Our political leadership may have little choice in coming years but to get serious about defence procurement. It will either happen because the US will put the pressure on or because they’ll be rattling their sabres at us in the name of continental security.
I absolutely agree. My take on that, is that Canada, if it wants to be deemed a credible partner in the world, needs to invest and ease the procurement process as you suggested and understand once and for all that there’s a cost to « doing business » and that business is its credibility.
The A10 warthog will not be in service much longer if the USAF gets its way, but nothing is more popular with ground troops. The USAF just hates serving ground troops as protection , because that puts their officers subordinate to Army lieutenants with a radio. They'd rather be
"strategic bombing" water treatment plants and entirely under their own control.
So I really think we should buy up the A10s when the USAF dumps them, because we'd be popular with all the other services.
I agree totally with this assessment. Justin fiddles whilst Kharkiv burns, and our Air Defence system wallows in the Excited States' warehouses, somewhere. Ancient Herc "H" aircraft soldier on, as the their "replacement" goes through a "Cyclonic" series of pointless (and expensive) tests. I could go on and on, but "Six", you've pretty much nailed it overall. Thanks for your Service, from a fellow Canadian.
My creds = Always a civilian, but a student of military affairs in Canada and NATO since the 1960's. Wrote a couple of papers on procurement in the 1980's. Volunteer at various aircraft preservation groups from 1985-Present. Friends with a "few" Vets and serving CAF Members.
Recently have royally pissed some people off with my antipathy towards the Kingfisher joke. The organized "spin" in defence of this latest political purchase is widespread, and those in the CAF that HAVE spoken out have been censured, or threatened with same. Glad that I am just a mouthy old civilian who's "totally uninformed" - else, I am SURE that might apply to me. HA!
Here’s the thing. NO government, none, no matter what party, has taken a serious attitude towards defence since the St Laurent government of the 1950s. Trudeau is just the latest.
As far as I know, we haven’t yet procured an air defence system for Canada, UOR or otherwise. The system we bought for Ukraine is wallowing in the US because of US FMS policy. That’s not really on us.
Sad, really sad. On the most granular of levels, lack of adequate procurement is what is causing our inability to recruit and retain members.
Comments from newly minted members:
“Don’t go into artillery. We spend most of our time repairing and then washing everything. Day after day. We rarely go out on exercise - “
“Armour sucks. Don’t apply. We’re scrapping machines for parts to repair other units that are already rusting away”
“I went to Latvia and had to buy my own ballistic helmet. They told me to expense it but I haven’t been reimbursed a year later”
“I’m buying my own chest rig. Command says I’m not getting paid back but the ones they’re giving us are falling apart. They don’t care about us.”
“The combat boots they issue are useless to the point of causing personal injury. I buy my own Lowa’s and I gave the CAF ones to a guy from Ukraine while I was on the Unifier tour”
Soldier kit is low on priorities all things considered when tanks are falling apart, but should be high on commanders priorities as an easy win for giving troops confidence and belief that at least we care for them. And the kit is cheap compared to vehicles or weapon systems.
Bear in mind that many (or even most) of these stories border on rumour. In my (fairly extensive) experience, there are soldiers who are *never* happy with issued kit, particularly personal kit.
Moreover, some of these points haven’t changed over the course of the last fifty years. We’ve always cannibalised equipment for parts and garrison duty has always sucked.
I take personal complaints like these with a *huge* grain of salt - and I’ve heard ‘em all.
You are free to take whatever you want with that salt. Right now I’m financing some of my kid’s kit. Yes he does exaggerate. And yes the boots are crap - I’ve seen them. But boots are a personal preference as you mention, until you get recourses for a broken or sprained ankle.
Yes they bought their own ballistic helmets for Reassurance. That was finally rectified when the CBC reported on it and shamed them into solving the issue.
Adazi - mess hall closed last summer. Troops told to get their own grub and they’d get an allowance. Some of them are months out from their tour and haven’t seen a dime.
I belong to a family support group for regular troops. The stories are there for members to see. All of what I mentioned here comes from documented comments.
They’re not complaining. They’re asking “does anybody know when the members will be reimbursed?”
