Retour aux nouvelles

14 novembre 2019 | Information, Aérospatial, Naval, Terrestre, C4ISR, Sécurité

The real obstacle for reforming military spending isn’t in the defence ministry. It’s the Treasury Board

KEN HANSEN

Ken Hansen is an independent defence and security analyst and owner of Hansen Maritime Horizons. Retired from the Royal Canadian Navy in 2009 in the rank of commander, he is also a contributor to the security affairs committee for the Royal United Services Institute of Nova Scotia.

For people inside the Department of National Defence, a minority Parliament – coupled with election promises for increased social spending and tax cuts – represents an uneasy calculus.

Defence spending is always on the chopping block because it represents the largest pool of discretionary spending in the federal budget, and every party spent the recent federal election campaign being vague about military policy – offering some kind of oversight-body reform or scrutiny over the billions of dollars that have been earmarked, even as they lent their support to ensuring the military has the equipment it needs.

In particular, the single largest program in Canadian defence history – the Canadian Combat Ship plan for 15 warships – will be a tantalizing target for politicians looking to get rid of perceived fat. Such cuts to shipbuilding programs have even already become normalized: The order for Halifax-class frigates were trimmed to 12 from 18 in 1983 and the Iroquois-class destroyers to four from six in 1964, to name just two.

The political leaders weren't wrong when they said the military procurement system is broken. But regardless of which party had won this past election, and no matter what tweaks at the edges that the Liberal minority government and its potential supporters pursue, the reality is that the core issue remains unaddressed: Treasury Board's bulk approach to purchasing the country's military kit.

Treasury Board policy states that bulk buys are how military procurement should be done, to ensure the lowest per-unit cost. But this forces tough decisions about what to buy, since the larger the order, the longer it will take to produce them all – not to mention the problems involved with trying to predict the future of warfare.

Information systems become outdated in five years; weapons and sensors in 10. With a planned operating life of 25 years, any ships ordered today will be out-of-date by the time the first are delivered, and fully obsolete by the time the last one arrives. Block purchasing leads to block obsolescence.

Traditionally, when technological change threatens to render military systems obsolete, the best way to hedge was to order in batches of the smallest number acceptable. In the years before the world wars, for instance, countries working to build competent naval forces put less emphasis on fleet numbers and more on technology and industrial capacity until the last moments before conflict. Technological competence was as important as numbers for fleet commanders.

Another outcome of bulk buys is that the volume means that they happen only every two to three decades (or longer, in the worst cases). With such lengthy dry spells between purchases, it is impossible to retain corporate knowledge in either the defence or civilian branches of government.

More frequent purchasing keeps the process alive in both practice and concept, with lessons learned that can be implemented by the same people who made the mistakes in the first place.

Such irregularly timed purchases have created desperation among defence planners whose vision of the future consists of short golden days of competence and pride, followed by long years of rust-out and irrelevance. Unwittingly, the dark decades were in large part of the military's own making because of its desperate desire to acquire the absolute best model available – a practice known as “gold-plating” – instead of working steadily to build capacity and skill that would address long-range fleet needs.

This is a collision of interests. The Treasury Board looks only at capital-acquisition decisions from the perspective of the buyer. It's left to the military to worry about how long they may have to operate obsolescent or obsolete equipment and systems, and to do the necessary mid-life upgrading, which is partly why costs balloon spectacularly. Life-cycle cost data is actually far more important that the initial sticker shock of the newest and shiniest model advocated by the military's leadership. The mindset needs to change.

Politicians who implement bureaucratic change will probably see some improvements in decision-making. But the biggest obstacle to defence procurement is that bulk purchasing is our lone approach, and that it happens only every few decades. Regular, planned capital acquisition is the best path forward, but all paths to the future must first run through the Treasury Board. No amount of political policy adjustment can change that.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-the-real-obstacle-for-reforming-military-spending-isnt-in-the-defence/

Sur le même sujet

  • Defense Innovation Board Adopts AI Testing, Digital Workforce Recruitment Resolutions

    17 septembre 2020 | Information, Autre défense

    Defense Innovation Board Adopts AI Testing, Digital Workforce Recruitment Resolutions

