Canada's new C6A1 Flex General purpose MG

[Cameron SS]

The contract was only announced end of July. I'm pretty sure it was a directed procurement (i.e. sole source), so you would not see it on BuySell.

There would still be an ACAN, and a public statement of requirements that would let people see what is being provided for in the contract, and at what price.

I think you are right about procurement, for the most part, and the Canadian publics inability to rationalize costs and appreciate the need for big ticket items.

THe Conservatives definitely didn't do themselves any favours with their changes to procurement from 2006-2009, but I feel those changes were less about accountability and buying good kit, and more about attacking perceived largesse in public spending and politically awarded spending.

No defense sector in Canada is large enough to withstand being hitched to any political party, and "liberal gravy train" is just a myth, at least as far as defense spending in concerned.

All the added checks and balances that the conservatives added did way more harm to procurement, and actually reinforced the old liberal mentality of procurement which was to plan to buy the perfect equipment for the job, and then use it to death for 100 years. Pushing everything to the end of its life cycle is a terrible plan. And the conservatives made it worse by making it take twice as long to buy anything, so now we have a navy that is barely operational, and staring down the barrel of a massive capability gap in the airforce.

I have no problem with expensive kit, expensive contracts, or even well paid suppliers. Typically those suppliers are reinvesting into the next cycle of RandD anyways. The biggest issue I have with procurement is the self licking ice cream cones called project offices within DND and PWGSC. Case in point. Close Combat Vehicle. Between multiple SOI, RFIs, Public Tenders, Trials and Evaluations, they spent almost 100 million dollars and in the end, realized that we didn't actually need what the army said they desperately needed (If you believe them). Integrated Soldier System Project: spent over 70 million dollars trying to define a requirement for a system no one was convinced we needed, held three tenders, and took almost 8 years to pick a winner, only for the technology to be obsolete before the contract was written, all to purchase less than 15 million dollars worth of kit, and the army still doesn't have a road map for implementation.

We are definitely a big fan of letting perfect be the enemy of the good. We should be buying half as much stuff, twice as often. So that way we can continuously evolve our requirements and capabilities with a shorter half live to better capture technological innovation.

The Canadian Tax payers loose a lot of money on regulatory compliance, and the only people who benefit from this compliance are the bureaucrats who administer it, which directly means less gear for the soldiers, and less other stuff for everyone else.

In Australia, they can buy equipment in less than half the time we can, which guarantees newer stuff gets to the troops faster

 

[259bravo]

There would still be an ACAN, and a public statement of requirements that would let people see what is being provided for in the contract, and at what price.

I think you are right about procurement, for the most part, and the Canadian publics inability to rationalize costs and appreciate the need for big ticket items.

THe Conservatives definitely didn't do themselves any favours with their changes to procurement from 2006-2009, but I feel those changes were less about accountability and buying good kit, and more about attacking perceived largesse in public spending and politically awarded spending.

No defense sector in Canada is large enough to withstand being hitched to any political party, and "liberal gravy train" is just a myth, at least as far as defense spending in concerned.

All the added checks and balances that the conservatives added did way more harm to procurement, and actually reinforced the old liberal mentality of procurement which was to plan to buy the perfect equipment for the job, and then use it to death for 100 years. Pushing everything to the end of its life cycle is a terrible plan. And the conservatives made it worse by making it take twice as long to buy anything, so now we have a navy that is barely operational, and staring down the barrel of a massive capability gap in the airforce.

I have no problem with expensive kit, expensive contracts, or even well paid suppliers. Typically those suppliers are reinvesting into the next cycle of RandD anyways. The biggest issue I have with procurement is the self licking ice cream cones called project offices within DND and PWGSC. Case in point. Close Combat Vehicle. Between multiple SOI, RFIs, Public Tenders, Trials and Evaluations, they spent almost 100 million dollars and in the end, realized that we didn't actually need what the army said they desperately needed (If you believe them). Integrated Soldier System Project: spent over 70 million dollars trying to define a requirement for a system no one was convinced we needed, held three tenders, and took almost 8 years to pick a winner, only for the technology to be obsolete before the contract was written, all to purchase less than 15 million dollars worth of kit, and the army still doesn't have a road map for implementation.