Do remember that I wore issued boots for 25 years. But in those 25 years, I heard near constant bitching from the troops about personal kit. Boots, flak vests, PRRs, helmets, knee pads, on and on. If troops bought helmets for an operation it’s because *they* decided that the issued kit wasn’t good enough. I wore our ballistic helmets on multiple *combat* ops and they were fine.
I’m not going to argue this point with you. I was in uniform, in the Army, in the combat arms for most of my adult life. I’ve heard it *all* - personally.
You nailed some of our procurement debacles and could have listed many more. One of my ongoing soapbox topics is what we pay for procuring equipment versus what our allies pay. A glaring example is our new ships which are costing 2 to 4 times what our allies such as the US, UK, Germany, Australia and France are paying for similar ships.
I agree with your assessment on anecdotal stories, but there is always a some element of truth. In my day we all wore US rain gear because our issued equipment was totally useless.
‘Back in the day, we pretended Lynx were tanks, but at least we had 6 gun batteries.the key was that we trained as if we had the real kit and a tour in Europe proved our training. Not sure the doctrine is there to direct training today.
I know at one time and I suspect it still exists, Australia had a non-partisan group/committee that developed defence policy and approved procurement of equipment within that policy. Australia is a far more serious country than Canada when it comes to defence.
Looking to Australia as an example is dangerous, as they’ve had debacles of their own - nearly as bad as ours. They do indeed take it more seriously, but their management is very suspect. The Collins-class submarine is a shining example of what not to do when buying major pieces of equipment.
I agree that no country I know of has ‘the’ procurement system. Australia does seem to be procuring modern equipment in a far more timely manner than we do. We must get over ourselves and start buying equipment that works and stop trying to make everything the penultimate model. Going for the perfect takes too much time and too much money often resulting in the ‘perfect’ being out of date by the time it enters service.
"... before discarding its air defence capability completely"
Wow.
You mentioned item #9 as "educate politicians and the public." To me, this should be number 1. The way I see it is that we don't know how much we don't know!
What might be one or two of your suggested reads to help someone like me get a decent overview of the state of the Canadian Armed Forces?
It’s hard to get a decent current overview because of the political baggage attached to most assessments. Serving members are legally banned (for good reason) from making public statements and the entire subject is actually pretty complex. I like Murray Brewster of the CBC for wide consumption defence reporting, but there are others with an axe to grind to look at with a jaundiced eye.
Dr. Jack Granatstein has written some decent books, including “Who Killed the Canadian Military) that give background. Nothing has improved in the defence realm since the late 1950s, so you’re safe even with somewhat dated material.
Another great post, Blackcloud. An additional recommendation would be to form an all-party parliamentary committee to approve capital projects so we don’t ever again use capabilities as political footballs. The EH-101 and the on-again, off-again, on-again F-35 purchase are merely the most egregious examples of this. Politicians should tell us what missions they want us to be able to accomplish, let us define the capabilities needed to do that, and then buy the best equipment off the shelf. And yeah - I agree that a dedicated DDP could move projects much more quickly than the current lethargic pace of PSPC.
Canada's military procurement is a weird form of masochism. "How can we overcomplicate and spin out the decision, and time its resolution to occur just after Parliament dissolves?"
You are so right. The same principles affect general government procurement, where the people needing products or services have their decades of experience dismissed in favour of the syndrome you describe above. Often the companies that are best at preparing bids are the least competent in delivering. Their VP comes in and makes a slick pitch and then their most recent hire does the work, which can end up being completely useless. Expert public servants know who is good and who is not, and that knowledge and experience is not ascribed sufficient value in the ridiculously long procurement process. Ditto for staffing.
As I said at the outset of the piece, I never worked in procurement but I’m not surprised that the same issues extend to the rest of government. That a ridiculous amount of pork is available to politicians from defence spending makes the situation exponentially worse.
Our political leadership may have little choice in coming years but to get serious about defence procurement. It will either happen because the US will put the pressure on or because they’ll be rattling their sabres at us in the name of continental security.
