# "O'Connor has $8B military 'wish list"



## MarkOttawa

"New cargo jets a top priority for Defence Minister, sources say"

Excerpts from National Post story, May 29:
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=b57feeea-de73-40be-976f-7076f9331301&k=88600

"The federal government will be asked this week to approve a multi-billion-dollar "wish list" of equipment purchases for the Canadian Forces, including new transport aircraft, helicopters, long-overdue trucks for the army and multi-purpose troop transport and supply ships for the navy.

Defence sources say Gordon O'Connor, the Defence Minister, will make a pitch to a Cabinet committee tomorrow for six major projects worth more than $8-billion...

At the top of Mr. O'Connor's list will be four new C-17 Globemaster cargo jets, which the sources said would be bought directly from the U.S. manufacturer, Boeing, in a "sole source" acquisition.

The government will also be asked to approve the purchase of 17 tactical transports -- smaller, propeller-driven aircraft that can land troops or cargo in remote, rough airstrips. The likely winner of that contract will be the C-130J, the latest model of the venerable Hercules now in service with the Canadian air force.

Mr. O'Connor is also proposing to buy as many as 20 new heavy-lift helicopters for the army and a total of 18 new search-and-rescue planes.

The army is to get a replacement for its 24-year-old logistics trucks, while the navy will get approval for its three new joint-support ships [JSS], a combination troopship and resupply vessel due to be built over the next five years, the sources said..."

I have expanded on the story in this post at "The Torch":

"Military procurement: Déjà vu all over again--plus; and a Quebec kicker"
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2006/05/military-procurement-dj-vu-all-over.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MasterStryker

I for one am glad that someone is finally going to get us some new stuff. we have needed this equipment for a long time so i hope this list is approved. I support our Canadian firms but I still think that we should buy off the shelf equipment from foreign suppliers. this way its cheaper and and it is already in production. I hope that the PM backs this list and I hope it passes the vote.


----------



## Hot Lips

Let's hope our Economics educated PM is in a shopping mood...would be nice to see.
Shopping off the shelf would make it much faster would it not?  So why not do it?

HL


----------



## Edward Campbell

Hot Lips said:
			
		

> Let's hope our Economics educated PM is in a shopping mood...would be nice to see.
> Shopping off the shelf would make it much faster would it not?  So why not do it?
> 
> HL



I know I am repeating myself, but: ‘off the shelf’ = ‘sole source’ and our experience with sole source procurement is, with a few notable exceptions, terrible.  We, like most customers who buy sole source, get taken to the quality and cost cleaners.

The exception is clear: COLOG which means Cooperative Logistics.  While there is a NATO COLOG programme the only one which made any sense, for Canada when I was still serving was the US one.  To make COLOG work you must satisfy a few simple but strict conditions, including:

•	The item being procured must have a sufficiently US long service life to make COLOG support feasible;

•	The item being procured must meet all Canadian operational requirements in all respects;

•	The _life cycle cost_ of the item being procured must be no greater than the other options; and

•	The Canadian Forces must adhere to US _configuration management_ in order to keep the logistics pipeline operating efficiently.

When these condition exist (as they almost certainly do for the C-17 and C-130J) then sole source/COLOG procurement makes good sense.  But: sole source procurement means that you are buying in a seller’s market.  The whole point of competition – the very _secret_ of the Western way of life – is that we compete for almost everything and, by so doing, we get more for less.  The ‘worst’ capitalists are always, in all ways more efficient and effective the ‘best’ socialists, and communist are stupid failures.

Sole source procurements is, at its heart, communistic.


----------



## GAP

Often I read in these threads about the "Canadianization" of equipment. It amazes me how little attention we pay to the Huge Monolith just south of us. They try vast amounts of equipment for their armed forces, some good - some bad. Instead of sitting here cherry picking the _*proven*_ stuff, we navel gaze endlessly and panic when we have to make a decision. 

Much of what we want and need is readily available. Some minor changes might be in order, but I see little in the way of dramatic styles of warfare between the two nations, other than in states of quantity. Competitive bidding would solve some of the minor details.

The same principle applies to much of the equipment utilized by NATO countries. We are in an enviable position, and yet we are determined to make it hard on ourselves. ???


----------



## Kirkhill

Edward:

I take issue with the statement "off the shelf = sole source".  Unless I completely misunderstand the situation there are more than one truck immediately available (Oshkosh and S&S obviously but also MAN and Volvo amongst others), the heavy lift helicopter requirement could be met by either the CH-47 or the CH-53 and possibly the Merlin,  the FWSAR project is being contested by the C27J and the C295/C235 aircraft while the JSS project has already received statements of interest from something like five consortia.  

With the exception of the JSS project where Canadian requirements are driving the creation of a new class of vessel unknown to the rest of the world all of the other projects I mentioned see competing off the shelf products.

The only real sole source issue I see is between the C17 and the C130 and the A400M.  The problem for the A400M is that due to poor planning and purchasing practices in the past (heh 5Ps, not quite 6Ps) is that Canadian governments have boxed themselves into a corner by creating the situation that the need is imminent and a competitive solution is distant.  Basically the choices are: buy the C17 now, without competition, and take some of the load off the existing C130 fleet to buy time and allow a competition between C130s and A400s later; or wait until the A400s are available to compete with the C130s because the C17 won't be available as competition as its production lines will be closed.  In the meantime, in the second case, the existing C130s will continue to wear out faster than they would if the C17s were in service increasing the risk of a gap in capabilities developing between the time that the existing units fail and the C130Js or the A400s become available.

For what it is worth, for my money I would be leasing C17s immediately to reduce the load on the C130s,  stretch out the existing fleets life by whatever means are possible (it seems from EADS and other reports that it might be possible to secure some additional -Hs as a bridge, until a competition can be held between a flying A400 and the C130Js.

Cheers


----------



## KevinB

As far as the C17 and C130J goes -- good!

Same with the MH-47G or whatever version of hook we buy.

they are the only platforms that fit -- if we can tag onto US orders - even better since those lines are rolling and we dont pay thru the nose for "one of's"


----------



## Cloud Cover

With all these large purchases, I hope the smaller, yet equally important items do not get left out- bullets, beans, training, parts.


----------



## KevinB

Screw Airbus. ^-^


----------



## prom

Kirkhill if I'm not mistaken the order is for both the C-17 (4) and the C-130J (17), or that is how the text reads.



> At the top of Mr. O'Connor's list will be four new C-17 Globemaster cargo jets, which the sources said would be bought directly from the U.S. manufacturer, Boeing, in a "sole source" acquisition.
> 
> The government will also be asked to approve the purchase of 17 tactical transports -- smaller, propeller-driven aircraft that can land troops or cargo in remote, rough airstrips. The likely winner of that contract will be the C-130J, the latest model of the venerable Hercules now in service with the Canadian air force.



I think that the JSS is a good concept for Canada, so long as the BHS does come into the equation and is not axed because of the JSS fleet. For the BHS i would think that we will acquire the San Antonio Class LPD that the US is currently bringing into service. The USN has ordered 14 but has recently decided that they will only put 11 into operation. that gives us an option of picking up our 2 BHS ships.

then as replacement of the Halifax class frigrates and out aging destroyers approach, pick up a single class to replace them all.... perhaps the Type 45 destroyer from the Brits. Scrap half of the existing Halifax class, and the reaming 6 get refitted and passed over to the CG for coastal patrol.....


----------



## Kirkhill

whiskey:

I am less worried about the beans, bullets and bandages etc, now than I was.  As the article seems to confirm accounting for the funds spent will now be on an accrual basis rather than a cash basis.  Ultimately that means little to anybody but accountants because the cash flows in the same manner it always did and will, but it shows up on the books spread over time.

For instance, if we take a look at the 8,000,000,000 CAD projected in the article and assume a life expectancy of the kit of 25 years on average (probably a safe bet considering the age of the kit being replaced) then the annual cost to the budget of the capital equipment is 320,000,000 CAD.  Even with a budget of only 12,000,000,000 CAD that represents less than 3% of the annual budget.

Or look at it another way, over 25 years at 12,000,000,000 per year the CF will have access to 300,000,000,000 CAD in government funds.  These projects only constitute 8,000,000,000 of non-recurring  expenses during that time frame.

It is largely due to the rules by which the accountants choose to play and has little to do with "reality" (dollars out of the wallet) but it allows the Forces and the Government to act in the short term to make significant capital investments and overcome this mountain of rust that currently exists.

prom: 

Just read your post and you're right.  That is what is apparently being discussed and I really don't have an issue with it.  I was just suggesting that there might be an alternative solution that could work.  But my main point still stands regardless of the solution adopted: government policies have reduced the flexibility available to be able to make good decisions.

As to the JSS/BHS I'll "wait out" on that one.  It has also been well discussed on other threads on this board.

Cheers to both.


----------



## blacktriangle

I just hope they actually go through with these purchases soon, and without the whole competition deal. Hopefully, the government can hang on long enough to get the stuff to you guys, that way no one can cancel the order on us/  ;D

Here's praying.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO

There is of course another need which might be fodder for a different thread. We have to have the people to use this equipment. We all know that the Government has approved the idea of increasing numbers but that is easier said than done. We are in a huge competition with the private sector right now for a limited number of young people coming into the work force.
Finding young people who meet the fitness levels is becoming a challenge we will have to address too. Maybe we have to get creative and start offering courses to get people in shape and ready to enroll.

For some time we have known that our recruiting system is cumbersome and goes in some cases to discouraging recruits rather than encouraging them. Our training system is also limited in the numbers we can take in and get trained in a short period of time.

When in Gagetown for the last four years I was also aware that a growing number of young people have no problem with the use of "illegal substances." This use has been accepted in our society as "recreational use of drugs" Many of our young recruits fall afoul of the regulations and although they were warned on entry to the Forces...the message of the wider society is what is uppermost in their minds.

How do we get quality recruits to use the quality equipment the Government seems willing to start procuring?


----------



## vonGarvin

KevinB said:
			
		

> As far as the C17 and C130J goes -- good!
> 
> Same with the MH-47G or whatever version of hook we buy.
> 
> they are the only platforms that fit -- if we can tag onto US orders - even better since those lines are rolling and we dont pay thru the nose for "one of's"



+1.  Take what's proven and hitch a ride on the procurement train.  Makes SO MUCH more sense than going through years of "trials and studies" just so that we get stuff that is out of date by the time we get it.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

Which truck are they looking at here and will they buy one with the intention of using it oversea's in a hostile environment or will they get something for domestic ops?


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

Edit:
After reading the actual article they discuss the MLVW in question.


----------



## 63 Delta

What exactly happened to the Chinooks the forces used to own? Were they scrapped or sold?


----------



## HItorMiss

Sold to the Dutch, who still fly them today.


----------



## Kirkhill

> But until the projects are approved by Cabinet, there is no way of knowing for sure how much they will cost, Mr. MacDonald said. "You're really looking at a whole bunch of numbers," he said.
> 
> "What will it all eventually cost? Nobody knows the answer to that question."
> 
> Mr. O'Connor declined repeated requests for an interview on the proposed new purchases or the total bill for the new equipment.
> 
> However, according to estimates by industry and defence analysts the new spending would easily top $8-billion, once parts and services for the new aircraft, ships and vehicles are included.



This comment got me thinking again about the business of pricing projects.  The flavour of the month has been "life cycle costing" which includes AFAIK maintenance, training and operations.

My problem is this.  All of these projects, with the exception (perhaps) of the heavy lift helicopters can be seen as re-equipping existing units that are currently operating and maintaining existing equipment.  Life Cycle costing may be useful when considering buying a new "capability" ie standing up a completely new type of unit, or even for comparing existing equipment to potential new equipment.  However it means nothing in and of itself when it comes to budgeting.

For instance we currently operate and maintain 2 AORs (it used to be 3).  The 3 JSS are to replace the 2 AORs and the crewing requirements would seem to suggest that the bodies allocated to the 2 ships will be distributed amongst the 3 new ships this maintaining personnel costs at rough parity.  

When the JSS was originally announced as a 2.1 BCAD project it was my understanding that that was to be the Capital cost (about 0.7 BCAD) and the life cycle cost (about 1.4 BCAD).  Since then I have read that 2.1 BCAD is the Capital Cost and the Operating Cost for 30 years is to be something like 4.2 BCAD.  That does make comparison shopping difficult.  However, in either case, neither project cost means anything unless the Operating the existing AORs for another 30 years is available.  I believe it is probably a fair assumption that it will cost more to keep the 2 AORs going for another 30 years than it will cost to keep 3 new JSSs going for the same period, but let's assume that the costs are the same.  The only real cost that imposes additional demands on the budget is the actual capital cost of the equipment.

If we apply this thinking to the C130 fleet we find that the CF is maintaining (loosely defined) 32 aircraft with 128 engines and 160 flight crew positions to be able to lift about 540 tonnes of supplies at once (32 x 17 tonnes). With the MND's proposed buy of 4 C17s and 17 C130Js that represents 21 aircraft with 84 engines and 63 flight crew positions to lift 628 tonnes of supplies in one go (4 x 72 tonnes + 17 x 20 tonnes).  That represents a 16% increase in lift, a 35% reduction in airframes and engines to maintain and a 60% reduction in flight crew positions, not to mention the greater variety of cargo to be hauled.  The operations and maintenance budgets can't help but be smaller than the existing budget.  That leaves only the real, capital cost of the aircraft outstanding as a budget item.  At 161 MUSD per copy for the C17s and something like 70 MUSD for the C130Js that represents a total cost of 1.83 BUSD (2 BCAD) for both aircraft combined or about half of the 4 BCAD cited in the article. 

And yes I know I am skipping over the cost of spare engines included in the 4 BCAD but that is my point.  That cost would be there, probably moreso, regardless of what aircraft we flew.

The same logic applies to the JSS, the Strat/Tac lift, the FWSAR and especially to the truck project (replacing all 2700 MLVWs with either the FMTV or the MTVR is not likely to cost more than 500 MCAD - those trucks are being bought at prices around 150 KUSD each).


