Justin Trudeau hints at boosting Canada’s military spending

I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[MJP]

As per the AG report, many stock items are set to 0, meaning we carry none on hand, si they need to be made(sometimes), then shipped to us from the OEM. Some of these items were locked at 0, despite parts scaling and usage demanding they be held at higher quantities.

Your not wrong, but our supply system isn't helping our VOR rates.

Having no min/max set doesn't mean we don't hold stock for any particular item. It just means that automatic system replenishment won't occur if stock is drawn down to zero at a particular location. That system setting is known as planned demand (PD) which means as needed, stock will be ordered and there is no attempt to manage holdings and keep a set amount at any one level. Most stock in the system has no stock levels set at any level, it is our norm.

If a PD occurs for an item that has no stock at 1st/2nd or 3rd line it then creates a purchase req to the relevant Equipment Management Team (EMT) within ADM(MAT). That demand is then rolled up by the Supply Manager & Technical Authority who will in turn work with procurement authority to get parts from vendors through some form of contracting (call up on standing offer, FMS, new contract etc). In most cases for CA equipment there is no automatic message going from DND/CAF to manufacturers telling them we need something. The TAPV does have that feature and technically has a modern parts scaling model. I have my suspicions why it isn't working well but it is ironically the most modern parts strategy the CA utilizes.

and not based in data. Maybe adjusted on anecdotes, but not guided by data.

Lost a quote in the copy paste. Definitely not based in data, it is usually the control office or ETQMS saying "hey spare parts set a min of x and max of y for that part" usually done after some oh my gawd we don't have that part "emergency". DGLEPM/LEMS has really dropped the ball getting the CA properly oriented when it comes to spare parts scaling IMHO.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Having no min/max set doesn't mean we don't hold stock for any particular item. It just means that automatic system replenishment won't occur if stock is drawn down to zero at a particular location. That system setting is known as planned demand (PD) which means as needed, stock will be ordered and there is no attempt to manage holdings and keep a set amount at any one level. Most stock in the system has no stock levels set at any level, it is our norm.

If a PD occurs for an item that has no stock at 1st/2nd or 3rd line it then creates a purchase req to the relevant Equipment Management Team (EMT) within ADM(MAT). That demand is then rolled up by the Supply Manager & Technical Authority who will in turn work with procurement authority to get parts from vendors through some form of contracting (call up on standing offer, FMS, new contract etc). In most cases for CA equipment there is no automatic message going from DND/CAF to manufacturers telling them we need something. The TAPV does have that feature and technically has a modern parts scaling model. I have my suspicions why it isn't working well but it is ironically the most modern parts strategy the CA utilizes.


Lost a quote in the copy paste. Definitely not based in data, it is usually the control office or ETQMS saying "hey spare parts set a min of x and max of y for that part" usually done after some oh my gawd we don't have that part "emergency". DGLEPM/LEMS has really dropped the ball getting the CA properly oriented when it comes to spare parts scaling IMHO.

AI to the rescue!

AI can speed procurement timelines, streamline processes, state official says

One North Carolina official said AI is helping the state speed along certain parts of its procurement processes.

Since adopting the new process, timelines have been reduced to 120 days, rather than the usual 360 days, he said.

AI can speed procurement timelines, streamline processes, state official says | StateScoop

One North Carolina official said AI is helping the state speed along certain parts of its procurement processes.

statescoop.com

 

[MJP]

AI to the rescue!

AI can speed procurement timelines, streamline processes, state official says

One North Carolina official said AI is helping the state speed along certain parts of its procurement processes.

Since adopting the new process, timelines have been reduced to 120 days, rather than the usual 360 days, he said.

AI can speed procurement timelines, streamline processes, state official says | StateScoop

One North Carolina official said AI is helping the state speed along certain parts of its procurement processes.

statescoop.com

We will use AI in 2123 when our robot overlords make us.

 

[Navy_Pete]

Having no min/max set doesn't mean we don't hold stock for any particular item. It just means that automatic system replenishment won't occur if stock is drawn down to zero at a particular location. That system setting is known as planned demand (PD) which means as needed, stock will be ordered and there is no attempt to manage holdings and keep a set amount at any one level. Most stock in the system has no stock levels set at any level, it is our norm.

