Author Topic: Defining Foreign and Defence Policy (and hence our Military Force)  (Read 118688 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline George Wallace

  • Army.ca Fossil
  • *****
  • 426,325
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 31,384
  • Crewman
Re: Defining Foreign and Defence Policy (and hence our Military Force)
« Reply #600 on: June 12, 2017, 08:46:12 »
I happen to personally know the owner of the company that does this work.  Here is an interesting tidbit for you George, the rubber used isn't the best rubber but it is not the company doing this. 

Track pads and wheels use synthetic rubber instead of natural rubber.  The reason for this is because in WWII the Axis controlled nearly all the Worlds natural rubber supply.  There was a rubber shortage so it was mandated that track pads be made with synthetic rubber.

The problem is synthetic rubber is 4x the cost of natural rubber and has a lifespan that's a quarter that of synthetic rubber. 

He actually made a pitch to make track pads using natural rubber; however, the military refused to change their specs.  In the end, he is more than happy to take more money  ;D

...And we replaced roadwheels daily, if not more often, instead of weekly or longer.   [:(

We had roadwheels where the rubber actually caught fire (from the inside of rubber) in the middle of traces.  Roadwheels that may have been put on that very morning.  We then got very picky as to what the NSN were on the wheels.
DISCLAIMER: The opinions and arguments of George Wallace posted on this Site are solely those of George Wallace and not the opinion of Army.ca and are posted for information purposes only.
Unless so stated, they are reflective of my opinion -- and my opinion only, a right that I enjoy along with every other Canadian citizen.

Offline Humphrey Bogart

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 87,484
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,477
Re: Defining Foreign and Defence Policy (and hence our Military Force)
« Reply #601 on: June 12, 2017, 08:48:23 »
...And we replaced roadwheels daily, if not more often, instead of weekly or longer.   [:(

We had roadwheels where the rubber actually caught fire (from the inside of rubber) in the middle of traces.  Roadwheels that may have been put on that very morning.  We then got very picky as to what the NSN were on the wheels.

Yep, now if the military would get around to changing the specs, you could use natural rubber and only need to pound track once a week  ;D

Offline George Wallace

  • Army.ca Fossil
  • *****
  • 426,325
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 31,384
  • Crewman
Re: Defining Foreign and Defence Policy (and hence our Military Force)
« Reply #602 on: June 12, 2017, 08:57:16 »
Yep, now if the military would get around to changing the specs, you could use natural rubber and only need to pound track once a week  ;D

But how would you keep Tankers fit?
DISCLAIMER: The opinions and arguments of George Wallace posted on this Site are solely those of George Wallace and not the opinion of Army.ca and are posted for information purposes only.
Unless so stated, they are reflective of my opinion -- and my opinion only, a right that I enjoy along with every other Canadian citizen.

Online Bruce Monkhouse

    is thinking beach volleyball.

  • Lab Experiment #13
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 231,655
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 14,568
  • WHERE IS MY BATON?
    • http://www.canadianbands.com./home.html
Re: Defining Foreign and Defence Policy (and hence our Military Force)
« Reply #603 on: June 12, 2017, 08:59:13 »
But how would you keep Tankers fit?

And somehow you typed that with a straight face. :stirpot:
IF YOU REALLY ENJOY THIS SITE AND WISH TO CONTINUE,THEN PLEASE WIGGLE UP TO THE BAR AND BUY A SUBSCRIPTION OR SOME SWAG FROM THE MILNET.CA STORE OR IF YOU WISH TO ADVERTISE PLEASE SEND MIKE SOME DETAILS.

Everybody has a game plan until they get punched in the mouth.

Offline Humphrey Bogart

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 87,484
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,477
Re: Defining Foreign and Defence Policy (and hence our Military Force)
« Reply #604 on: June 12, 2017, 09:01:00 »
And somehow you typed that with a straight face. :stirpot:

Round is a shape  ;D

Offline MilEME09

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 33,030
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,415
Re: Defining Foreign and Defence Policy (and hence our Military Force)
« Reply #605 on: June 12, 2017, 10:00:18 »
Round is a shape  ;D

The hatch is round, so shouldn't the soldier be round to fit?  >:D
"We are called a Battalion, Authorized to be company strength, parade as a platoon, Operating as a section"

Offline Humphrey Bogart

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 87,484
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,477
Re: Defining Foreign and Defence Policy (and hence our Military Force)
« Reply #606 on: June 12, 2017, 10:15:38 »
The hatch is round, so shouldn't the soldier be round to fit?  >:D

Pear also works!  Who needs hatches when your love handles will catch you if you happen to get blown out of the turret  ;D

Also, You should always have a Reserve!  I think a nice beer belly fits the bill!