We are definitely a big fan of letting perfect be the enemy of the good. We should be buying half as much stuff, twice as often. So that way we can continuously evolve our requirements and capabilities with a shorter half live to better capture technological innovation.

The Canadian Tax payers loose a lot of money on regulatory compliance, and the only people who benefit from this compliance are the bureaucrats who administer it, which directly means less gear for the soldiers, and less other stuff for everyone else.

In Australia, they can buy equipment in less than half the time we can, which guarantees newer stuff gets to the troops faster

To the Conservatives and real procurement I say that the 2008 crash really killed any chance of modernizing our military in all three branches. It all came down to money. That is the biggest downfall because a Harper minority was bent over to all opposition party's demands of stimulus spending. A point which now the Liberals especially like to forget that they had any hand in it. That they voted for half of the deficit budgets otherwise 2009 would have seen another election. It's pretty well time for an intervention when it comes to our high up military command. The way I see it we're so hog tied that we can only focus on one branch to make very potent instead of having 3 capable branches. The CF18's will be grounded before any replacements come online and same for the navy. We're going to have 1 private contracted AOR with frigates that are barely sea worthy. So we might as well invest in the Army because they still have a leg to stand on.

 

[259bravo]

I agree the ships will likely be around 2.5B each. The all up cost is a bloody expensive weapons package and strategic reserve of ordnance.

They won't reuse the cpf stuff, is basically obsolete and incapable compared to what everybody else runs now.

Maybe we can agree on something after all. I just don't buy it that the 15 ship replacement program is going to cost the government 60 billion and maybe upwards minus the maintenance contracts. I forsee the program rising to 80-100 billion for half assed junk in the end. Something is just off about that. That's what really gets me. Ship building is such a messed up industry in Canada when it comes to government contracts.

 

[NickVR]

Built in Kitchener!

 

[Claven2]

Maybe we can agree on something after all. I just don't buy it that the 15 ship replacement program is going to cost the government 60 billion and maybe upwards minus the maintenance contracts. I forsee the program rising to 80-100 billion for half assed junk in the end. Something is just off about that. That's what really gets me. Ship building is such a messed up industry in Canada when it comes to government contracts.

Much will depend on the design that is selected. If they are smart, they will choose something that already exists somewhere (ie. not Type 26), and they should resist the urge to canadainize a single thing until after the ships have been in service a little while - then do the upgrades at the FMFs that experience dictates to ACTUALLY be necessary.

But that won;t happen. The operators running requirements won't be able to help themselves and will want it modded all to hell and back at massive cost.

 

[Claven2]

I have no problem with expensive kit, expensive contracts, or even well paid suppliers. Typically those suppliers are reinvesting into the next cycle of RandD anyways. The biggest issue I have with procurement is the self licking ice cream cones called project offices within DND and PWGSC. Case in point. Close Combat Vehicle. Between multiple SOI, RFIs, Public Tenders, Trials and Evaluations, they spent almost 100 million dollars and in the end, realized that we didn't actually need what the army said they desperately needed (If you believe them). Integrated Soldier System Project: spent over 70 million dollars trying to define a requirement for a system no one was convinced we needed, held three tenders, and took almost 8 years to pick a winner, only for the technology to be obsolete before the contract was written, all to purchase less than 15 million dollars worth of kit, and the army still doesn't have a road map for implementation.

Not sure I agree with your view here - I've been astutely following defence procurement in the papers for years. The PM Officess aren't where the delays occur, by the time they are involved heavily, the project is approved by the forces and funded by Treasury Board. It's usually the requirements types that control the project process (and keep adding steps) and that can't make up their minds what they want, and the bataan death march to treasury board that kills progress in defence procurement. Devip Perry has written extensively on this mess.

If you can't get it through in a 4 year mandate, return to "go" and don't collect $200.

