When the procurement process takes 15 years and the CF is asked to fight a war; then maybe the CDS is right to give the bureaucrats a little heat.

The bureaucrats have been taking too damn long, over analyzing every minute blessed detail.

Asking troops to fight ill prepared due to lagging equipment; is to hand troops another Dieppe brainchild.

How many Sea Kings have gone down due to aged airframes because the political level consistently dawdled over procurement decisions? Gee the EH-101 decision got footballed since 1991.

Sometimes, you need newer toys like this one to keep up with battlefield conditions:

http://www.raytheon.com/products/stellent/groups/public/documents/content/cms01_057935.pdf

The old 'Panzerfaust' comes of age with IR guidance at a standoff distance of 2500 meters.

The general idea is to 'Stand on Guard for Thee' rather than be asleep at the switch. If Gen. Hillier has to "kick a few keesters" to get the equipment required; then maybe the bureaucrats/politicians will be more timely in their delivery.

Our erstwhile government were masters at dawdling and balancing the budget for personal enrichment; as we learned through the Gomery Commission.

Sometimes as we have discovered, the 'enemy is us'.

this is cute

Product: C-17 Globemaster
Need: Giant cargo planes for "strategic lift"
Possible usage: Bringing armoured vehicles to combat zones
Those quotes around the words strategic lift imply some kind of funny business happening - Why ??

Maybe we should refer to DANIEL LEBLANC as “Journalist” ( yes I know he broke ADSCAM)

Perhaps if had written for Possible Uses

Long Haul Re-supply missions to CFS Alert in the Arctic
Long haul Re-supply of basic food, medical and logistics cargo to support the Afghan Reconstruction Mission
Rapid response for the Canadian Forces in the event of Natural Disasters anywhere in the world, providing the ability to get the RoPu Water purification units and our DART teams to any location on the globe within 24 hours

I could go on. Listing flying armoured vehicles to combat zones is a use of the aircraft, but it will be so infrequent as to be the 101st task on a 100 task list.

Sahme Daniel, you are better than this little drive by smear.

Been getting your info from out-of-work Lieberals ??

I have always been skeptical of civilians procuring the "best deal" for the military. This procurement process is nothing more than a simple servant make-work-for-a-long-time program. If the military were listened to then if they needed say boots then I think the soldiers would know which boot they would want, what has worked for them in the past, the brands they trust and what other forces are using. Instead we get study groups to determine if the boots can be made in quebec, if it is the right Canadian content and if there is a shoe factory in shiwinigan. Bottom line is the grunt will spend a lot of time tying shoelaces together and putting in old copies of the G&M into his boots to patch the hole.
Remember the CF-5? Not what we needed but, hell, we got a good deal for Canadair. CF-18 refit??? Same deal. rifles??? Let's make them in Canada for more than we have to pay off the shelf. It's the canadian way.

I find Mr. Williams' concerns about the procurement process totally misplaced. The real problem arises from having to tailor the manufacturing of military hardware to the needs of various political factions, who lobby to have contracts rigged to provide jobs in favoured ridings. Recall the overt monkeying with the CF-18 purchase in the Mulroney years? This kind of interference is the real cause of additional and unnecessary costs.

A sensible procurement procedure would have Canada purchase military hardware from whoever offers the best deal, regardless of where the products are built or by whom.

as the librano/dipper crowd has demonstrated over the years, every time politics comes into the procurement process, soldiers die....can anyone say Iltis????I agree that some oversight is required, but to allow some tree-hugging, berkenstock sandal wearing idiot in the loop can only lead to soldiers dying...remember, these are the same idiots who said "soldiers will be on our streets", and "Canadian soldiers are terrorists"

In general I like competitive bids and a competitive bid process. However, if the need is clear then you buy.

The Sea Kings was a different story. That was politically driven cancellation which helped Cretin win the election. Once that happened then there was no way he could order new helicopters without looking like an even bigger idiot.

While 5% on a multi hundred million dollar purchase is not an insignificant anmount of money, the writer correctly identifies that it is needs that properly drive the purchasing process.