----------



## Infanteer

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> If we apply this thinking to the C130 fleet we find that the CF is maintaining (loosely defined) 32 aircraft with 128 engines and 160 flight crew positions to be able to lift about 540 tonnes of supplies at once (32 x 17 tonnes). With the MND's proposed buy of 4 C17s and 17 C130Js that represents 21 aircraft with 84 engines and 63 flight crew positions to lift 628 tonnes of supplies in one go (4 x 72 tonnes + 17 x 20 tonnes).  That represents a 16% increase in lift, a 35% reduction in airframes and engines to maintain and a 60% reduction in flight crew positions, not to mention the greater variety of cargo to be hauled.  The operations and maintenance budgets can't help but be smaller than the existing budget.  That leaves only the real, capital cost of the aircraft outstanding as a budget item.  At 161 MUSD per copy for the C17s and something like 70 MUSD for the C130Js that represents a total cost of 1.83 BUSD (2 BCAD) for both aircraft combined or about half of the 4 BCAD cited in the article.



You should be my accountant - I'm sure I'd get some more on my tax return....   ;D


----------



## C and P

HitorMiss said:
			
		

> Sold to the Dutch, who still fly them today.


If the Dutch ever show up our troops will probably end up flying in them.


----------



## MarkOttawa

C and P: The Dutch are there.  "Dutch confident about Afghanistan mission":
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2006%5C05%5C11%5Cstory_11-5-2006_pg4_22

With Apaches and F-16s.

See also:

"Afstan: Facts little known in Canada"
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2006/05/afstan-facts-little-known-in-canada.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Kirkhill

> You should be my accountant - I'm sure I'd get some more on my tax return....



Or we'd both end up sharing a cell....


----------



## Good2Golf

C and P said:
			
		

> If the Dutch ever show up our troops will probably end up flying in them.



They [Dutch CH47D's] are there already.  In Khandahar, I had a quick walk-though one of the rebuilt models that I had flown before they were sold.

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## BillN

Duey,

I hope you shed an appropriate tear when you did your walk through  :-[  

Regards,
Bill


----------



## Good2Golf

BillN said:
			
		

> Duey,
> 
> I hope you shed an appropriate tear when you did your walk through  :-[
> 
> Regards,
> Bill



Bill, I did...

RIP CH147005 ( <- IMO, the nicest flying of our 47's  :'(  )

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## TangoTwoBravo

C17 = good thing we should buy today without any messing around
CH47 = vital thing we should have bought yesterday.  

We need the gunships to go with the CH47s.

Sell the Snowbirds and the Griffons.

2B


----------



## Armymatters

2Bravo said:
			
		

> Sell the Snowbirds and the Griffons.
> 
> 2B



Your going to sell a demostration team? With all the personnel as well?   (I jest, I know you meant the Tutors, although they probally aren't worth much, perhaps as scrap metal)

Griffons, I can see selling like hotcakes, they are Bell Model 412 helos, very popular in the commerical market, and with militaries on the cheap.



> We need the gunships to go with the CH47s.


http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/33069.30.html
Already being guessed upon and discussed as to which is better.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo

By sell I mean get rid of the things/ Sqns to free up the PYs and O&M.


----------



## geo

2Bravo said:
			
		

> C17 = good thing we should buy today without any messing around
> CH47 = vital thing we should have bought yesterday.
> 
> We need the gunships to go with the CH47s.
> 
> Sell the Snowbirds and the Griffons.
> 
> 2B


Hope that if you intend to dump the Griffons, you're planning to replace em with other light helos.... CH47 are a little bit "large" for most tasks.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

geo said:
			
		

> Hope that if you intend to dump the Griffons, you're planning to replace em with other light helos.... CH47 are a little bit "large" for most tasks.



Common fleet of H-92's?


Matthew.


----------



## FSTO

Every time Ujjal Dosanjh opens his mouth, he sounds more and more like a complete idiot when it comes to defence issues. He should have stuck with local BC politics

http://server09.densan.ca/archivenews/060530/cit/060530aj.htm


----------



## vonGarvin

Dosahnj is an idiot.  How in the blazes would a drawn out _politically motivated_ competition benefit Canadians?  Or did he mean cronies?  I remember the SOR for the Seaking replacement had, at one time as one of its "necessities" the following: x percent of maintenance to be peformed by companies owned/operated by first nation's communities.  What in the blazes does that have to do with the performance of anything?  Anyway, it's refreshing to see progress at the ministerial level on matters of procurement.


----------



## Sf2

> Common fleet of H-92's



Too big


----------



## TangoTwoBravo

If the Griffon can do casevac/medevac in Kandahar province then it can stay in limited numbers.  Otherwise it is stealing manpower and O&M from potential birds that can do the real lifting.

A serious army would have AH-64s (not even Longbows), CH-47s and UH-60s as its baseline.  CH-47s do most of the stuff we normally associate with "Hueys" in Afghanistan.

Cheers,

2B


----------



## KevinB

I think the Griffon can still be used for some SOF roles -- inserting SR teams, and times that its limited payload is not a big drag.  Heck some single engine Hueys fly here...

However I would suggest that 2B is 110% correct -- for any major usage the Chinook gets the nod here.

  If they current Ch146 airframe where used for dedicated CSAR and Med-Evac/Dustoff roles - it would still be a player conventionally -- however its use other than that is NIL


----------



## Wizard of OZ

2Bravo said:
			
		

> If the Griffon can do casevac/medevac in Kandahar province then it can stay in limited numbers.  Otherwise it is stealing manpower and O&M from potential birds that can do the real lifting.
> 
> A serious army would have AH-64s (not even Longbows), CH-47s and UH-60s as its baseline.  CH-47s do most of the stuff we normally associate with "Hueys" in Afghanistan.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> 2B



That would be a good mix of proven equipment.  But see there in lies the problem you are using your head and it makes sense.  So we would more then likely see a hodge podge of helos from different manufactures some proven (to pass) some proven to fail, but this way we keep parts supplies across the globe happy.


----------



## Good2Golf

KevinB said:
			
		

> I think the Griffon can still be used for some SOF roles -- inserting SR teams, and times that its limited payload is not a big drag.  Heck some single engine Hueys fly here...
> 
> However I would suggest that 2B is 110% correct -- for any major usage the Chinook gets the nod here.
> 
> If they current Ch146 airframe where used for dedicated CSAR and Med-Evac/Dustoff roles - it would still be a player conventionally -- however its use other than that is NIL



Concur, I think 146 in a specific, light role would work well, but we also need the heavy capability yesterday.

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## Armymatters

Duey said:
			
		

> Concur, I think 146 in a specific, light role would work well, but we also need the heavy capability yesterday.
> 
> Cheers,
> Duey



So turn a few of the Griffons into light observation helo's (like the old Kiowa's) and sell the rest off to help fund a proper medium/heavy lift helo?


----------



## Old Sweat

As one who has a fair amount exposure to operating with light observation heliopters dating back to the CH112 (and L19s, thank you very much) with a more than passing acquaintance with the CH113 thrown in, I suggest that a Griffon is not well suited for both recce and observation tasks. The difference in size and flight characteristics between a LOH and an utility helicopter is as pronounced as that between a Griffon and a Chinook. 

With that blimpish harrumph out of the way, I will crawl back into my cage and have another cold beer before dinner.


----------



## HItorMiss

I agree with Kev, Keep a Sqn of 146's for SOF small det insertions work, heck the US Navy still uses a few single engine Huey's for that stuff ( I believe but I could be proven wrong) But like Old sweat says the Griffon just doesn't fit the Observation role very well.


----------



## Journeyman

FSTO said:
			
		

> Every time Ujjal Dosanjh opens his mouth, he sounds more and more like a complete idiot when it comes to defence issues.


He wants a competition between the Boeing C-17 and the Airbus A400M?? 

Airbus doesn't even envisage a FIRST test flight until 2008. 
The initial operating clearance isn't _forecast_ until the 4th-quarter of 2009.1 Anyone figure that date is liable to slip with a new aircraft design? 
Only _then_ (2010+) can they even commence production.

How can anyone think its in the CF's "best interest" to a) wait another 1/2 decade, only to receive b) unproven technology, with all the inherent bugs to work out?

I see Defence Procurement SOPs haven't changed within the Liberal Party.   :

--------------------------
1. Airbus Military, "A400M Countdown"  http://www.airbusmilitary.com/countdown/index.html


----------



## HItorMiss

Am I a bit confused I believed that the A400M was being considered as competeion for the C130J

http://www.airbusmilitary.com/specifications.html

then again maybe my head isn't seeing things clear can some one clarify?


----------



## Good2Golf

No, HoM.  A400m vs. C-17 for strat lift.  C130J's would replace the aging CC-130Es and some of our H's.

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## Journeyman

HitorMiss said:
			
		

> Am I a bit confused I believed that the A400M was being considered as competeion for the C130J



Well, the gospel according to the National Post....


> At the top of Mr. O'Connor's list will be four new C-17 Globemaster cargo jets, which the sources said would be bought directly from the U.S. manufacturer, Boeing, in a "sole source" acquisition.
> 
> The government will also be asked to approve the purchase of 17 tactical transports -- smaller, propeller-driven aircraft that can land troops or cargo in remote, rough airstrips. The likely winner of that contract will be the C-130J, the latest model of the venerable Hercules now in service with the Canadian air force.


http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=b57feeea-de73-40be-976f-7076f9331301&k=88600

As Duey said, C-17 and C-130J contracts are separate issues. For the strategic lift requirement, the MND is _apparently_ going single-source for an already existing/successful aircraft (C-17), while the Liberal Defence Critic thinks the competition against a currently non-existent aircraft (A400M) would be in our best interests.

---------
Now if this topic were merged with the thread on fitness and targeted fat removal, the Liberal Defence Critic would be a PRIME candidate for cranial liposuction!


----------



## Kirkhill

The problem is that the A-400, in addition to not flying yet, isn't directly comparable to either the C-17 or the C-130J.  All of them can(will) travel similar distances with the right loads and all of them can(will) land on short, rough runways.  But the C130 is rated at roughly 20 tonnes of lift, the A400 at 40 tonnes and the C17 at 60 to 70 tonnes.  The A400 aims to be "Jack-of-all-trades", much the way the CH146 Griffon was touted.  It runs the risk of being Master of None.


----------



## HItorMiss

Seen, thank you all for clarifying


----------



## Armymatters

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> The problem is that the A-400, in addition to not flying yet, isn't directly comparable to either the C-17 or the C-130J.  All of them can(will) travel similar distances with the right loads and all of them can(will) land on short, rough runways.  But the C130 is rated at roughly 20 tonnes of lift, the A400 at 40 tonnes and the C17 at 60 to 70 tonnes.  The A400 aims to be "Jack-of-all-trades", much the way the CH146 Griffon was touted.  It runs the risk of being Master of None.



C-130 is also an ageing design. I don't think Lockheed will further develop C-130 beyond the current J model. A400M has more future potential as it is a new clean sheet design. I think we should do a UK: purchase C-17's for true strategic lift and purchase A400M as a more capable C-130 replacement.


----------



## Kirkhill

> C-130 is also an ageing design. I don't think Lockheed will further develop C-130 beyond the current J model. A400M has more future potential as it is a new clean sheet design. I think we should do a UK: purchase C-17's for true strategic lift and purchase A400M as a more capable C-130 replacement.



Agreed.  But heavy emphasis on FUTURE.


----------



## big bad john

Armymatters said:
			
		

> C-130 is also an ageing design. I don't think Lockheed will further develop C-130 beyond the current J model. A400M has more future potential as it is a new clean sheet design. I think we should do a UK: purchase C-17's for true strategic lift and purchase A400M as a more capable C-130 replacement.


What about the K model? C130K?


----------



## aesop081

big bad john said:
			
		

> What about the K model? C130K?



C-130K is not as advanced as the J model ( unlike what the "K" suggests.)  It came before the J model and is UK designation only i beleive


----------



## Armymatters

aesop081 said:
			
		

> C-130K is not as advanced as the J model ( unlike what the "K" suggests.)  It came before the J model and is UK designation only i beleive



The C-130K is acutally a modified C-130H for the UK, as aesop mentions.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/c-130k.htm


----------



## big bad john

I stand humbly corrected!


----------



## MarkOttawa

Three points:

1) The A400M has a new and unproven engine.
http://www.aviationweek.com/shownews/03paris/pre02.htm

2) Earlier Airbus was pitching the plane as a Herc replacement.
http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/business/story.html?id=fac06506-7312-4dcd-8fd1-17415851a96a

3) Now as a strat lifter.
http://server09.densan.ca/archivenews/060525/cit/060525a8.htm

So we can have one plane as both strat and tac lifter if we wait until 2012 at, likely, the earliest.  Does that make sense, other than for the Quebec aerospace industry (and its votes)?  Please check out URLs for 2) and 3) above.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Armymatters

Regarding the engine:
Airbus has started static testing on the engines. The Europrop engine was run for the first time integrated with its Avio gearbox and Ratier-Figeac eight-bladed propeller in Feb this year. Further testing will commence on a modified C-130 being prepared by Marshall Aerospace of the UK in 2007, meaning that the engine will recieve certification in 2007. Airbus is apparantly running on a very agressive schedule to get A400M certified by 2008, as first metal (and first composite baked) was in Feb of this year.

http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles/2006/03/07/205249/Spain+aerospace+special+Heavy+duty.html

I am more inclined to give Airbus the contract for the C-130 replacement, than the strategic lifter contract. C-17's can take some of the pressure off the C-130 fleet, while we wait for the A400M to arrive.


----------



## _TheSaint_

Since these planes are just for lifting people/equipment/supplies or whatever, what could possibly be so much more improved with the A400m than with a Hercules or some other current cargo plane. If they all carry similar weights of stuff, can all land on the short runways and can all can fly the same distances- why wait? Just buy whatever the current 'state of the art' is and be done with it. I don't think it's going to make that much of a difference if the only use is flying stuff from point A to point B. More important I would imagine is what rolls OUT of the cargo bay. From what I've read the CAF currently have to use other armed forces for rides in Afghan and such. That just seems lame. 

What if we declare war on Spain over turrbot fish or something, then no one wants to fly our troops there? Too bad so sad?


----------



## Kirkhill

> If they all carry similar weights of stuff,



They don't 

C-17 72 tonnes max
A-400 40 tonnes maybe
C-130 20 tonnes on a short hop


----------



## _TheSaint_

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> They don't
> 
> C-17 72 tonnes max
> A-400 40 tonnes maybe
> C-130 20 tonnes on a short hop



So the C-17 already carries more weight than the A400m? So why not buy a few of them for the long distance flights, and a few smaller C-130J's for any little hops? Seems like a no brainer to me. 