In CCV's case, it was the conservative gov't that killed it to re-direct the money toward a balanced budget announcement - for all the good it did them - they were defeated anyhow. This was plasteread all over the National Post of the day.

I'm less familiar with ISSP.

 

[Cameron SS]

Not sure I agree with your view here - I've been astutely following defence procurement in the papers for years. The PM Officess aren't where the delays occur, by the time they are involved heavily, the project is approved by the forces and funded by Treasury Board. It's usually the requirements types that control the project process (and keep adding steps) and that can't make up their minds what they want, and the bataan death march to treasury board that kills progress in defence procurement. Devip Perry has written extensively on this mess.

If you can't get it through in a 4 year mandate, return to "go" and don't collect $200.

In CCV's case, it was the conservative gov't that killed it to re-direct the money toward a balanced budget announcement - for all the good it did them - they were defeated anyhow. This was plasteread all over the National Post of the day.

I'm less familiar with ISSP.

The Conservative government was only able to kill it because it was 6 years behind schedule due to mismanagement of both the requirements and the evaluation process, twice.

ISSP was a similar story, they did two full trials and evaluations, and a third RFP, (technically it was the first one) cancelled before the trials even took place, each time because all of the bidders were deemed non compliant. I participated in the 3rd evaluation, and our technical response to the tender was a 3700 page document. It cost us almost 400,000 to participate in the last round of evaluations, but our all in project costs were over a million dollars, largely on account of the two previously cancelled RFPs, all for a chance to win a 9 million dollar contract. Right away the mismanagement of the requirements and RFP processes adds 10% to every bidders price, for the same product.

I hear you about the issues laying with the requirements guys. LVCTS is a pretty brutal example. Project is on the books for more than 6 years, and they still don't expect to have a definite statement of requirements for 4 more years. That's 10 years trying to figure out what they need, let alone what they want to buy, or how to buy it. Personally I think the biggest problem is that within DND people are constantly getting posted, and no one owns their project. I have heard stories from the UK where they will go to a line unit, pluck an officer and SNR NCO who are experts on a particular piece of kit, and say you are the officer for buying the replacements, and you don't get to go back to your home unit until you have delivered the equipment. In Canada, guys are constantly rotating through DLR, project offices and home units, and people spend half their catching up on what the previous guy did, or throwing it out and starting over cause they can't understand it.

Last company I worked for we had an ongoing maintenance contract for a piece of equipment lasting more than 12 years. WE had one project manager for those 12 years. When someone asked us why we did what we did 9 years ago, or if we ever go paid for it, he remembers, and has the files. On the DND side, over those 12 years he had 19 counterparts, longest serving being 11 months. No one had any records or recollection of anything that happened before they started.

All of this complexity, poor organization and now the conservatives procedural BS, all adds costs to the companies who deliver goods, with no benefit to the soldier and all the costs getting passed on to the tax payers.

 

[Claven2]

The Conservative government was only able to kill it because it was 6 years behind schedule due to mismanagement of both the requirements and the evaluation process, twice.

ISSP was a similar story, they did two full trials and evaluations, and a third RFP, (technically it was the first one) cancelled before the trials even took place, each time because all of the bidders were deemed non compliant. I participated in the 3rd evaluation, and our technical response to the tender was a 3700 page document. It cost us almost 400,000 to participate in the last round of evaluations, but our all in project costs were over a million dollars, largely on account of the two previously cancelled RFPs, all for a chance to win a 9 million dollar contract. Right away the mismanagement of the requirements and RFP processes adds 10% to every bidders price, for the same product.

I hear you about the issues laying with the requirements guys. LVCTS is a pretty brutal example. Project is on the books for more than 6 years, and they still don't expect to have a definite statement of requirements for 4 more years. That's 10 years trying to figure out what they need, let alone what they want to buy, or how to buy it. Personally I think the biggest problem is that within DND people are constantly getting posted, and no one owns their project. I have heard stories from the UK where they will go to a line unit, pluck an officer and SNR NCO who are experts on a particular piece of kit, and say you are the officer for buying the replacements, and you don't get to go back to your home unit until you have delivered the equipment. In Canada, guys are constantly rotating through DLR, project offices and home units, and people spend half their catching up on what the previous guy did, or throwing it out and starting over cause they can't understand it.

