DND mess

[Wild Bill]

What's your point? As Argus said....

True! In essence I agree with you.

The reason I did not make myself clear is that I forgot you would not know my definition of the military decision makers. After the services were unified it seemed that career advancement became more bureaucratic than based on military experience and demonstrated ability and leadership.

In effect, I began to class the top brass as simply civil servants in uniform - just more bureaucrats!

I have no problem with political framing of what is required. I just have no respect for government as a vehicle to actually do what is involved to make a product or service happen!

A bureaucrat can send out a tender for vegetables. If he also decides to tell farmers HOW to grow those vegetables then I think the soldiers would go hungry!

In this case I momentarily forgot that it was those military brass who arbitrarily decided to change the terms of the order. However, it's obvious that the order should have actually been cancelled!

With no armour for IEDs and such it was just another case of our government finally filling a need from decades ago for a completely different situation, intending to give our troops something that only LOOKED useful and did not actually protect them at all!

Excuse me, I feel the need to sing!

"We had joy, we had fun! We had Sea Kings in the sun!

But the engines are on fire and the Sea Kings must retire!"

"Good bye Chretien my stingy one

You could have bought the EH_101!"

So much for governments being competent as overseers! They are run by political needs and obviously consider actual real world needs to be irrelevant. We still have no helicopters! We are still flying Sea Kings and pilots are still dying in them. Meanwhile, the ones on order are not nearly as suitable as the EH-101. Chretien cancelled them and then refused to allow anything like them to be on the bid list for the tender!

Oh well. What else is new?

[bush_cheney2004]

...I just have no respect for the boneheaded ways the military would attempt to accomplish such goals! If they had involved people who understood the way the world had changed and the nuances of the specific industry they could have come up with much more positive AND LESS EXPENSIVE ways to accomplish their goals!

Cost, schedule, and quality dictate such choices...defense contractors are not only tasked with designing and developing products, but often the primary initial deliverable is the "paperwork" in the form of technical documentation, with parts traceable to a known standard. Many parts are de-rated to increase reliability so they need to be pretty damn good to begin. Even non-mil aviation grade parts are held to a higher standard and paper trail.

Such standards and lower volumes guarantee higher cost. I can't build a reliable inertial measurement unit (IMU) for intercontinental ballistic missiles with cheaper parts sourced from Digi-Key!

[Guest Derek L]

I don't care if they were for toilets. They asked for $430 million to buy trucks. They got permission to spend that money. Then they designed a bidding contest for an $800 million contract. That's not the way you run procurement, okay? I was in purchasing for the government for a while and if I'd done something like this I'd have had my ass kicked.

This is just an example of what is wrong with Government purchasing, in that it clearly isn’t flexible, well taking a snail’s pace……….From the time the trucks first needed replacing (90s), to the time the project was announced (2006) to the time bids were submitted, quite obviously circumstance changed, namely that based on a USMC study, it was found that mine/IED protected vehicles reduced the chance of injury by over 90% when contrasted with a conventional type………….Are you suggesting that since DND was only approved “X” amount and new circumstances would require “y” amount (~doubling the cost) DND should have purchased obsolete equipment? Or what about cutting the order to make up for the shortfall? Wouldn’t we then hear the decrying of the Government wasting money on old technology?

They truly are damned if they do and damned if they don’t………And as I said, the current procurement process is a complete and utter joke………..I’m more concerned why it takes nearly 20 years, all the while paying a bloated procurement project staff for nearly two decades to replace something as basic as a medium army truck………….

[bush_cheney2004]

…..I’m more concerned why it takes nearly 20 years, all the while paying a bloated procurement project staff for nearly two decades to replace something as basic as a medium army truck………….

But wait...they were able to procure Volkswagen Iltis jeeps in record time....saving lots of money!

[Guest Derek L]

Derek has argued in the past that bureaucrats ought to be able to spend as much as they want on whatever the hell they want. No. Not social services bureaucrats. They're scum. The military, however, should be able to buy whatever the hell it wants without any oversight whatsoever.

Where have I said without any oversight?

To date, the most successful, on time and on budget procurement projects have been sole sourced….ie C-17 Globemaster, CC-130J Hercules, Leopard II tanks, the various MRAPs, the Chinooks, M777 Howitzers etc…….It’s only once projects are thrown in the procurement sausage maker do they get F**ked up i.e. FWSAR, JSS, CCV, the Cyclone and these trucks……….Clearly the military should define a requirement to conduct policy set by the elected Government, the military gets a quote from the manufacturer, submits it to said elected Government who then give the thumbs up or down………Simple really.