Offline Good2Golf

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 166,445
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,773
  • Dammit! I lost my sand-wedge on that last jump!
Re: Defining Foreign and Defence Policy (and hence our Military Force)
« Reply #607 on: June 12, 2017, 13:06:12 »
That is quite the rag! Read this article too. It's a couple years old, but I doubt they have changed their mind since then. There are a few doozies in there.

"A Canadian Defence and Security Policy for the 21st Century"
http://www.ceasefire.ca/?p=20741

Does anyone know in contrast to a "staggering $62B" [more] spent on defence in the next 20 years, what adjective would be used to describe the approximately $340B* spent on EI in the same period? ???

Regards
G2G

* - Annual Financial Report of the Government of Canada for Fiscal Year 2015–2016

Offline MCG

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 188,525
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,431
Re: Defining Foreign and Defence Policy (and hence our Military Force)
« Reply #608 on: June 12, 2017, 14:30:03 »
Generally, lowest cost compliant has been a discouraged selection criteria for major projects as it is not seen to get good value.
Good. Has this helped?
Good question.  I don't know, but you will have seen its outputs.  It has been over a decade now that the philosophy in ADM(Mat) has been that lowest cost compliant is the wrong procurement method for new capabilities or major equipment.  Instead, they talk about "best value for money" which really boils down to recognizing that spending more to get something better often pays off in lower lifecycle costs, longer equipment relevance (ie. does not need to be replaced as soon), and/or greater operational capability.  So, we define the minimum compliance standard and then some calculus to compare cost and performance above minimum compliance across all proposals.  This will have made a difference both in the proposals that industry has packaged together in response to RFPs (they know they can get more money by offering something that exceeds the minimum requirements) and in the proposals that are eventually selected by the project team. 

However, I worry that we lack the professional competencies to always craft beneficial statements of requirement or cost-per-point selection criteria.  On the Army side, we send people to our requirements staff without having put them through technical staff training, and we have people with technical staff training who spend little to no time in requirements staff.  The RCEME capbage is seemingly believed to imbue the wearer great abilities in the field of capitol equipment procurement projects, when what we really need is expert civilian procurement project managers who take the outputs of the requirement staffs and then buy the things we need; the RCEME capbadges should focus on maintenance management (which could include in-service equipment management, and it should include inputs to requirement writing) and leave strategic purchasing to professionals in that field.

If you really want to nit pick...
No.  It is not nit picking to want to differentiate between some guy's assumptions and known facts when having an informed discussion.  This goes directly to the credibility, value and weight to be given to statements being made.  So, you made a blanket statement based on assumption but presented as though it were truth in order to segue into a broad-brush slagging of people that you don't even know. When a little light was shone onto the assumption, you doubled down with decades old examples (at least one going back to 4 CMBG and potentially both being linked to your lowest-cost conclusion by, again, an assumption) and threw-out "nit pick" to trivialize the distinction between facts vs "invented facts".   I too have had "conversations with some people a little closer to the inner workings of those decision makers" (in fact, for a brief period I was one of those people), and I have followed a few SITREPS through this site that indicated there were trials involved in the selection process that you have written off as just being handed to the lowest bidder.  Maybe one does not agree with the conclusion of those trials, but that is a different story.  Based on my observations it appears to me that the foundational premise, in your argument accusing "penny pinching" procurement officers of not caring for the troops, is probably wrong.  More so than malice, individual incompetencies and/or a dysfunctional system could be the driving factor(s) behind symptoms that you see.

Offline Remius

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 63,485
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,328
Re: Defining Foreign and Defence Policy (and hence our Military Force)
« Reply #609 on: June 12, 2017, 15:21:32 »
The adoption of Performance Based Contracting comes to mind.  How well it is being used or understood is another matter but other countries seem to be doing well by it.
Optio

Offline suffolkowner

  • Member
  • ****
  • 9,130
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 240
Re: Defining Foreign and Defence Policy (and hence our Military Force)
« Reply #610 on: June 12, 2017, 18:12:21 »
16. Modernized CH-146
17. Modernized CH-149
18. New ground based air defence systems.