I absolutely agree. My take on that, is that Canada, if it wants to be deemed a credible partner in the world, needs to invest and ease the procurement process as you suggested and understand once and for all that there’s a cost to « doing business » and that business is its credibility.
The A10 warthog will not be in service much longer if the USAF gets its way, but nothing is more popular with ground troops. The USAF just hates serving ground troops as protection , because that puts their officers subordinate to Army lieutenants with a radio. They'd rather be
"strategic bombing" water treatment plants and entirely under their own control.
So I really think we should buy up the A10s when the USAF dumps them, because we'd be popular with all the other services.
I agree totally with this assessment. Justin fiddles whilst Kharkiv burns, and our Air Defence system wallows in the Excited States' warehouses, somewhere. Ancient Herc "H" aircraft soldier on, as the their "replacement" goes through a "Cyclonic" series of pointless (and expensive) tests. I could go on and on, but "Six", you've pretty much nailed it overall. Thanks for your Service, from a fellow Canadian.
My creds = Always a civilian, but a student of military affairs in Canada and NATO since the 1960's. Wrote a couple of papers on procurement in the 1980's. Volunteer at various aircraft preservation groups from 1985-Present. Friends with a "few" Vets and serving CAF Members.
Recently have royally pissed some people off with my antipathy towards the Kingfisher joke. The organized "spin" in defence of this latest political purchase is widespread, and those in the CAF that HAVE spoken out have been censured, or threatened with same. Glad that I am just a mouthy old civilian who's "totally uninformed" - else, I am SURE that might apply to me. HA!
Here’s the thing. NO government, none, no matter what party, has taken a serious attitude towards defence since the St Laurent government of the 1950s. Trudeau is just the latest.
As far as I know, we haven’t yet procured an air defence system for Canada, UOR or otherwise. The system we bought for Ukraine is wallowing in the US because of US FMS policy. That’s not really on us.
Sad, really sad. On the most granular of levels, lack of adequate procurement is what is causing our inability to recruit and retain members.
Comments from newly minted members:
“Don’t go into artillery. We spend most of our time repairing and then washing everything. Day after day. We rarely go out on exercise - “
“Armour sucks. Don’t apply. We’re scrapping machines for parts to repair other units that are already rusting away”
“I went to Latvia and had to buy my own ballistic helmet. They told me to expense it but I haven’t been reimbursed a year later”
“I’m buying my own chest rig. Command says I’m not getting paid back but the ones they’re giving us are falling apart. They don’t care about us.”
“The combat boots they issue are useless to the point of causing personal injury. I buy my own Lowa’s and I gave the CAF ones to a guy from Ukraine while I was on the Unifier tour”
Soldier kit is low on priorities all things considered when tanks are falling apart, but should be high on commanders priorities as an easy win for giving troops confidence and belief that at least we care for them. And the kit is cheap compared to vehicles or weapon systems.
I do agree. So is regular payroll! (No, I’m not kidding.)
C’mon. Everybody gets the suck the embrace culture but some things are outside of that. Getting paid and fed properly. Proper kit. Stuff like that.
Bear in mind that many (or even most) of these stories border on rumour. In my (fairly extensive) experience, there are soldiers who are *never* happy with issued kit, particularly personal kit.
Moreover, some of these points haven’t changed over the course of the last fifty years. We’ve always cannibalised equipment for parts and garrison duty has always sucked.
I take personal complaints like these with a *huge* grain of salt - and I’ve heard ‘em all.
You are free to take whatever you want with that salt. Right now I’m financing some of my kid’s kit. Yes he does exaggerate. And yes the boots are crap - I’ve seen them. But boots are a personal preference as you mention, until you get recourses for a broken or sprained ankle.
Yes they bought their own ballistic helmets for Reassurance. That was finally rectified when the CBC reported on it and shamed them into solving the issue.
Adazi - mess hall closed last summer. Troops told to get their own grub and they’d get an allowance. Some of them are months out from their tour and haven’t seen a dime.
I belong to a family support group for regular troops. The stories are there for members to see. All of what I mentioned here comes from documented comments.
They’re not complaining. They’re asking “does anybody know when the members will be reimbursed?”
