|
priznat posted:The only bright side is that the majority of CF procurement fuckery is due to stupidity/ineptitude instead of outright graft. Canadian military procurement is like in-progress movies during studio leadership changes. "Oh, the previous guy ok'ed that? Better axe it even though they made the right decision and changing it will cost us money!"
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2019 06:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 15:41 |
|
|
Blistex posted:Canadian military procurement is like in-progress movies during studio leadership changes. "Oh, the previous guy ok'ed that? Better axe it even though they made the right decision and changing it will cost us money!" Yeah also a desire to upend whatever the last dickhead had put in place too, definitely. I cannot believe the loving EH-101 plans got poo poo canned 26 years ago
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2019 07:40
|
|
|
priznat posted:Yeah also a desire to upend whatever the last dickhead had put in place too, definitely. You can thank the Canadian media for blitzing that brochure of the hypothetical (but never materialized) "luxury executive version" that made everyone thing Mulroney was just buying a multi-million dollar limousine.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2019 08:40
|
|
|
Blistex posted:You can thank the Canadian media for blitzing that brochure of the hypothetical (but never materialized) "luxury executive version" that made everyone thing Mulroney was just buying a multi-million dollar limousine. I still remembered this editorial cartoon from the local paper: http://raesidecartoon.com/vault/tories-new-eh-101-helicopters/ 
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2019 08:52
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Um, this article says the opposite, that all the tooling and the knowledge to work it is in storage? That direct quote is in the article from a USAF spokesperson. The claim is that everything is in storage solely to sustain the current fleet, not restart production - but yes, all tooling and knowledge have been put into long term storage.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2019 09:54
|
|
|
If it wasn’t for the Canadian procurement services, we wouldn’t have Davy Shipyard and Federal Fleet Services dunking on Seaspan and Irving all day every day on social media so it’s a wash really. Sure would be nice to have some new icebreakers by now though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2019 13:21
|
|
|
Mazz posted:I wouldn’t be surprised if it required the Raptor to be a pile of molten metal before being written off currently. No Hans, do not count that Tiger (currently on fire 5km behind enemy lines) as lost. We might retake the ground tomorrow!
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2019 13:25
|
|
|
If you made me Dictator of Canada, how would I go about fixing our broken procurement where presumably my goal is to try to keep some manner of JOBS in Canada but still trying to be on budget and on time? Could we buy frigates from Korea but have repairs and upgrade options in Canadian shipyards?
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2019 14:01
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:If you made me Dictator of Canada, I think they would just call you “King” though (or “Queen”, obvs.)?
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2019 14:03
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Um, this article says the opposite, that all the tooling and the knowledge to work it is in storage? I need to find the follow up. My bad that was the first announcement. A few months later they were ordered to destroy all the tooling.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2019 14:09
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:If you made me Dictator of Canada, how would I go about fixing our broken procurement where presumably my goal is to try to keep some manner of JOBS in Canada but still trying to be on budget and on time? Could we buy frigates from Korea but have repairs and upgrade options in Canadian shipyards? Focus on developing a healthy economic policy that created well compensated employment in whatever field or industry could provide it and save as much tax revenue as possible by purchasing proven off the shelf designs from allied and friendly nations who achieve economies of scale through large production runs. Take the money saved in procurement and reinvest in infrastructure, education, and whatever else your economic experts say will grow the economy and provide well paid jobs for people. Warning: the specific jobs at Irving and Bombardier may not be there when you’re done. Some people will get angry about this. Edit: I’m an American but I’m happy to mod Canada if you want to extend an invite. Would I need the queen’s permission?