If a PD occurs for an item that has no stock at 1st/2nd or 3rd line it then creates a purchase req to the relevant Equipment Management Team (EMT) within ADM(MAT). That demand is then rolled up by the Supply Manager & Technical Authority who will in turn work with procurement authority to get parts from vendors through some form of contracting (call up on standing offer, FMS, new contract etc). In most cases for CA equipment there is no automatic message going from DND/CAF to manufacturers telling them we need something. The TAPV does have that feature and technically has a modern parts scaling model. I have my suspicions why it isn't working well but it is ironically the most modern parts strategy the CA utilizes.


Lost a quote in the copy paste. Definitely not based in data, it is usually the control office or ETQMS saying "hey spare parts set a min of x and max of y for that part" usually done after some oh my gawd we don't have that part "emergency". DGLEPM/LEMS has really dropped the ball getting the CA properly oriented when it comes to spare parts scaling IMHO.

Fun fact, even with min/maxs set the PD function is fully manual, without sufficient resources (people or money) to do it. It was turned off in the first year or two of DRMIS when someone calculated the NICP potential bill.

What actually happens (at least on the navy side) is high priority demands come in from the units, we pad that out as much as we can without delaying the procurement (exceeding thresholds that add time to posting on buy&sell, DPS bureaucracy etc) and then play the waiting game. After the SMs get through that, they move onto expedited demands from our repair facilities, then if they have time pick away at the giant pile of PDs (which we have manually prioritized).

We generally set our max levels now at about 3 years worth of stock because that's about how long we expect for someone to get back to sending out a replacement purchase.

On the plus side, with bigger quantities, we tend to get a lot more interest on bids. For a lot of stuff if we have to HPR small quantities just for a unit, it can lead to no actual bids because it isn't worth the ass pain of a GoC procurement. And companies will also give us minimum quantity buys with a premium if they have to re-tool, but if you are spending $1M+ on small valves they will put in the effort.

 

[daftandbarmy]

We will use AI in 2123 when our robot overlords make us.

Merry Christmas from Chiron Beta Prime

 

[Kirkhill]

Fun fact, even with min/maxs set the PD function is fully manual, without sufficient resources (people or money) to do it. It was turned off in the first year or two of DRMIS when someone calculated the NICP potential bill.

What actually happens (at least on the navy side) is high priority demands come in from the units, we pad that out as much as we can without delaying the procurement (exceeding thresholds that add time to posting on buy&sell, DPS bureaucracy etc) and then play the waiting game. After the SMs get through that, they move onto expedited demands from our repair facilities, then if they have time pick away at the giant pile of PDs (which we have manually prioritized).

We generally set our max levels now at about 3 years worth of stock because that's about how long we expect for someone to get back to sending out a replacement purchase.

On the plus side, with bigger quantities, we tend to get a lot more interest on bids. For a lot of stuff if we have to HPR small quantities just for a unit, it can lead to no actual bids because it isn't worth the ass pain of a GoC procurement. And companies will also give us minimum quantity buys with a premium if they have to re-tool, but if you are spending $1M+ on small valves they will put in the effort.

One difference between the Navy and the Army, surely, is that in the Navy the CO wants to know that all the holes are plugged before he leaves the quay. In the Army the CO just leaves a bunch of stuff in the hangar and carries on.

 

[MilEME09]

Having no min/max set doesn't mean we don't hold stock for any particular item. It just means that automatic system replenishment won't occur if stock is drawn down to zero at a particular location. That system setting is known as planned demand (PD) which means as needed, stock will be ordered and there is no attempt to manage holdings and keep a set amount at any one level. Most stock in the system has no stock levels set at any level, it is our norm.

If a PD occurs for an item that has no stock at 1st/2nd or 3rd line it then creates a purchase req to the relevant Equipment Management Team (EMT) within ADM(MAT). That demand is then rolled up by the Supply Manager & Technical Authority who will in turn work with procurement authority to get parts from vendors through some form of contracting (call up on standing offer, FMS, new contract etc). In most cases for CA equipment there is no automatic message going from DND/CAF to manufacturers telling them we need something. The TAPV does have that feature and technically has a modern parts scaling model. I have my suspicions why it isn't working well but it is ironically the most modern parts strategy the CA utilizes.


Lost a quote in the copy paste. Definitely not based in data, it is usually the control office or ETQMS saying "hey spare parts set a min of x and max of y for that part" usually done after some oh my gawd we don't have that part "emergency". DGLEPM/LEMS has really dropped the ball getting the CA properly oriented when it comes to spare parts scaling IMHO.

