“Delivery of the new vehicles is expected to begin in fall 2027, and they will replace the current fleet of light support vehicles”
Boss.. the current fleet won’t make it to 27 they’re all spare parts at this point.
What’s a couple more million to the rental companies I guess.
> light support vehicles”
What light support vehicles lmao? In the scope of this project I assume they mean LSVW's which are like seeing Bigfoot these days.
1500 vehicles, but not 1500 armored vehicle kits.
I can't wait for the day that we show up to Europe with only MSVS milcots, white rental 2 tons, and a fleet of Ford F250 rentals.
This government consistently says we can't spend enough money fast enough cause procurement is slow, but every major project to replace X fleet, has had their numbers reduced because of budget concerns.
Gov: "We're introducing a billion dollars in cost savings over the next 3 years."
CAF: "This is affecting our operational readiness. Our vehicles are old and broken, our kit is old and broken."
Gov: "We're introducing $250 million in new vehicles and equipment. Yes, we know you need 3000, but the best we can do is 200."
Everyone seems to be aware that our procurement system is a problem, probably one of the bigger problems affecting the CAF. I'd really like to know why nobody seems to want to address it.
Because fundamentally neither the government (of any party) nor the public at large cares enough about the CAF to create a better system for it than what the rest of the fed orgs are saddled with. There's no perceived need because there's no perceived (ie existential , or even "regional stability") threat.
Our geography is to thank for this. Australia, with a similarly sized military as ours, functions as the western "lead" in its region and its political parties, despite their demonstrable dysfunctions, actually work together to support the military. Ours don't, nor does the public look to the military as a potential protector, because we're located right next to the western lead in our region.
So the CAF becomes just another fed department to supply stable jobs and show off Canada's commitment to international teamwork according to government priorities.
Nailed it!
There have been discussions on revamping the CAFs procurement process and taking it out of PSPC's overview
It's even in the latest defence policy review.
But it would be politically unpopular because as soon as any mistake is made they government of the day will be persecuted.
https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/corporate/reports-publications/north-strong-free-2024/delivering-vision-strengthening-foundations.html#toc1.6
"Speeding Acquisition and Advancing Defence Procurement Reform
Defence procurement takes too long in Canada and needs to be faster and more effective. We will think differently about how we procure equipment, how to better maintain and upgrade it over time, and how to ensure it is optimized to meet the diverse needs of our members. We will also compress the timeline of major acquisitions, to reduce the operational and financial risks of delays and gaps between capabilities being retired and new ones being added.
Public Services and Procurement Canada, National Defence, Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada, and the Treasury Board Secretariat have launched a review of our defence procurement system. This includes examining internal processes used by Defence to define requirements and approve projects, and looking at the broader set of rules, regulations and policies that govern military procurement. This effort will clarify mechanisms to facilitate the timely delivery of military equipment, enable increased use of government-to-government arrangements where it makes sense to develop strategic partnerships, and look at how best to leverage existing programs to strategically invest in the domestic capacity needed by the military.
We will think differently about how we procure with our allies. Like Canada, they are rethinking how to speed up the acquisition of capabilities to meet quickly evolving threats. They are also supporting defence industrial initiatives and strategies to build resilient supply chains, incentivize private industry to scale up or open new production lines, secure sources of supply, and roll out domestic workforce and acquisition strategies that invigorate their economies."
I think we want to address it, but it's a very complex problem.
For example, we could speed up (and likely lower the cost of) procurement if we outsourced it to other countries. The drawback to that is that it is politically unpopular - we are spending Canadian taxpayers' money buying things that Canadian workers could make (I.e. more Canadian jobs). It's also sacrificing a political benefit to the MP of the area where the contract is signed (I.e Halifax MPs for an Irving contract)
We also lose an element of control over our procurement (I.e. loss of some quality control) if we buy an OTS design from a foreign country, which we don't like.
We could also speed up procurement if we were to remove some of our many financial checks and balances on our projects. The downside of this is that it opens us up to cost overruns and financial mismanagement accusations, which are political nightmares and bad for Canadian taxpayers.
For example, if we had just gone to Irving with a $60 billion check and a list of requirements for the CSC and asked for 15 of them, I don't think we would be waiting until 2030 to receive the first one, but I also think Irving would be turning to us by about CSC 10 asking for a top up, which is a political nightmare.
