Preserving capacity, General Tom Lawson, Chief of the Defence Staff, Keys to Canadian SAR
Issue link: http://vanguardcanada.uberflip.com/i/274231
D DEFENCE www.vanguardcanada.com FEBRUARY/MARCH 2014 17 periods of introduction into service, and cancellation of initiatives altogether. However, these actions are often inconsistent with what was originally intended in the CFDS and are really only a stopgap, awaiting a revised policy. Throughout, it must be recognized that defence procurement is a complex business. Even with a clearly-defi ned objective and the resources to proceed, it takes years to introduce a new major weapons system into service. And it will be in inventory for de- cades in many cases, so it is critical to get it right. The propensity for military staffs to extract the best capability from each procurement is commendable, but also can cause delay and indecision if fundamental development or modifi cations are needed, versus a more "off-the-shelf" product. No solution will ever meet the full desired requirement so it is important to recog- nize that compromise is necessary to ensure continued progress during implementation. Another complication is that the competition for funding of major equipment acquisitions during any particular period tra- ditionally creates a bow wave of demand that overwhelms the projected funding available. For example, the planned renewal of navy surface vessels is likely to be the dominant factor in manag- ing capital procurement over the next two decades. The overlap- ping purchases of new fi ghter aircraft and army land vehicles, not to mention a myriad of other supporting or enabling projects, will demand careful management of the related sequencing of staff- ing, approvals and funding. The overall "choreography" of pre- paring and submitting project approval documentation through the various levels of bureaucracy demands an organized corporate approach. Even so, unexpected delays can occur, which suggests that a mechanism to make adjustments should be in place. In simplistic terms, this mandates the need for over-programming. That is, the total cost of projects being executed should actually exceed the amount of funding available in order to ensure that maximum use is made of the capital allocation for approved projects when slippages occur. If, magically, there is a threat of exceeding the allocation, a delay in approvals or implementation can be invoked to stay within budget. Overall, this equates to government recog- nition of the need for effective risk management, something that DND has had a long history in doing effectively. Overall then, notwithstanding the positive aspects of the CFDS initiative, its objectives cannot now be fully satisfi ed with the pro- jected funding level for Defence. This reality, and the normal evo- lution of changing defence requirements over time, argues for a proper review of the strategy to return it to topical relevance. The need for an updated CFDS, and a resulting modifi ed investment plan, is especially critical as DND struggles to make ends meet and to make informed decisions regarding spending priorities for capital and operating budget items. There are several questions which should be considered in this process. Are we clear on the need to contribute to international missions consistent with our national interests? What will be the future appetite for deploying to confl ict environments in the fu- ture? Should the new capabilities introduced as a direct result of the Afghan campaign (unmanned aerial surveillance, improvised explosive device countermeasures, increased armour protection, armed helicopters, etc) be retained indefi nitely? Will we be able to satisfy domestic needs for military action, to include a renewed emphasis on the Arctic, at the same time as we address expedition- ary demands? More generally, will the military be able to maintain a suffi cient breadth and depth of capabilities to respond to whatever contin- gency may arise? Will the personnel strength of the CF be appro- priate to future needs and well balanced overall? And should there be a formal periodic review mechanism to update the CFDS as operational priorities and budget challenges change? In short, the CFDS needs to be reviewed to confi rm its major elements – requirements versus affordability – and to be modifi ed in response to changing circumstances. Above all, an affordable solution is needed. This need not be a major policy review, but rather a refi nement of the existing plan. It is the appropriate and responsible thing to do. The CFDS needs to be The CFDS needs to be reviewed to confi rm its major elements – requirements versus aff ordability – and to be modifi ed in response to changing circumstances.