Last company I worked for we had an ongoing maintenance contract for a piece of equipment lasting more than 12 years. WE had one project manager for those 12 years. When someone asked us why we did what we did 9 years ago, or if we ever go paid for it, he remembers, and has the files. On the DND side, over those 12 years he had 19 counterparts, longest serving being 11 months. No one had any records or recollection of anything that happened before they started.

All of this complexity, poor organization and now the conservatives procedural BS, all adds costs to the companies who deliver goods, with no benefit to the soldier and all the costs getting passed on to the tax payers.

Yeah, from what I hear of the situation, many of the high profile PM jobs go to the LCol/Col community so those guys can check their box and make Brigadier. The civilian staff are supposed to be the continuity, but that doesn't really work out as they rarely put the civilians with professional PM training into pivotal roles. Subject Matter Expert by virtue of posting message...

Then there is the massive gap between boomers and millenials with almost nobody sitting in between in most government departments. So you either get somone who's figmo and counting the days, or a millenial with 10 minutes experience that thinks they are the Deputy Minister (or should be).

All that said, I still think the C6 GPMG procurement was a good deal and that the price is reasonable for the strategic capability the CA wanted when they issued the contract. There are far worse examples to point at.

 

[Cameron SS]

Yeah, from what I hear of the situation, many of the high profile PM jobs go to the LCol/Col community so those guys can check their box and make Brigadier. The civilian staff are supposed to be the continuity, but that doesn't really work out as they rarely put the civilians with professional PM training into pivotal roles. Subject Matter Expert by virtue of posting message...

Then there is the massive gap between boomers and millenials with almost nobody sitting in between in most government departments. So you either get somone who's figmo and counting the days, or a millenial with 10 minutes experience that thinks they are the Deputy Minister (or should be).

All that said, I still think the C6 GPMG procurement was a good deal and that the price is reasonable for the strategic capability the CA wanted when they issued the contract. There are far worse examples to point at.

Totally agree on the C6. If the number is a bit high, its not an order of magnitude high.

 

[Its_a_living]

For what it is worth, I am a CAF gunplumber and I think most of the upgrades to the C6 are unasked for and unnecessary. Upgrading the butt from wooden to Synthetic just like we did to the C3 sniper rifle isn't too bad, it isn't a drastic change, but it does eliminate a few problems with humidity and damage that wood is susceptible to. But for the roles our C6 is used in a quad rail and optic sight are superfluous. Mostly the GPMG is used to deliver fire in a "Beaten Zone" targeting and suppressing a group of enemies, rounds are walked on by watching splash and tracers, an optic isn't helpful for this and actually may hinder by causing tunnel vision. A quad rail is usually used to attach IR lasers and flashlights, neither of which you want or need on a GPMG. Usually when being transported to the range, C6s are just piled up like firewood in the back of a panel van, optics won't love that treatment. As far as I can see, we are doing these upgrades to our C6s because this is what the Americans did to theirs, not because we actually need them.
Getting new guns is terrific, our C6s get used super hard and eventually all the rivets shake loose and the rivet holes are beat out of shape and we just can't pound the guns back into gun shapes anymore, but we could have just gotten new guns with synthetic butts and maybe the adjustable gas regulators (because what is old is new again) and I am not just saying this because I fear and resist all change.

 

[Claven2]

the rails arent a cost driver, the new production line and tooling is

and yep... new kit. sweet, sweet new kit... lol.