Literally part of DRIMIS is automatic parts scaling based on demand and usage. That doesn't happen if an item is artificially locked at 0 by managers. When SAR units (a specific example from the AG report) get parts weeks after they need them because items were set to 0, that's a problem, a big one.

 

[Navy_Pete]

One difference between the Navy and the Army, surely, is that in the Navy the CO wants to know that all the holes are plugged before he leaves the quay. In the Army the CO just leaves a bunch of stuff in the hangar and carries on.

Not so much, and there have been a few million dollar pumps left on the jetty recently to rust to shit, or somehow lost. Pretty neat feat for a 2000 lb unit, which is being tracked as a critical spare, and if ships don't have enough they don't sail.

A few of them had to be written off because of the damage. Replacement lead time is 2-3 years.

Lots of things kicking around the dockyards in plywood crates outside instead of in a building as well, and weirdly salty wet air and bad weather is bad for expensive machinery.

We're changing some of it so spares are issued to the FMFs (and then FMF does the returns) so at least things aren't left outside to slowly turn into rust, get knocked by a plow into the harbour or otherwise rendered unusable.

 

[Navy_Pete]

Literally part of DRIMIS is automatic parts scaling based on demand and usage. That doesn't happen if an item is artificially locked at 0 by managers. When SAR units (a specific example from the AG report) get parts weeks after they need them because items were set to 0, that's a problem, a big one.

Garbage in, garbage out; the suggested min/max can be right out to lunch for various reasons. We review them and dutifully update it annually, so very few are actually set at zero where it's not deliberate.

But having a min/max set still does nothing if the procurement isn't done when it hits the minimum level. That doesn't happen because we don't have enough people to buy all the widgets.

Have been through this with several thousand NSNs for the last 4 years with a few hundred successful buys, and it's a very labour intensive process. The only thing that is automated in DRMIS is a flag goes up when your stock levels are below you min. TAs and SMs still have to do the paperwork, create an RFP, answer bid questions, do the evals etc.

Just before xmas some Supply DRMIS gurus dropped the MI module, that now tracks everything based on the manufacturer's NCAGE and part number, vice the NSN and broke a bunch of things in the supply system. Now there is an extra step to catalogue a specific manufacturer P/N and associate it with an NSN, and still a bit murky how that works for something with dozens of acceptable parts. Even something simple like having the same part number from the same OEM from a different source (ie US supplier vice Canadian supplier) screws things up because they have a different NCAGE.

And some genius also decided that all valid 5 2 type items (ie acceptable alternate parts, vice 3 2 type which is the primary part) were canceled automatically. So people had things like parts couldn't be accepted at BLog because the system wiped out the cataloging info, or the data transfer was wrong, or some other weird and wonderful things aren't working now.

Not sure who greenlit that and decided NSNs wouldn't be the key datapoint, but probably DRMIS people who have no actual experience in SM/LCMM funcitons, or were limited to something very specific like aircraft, where you only use OEM parts and there are no substitutions. For the rest of us, it's really common for some things to have a few dozen acceptable suppliers, and more get added on as different bidders win.

It's a shit show, so glad to be on holiday and will be a January problem to see what else has broken. We only had about a week before block leave so expecting a lot of new landmines when we get back.

 

[MJP]

Fun fact, even with min/maxs set the PD function is fully manual, without sufficient resources (people or money) to do it. It was turned off in the first year or two of DRMIS when someone calculated the NICP potential bill.

What actually happens (at least on the navy side) is high priority demands come in from the units, we pad that out as much as we can without delaying the procurement (exceeding thresholds that add time to posting on buy&sell, DPS bureaucracy etc) and then play the waiting game. After the SMs get through that, they move onto expedited demands from our repair facilities, then if they have time pick away at the giant pile of PDs (which we have manually prioritized).

We generally set our max levels now at about 3 years worth of stock because that's about how long we expect for someone to get back to sending out a replacement purchase.

On the plus side, with bigger quantities, we tend to get a lot more interest on bids. For a lot of stuff if we have to HPR small quantities just for a unit, it can lead to no actual bids because it isn't worth the ass pain of a GoC procurement. And companies will also give us minimum quantity buys with a premium if they have to re-tool, but if you are spending $1M+ on small valves they will put in the effort.

