Military to abandon Canadian refitting

[aluc]

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1147125012591&call_pageid=970599119419

Military to abandon Canadian refitting
May 9, 2006. 01:00 AM
BRUCE CAMPION-SMITH
OTTAWA BUREAU

OTTAWA—Say goodbye to projects like the "Canadian" army helmet and with it, potentially millions of dollars in defence business to Canadian companies.

No longer is Canada's armed forces prepared to spend time and money to have Canadian firms refit military equipment bought abroad or develop a Canadian version when an acceptable foreign one is available, Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor said yesterday.

For years, Canada's armed forces has "Canadianized" new equipment — a process that O'Connor now suggests only drives up the cost and time it takes to get badly needed gear.

"It wasn't good enough if somebody had a rifle or somebody had a truck or somebody had a helmet, we had to go `Canadianize,'" O'Connor said.

In an appearance before the Senate defence committee yesterday, the defence minister signalled that he intends to "reform" the way the Canadian Forces buy equipment. That starts with a push to buy off the shelf and do as little tinkering as possible.

O'Connor, a former army officer himself, mocked a project from years ago to develop a new helmet for Canadian soldiers. "I think the thing went on for 10 years, they spent like $15 million in R and D for this peculiar Canadian head.

"They could have put a table out there, put a Russian helmet on, a Chinese helmet, an American helmet, a French helmet and said `What helmet do you want?'" he said.

Still, it wasn't clear yesterday just how far O'Connor's edict goes. Defence officials did note that all new gear usually has to undergo some modifications to make it compatible with other equipment used by the forces.

"Canadianizing means ensuring the commonality of use of equipment in Canada," a defence spokesperson said.

For example, the four second-hand submarines bought from the British have had to undergo extensive work at the Halifax shipyards to meet Canadian standards, including new radio gear and new weapons-control systems.

O'Connor told the committee the forces would steer clear of buying equipment that hasn't made it off the drawing board.

 

[George Wallace]

All fine and good, until the day that we buy something designed for the Tropics and try to use it in the Arctic.  There will always be a need to Canadianize certain items that we buy.  I am not saying that we Canadianize everything, as he does have a valid point with helmets.  We replaced our American/NATO helmets in the 90's with a couple of Canadianized versions to get what we have today.  As we are not developing all the addons for those helmets, like the Americans are, perhaps we have gone in the wrong direction. 

If we are going to buy off the shelf, then we will have to be very selective in what we buy, and it must meet our requirements for 'cold weather'.  That will narrow down the selection and range of items that we will be able to utilize, which in turn takes us full circle back to Canadianizing/winterizing equipment.  It will, in some cases, narrow down our shopping options to items produced in the Scandinavian countries, Russia, and of course here at home; all 'Northern Countries".

We shall see how far we can go with this.  It is a step that many of us probably agree with, but wonder how much of a difference it may make.

 

[GAP]

Military standards are all well and good, but I remember a time in country when we had over a dozen PRC-25's down and couldn't get the resistor that kept burning out through the supply system. We ordered 50 from Radio Shack in California, fixed the radios and sent them out, only 1 came back with a similar problem. The resistors came about 3 months later.

 

[Kirkhill]

I take your point George but I think that the Tropic/Arctic issue can probably be dealt with by writing the specification.  I think if you look at most manufacturer's specs these days the expeditionary requirements of their clients is causing them to design to a "-50C/+50C" temperature range along with dealing with humidity and dust.  This certainly appears to be the case for Western Vehicles.

In any event, would it be so bad if our choices were limited to LAVs, CV-90s and BandVagons? 

Personally I think it will drastically reduce the time and the cost of acquisition.  Canadian companies are going to have to start looking at the needs of the international market, as GDLS has, and not plan on getting the gravy contracts to fulfill a one-off domestic buy.

 

[Cloud Cover]

There are lots of basic things that can be bought off the shelf without tinkering, and coversely lots of equipment must Canadianized. My hope is that the real target is the politicization of procurement and dispensing with the concept of offset benefits to regions.  

