Justin Trudeau hints at boosting Canada’s military spending

I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[KevinB]

There's also a NATO requirement to spend 2% of GDP on defence. How's that working out?

Pretty well, well other than Canada…

 

[Navy_Pete]

What’s in the contract?

Most DoD and all IDIQ contracts down here have a sustainment clause, that for 5 years after the end of the contract the supplier must provide parts for the system.


So on top of support packages, the manufacturer is on the hook to provide parts after contact end.

Honestly if there isn’t contractual obligations to maintain obsolete systems and components why would any company then do it?

I really don’t get what you have against some of the larger Defense Contractors, as a lot of the issues you bring up aren’t issues for most nations.

Canada has some pretty terrible contractual requirement’s (from a suppliers side), but is missing some of the more important national security guarantees that most other nations put into contracts.

As a supplier, one generally doesn’t want an unhappy customer, so most will work with the customer, but sometimes the value added for the Manufacture just isn’t there, and without a contract mechanism to ensure parts supply, no one is going to go out of their way to lose money providing something that is out of production and needs to have a new line opened for it. So either the government needs to buy enough to support that request, or they need to accept the system isn’t maintainable anymore and they probably should have been looking for a replacement a long time before this.

It depends; on a lot of systems we include the in service bit in a bundle, so that works out well. On things like components bought by a shipyard, the PMOs don't even buy spares through the shipyard, and it has happened on a few classes were companies went out of business mid way through delivery of major systems so they were obsolete during construction.

On the ship mechanical side, it's more that we have thousands of obsolete components (gauges, valves, controllers, etc) that are 30+ years old and failing, and haven't been supported for a long time by the OEM. We're generally too small a customer that anyone cares what we are using, but each of those needs to get figured out what the requirements are, and generally what modifications are needed for the fit. Because a lot of it was bought by the builder and not properly catalogued 30 years ago, we tend to have to start from scratch and get someone to take measurements etc. Even rebuilding them on our own is a challenge as it can be difficult to figure out what some of the internals are made out of, so it's the case of a $0.50 o-ring suddenly being critical item to solve.

In one of the submarine systems we have had items due to be installed on an engineering change that took so long that they needed to go in for an R&O first, to find out from the OEM in the UK they stopped supporting it 2 years ago.

If we keep things well past the end of life, can't blame the OEMs, but it does involve a lot of engineering archaeology that we just aren't resourced for to figure it out, and it's on literally thousands of parts, that all roll up to major systems being degraded/not working.

 

[KevinB]

It depends; on a lot of systems we include the in service bit in a bundle, so that works out well. On things like components bought by a shipyard, the PMOs don't even buy spares through the shipyard, and it has happened on a few classes were companies went out of business mid way through delivery of major systems so they were obsolete during construction.

On the ship mechanical side, it's more that we have thousands of obsolete components (gauges, valves, controllers, etc) that are 30+ years old and failing, and haven't been supported for a long time by the OEM. We're generally too small a customer that anyone cares what we are using, but each of those needs to get figured out what the requirements are, and generally what modifications are needed for the fit. Because a lot of it was bought by the builder and not properly catalogued 30 years ago, we tend to have to start from scratch and get someone to take measurements etc. Even rebuilding them on our own is a challenge as it can be difficult to figure out what some of the internals are made out of, so it's the case of a $0.50 o-ring suddenly being critical item to solve.

In one of the submarine systems we have had items due to be installed on an engineering change that took so long that they needed to go in for an R&O first, to find out from the OEM in the UK they stopped supporting it 2 years ago.

If we keep things well past the end of life, can't blame the OEMs, but it does involve a lot of engineering archaeology that we just aren't resourced for to figure it out, and it's on literally thousands of parts, that all roll up to major systems being degraded/not working.

Part of the reason that most new DoD contracts have a TDP requirement, and all electronic copies of drawings and models to be provided.


LocMart last year finished an electronic package for the F-16, I was astonished it hadn’t already been done - but when looking at the age of the system, I can see how it wasn’t done originally and had never been forced upon them. They did it internally simply as a way to ensure that they have models for everything to ensure for it can be manufactured, as I suspect some of those systems are relatively obsolete (at least from a production standpoint) and would need new manufacturing processes to make more.

 

[KevinB]

I should add the Government is generally barred from sourcing their own during the contract period. But it does provide a method of ensuring that OEM’s don’t have a monopoly on the supply of parts for ever at whatever cost they feel like.

I generally default to the OEM as the cost for verification of first article samples and QA/QC of following runs by 3rd parties can be problematic at best.

Plus as many manufacturers have found out the TDP just shows you what the end item is, not necessarily how to make it.