PD is manual period, you can set all the min/max you want but if the material is set on PD in the material master record (MMR) for a MRP/plant then they don't come into effect. You have change the MRP profile setting (usually to ZSZ1 but there are lots of profiles) on the MMR at the MRP or plant level to get some form of automatic replenishment for max/mins. PD and setting of MRP profiles is most definetly not turned off for most items. I have seen EMTs remove min/max set by units for a variety of reasons.

Regardless, the fact someone thought that a demand at the EMT level would cost money highlights our institutional lack of understanding of how our system even works. An order through PD or automatic replenishment driven by a breach of a min still needs someone to do the procurement. Nothing costs money (less institutional costs) until you do that procurement. Until then any order at that level is just a demand signal, not a cost.

Literally part of DRIMIS is automatic parts scaling based on demand and usage. That doesn't happen if an item is artificially locked at 0 by managers. When SAR units (a specific example from the AG report) get parts weeks after they need them because items were set to 0, that's a problem, a big one.

No it doesn't. An important distiction is SAP ECC 6.0(core SAP module for DRMIS) has the ability to do scaling based on usage, we using DRMIS do not utilize that feature. We have/had a program to do that called Defence Resource Planning (DRP) that is set to sunset soon but had very little usage within the EPMs. We are in the process of getting a newer program likely based on SAP through the Material Planning & Forecasting project. Even if an EMT used DRP they would need to then translate the forecast into min/maxes at the depot level and potentially down to 2nd/1st line level for it to be useful for the field force as it wasn't automatic.

I get what you are saying, running out would cause delays as it is only a "hey purchase this" demand signal to the EMT and they in turn would would have to go out and procure the part. That said, the center (DAEPM in the case for SAR) setting PD or not setting a min/max for a part for a SAR plane does not mean we can't hold that part. It just means that any parts held will not send a demand signal to the the team managing that part until 1st, 2nd, & 3rd Line have exhausted their supply of parts. There is more nuance than that as it also relies on supply relationships (who supplies who) set in the system. PD works ok for a good portion of our stock holdings, but I would agree that critical parts need some sort of strategy other than use till exhausted demand signal.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

As per the AG report, many stock items are set to 0, meaning we carry none on hand, si they need to be made(sometimes), then shipped to us from the OEM. Some of these items were locked at 0, despite parts scaling and usage demanding they be held at higher quantities.

Your not wrong, but our supply system isn't helping our VOR rates.

That's not "just in time" supply. That's just under-resourcing yourself.

We don't use a Just In Time delivery model, that would imply a level of sophistication we don't have. We leverage the same model we always have, with parts at each level with scaling. Generally though scaling is ad hoc, locally managed, doesn't follow any recognized model and largely useless.

A "Just in Time" delivery model requires constant modification, monitoring and most of all, flexibility. The CAF system isn't flexible and rarely if ever modifies its processes which is why it doesn't get what it needs in a timely manner.

 

[Navy_Pete]

@MJP on our side, our current proposal is for a massive ISSC on the mechanical side to basically do the the procurement of parts and tech data, so that instead of many thousands of part buys the procurement work is managing a contract, and then SMs and LCMMs can focus on things like actual technical issues and critical supply management instead of jumping through hoops. It's ambitious and going to be expensive but bit of a hail mary to try and do something that actually works with the limited pools of people we have. There are so many obsolete components, sub systems, and main systems that it's hard to know where to even start. The estimate for that one is north of $1B for the CPFs to end of life, and expect it would expand for something like CSC. Most of that cost is just to buy spares and do obsolescence replacements, which is a lot of RFPs at $100k or less for most purchase orders.

At the moment that's working it's way through the SBCA process (another new approval gate) which is now part of the initial stages of option analysis for projects, and requires people from PSPC and ISED to support, so their personnel shortages is slowing that down as well. I don't know if I'll see a decision before I'm eligible for a pension in 2030 but worth a try anyway.

The new MMR process is another big kick in the junk though; already challenging to manage spares without all of a sudden a new labour intensive process with numerous gates added on.

 

[Navy_Pete]

That's not "just in time" supply. That's just under-resourcing yourself.


A "Just in Time" delivery model requires constant modification, monitoring and most of all, flexibility. The CAF system isn't flexible and rarely if ever modifies its processes which is why it doesn't get what it needs in a timely manner.