I'll await the Puns.


----------



## Journeyman

Armymatters said:
			
		

> Airbus is apparantly running on a very agressive schedule to get A400M certified by 2008



Please go to the Airbus website, sited above. Even discounting their predilection towards high hopes and best-case scenarios, they do not forecast certification until the _end_ of 2009. I would bet cash that that date slips.


----------



## Armymatters

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Please go to the Airbus website, sited above. Even discounting their predilection towards high hopes and best-case scenarios, they do not forecast certification until the _end_ of 2009. I would bet cash that that date slips.



I should have meant flying by then (Airbus has a schedule to fly the A400M in January 2008).



> So the C-17 already carries more weight than the A400m? So why not buy a few of them for the long distance flights, and a few smaller C-130J's for any little hops? Seems like a no brainer to me.
> 
> I'll await the Puns.



C-130J can't carry a LAV III, the premier CF land vehicle in any state of combat readyness (we have to pull the turret, remove all ammo and bolt on armour to get it to fit in a C-130 and within the weight limits of the aircraft, and even then the C-130 ain't going anywhere far). MGS will be far worst: It won't fit at all. A400M will easily take a LAV III or MGS in combat readyness (drive it off the airplane and straight into combat), without taxing a limited fleet of a future CF C-17 fleet.


----------



## _TheSaint_

> C-130J can't carry a LAV III, the premier CF land vehicle in any state of combat readyness (we have to pull the turret, remove all ammo and bolt on armour to get it to fit in a C-130 and within the weight limits of the aircraft, and even then the C-130 ain't going anywhere far). MGS will be far worst: It won't fit at all. A400M will easily take a LAV III or MGS in combat readyness (drive it off the airplane and straight into combat), without taxing a limited fleet of a future CF C-17 fleet.



Aww crap. I knew there must be some reason for the debate. Well then how about this.....buy C-17s  now for the big trips, and hold off on buying the smaller hop one till the A400 is ready.  I guess lease some other ones or continue to get rides till then.

We'll try not to start any unilateral wars till 2012 too.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO

Didn't we order some C130s last fall under the Liberals? Or was that just more promises? I thought the CDS had asked for these immediately and they were ordered...to keep up with the increasing unreliability of the current fleet.
I know you fly guys and gals are going to jump on me but I thought we had ordered some...when if so will they be delivered? Is this new wish list in addition to that order?


----------



## Armymatters

IN HOC SIGNO said:
			
		

> Didn't we order some C130s last fall under the Liberals? Or was that just more promises? I thought the CDS had asked for these immediately and they were ordered...to keep up with the increasing unreliability of the current fleet.
> I know you fly guys and gals are going to jump on me but I thought we had ordered some...when if so will they be delivered? Is this new wish list in addition to that order?



That got canned when the Liberals got kicked out of office. I expect a future competition between C-130J and A400M when the rest of the C-130 fleet needs to be replaced.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

Question that I am sure has been answered.  How do our allies get their LAV's to the battlefield?
Proven airframe in combat conditions or a crap shoot plane that what we will be the first to test in real world conditions.  How about we get the C17's and Herc's and let some other poor country trial the A400.  Then we can better judge what's best.


----------



## MarkOttawa

What happened last fall:

1) Defence Minister Graham tried to get Cabinet approval for a big package: tac lift, heavy-lift helicopters, fixed-wing SAR;
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/Page/document/v4/sub/MarketingPage?user_URL=http://www.theglobeandmail.com%2Fservlet%2FArticleNews%2FTPStory%2FLAC%2F20051111%2FMILITARY11%2FTPFront%2FTopStories&ord=11898942&brand=theglobeandmail&redirect_reason=2&denial_reasons=none&force_login=false

2) Cabinet only approved tac lift;
http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=89b9d214-65ff-4ab9-a881-5023d094f953

"Nov. 22, 2005:
The armed forces was the beneficiary of the big ticket item this day – $4.6 billion to replace the aging fleet of Hercules aircraft. Sixteen new transport planes could be on their way." 
http://www.cbc.ca/canadavotes/analysiscommentary/preelexspendingpromises.htm

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Armymatters

Quagmire said:
			
		

> Question that I am sure has been answered.  How do our allies get their LAV's to the battlefield?



Americans? They get their LAV's over using their own strategic lifters, mainly.
Everyone else? Hitch a ride on an American lifter or charter Russian/Ukrainian heavy lifters. 



> Proven airframe in combat conditions or a crap shoot plane that what we will be the first to test in real world conditions.  How about we get the C17's and Herc's and let some other poor country trial the A400.  Then we can better judge what's best.



Canada won't be first in line to be receiving the A400M if we make a purchase now. First flight is again anticipated in 2008, certification in 2009, with first deliveries to the Armée de l'Air (French Air Force) in October of 2009. Canada will receive the A400M in early 2011, right after the Germans, South Africans, and the Brits start receiving theirs. There will be about 1 year of operations by A400M by then. 

With current computer engineering, we already have a very good idea of how an airplane will perform _before_ we even build it. Only minor issues that can't be simulated or anticipated will be encountered. Airbus already offered refurbished C-130H's as an interm measure until we get our A400M's.

Edit: Another thing: The current European contracts for A400M are structured like a civilian airliner purchase, meaning guaranteed delivery schedules, performance, and final weights, otherwise Airbus gets a heavy penalty.


----------



## Kirkhill

> ...we already have a very good idea of how an airplane will perform before we even build it.



I remember those days.....it was great to be young. 

How an aircraft flies, or any machine performs, is easy enough to model.  What you can't model is how all those loose bits fit together and hold up during operations.  Remember how many draftsmen, engineers, labourer and subcontractors were involved and many people will be flying each aircraft, maintaining it, flying it in different conditions, loading it.....you surely get my drift by now.

You can't model operational hours.  Cracked rotor hubs on the CH-149 are a prime example.  

The Euros are buying, or say they are buying, dozens of these things.  When the -A series shows up all the flaws in the design they will simply make the adjustments to the B and C series models which will make up most of their inventory.  If Canada bought them it would only likely be buying a few with the chances high that it would be stuck with an A series fleet.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

What I meant was what type of plane gets their LAV's to KAF or Iraq Airport.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin

Perhaps we should tell Airbus that we'll buy their computer-generated aircraft if they install Pratt and Whitney Canada engines as originally planned.   

I've only just now had a look at the history of the A400M and it doesn't fill me with confidence.  The programme has been plagued with political interference, international in-fighting, cost overruns and cancellations.  We should ask ourselves why the British leased the C-17 in the first place...  

Frankly, I should think that a proven product, already flying, is preferable to something that isn't even built yet.  The C-17 is a very, very capable aircraft and is ideally suited to the strategic role.  The C-130J has had problems, but at least it is a familiar product that can be integrated into a strategic plan now, not five years from now...

FWIW.

Quagmire:  the Yanks lift armour with C-17s or C-5Bs.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

Thank you Teddy.


----------



## Armymatters

Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> Perhaps we should tell Airbus that we'll buy their computer-generated aircraft if they install Pratt and Whitney Canada engines as originally planned.



I think PWC dumped the engined they proposed. Also, Pratt has burned Airbus severely in the past with their projects. Take the Airbus A318 airliner. Airbus originally sourced the primary engine for it from Pratt (the PW6000), but Pratt ran into difficulties with the design, as it burned way more fuel than expected. By the time a competitor (CFM International, a consortium of SNECMA and GE Aircraft Engines) had a engine ready, most A318 customers backed out of the project. 

The Europrop engine already has a Canadian component: the FADEC (Dual channel full authority digital engine control) will come from Hispano-Suiza (Safran Group) in Peterborough, Ontario, according to my source inside Airbus.

Another issue was arms control issues. PWC is a American company, despite "Canada" being part of its name. PWC is owned by an American company, United Technologies, a Hartford, Connecticut based company. The airplane was designed in part to promote European self-sufficiency in arms. Any export orders are icing on the cake.


----------



## KevinB

Armymatters said:
			
		

> The airplane was designed in part to promote European self-sufficiency in arms.



Let Europe rot...


The C17 and C130J are in service.  95% of our international operations are with the Americans -- maybe it is wiser to use their kit...
  Oh and it works too.


----------



## Armymatters

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> Let Europe rot...
> 
> 
> The C17 and C130J are in service.  95% of our international operations are with the Americans -- maybe it is wiser to use their kit...
> *Oh and it works too.*



C-130J has issues with software integration, and with the FBW controls, so I won't be declaring that it works. Even the Brits are complaining about the issues with their C-130J's, software wise.

The RR AE2100 engine are also not as reliable as the older Allison T-56. On top of that, the engines and props create excessive vibration, causing issues with noise in the cabin, causing fatigue for anyone inside the cabin, and the crew members, according to the Australian experience.

In all, most operators of C-130J's are not happy at all with the type. At one time the Brits even *refused* delivery of the airplanes and demanded that the current issues be fixed. The Danes decided to let their delivery schedules slip for Lockheed to start resolving the issues before they arrived (I've been told that the issues for the Danes have been resolved to a point where the Danes were happy). Even the USAF has mixed feelings regarding C-130J. On top of all that, Lockheed doesn't seem to want even help resolve the issues, letting the customers find and pay for the fixes. With the UK, full operation readyness was slated to be in 1999. It is 2006, and the UK Herc J's still aren't ready yet. New plans will be for the UK to ditch the current fleet of C-130K's for A400M's instead of more Herc J's, and the current 'J fleet might also end up on the chop block.

The C-130J is really a major boondoogle, and Lockheed is to blame for mishandling the issues. Calling these teething issues is not even close to the problems with the bird. The bird was in short half baked and the current problems stem from this. Lockheed's reputation with some customers has been tarnished really badly over the issues. Lockheed is really lucky that V-22 Osprey is currently taking the lime-light for operational bugs otherwise they will be feeling the flak full on.

http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0105/012405cdpm3.htm
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199899/cmselect/cmdfence/241/9021005.htm
http://www.stsc.hill.af.mil/CrossTalk/2001/09/conn.html

I'm not saying C-130J is a bad airplane; it will be a excellent airplane, but right now, it is bugs galore.


----------



## KevinB

I was talking to a Brit pilot over a beer here (Afghanistan) -- he was saying they have no issues with the J other than due to the Engines and Props they cannot jump folk via paratroop doors - ramp is necessititated (A big issue in my mind -- but apparently it can be fixed by using the old props)  The Brit SOF aviation uses the K's now due to this issue.

IMHO taking a plane with some bugs is better than a plane that does not fly (A400).

No to mention with the Brits using C17's as well as the Aussies - ABCA would be 100% C17.
  With the J in service as well that would give us 100% airframe compatibility.

A lot easier to borrow a part off the USAF in theatre than ring up AirBus and beg.

*edit for spelling


----------



## Journeyman

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> I remember those days.....it was great to be young.


 :rofl:



			
				Armymatters said:
			
		

> Canada won't be first in line to be receiving the A400M if we make a purchase now. First flight is again anticipated in 2008, certification in 2009, with first deliveries to the Armée de l'Air (French Air Force) in October of 2009. *Canada will*, (*could* - edited for grammar and reality)  *receive the A400M in early 2011* right after the Germans, South Africans, and the Brits start receiving theirs. There will be about 1 year of operations by A400M by then.


By which time, the flaws would be obvious to even the naked emperor, and we'd be locked into a contract for this albatross.



			
				Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> Let Europe rot...
> The C17 and C130J are in service.  *95% of our international operations are with the Americans * -- maybe it is wiser to use their kit...


(nice name change Infidel-6; I like it    )
Despite the various degrees of anti-Americanism in Ottawa and elsewhere, and members of Quebec caucuses looking whistfully back to the francophonie motherland, the reality is Canada _is_ part of ABCA, not EU. Until we tear up our roots and paddle the country across the Atlantic to lash-up with Europe, making interoperability with ABCA should play a large, logical role in procurement. A400M will not fill the bill.



			
				Armymatters said:
			
		

> Even the USAF has mixed feelings regarding C-130J.
> http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0105/012405cdpm3.htm
> http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199899/cmselect/cmdfence/241/9021005.htm
> http://www.stsc.hill.af.mil/CrossTalk/2001/09/conn.html


I can, however, see the opposite side of the arguments. There are still problems with the C-130J. In reality, it only _looks_ like a Herc. It is a completely (+/- 70%) new aircraft. And the USAF has "mixed feelings" because they never wanted it - - still don't. It was decreed from on high that they would take it, in order to maintain 8,000 jobs in Marietta, Georgia - - a congressional district that is home to Lockheed Martin. (Does this sound familiar?)

However, citing three online documents that are dated Jan 2005, Feb 1999, and Sep 2001 respectively to make your case is somewhat disingenuous. Many things have changed since 1999 - - hey, several readers of this site may even have hit puberty.


----------



## Good2Golf

Armymatters said:
			
		

> ...The RR AE2100 engine are also not as reliable as the older Allison T-56. *On top of that, the engines and props create excessive vibration, causing issues with noise in the cabin, causing fatigue for anyone inside the cabin, and the crew members*, according to the Australian experience.
> 
> ...I'm not saying C-130J is a bad airplane; it will be a excellent airplane, but right now, it is bugs galore.



 :

Armymatters, your "book barfing" is way out to lunch on this one!

I'll match your "books",and raise you with a  "personally flying on the RAF C130J Kandahar-Farah-Herat-Mazar-Kabul 5-hour milk run" and tell you that your information is WRONG.  In fact, I could actually take my earplugs out and listen to my iPod quite nicely, thank you.

Duey


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

I believe that is called Check and Mate.


----------



## Wizard of OZ

I would much rather see the CF have a plane that they could use in the visable future then to place our eggs in the basket of a plane that is not even off of the drawing board yet.  

And hey if in 2015 the A400 is ready and able then we could buy another 15 to have the gap filled, plus this allows us to work in Europe with our partners there if anything should happen.  But for now I say stick with what you know and we know the Herc I mean they are buying the dam things back from us to figure out how we kept them flying so long.  That should be worth some discount.

As for the rest of the proposal I gotta feel kinda bad for the fighter jocks, down to around 60 working craft and nothing on the radar to replace or increase those numbers.  Gonna be some hard years on those boys in blue.


