long by 8.5 ft wide).

But 280 Bisons in 50,000 sq ft means metal to metal parking so to allow for the necessary open space (I was allowing 30%) then 199 Bisons in the 50,000 sq ft instead.

So, rough and ready, even at Spencer's $200/sq ft level, the cost of constructing a simple long term storage barn for 200 Bisons is similar to my estimated new cost of 2 ACSVs

And wrt the actual cost,

Just checked in with an old boss who is still in the business of building new warehouses and his expectation for a Calgary warehouse would be something in the 85-125 $/sqft range. Assuming that the government already owned the land.

About 100 CAD per sq ft in Calgary.

Altus Group | 2022 Canadian Cost Guide

Your guide to better understanding Canadian real estate development and infrastructure construction costs

info.altusgroup.com

 

[Kirkhill]

Why not just stick with an item and upgrade it every 10 years? Technology changes yes, but I'd argue we have reached the Aprex of tank and armoured vehicles design. So why not create a platform, from the start that would make upgrading the tech easy, so that we just continually upgrade, and build new hulls as needed.

Or better yet? Buy an existing used recent model and start using some of the fleet immediately?

 

[Colin Parkinson]

It will be 10 -20 years before some of the nifty material technology gets to production scale, at which point you will see a major technology change in AFV's. Even then a lot of it will work as add on's and applique armour.

 

[Brad Sallows]

The High School and University crowd will give you 6 ish years of Summer Employment - the HS Summer break being shorter - but you can do a lot with 6 summers of employment.

4, if you get them in HS. Post-HS summer (Jul/Aug) is just long enough to deliver what SYEP did - GMT and a milcon.

From people doing four years of post-secondary, only count on 3 more summers. At the end of the graduating year, they'll be going to job fairs and employers will want them right away and they'll be low on the pole for choosing vacation.

There can of course be two schedule models - one focused on people with May-Aug availability, and one focused on everyone else. The "everyone else" program would work better with permanent schools staffed by Reg F members - it'd be hard to get Res F instructors for the same reason the "everyone else" program exists in the first place.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Technology now shifts at a rate of 5-10 years

Yes, but there aren't a lot of bleeding edge manufacturers of high-end kit. The M-1/Challenger/Leo2 generation of tanks (for example) was a substantial improvement over M-60/Chieftain/Leo1. Since then, incremental improvements. Getting stuck into good chassis/frames/hulls capable of several lifetime upgrades of various suites is the lane to be in, for a country with small fleets.

 

[Spencer100]

2,300,000,000 / 360 = 6,400,000 CAD

4,900,000 USD Unit Cost of a Stryker in 2012 from United States Department of Defense, Program Acquisition Costs By Weapon System, Office of the Under-Secretary of Defense, 2012, pp. 3–6. per Wikipedia

So, on my napkin, allowing 5,000,000 CAD for a single ACSV without parts and infrastructure but allowing for project management.

2x 5,000,000 CAD = 10,000,000 CAD

At 200 CAD/sq ft that would buy 50,000 sq ft of warehousing or enough to park 280 Bisons at 178 sq ft per Bison (21 ft long by 8.5 ft wide).

But 280 Bisons in 50,000 sq ft means metal to metal parking so to allow for the necessary open space (I was allowing 30%) then 199 Bisons in the 50,000 sq ft instead.

So, rough and ready, even at Spencer's $200/sq ft level, the cost of constructing a simple long term storage barn for 200 Bisons is similar to my estimated new cost of 2 ACSVs

And wrt the actual cost,

Just checked in with an old boss who is still in the business of building new warehouses and his expectation for a Calgary warehouse would be something in the 85-125 $/sqft range. Assuming that the government already owned the land.

About 100 CAD per sq ft in Calgary.

Altus Group | 2022 Canadian Cost Guide

Your guide to better understanding Canadian real estate development and infrastructure construction costs

info.altusgroup.com

I was including the land.

 

[my72jeep]

Or they get towed to Poland for depot level refurb.

We are currently in planning to move most of our depots and depot level refurbishment facilities out of Germany to Poland for several reasons.

 

[Kirkhill]

I was including the land.