 

[Navy_Pete]

Part of the reason that most new DoD contracts have a TDP requirement, and all electronic copies of drawings and models to be provided.

We have that same requirement in theory; it just depends if it was done (can get shaved due to budget cuts) as well as the level it went down to in the contract. Sometimes the systems and subsystem drawings don't have component drawings or tdp for the 3rd line overhaul.

At least on the CSC that is in and flows through to the subs, which is costing a small fortune but worth it. On legacy platforms we've got what we've got, and even the companies that are still around frequently don't even have old drawings to sell us when we've asked due to the age.

Our issue on a lot of this is it wasn't done, or wasn't done down to the component level where we are working at now. Replacing something big like diesel generators is actually pretty easy, and took about the same time as it's taken for us to reverse engineer the internals on a component on our halon system so we can manufacture new bits to rebuild them. On some big expensive parts, people will actually make something to fit if we pay for it, so big expensive things like hull valves are being made to order. It's the rest of them where we have functional substitutes that are slightly different sizes that cause issues bolting them into the current holes.

Slightly smaller is okay, but usually is a bit bigger in one direction, ports are in different spots etc so some local redesign is needed, and can vary ship to ship as well because the piping and wiring wasn't controlled down to that level so there is a lot of on the ground engineering. And as soon as you poke at a pipe other things pop up, so it's a bit like unraveling a huge rusty sweater.

 

[MJP]

Or until we buy something; the NSN/PSCN and associated tech standards is what is required to do an RFP. I can't use just an MMR because it's sole sourcing to a single supplier, were as the PSCN/NSN is open to anyone that has a compliant part.

Simple example, there is an NSN for a 1.5" fire hose, which has a standard length, hose fitting type, and material requirement. Last bid had something like a dozen or so bidders, all were technically compliant. That NSN already had something like 20 different acceptable MMRs. The last one we bought and entered is automatically entered as 3 2, and the others are 5 2 (apparently only allowed a single 3 2 type for an NSN).

There are a lot of things like that, especially for components where the NSN is basically a standard part (defined by something like a milspec standard or a commercial one) so things like cables, switches, sensors, machined adapters, fire fighting nozzles, bulbs etc can have dozens of MMRs and may be associated with a lot of different ERNs across all elements.

Our CFTOs and part lists are also built around NSNs so that it doesn't matter who supplied it, and why the primary attribute in CGCS is NSNs and the MMRs are secondary.

It might have made sense from a limited perspective if all you do is parts movements or storage, but our overall system is built around NSNs, not MMRs, so they probably didn't actually talk to the people who understood the overall system.

I get what you are saying and many of those parts never should have shifted from being NSNs. I don't know what happened with the conversion or why it did what it did. We were just as caught off guard from a 3rd line material management perspective as it is the same concern for us in wanting to ensure we are receiving and issuing the right material.

That said we did need to clean our shitty data cause our records are junk and it makes sense we take steps now to do that before we move completely over to S4 Hana in the latter part of the 2020s. It was ludicrous to have a material system of record and a different material master record system of record (say that 5 times fast). It was probably too soon to do it in the 2010s when fully rolled in DRMIS as we were really bad at adopting tech and change management but we had to rip the band aid off at some point as our records were just trash.

Parking the fact that many NSNs did convert, moving forward the way I understand it is new or potentially existing material that has many alternatives will either have a SpecA (specification:design authority) where a number of parts can be lumped under that MMR or each part will be it's own MMR but be designated as Fit-Form-Function Class to allow for substitution. So your firehouse example could be a SpecA, the existing NSN becomes an attribute and all future procurement and tracking of that material is done exactly the same as we do it now for the NSNs or it could be broken out as FFFC or it satyed as an NSN for the rest of it's life as it wouldn't be used on future ships and then gracefully retired

Regardless, it is painful but we need to get pulled into the 21st century when it comes to many of our practices, data included. Trying to hold onto old methods and compromising over the years gave us the crappy data we have now.

 

[Kirkhill]

Part of the reason that most new DoD contracts have a TDP requirement, and all electronic copies of drawings and models to be provided.


LocMart last year finished an electronic package for the F-16, I was astonished it hadn’t already been done - but when looking at the age of the system, I can see how it wasn’t done originally and had never been forced upon them. They did it internally simply as a way to ensure that they have models for everything to ensure for it can be manufactured, as I suspect some of those systems are relatively obsolete (at least from a production standpoint) and would need new manufacturing processes to make more.

I can guarantee that when the F-16 docs were originally produced there would have been a strong smell of ammonia in the printing rooms and the draughtsmen were working with pen and pencil. The same goes for the CPFs and the Hornets. AutoCad was released the same year the RCAF took the Hornet into service.