 

[Travis Bickle]

For what it is worth, I am a CAF gunplumber and I think most of the upgrades to the C6 are unasked for and unnecessary. Upgrading the butt from wooden to Synthetic just like we did to the C3 sniper rifle isn't too bad, it isn't a drastic change, but it does eliminate a few problems with humidity and damage that wood is susceptible to. But for the roles our C6 is used in a quad rail and optic sight are superfluous. Mostly the GPMG is used to deliver fire in a "Beaten Zone" targeting and suppressing a group of enemies, rounds are walked on by watching splash and tracers, an optic isn't helpful for this and actually may hinder by causing tunnel vision. A quad rail is usually used to attach IR lasers and flashlights, neither of which you want or need on a GPMG. Usually when being transported to the range, C6s are just piled up like firewood in the back of a panel van, optics won't love that treatment. As far as I can see, we are doing these upgrades to our C6s because this is what the Americans did to theirs, not because we actually need them.
Getting new guns is terrific, our C6s get used super hard and eventually all the rivets shake loose and the rivet holes are beat out of shape and we just can't pound the guns back into gun shapes anymore, but we could have just gotten new guns with synthetic butts and maybe the adjustable gas regulators (because what is old is new again) and I am not just saying this because I fear and resist all change.

Thanks for putting actual real world perspective on it Sir. It's about the same I've heard from most brothers in the service currently.
Just about exactly what I've been saying. The "upgrades" are irrelevant and essentially all but pointless on a Reg Force section served GPMG. Especially for the price.
I agree 100% that we needed new C6's having fired them and stripped them personally. They were beat. The receivers were shot.
Not sure we needed any of the "upgrades". Especially at the cost they came at.
The only additions our C6's really needed was the manual, instant hand adjustment gas regulator. The plastic butt stock is a bonus. Reduce weight, no more swelling, rotting, chipping wood etc
I'm not blown away by this. I still think it's astoundingly high price tags for not a lot of "upgrade". Just my 2 cents from a ground perspective.

 

[Claven2]

Not sure we needed any of the "upgrades". Especially at the cost they came at.
The only additions our C6's really needed was the manual, instant hand adjustment gas regulator. The plastic butt stock is a bonus. Reduce weight, no more swelling, rotting, chipping wood etc

Good grief. The "upgrades" are negligible in price. A high-end rail is like $300-400 tops.

Again, the PRICE IS NOT FOR JUST A BASIC GUN. It's to set up a domestic strategic machine gun production line from ZERO. It paid for lathes, mills, CNC machines, injection moulding equipment, a building at Colt, access to intelletual property from Fabrique Nationale, the guns themselves, all the in-service support, training, spare parts, manuals, etc. for 40 years.

Clear enough?

How much would your favorite gun cost you if you also paid for the ENTIRE cost to tool up a factory to make it? That's what the CAF did here because they wanted to be able to make these in time of war when suppliers in europe or the USA won't give Canada's needs a second thought.

 

[y2k]

I wonder what a Belgian made one is worth new

 

[Claven2]

I wonder what a Belgian made one is worth new

Just the gun, or the gun with a comparable in-service support package?

Likely somewhat cheaper because FN's GPMG production line was paid for 50 years ago. The next batch the CAF orders rom Colt will similarly be cheaper.

 

[Travis Bickle]

Good grief. The "upgrades" are negligible in price. A high-end rail is like $300-400 tops.

Again, the PRICE IS NOT FOR JUST A BASIC GUN. It's to set up a domestic strategic machine gun production line from ZERO. It paid for lathes, mills, CNC machines, injection moulding equipment, a building at Colt, access to intelletual property from Fabrique Nationale, the guns themselves, all the in-service support, training, spare parts, manuals, etc. for 40 years.

Clear enough?

How much would your favorite gun cost you if you also paid for the ENTIRE cost to tool up a factory to make it? That's what the CAF did here because they wanted to be able to make these in time of war when suppliers in europe or the USA won't give Canada's needs a second thought.

So we should see a drastic reduction in price per unit for the next ones after this contract I'm assuming?

 

[Claven2]

So we should see a drastic reduction in price per unit for the next ones after this contract I'm assuming?

Yes, if you don't, THEN I would conceded Colt would be gouging - as their startup costs were covered in the first order.