JIT works great, but requires a lot of ongoing resupplying and a very updated understanding of the entire supply chain, which we don't have the people to do either function, let alone both. It alsosacrifices resiliency for 'efficiency' though by limiting warehousing, and really bit some very big companies in the ass during COVID. It doesn't actually make sense for the military or any other organization that needs contingency plans and the ability to surge for new things, but at least there are somethings like supply arrangements to at least make it easy to order readily avaible consumables locally from a pre-approved list with the contracting already done.

Not really sure if they are changing at all, but wouldn't be surprised if some of those companies adjusted their JIT to more a 'reduced warehousing' model so they have more of a buffer for supply chain disruptions, which includes things like extreme weather a lot more frequently now. I think some of the car plants were running on something like an 8-12 hour supply so doesn't take long for an issue in one plant to trickle through an entire assembly across multiple plants basically shutting down, then also a cascade to get back up and running.

 

[MJP]

Garbage in, garbage out; the suggested min/max can be right out to lunch for various reasons. We review them and dutifully update it annually, so very few are actually set at zero where it's not deliberate.

But having a min/max set still does nothing if the procurement isn't done when it hits the minimum level. That doesn't happen because we don't have enough people to buy all the widgets.

Have been through this with several thousand NSNs for the last 4 years with a few hundred successful buys, and it's a very labour intensive process. The only thing that is automated in DRMIS is a flag goes up when your stock levels are below you min. TAs and SMs still have to do the paperwork, create an RFP, answer bid questions, do the evals etc.

Just before xmas some Supply DRMIS gurus dropped the MI module, that now tracks everything based on the manufacturer's NCAGE and part number, vice the NSN and broke a bunch of things in the supply system. Now there is an extra step to catalogue a specific manufacturer P/N and associate it with an NSN, and still a bit murky how that works for something with dozens of acceptable parts. Even something simple like having the same part number from the same OEM from a different source (ie US supplier vice Canadian supplier) screws things up because they have a different NCAGE.

And some genius also decided that all valid 5 2 type items (ie acceptable alternate parts, vice 3 2 type which is the primary part) were canceled automatically. So people had things like parts couldn't be accepted at BLog because the system wiped out the cataloging info, or the data transfer was wrong, or some other weird and wonderful things aren't working now.

Not sure who greenlit that and decided NSNs wouldn't be the key datapoint, but probably DRMIS people who have no actual experience in SM/LCMM funcitons, or were limited to something very specific like aircraft, where you only use OEM parts and there are no substitutions. For the rest of us, it's really common for some things to have a few dozen acceptable suppliers, and more get added on as different bidders win.

It's a shit show, so glad to be on holiday and will be a January problem to see what else has broken. We only had about a week before block leave so expecting a lot of new landmines when we get back.

Every L1 was GTG with MI, the concept and the way forward, but I get the sense taking to my EMT friends that they were not very well informed. It did lots of good things cleaning our junk pile of 5 million records and putting some rigor when it came to MMR creation that didn't exist before as anyone could request and get an item catalogued (the best example was there was something like 25 different 10 ft ladder records in the system).

It also allowed the DSC to receipt/use a material right away as the previous process to get an NSN # assigned would take months, causing us to create PSCNs just to get material into the system and then re-identifying it down the road when the NSN was assigned. Now the record can be created and used right away and the NSN added later as an attribute. The NSN only needs to be added if that material is going to be used in a NATO context, so if it just something for domestic use then no needs to codify it with an NSN

I do agree they did a poor job when it came to 5 2 & 3 2 parts. I don't know why their ruleset did those conversions as they should have just stayed as the NSNs. That was my understanding of what was supposed to happen and then the EMTs over time would determine how things should be held. It has led to some problems at the depots where only the TA can clarify what we are recieving and what we should hold it as.

I do giggle a bit though that our poor material management practices is being exposed by MIs issues/mistake(s) however I do understand that it is a bit of a kick in the teeth for some.

@MJP on our side, our current proposal is for a massive ISSC on the mechanical side to basically do the the procurement of parts and tech data, so that instead of many thousands of part buys the procurement work is managing a contract, and then SMs and LCMMs can focus on things like actual technical issues and critical supply management instead of jumping through hoops. It's ambitious and going to be expensive but bit of a hail mary to try and do something that actually works with the limited pools of people we have. There are so many obsolete components, sub systems, and main systems that it's hard to know where to even start. The estimate for that one is north of $1B for the CPFs to end of life, and expect it would expand for something like CSC. Most of that cost is just to buy spares and do obsolescence replacements, which is a lot of RFPs at $100k or less for most purchase orders.