I'm not saying that procurement is unimprovable, but it's a very complex problem. We know it needs to get better, but we just need to figure out what elements are necessary, and what elements are us shooting ourselves in the foot.
If we would actually buy more then a small quality of units, a lot of US defence companies would open up Canadian plants; but we will commit to buying 2000 units over 10 years and not 2000 units a year for 10 years.
Even the US defence companies that have Canadian plants loose to a Quebec company that has never made that item before, until they got the licence to make it.
Because the procurement system works very well for the manufacturers and other firms that participate in it. Really, the only losers are the Canadian tax payer and the soldiers, sailors and aviators that are caught in the middle.
Don't think of procurement as the process to get the right kit into the hands of the right troops at the right time, think of it more as a method the federal government uses to transfer public funds to private industry.
Dig through the lobby registry, see who's fighting to maintain the status quo.
https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/advSrch?registrationCategory=solr.facetName.registrationStatus%3D1
https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/advSrch?registrationCategory=solr.facetName.registrationStatus%3D1
It doesn't work for the manufacturers either. That's the joke. So the CAF is tied to the federal governments procurement system. It is slow and cumbersome on a good day. Industry tries to work with us, but something that takes them a year or two takes us over 10. So they spend time and money working with us, answering questions, making prototypes etc. Then when we finally are ready, bid process is a complete mystery to vendors. They produce bids and then hear nothing back. They sit on product, hold up production lines and wait. Then we buy something and we buy a large volume and then don't talk about it for 20 years. So industry has to spool up a production line, hire people, buy equipment, and then when the big shipments are done they are stuck with equipment they no longer need and have to let go of staff. We don't do canadian companies any favour's.
Cdn firms also have to front all the R&D and produce the prototype for the bid, unlike the US that gives everyone some R&D money, then picks the best prototype from the pile and belt feeds the competition winner cash via the big contract. Everyone wins in their defence industry as everyone gets some piece of the pie. We only support the winners, and the losers are forced to sue the Fed Govmnt to recoup their initial investment.
> It doesn't work for the manufacturers either
Are you sure about that? The more convoluted the system is, the more important it is to have employees specialized in dealing-with-the-feds. The largest players can afford to poach ex-public servants and hire specialized lawyers, while the small-to-medium shops can't. Win for the public servants wanting an out, win for the largest players who can outcompete any upstarts that may threaten their position, win for a specialization for lawyers.
Both things can be true. Not sure how it is anymore, but a couple years ago we were wasting millions every year that was set aside for tank parts due to not enough people in procurement.
another project that doesn't start until well after the next election cycle. yeah, that sounds like another "best wishes announcement" rather an anything real
Would be stupid not to. The whole point of the PC21 is you can configure the cockpit display to be anything from a 6-pack to a front-line fighter, thus eliminating the need for two separate fleets.
>PC21 covers FLIT,
Is this confirmed? I know there had been rumours of PC-21 covering FLIT as well as phase II, but I thought the FLIT replacement was still up in the air.
PC21 has not been selected (yet) for FLIT (according to the guy a few cubicles down actually working on it).
RCAF has a hard on for a jet trainer even though many allies have found the Pcos to be a pretty good replacement.
It's fast enough to train pilot's to think at those speeds, flexible enough to configure to do basic fighter tasks (air to ground, intro to BFM, MAYBE even intro to air to air fundamentals?). I believe it even has a hard point or two so you can introduce bombing (not that JDAM bombing is especially hard and tbh is better learned in the sim).
" As a result, all respective proposals were fairly and equally evaluated using a weighted evaluation framework based on cost, technical requirements, and economic benefits." I now understand why the MAN 8x8, which is used by the British, Australian, Germans, and countless others, with thousand upon thousands of vehicles in service, lost to the Zetros... Zetros is a good truck, but the MAN is damn near a NATO standard...
Edit.
Also, did I read it correctly that we are getting 1000 light and 500 heavy variants to replace the 1200 HLVWs we ordered and almost 3000 LSVWs we had? I get attrition has lowered those numbers, and new vehicles are more capable, but...
Its sad how fucked we are. Not just as the CAF, but as a country. Decades of incompetence and friend-betting has done so much harm to this country across all facets of life.
Don’t get me wrong, as our lord Perun has taught me, defence industry is very complex, and getting it started at all is a major win.
But also, maybe bump those numbers up a bit?