 

[daftandbarmy]

So I'm guessing this is a foreshadowing comment of some kind preparing him to blame Ukraine for upcoming DND budget slashing that might take place following his return from a winter vacation at a luxury Jamaican resort?

On military readiness, ‘everyone is in big trouble’ after Ukraine aid: Trudeau​

Trudeau says 'everyone is in big trouble' for military readiness after Ukraine aid

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau says the amount of military aid NATO allies have been shipping to Ukraine to help its fight against Russia’s invasion means “everyone is in big trouble” with military supplies.

“We have stayed strong at a time where bigger countries and countries that play by different rules have tried really hard to impact us. And we’re continuing to defend ourselves in all the right ways,” Trudeau told Global News Ottawa bureau chief Mercedes Stephenson in a year-end interview that airs at 11 a.m. ET on Dec. 24.

Stephenson pressed Trudeau on whether Canada is maintaining the 30-day supply of ammunition it is required to have under the terms of NATO agreements.

Trudeau replied that Canada is not alone in struggling to maintain munitions.

“Everyone is in big trouble because we have been shipping, all of us as NATO’s allies, shipping massive amounts of ammunition to Ukraine right now because Ukraine is on the front line of defending not just their own territory, but their international rules-based order,” Trudeau said.

On military readiness, ‘everyone is in big trouble’ after Ukraine aid: Trudeau - National | Globalnews.ca

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau says that all NATO allies are struggling with military supplies as they work to keep Ukraine outfitted in their war against the Russian invasion.

globalnews.ca

 

[WLSC]

LockMart is an easy button to push.

Choose any other large conglomerate in any industry from any company and my comments apply. They apply equally to Swedish ones.

The key point is that managing anything, including inventory, demands vigilance and that requires effort and people.

DND, as some have been pointing out, needs to spend more of its resources on supporters rather than operators. Operators can be plussed up relatively easily. Supporters, kit and functioning systems are harder to come by.

I suspect that DND is about 25 to 35% of the problem. PSPC, TB, Privy Clerk are the rest. You can’t go fast when everyone need to micromanage the step done prior to his before doing is job. I’m by no mean saying DND is on the ball, it’s just another layer. IMHO, as long as the procurement process is like that, we will stay in the same state of preparedness in regard to stock and everything else.

 

[MilEME09]

So I'm guessing this is a foreshadowing comment of some kind preparing him to blame Ukraine for upcoming DND budget slashing that might take place following his return from a winter vacation at a luxury Jamaican resort?

On military readiness, ‘everyone is in big trouble’ after Ukraine aid: Trudeau​

Trudeau says 'everyone is in big trouble' for military readiness after Ukraine aid

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau says the amount of military aid NATO allies have been shipping to Ukraine to help its fight against Russia’s invasion means “everyone is in big trouble” with military supplies.

“We have stayed strong at a time where bigger countries and countries that play by different rules have tried really hard to impact us. And we’re continuing to defend ourselves in all the right ways,” Trudeau told Global News Ottawa bureau chief Mercedes Stephenson in a year-end interview that airs at 11 a.m. ET on Dec. 24.

Stephenson pressed Trudeau on whether Canada is maintaining the 30-day supply of ammunition it is required to have under the terms of NATO agreements.

Trudeau replied that Canada is not alone in struggling to maintain munitions.

“Everyone is in big trouble because we have been shipping, all of us as NATO’s allies, shipping massive amounts of ammunition to Ukraine right now because Ukraine is on the front line of defending not just their own territory, but their international rules-based order,” Trudeau said.

On military readiness, ‘everyone is in big trouble’ after Ukraine aid: Trudeau - National | Globalnews.ca

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau says that all NATO allies are struggling with military supplies as they work to keep Ukraine outfitted in their war against the Russian invasion.

globalnews.ca

I question if we ever had 30 days worth

 

[YZT580]

I question if we ever had 30 days worth

who gets to define what 30 days worth is?

 

[WLSC]

I question if we ever had 30 days worth

We might had add 30 days of DOS fo what an infanteer carry, in POL, expensive missiles, tank and artillery ammo, I have strong doubts.

 

[MilEME09]

who gets to define what 30 days worth is?

NATO

 

[FJAG]

Figure out how many you might need. Four maybe? A pair on each coast? When you're 5th "new" ship is decommissioned you scrap the oldest/worst condition mothballed ship. placed into reserve.

Effectively gives you a rolling 19 ship fleet. Your 15 newest active and the four "newest" of the retired ships mothballed placed into reserve. Continuous build of one ship per year to the latest standards and 16, 17, 18 & 19 year old ships being laid up placed into reserve. At 20 30 years they are sold off.

FTFY.