At the moment that's working it's way through the SBCA process (another new approval gate) which is now part of the initial stages of option analysis for projects, and requires people from PSPC and ISED to support, so their personnel shortages is slowing that down as well. I don't know if I'll see a decision before I'm eligible for a pension in 2030 but worth a try anyway.

The new MMR process is another big kick in the junk though; already challenging to manage spares without all of a sudden a new labour intensive process with numerous gates added on.

Ack and yea given the scope and work it is probably the best way to manage something of that complexity. OCFC2 is a smaller example of that, make someone else do the contracting heavy lifting, we just want the effect not the noise.

As a PG I could slide over to almost any EPM, but man I tell ya I have no desire to fight the procurement tide because it is never ending.

 

[markppcli]

From a previous posting

View attachment 81930

View attachment 81931


82 Tanks with 21% serviceable = 17 tanks
555 LAV 6 with 58% serviceable = 322 LAV 6
500 TAPV with 48% serviceable = 240 TAPV

The expectation seems to be that we need 390 LAV 6s to field 6 LAV 6 Battlegroups at 70% strength (2/3)
Or
We could field 4 LAV 6 Battalions at 100% if we had 390 LAV6s

But we only have 322 runners.
That means 233 in the shop.

In addition the institution eats up 555-390 = 165
So assuming that the institution gets first dibs on the 322 runners that leaves 157 runners for the three field formations.

From the table above the expectation is that a Brigade (each of the Divisions listed only has one Brigade) requires 130 LAV 6.

Net effect - the field army can only field two LAV 6 Battle Groups with enough left over for a Company Combat Team.

And if there are only 17 serviceable MBTs and the institutions require 22 that doesn't leave much left for deployment - not to mention training would be challenging.

Interesting that the G4 maint felt that publishing DRMIS data wasn’t a breach. I always assumed it was protected.

 

[dapaterson]

Interesting that the G4 maint felt that publishing DRMIS data wasn’t a breach. I always assumed it was protected.

Reads like a paper from JCSP at CFC. There are a range of "interesting" papers available from there; I'd be curious to know if any threat / risk assessment was done prior to the decision to make them avaiable to the broad public.

 

[Good2Golf]

Matt Gurney today.
Merry Christmas Canada, we're fucked.

Matt Gurney: Are we lying about our values, or do we just think everything will fix itself?

Fourteen months after Chrystia Freeland went to D.C. to say what the democracies must do, we are not doing those things.

www.readtheline.ca

What?!? Words by themselves don’t matter?

I have quickly become addicted to the Line and the Hub podcasts.

Investment in a relatively independent media, well spent. Go Matt and Jen!

 

[FJAG]

I can't help but think that the problems with recruiting/retention and the high VOR rates are signs of a complacent leadership that has taken it's eyes off the ball. 30-40% VOR rates should have long ago have resulted in the appointment of a maintenance czar and an Op Reconstitution for equipment. Don't know what to do with the light battalions? Here's an idea; turn them into two maintenance and one logistics battalion.

Our old, clunking tracked army in the 80s, after two decades of service, when we still used paper service requisitions, had a much lower VOR rate.

 

[KevinB]

@FJAG that’s because the CA hadn’t totally taken its eye off the ball (or the Bear…) then.

 

[MJP]

I can't help but think that the problems with recruiting/retention and the high VOR rates are signs of a complacent leadership that has taken it's eyes off the ball. 30-40% VOR rates should have long ago have resulted in the appointment of a maintenance czar and an Op Reconstitution for equipment. Don't know what to do with the light battalions? Here's an idea; turn them into two maintenance and one logistics battalion.

Our old, clunking tracked army in the 80s, after two decades of service, when we still used paper service requisitions, had a much lower VOR rate.

There is something to be said about resourcing our maintenance assets properly. Much of the manning still looks as if we were trying to fix 1960s to '80s vehicles which had the total of like 10 parts and were relatively easy to fix. I don't know if it's still holds true but in recent years out West we moved maintainers from 3rd battalion over to the LdSH to help balance out the work load that tanks have, but that was just rebalancing with the numbers we have so it is was a zero sum game