As long as people are comfortable that there arent bribes going around then there is nothing wrong with not running a full process. But it takes LEADERS to know when to break the rules appropriately. Hillier is a leader, Harper is a leader....get the order done.

Mr. Williams is right on the mark.

Well Dennis , sounds like you have never had to get anything done ... what would you do , have the military stand at the nearest airport and try to "thumb" a ride?

Besides it makes good political sense to buy from the US (to whom Canada export 80%+ ). The other contenders are France and Russia ... what have they ever done to help Canada?

It also makes good technical sense as there is a large pool of spare parts in the US military which in a pinch could be accessed ... providing Canada maintains good relations with the US.

Having been involved in some major tender projects on the industry side , my personal feeling about the so called competitive tendering process , is that with major projects it tends to come off the rails ... witness the hated Iltis jeeps which Bombardier changed from diesel to gas , and the Bombardier trucks whose brakes squeal so loud in a dusty environment that they may as well be fitted with sirens to announce their presence.

In addition all too often the bureaucrats use the drawn out tendering process to visit all sorts of international locales and be wined and dined over a period of several years at the taxpayers expense as far as T&L is concerned ... the food & wine are paid by the potential bidders.

right on willy...how many Canadian soldiers would be alive today if we would have purchased hummers off the shelf, instead of the deadly "g wagon"...oh, how the libranos love to purchase eqpt from the euro weenies...librano anti-americanism has cost the lives of soldiers....as some old soldiers call it, the dippers reaped the 'peace dividend', Canadian soldiers reaped the "death dividend"...from one old soldier, thanks for nothing librano ass@#$%s

Mr Williams wants us to believe that Hillier is commenting and acting on some new development. As a experienced soldier/NDHQ type, Gen Hillier knows our history is full of politically motivated military purchases:

- Ross Rifle
- Leopard Tank
- Bomarck Missile
- CF 18, including refits
- Frigates
- Sea King replacement; and our favourite
- Iltis

Note I'm saying these weren't good kit; some were, some weren't. What is wrong with buying "off shelf" for some of our needs? One of the problems is we must have some Canadianized version, which ends of costing more without delivering more capability.

The greatest example of the bureaucratic model of military purchases is the Sea King replacement. The cancelled EH-101 is still the best helicopter for our needs, 13 years after it was cancelled. The Sikorsky replacement was already obsolete then too. We will end up spending about a billion dollars more than necessary to get a far less capable helicopter (incapable of protecting ship), at least 15 years late.

So, if we are to choose between the Hillier or the Williams approach, I'll take the general every time.

Kudos for bringing this to light Kate. Here's hoping our military finally gets the equipment they've needed for the last two decades.

Several posts over the last few days on various blogs have pointed up the role of the unelected bureaucrats in hindering government policy in Canada and elsewhere.

The power of the bureaucrats is enormous: they have made government infrastructure grow to almost ungovernable size. They "work the system" they themselves developed and put in place. These people are careful to pretend everything is done for "the taxpayer". Result: hundreds of thousands of civil service drones, dozens and dozens of very highly paid senior mandarins with perks and privileges galore, and a need for the governing political party to kow-tow to these suppposed "public servants" or risk the kind of leaks we see here vis-a-vis defence procurement.

Have we learned nothing from "Yes, Minister"?

Note, right at the bottom of the story:

"In a recent book, Reinventing Canadian Defence Procurement, Mr. Williams said the military is using its power to set out technical requirements for new equipment to shut out products from the process.

"Mr. Williams is advocating the creation of a body that would be responsible for major purchases from DND and Public Works Canada."

I have no doubt that the odius Williams sees himself as top civil servant in such a farcical operation.

"Recall the overt monkeying with the CF-18 purchase in the Mulroney years?"

Actually I don't. So perhaps you can expand on this topic. The purchase of CF-18's was arranged in the late 70's, with the first planes arriving in 1982. Mulroney was first elected in 1984. Are you referring to the decision to contract out maintenance to Canadair of Montreal over Bristol Aerospace located in Winnipeg?