I’m not talking out of my hat believe me.
Do remember that I wore issued boots for 25 years. But in those 25 years, I heard near constant bitching from the troops about personal kit. Boots, flak vests, PRRs, helmets, knee pads, on and on. If troops bought helmets for an operation it’s because *they* decided that the issued kit wasn’t good enough. I wore our ballistic helmets on multiple *combat* ops and they were fine.
I’m not going to argue this point with you. I was in uniform, in the Army, in the combat arms for most of my adult life. I’ve heard it *all* - personally.
Thank you for your service. Dismissing documented concerns though isn’t a great look.
You nailed some of our procurement debacles and could have listed many more. One of my ongoing soapbox topics is what we pay for procuring equipment versus what our allies pay. A glaring example is our new ships which are costing 2 to 4 times what our allies such as the US, UK, Germany, Australia and France are paying for similar ships.
I agree with your assessment on anecdotal stories, but there is always a some element of truth. In my day we all wore US rain gear because our issued equipment was totally useless.
‘Back in the day, we pretended Lynx were tanks, but at least we had 6 gun batteries.the key was that we trained as if we had the real kit and a tour in Europe proved our training. Not sure the doctrine is there to direct training today.
I know at one time and I suspect it still exists, Australia had a non-partisan group/committee that developed defence policy and approved procurement of equipment within that policy. Australia is a far more serious country than Canada when it comes to defence.
“ In my day we all wore US rain gear…”
Me too! And a US Ranger blanket/woobie.
Looking to Australia as an example is dangerous, as they’ve had debacles of their own - nearly as bad as ours. They do indeed take it more seriously, but their management is very suspect. The Collins-class submarine is a shining example of what not to do when buying major pieces of equipment.
I agree that no country I know of has ‘the’ procurement system. Australia does seem to be procuring modern equipment in a far more timely manner than we do. We must get over ourselves and start buying equipment that works and stop trying to make everything the penultimate model. Going for the perfect takes too much time and too much money often resulting in the ‘perfect’ being out of date by the time it enters service.
"... before discarding its air defence capability completely"
Wow.
You mentioned item #9 as "educate politicians and the public." To me, this should be number 1. The way I see it is that we don't know how much we don't know!
What might be one or two of your suggested reads to help someone like me get a decent overview of the state of the Canadian Armed Forces?
It’s hard to get a decent current overview because of the political baggage attached to most assessments. Serving members are legally banned (for good reason) from making public statements and the entire subject is actually pretty complex. I like Murray Brewster of the CBC for wide consumption defence reporting, but there are others with an axe to grind to look at with a jaundiced eye.
Dr. Jack Granatstein has written some decent books, including “Who Killed the Canadian Military) that give background. Nothing has improved in the defence realm since the late 1950s, so you’re safe even with somewhat dated material.
Another great post, Blackcloud. An additional recommendation would be to form an all-party parliamentary committee to approve capital projects so we don’t ever again use capabilities as political footballs. The EH-101 and the on-again, off-again, on-again F-35 purchase are merely the most egregious examples of this. Politicians should tell us what missions they want us to be able to accomplish, let us define the capabilities needed to do that, and then buy the best equipment off the shelf. And yeah - I agree that a dedicated DDP could move projects much more quickly than the current lethargic pace of PSPC.
Canada's military procurement is a weird form of masochism. "How can we overcomplicate and spin out the decision, and time its resolution to occur just after Parliament dissolves?"
You are so right. The same principles affect general government procurement, where the people needing products or services have their decades of experience dismissed in favour of the syndrome you describe above. Often the companies that are best at preparing bids are the least competent in delivering. Their VP comes in and makes a slick pitch and then their most recent hire does the work, which can end up being completely useless. Expert public servants know who is good and who is not, and that knowledge and experience is not ascribed sufficient value in the ridiculously long procurement process. Ditto for staffing.
As I said at the outset of the piece, I never worked in procurement but I’m not surprised that the same issues extend to the rest of government. That a ridiculous amount of pork is available to politicians from defence spending makes the situation exponentially worse.
Thanks so much for the comment…I’m busy learning!
Nailed it!