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2019 14:25
|
|
|
Schadenboner posted:I think they would just call you “King” though (or “Queen”, obvs.)? Lord King in my case but we have a technical monarchy already and traditionally wouldn't wield the level of power necessary to just will things into existence; this is more of a "CGP Grey" style what-if as he often precedes these sort of thought experiments with "Well, if you made me King of the world and gave me unlimited power to get things done... Here's what I would do..." Hence I say Dictator because at least in the Cincinnatus sense of the word ascribes both absolute power to get things done while also in the oldest sense of the word possibly implies relinquishing it once the problem is solved. Cyrano4747 posted:Focus on developing a healthy economic policy that created well compensated employment in whatever field or industry could provide it and save as much tax revenue as possible by purchasing proven off the shelf designs from allied and friendly nations who achieve economies of scale through large production runs. Take the money saved in procurement and reinvest in infrastructure, education, and whatever else your economic experts say will grow the economy and provide well paid jobs for people. I think someone suggested this before regarding "Is there a need for military R&D as a jobs program?" and I'm not really convinced there exists enough of a civilian demand to provide enough jobs in enough specialized fields. Maybe if we funded our own domestic space exploration program from the ground up that might provide most of those fields? At least for aerospace? But the requirements for military vehicles and warships I'm not sure equivalents really exist. If you're General Motors Canada Edition and the government decides its basically never going to order military trucks or tanks from you ever again, do you really keep the hundreds of people around needed to design, test, and build those vehicles? Maybe you can get away with it for a truck, but AFV's I don't think you can. And where do they go domestically and what can you do domestically to keep them around with those approximate skills so they don't atrophy or brain drain themselves to another country? Same for warships, I once visited a factory in Quebec that made those turrets that go on ships and I don't think they would keep any of those people around if they didn't get orders and I'm not sure what the civilian equivalent is for building miniguns.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2019 14:38
|
|
|
Yeah those jobs would go away. You’re going to have a certain number of older workers who aren’t going to retrain and you have to take that into account. The larger issue is that if your just looking at it from the standpoint of spending government money to create jobs there are waaaay more efficient uses of those funds than propping up an industry that employs relatively few people. Now, this can be worth the sacrifice if there is a pressing national security reason or another factor that makes it not just about jobs. But, if we’re just talking jobs, “keep the shipyards open” is a huge waste of resources. The 45 year old who only knows how to make poo poo turrets is a problem and he needs to be taken care of, but it’s better to deal with that now than get his kids into the industry and prop it up for another 50 years. Better to spend that money developing the economy in ways that provide them jobs in other fields. Cyrano4747 fucked around with this message at 14:48 on Jan 25, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2019 14:46
|
|
|
Think of it this way: if you look at military spending as a jobs program it’s likely cheaper to just pay off the workers directly (welfare, make do jobs stacking government bricks, whatever) and buy a cheap boat from Korea than it is to buy a boat from Irving at inflated prices. Then take whatever is left over and build part of a community college or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2019 14:50
|
|
|
EvilMerlin posted:The MGM-140 is also considered a SRBM. You admit that there is a difference between missiles that stay in the atmosphere and top out at around Mach 3/4 and ones that exit the atmosphere and re-enter with terminal velocities up around mach 8-12? Because that's the distinction.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2019 14:53
|
|
|
Cyrano, You might have to join The Queen's Rangers to run Canada's military system. Regarding TBM-talk earlier, "TBM Gap" is a loaded phrase and not one being bandied about by US Army / DOD. And the talk isn't really about a TBM v TBM fight. Yeah, sure, if you have long-range missiles, you're going to likely target enemy long-range missiles and support equipment. Kind of hard to nail things from hundreds of kilometers away when their tactic is shoot and get the gently caress out of here immediately. Here's the Army statement, boilerplate as it is: "The mission of the Long Range Precision Fires (LRPF) Missile is to attack, neutralize, suppress and destroy targets using missile-delivered indirect precision fires. LRPF provides field artillery units with long-range and deep-strike capability while supporting brigade, division, corps, Army, theater, Joint and Coalition forces and Marine Corps air-to-ground task forces in full, limited or expeditionary operations. The LRPF will replace the Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS) capability, which is impacted by the age of the ATACMS inventory and the cluster munition policy that removes all M39 and M39A1 ATACMS from the inventory after 2018." What that equates to is greater targeting flexibility, (forgive me) synergy as targeting could use LRPF in conjunction with more vulnerable strikers like fixed-wing aircraft and Tomahawks, etc. And if the army can help roll back the IADS more rapidly, the air component can sooner start killing poo poo that kills ground forces. Various non-US forces that don't have the luxury of a massive air force have long realized that TBMs are very cost-effective at having some long-range strike capability without having to man, train, and equip an air force that would likely get smashed by US/Coalition air power anyway. TBMs are also more attractive to nations that seek regional power or deterrence rather than a global expeditionary mindset. Given that the US basically has ICBMs with nukes or ATACMS, yeah, there are a lot of nations out there with far, far more capable and advanced TBM forces than us. When your options are unitary HE warhead out to 300 km or a world-reaching nuke, you don't have the same flexibility of a nation that has stuff ranging from 50km to a few thousand km with a variety of warhead types. Note: TBM is a broad term. If you wanna get fuckin' nerdy about it, there are CRBMs, SRBMs, MRBMs, IRBMs, ICBMs. But it's often pretty simple to just say TBM for anything at about MRBM and below. 