To the person you were responding to - it would be a good idea to read the plan before criticizing it, I'd say.

i had the GBAD but missed the ISR platform to augment SOF, i wonder if they are thinking of king airs or maybe something more substantial based on the global express?

Do the Germans use natural rubber on their tanks?

Offline Eye In The Sky

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 177,835
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,422
    • VP INTERNATIONAL
Re: Defining Foreign and Defence Policy (and hence our Military Force)
« Reply #611 on: June 12, 2017, 21:01:07 »
ISR platform to augment SOF, i wonder if they are thinking of king airs or maybe something more substantial based on the global express?


http://army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,111835.0.html

MAISR project.
The only time you have too much gas is when you're on fire.

Offline jmt18325

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 21,310
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,175
Re: Defining Foreign and Defence Policy (and hence our Military Force)
« Reply #612 on: June 13, 2017, 00:08:38 »
i had the GBAD but missed the ISR platform to augment SOF, i wonder if they are thinking of king airs or maybe something more substantial based on the global express?

I missed both that part of your list, and the ISR part of the review.  Thanks for pointing it out.

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 54,430
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,558
  • Two birthdays
    • Currently posting at Canadian Defence & Foreign Affairs Institute's "3Ds Blog"
Re: Defining Foreign and Defence Policy (and hence our Military Force)
« Reply #613 on: June 13, 2017, 10:50:40 »
Idea been around a while, see from 2014 (King Air airframe):

Quote
RCAF Acquiring (a few) ISR Planes from US for Special Forces[?]
https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2014/10/20/mark-collins-rcaf-acquiring-a-few-isr-planes-from-us-for-special-forces/


Mark
Ottawa
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Offline Humphrey Bogart

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 87,484
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,477
Re: Defining Foreign and Defence Policy (and hence our Military Force)
« Reply #614 on: June 14, 2017, 00:06:27 »
i had the GBAD but missed the ISR platform to augment SOF, i wonder if they are thinking of king airs or maybe something more substantial based on the global express?

Do the Germans use natural rubber on their tanks?

At least in NATO, everyone uses synthetic rubber now because it's the spec.  In WWII, 95% of natural rubber at the time was grown in SE Asia.  One of the first things the Japanese did was seize control of all the rubber plantations in Indonesia immediately gaining control of the world supply of natural rubber.  A massive industrial effort commenced to develop synthetic alternatives and also ration rubber.

Natural Rubber is now grown elsewhere and it would be far more difficult to completely choke off supply. 

You can read a bit about it here:

http://historyofrubber.weebly.com/wwii.html

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 101,060
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,813
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Defining Foreign and Defence Policy (and hence our Military Force)
« Reply #615 on: June 14, 2017, 15:09:02 »
Natural rubber does not like ethanol and woe to thee that uses the wrong brake fluid in a English vehicle with natural rubber seals.

Offline Humphrey Bogart

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 87,484
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,477
Re: Defining Foreign and Defence Policy (and hence our Military Force)
« Reply #616 on: June 14, 2017, 15:24:30 »
Natural rubber does not like ethanol and woe to thee that uses the wrong brake fluid in a English vehicle with natural rubber seals.

This is true; however, for track pads this wouldn't be as much of an issue.  Now if we were talking about hoses, we would be having a different conversation.

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 185,110
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,831
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Defining Foreign and Defence Policy (and hence our Military Force)
« Reply #617 on: June 14, 2017, 15:35:03 »
This is true; however, for track pads this wouldn't be as much of an issue.  Now if we were talking about hoses, we would be having a different conversation.

Just keep the zipperheads away from the distillery and you should be golden.
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline recceguy

    A Usual Suspect.

  • At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child – miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied, demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless. Liberalism is a philosophy of sniveling brats. -P.J. O’Rouke-
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 240,572
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 17,502
  • doddering docent to the museum of misanthropy
    • Army.ca
Re: Defining Foreign and Defence Policy (and hence our Military Force)
« Reply #618 on: June 15, 2017, 00:20:32 »
Just keep the zipperheads away from the distillery and you should be golden.