In any event we are looking at something like the cost of 1 or 2 new armoured vehicles to store 200 old armoured vehicles. And the 360 new armoured vehicles need their own storage as well. So the project has already had to sacrifice 5 to 10 new vehicles in the project to build new garages. Add another 20% of Garage Space to retain the old fleet.

Here is Canada's Original Sin.

National Defence Act - Part I, Section 11.

Materiel​

Delivery of materiel for sale or disposal

11 The Governor in Council may authorize the Minister to deliver to any department or agency of the Government of Canada, for sale or disposal to any countries or international welfare organizations and on any terms that the Governor in Council may determine, any materiel that has not been declared surplus and is not immediately required for the use of the Canadian Forces or for any other purpose under this Act.

• R.S., 1985, c. N-5, s. 11
• 1998, c. 35, s. 3

Right after describing:
the Title of the Act (Sect. 1),
the Definitions used in the Act (Sect. 2),
the formation of the department, (Sect.3),
the Minister (Sect. 4-6),
the Deputy Minister (Sect. 7-8) and
the JAG (Sect. 9-10)

The first order of business, Sect. 11, is how to dispose of the CAF's materiel.

Even before describing the Regulations that govern hiring, employing and using the CAF, before describing the Regulations that govern acquiring new materiel, the Act addresses getting rid of kit, surplus or not.

Only a Scottish lawyer could have written this thing.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

So Kev,

Just to be clear. You and Uncle Sam are happy with Canada freeloading on the domestic front. Have I got that right?

Just in case I haven't -

A single ACSV with parts, costs $5,500,000. And I am willing to bet that the CP versions of which the CAF seems so fond cost considerably more than that. It also requires annual maintenance and repairs resulting from training accidents AND it requires a climate controlled warehouse.

Subtract one ACSV from the production order and build the Reserves 5x 50,000 square foot warehouses. Sacrifice 4 ACSVs and every Regional Brigade Service Battalion could have its own 50,000 square foot warehouse for storing stuff that might come in handy.

And old kit doesn't need spares. If it breaks it breaks. In the mean time it has bought some time to build newer gear more appropriate to the new era or it will be replaced by newer gear that gets handed down in turn. And it has lived out its life usefully.

And that is the alternative to my silly buggers solution of disbanding 2 CMBG to find money for storing kit against the day that Just In Time fails.

"Old kit" absolutely needs spare parts. Vehicles without spare parts quickly become useless.

There needs to be a payoff to keeping old equipment on our books - and I am not seeing in your proposals. I can understand keeping small arms that are in good condition in long-term storage if they use the same ammunition natures as the systems that replace them.

Vehicles? No thanks. We need a capability, and a capability is more than a collection of vehicles.

 

[Kirkhill]

"Old kit" absolutely needs spare parts. Vehicles without spare parts quickly become useless.

There needs to be a payoff to keeping old equipment on our books - and I am not seeing in your proposals. I can understand keeping small arms that are in good condition in long-term storage if they use the same ammunition natures as the systems that replace them.

Vehicles? No thanks. We need a capability, and a capability is more than a collection of vehicles.

If you want the Reserves to be capable, even if it is just to take the load off of you while you do other things, don't they need equipment, like vehicles?

I'm sure that you guys already have enough vehicles now. You might want different, or better vehicles or vehicles with different kit, and old vehicles likely won't meet your needs.

But they meet the needs of other armies in other situations and they could allow the reserves to conduct additional tasks when you are otherwise engaged.

I'll consider myself schooled on the need for spare parts.

I could counter though that there are spare parts in the system. That it is possible to start cannibalizing a reserve fleet. That the usage rate of a reserve fleet can be set against the ability to maintain it. That a reserve fleet, after 10 to 15 years is likely to be joined in storage by another newer reserve fleet allowing the older fleet to self-divest on exercises or operations - vis the Ukrainians.

 

[Blackadder1916]

The first order of business, Sect. 11, is how to dispose of the CAF's materiel.

Even before describing the Regulations that govern hiring, employing and using the CAF, before describing the Regulations that govern acquiring new materiel, the Act addresses getting rid of kit, surplus or not.

Only as Scottish lawyer could have written this thing.

