Author Topic: Canadian Military/Defence procurement process (Mega Thread)  (Read 133197 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline radiohead

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 70
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 440
Re: Sun Column on Procurement
« Reply #25 on: September 20, 2005, 10:54:29 »
Its a good try by DND to stop the madness of delayed bids.  But I have a feeling this will only end in waste just like the current process.  In fact there couuld be more because there would be no way of knowing how much pressure the gov't is putting DND to pick certian kit.  An eg would be MGS, the liberals are mad for this... and even after the US pulled out because its junk... that's not stopping them from buying them.. and 66 for 600 million they way over price.

Here's my idea on how to solve the problem.. link the CF so closely with the US armed forces that just just wnat ever they are using  from the same contactors and at the same price. ;D  Would this work better,  whio knows it would have to be tested out but at least we get better kit.

Offline E.R. Campbell

  • Retired, years ago
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 456,430
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 18,086
Re: Sun Column on Procurement
« Reply #26 on: September 20, 2005, 12:02:19 »
I mentioned this a few weeks ago in commenting on a Globe and Mail article by Don Martin - http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,32944.msg262361.html#msg262361

For those who forgot their secret decoder rings:

"¢   In "Sources tell us the defence department has drafted a detailed plan ...",  'Sources' = Ernie Regehr of Project Plowshares or 'communications' staffers from e.g. Health Canada or DIAND which will not get to waste $10 billion more if DND gets it;

"¢   In " Sources tell us this all-in-one mega-deal, unaffectionately known as the "Four-Pack," includes ...", 'Sources' = lobbyist for Bombardier or 'communications' staffers for PWGSC/Services Canada which will not get to hire even more idle staffers to spend DND's money; and

"¢   In " Industry insiders say they expect Defence Minister Bill Graham ...", 'Industry insiders' = more lobbyists.

Gordon O'Connor, like Greg Weston has changed trades: he's now a stenographer, taking dictation from the hacks, flacks and bagmen in Ottawa.

The defence staff has said it needs - now - C-130 Hercules aircraft and CH-47 Chinook helicopters in order to maintain standardization with allies and to use American Cooperative Logistics support to keep life cycle costs down.  (Capital costs are a fairly minor concern when buying aircraft - it is the life cycle costs (operations and maintenance) which really matter, and do the damage to budgets a generation down the road.  (Many journalists have no idea about this because many journalists are incredibly ill-informed - but they 'inform' Canadians anyway.))   If O'Connor thinks that we can do better, right now, with some other tactical transporters then let him say so; I think he banged his head on the closed hatch a few too many times.

The SAR and strategic transporters should, by all means, be purchased in the normal, quasi-corrupt competitive manner but the Hercs and Chinooks should be bought sole source by a new Defence Procurement Agency which should be required to do the job at  ½ the cost normally 'charged' by PWGSC, in  ½ the time, and still show a profit.

The 'Sources' and 'Industry insiders' have launched their counter-offensive.  They want $12 billion in new defence spending - so long as way, way too much of it goes into their pockets rather than into the pockets of the people who build and sell good hardware.
It is ill that men should kill one another in seditions, tumults and wars; but it is worse to bring nations to such misery, weakness and baseness
as to have neither strength nor courage to contend for anything; to have nothing left worth defending and to give the name of peace to desolation.
Algernon Sidney in Discourses Concerning Government, (1698)
----------
Like what you see/read here on Army.ca?  Subscribe, and help keep it "on the air!"

Offline Teddy Ruxpin

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 3,360
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,063
  • Grumpy Bear
Re: Sun Column on Procurement
« Reply #27 on: September 20, 2005, 12:38:44 »
Edward:  Amen and well said.

This is becoming a trend isn't it?  First Martin's name-calling and innuendo, now Weston's ill-researched article.  It will be interesting to watch the hue and cry increase as procurement plans are solidified and as the various interest groups begin to feel left out.  I see that Scott Taylor's already had his two cents worth on the M777 gun buy  ::).