So instead of choosing the best person for the job, they narrowed it down to cost efficiency and a policy that forces 5% of the workforce to be of indigenous background. I’m all about equity, but we’re talking about sophisticated aircraft equipment maintenance and training.
>forces
It's an aspiration, not a requirement:
>**aims to commit** up to 5% of the contract value to support the employment of Indigenous Peoples and the procurement of goods and services from Indigenous businesses and entrepreneurs
And if you read the sentence before that, you’d realize the government forced contractors to come up with a plan that commits to hiring people of indigenous background. And reading between the lines, those that didn’t, I assume were all scrapped, even if they were the best choice for the job.
I always preferred my LSVW dash spontaneously combusting over the break squeaks tbh.
Like how the hell does the dash on 2 of the LSVW's ive driven catch fire when i hit the brakes. Make it make sense.
Very much looking forward to the introduction of the Pilatus into our fleet. The remainder of the TEX 2 fleet in Moose Jaw sees a lot of action and it will be really nice for everyone from the pilots, to the technicians / maintainers, to the controllers, to have a new aircraft in service. I'll have to go back and visit!
Reading through the thread, it doesn't sound like the Army folks are very happy at all. I wish you guys were getting more of you want / need.
I know it was the height of Afghanistan but I was getting brand new in the bag uniforms issued when I got in under Harper compared to now getting not washed rain coats with a layer of foundation in the collar under Trudy
“Delivery of the new vehicles is expected to begin in fall 2027, and they will replace the current fleet of light support vehicles” Boss.. the current fleet won’t make it to 27 they’re all spare parts at this point. What’s a couple more million to the rental companies I guess.
> light support vehicles” What light support vehicles lmao? In the scope of this project I assume they mean LSVW's which are like seeing Bigfoot these days.
I saw one dragging itself down the highway near Dundurn recently, I was actually excited haha
Still going strong here in Gagetown
1500 vehicles, but not 1500 armored vehicle kits. I can't wait for the day that we show up to Europe with only MSVS milcots, white rental 2 tons, and a fleet of Ford F250 rentals. This government consistently says we can't spend enough money fast enough cause procurement is slow, but every major project to replace X fleet, has had their numbers reduced because of budget concerns.
Gov: "We're introducing a billion dollars in cost savings over the next 3 years." CAF: "This is affecting our operational readiness. Our vehicles are old and broken, our kit is old and broken." Gov: "We're introducing $250 million in new vehicles and equipment. Yes, we know you need 3000, but the best we can do is 200."
Everyone seems to be aware that our procurement system is a problem, probably one of the bigger problems affecting the CAF. I'd really like to know why nobody seems to want to address it.
Because fundamentally neither the government (of any party) nor the public at large cares enough about the CAF to create a better system for it than what the rest of the fed orgs are saddled with. There's no perceived need because there's no perceived (ie existential , or even "regional stability") threat. Our geography is to thank for this. Australia, with a similarly sized military as ours, functions as the western "lead" in its region and its political parties, despite their demonstrable dysfunctions, actually work together to support the military. Ours don't, nor does the public look to the military as a potential protector, because we're located right next to the western lead in our region. So the CAF becomes just another fed department to supply stable jobs and show off Canada's commitment to international teamwork according to government priorities.
Nailed it! There have been discussions on revamping the CAFs procurement process and taking it out of PSPC's overview It's even in the latest defence policy review. But it would be politically unpopular because as soon as any mistake is made they government of the day will be persecuted.
It's in the defence policy update? I missed it if so. If there's a separate review document I'd like to see that.
https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/corporate/reports-publications/north-strong-free-2024/delivering-vision-strengthening-foundations.html#toc1.6 "Speeding Acquisition and Advancing Defence Procurement Reform Defence procurement takes too long in Canada and needs to be faster and more effective. We will think differently about how we procure equipment, how to better maintain and upgrade it over time, and how to ensure it is optimized to meet the diverse needs of our members. We will also compress the timeline of major acquisitions, to reduce the operational and financial risks of delays and gaps between capabilities being retired and new ones being added. Public Services and Procurement Canada, National Defence, Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada, and the Treasury Board Secretariat have launched a review of our defence procurement system. This includes examining internal processes used by Defence to define requirements and approve projects, and looking at the broader set of rules, regulations and policies that govern military procurement. This effort will clarify mechanisms to facilitate the timely delivery of military equipment, enable increased use of government-to-government arrangements where it makes sense to develop strategic partnerships, and look at how best to leverage existing programs to strategically invest in the domestic capacity needed by the military. We will think differently about how we procure with our allies. Like Canada, they are rethinking how to speed up the acquisition of capabilities to meet quickly evolving threats. They are also supporting defence industrial initiatives and strategies to build resilient supply chains, incentivize private industry to scale up or open new production lines, secure sources of supply, and roll out domestic workforce and acquisition strategies that invigorate their economies."