mlmp08 fucked around with this message at 15:25 on Jan 25, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2019 15:01
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Think of it this way: if you look at military spending as a jobs program it’s likely cheaper to just pay off the workers directly (welfare, make do jobs stacking government bricks, whatever) and buy a cheap boat from Korea than it is to buy a boat from Irving at inflated prices. Then take whatever is left over and build part of a community college or whatever. Allow me to be more specific that when I say "jobs" I am mainly thinking of them as a "container" that holds a bag of qualities, skills, knowledge, and technological expertese that not only would be lost if those jobs go away but might also result in people being discouraged from entering the field or entering university or technical colleges to get that training in the first place. Like, without a factory making tanks, then my fear is no one does any research or development, or gains practical skills in developing tank armor, and no one enters those fields in the first place that could result in them having those skills. Or they enter those fields but then move to the US or Europe for jobs.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2019 15:11
|
|
|
related news: LRPF is the army's top priority. ahead of helicopters, tanks, networks, guns, lasers, and an almost total lack of short range air defense.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2019 15:12
|
|
|
Can David Deptula please just take his effects-based ball and go away forever
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2019 15:22
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Allow me to be more specific that when I say "jobs" I am mainly thinking of them as a "container" that holds a bag of qualities, skills, knowledge, and technological expertese that not only would be lost if those jobs go away but might also result in people being discouraged from entering the field or entering university or technical colleges to get that training in the first place. Ok but I suppose my question is why does Canada need those skills? Why does Canada need to be doing tank research? Would it not be better served with the people who would be training to support an industry that can be entirely replaced by just buying some leos or abrams training for other industries and fields? Sure the kid who grows up in Alberta and really wants to design tank armor might end up in the US but that path runs both ways. If you have another industry that’s bee supported instead (say deep sea arctic mineral extraction) then the kid from Milwaukee who really thinks manganese nodules are cool might end up in Ontario. Again this logic changes if you think Canada need to be completely self sufficient for arms based on national security but I personally don’t think were in that world. If relations with the US and Europe are ever so bad that the Canadian Army can’t buy tanks from them then we’re in a profoundly hosed situation that frankly probably won’t be fixed by tank factories in Quebec.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2019 15:23
|
|
|
Self sufficiency for modern arms is an absolute fool's errand unless you are a polity the size of the EU, China, USA, Russia, and India.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2019 15:26
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:Self sufficiency for modern arms is an absolute fool's errand unless you are a polity the size of the EU, China, USA, Russia, and India. Even India barely can do what they need to for self sufficiency. But they are getting better.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2019 15:52
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:Self sufficiency for modern arms is an absolute fool's errand unless you are a polity the size of the EU, China, USA, Russia, and India. I probably wouldn’t include India there. They really, really don’t have many domestic success stories.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2019 15:54
|
|
|
Mazz posted:I probably wouldn’t include India there. They really, really don’t have many domestic success stories. At the moment no. Arguably they’re a great example of what I was taking about above with regards to saving money buying off the shelf stuff and reinvesting in infrastructure and education with the savings. But 50 or 100 years from now assuming they straighten out a lot of their other problems? They’re big enough to support it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2019 16:04
|
|
|
Mazz posted:I probably wouldn’t include India there. They really, really don’t have many domestic success stories. They have the right-size for self-sustainment; just not the right skills. Building up these skills is hard an takes a lot of time and money. Maintaining them is a continuous investment. Losing them, on the other hand, is extremely fast.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2019 16:06