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

Edited July 20, 2012 by Derek L

[cybercoma]

This is just an example of what is wrong with Government purchasing, in that it clearly isn’t flexible, well taking a snail’s pace……

That's because the system is designed to prevent people from making rash decisions, wasting money, or otherwise defrauding the taxpayer. It's also designed so that the taxpayers themselves get to decide (through their representatives) how their money is spent, rather than being forced to relinquish everything to the Queen without representation. We are but her humble serfs and should be grateful for the protection her military provides.

[Guest Derek L]

But wait...they were able to procure Volkswagen Iltis jeeps in record time....saving lots of money!

Indeed, the VW designed Iltis, Cost nearly three times as much to produce in Canada instead of Germany……..As for the replacement (Mercedes) G-Wagon, as found out well in service in the dirt box, another politically motivated waste of tax payers money………..Clearly at that time (early 2000s) it was known that MRAPs were the “way of the future”, even an Up-Armoured Humvee would have been a better choice (But looks too American)………Hell MRAPs are hardly new technology, my wife remembers the Casspir from the early 80s……..

[Guest Derek L]

That's because the system is designed to prevent people from making rash decisions, wasting money, or otherwise defrauding the taxpayer. It's also designed so that the taxpayers themselves get to decide (through their representatives) how their money is spent, rather than being forced to relinquish everything to the Queen without representation. We are but her humble serfs and should be grateful for the protection her military provides.

Huh?

Clearly the military should define a requirement to conduct policy set by the elected Government, the military gets a quote from the manufacturer, submits it to said elected Government who then give the thumbs up or down

[cybercoma]

Huh?

What has you confused? You just reiterated the point you highlighted with your quoted text.

[Guest Derek L]

What has you confused? You just reiterated the point you highlighted with your quoted text.

My point, was current sole sourcing (effectively) works as the military selects the equipment and the elected Government approves or disapproves the purchase…….That simple, it works as demonstrated by precedent…….For example, DND has known for decades of a Canadian requirement for strategic airlift (Disaster response & supporting deployments overseas etc) and after the our poor performance in deploying our DART after the tsunami at xmas ’04 again echoed the point to PM PM, with no such results……….Fast forward to the summer of ’06 when the Conservative Government finally acknowledged said requirement, by early ’07 the Government signed the contract (sole sourced) with Boeing and by summer of ’07 we had our first Globemaster. Simple concept really.

Edited July 20, 2012 by Derek L

[WWWTT]

Derek has argued in the past that bureaucrats ought to be able to spend as much as they want on whatever the hell they want. No. Not social services bureaucrats. They're scum. The military, however, should be able to buy whatever the hell it wants without any oversight whatsoever.

Agreed!

And if you do not want to sign the blank cheque and let the military fill in the amount then somehow you believe in an imaginary no defence policy!?!?And then sometimes for some reason the thread breaks down into something to do with how many hand guns you can safely store in your house???

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

There is a big difference between an overseer and a backseat driver, especially a back seat driver who has no idea of how to drive himself!

This is absolutely complete rubbish and false!

First off,Canada does not to be involved in every armed conflict that comes along.

Oh and by the way the last one on Canadian soil was 200 years ago.

I wonder if MacKay has mentioned this in any of his war of 1812 speeches?

WWWTT

[DogOnPorch]

This is absolutely complete rubbish and false!

First off,Canada does not to be involved in every armed conflict that comes along.

Oh and by the way the last one on Canadian soil was 200 years ago.

I wonder if MacKay has mentioned this in any of his war of 1812 speeches?

WWWTT

I don't think for a second Canada should dive into Syria, but, the days of Fortress Canada are quickly drawing to a close.

[madmax]

I don't think for a second Canada should dive into Syria, but, the days of Fortress Canada are quickly drawing to a close.

Why is that? What has changed? I grew up under the threat of ICBM?

[GostHacked]

I remember when there were people defending this truck purchasee a few years back. Which ironically shows how slow the process is.

The F-35 will take much much longer.

[DogOnPorch]

Why is that? What has changed? I grew up under the threat of ICBM?