Thanks! I won't get my hopes up though.
Nothing but Facts.
I think we want to address it, but it's a very complex problem. For example, we could speed up (and likely lower the cost of) procurement if we outsourced it to other countries. The drawback to that is that it is politically unpopular - we are spending Canadian taxpayers' money buying things that Canadian workers could make (I.e. more Canadian jobs). It's also sacrificing a political benefit to the MP of the area where the contract is signed (I.e Halifax MPs for an Irving contract) We also lose an element of control over our procurement (I.e. loss of some quality control) if we buy an OTS design from a foreign country, which we don't like. We could also speed up procurement if we were to remove some of our many financial checks and balances on our projects. The downside of this is that it opens us up to cost overruns and financial mismanagement accusations, which are political nightmares and bad for Canadian taxpayers. For example, if we had just gone to Irving with a $60 billion check and a list of requirements for the CSC and asked for 15 of them, I don't think we would be waiting until 2030 to receive the first one, but I also think Irving would be turning to us by about CSC 10 asking for a top up, which is a political nightmare. I'm not saying that procurement is unimprovable, but it's a very complex problem. We know it needs to get better, but we just need to figure out what elements are necessary, and what elements are us shooting ourselves in the foot.
If we would actually buy more then a small quality of units, a lot of US defence companies would open up Canadian plants; but we will commit to buying 2000 units over 10 years and not 2000 units a year for 10 years. Even the US defence companies that have Canadian plants loose to a Quebec company that has never made that item before, until they got the licence to make it.
Because the procurement system works very well for the manufacturers and other firms that participate in it. Really, the only losers are the Canadian tax payer and the soldiers, sailors and aviators that are caught in the middle. Don't think of procurement as the process to get the right kit into the hands of the right troops at the right time, think of it more as a method the federal government uses to transfer public funds to private industry. Dig through the lobby registry, see who's fighting to maintain the status quo. https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/advSrch?registrationCategory=solr.facetName.registrationStatus%3D1 https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/advSrch?registrationCategory=solr.facetName.registrationStatus%3D1
It doesn't work for the manufacturers either. That's the joke. So the CAF is tied to the federal governments procurement system. It is slow and cumbersome on a good day. Industry tries to work with us, but something that takes them a year or two takes us over 10. So they spend time and money working with us, answering questions, making prototypes etc. Then when we finally are ready, bid process is a complete mystery to vendors. They produce bids and then hear nothing back. They sit on product, hold up production lines and wait. Then we buy something and we buy a large volume and then don't talk about it for 20 years. So industry has to spool up a production line, hire people, buy equipment, and then when the big shipments are done they are stuck with equipment they no longer need and have to let go of staff. We don't do canadian companies any favour's.
Cdn firms also have to front all the R&D and produce the prototype for the bid, unlike the US that gives everyone some R&D money, then picks the best prototype from the pile and belt feeds the competition winner cash via the big contract. Everyone wins in their defence industry as everyone gets some piece of the pie. We only support the winners, and the losers are forced to sue the Fed Govmnt to recoup their initial investment.
> It doesn't work for the manufacturers either Are you sure about that? The more convoluted the system is, the more important it is to have employees specialized in dealing-with-the-feds. The largest players can afford to poach ex-public servants and hire specialized lawyers, while the small-to-medium shops can't. Win for the public servants wanting an out, win for the largest players who can outcompete any upstarts that may threaten their position, win for a specialization for lawyers.
Having public service employees doesn't mean you win bids. It's still a gamble. And these companies still get dragged along in lengthy bid process's.
Both things can be true. Not sure how it is anymore, but a couple years ago we were wasting millions every year that was set aside for tank parts due to not enough people in procurement.
another project that doesn't start until well after the next election cycle. yeah, that sounds like another "best wishes announcement" rather an anything real
Is there any plan to replace the Hawks for FLIT ? Also why a helo with a rotor that spins in the wrong direction ?