I'm a great fan of rolling fleets. My view has been that the life cycle of any piece of equipment can be extended. If you take a given piece of equipment's expected full-service life cycle and place it into reserve service after 2/3rds of that full-service cycle. Then in reserve usage that last 1/3rd at the greatly reduced reserve service usage could triple to sextuple the length of the last 1/3rd of the life cycle and create a growing capability while providing a long-term manufacturing and maintenance base.

...draughtsmen were working with pen and pencil. The same goes for the CPFs

I saw the moldering computer discs (big, big discs) for the CPF in the Canada Archives in Halifax. My understanding is that the CPF was one of the first ships built with software rather than the drafting table.

“Everyone is in big trouble because we have been shipping, all of us as NATO’s allies, shipping massive amounts of ammunition to Ukraine right now because Ukraine is on the front line of defending not just their own territory, but their international rules-based order,” Trudeau said.

As usual Trudeau misses the point on many levels. In the first place we haven't shipped that much. Second, we're not strong. Much more importantly its because we have let our stocks and our defence manufacturing base atrophy due to political apathy and negligence. He's either lying or terribly naive.

 

[markppcli]

I can't help but think that the problems with recruiting/retention and the high VOR rates are signs of a complacent leadership that has taken it's eyes off the ball. 30-40% VOR rates should have long ago have resulted in the appointment of a maintenance czar and an Op Reconstitution for equipment. Don't know what to do with the light battalions? Here's an idea; turn them into two maintenance and one logistics battalion.

Our old, clunking tracked army in the 80s, after two decades of service, when we still used paper service requisitions, had a much lower VOR rate.

You didn’t have to deal with the LAV 6 HMS

 

[FJAG]

You didn’t have to deal with the LAV 6 HMS

Yeah. I can see the benefits that a height management system can bring in certain circumstances but I don't know whether the complexity such a system brings is worth it. How often does it get used in practice?

Aside from that, I can expect that there is a lot of complexity in systems we didn't have to deal with that are completely necessary. As a FOO my M113 ran like a top; the 50 cal worked half the time and most of the time was left either in the weapons' lockup or under its cover; my map, compass, binoculars and grease pencil worked pretty well all the time and my biggest issue was keeping all my radios functioning. I've said it many times - I considered myself a shit hot FOO for my day but all the guys and gals doing it these days would eat my lunch. Mostly because of all the shiny Gucci kit they have on their LAVs and carry around with them, - all of which eventually breaks.

The one thing that stays consistent is that you always need spares and folks and a system that can fix broken kit. Soldiers break shit - that's a law of nature. Assuming that the situation is as bad as the anecdotes and the performance report says it is then the system has not been resourced enough.

 

[childs56]

I fail to understand why and how the Military/ shipyards are having a hard time finding spare parts, assemblies for valves, fittings piping etc. If you build a ship the specs need to be recorded. A list of parts made up for spares and replacements. Last but not least if the thing isn't available then have it cast/ machined at one of hundreds of shops across Canada who do similar every day. Is this a East Coast West Coast thing. Where everything comes out of Quebec supply yard (or doesn't) The local shops do not have the capability or the want to make it fit properly. Because their is no money in fixing it right the first three times.

 

[FSTO]

He's either lying or terribly naive.

I’ll take Naive for 2000 Alex.

 

[GR66]

He's either lying or terribly naive.

 

[Kirkhill]

I fail to understand why and how the Military/ shipyards are having a hard time finding spare parts, assemblies for valves, fittings piping etc. If you build a ship the specs need to be recorded. A list of parts made up for spares and replacements. Last but not least if the thing isn't available then have it cast/ machined at one of hundreds of shops across Canada who do similar every day. Is this a East Coast West Coast thing. Where everything comes out of Quebec supply yard (or doesn't) The local shops do not have the capability or the want to make it fit properly. Because their is no money in fixing it right the first three times.

If it were a factory in the prairies that were 40 years old, or a trawler in the Bering Sea, the original pumps would have been replaced as their motors failed with the new pumps having different seals and new high efficiency motors. Out of production gauges would have been swapped out for new gauges that had USB connections to tie into the new PLCs that were acquired over the decades. Connections and flanges would have been standardized so that any valve, pump or sensor from any vendor could be swapped in. Piping is probably original but cabling is regularly refreshed as it fails or as new kit is installed.

The maintenance and operations people would be reaching out to any available supplier for any available solution to keep the plant running. Only in extremis (and I have never run into it myself) would anybody even consider trying to get somebody to custom build a 50 year old, out of production piece of kit. That is the purview of second-hand shops and Jay Leno.

Factories do have down periods, and some of them are unplanned, but an unplanned stoppage of a week is going to get everybody's full attention.

Just in time delivery doesn't have to mean just in time delivery of obsolete parts.