Yeah, like that'll ever happen. ::)

 :tank2:
“I am a Canadian, free to speak without fear, free to worship in my own way, free to stand for what I think right, free to oppose what I believe wrong, or free to choose those who shall govern my country. This heritage of freedom I pledge to uphold for myself and all mankind.”

John G. Diefenbaker

Offline Thucydides

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 182,515
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,205
  • Freespeecher
Re: Defining Foreign and Defence Policy (and hence our Military Force)
« Reply #619 on: June 19, 2017, 14:52:19 »
Missing from this discussion is what is missing from the new Defence budget: a clear outlining of Canada's National Interests, the Grand Strategy to achieve or execute the interests and a realistic assessment of what sorts of resources and manpower we have and are willing to employ in the furtherance of these interests.

Edward has written some very good assessments of this in the past in other threads (it would be nice to gather them up again), and it would be even better if Parliament and the Canadian public would discuss these issues openly. If the majority of the Canadian public are not interested in spending money on defense and are willing to accept the consequences (to essentially become someone else's client and have no independent voice), then at least put it out in the open so *we* are not flailing around in a vacuum.
Dagny, this is not a battle over material goods. It's a moral crisis, the greatest the world has ever faced and the last. Our age is the climax of centuries of evil. We must put an end to it, once and for all, or perish - we, the men of the mind. It was our own guilt. We produced the wealth of the world - but we let our enemies write its moral code.

Offline jmt18325

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 21,310
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,175
Re: Defining Foreign and Defence Policy (and hence our Military Force)
« Reply #620 on: June 19, 2017, 16:58:24 »
Missing from this discussion is what is missing from the new Defence budget: a clear outlining of Canada's National Interests, the Grand Strategy to achieve or execute the interests and a realistic assessment of what sorts of resources and manpower we have and are willing to employ in the furtherance of these interests.

Wasn't the first part of this covered by Minister Freeland?  Doesn't the document quite specifically lay out the deploy-able manpower envisioned by this strategy?

Offline Monsoon

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 21,820
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 767
Re: Defining Foreign and Defence Policy (and hence our Military Force)
« Reply #621 on: June 19, 2017, 22:52:20 »
Missing from this discussion is what is missing from the new Defence budget: a clear outlining of Canada's National Interests, the Grand Strategy to achieve or execute the interests and a realistic assessment of what sorts of resources and manpower we have and are willing to employ in the furtherance of these interests.

Edward has written some very good assessments of this in the past in other threads (it would be nice to gather them up again), and it would be even better if Parliament and the Canadian public would discuss these issues openly.
Only relatively few powers have actually ever had a proper Grand Strategy, and it's debatable if Canada is enough of a world power to warrant having one. Of those that did have a Grand Strategy, I can't think of even one that ever had a public debate about what it should be. Rather, the strategies tend to evolve over the course of generations driven by only a few leaders and, more often then not, what other folks might refer to as the so-called "deep state". Grand Strategies are effectively the embodiment of a power's organizational cultural approach to the world, not a product of consultations and white papers.

Offline Thucydides

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 182,515
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,205
  • Freespeecher
Re: Defining Foreign and Defence Policy (and hence our Military Force)
« Reply #622 on: June 19, 2017, 23:19:36 »
I'll settle for a clear definition of our National Interests, since everything else can be derived from that.
Dagny, this is not a battle over material goods. It's a moral crisis, the greatest the world has ever faced and the last. Our age is the climax of centuries of evil. We must put an end to it, once and for all, or perish - we, the men of the mind. It was our own guilt. We produced the wealth of the world - but we let our enemies write its moral code.

Offline jmt18325

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 21,310
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,175
Re: Defining Foreign and Defence Policy (and hence our Military Force)
« Reply #623 on: June 20, 2017, 11:11:44 »
It looks like CSE will be the cyber attack agency:

https://twitter.com/alexboutilier/status/877181494120382464

Offline jmt18325

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 21,310
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,175
Re: Defining Foreign and Defence Policy (and hence our Military Force)
« Reply #624 on: June 20, 2017, 21:45:46 »
$600M to be added to this year's DND budget in the fall estimates:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/dnd-budget-boost-1.4170340?cmp=rss