Basic, fundamental Canadian requirements can be quickly communciated to the plants that make Chinooks, C130's and C-17's. It's hard to imagine that support, spares and supplies are not already available for nearly every weapon system, aircraft, ship or piece of support equipment we should realistically be purchasing off the shelf in the next 5 years.  If the suppport is not in place, then the CDS and MND ought to figure out if the equipment is really needed at all in the context of all the other priorities to be addressed. There is a [very] brief window of opportunity opening up, they had better not fritter it away or the game will be lost.

 

[Enzo]

I like the spirit of the declaration.

If the need can be proven, procurement and maintenance assured and specifications are established. Then there shouldn't be a problem?

You'd like to think, right?

 

[Britney Spears]

Why is this cold weather requirement such a huge deal? It gets cold in the US too, America isn't a tropical country. It's not like we're buying stuff from Paupa New Guinea or Cuba.

Besides, we're only going to be deploying in warm climates anyway. Who on earth would want to go somewhere cold? What's the point? It's already cold here! I guarantee if the invasion of Denmark ever gets underway there will be a lot of releases.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Why is this cold weather requirement such a huge deal? It gets cold in the US too, America isn't a tropical country. It's not like we're buying stuff from Paupa New Guinea or Cuba.

Besides, we're only going to be deploying in warm climates anyway. Who on earth would want to go somewhere cold? What's the point? It's already cold here! I guarantee if the invasion of Denmark ever gets underway there will be a lot of releases.

Last time I checked, Alaska was part of the United States.

As for the helmets, I still don't understand why we overengineered the thing, with those weird double screws to hold the liner in that you need a weapons tech to repair. Canadianization for the sake of having Canadian kit has always struck me as silly; the only need for it is with uniforms and stuff operationally needed that can't be found elsewhere.  If it turns out we make a superior product here than foreign manufacturers, then that too should be adopted - but it certainly wasn't the case with the Iltis, LSVW, etc. although I think we did pretty good with the C7A1, and benefited from Canadian production in putting out  a product demonstrably better than the US one - not to mention the C7A1 operates better in cold conditions, which I agree is a real concern. (Though one can argue unconvincingly that the Canadian Rangers use .303 No. 4 Mk I* rifles so who cares...   )

I guess it comes down to knowing before hand if your "Canadian" product will be better or worse than foreign stuff.

 

[KevinB]

.. although I think we did pretty good with the C7A1, and benefited from Canadian production in putting out  a product demonstrably better than the US one - not to mention the C7A1 operates better in cold conditions, which I agree is a real concern. (Though one can argue unconvincingly that the Canadian Rangers use .303 No. 4 Mk I* rifles so who cares...   )

I guess it comes down to knowing before hand if your "Canadian" product will be better or worse than foreign stuff.

Michael -- anyone saying a C7A1 is any better or worse than the comparable Colt M16A4 needs to give their head a shake, in cold or whatever climates.
And the American's dont use a POS TRIAD as a cheap out method

 

[Bomber]

With the way our Lonie is working out right now, we should be buying every ounce of US and even UK stufff available.  I was watching the cold weather trial centre the US has established in Alaska, testing everything from SA to Vehicles to buttons, seems pretty acceptable to me.  We don't hold some special powers because half the year it is cold here.  Lots of countries get much colder than ours.  Almost everything I brought to the Arctic crapped out, so I don't really beleive that our stuff needs to be overly cold sensitive, I mean the buttons on the friggin radio's lifted because they got so cold, no more programing the TCCCS or changing channels.  View our high performing dollar as a huge increase in the defense aquisition budget, about 40 percent over the past couple of years, and lets get on with some of these purchases.  I actually agree with the MND on this simple subject of buying new stuff, get an in service example of a first rate armies piece of kit, trial it for a bit, maybe even for a whole year, to see how it responds, or do like the Brits and follow the weather, to speed things up, at the end, say which one is best for your needs, buy it, done.  To see how this doesn't work, look where out AGL is or CASW if you prefer, unless something wierd has happened recently, It ain't supporting no infantry companies, only defense companies.

 

[vonGarvin]

O'Connor told the committee the forces would steer clear of buying equipment that hasn't made it off the drawing board.

Is the MGS off the drawing board?

 

[dapaterson]

vonGarvin:  There are prototypes of the MGS.  And I'm optimistic that within the next decade there will be at least one successful firing.