----------



## Infanteer

Duey said:
			
		

> :
> 
> Armymatters, your "book barfing" is way out to lunch on this one!
> 
> I'll match your "books",and raise you with a  "personally flying on the RAF C130J Kandahar-Farah-Herat-Mazar-Kabul 5-hour milk run" and tell you that your information is WRONG.  In fact, I could actually take my earplugs out and listen to my iPod quite nicely, thank you.
> 
> Duey



Damn you and your real-world experience!!!


----------



## Good2Golf

Wizard of OZ said:
			
		

> I would much rather see the CF have a plane that they could use in the visable future then to place our eggs in the basket of a plane that is not even off of the drawing board yet.
> 
> And hey if in 2015 the A400 is ready and able then we could buy another 15 to have the gap filled, plus this allows us to work in Europe with our partners there if anything should happen.  But for now I say stick with what you know and we know the Herc I mean they are buying the dam things back from us to figure out how we kept them flying so long.  That should be worth some discount.
> 
> As for the rest of the proposal I gotta feel kinda bad for the fighter jocks, down to around 60 working craft and nothing on the radar to replace or increase those numbers.  Gonna be some hard years on those boys in blue.



Oz, don't feel to bad for them...ECP583 is a nice mod -- the APG-73 radar kicks a$$ and they finally have HAVEQUICK II(+)...  ;D


----------



## geo

Interesting article in today's paper... Russian trade delegation is a visitin' Ottawa
Looks like they want to "push" their Strategic haulers & heavy lift helos...


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

Quality control?


----------



## geo

What's that?


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

Something your not going to find with Russian kit.


----------



## geo

Article in the paper this morning.
Saying that we're signing up for a number of C17s.
1st unit to be delivered by the end of this year. Would appear that accomodations have been made and we will take delivery of a unit already on production schedule for the Aussies.
(guess we know what the Aussie PM was doing in Ottawa recently)

Good on ya !


----------



## geo

Oh yeah - same article claims that the Conservatives will revive the Herc replacement program planned on by the former gov't.... so we're looking at the J series (I guess)


----------



## FSTO

I can't wait for the comment from Ujjoh about why we should be waiting for Airbus and that process was fixed and that we should only be floating to deployments on a cushion of good-will. What a no talent a**-clown.


----------



## big bad john

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=1d82f90c-d3d2-4e83-b37f-92d88a63d16f&k=13773

Tories set to sink billions into cargo planes for military
Boeing expected to win $2.5B deal; $1B more to be spent on smaller crafts   
Article Tools
    Printer friendly
  E-mail
  Font: * * * *  Mike Blanchfield, The Ottawa Citizen
Published: Saturday, June 03, 2006 
As early as Monday, the Harper government will announce details of its multibillion-dollar equipment upgrade for the Canadian Forces, including the purchase of a new fleet of long-range cargo planes and the much-anticipated replacement of its aging Hercules transports.

The upgrades still require a final rubber stamp from cabinet, but it will represent the Conservative government's first response to the wish list presented to cabinet on May 30 by Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor. At that meeting, Mr. O'Connor pitched at least six major capital projects worth more than $8 billion.

Most of those projects, including armoured trucks, ships and other aircraft, have been pushed back to the fall, but two major transport aircraft purchases are ready to launch.

The most controversial of the two will likely be the purchase of four C-17 Globemaster long-range strategic transports at a cost of $1 billion for the planes themselves, plus a 20-year support and maintenance plan that will bring the overall cost to $2.5 billion.

The government is expected to "sole source" the purchase of the four aircraft from the American manufacturer, Boeing, instead of opening up the usual competition for bids for such an expensive purchase. The government is allowed to sole source if it can make the case that no other similar airplane can meet its needs. The only other large, long-range transports available are Russian-built.

The Russian government has attempted to cut into the competition by spearheading its own military trade mission to Ottawa this week, but it appears Canada has decided to buy American. The Forces will likely receive one of the four new C-17s late this year off the Boeing assembly line as part of an order that was already under way for the Australian air force.



Canada doesn't own large transports such as the C-17 and has normally leased such large planes from Russian or Ukrainian companies to carry its heavy equipment on overseas missions.

The Liberals considered a plan to buy large aircraft six years ago, but scrapped the idea. Since then, the deployment of the military's Disaster Assistance Response Team to two major crises -- the Dec. 26, 2004, Asian tsunami and last year's Central Asian earthquake -- has been delayed because transport was not readily available for its personnel and heavy equipment.

Under the government's new accrual accounting methods, the price of the expensive new planes -- among the largest transports in the world and bigger than anything now owned by the air force -- would essentially be spread over the life of the aircraft instead of requiring a lump-sum infusion of defence spending up front.

The Tories will also revive part of a plan announced by the Liberal government shortly before the last federal election to replace the aging fleet of Hercules transports at a cost of $3 billion for up to 16 new planes.

The government is expected to open that project for competitive bidding, but industry insiders say the specifications will likely favour the U.S. firm Lockheed Martin's modern version of the Hercules, the C-130J.

Sources say the Conservatives could not risk sole-sourcing two large airplane purchases, so they expected the statement of requirements for the Hercules replacement will be brief -- as short as one or two pages as opposed to thousands of pages of detailed specifications usually placed before bidders -- and it is expected to call for delivery of the planes by about two years.

That would eliminate the C-130J's main competitor, the Airbus A-400, which is still in the design phase and isn't expected to go into production until 2009.

Many of Canada's shorter-range tactical-lift Hercules date back to the 1960s and it is the workhorse of the current deployment to Afghanistan.

Gen. Rick Hillier, the chief of the defence staff, has said that replacing the Hercules was the top equipment priority of the military and that, if the fleet was ever grounded, Canada would be unable to sustain its overseas deployments.

Parliament recently voted to extend the Canadian military mission to Afghanistan to 2009. There are currently 2,300 troops in Afghanistan.

Other major equipment purchases that were part of the Conservatives' ambitious "Canada First" election platform for the military are being pushed back to later in the year. These include armoured trucks and transport helicopters for the army in Afghanistan, fixed-wing search and rescue planes, a joint supply ship, Arctic icebreakers, and unmanned surveillance aircraft, or drones, that could help patrol the Arctic and both coasts.

Gen. Hillier and Mr. O'Connor have clashed on what the military needs most in terms of airlift. Mr. O'Connor wants a large airplane that can transport equipment overseas, such as the C-17, but Gen. Hillier says more Hercules, which can conduct more missions in hostile theatres under gruelling conditions, are needed.


----------



## Kirkhill

> ....the purchase of four C-17 Globemaster long-range strategic transports at a cost of $1 billion for the planes themselves, plus a 20-year support and maintenance plan that will bring the overall cost to $2.5 billion.



My personal thanks to the editor and the reporter for clarifying the difference between purchasing the aircraft and purchasing a 20 year service plan.


----------



## GAP

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> My personal thanks to the editor and the reporter for clarifying the difference between purchasing the aircraft and purchasing a 20 year service plan.


+1   puts things into perspective

anybody have any thoughts on how this is going to impact the CF budgets 10 years down the road when  we have had a number of capital purchases with 20 year accrual lifespans, and suddenly they want upgrade another area. As the various accruals add to the total budget, suddenly they are going to be faced with a xxx$ budget with little wiggle room


----------



## Good2Golf

Interestingly, the media loves to push the full life-cycle costs when they are trying to portray something as unaffordable.  Case in point, the EH101 $5.8B life-cycle cost was over 20 years and amortized out to $290M/year.  The Air Force has a combined Ops and Engineering support budget of about $2.5B/year so the EH-101 fleet would have represented about 1/10 of the CC3 monies, still leaving the majority of the cash for the CF188 weapon system...

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## Kirkhill

In fairness to the media - it isn't just them that have found advantages in toting up all costs and creating big numbers.  A big number can make it look as if you are taking a hard decision and doing something or it can make it look, as you say Duey, unaffordable - depending on how you want to spin it.

Alternatively numbers can be downsized for similar purposes:  12,000,000,000 Dollars/30,000,000 Canadians/365 days = $1.10 per Canadian per day on Defence.

4 C17s at 1,000,000,000 Dollars/20 years/30,000,000 Canadians/ 365 days = 0.4 CENTS per day per Canadian to supply the aircraft for 20 years and another 0.6 Cents per day per Canadian for the 20 year service plan.

The cost of buying and maintaining 4 C17s for 20 years = 1 Penny per Canadian per day.

Doncha jus'  luv numbers.   ;D


----------



## GAP

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> The cost of buying and maintaining 4 C17s for 20 years = 1 Penny per Canadian per day.
> 
> Doncha jus'  luv numbers.   ;D



I'll take two  ;D


----------



## MarkOttawa

I wonder if the delay on fixed-wing SAR will enable Bombardier to make an irresistable political case for a (now non-existent) Q Series derivative for this role, rather than the C-27J or C-295/235.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Kirkhill

MarkOttawa:

That's an interesting thought. On the one hand I am as leary as you of "pork barrelling".  On the other hand.....

When you look at what the C27J/C295/C235 are being considered for, around the world, to replace DHC-4 Cariboo/DHC-5 Buffalo/DHC-6 Twin Otter, and you think that a lot of those aircraft are still flying because their operators can find anything in the current "catalog" that meets those capabilities - it does make you think that maybe there is a niche there that needs filling.  I am guessing that Bombardier owns all the old drawings and engineering on those aircraft.  It is just too bad that with an 18 year hiatus between the last Twin Otter produced in 1988 (for Malaysian Airlines - 844 produced in total) and today and a 20 year hiatus between the last DHC-5 (delivered to the Kenyan Air Force in 1986 - 126 produced in total) that a lot of the SMEs in the field have likely long since retired.  Still..... 

It would be nice if somebody could build domestically a cheap, simple, rugged, over-engineered aircraft to take over from the Buffs and Twotters.

And deliver it in the next 2 to 5 years.....


----------



## Journeyman

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> It would be nice if somebody could build domestically a cheap, simple, rugged, over-engineered aircraft to take over from the Buffs and Twotters.


At the risk of oversimplification, the reason that 'Boos, Buffs, and Twotters.....and hell, even 1943-vintage DC-3s, are still flying, is that they're not pressurized. The Dash-8 Q series, I _believe_ (and hence am amenable to correction), is all pressurized.....which stresses not only the airframe, but maintainers in Upper Waterbuffalo Hump, Africa to keep them flying. Therefore, there's not as much attraction to re-starting a production line.....


----------



## Kirkhill

Thanks for that Journeyman.  Another idear down in flames.... ;D


----------



## TangoTwoBravo

Do we have the CH-47s yet?


----------



## Armymatters

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> MarkOttawa:
> It would be nice if somebody could build domestically a cheap, simple, rugged, over-engineered aircraft to take over from the Buffs and Twotters.
> 
> And deliver it in the next 2 to 5 years.....



I am hearing rumors that Viking Air out of Sydney, BC, will be restarting Twotter production again soon.


----------



## FSTO

Armymatters said:
			
		

> I am hearing rumors that Viking Air out of Sydney, BC, will be restarting Twotter production again soon.


You are right, I was up there in the spring and the owner told us that they had acquired the rights and were going to start building them again.

Also its Sidney. ;D


----------



## geo

GAP said:
			
		

> anybody have any thoughts on how this is going to impact the CF budgets 10 years down the road when  we have had a number of capital purchases with 20 year accrual lifespans, and suddenly they want upgrade another area. As the various accruals add to the total budget, suddenly they are going to be faced with a xxx$ budget with little wiggle room


Serving gov't can only hope that they will be the "loyal opposition" at that time and will be a problem someone else has to address............ (awright; colour me jaded)


----------



## Armymatters

I just thought of something if we do buy C-17's: We can't refuel them in the air with our CC-150 Polaris tankers. C-17's use the boom and receptacle method of refueling, while the rest of the CF uses probe and drogue. Looks like we either have to stop somewhere for fuel for long distance flights or ask the Americans for a tanker, otherwise, we can also go back to EADS as they finished developing a boom system for the A310 MRTT and A330 MRTT.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin

> C-17's use the boom and receptacle method of refueling, while the rest of the CF uses probe and drogue.



So does the RAF.  The British don't seem to have any problem.


----------



## geo

Armymatters said:
			
		

> I just thought of something if we do buy C-17's: We can't refuel them in the air with our CC-150 Polaris tankers. C-17's use the boom and receptacle method of refueling, while the rest of the CF uses probe and drogue. Looks like we either have to stop somewhere for fuel for long distance flights or ask the Americans for a tanker, otherwise, we can also go back to EADS as they finished developing a boom system for the A310 MRTT and A330 MRTT.


Shhhh.... the PO for the new tankers will come out in due course


----------



## Kirkhill

Armymatters:

I can't help but wonder if you have bought shares in EADS yet.  

The principle advantage in 4 C-17s, IMHO, is not their international deployment capabilities but their internal deployment capabilities.  4 C17s will not create much of a long range conveyor for supporting forces over international distances.  On the other hand 4 C17s will allow one centrally located force deployed on Hercs, to bring along heavy equipment to any location in Canada.  There are airfields and gas pumps at both ends of the trip and one jump will take you from Trenton to Resolute, Victoria or St. John's.  They would also allow for a C17 to load up 2-4 Griffons and rapidly transport them into the North for assistance to a major disaster.

With one in the shop, one on stand by for domestic reaction and probably one doing training support that leaves one, maybe two to deploy overseas.

The primary advantage of the C17, again IMHO, is not that it is a strategic lifter (although it can be used that way) but that it is a operational lifter, flying a similar regime to the Hercs but carrying heavier, bulkier equipment.  And that capability is needed here at home as much as it is needed overseas.  

I can see them doing occasional flights over strategic distances, but I can't see that need being frequent enough to warrant a new fleet of strategic tankers to support them.

Cheers.


----------



## vonGarvin

Armymatters said:
			
		

> Looks like we either have to stop somewhere for fuel for long distance flights or ask the Americans for a tanker, otherwise, we can also go back to EADS as they finished developing a boom system for the A310 MRTT and A330 MRTT.