On a related subject.  Frankly, I lost it with Conservative defence policy when they proposed putting a battalion in Goose Bay, merely to gain short-term political points, so put zero stock in what O'Connor has to say - despite his dated military experience.  As with many other things, the Conservatives need to present a well-thought out, credible alternative if they are to criticise effectively.  A knee-jerk visceral reaction isn't helping.  There aren't many realistic alternatives to the C-130J out there and if O'Connor has one, he'd better present it now.
A man may fight for many things. His country, his friends, his principles, the glistening tear on the cheek of a golden child. But personally, I'd mud-wrestle my own mother for a ton of cash, an amusing clock and a sack of French porn.

Dulce bellum inexpertis.

Offline Cloud Cover

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 13,310
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,208
Re: Sun Column on Procurement
« Reply #28 on: September 20, 2005, 13:12:56 »
In "Sources tell us the defence department has drafted a detailed plan ...",   'Sources' = Ernie Regehr of Project Plowshares or 'communications' staffers from e.g. Health Canada or DIAND which will not get to waste $10 billion more if DND gets it;


Interesting observation. I was truly unaware that Ecumenical Ernie was now deeply dialed into DND beyond what the odd ATI request or journal article might provide. He's within stray RPG range of me, I must go and talk to him sometime. 

I think that Mr. Westons editorial comments were just that: editorial and shouldn't be taken seriously. They  certainly do not constitute an informed opinion, in my opinion anyway!!

 

Offline Cloud Cover

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 13,310
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,208
Re: Sun Column on Procurement
« Reply #29 on: September 20, 2005, 13:16:54 »
This is becoming a trend isn't it?   First Martin's name-calling and innuendo, now Weston's ill-researched article.   It will be interesting to watch the hue and cry increase as procurement plans are solidified and as the various interest groups begin to feel left out.   I see that Scott Taylor's already had his two cents worth on the M777 gun buy  ::).

Without reproducing the article or bashing ST [thanks], what in Gods green earth does he see wrong with the new weapon?

Offline Teddy Ruxpin

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 3,360
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,063
  • Grumpy Bear
Re: Sun Column on Procurement
« Reply #30 on: September 20, 2005, 13:23:31 »
A tidbit from yesterday's Chronicle-Herald:

Quote
Personally, I don't understand how heavy artillery, with or without guided shells fired at a range of 30 kilometres, is going to help combat the Taliban and al-Qaida.

As with the ongoing insurgency in Iraq, the modern battlefield features non-linear guerrilla warfare. Most attacks against coalition forces are in the form of booby traps and sudden "shoot and scoot" ambushes

and

Quote
Given that it takes an average of 12 years for our military procurement system to implement any new equipment purchase, it will be some time yet before our troops receive either these guns or the helicopters to move them.
A man may fight for many things. His country, his friends, his principles, the glistening tear on the cheek of a golden child. But personally, I'd mud-wrestle my own mother for a ton of cash, an amusing clock and a sack of French porn.

Dulce bellum inexpertis.

Offline Cloud Cover

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 13,310
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,208
Re: Sun Column on Procurement
« Reply #31 on: September 20, 2005, 14:14:36 »
Seen:

I think the first comments were fair, he is admitting that he is a journalist who knows little about the employment of artillery in the latest version of military thinking about winning the fight in A'Stan. Perhaps someone could fill him in.


The second quote about the time lines to fill equipment needs are clearly designed to be sarcastic, and demonstartes that he has not fully informed himself of the facts prior to print. Or, has he?

Cheers.

Offline Infanteer

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 119,215
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 14,398
  • Honey Badger FTW!
Re: Sun Column on Procurement
« Reply #32 on: September 20, 2005, 14:19:16 »
Quote
Personally, I don't understand how heavy artillery, with or without guided shells fired at a range of 30 kilometres, is going to help combat the Taliban and al-Qaida.

As with the ongoing insurgency in Iraq, the modern battlefield features non-linear guerrilla warfare. Most attacks against coalition forces are in the form of booby traps and sudden "shoot and scoot" ambushes

I have actual video footage of gun and mortar barrages from FOBs in Afghanistan (usually fired in support of guys clearing out the local wilderness or as counterbattery fire against Taliban mortars and rockets).   Having a base means a big red target - high tech arty acts as an instant "reach out and touch somebody" for that base.