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:Self sufficiency for modern arms is an absolute fool's errand unless you are a polity the size of the EU, China, USA, Russia, and India. I'm not sure the EU counts as a 'polity' for, well, anything defence related including procurement. Doubly so with Brexit, of course.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2019 16:09
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:I'm not sure the EU counts as a 'polity' for, well, anything defence related including procurement. Doubly so with Brexit, of course. It definitely doesn't, but Brexit might actually help. Of course if you really wanted the EU to count as a polity for defense purposes, then what you'd really need is for NATO to dissolve, or at least for the USA to leave it. That would be the kick in the pants needed for European countries to take their capacity for self-defense seriously. Of course, nobody actually wants that. Except possibly Trump, so measures were taken: https://www.defensenews.com/congress/2019/01/23/us-house-votes-overwhelmingly-to-bar-us-exit-from-nato/
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2019 16:23
|
|
|
EvilMerlin posted:You ain't kidding. "Bringing back the F-22 line would take less than $200 million, “a fraction of the costs seen in previous line restarts of other weapons systems,” Alison Orne, a Lockheed spokeswoman, said by email, citing preliminary analysis." This is followed by a USAF Spokeswoman stating that the tooling is being stored for sustainment purposes only, but LOL if you believe anything the PAO has to say. While the current Air Force's party line may be that they are not building new F-22s, the Air Force doesn't dictate that policy and it could easily change in the future.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2019 16:39
|
|
|
SimonCat posted:"Bringing back the F-22 line would take less than $200 million, “a fraction of the costs seen in previous line restarts of other weapons systems,” Alison Orne, a Lockheed spokeswoman, said by email, citing preliminary analysis." Again, the tooling simply isn't available and was destroyed: https://www.defenceaviation.com/201...ction-line.html
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2019 16:47
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Ok but I suppose my question is why does Canada need those skills? Why does Canada need to be doing tank research? Would it not be better served with the people who would be training to support an industry that can be entirely replaced by just buying some leos or abrams training for other industries and fields? Sure the kid who grows up in Alberta and really wants to design tank armor might end up in the US but that path runs both ways. If you have another industry that’s bee supported instead (say deep sea arctic mineral extraction) then the kid from Milwaukee who really thinks manganese nodules are cool might end up in Ontario. I see where he's coming from with this, and while tank research isn't the best example, I'll do one better: Space exploration in the US. After the Shuttle program got underway, NASA basically stopped doing R&D on rockets and we lost an entire generation to private industry. Hell, if it weren't for ULA/SpaceX/Blue Origin we may not even have domestic launch capabilities. Yes, NASA is working on a new launch system now, but by the time it's operational we'll have spent 10 years relying on foreign countries to put our astronauts in space. Is this an important capability? I can see the argument both ways, but I personally say yes. And I think giving it up by relying on the Shuttle and private industry for so long was a mistake, especially considering the list of other countries with significant capacity is mostly Russia and China - not what you'd consider close allies.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2019 16:58
|
|
|
EvilMerlin posted:Again, the tooling simply isn't available and was destroyed: Again, that assertion isn't supported by the link you've provided. The word "destroyed" doesn't appear at all in that article and all it says is that the tooling wasn't in the crates it was supposed to be in. Where is it? Who knows. But the assertion that the F-22 tooling has been destroyed is not supported by this article.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2019 17:08
|
|
|
EvilMerlin posted:Again, the tooling simply isn't available and was destroyed: The is the second time you've posted an article that doesn't support your assertion. What both articles to support is the idea that it is possible but the Air Force wants a new jet and not more F-22s, ostensibly because they will be obsolete by 2035. Meanwhile we will still be running the B-52 till the 2050s.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2019 17:09
|
|
|