    Mila Jasper The Defense Innovation Board convened for its fall public meeting Tuesday and approved resolutions for two key federal technology issues in addition to broadening its work on space. The board, which is comprised of national security technology innovators, formed a new space subcommittee to support the Space Force and heard from Michael Kratsios, acting undersecretary of defense for research and engineering, and U.S. chief technology officer. But the need for better testing protocols for artificial intelligence systems and strategies the Defense Department could adopt in order to attract digital talent took center stage at the meeting. The board adopted resolutions after robust discussions for both issues. Challenges in AI Testing No proven methods for testing and evaluating nondeterministic AI systems—meaning less predictable, more adaptable AI systems—exist. Daniela Rus, a roboticist with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said it is critical to have strong procedures for testing, evaluation, verification, and validation, or TEV/V, of artificial intelligence in order to create enough confidence in the technology to deploy it. “The department has been articulating the importance of accelerating the deployment of these systems,” Rus said, citing DOD's adoption of the board's AI ethics principles. “We have seen a lot of efforts in developing AI accelerator programs that will take the latest and greatest advancements in AI from research organizations and map them into processes and procedures for the department. We hope to have these in place, but in order to get there we need to have rigorous, robust procedures for testing.” The main reason testing for these types of autonomous systems is so challenging is uncertainty. Board member Danny Hillis, a pioneer in parallel computing, said uncertainty comes in three directions: from the function, the inputs and the outputs. Hillis suggested the board should use these three areas of uncertainty to guide its thinking when it comes to providing recommendations for TEV/V. The resolution adopted by the board argues DOD must develop its own TEV/V solutions as soon as possible, rather than wait for external solutions, in order to be ready to deploy AI systems in the short term. The board's science and technology subcommittee hopes to have two reports—one for a backgrounder and another for recommendations—on TEV/V for AI by December of this year. “Without a strong push for education and training on this topic and a diverse range of testing programs at the developmental and operational levels, DoD will have difficulty assessing its current TEV/V processes and determining next steps to improve its AI TEV/V capability,” the resolution reads. Competing for Digital Talent Later in the meeting, the DIB turned its attention to workforce issues. Jennifer Pahlka, a founder of the U.S. Digital Service and Code For America, led the group's discussion on competing for digital talent. Pahlka said the coronavirus pandemic and remote work trends could help the department attract talent if it develops new strategies to help it compete with the private sector. “As private sector remote work trends are changing how employers compete for digital talent, DOD has the opportunity to take advantage of these trends and be more competitive for civilian talent in this new environment,” Pahlka said. DOD and the federal government in general struggles to fill talent gaps for several reasons, including long hiring timelines. A recent report by the Partnership for Public Service found the average hiring timeline for the federal workforce is 98 days, or more than twice the private sector average. The paper DIB released to accompany the discussion detailed five recommendations for what to do to attract digital talent. Overall, DOD should develop strategies to maintain a remote and distributed workforce even beyond the pandemic. Pahlka added that though the recommendations focus on attracting digital talent, she hopes the same principles outlined can be expanded across the workforce. In the past, common wisdom said the Pentagon couldn't do mass telework. Since the onset of the coronavirus pandemic, DOD had to adapt, and fast. Lisa Hershman, the chief management officer for the Defense Department, said in July the pandemic “shattered the myth” DOD couldn't support remote work. According to the DIB's report, DOD should now focus on expanding its IT infrastructure and make sure it has the tools it needs to maintain remote work as well as expand the agency's capabilities to do classified work remotely. The report also recommends DOD work on improvements to the remote hiring process, prioritize changing the agency's culture around remote work and “consider dedicated remote work pilot programs to recruit and fill critical civilian technical talent gaps at priority organizations.” “The subcommittee believes the DOD is really at an inflection point for talent management,” Pahlka said. Pahlka and three other members of the DIB including former Google CEO Eric Schmidt ended their terms on the board. Member terms last four years. https://www.nextgov.com/emerging-tech/2020/09/defense-innovation-board-adopts-ai-testing-digital-workforce-recruitment-resolutions

  • Trousse d’information pour les fournisseurs : Comment obtenir une attestation de sécurité

    12 février 2023 | Information, Autre défense

    Trousse d’information pour les fournisseurs : Comment obtenir une attestation de sécurité

    Cette trousse d’information fournit un accès rapide et facile aux ressources et aux outils conçus pour aider votre organisation à obtenir une attestation de sécurité avec le Programme de sécurité des contrats (PSC) de Services publics et Approvisionnement Canada. La trousse passe en revue les étapes que votre organisation et vos employés doivent suivre avant de soumissionner ou d’exécuter des travaux dans le cadre d’un contrat du gouvernement fédéral comportant des exigences de sécurité. Sous chaque étape, vous trouverez des liens vers des ressources, des guides, des vidéos et du matériel de formation en ligne. Ces ressources et outils donneront à votre organisation et à vos employés des conseils pratiques sur la manière de réaliser les activités d’enquête de sécurité, remplir les formulaires connexes, et se conformer aux exigences du PSC. Sections Étape 1 : Exigences de sécurité et types d’attestation de sécurité Comprenez quelles sont les exigences de sécurité et quel type d’attestation de sécurité votre organisation pourrait avoir besoin pour soumissionner ou exécuter des travaux dans le cadre d’un contrat du gouvernement fédéral. Étape 2 : Parrainage Découvrez comment votre organisation doit être parrainée pour faire l’objet d’une enquête de sécurité auprès du PSC. Étape 3 : Enquête de sécurité sur l’organisation Découvrez les principales étapes que votre organisation devra franchir et les principaux formulaires qu’elle devra remplir pour faire l’objet d’une enquête auprès du PSC. Étape 4 : Enquête de sécurité sur le personnel Une fois que le PSC a effectué l’enquête, apprenez comment votre organisation peut demander le niveau approprié d’enquête de sécurité sur le personnel pour les employés admissibles. Étape 5 : Sous-traitance Découvrez comment demander une enquête de sécurité pour les sous-traitants afin de vous assurer qu’ils satisfont aux exigences de sécurité d’un contrat du gouvernement fédéral. Étape 6 : Maintenir la conformité Comprenez ce que votre organisation et vos employés devront faire pour rester conformes aux exigences de sécurité d’un contrat du gouvernement fédéral. Renseignements supplémentaires Si vous avez des questions ou si vous avez besoin d’une aide personnalisée, n’hésitez pas à communiquer avec le centre de service à la clientèle du Programme de sécurité des contrats. Pour savoir où envoyer vos documents remplis, consultez comment soumettre les demandes, formulaires et autres documents pour la sécurité des contrats.   https://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/esc-src/ressources-resources/tif-its-fra.html

  • IRVING - RETOMBÉES CANADIENNES PLUS DE 1,9 MILLIARD $ EN ENGAGEMENTS DE DÉPENSES AUPRÈS DE PLUS DE 250 ORGANISATIONS AU CANADA.

    24 novembre 2017 | Information, Naval

    IRVING - RETOMBÉES CANADIENNES PLUS DE 1,9 MILLIARD $ EN ENGAGEMENTS DE DÉPENSES AUPRÈS DE PLUS DE 250 ORGANISATIONS AU CANADA.

    http://naviresducanada.ca/retombees-canadiennes

Toutes les nouvelles