No, that section of the NDA is not discussing "the CAF", it is discussing the "Department of National Defence". In addition to the organization of the Department, who's who in the zoo and what the minister can do, it also outlines authority by which the "Department" can do what it does with stuff.

Everything else that follows in the NDA deals with the "Canadian Armed Forces". There is mention in Part II of the Act about material for the CAF which comes after the organization, employing, etc.

It's a natural division of responsibilities and discussion. You don't get a military until there is a government department responsible for it, so that comes first in the act.

 

[Kirkhill]

No, that section of the NDA is not discussing "the CAF", it is discussing the "Department of National Defence". In addition to the organization of the Department, who's who in the zoo and what the minister can do, it also outlines authority by which the "Department" can do what it does with stuff.

Everything else that follows in the NDA deals with the "Canadian Armed Forces". There is mention in Part II of the Act about material for the CAF which comes after the organization, employing, etc.

It's a natural division of responsibilities and discussion. You don't get a military until there is a government department responsible for it, so that comes first in the act.

Again I will accept the schooling.

I suggest the fact remains that the Department of National Defence, which is authorized to raise and equip the CF, has as its first item of business the disposal of Materiel.

 

[Brad Sallows]

If you want the Reserves to be capable, even if it is just to take the load off of you while you do other things, don't they need equipment, like vehicles?

Again, figure out how long it takes to prepare a division, starting with reservists and recruits. That much time is available to acquire uniforms, small arms, support weapons, trucks, guns, APCs, tanks, ammunition, etc. Maybe that's not enough time to acquire 900 or so APCs and tanks, but in the meantime it's still an infantry division with good operational mobility. And most of the kit can be new and up to date, not partly worn or outdated. It's not as if no country has done that before...

 

[Kirkhill]

Again, figure out how long it takes to prepare a division, starting with reservists and recruits. That much time is available to acquire uniforms, small arms, support weapons, trucks, guns, APCs, tanks, ammunition, etc. Maybe that's not enough time to acquire 900 or so APCs and tanks, but in the meantime it's still an infantry division with good operational mobility. And most of the kit can be new and up to date, not partly worn or outdated. It's not as if no country has done that before...

No arguments Brad.

I'm just taken with the variety of kit being thrown into the breach in Ukraine and the amount of stored gear there is lying around in other countries. Many of them are still providing for its future on operations. Brit MRAPs and stored AS90s. Dutch M113 AIFVs. Italian SIDAMs etc.

The US still storing and upgrading and using M113s. The Israelis. The Norwegians.

I'm just curious about our decision making process and how it has led us to different conclusions.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

and shipping those M113's to the Ukraine to be used in combat. Your loss rate of AFV's and other vehicles from combat and wear and tear is going to be eye watering, even with good tires.

 

[Blackadder1916]

Again I will accept the schooling.

I suggest the fact remains that the Department of National Defence, which is authorized to raise and equip the CF, has as its first item of business the disposal of Materiel.

I was going to be flippant and remark that it is more difficult to get rid of stuff that it is to acquire new stuff, but I'll amend my thought and say that sometimes it may be "as difficult" to get rid of stuff as it is to acquire.

The purpose of that section in the NDA that you seemingly hold in great disdain because it talks about getting rid of stuff provides the department (and the CAF) with a loophole to accomplish defense (and diplomatic, humanitarian, etc) objectives that could be stymied by other legislation. Every department of government, just as it has to acquire stuff through PWGSC, also has to get rid off stuff through the same department. The Surplus Crown Assets Act is the governing legislation.

It's through that section of the act that Canada has been able on numerous occasions (for decades and decades) to sidestep the red tape that would entangle any transfer of military owned equipment to other countries and NGOs. I suppose the latest use of that section was the transfer of equipment to Ukraine.

 

[Brad Sallows]

I'm just curious about our decision making process and how it has led us to different conclusions.

Money, money, money. As a reservist working out of the HQ building across from Jericho Park, I was aware that space was tight. Gee, I naively thought, perhaps we should move into the old BHosp building - stores and office space to spare, and a nice ramp for access to loading doors. No, that and everything else not used on the property were torn down as soon as not needed anymore in order to save money (costs of upkeep).