I'd rather ask for some gas than gas and a plane


----------



## KevinB

vonGarvin said:
			
		

> I'd rather ask for some gas than gas and a plane



 :rofl: 


VG 1  AM 0
:cheers:


----------



## Armymatters

The thing is that if you are able to refuel a transport while still in the air, you can technically carry more cargo than if you didn't as you come up against the maximum take off weight of the aircraft (airframe plus fuel and cargo), as the airplane has only enough fuel to get off the ground and rendezvous with the tanker to get a full tank of gas to go where it is needed. We see this problem all the time with airplanes; the more cargo you want to lift, the shorter the distance you can travel as you are forced to take less gas due to the fact that you have to remain under the maximum take off weight of the aircraft otherwise, one the following conditions could happen:
1. Airplane doesn't get off the ground period (airplane intact and crew is safe)
2. Airplane doesn't get off the ground period, and crashes into an obstacle at the end of the runway (airplane not intact and crew in danger)
3. Airplane does get off the ground but  by chance, suffers an engine failure, and the airplane plummets back to terra firma as the airplane can no maintain V1 speed, which is the speed where an engine failure can occur, and you can still take off, and usually by the time you reach V1, you are already committed to taking off (airplane not intact and crew in danger)

We have already seen this happen in a crisis situation before: The Yom Kippur War in 1973. During the war, the Americans were flying C-5 Galaxy's to Israel with only a fraction of of their maximum payload on direct flights from the continental United States to Israel due to the fact that the C-5's were denied landing rights in Europe. The Americans, as a lesson, firstly trained their C-5 Galaxy crews in aerial-refueling, then after that, recognizing that a more capable tanker was needed, purchased the KC-10 Extender tanker.


----------



## JackD

The problem of a system to take on fuel - the probe and drogue system vs the boom system.. Is it so insurmountable to fit a probe? Did not the Brits modify aircraft quite fast during the Falkland Islands campaign?


----------



## Armymatters

JackD said:
			
		

> The problem of a system to take on fuel - the probe and drogue system vs the boom system.. Is it so insurmountable to fit a probe? Did not the Brits modify aircraft quite fast during the Falkland Islands campaign?



C-17 wasn't designed for probe and drogue. I heard that early on, when the C-17 was being developed, an offer was made to the Brits in form of a C-17K, where a probe would be installed from the get go, and the engines would be swapped for the equivalant Rolls Royce engines (obviously, that proposal never got accepted). It would be difficult, as there hasn't been a probe system developed for the C-17 (we would have the develop, test, and install it ourselves), compared to the C-130, which a probe system was developed already, and all the RAF had to do was to install it. It would be cheaper and IMHO easier to install a boom on our two CC-150 Polaris tankers (someone else already developed, tested and installed one on a Airbus A310, meaning all we have to do is buy and install it), than to develop and install probes on 4-5 C-17's.


----------



## Journeyman

Armymatters said:
			
		

> It would be difficult, as there hasn't been a probe system developed for the C-17 (we would have the develop, test, and install it ourselves),





			
				Armymatters said:
			
		

> I am more inclined to give Airbus the contract for the C-130 replacement.



Just to confirm that I'm following your logic......C-17 probe refuelling would be too difficult/costly because it has not yet been developed, tested, and produced....yet, buying into an entire aircraft fleet that has not yet been developed, tested, and produced is OK.

 ???


----------



## Wizard of OZ

Just think of how shinny those new aircraft will be.  jeez and then we get to break them in and find out all the fresh bugs in the system and have to take them out of service when we need them most.  That sounds so CF.

One can only hope that we do go with tested and proven equipment.  As was said earlier it is easier to find some gas then it is to find a ride that comes with your own gas.  Hell I bet that If we procured our own strategic lift the Americans would let us fuel up for free as it opens more of their lifters for their own problems.  Its not as if we operate in areas without the Americans.  The C-17 they have (check)  the A-400M let me see nope not in their inventory (yet).

Would make sense to buy what is being used (as long as it works) by our partners then try and hold out on planes that should have been retired or should be in the process of retirement till an airframe that is not even tested in an operational environment.

MOO


----------



## Grizzly

EADS has already developed the boom technology for its MRTT aircraft. If I remember correctly, the RAAF has purchased 5 airbus 330 MRTT's with both the hose and drogue and refueling boom. So the technology to refit the Polaris MRTT's does already exist. However, having said that, I have no clue as to whether or not it would be cheaper to retrofit the Polaris aircraft with refueling booms or modify the C-17's to accept the hose and drogue system. It's too bad really that we didn't get the boom system for our Airbuses as well since it would have made this issue a non-starter and it would have allowed us more options concerning the refuelling of allied aircraft. The cost must have been prohibitive though for a nice-to-have feature that isn't needed for Canadian operations.


----------



## geo

Given that we don't own any C17s yet, it has to be easier to install drogues prior to initial delivery... can the aircraft be equiped with both? (thus making em compatible for air refueling by many "partners"?


----------



## Kirkhill

I believe that at least part of the issue is the volume of fuel that has to be tranferred and the speed at which it needs to be transferred.  The longer transfer takes the more likely that bad things are going to happen.  

To get transfer rates up you can either use a large diameter pipe/hose or a high pressure pipe/hose.  Pipes handle pressure better than hoses allowing for smaller diameters.  Hoses would likely need to be of larger diameter to match the transfer rate of a pipe, making it heavier, harder to roll up and deploy and harder to stow as it would take up more space.

The KC10 system ultimately was designed for big aircraft like the C17 and the B52.  The KC130/KC135/A310 system seems to have been acceptable for refuelling fighters which have much smaller tanks and rates of fuel consumption.

Just some random thoughts....

Cheers.


----------



## monkey416

why would we install booms on the polaris just for 4 c-17s when this strat tanker was designed for our almost 100
fighters that are probe only?


----------



## Armymatters

monkey416 said:
			
		

> why would we install booms on the polaris just for 4 c-17s when this strat tanker was designed for our almost 100
> fighters that are probe only?



Most boom systems have the ability to refuel a probed aircraft. It also makes our tankers more useful to the Americans, as the USAF primarily uses boom refueling.



> Just to confirm that I'm following your logic......C-17 probe refuelling would be too difficult/costly because it has not yet been developed, tested, and produced....yet, buying into an entire aircraft fleet that has not yet been developed, tested, and produced is OK.



It is more expensive for us to develop, build, and install a boom system for the C-17, as we are the only ones who are installing it, and are installing it on a handful of aircraft (you are spending lots of money on a system that will be fielded in minute quantities and also a system that no one else will use except for us). With A400M, the costs for R&D are already covered by the Europeans, and the costs for us is just the purchasing cost and maintenance. The Europeans have already spread the costs for R&D on their aircraft. A400M is technically the more capable aircraft even if it does not meet promises exactly. It will fly higher and faster than the Herc meaning it firstly can fly at more economical altitutes, can get to the destination faster, and can refuel fighters properly instead of forcing the fighters to fly at near stall speeds (A400M is also equipped with optional refueling drogues for refueling fighters). Remember: Airbus did offer refurbished C-130H's until they can get A400M's into our hands, meaning that we will be able to use an airplane we are already familar with, and have it in case there are bugs to be sorted out with the Airbus aircraft. Lockheed has said that they can't deliever until 2010, as they have no production slots for us until then, and has not offered interm aircraft.


----------



## Kirkhill

And in 2010 the A400M will be delivering its first deliveries trying to stand up its first operational squadron for one of its customers.  How have the timelines for the Tiger, the NH90, the WAH-64, the Chinook C3 proceeded?  IMHO it will be at least 2015 before they are likely to have worked out operational kinks, modified design and procedures and demontrated a track record for reliability.

Let the Germans or the French put the first 12 aircraft in service. They have orders for 60 and 50 aircraft respectively.  12 duds in their fleets will not cripple them.  

If, however, we only buy 12, and they all end up as duds then we are worse off than we were because the money has been spent.

Cheers.


----------



## Jantor

I guess the fiberals are smelling an opportunity to score some political points with the (uninformed) masses.

A Liberal Party of Canada press release from yesterday

http://www.liberal.ca/news_e.aspx?id=11658

I hope this is okay here


----------



## geo

Jantor said:
			
		

> I guess the fiberals are smelling an opportunity to score some political points with the (uninformed) masses.
> A Liberal Party of Canada press release from yesterday
> I hope this is okay here


what oportunity?
the CDS is on record as signalling that he was interested in Hercs & Chinooks before any interest in C17s.
with respect to the handing out of service contracts - shouldn't we at least think about this VS signing away the farm before even giving it a look see (if there is anyone competent to carry out the work?)

You're claiming they have an ulterior puprose.... Duh! - they're the opposition and are expected to talk that kind of talk.
Question is - do you have any ulterior motive?


----------



## Kirkhill

Me: 

I have no ulterior motive.  I don't like the Liberals. >

There seems to be some strangeness in the land that suggests that it is bizarre if somebody does what they say they are going to do.  

WRT the C17, I have not heard that the CDS wanted to turn them down.

IIRC before the decision on airlift was made by the Liberals the CF, if not the CDS, was pushing for the C17s.  At the time the press was pushing Chretien on the need for lift when he came up with his famous observation that we didn't need aircraft parked on the runway just in case.  During Martin's campaign he declared that we didn't need Harper's hybrid carriers "We don't need ships.  Ships are old technology and too slow.  We need aircraft."  So Martin in office decides to build ships and forget about aircraft.  Eventually, in time for the next campaign, he decides that General Rick should get some aircraft - C130s (which were to be sole-sourced and Edmonton has a track record in servicing them - that contract was, however moved to Kelowna).

I wouldn't be at all surprised if General Hillier asked for what he thought he could get.

As to standing up a service capability for 4 aircraft.....why on earth would we go through the capital cost of setting up such a venture, the cost and time associated with training personnel to perform those tasks, then accept not only the risk associated with the learning curve as staff figure out how not to do their jobs but also the risk associated with skills fade due to only working on one or two aircraft a year?  

It is a better decision all round just to send the aircraft back to the shop that is already servicing 180 or so aircraft.

On the other hand - having Spar look after C130s in Edmonton (or that group in Kelowna if they are up to snuff) look after any new C130s makes eminent sense.  In fact the presence of that capability domestically is a powerful argument for buying the C130 vs the A400M.

Rant off...


----------



## Wizard of OZ

Liberals with an ulterior motive, when it comes to men and women in uniform.  You must be joking.


----------



## Jantor

Kirkhill, You type allot faster than I do and I lost my post ???

Geo, As far as the Duh and ulterior motives bit I'll just say I want whats best for the forces and leave it at that


----------



## Journeyman

First, I read the Liberal media statement's title.... 
*"Government Must be Guided by Needs of Military, Not Politics, says Official Opposition"*
 :rofl:

.....and then I got as far as the first line, where I saw that the statement comes from Liberal Defence Critic Ujjal Dosanjh and Quebec Economic Development Critic Denis Coderre.....

.....and now, several minutes later, I'm still chuckling, wiping the tears from my eyes, and trying to catch my breath. Does _This Hour has 22 Minutes_ write their material?

Oh man, I'm going to need a second here. I can't _wait_ to read the rest of this comedy


----------



## geo

Pls keep rant off............

"So Martin in office decides to build ships and forget about aircraft."
???
did I miss something? - what ships were those that Paul Martin built?

"WRT the C17, I have not heard that the CDS wanted to turn them down"
the CDS said in no uncertain words that what he needs is CC130s.... to date, we're seeing C17s.... and no CC130s.

"As to standing up a service capability for 4 aircraft...../As to standing up a service capability for 4 aircraft...."
???
where did I say to stand up and fund the darned thing.  I very simly said that it should have been opened to tender instead of being signed away from the get go.

Thankyou for keeping rant off.

Chimo!


----------



## Kirkhill

WRT rant off .... I will not make any such undertaking. 

During campaign - Aircraft to deliver aid
Post campaign - JSS to deliver aid.

Re service: you have some merit there.  Perhaps I reacted hastily.  Liberals make me see Red.

Cheers and have a great day.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Just tell the Liberals that we are going to purchase them using the precedent that Chreatin did for the Challengers. In fact it seems to be happening as fast, it’s all good as we get to benefit from a running assembly line.  ;D


----------



## geo

Colin P said:
			
		

> Just tell the Liberals that we are going to purchase them using the precedent that Chreatin did for the Challengers. In fact it seems to be happening as fast, it's all good as we get to benefit from a running assembly line.  ;D


??? not sure where you are going with this.
The challengers were bought from a Cdn company - not an american one... so your claim doesn't fit.


----------



## Wizard of OZ

Journeyman said:
			
		

> First, I read the Liberal media statement's title....
> *"Government Must be Guided by Needs of Military, Not Politics, says Official Opposition"*
> :rofl:
> 
> .....and then I got as far as the first line, where I saw that the statement comes from Liberal Defence Critic Ujjal Dosanjh and Quebec Economic Development Critic Denis Coderre.....
> 
> .....and now, several minutes later, I'm still chuckling, wiping the tears from my eyes, and trying to catch my breath. Does _This Hour has 22 Minutes_ write their material?
> 
> Oh man, I'm going to need a second here. I can't _wait_ to read the rest of this comedy



No i don't think they help but tell me if he does not remind you of Rog Binder the sports caster from 22 mins.

_Its getting offly Danny Heatly in here._


----------



## Colin Parkinson

geo said:
			
		

> ??? not sure where you are going with this.
> The challengers were bought from a Cdn company - not an american one... so your claim doesn't fit.



More to do with the fact that the PM suddenly decided that we(him) needed new jets and ordered them without giving any one else a chance to bid on them.


----------



## Wizard of OZ

I hope that when it comes down to the purchases they just do the right thing and get the stuff that works.

I would like to see what they have on their mind for the trucks for the army after seeing the MILCOT- chevs I can't wait for this one.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Liberals (Graham, Dosanjh) led (!) with procurement in QP today.  They claimed C-17s were not wanted by military (read Hillier) but by O'Connor and would be wasteful spending as the Air Force needs Hercs and rapidly.

Then they went on the demand that maintenance for C-17s be done in Canada.  Talk about playing both ends against the middle.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## KevinB

Well since O'Connor was the lobbyist for AirBus -- no one can claim his C17 bill is for anyone but the Forces -- that Dosanjh is an utter assclown


----------



## Wizard of OZ

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> Well since O'Connor was the lobbyist for AirBus -- no one can claim his C17 bill is for anyone but the Forces -- that Dosanjh is an utter assclown



Now now name calling will not get you anywhere.