And I am not convinced that we will abandon "Canadianizing" kit - because the same bad of incompetents still work for Public Works and all the regional economic development boondoggle groups who see DND contracts as ways to justify their existence - remember the Maritime Helicopter requirement for industrial offsets in native communities?

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

vonGarvin:  There are prototypes of the MGS.  And I'm optimistic that within the next decade there will be at least one successful firing.

And I am not convinced that we will abandon "Canadianizing" kit - because the same bad of incompetents still work for Public Works and all the regional economic development boondoggle groups who see DND contracts as ways to justify their existence - remember the Maritime Helicopter requirement for industrial offsets in native communities?

Exactly....until you pull this out of the procurement equation, we're still going to overpay and have to wait longer than necessary. 

Being in the private sector and doing a lot of bids and issuing a lot of RFP's myself, I would propose the following structure:

1)  Create RFP in two weeks created by committee of operational commanders and CDS (Sample Specification: We need 20 heavy lift helicopters capable of lifting an M777 155mm howitzer and crew at X feet of elevation by X Date - In short, stick to performance requirements only in the statement of capabilities).

2)  Bring in Public Works Representative to procurement committe and begin pulling historical purchase data for potential contenders.  Based on historical purchase data, initial budget approval for addition of operational capability based on 87.5% of last published sale price to another nation, built into forward DND cash flows so that suppliers know cash is in-hand.

3)  If there is a preferred supplier (in particular one who we can negotiate a bundled package with) then with Public Works Representative in Procurement Committee we approach and negotiate directly.  Military guys handle kit specifications while Public Works focus on price and contractual clauses such as penalty clauses, etc.  Clear procurment stipulation is that in order to bypass the RFP/Bid system, we must get the required kit at 12.5% less than the last published sale price to another nation.  If they can do it great, if not, we issue the RFP and tender bids.

4)  The RFP is issued but instead of the tedious Public Works specifications, we simply layout a point scale:
i)  Ability to meet and exceed performance targets (45-points)
ii)  Price - ex-factory and with service contract (25-points)
iii) Contracted Delivery Date with Penalty Clause (15-points)
iv) Canadian Content (15-points)
*-these can all be adjusted based on the program.

5)  For OTS systems, bids expected within 3-months.  For custom or modified construction such as a ship, you adjust accordingly.

6)  Decision made within further 30-days - 3-months again depending upon the complexity of the acquisition.

Bottom Line:  If you minimize the ridiculous amount of labour required to create our huge RFP's and then respond to our huge RFP's, we should be able to move things along exponentially faster which is a benefit to all parties involved....except possibly those employed at NDHQ and Public Works to manage the current projects in the current lumbering fashion....which really shouldn't be our concern.



Matthew.   

 

[dapaterson]

Blackshirt:  We can't claim full innocence on the RFP stacking front - how many times have staff attempted to sneak in small, ridiculous qualifications in the RFPs to ensure a favoured product over others which might be equally acceptable?

The CF-18 is a case in point.  Canadian pilots wanted the F15.  The F16 was more affordable.  And thus the requirement for two engines was born.  Once the bids were evaluated, the Air Force put on a grim smile and accepted the two-engine jet that was purchased - not the F15s they wanted, but F18s instead.

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

Blackshirt:  We can't claim full innocence on the RFP stacking front - how many times have staff attempted to sneak in small, ridiculous qualifications in the RFPs to ensure a favoured product over others which might be equally acceptable?

The CF-18 is a case in point.  Canadian pilots wanted the F15.  The F16 was more affordable.  And thus the requirement for two engines was born.  Once the bids were evaluated, the Air Force put on a grim smile and accepted the two-engine jet that was purchased - not the F15s they wanted, but F18s instead.

I'll obviously take your word on that, but I think that in the grand scheme of things that my concerns about "stacking" with Hillier at the reins is much lower than my concern about a procurement process that if anyone tried to implement in any other organization would have people pulling their hair out and jumping off buildings out of frustration.


Matthew. 

 

[GUNS]

Any change in DND's procurement policy or lack there of is welcomed.  I get tired of the saying " Hurry up and wait"

GUNS