As for Iraq, all Mr Taylor has to do is open up the last couple years of the Marine Corps Gazette - the arty is there and it gets used.

Ubique.
"Overall it appears that much of the apparent complexity of modern war stems in practice from the self-imposed complexity of modern HQs" LCol J.P. Storr

Offline Cloud Cover

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 13,310
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,208
Re: Sun Column on Procurement
« Reply #33 on: September 20, 2005, 14:24:21 »
Ubique.

LOL

Well then, lets make it easy for the lad: do you have a link to the gazzette?
« Last Edit: September 20, 2005, 14:27:21 by whiskey601 »

Offline Teddy Ruxpin

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 3,360
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,063
  • Grumpy Bear
Re: Sun Column on Procurement
« Reply #34 on: September 20, 2005, 14:29:20 »
Quote
I have actual video footage of gun and mortar barrages from FOBs in Afghanistan (usually fired in support of guys clearing out the local wilderness or as counterbattery fire against Taliban mortars and rockets).  Having a base means a big red target - high tech arty acts as an instant "reach out and touch somebody" for that base.

Exactly, which is why the first batch of guns is being procured on an accellerated timeline - for that very purpose.  As for the lift, it has been stated in public that we'll be piggy-backing on US and Dutch lift, at least for the short to mid-term until the buy that started this thread gets the aviation side sorted out.

All of this is public domain and a little research by the people involved could have avoided the creation of a lot of angst and hyperbole.  Then again, perhaps that's the objective... :-\
A man may fight for many things. His country, his friends, his principles, the glistening tear on the cheek of a golden child. But personally, I'd mud-wrestle my own mother for a ton of cash, an amusing clock and a sack of French porn.

Dulce bellum inexpertis.

Offline Infanteer

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 119,215
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 14,398
  • Honey Badger FTW!
Re: Sun Column on Procurement
« Reply #35 on: September 20, 2005, 14:31:04 »
As to the original article - I can't figure out if he is in support of or opposed to the direct buy; his rhetoric seems to bash all of it.   But the last part caught my eye:

Quote
Gordon O'Connor, the Conservative defence critic and a former soldier himself, says: "The problem is once you start abandoning the competitive process, you have no guarantee you're getting the best price.

"And how do you know you're getting the most effective, efficient piece of equipment?"

Details. Details.

1.   Gordon O'Connor hasn't said anything right in my opinion - he has single-handedly managed to convince me that the Conservatives will be no better for Canada than the Liberals.   A pox on both their houses.

2.   And how do we know we'll get the best equipment?   Look at General Hillier's CV - when you have 30 years of TI, served in Yugo, Afghanistan and as a 2ic of a US Army Corps you aren't just some layman.   Same as the people backing the good General.   How is the political process supposed to enlighten what we already know?!?   The military, through the CDS, has advised the government on what it feels is best for National Defence.   Kudos to the Martin government, if this goes through, for putting the country's needs ahead of politics.

3.   Details, Details.   Yeah, I'd say the most important detail is the monumental increase in CF operational capability.   Isn't that a detail?

O'Connor (and, I think, the author of this piece) are yakking here - they criticize the problem, but offer no solutions at all.   "If you ain't part of the solution, you are part of the problem".   I personally don't see any issue with streamlining the defence aquisition process in order to ensure we don't get saddled with a Ross Rifle, a LSVW, or a 20 year wait for maritime 'copters....   :tsktsk:
« Last Edit: September 20, 2005, 14:47:06 by Infanteer »
"Overall it appears that much of the apparent complexity of modern war stems in practice from the self-imposed complexity of modern HQs" LCol J.P. Storr

Offline Teddy Ruxpin

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 3,360
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,063
  • Grumpy Bear
Re: Sun Column on Procurement
« Reply #36 on: September 20, 2005, 14:44:02 »
Quote
2.  And how do we know we'll get the best equipment?  Look at General Hillier's CV - when you have 30 years of TI, served in Yugo, Afghanistan and as a 2ic of a US Army Corps you aren't just some layman.  Same as the people backing the good General.  How is the political process supposed to enlighten what we already know?!?  The military, through the CDS, has advised the government on what it feels is best for National Defence.  Kudos to the Martin government, if this goes through, for putting the countries needs ahead of politics.

