Canadian Army to acquire new multi-calibre sniper weapons

[Savage]

No. I'm implying that all parties have badly neglected our military. I'm very anti-war, but when the Liberals had a "clothe the soldier" program as a special way to get them raincoats and boots and gloves I knew military procurement was a total ####show. How we treat our soldiers is damn near treasonous.

Cons did no better.

#### ships
sub-#### subs
#### fighters
#### choppers.

Every procurement effort is a multi decade boondoggle.

Our equipment is 30-50 years out of date. If we had to go to a real war (not a proxy or peacekeeping exercise) we would be inconsequential.

The real problem is the Liberals under Trudope Sr moved DND controlled procurement to Supply and Services dept. that really had no idea what they were doing in the first place and the problem has never been corrected it was a move to control what are military needs and who gets the benefits from the contracts . Here is something to chew on most of the stuff you blame on the Conservatives is really the Liberals that are at fault they held up programs by wasting tax payer money there pie in the sky programs .

 

[CanuckR]

I am not against buying Canadian equipment for our military the problem lies with with a poor procurement policy keeping equipment well past is life expectancy. Yes there have been successes in buying Canadian the only one to date is the LAV ,C6,C7,C8 ,C9 and the C14 although a decent rifle not with out its problems , Most of the wheeled vehicle purchased for the CF made by Canadian forces like the Bombardier duds and the Western Star LSVW are for better words rolling scrap metal . They are just an example of a systemic problem of buying Canadian the costs are not worth the effort they are over priced and in this day in age delivering greater value for the dollar is what it is about . If it were a made in Canada made rifle for the Rangers it would cost the CF about double the price of the Tikka Artic as the CF would have to purchase things like CNC machines much like they did with PGW to build the C14 as part of the contract . The CF learned a lot from the last Sniper weapons trial,having something that is custom made is has a lot of cool factor too it and a lot of problems . The new trails will not have user input into specifications of the platform they want , something else they learned and it will be an off the shelf unit and with a shorter contractual fulfillment date

You had me with everything right up to there. This is the classic "they don't know what they want or how to use it" argument that has and is literally used and comes up at procurement meetings.
Right... the snipers that use the system and have to carry it and shoot have no idea what they want........ Will there be a few dumb ideas getting tossed around in a sniper platoon? Yeah for sure.
But most of the guys know what they need their rifles to do and what they don't need them to do.
The idea that a bunch of pencil pushers in Ottawa know what's better for a sniper rifle than snipers do is ridiculous.
I will also make that same argument about some of the crusty old DLR guys/ sgt majors that haven't been in a sniper platoon in 10-15 years that think they know what's best too.

 

[Savage]

You had me with everything right up to there. This is the classic "they don't know what they want or how to use it" argument that has and is literally used and comes up at procurement meetings.
Right... the snipers that use the system and have to carry it and shoot have no idea what they want........ Will there be a few dumb ideas getting tossed around in a sniper platoon? Yeah for sure.
But most of the guys know what they need their rifles to do and what they don't need them to do.
The idea that a bunch of pencil pushers in Ottawa know what's better for a sniper rifle than snipers do is ridiculous.
I will also make that same argument about some of the crusty old DLR guys/ sgt majors that haven't been in a sniper platoon in 10-15 years that think they know what's best too.

The last Sniper Weapons trial the specifications by the users was so narrow that only one rifle meet the specification's the PGW C14 .The Army learned a lot on this and so it will require user input in a broad area and not a custom build sheet made for the user group . Snipers will conduct field testing on the platforms and who makes the final decision is any ones guess.

 

[CanuckR]

The last Sniper Weapons trial the specifications by the users was so narrow that only one rifle meet the specification's the PGW C14 .The Army learned a lot on this and so it will require user input in a broad area and not a custom build sheet made for the user group . Snipers will conduct field testing on the platforms and who makes the final decision is any ones guess.

That's typical army procurement, they already know who they want to win the project. Usually who ever will line somebody else's wallet. Then they write the spec sheet around the platform they have already decided on. Then it goes out for tender, imagine that, only 1 platform meets all the criteria.

 

[jetfixer]

The army needs to rebuild the weapons tech trade from parts changers to actual gunsmiths, not all of them, the range of weapons in the CF is too great for that. They need to let guys specialize and leave them in those specialty positions. Such as a specialty that is based around maintaining precision rifles.
Despite the "issues" with the PGW guns in the system they could easily be used for another decade or 2 if we had the techs that could fix them up and change barrels in their own shops. If they wanted to upgrade from the A5 stocks to something else? Send them to depot and have them swapped over. Want to change barrel lengths or profiles? Have a new barrel put on. Want a different night vision hood installed in the stock? Send it to the shop.

This has been an issue in many CAF technical trades, you train, qualify and have personnel specialize only to loose them to postings and promotions and there goes your capability to carry out the tasks they were specialized on. Very few tech's want to be a Cpl or MCpl for their entire career. Sgt and above have leadership/management roles, taking them off the floor and technical skill set with them. It is one of the reasons that maintenance work has gone to civilian contractors (just go to the FMF at the Navy Dockyard, or any of the third line RCAF facilities), to provide a consistent skilled capability. Civilian employees don't get promoted away from their job, they get raises. You could pay a tech trade Cpl $100,000 a year and they would still be a Cpl having to do crumby secondary duties and being ordered around by everyone above them. I have seen tech trade civilian employees (usually retired member) embedded in a CAF units that provide good technical continuity and are key members of the section. The hard part is finding one that doesn't question their military supervisor all the time and is a positive influence on the new CAF members (not some bitter old retired person).

I can understand a multi barrel platform for training purposes. It's kind of like the 21mm sub cal insert for the M72. All the drills are same, except much less expensive/damaging than plowing 66mm down range.

 

[Canadian Sig]

This has been an issue in many CAF technical trades, you train, qualify and have personnel specialize only to loose them to postings and promotions and there goes your capability to carry out the tasks they were specialized on. Very few tech's want to be a Cpl or MCpl for their entire career. Sgt and above have leadership/management roles, taking them off the floor and technical skill set with them. It is one of the reasons that maintenance work has gone to civilian contractors (just go to the FMF at the Navy Dockyard, or any of the third line RCAF facilities), to provide a consistent skilled capability. Civilian employees don't get promoted away from their job, they get raises. You could pay a tech trade Cpl $100,000 a year and they would still be a Cpl having to do crumby secondary duties and being ordered around by everyone above them. I have seen tech trade civilian employees (usually retired member) embedded in a CAF units that provide good technical continuity and are key members of the section. The hard part is finding one that doesn't question their military supervisor all the time and is a positive influence on the new CAF members (not some bitter old retired person).

I can understand a multi barrel platform for training purposes. It's kind of like the 21mm sub cal insert for the M72. All the drills are same, except much less expensive/damaging than plowing 66mm down range.

That thing is sort of painful for units like CSOR or CJIRU where they spend major money and time to put a Signaller through SOSIG or a medic through the intensive SOFMED program to then lose them to HQ and Sigs or Field Amb.