Oceans no longer save us from the problems of the planet. Being an isolationist is not a viable option.

[Argus]

This is just an example of what is wrong with Government purchasing, in that it clearly isn’t flexible, well taking a snail’s pace……….From the time the trucks first needed replacing (90s), to the time the project was announced (2006) to the time bids were submitted, quite obviously circumstance changed, namely that based on a USMC study, it was found that mine/IED protected vehicles reduced the chance of injury by over 90% when contrasted with a conventional type………….Are you suggesting that since DND was only approved “X” amount and new circumstances would require “y” amount (~doubling the cost) DND should have purchased obsolete equipment? Or what about cutting the order to make up for the shortfall? Wouldn’t we then hear the decrying of the Government wasting money on old technology?

No. What you do is go back to the government and tell them that your gross incompetence in procuring the trucks (ie, after six years you still don't have a bidding process in place) has led to the opportunity to now incorporate new defensive technology and ask for more money.

Edited July 20, 2012 by Argus

[madmax]

Oceans no longer save us from the problems of the planet. Being an isolationist is not a viable option.

Another global warming thread?

Good grief... like I said, I recall ducking under desks as the area I grew up in was a Nuclear Targeted zone. Not that ducking under desks were going to save us from the blast, but its the actual drill we did in school twice per year. And that was from Air Attack and ICBM.

So, I really can't see what anything different , other then the risk of targeted military nuclear attack is far less then during the cold war... where one idiot could create thermal nuclear destruction of the planet.

[madmax]

No. What you do is go back to the government and tell them that your gross inefficiency in procuring the trucks (ie, after six years you still don't have a bidding process in place) has led to the opportunity to now incorporate new defensive technology and ask for more money.

ouch

[DogOnPorch]

Another global warming thread?

Good grief... like I said, I recall ducking under desks as the area I grew up in was a Nuclear Targeted zone. Not that ducking under desks were going to save us from the blast, but its the actual drill we did in school twice per year. And that was from Air Attack and ICBM.

So, I really can't see what anything different , other then the risk of targeted military nuclear attack is far less then during the cold war... where one idiot could create thermal nuclear destruction of the planet.

During the Cold War, I didn't recall seeing thousands of Russians wandering my streets, either.

[Peter F]

During the Cold War, I didn't recall seeing thousands of Russians wandering my streets, either.

Oh Oh. Dog is alluding to something?

[DogOnPorch]

Oh Oh. Dog is alluding to something?

Oh Gee...what could that be oh Newspeak one?

Edited July 20, 2012 by DogOnPorch

[Guest Derek L]

No. What you do is go back to the government and tell them that your gross incompetence in procuring the trucks (ie, after six years you still don't have a bidding process in place) has led to the opportunity to now incorporate new defensive technology and ask for more money.

Gross incompetence? The current rules, and the civil serpents that create more rules to justify their jobs are the problem………..Ottawa is nothing but a real live Ouroboros when it comes to efficiency........

"The bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy."

Perhaps said civil servants should create a commission to figure out why sole source contracts outside of the procurement process work….Surely their Super Administrative Powers will get to the bottom of it

[waldo]

My point, was current sole sourcing (effectively) works as the military selects the equipment and the elected Government approves or disapproves the purchase.

Simple concept really.

Perhaps said civil servants should create a commission to figure out why sole source contracts outside of the procurement process work….Surely their Super Administrative Powers will get to the bottom of it

sole source? You mean when DND tailor's the requirements towards a target source?

Public Works has very precisely worded provisions for sole source procurement... DND simply circumvents those provisions by drafting criteria to selectively target the vendor/item they desire (ala the Advance Contract Award Notice (ACAN))... to the exclusion of a bona fide competitive process. See JSFail F-35... see your aforementioned Boeing C-17 Globemaster. As you say, 'simple concept, really'!

[Guest Derek L]

sole source? You mean when DND tailor's the requirements towards a target source?

Exactly. Simple concept hey?

Public Works has very precisely worded provisions for sole source procurement... DND simply circumvents those provisions by drafting criteria to selectively target the vendor/item they desire (ala the Advance Contract Award Notice (ACAN))... to the exclusion of a bona fide competitive process. See JSFail F-35... see your aforementioned Boeing C-17 Globemaster. As you say, 'simple concept, really'!

You’re suggesting DND skirted some rules with the Globemaster purchase?