Very good point and I had been thinking much the same, although such thinking is incomprehensible to the commentators.  For perhaps the first time in my recollection, we have a military leadership that can say - hand on heart - "I want this piece of equipment because I've used it and it's the thing for the job at hand."

If we know that "X" is a great piece of kit, that it's in service with our major allies, that it can be supported cheaply through collaborative arrangements, and that it fills a firm operational requirement, what is the problem with a sole-source accellerated procurement?  It is the job of the military to state what it requires to perform its job, regardless of political considerations and "competitive processes".  If the government of the day doesn't agree, that's their perogative and they can direct - for political reasons - a different procedure.  However, if they do so, they must accept the consequences of deciding to ignore a recommendation - with all that means.

As it stands, I am hoping against hope that the government doesn't buckle to the demands of the "commentators" and their somewhat suspect agendas.  Keep your fingers crossed.
A man may fight for many things. His country, his friends, his principles, the glistening tear on the cheek of a golden child. But personally, I'd mud-wrestle my own mother for a ton of cash, an amusing clock and a sack of French porn.

Dulce bellum inexpertis.

Offline MCG

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 189,660
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,460
Re: Sun Column on Procurement
« Reply #37 on: September 20, 2005, 15:29:00 »
"you have no guarantee you're getting the best price."       "And how do you know you're getting the most effective, efficient piece of equipment?"

Is "best price" always compatible with "most effective"?  .... and, when you can only go to a single source for new CC-130 or Chinooks, there is not much shopping around left to do.

Offline Gunnerlove

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • -45
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 313
Re: Sun Column on Procurement
« Reply #38 on: September 20, 2005, 20:55:05 »
Used with prudence it could allow us to ride on others R&D budgets.

It could also allow senior brass to pave their way to cushy consulting jobs with defence contractors as is often the case down South. 







"Someday someone may kill you with your own gun, but they should have to beat you to death with it because it is empty." Unknown

"In a gunfight four rounds in four inches in 4 seconds will always be a better grouping than two rounds through the same hole in twice the time" My father

Offline E.R. Campbell

  • Retired, years ago
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 456,430
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 18,086
Re: Sun Column on Procurement
« Reply #39 on: September 20, 2005, 21:11:32 »
Used with prudence it could allow us to ride on others R&D budgets.

It could also allow senior brass to pave their way to cushy consulting jobs with defence contractors as is often the case down South. 

Senior officers here in Canada - from CDS on down - already move into well paid consulting jobs, sometimes with a year pf 'cooling-off' in the USA.  Nothing new there - but a few less politicians (remember Jean-Jacques Blais?) might make the same trek if we did our procurement in a more effective and efficient manner, and almost anything which does not involve PWGSC is bound to be more effective and efficient.

It is ill that men should kill one another in seditions, tumults and wars; but it is worse to bring nations to such misery, weakness and baseness
as to have neither strength nor courage to contend for anything; to have nothing left worth defending and to give the name of peace to desolation.
Algernon Sidney in Discourses Concerning Government, (1698)
----------
Like what you see/read here on Army.ca?  Subscribe, and help keep it "on the air!"

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 103,080
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,897
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Sun Column on Procurement
« Reply #40 on: September 22, 2005, 15:05:54 »
I wonder if any of the Chinooks that our troops will hitch a ride on, where one of the ones we used to own, that would be ironic wouldn't it?

Offline Teddy Ruxpin

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 3,360
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,063
  • Grumpy Bear
Re: Sun Column on Procurement
« Reply #41 on: September 22, 2005, 19:17:14 »
If we're using Dutch lift in theatre, it's better than a 50/50 chance (7 out of 13)...
A man may fight for many things. His country, his friends, his principles, the glistening tear on the cheek of a golden child. But personally, I'd mud-wrestle my own mother for a ton of cash, an amusing clock and a sack of French porn.

Dulce bellum inexpertis.

Offline Brad Sallows

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 50,770
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,461
Re: Sun Column on Procurement
« Reply #42 on: September 22, 2005, 21:32:57 »
We can't afford to be paying to develop equipment to specs; we need to buy off-the-shelf and cut the mods until it hurts. That makes the bidding process largely irrelevant.