Shooting Blanks posted:I see where he's coming from with this, and while tank research isn't the best example, I'll do one better: Space exploration in the US. After the Shuttle program got underway, NASA basically stopped doing R&D on rockets and we lost an entire generation to private industry. Hell, if it weren't for ULA/SpaceX/Blue Origin we may not even have domestic launch capabilities. Yes, NASA is working on a new launch system now, but by the time it's operational we'll have spent 10 years relying on foreign countries to put our astronauts in space. Ok but we’re not taking about the US, a country big enough to spin up and sustain these programs and which has clear national security needs for them. Using the space example: does Canada need its own launch capabilities compete with a Bombardier rocket engine design team, or does it make more sense to piggy back on friendly countries that have mature programs and focus on areas that make sense for them to contribute? Like, say, robotics and precision industrial machinery. Not just the physical things but the software to run them. The kind of tech that might result in robots for loading nuclear reactors which could be repurposed for maneuvering payloads in space. Some kind of “Canadian arm” that could be used by American orbits vehicles and get them a seat at the table with NASA and the various USAF/DoD groups doing poo poo in space. Edit: You might even get a multi billion dollar aeronautics modeling and software firm out of that kind of deal. Cyrano4747 fucked around with this message at 17:33 on Jan 25, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2019 17:28
|
|
|
It probably makes sense for Canada to pick a couple of specific things to do itself, like Sweden with fighters. On the national security front, having one thing you aren't beholden to others on is better than none, makes you more attractive for potential security partners should your current arrangements break down, and has some industrial benefit. But it should be stuff they're, uh, good at, so ships probably aren't a good choice.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2019 17:36
|
|
|
Note that I’m not questioning capability rot being a thing. It very much is and can happen quickly. It’s just that it needs to be a capability that is worth preserving. Take mine sweepers: the USN let that capability degrade dangerously during the Cold War because we figured NATO allies would have our backs on that front if WW3 happened and the soviets were mining the channel. But then Iran started loving around and we decided to escort tankers and whoops everyone isn’t jumping right in with us and now we’re having serious problems. The US absolutely has a national security need for minesweeping. Arguably Belgium does not because if their harbors are being mined they’re in a badly hosed situation that won’t be fixed by a few sweepers. Edit: ^^^ If they want to be the mine sweeper experts and export sweepers and buy American air protection with their sweeping prowess maybe it makes sense again
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2019 17:39
|
|
|
Comrade Gorbash posted:It probably makes sense for Canada to pick a couple of specific things to do itself, like Sweden with fighters. Maybe, maybe not. The test for this is, can we do it better in-house than by buying it from elsewhere? In some cases the answer will be yes; in most cases the answer will be no. For ships, the answer is very definitely no.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2019 17:42
|
|
|
Basically the thing I object to is people throwing money at dying industries to protect a relatively small number of jobs when that money could be much better spent creating new industries and jobs and helping the areas most affected manage the situation. Sometimes there are reasons to prop them up but a lot of the arguments you see the most focus on how this $10 billion contract will protect a thousand jobs.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2019 17:43
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Note that I’m not questioning capability rot being a thing. It very much is and can happen quickly. It’s just that it needs to be a capability that is worth preserving. Serious problems is giving them some benefit of the doubt too. We have the Avenger class. Which is already doubted. We lost one because it hit a loving reef, and being a wood hulled ship... it didn't fare well. The US only built 14 of them (all in the late 80's and early 90s). Two decomissioned already and one was a total hull loss (the Guardian). Of these four are in the Middle East, four Japan and 3 in California. Now its expected that the LCS's will do the job that minesweepers and mine countermeasure ships did. Except that the LCS's WILL NOT be doing any type of EOD to neutralize the mines... EvilMerlin fucked around with this message at 17:57 on Jan 25, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2019 17:53
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:. I get the point you're making but this happens to be a bad example. Dutch and Belgian minehunters are kept quite busy dealing with North sea UXO and minehunting is arguably the primary focus of the Belgian navy. In fact Belgium is in charge of the project replacing both Dutch and Belgian minehunters, while the Netherlands will develope a class of frigates that will also replace the existing 2 Dutch built Belgian Frigates.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2019 17:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 15:41 |
|
|
I feel like Canada should be taking the lead in crafting long range interceptors and tanks that double as Zambonies to create runways.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2019 17:57
|
|