 

[Leg]

For what it is worth, I am a CAF gunplumber and I think most of the upgrades to the C6 are unasked for and unnecessary. Upgrading the butt from wooden to Synthetic just like we did to the C3 sniper rifle isn't too bad, it isn't a drastic change, but it does eliminate a few problems with humidity and damage that wood is susceptible to. But for the roles our C6 is used in a quad rail and optic sight are superfluous. Mostly the GPMG is used to deliver fire in a "Beaten Zone" targeting and suppressing a group of enemies, rounds are walked on by watching splash and tracers, an optic isn't helpful for this and actually may hinder by causing tunnel vision. A quad rail is usually used to attach IR lasers and flashlights, neither of which you want or need on a GPMG. Usually when being transported to the range, C6s are just piled up like firewood in the back of a panel van, optics won't love that treatment. As far as I can see, we are doing these upgrades to our C6s because this is what the Americans did to theirs, not because we actually need them.
Getting new guns is terrific, our C6s get used super hard and eventually all the rivets shake loose and the rivet holes are beat out of shape and we just can't pound the guns back into gun shapes anymore, but we could have just gotten new guns with synthetic butts and maybe the adjustable gas regulators (because what is old is new again) and I am not just saying this because I fear and resist all change.

Don't take this the wrong way but I respectfully disagree.

Have you ever fired a machine gun in -20 below or plus 40 degrees? That plastic isn't going to feel too good in those environments. Wood is still a viable option and would be my preference. It also more environmentally friendly if you care about that sort of thing.

As for optics. Yes, you walk rounds on, you still need to be able to see the target. Ever try to aim a C6 at night? A rail permits the use of various IR optics. Thermal and NV.

As for the front rail. See my comment above. If no optic is available the gunner will still have a PVS-14 and can use LAD for his initial aim. Less ammo is expended and rounds are brought to bear against the target quicker. It can also be used to positively ID target designations given by others.

This is not a slight against your trade. We need guys like you to keep the guns runnin' but let's leave requirements to the end user. ie, combat arms.

Some guns are worn out and need replacement, no argument there, but plenty are salvageable or could easily be rebuilt with new sideplates. I'm not complaining about new guns but I believe the cost is too great. Yes I understand procurement and that it accounts for spare parts, training, etc.. but at what cost? The taxpayer doesn't benefit. The Forces don't benefit, those dollars could do a lot of good elsewhere. The only winner is CC who will eventually undercut FN and others because they've essentially been subsidized by the government.

 

[Claven2]

Some guns are worn out and need replacement, no argument there, but plenty are salvageable or could easily be rebuilt with new sideplates. I'm not complaining about new guns but I believe the cost is too great. Yes I understand procurement and that it accounts for spare parts, training, etc.. but at what cost? The taxpayer doesn't benefit. The Forces don't benefit, those dollars could do a lot of good elsewhere. The only winner is CC who will eventually undercut FN and others because they've essentially been subsidized by the government.

That's funny - it was the combat arms guys in DLR that specified a strategic domestic production line! "leave the requirements to the end user" indeed. In case you aren't aware, DLR is completely staffed with combat arms infanteers and they are the ones that structured the procurement you are complaining about, not RCEME corps or the gunplumbers and certainly not the bin rats.

And also, if you haven't noticed, the Liberals announced their new defence policy with everything under the sun now funded - a 70% increase in defence spending over the previous conservative government's numbers and also 1150 new procurement staff to ensure it can actually be carried out. Unlike the conservatives that allocated money, but then cut the people needed to spend it, thereby ensuring it was only a paper promise.

I hate to say it, but the Liberals have become more friendly to the warfighter than Harper ever was. Actions talk. And this money is making the requirements people do things we haven't seen since there was a Canadian Arsenals making all our small arms domestically. Heck, Colt might even EXPORT GPMGs. Now that would be something.

 

[Leg]

Of course they're going to export them. That's my point. It's the same thing they did with the C7/C8. Government pays for the equipment and they then market their goods to the world. Why are we subsidizing it?

I sort of get the want/need for domestic production of defense items so maybe it's a step in the right direction but unless they apply the same logic to technology then we'll always be relying on the US for it.