The only reason I can see O"Connor pushing for 4 of the C-17's is that the A400's aren't ready and won't be in time for use.  It also leaves the door open for the purchase of the A 400's if and when they are proven.


----------



## paracowboy

Wizard of OZ said:
			
		

> Now now name calling will not get you anywhere.


yes it will. It gets him further into my good books.


----------



## Kirkhill

> The only reason I can see O"Connor pushing for 4 of the C-17's is that the A400's aren't ready and won't be in time for use.  It also leaves the door open for the purchase of the A 400's if and when they are proven.



If that IS the only reason, it is a fairly substantive one.


----------



## HDE

I saw the H of C debate between O'Connor and Dosanjih and, kudoes to Gordon, he ran circles around the Libs.  It must be hard being the Liberal Defence Critic; you've gotta reverse 13 years of actual history and reinvent the Libs as "friend's of the military".   I'd imagine they could call Polaris for another dodgy "analysis" ;D


----------



## geo

too bad they didn't have Graham as the Lib defence critic.  1st politician in a long time that was interested in what he did and took the trouble to find out what the H was going on.


----------



## Kirkhill

geo said:
			
		

> too bad they didn't have Graham as the Lib defence critic.  1st politician in a long time that was interested in what he did and took the trouble to find out what the H was going on.



I agree geo.  Although I think David Pratt was a pretty good hand as well.


----------



## FSTO

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> Well since O'Connor was the lobbyist for AirBus -- no one can claim his C17 bill is for anyone but the Forces -- that Dosanjh is an utter assclown



Calling Dosanjh an assclown is an insult to assclowns everywhere.


----------



## Sheerin

If memory serves most defence critics are assclowns... one just has to think back to O'Connor's comments when he held the post.


----------



## paracowboy

Sheerin said:
			
		

> If memory serves most defense critics are assclowns... one just has to think back to O'Connor's comments when he held the post.


*that* is a fact.


----------



## KevinB

Wizard of OZ said:
			
		

> Now now name calling will not get you anywhere.



I view it less name calling and more of a statement of fact.

Believe me I dont like O'Connor - but the points being thrown against him are utter falacy.  You cannot throw the Lobbyist title at him in connection with the C17 - PERIOD.
 He lobbied for AirBus -- so IF (like is insinuated by the Liberal Defence Critic) O'Connor is follwing his lobbyist roots intent -- then Airbus should have benifited.

As much as I think O'Connor is a fool -- I think he has integrity.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Below, reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act, is an editorial from today’s _National Post_ suggesting that the government of the day should allow the military to set procurement priorities.

I disagree.

It is the role of government – ministers and bureaucrats – to set the military’s course.  This includes deciding on priorities – especially priorities for major capital expenditures.  It is important to remember that _strategy_ is the business of civilians – soldiers are rarely expert at it, being preoccupied with operational and tactical issues.  Strategy, at the national level, includes deciding that we will, or will not, have an independent _global strategic reach_  which implies that we will have _strategic_ sea and air lift.

It is understandable that the defence staff, being preoccupied with current operational and tactical issue, have a _short range_ shopping list.  We want –  at least *I think* we should want – our political leaders and their bureaucratic advisors to have a _long range_ view.  Now, perhaps Gen. Hillier is right – perhaps tactical transporters are the _best course open_; perhaps Minister O’Connor is wrong – perhaps the C-17 production line is not coming to an early end, perhaps we can still get them at current prices some five or ten years from now; I do not know who is right.  I do know that I accept that elected ministers have a duty and a right to make the final decision – having considered all the factors, including the military’s (current) operational interests.

Anyway, here is the _Post_’s view:

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/editorialsletters/story.html?id=b4024764-e204-44ed-ae26-88f9256c958d 


> Let the military call the shots
> 
> National Post
> Thursday, June 08, 2006
> 
> If Canadian Forces' commanders believe other aircraft would be a better fit for our overseas missions, then the Conservative cabinet should not plow ahead with the proposed purchase of four huge Boeing C-17 Globemaster cargo planes. We laud the government for moving swiftly to update our military's rusting equipment. When it comes to deciding what to buy, however, procurement decisions should be guided by the best judgment of our military.
> 
> But while the Cabinet would do well to heed the advice of the country's most senior generals and admirals, it should ignore the opposition Liberals' demand that buying a new airlift plane be delayed until pledges of hundreds of new Canadian jobs can be extracted from the winning manufacturer. It was just this kind of game-playing that plagued the Liberals' administration of our armed forces over the past decade. They saw the procurement process as first and foremost a way to score votes by propping up unprofitable manufacturers and service industries in ridings that might be persuaded to vote Liberal.
> 
> The ill-fated Iltis land patrol vehicle is a prime example. Never popular with troops and infamous for its lack of armour against land mines and bullets, the Liberals nonetheless chose the Iltis over other, more highly recommended alternatives because Volkswagen, which made the Jeep-like vehicle, would agree to have them built by Bombardier rather than in one of its own assembly plants.
> 
> Of course, this provision of the deal also almost tripled the Iltis's cost. But no mind: The Liberals bolstered their electoral hold on Montreal as a result. Never save a life when you can save a riding.
> 
> The same pattern was followed with the maintenance contract for our CF-18 fighters and our inability to choose a new main battle tank. Both were caused by political considerations. And of course, there are our decrepit Sea King helicopters, which would have long ago been replaced by superior maritime choppers had the Liberals not cancelled a contract for new ones, just because the deal was signed by the previous Conservative government of Brian Mulroney.
> 
> Multi-purpose sealift ships, troop transport helicopters, submarines, armoured personal carriers, supply trucks: the list of military contracts delayed or cancelled by the Liberals' insistence on working every purchase to their political advantage is long and shameful.
> 
> There is an urgent need to replace Canada's Hercules long-range aircraft. While they have been the noble workhorses of our forces for nearly five decades -- ferrying personnel, supplies and humanitarian aids to war zones, peacekeeping missions and natural disasters -- 19 of the 32 Hercules aircraft flown by the CF were purchased while Lester Pearson was still prime minister. Many are approaching 50,000 air hours, the point at which they must be retired.
> 
> Perhaps the Boeing C-17 Globemaster -- an enormous, jet-engined cargo plane capable of carrying four times what a single Hercules can transport, faster and farther -- is not the answer. Perhaps it is too much airplane for a smaller army such as ours. If that is the military consensus, then the Conservatives should heed the military professionals under them. At $2.5-billion for just four C-17 aircraft, it is too expensive a piece of hardware to be wrong about.
> 
> General Rick Hillier, Chief of the Defence Staff, is said to favour Hercules replacements that are smaller than the Boeing planes because more of them could be purchased and because smaller planes would be useful on more missions. That seems to us to be advice worth listening to. But when Liberal MP Ujjal Dosanjh starts blustering that the Conservatives are eager to buy American planes that would "deprive Canadian industry of $3-billion in economic benefits" just to win favour with the White House, well, that's just the Liberals making politics with military contracts again. When it comes to military procurement, listen to those in uniform, not those on the opposition benches.
> 
> © National Post 2006​



I do agree with the _National Post_ when it says the government should ignore the clamouring of the opposition re: jobs, Jobs, JOBS.  Military procurement for job creation is a mug’s game: we should aim to get the most for the least cost which, more often than not, means buying off-shore.  Every penny spent on _offsets_ (jobs for Canadians) is a total, complete waste – every single offset, without fail, costs us long suffering taxpayers at least 101% of its value.  Sometimes, but far, far less often than has been the case for the past 25 years, Canadian add-ons are useful – most often, however, they are vote buying boondoggles.  We need to get out of the _offsets_ and _Canadianization_ games – they are bad business.


----------



## Kirkhill

> I do know that I accept that elected ministers have a duty and a right to make the final decision



Therein lies the rub Edward - people are not used to the notion of ANYBODY making ANY decisiions, much less standing in their place and accepting the consequences.


----------



## -dikweed-

I always thought going for the AirBus deal that would supply us with Refurbished C-130s until the A400M was available is the best way to go.  If world powers like France and Germany can make do without owning C-17s or Antonovs, why can't we?  I also know the gov't wants to stay away from Airbus for the time being due to the MND's past connections.  We should probably see how it flies first though lol.  

IMO, doesn't it seem odd that the CF will operate the most expensive lifter in the world while at the same time relying on allies for tactical chopper lift?


----------



## vonGarvin

-dikweed- said:
			
		

> If world powers like France and Germany can make do without owning C-17s or Antonovs, why can't we?


"World power" France?  Germany?  Dude, it's been a while.  While you're at it, why not ask that if Haiti can survive without an effectively functioning sewer system, why can't we?
 :


----------



## -dikweed-

vonGarvin said:
			
		

> "World power" France?  Germany?  Dude, it's been a while.  While you're at it, why not ask that if Haiti can survive without an effectively functioning sewer system, why can't we?
> :



France and Germany have seats at the table while we, as a middle power, do not.  They are world powers with far, far more influence than what we can muster.  

I'll be happy to have C-17s, in fact  I'll cry with joy, I am just questioning the reasoning behind it.  We have far more pressing concerns than strategic airlift.


----------



## vonGarvin

-dikweed- said:
			
		

> France and Germany have seats at the table while we, as a middle power, do not.  They are world powers with far, far more influence than what we can muster.
> 
> I'll be happy to have C-17s, in fact  I'll cry with joy, I am just questioning the reasoning behind it.  We have far more pressing concerns than strategic airlift.


Disagree whole heartedly.  We are destroying our tac lift just trying to keep our troops sustained.  We have great need for Strat lift (IMHO)


----------



## FSTO

-dikweed- said:
			
		

> France and Germany have seats at the table while we, as a middle power, do not.  They are world powers with far, far more influence than what we can muster.
> 
> I'll be happy to have C-17s, in fact  I'll cry with joy, I am just questioning the reasoning behind it.  We have far more pressing concerns than strategic airlift.


France has a seat, Germany doesn't (at the UN).

Neither France, nor Germany has the internal distance to warrant a C17. Canada does, and I am sure that once we get them we will wonder how we survived without them.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

My understanding that the delivery date for the C-17 is within 2 years, this means that the C-17 can take over the long haul routes and save the current C130’s for the short hauls. Perhaps have a cargo transfer point outside of Afghanistan, where the C-17’s can unload without threat of being rocketed or such into the more expendable C130’s. this means the C130’s are doing short hauls reducing flying hours and extending the fleet life until they are replaced and give time for proper contracting.


----------



## paracowboy

Colin, I'm not sure you're correct here. (I'm well outside my lane and stand to be corrected by any of our resident fly-boys). But, it was explained to me that the majority of the stress an airframe receives happens on take-offs and landings, and that, therefore, the length of the actual flight is relatively immaterial.


----------



## Good2Golf

PC, that's exactly right.  That's what happened when we took a transoceanic airliner and used it as an AMU-hopping commuter...in the later years, Boeing's were busting landing gear components and fatiguing dynamic parts like crazy because of the unintended usage.

Currently, Herc DO fly mostly intra-theatre.  Polaris is primary strat lifter in to theatre.  Yes, there are some items that come in on more-or-less "direct" flights by 130 but that's the exception, and very rare one at that.

Colin, just wondering...what makes a C130 (and its crew) more "expendable" than a C17?

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## Old Sweat

PC,

If you need some company outside the lane, I think you are correct about the stresses of take offs and landings. However I believe the maintenance cycle is based on hours flown and thus the time spent in the air. Add: Duey has proven you correct, but I still think the maintenance issue is moot.

Back to the issue of strategic and tactical airlift, we are in a unique position in this country in that we are a very long way from most of our potential theatres of operations. Without the wherewithal to maintain large permanent bases or stockpiles of kit and supplies closer to the action, we have to use some means of strategic deployment. Whether that is leased or owned aircraft and/or shipping and in what proportion I will leave to those more qualified that I. The rider is that we also need tactical transport to get around in theatre.

The issue of helicopter lift which was mentioned a few posts back is an important side issue that is not germane to the discussion of fixed wing transport, in my opinion.


----------



## Kirkhill

Old Sweat, I'm not sure the differentiation between rotary and seized/fixed wing assets is that clear.  This letter from AUSA (Association of the United States Army) makes it clear that at least some folks see the aircraft for the Joint Cargo Aircraft programme, broadly similar to our Fixed Wing SAR programme, as replacements for some of the duties of the Chinook.  Because of a lack of short runway aircraft scarce Chinooks have been pressed into service doing tasks that the JCA could do if it was available.  The Chinook is needed for other taskings



> May 16, 2006
> 
> 
> On behalf of the more than 100,000 members of the Association of the United States Army (AUSA), I write to urge you to take whatever actions are required to restore funding for the Army’s portion of the Joint Cargo Aircraft (JCA) program.
> 
> There is a critical need within the Army to replace its organic fixed wing cargo aircraft now. This capability is essential to support the Army’s efforts in the Global War on Terrorism including efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq. JCA was also intended to support non-wartime missions for the Army and National Guard within the continental United States. Any further delay in the program will cause a significant increase in operations and maintenance costs of the CH-47 fleet which has been performing the missions intended for the JCA.
> In order to more quickly and safely supply its soldiers on the battlefield as well as completed myriad other missions, our Army must have the capabilities provided by the JCA. Therefore, it is imperative that the Congress restore funding authorization for the JCA program, fully fund the Army’s portion of the JCA program and direct the Army to continue its acquisition process to procure an aircraft based on its original approved requirement, and future operations and maintenance budget constraints.
> 
> AUSA stands ready to assist in this worthy effort.



http://www.ausa.org/webpub/DeptGovAffairs.nsf/byid/JSUR-6PUQJY?OpenDocument&Print=1

The problem with all of these competitions is that the aircraft don't nicely fall into direct competition categories.  As I have said before elsewhere the various aircraft stand as discrete points on a spectrum: C17; A400M; C130J-30; C130J; C27J; C295M; CN235 and (just for good measure) DHC-5.  C17, A400M and C130J-30 competed for the Strategic lift dollars.  The A400M, C130J-30 and the C130J competed for the Medium/Large Tactical dollars.  The C130J, C27J, C295M and the CN235 are competing for the small Tactical dollars in the role that the DHC-5 was designed for.  