I should also like to note that the Liberals did the same thing in awarding Bombardier a maintenance contract in 1996.
Clearly there is a problem with governmental interference in military purchases and all arrows point in the same direction, the same province, the only province, to oppose Canada' participation in any war, for the past one hundred years. They don't want the war, just the jobs.

The bureaucrat says "I support the troops but not their need for supplies."

Bureaucrat's are the problem on so many levels.

I agree with pretty much everyone here. Get rid of bureaucraps. Instead, MP's will type their own memos and enact their own bills. Wait. No they're part of the problem too. Ok. We all vote for one guy (go Harper!) who will make every decision, and then go out and do it. We'll double his salary and use the saving to cut our taxes to 0.01 cents per year. Enough to pay Harper and buy the parts for a new helicopter that Harper will then build.

Thank goodness Mr Williams is now retired. Although I agree with the general premise of public tender for most equipment purchases, it has to be conducted expeditiously. Quite obviously that is not the case.

Like many bureaucrats Mr. Williams focusses on the "extra five points" of cost but is blithely ignorant of offsetting costs of maintaining old equipment during this period and the cost of maintaining a huge purchasing bureaucracy in Ottawa. By eliminating these costs the "extra five points" might easily be recouped.

Comments on "the hated Iltis":

I was still wearing a green suit to work when they were introduced, and we didn't hate them, we LOVED them. Anyone who dislikes the Iltis doesn't remember what it replaced. The Iltis had a top speed of over 110 km/h (145-150 with a little tinkering)vs 80km/h for the old 'jeep' if you got a very good one. It was light enough to swim, and 6 big guys could pick it up.
"Bombardier changed from diesel to gas" ?!? I don't remember ever seeing a Canadian Iltis with a diesel motor, and most of the (West) German ones I saw had gasoline motors too.
I suspect that the problems that some of you remember or heard about with the Iltis is the same as the problems with so much very good Canadian kit... we kept using it way, _waaaay_ past its "sell before" date.

And Texas Canuck, it's true that our 'M16' (the Diemaco C7 & C8) is more money than the Colt product, it's also a much better rifle, ask Colt, that's why they bought the company.

Kingstonlad, Why didn't we buy Hummers? Have you ever seen one of those pigs? It's as freakin' wide as a Kenworth !! And damn near as much money.
Unfortunately the G-Wagen was the best pick of a crappy (and very small) crowd. The only ones I've driven had the "turret ring" installed in the roof (do all the Canuck units come like that?), and no armour kit (I'm a civvy MD-04 sometimes), and on the same curve that I'd take at 80km/h in an Iltis or at 50km/h in a MLVW (big 2.5 tonne truck) at 50km/h in the G-Wagen the Warrant Officer in charge of my section witnessed me lift the inside wheels off the ground, we both thought it was going over (I didn't get my 404's updated that day!).

Albert4: The Army's Peugeots really do need updating!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peugeot_404

Mark
Ottawa

Iltis Jeep

Loved perhaps , but Alberta4 , thankfully the Iltis never saw much action in a shooting war , and were quickly retired in Afghanistan. Any vehicle powered by gasoline is a potential deathtrap in combat ... witness the WW2 Sherman tank ( below ) and the nicknames it got. One would have thought that DND would have had enough brains not to buy a gas powered vehicle in the first place.

Sherman Tank (WW2)
-----------------
Early Sherman models were prone to burning at the first hit. The Sherman gained grim nicknames like "Tommycooker" (by the Germans who referred to British soldiers as "Tommys"), The British called them "Ronsons", after the cigarette lighter with the slogan "Lights up the first time, every time!" and Polish Tankers referred to them as "The Burning Grave".
http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/M4_Sherman

The Iltis was a light/fast recce and transport vehicle with virtually no offensive or defensive capability, except speed.
It is one step above motorcycle, which is one step above dismounted (the famed "leather personel carrier").

Isn't it funny that the original WW2 Jeep didn't get a rep as a deathtrap, even though the dreaded gasoline tank was right under the front seat?
Surely you can see the difference between the job done by a tank or APC and the job of a "jeep".