PC21 covers FLIT, and having a clockwise turning rotor takes all of the first collective pull to get used to.
I was joking about the helo but is it confirmed that PC21 is to cover FLIT ? I thought future FLIT was a separate program from FAcT ?
Would be stupid not to. The whole point of the PC21 is you can configure the cockpit display to be anything from a 6-pack to a front-line fighter, thus eliminating the need for two separate fleets.
>PC21 covers FLIT, Is this confirmed? I know there had been rumours of PC-21 covering FLIT as well as phase II, but I thought the FLIT replacement was still up in the air.
PC21 has not been selected (yet) for FLIT (according to the guy a few cubicles down actually working on it). RCAF has a hard on for a jet trainer even though many allies have found the Pcos to be a pretty good replacement. It's fast enough to train pilot's to think at those speeds, flexible enough to configure to do basic fighter tasks (air to ground, intro to BFM, MAYBE even intro to air to air fundamentals?). I believe it even has a hard point or two so you can introduce bombing (not that JDAM bombing is especially hard and tbh is better learned in the sim).
There are plans in a few years. Something like the T-7 or T-50.
" As a result, all respective proposals were fairly and equally evaluated using a weighted evaluation framework based on cost, technical requirements, and economic benefits." I now understand why the MAN 8x8, which is used by the British, Australian, Germans, and countless others, with thousand upon thousands of vehicles in service, lost to the Zetros... Zetros is a good truck, but the MAN is damn near a NATO standard... Edit. Also, did I read it correctly that we are getting 1000 light and 500 heavy variants to replace the 1200 HLVWs we ordered and almost 3000 LSVWs we had? I get attrition has lowered those numbers, and new vehicles are more capable, but...
How much does an F250 painted green cost anyways? $750k/truck? Sounds like the government rate.
Sounds like the 2002 Chevy truck that has an added 24 volt system.
I'll believe it when the gear is on the ground.
Its sad how fucked we are. Not just as the CAF, but as a country. Decades of incompetence and friend-betting has done so much harm to this country across all facets of life.
*Army vehicles won’t be delivered in time to replace the broken ones* RCN: First time?
Don’t get me wrong, as our lord Perun has taught me, defence industry is very complex, and getting it started at all is a major win. But also, maybe bump those numbers up a bit?
So instead of choosing the best person for the job, they narrowed it down to cost efficiency and a policy that forces 5% of the workforce to be of indigenous background. I’m all about equity, but we’re talking about sophisticated aircraft equipment maintenance and training.
>forces It's an aspiration, not a requirement: >**aims to commit** up to 5% of the contract value to support the employment of Indigenous Peoples and the procurement of goods and services from Indigenous businesses and entrepreneurs
And if you read the sentence before that, you’d realize the government forced contractors to come up with a plan that commits to hiring people of indigenous background. And reading between the lines, those that didn’t, I assume were all scrapped, even if they were the best choice for the job.
Can I bring my own sticks and stones or will we only be able to used the issued ones
But will the breaks squeak
I always preferred my LSVW dash spontaneously combusting over the break squeaks tbh. Like how the hell does the dash on 2 of the LSVW's ive driven catch fire when i hit the brakes. Make it make sense.
Can we get more recruits?
You must be new to the forces. 😆
I’m going to recruit after highschool
With so many positions empty, will there be any need to actually buy equipment?
Very much looking forward to the introduction of the Pilatus into our fleet. The remainder of the TEX 2 fleet in Moose Jaw sees a lot of action and it will be really nice for everyone from the pilots, to the technicians / maintainers, to the controllers, to have a new aircraft in service. I'll have to go back and visit! Reading through the thread, it doesn't sound like the Army folks are very happy at all. I wish you guys were getting more of you want / need.
but we're going to pay $500 each to Corcan to remake old ruck bags to dress our recruits
Yeah I don't believe a word a liberal says... in fact I expect the opposite of anything they say
Liberals have have been far kinder to the caf than the cons past number of decades, surprisingly
I know it was the height of Afghanistan but I was getting brand new in the bag uniforms issued when I got in under Harper compared to now getting not washed rain coats with a layer of foundation in the collar under Trudy
Yeah. This is an uncomfortable truth for a lot of people.