In the US rotary wing CH47s are doing jobs that the small Tacs could do, that the Army wants done, but the Air Force seems to have a problem with.  My guess is that the Army wants something like the old DHC-5 and in its absence will accept something up to the C27J.  The US Air Force would probably be happier if the dollars were supplied to it to buy more C130J-30s or Js but would find the C27J acceptable as long as they got to keep the jobs.  The Army meanwhile doesn't seem to need the jobs, it would probably be happy if somebody would just do the job they need doing.

OT:  I have been fascinated by the notion, alluded to in a number of Rand studies, that the Air Force could only ever guarantee the Army use of 25% of the C17 fleet, even for a 1 week surge to deploy a Stryker Brigade.  The rest of the aircraft are apparently tied up on Air Force support duties.  Jointness down south still seems to have a ways to go.


----------



## Old Sweat

Kirkhill,

Thank you for that. From a Canadian perspective, we are unlikely to be able to field a fleet that complex. As for the dedication of flying hours to army support, I vaguely remember seeing a breakdown of the C130 hours that were actually devoted to support of the army many, many years ago and suggest that the 25% figure is not too far out of line. 

Perhaps Duey or one of the other aviators could comment on the percentage of the rotary wing hours that are available to flying missions in direct support of the army. Training, maintenance of proficiency, ferry flights and VIP lift eat up a lot of the available hours, if I recall correctly, again from many years ago. I remember discussing this with both the 10 TAG staff and the pilots from 427 Squadron who used to frequent the 2 RCHA mess.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Duey, 

Would not the addition of even (1) C-17 due to its range and lifting capacity not replace the equivalent of (3) or (4) C-130's (which you could then either completely take out of service if totally unairworthy or if determined worthwhile perhaps refurbish)?

Specifically, as an example could you walk a civvie through the comparables of airlifting whatever the maximum number of pallets you can jam in a C-17 from Trenton to Kabul as carried by the (1) C-17 and the required number of C-130's?

How many Herc's to lift the same load?

How many refueling stops for each aircraft type would be normal (I'm just thinking about the airframe stresses previously mentioned at take-off and landing)?

And anything else I've overlooked?

Many thanks in advance....


Matthew.


----------



## George Wallace

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> Would not the addition of even (1) C-17 due to its range and lifting capacity not replace the equivalent of (3) or (4) C-130's (which you could then either completely take out of service if totally unairworthy or if determined worthwhile perhaps refurbish)?



One would do as you suggest, but would not be practical.  You would need approx. four as proposed.  If you didn't have a small fleet, you would have to schedule all your Deployments and 'Emergencies' around the Maintenance Schedule for the aircraft.  With a small fleet you should always have one or more aircraft in service, while others were down for maintenance.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

George Wallace said:
			
		

> One would do as you suggest, but would not be practical.  You would need approx. four as proposed.  If you didn't have a small fleet, you would have to schedule all your Deployments and 'Emergencies' around the Maintenance Schedule for the aircraft.  With a small fleet you should always have one or more aircraft in service, while others were down for maintenance.



I may be a civvie, but I didn't just fall off the turnip truck....   ;D

I was just thinking in terms of a replacement ratio and how bringing in (4) new C-17's could lighten the burden on the current C-130 fleet, and more to the point if we looked at the Trenton-Kabul airlift requirement how many flight hours/take-offs/landings in C-130's could be eliminated with the additional of those (4) C-17's, and as such how many C-130's "could" be taken off the flight line either permanently or for refurbishment if the airframes were worth the effort.


Matthew.


----------



## Good2Golf

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> Kirkhill,
> 
> Thank you for that. From a Canadian perspective, we are unlikely to be able to field a fleet that complex. As for the dedication of flying hours to army support, I vaguely remember seeing a breakdown of the C130 hours that were actually devoted to support of the army many, many years ago and suggest that the 25% figure is not too far out of line.
> 
> Perhaps Duey or one of the other aviators could comment on the percentage of the rotary wing hours that are available to flying missions in direct support of the army. Training, maintenance of proficiency, ferry flights and VIP lift eat up a lot of the available hours, if I recall correctly, again from many years ago. I remember discussing this with both the 10 TAG staff and the pilots from 427 Squadron who used to frequent the 2 RCHA mess.



Old Sweat, no, your memory has not failed you in the least!  Direct support from the Air Force to the Army was a small portion, 10%-25% for aviation as it varied throughout the last decade and a half (the start of the "lean years", early-90's)  Tac Aviation was highest followed by TAL.  Rarely would the Army ever see CAS in Canada during training.  Now that's not to say we weren't able to realize some collateral training, but much support was to other stuff...admin, VIP, etc...  It also depended on the type of aircraft within aviation as well.  When I was flying Chinooks, I would guess that less than 10% of flying, closer to 5%, was in direct support of the Army...most to the SSF (para & boatwork) and a bit to 5e Bde.
Far more was to national "rotary Herc"-like support taskings, replacing HDACS batteries from Eureka to Alert, etc...  I can only recall doing one airmobile in support of a non-para/non-light infantry unit with the 147.  My time on the Twin Huey was a bit of an anomaly since I flew for the prime user >90%.



			
				Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> Duey,
> 
> Would not the addition of even (1) C-17 due to its range and lifting capacity not replace the equivalent of (3) or (4) C-130's (which you could then either completely take out of service if totally unairworthy or if determined worthwhile perhaps refurbish)?
> 
> Specifically, as an example could you walk a civvie through the comparables of airlifting whatever the maximum number of pallets you can jam in a C-17 from Trenton to Kabul as carried by the (1) C-17 and the required number of C-130's?
> 
> How many Herc's to lift the same load?
> 
> How many refueling stops for each aircraft type would be normal (I'm just thinking about the airframe stresses previously mentioned at take-off and landing)?
> 
> And anything else I've overlooked?
> 
> Many thanks in advance....
> 
> Matthew.



Matthew, in terms of bulk, a C-17 will take a total of 18 x 463L pallets (the flat 88"x108" aluminum "plates" you see cargo loaded on..pretty much a NATO standard for air-lift palletization).  The C-17 is wide enough to take two full rows, seven in each row on the floor (14) and two per row on the ramp (4), thus totalling the 18 pallets.  The C-130 takes 5 x 463L pallets on the floor (IIRC, a C130J-30 'stretch' will take a 6th pallet on the floor) and a partially-loaded pallet on the ramp.  So, bulk-wise a C-17 carries about 3 1/2 times the bulk load that a Herc can.

Now weight...compared to a C-17, the Herc's issue is weight, not bulk...meaning you can get the pallets in, but the weight eats almost directly against the usable fuel load, thus greatly reducing range when you're loaded to max normal weight (about 36-37k lbs for the E or H models, max-max is 42,000-ish).  "Empty" (of cargo), a Herc can fly about 5,000 miles, do about 2,500 with half max cargo (~20,000 lbs) and if carrying around 35,000 lbs, an E or H-model will fly about 1400-1500 miles.  Since our Es or Hs are not themselves refuellable, they would have to hop with a max load.  The C-17 of course can gas in-flight, probably needing about 2 or 3 refuels to lift its max 170,000lb payload into theatre (Kabul) (about 12,500 miles from Trenton to Kabul as the crow flies).  A Herc would need 9-10 hops from airport to airport carrying a "de-turreted" LAV to get into theatre...

In the end, there really is no comparison in the long-range lifting between the two aircraft.  The C-17 was designed to lift lots of cargo long distances, in-flight refuelling was an added bonus to fly anywhere in the world.  Herc's really can't compare.  We in Canada just happened to use the Hercs over much longer distance than Lockheed originally intended the Herc to go, since some stuff doesn't fit into an LD3 pallet like the Boeing took, or Polaris takes today.

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Very cool....thanks Duey.

Based on that, is Hillier's apparent prioritization on Herc's based on an assumption that we won't be doing much long range strategic lift and instead would be shipping a majority of materials to a nearby port and then using C-130's on shorter milk-runs?

And second, based on your own take if we can lighten the load on C-130 airframes by getting the (4) C-17's into service quickly, do you have a preference of the C-130J sooner vs the A400M later as the proper long-term solution for the air force?

Many thanks once again....


Matthew.


----------



## Good2Golf

Matthew, I think Gen Hillier's take on the 130 before 17 is that the Polaris is doing not a bad job at strat from Canada to the Theatre airhead, but it's the condition of our TAT Hercs from the airhead into theatre that really needs to be remedied now.  

Re: the 130J...we need it now, we needed it yesterday.  Don't tell anybody I said this  but I'd want to see 130J's go into service flown by my TAT buddies before I got to fly a Chinook, we need them that badly.

Re: A400M...if we had the luxury of time, then the A400M might not be a bad machine to do it all, but the problem is that in some cases it's too big for a true "tactical" transport, yet other times (heavy lift/long range) it's smaller than optimum...kind of a jack of all trades thing, IMO.  

I'll caveat my previous words with the fact that I have only ever sat in the back of a Herc and Polaris and haven't lived the "TAT dream"...although I did live some of my buddies' dreams of flying the C-130J from the back...  ;D

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Duey said:
			
		

> PC, that's exactly right.  That's what happened when we took a transoceanic airliner and used it as an AMU-hopping commuter...in the later years, Boeing's were busting landing gear components and fatiguing dynamic parts like crazy because of the unintended usage.
> 
> Currently, Herc DO fly mostly intra-theatre.  Polaris is primary strat lifter in to theatre.  Yes, there are some items that come in on more-or-less "direct" flights by 130 but that's the exception, and very rare one at that.
> 
> Colin, just wondering...what makes a C130 (and its crew) more "expendable" than a C17?
> 
> Cheers,
> Duey



16 old aircraft vs 4 very expensive brand new ones, plus everyone wants to join the airforce, so it shouldn't be hard to find new flight crews  ;D


----------



## cplcaldwell

Fascinating so far. But I want to stir the pot on this.

The differences from C-17, A400M and C130J-300 have all been made clear here, but, yes and I knew some of you were waiting for a dope like me to bring it up.... what about the IL 76!

Here's a quick rundown
C-17IL76 (Standard)IL76MD (ER)


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

cplcaldwell said:
			
		

> Fascinating so far. But I want to stir the pot on this.
> 
> The differences from C-17, A400M and C130J-300 have all been made clear here, but, yes and I knew some of you were waiting for a dope like me to bring it up.... what about the IL 76!
> 
> Here's a quick rundown
> C-17IL76 (Standard)IL76MD (ER)



Are you looking to get a virtual kick in the nads?


Matthew.   ;D


----------



## cplcaldwell

_*Oh, dear me, most embarrassing ... note to self, use preview button before posting complicated HTM table... much apologies.

Any way I think these numbers are good, some pulled from Boeing, some from airforce-technology, some from CASR... 
Now I know the C-17 is a much more sophisticated aircraft, but for our purposes what's so bad about the IL??
*_

The differences from C-17, A400M and C130J-300 have all been made clear here, but, yes and I knew some of you were waiting for a dope like me to bring it up.... what about the IL 76!

Here's a quick rundown

C-17​IL76​ IL76MD​IL76MF​  Standard​ Extended Range​Extended Range​  Extra Lift​Cost ($Cdn)​  300M​   75M ​ 80M ​  85M ​Range (nm)​  4445​   3000 ​ 4200 ​  5800 ​@ Payload (tonnes)​  72.7​   47 ​ 47 ​  58 ​Takeoff (m@MGL)​  2359​   1600 ​ 1700 ​  1700 ​Cargo - Wid(m)​  5.5​   3.45 ​ 3.45 ​  3.45 ​Wingspan(m)​  51.8​  50.5​ 50.5​50.5​Length(m)​  53.0​  46.6​ 46.6​ 53.2​ Height(m)​  53.0​  46.6​ 46.6 ​ 46.6 ​ Cargo - Len(m)​   20.8​  20.0​ 20.0​  26.0​ Cargo - Wid(m)​  5.5​   3.45 ​ 3.45 ​  3.45 ​


----------



## Armymatters

To cplcaldwell:
1. Russian engines are not as reliable and dependable as Western engines. They also use more fuel than comparable Western designs, and weight more. Also, Russian engines don't last as long as Western ones, usually 1/3 of a Western engine. For example, the mean time between overhaul (MTB) for the Russian RD-33 engine found in the MiG-29 is about 500 hours, with the German experience (Also, the Germans tuned their engines so that they operated at a lower thrust level for less wear and tear to get to this level of operational hours on the engine). There are two of these engines in a MiG-29. With Western designs, such as the GE F110 engine that is found in the F-14, F-15K, F-15SG, and F-16, the MTB is around 1000-1500 hours, over two times the life of the comparable Russian engine. 
2. The Russians aren't known for quality control, compared to Western manufacturers. Airplanes built in the West are built to tight design specifications and tolerances, meaning that they often last longer and operate as specified.
3. The Russians aren't known as well to be good with reliable supplies of spare parts. The problems India is facing with their MiG-29 and Sukhoi fleet with reliable supplies of spares, especially new engines is an example.

Edit: Forgot a couple punctuation marks...


----------



## KevinB

cplcaldwell - several of the zoomie types on this board also pointed out the cost to rewire the entire system with western aviontics and the time it would take to get certified for Cdn flight would be prohibitive...


----------



## Hawker

Duey said:
			
		

> Matthew, I think Gen Hillier's take on the 130 before 17 is that the Polaris is doing not a bad job at strat from Canada to the Theatre airhead, but it's the condition of our TAT Hercs from the airhead into theatre that really needs to be remedied now...
> 
> Cheers,
> Duey



Perhaps this is a dumb question, but given the job that the Polaris has done, would it make sense to acquire a couple more used A-310?  Now granted there aren't any being flown by Canadian airlines that would be surplus (which is how I believe we got both the Polaris and the 707's before them), but for certain there are some out there on the market.  Would this help with intercontinental lift at all, if only of certain types of cargo and pers?


----------



## Mortar guy

According to Airfax, there are only 5 A310s available on the market right now and most of those are for lease. See link for further details:

http://www.airtrading.com//a310.htm

Homme de mortiers


----------



## vonGarvin

Mortar guy said:
			
		

> According to Airfax, there are only 5 A310s available on the market right now and most of those are for lease. See link for further details:
> 
> http://www.airtrading.com//a310.htm
> 
> Homme de mortiers


Nice reference.  My only question: How many LAV III APCs can fit in a polaris?