As for choppers and guns, I think it's hard to outrun an airlifted firebase on foot, and I know for sure you can't outrun "add 800".
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error.

Omnia praesidia vestra capta sunt nobis.

"It is a damned heavy blow; but whining don't help."

"Yet another in a long line of books about how libertarians are plotting to enslave you by devolving power to the individual and leaving you alone" - Warren Meyer, author of Coyote Blog

Offline Cloud Cover

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 13,310
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,208
Re: Sun Column on Procurement
« Reply #43 on: September 22, 2005, 21:47:47 »
My goodness Brad, I hope somebody in a position to influence such affairs writes that down and uses it someday as a response to stupid propositions. 

Offline Teddy Ruxpin

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 3,360
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,063
  • Grumpy Bear
Re: Sun Column on Procurement
« Reply #44 on: September 22, 2005, 21:50:29 »
Then again, we issued a contract to Oerlikon today for the so-called "Multi-mission Effects Vehicle", a made in Canada "one of" boondoggle if I've ever seen one...  :brickwall:
A man may fight for many things. His country, his friends, his principles, the glistening tear on the cheek of a golden child. But personally, I'd mud-wrestle my own mother for a ton of cash, an amusing clock and a sack of French porn.

Dulce bellum inexpertis.

Offline MCG

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 189,660
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,460
Re: Sun Column on Procurement
« Reply #45 on: September 22, 2005, 23:34:48 »
Then again, we issued a contract to Oerlikon today for the so-called "Multi-mission Effects Vehicle", a made in Canada "one of" boondoggle if I've ever seen one...   :brickwall:
Details here: http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,16987.msg273857.html#msg273857

Offline FormerHorseGuard

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 11,455
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 538
Re: Sun Column on Procurement
« Reply #46 on: September 22, 2005, 23:49:20 »
i have a feeling this no bidding kind of shopping might be the boost the forces need.
some generals and full colonels know what  the army needs and wants.  same for the airforce and the navy.

those are the guys who get to go on TD trip all over the NATO side of the world and various other parts to see and check out new purchases by  other armed services. they  get to talk to the troops who drive it, fly  it, ride in it, shoot it, and sit behind the desk and operate it.
if we could take the politics of purchasing out of the game, there might be a serious money saving  that  can put more funds into operations, training,  or into the next purchase program.

look at MLVW , most people agree it needs to be replaced.

how many  other NATO countries have left hand drive  2.5 t cargo trucks or bigger,
how many  countries are replacing, upgrading or just ordering more?

for sake of this post
country CVBV is ordering new trucks, they are a close match to what  Canada requires

can Canada tagg a few hundred more trucks on the order and get them at the same cost as the larger order from country CVBV?
can the company maing the trucks provide if the need be, english tech manuals and french?  spare parts can a deal be worked out for quick replacement?  can the trucks be delivered on time
that is all good if that can happen, if we can save a few bucks so be, do we get the employment in canada, maybe , or maybe not, but i think it is time that  we do not look for jobs  thru military  purchases but best bang for the buck.


I am railroad fan , you guys know the weapons, the frame work from the tires to the cooking pot in the back of LAV III  all very  impression.
But I will tell you how large and small railroads work together to buy  locomotives


Large railroads in the States  order locomotives from two companies
One use to be GM out of london ontario same plant where the LAV fleet was built, and the other was GE ( General Electric )

large railroads order locomotives by  the 100s and sometimes by  the 1000s

Union Pacific Railroad ordered one model from GM a few years ago and the order was just finished in the past year for over 1700 one model. it was a huge order.  they  got a deal on the bulk purchase and parts etc.
Smaller railroads went to the company who sold the locos and wanted to order the same loco model, and get the same price.
the company  told the smaller railroads they  could keep the production line open and built X numbers of models above the UP order, there could be no changes to made in extras or items deleted from the order that  UP made with them.

the smaller company  got fewer locomotives, got the same great price but they had to agree to keep it the same as the larger order. only  diff was the paint shop details.  UP came out Yellow in the UP paint job the smaller companies locomotives came out in thie rpaint job. same locomotive on the inside and out but painted another colour and name on the side.

this is what  Canada needs to do for it forces when purchasing.
send some guys down, test, fly it, test drive it, test fire it, do what  ever testing is needed then decided if they want it as is  or what  mods they  want.  I think we should stop ordering mods just to make work for Canadians if we can save money  over all.

CUCV was not ordered by  the Canadian Forces, GM sold the army one hell of a deal , over run of production from the USMC order.
saved money had a good truck for most taskings it was used in

HL truck  was a great truck, plant opened to build it,  soon as the last truck came out the doors the plant was closed. Good truck,  job spin offs were short lived.

The guys and gals at the wishing well already  know what is out there and in some cases they  might know what  is coming into being ahead of time. let them do the shopping for the Forces, they know what  the big picture is they know the fiscial funding for a program.
let us see if this no bidding idea works, we are not going to lose anything , we might gain





Offline MCG

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 189,660
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,460
Re: CF Procurement
« Reply #47 on: September 23, 2005, 08:30:49 »
Quote
Red tape could put Armed Forces in 'death spiral'
The Canadian Press
Thursday, September 22, 2005


OTTAWA - Government red tape and bureaucracy have become so cumbersome that the military finds it easier to keep patching up junk than to buy new equipment, says a study from Queen's University.

The paper from the Kingston, Ont., university's school of public policy warns if government procedures aren't streamlined, the Canadian Forces will crumble away as ships, planes and vehicles decay into uselessness.

Howie Marsh, an analyst with the Conference of Defence Associations, cites as an example in the study that the military is planning to spend almost a billion dollars over the next 10 years to keep its fleet of 2,500 medium trucks running. They're already 25 years old and it costs more than $38,000 a year for the parts needed to keep each of them going.

He says replacing the fleet would be cheaper than 10 years of maintenance.

But capital costs come from another budget and a replacement project would need cabinet approval and agreement from other departments, which can take years.

Doug Bland, who holds the chair of defence management studies at Queens, says the whole administrative process must be changed to speed things up.

Bland says the problem runs through the army, navy and air force, as key systems age. If nothing is done to streamline the system, the military will begin to lose important capabilities within five years.

"The Armed Forces, by anyone's estimate, is in a death spiral."

Offline 2FtOnion

  • Member
  • ****
  • 20
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 114
  • US Marine
Re: Sun Column on Procurement
« Reply #48 on: September 24, 2005, 13:19:35 »
One aspect of current contract trends is "CLS"  Contractor Logistical Support, two recent examples are for the Cdn LAV III and the Sikorsky Maritime Helicopter project. In both instances Maintenance Contracts were awarded to Defense companies, I haven't had the opportunity to read the terms of the contract but I understand if the maintenance contract is for Depot Level Maintenance (Major Overhaul, and Engineering Changes) but if it is at the lower level maintenance, (ie engine repair, electronics test/repair), it doesn't make sense to me to pay a contractor mechanic/technician were it is cheaper and more operationally effective to pay a CF mechanic / technician to do the same job.

Another thing on procurement, I think it would be advantageous to have a competitive bid for the Heavy lift Helo, put the Chinook up against the CH-53, especially forcasting amphibious and Spec Ops, I think the CH-53 or the MH-53, would be a better purchase. 
For the M777, I do think it the CF will need to jump through hoops to get the guns for A-stan, but I think it is possible, the CF should just try to lease / purchase deal and hold competitive bids for a 155 towed Howitzer, and scrap the MAVs concept/developed.
Engineers build the world  
EE

Offline ArmyRick

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 25,970
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,952
  • What the????
Re: Sun Column on Procurement
« Reply #49 on: September 25, 2005, 12:29:40 »
Anybody in the Ary world can confirm that their was a rushed M777 order placed ? (If you really do not know, don't respond please).
 
I am all for ditching the bidding and all the crap that goes with it. Why the hell can't the military (who knows what we we need) do its own research. HOWEVER, we should put a contract clause that any CF general that retires can not be hired by a defence industry for say 5 years. This will ensure impartialliaty.
I am NOT a privileged white man by virtue of being male or white. I am privileged because I am alive and exercising my right to be who I am!