PS: wouldn't it be "homme des mortiers?"  or even "homard des mortiers?"  
(just kidding, naturally.  My French is so poor that I couldn't talk my way out of a french kiss!)  /rimshot/


It does sound better in German, though
"Mörsermensch"

Cheers


----------



## Mortar guy

vonGarvin said:
			
		

> PS: wouldn't it be "homme des mortiers?"  or even "homard des mortiers?"
> (just kidding, naturally.  My French is so poor that I couldn't talk my way out of a french kiss!)  /rimshot/
> 
> 
> It does sound better in German, though
> "Mörsermensch"
> 
> Cheers



Morsermensch. Sehr gut. Wie hast du die umlaut machen?

(My German is so poor I couldn't talk my way out of a scheise video!) /airball/


----------



## vonGarvin

ALT and 148 = ö
You have to hold the alt and use the numbers from the number pad, not the ones above the letters.


Nice use of the "Scheißeporn" 

(ß=ALT and 225)


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO

vonGarvin said:
			
		

> Nice reference.  My only question: How many LAV III APCs can fit in a polaris?
> 
> 
> PS: wouldn't it be "homme des mortiers?"  or even "homard des mortiers?"
> (just kidding, naturally.  My French is so poor that I couldn't talk my way out of a french kiss!)  /rimshot/
> 
> 
> It does sound better in German, though
> "Mörsermensch"
> 
> Cheers



I don't think you're supposed to talk durning a french kiss 
that's what I've heard anyway.


----------



## Good2Golf

Hawker said:
			
		

> Perhaps this is a dumb question, but given the job that the Polaris has done, would it make sense to acquire a couple more used A-310?  Now granted there aren't any being flown by Canadian airlines that would be surplus (which is how I believe we got both the Polaris and the 707's before them), but for certain there are some out there on the market.  Would this help with intercontinental lift at all, if only of certain types of cargo and pers?



They're not doing a BAD job, but they are not anywhere near optimum.  A large/outsize lifter like C-17 would be far more efficient AND effective than the Polaris...it's just that tac/intra-theatre airlift in the form of the Herc is in such a hurt-locker right now...

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## Armymatters

Duey said:
			
		

> They're not doing a BAD job, but they are not anywhere near optimum.  A large/outsize lifter like C-17 would be far more efficient AND effective than the Polaris...it's just that tac/intra-theatre airlift in the form of the Herc is in such a hurt-locker right now...
> 
> Cheers,
> Duey



We are also better off getting the newer Airbus A330 as well... they even have a tanker version, and a cargo version is apparantly in the works. Bigger, more capable, and newer than a A310.

Hawker: Air Transat uses the Airbus A310, but they aren't letting them go yet. However, Air Canada does use the Airbus A330 series jets, as do Air Transat and Skyservice.


----------



## Good2Golf

Armymatters said:
			
		

> We are also better off getting the newer Airbus A330 as well... they even have a tanker version, and a cargo version is apparantly in the works. Bigger, more capable, and newer than a A310.
> 
> Hawker: Air Transat uses the Airbus A310, but they aren't letting them go yet. However, Air Canada does use the Airbus A330 series jets, as do Air Transat and Skyservice.



AM, the point is, that military cargo does not always fit neatly into an LD3 container.  310/330/340/380/767/777/etc... all great for things that can be containerized.  C17/An124/Il76/A400M strategically move outsized cargo and load/unload without a throng of civy cargo-MSE painted green.  

The point of my post was to point out that tac lift is in a hurt-locker and we need that now.

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## Journeyman

For a C-17 overview/update,  The Federation of American Scientists  has posted a new Library of Congress/Congressional Research Service report, "The  Military Airlift: C-17 Aircraft Program," dated 30 May 2006.


----------



## Kirkhill

Re Tac Lift Duey, 

Given that the current fleet is apparently running out of time fast, and that C-130J-30s are apparently not due until 2010 (unless some horse-trading is done with customers that already on the production spots), and also given that the A400M is not likely to be in series production until at least that time what woud be a good bridge?

Regardless of who supplies them, are there enough -Hs with frames in better conditions than ours to make them a useful bridge (I understand the Americans are currently retiring Hs and replacing them with Js - are any of them less clapped out than ours?).

Alternatively the RAF has decided it doesn't want its J's it only wants J-30s and 17s until it sees if the 400s come along. 

Both options have been discussed in the past.  Is either a viable option?  Better than the current situation? Any other options around beyond buying second hand Russian stuff?

Cheers.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Journeyman said:
			
		

> For a C-17 overview/update,  The Federation of American Scientists  has posted a new Library of Congress/Congressional Research Service report, "The  Military Airlift: C-17 Aircraft Program," dated 30 May 2006.



Interesting the mention of the C-17 being used successfully as intra-theatre transport as well....

Can anyone speak of the thresholds at which C-130's can utilise fields that C-17's cannot (and additionally, at what points C-130's in turn are no longer capable of operation)?


Matthew.


----------



## Good2Golf

Kirkhill, I would certainly look around to see what H's were around...H90/92's would seem to be preferable, I gather from chatting with some of my Herc buddies.  I hadn't heard about the RAF not being big on their "shorties"...maybe something to follow up on there...  ???

Cheers
Duey


----------



## Armymatters

Duey said:
			
		

> Kirkhill, I would certainly look around to see what H's were around...H90/92's would seem to be preferable, I gather from chatting with some of my Herc buddies.  I hadn't heard about the RAF not being big on their "shorties"...maybe something to follow up on there...  ???
> 
> Cheers
> Duey



Didn't Airbus offer refurbished Herc H's for us until if we get the A400M for an interm airplane? They are a known quantity with us, so introduction should be fairly straight foward, and the parts and support are already there.


----------



## Journeyman

Armymatters, you're just not going to let go of that bone are you. You're not on the A400M payroll, are you?


----------



## Armymatters

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Armymatters, you're just not going to let go of that bone are you. You're not on the A400M payroll, are you?



No, but I do know someone who works at Airbus. On the other hand, I also know someone who is currently working with the C-27J Spartan bid team for the FWSAR project. I just think it is an interesting proposal that solves the current issue of no brand new aircraft until 2010.


----------



## George Wallace

Armymatters said:
			
		

> No, but I do know someone who works at Airbus. On the other hand, I also know someone who is currently working with the C-27J Spartan bid team for the FWSAR project. I just think it is an interesting proposal that solves the current issue of no brand new aircraft until 2010.



And those who actually do the jobs, don't seem to see it your way.


----------



## aesop081

Armymatters said:
			
		

> No, but I do know someone who works at Airbus. On the other hand, I also know someone who is currently working with the C-27J Spartan bid team for the FWSAR project. I just think it is an interesting proposal that solves the current issue of no brand new aircraft until 2010.



"i know someone"

"i read a book"

"i saw something on TV"


I have never seen you type "i've flown this" or "i have used this"........

 :


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

He does say he is an armchair general.
As mentioned before the devil's in the details and those you don't necessarily get on Janes or from your buddies.


----------



## Kirkhill

> Lockheed Martin is in an excellent position to make a counter-offer – after all, it is LM to whom most operators want to trade-in ’H-model Hercs. By simply offering interim, rebuilt ’Hs until brand-new ’Js are available (and hopefully bug-free), LM is even with Airbus again. So, why didn’t LM make such an offer earlier? Readers may remember that Britain offered to  lease 10 ex-RAF ’Js  to Canada early in 2005. That deal lost its appeal when LM offered a lease arrangement on brand-new ’Js – LM’s key interest was keeping ’J production lines open, something not helped by Canada taking on used British ’Js. But DND wants to own and that’s just fine by LM. Who wants to sell ’Hs?



http://www.sfu.ca/casr/bg-airlift-tactical.htm

The RAF J's have the same volume as the H's but can lift more mass farther as I understand it.

I can't find a primary source just now.  This will have to do.


----------



## Zoomie

Interesting conversation so far gents - let's keep it up and keep the good ideas flowing.

If I may interject a few sentences, I will promise to go back to lurking once complete.

Strat-lift aside, let's look at the root cause as to why the CF's current fleet of CC-130s are experiencing shortages.  It all comes down to parts and techs.  We rob other aircraft to make another fly and we don't have enough blue suit workers to remedy all the snags that are found with 30 + year old aircraft.

Maintenance priority in Canada is maintaining the E model SAR standby in Greenwood and Winnipeg - Trenton has the rest of the E/H mix with which to maintain SAR standby and keep the bullets and beans flowing into Kandahar.  By removing the Greenwood/Winnipeg fleet from the equation, you effectively cut the maintenance requirements by 50% allowing 8 Wing to prioritize the CC-130's dedicated role of intra-theatre tactical airlift.

Here's the rub...

The only way to stem this flow of maintenance is to replace the SAR birds across Canada - a.k.a. FWSAR replacement project.   Sure , it sounds like I have a personal bias, but I never mentioned the Buff being replaced any time soon - the Buffalo has more life left in it than all of the Herc fleet.

By removing primary SAR from the Hercs task-load, we could retire all of the E model Hercs and rely on that pool of parts and man-power to keep the remaining H models running at peak performance - at least until an effective tactical airlift replacement project can be dreamed up.  The two planes that have been permanently parked at Trenton are both E model Hercs, with the rest to soon follow, why prolonge the inevitable?

Armymatters - do some research for me and find out how many E models and H models are in our current fleet?  I want to do some comparative reasoning with whatever facts you dig up when it comes to how many J models we really need....


----------



## Kirkhill

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:HB3NVBEd4D0J:www.cda-cdai.ca/pdf/Crisis_Cdn_Sec_Def.pdf+CC130E+CC130H&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=7
http://www.sfu.ca/casr/id-ng4-2.htm

Zoomie:  These two reports, one from CDAI (Understanding the Crisis in Canadian Security and Defence, March 2005) and one from SFU CASR (April 2004) indicate a total of 32 CC130s comprising 19 Es and 13 Hs. 5 of the Hs are Tankers apparently.

Can either the C27J or the C295/C235 be bought in sufficient numbers in time to take some of the load off the either TAC lift or SAR or both?


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Zoomie,

If we brought in the FWSAR solution as recommended, wouldn't we need to transfer those techs to the new FWSAR airframes as opposed to consolidating them in Trenton to focus on the remaing C-130's?  Or would we specificy the supplying company train the FWSAR maintenance techs directly from recruits (which would seem to make sense because it would improve our overall depth)?

Thanks in advance,

Matthew.


----------



## Kirkhill

More on the CC130 fleet:

http://www.jcaa.us/AA_Conference_2000/Th-13.pdf  
CC130 Hercules Individual Aircraft Management

19x CC130-E
4x   CC130-H73
2x   CC130-H84
5x   CC130-HT(90) Tankers
2x   CC130-H30 (Stretched) date of acquisition and age of airframes are not given.

Perhaps Armymatters can supply some more up to date information.  I thought that some aircraft had already been taken out of service.


----------



## Scorpyo

The  Canadian  military  surely  needs  new  equipment  and  we  should  try  to  get  the  best  that  is  available  for  our  troops. Hopefully  there  will  be  no  problem  in  getting  major  transformations  in  apparel  a.s.a.p.
    The  undertakings  that  our  current  Conservative  government  is  taking  are  to  be  applauded  because  it  shall  enhance  our  capability  to  wage  war ( peacekeeping )  at  the  same  time  offering  more  protection  for  our  troops.
  SUPPORT  OUR  TROOPS!


----------



## Armymatters

I have the entire Hercules production list for Canada as follows:

Updated August 2005					

MSN	Last ID	 Type	    Last Operator/Owner	      Previous IDs	            Notes
3590	10304	 CC-130E Canadian Armed Forces	 60-5453	                w/o 15.4.66, belly landing,after explosive decompression
4020	130305	CC-130E	Canadian Armed Forces	64-17624, CAF10305	Trenton 8wg
4026	130306	CC-130E	Canadian Armed Forces	64-17625, CAF10306	Greenwood 413 Sqn
4041	130307	CC-130E	Canadian Armed Forces	64-17626, CAF10307	Trenton 8wg
4042	130308	CC-130E	Canadian Armed Forces	64-17627, CAF10308	Trenton 8wg
4050	130309	CC-130E	Canadian Armed Forces	64-17628	               Cr after t/o from Trenton 27.4.67
4051	130310	CC-130E	Canadian Armed Forces	64-17629, CAF10310	Greenwood 413 Sqn
4060	130311	CC-130E	Canadian Armed Forces	64-17630, CAF10311	Trenton 8wg
4061	130312	CC-130E	Canadian Armed Forces	64-17631, CAF10312	w/o 15.10.80, stalled at low level nr Chapais, Quebec
4066	130313	CC-130E	Canadian Armed Forces	64-17632, CAF10313	Trenton 8wg
4067	130314	CC-130E	Canadian Armed Forces	64-17633, CAF10314	Greenwood 413 Sqn
4070	130315	CC-130E	Canadian Armed Forces	64-17634, CAF10315	Trenton 8wg
4075	130316	CC-130E	Canadian Armed Forces	64-17635, CAF10316	Trenton 8wg
4095	130319	CC-130E	Canadian Armed Forces	64-17638, CAF10319	Trenton 8wg
4096	130320	CC-130E	Canadian Armed Forces	CAF10320	              Trenton 8wg
4122	130317	CC-130E	Canadian Armed Forces	64-17636, CAF10317	Trenton 8wg
4124	130318	CC-130E	Canadian Armed Forces	65-17637, 10318	           w/o 1.89 cr landing Wainwright AAF, AK
4191	130321	CC-130E	Canadian Armed Forces	65-12766, CAF10321	w/o 22.7.93 CFB Wainwright
4192	130322	CC-130E	Canadian Armed Forces	65-12767, CAF10322	w/o 30.10.91 Ellesmere Island
4193	130323	CC-130E	Canadian Armed Forces	65-12768, CAF10323	Trenton 8wg
4194	130324	CC-130E	Canadian Armed Forces	65-12769, CAF10324	Trenton 8wg
4285	130325	CC-130E	Canadian Armed Forces	CAF10325	             Trenton 8wg
4286	130326	CC-130E	Canadian Armed Forces	CAF10326	             Trenton 8wg
4288	130327	CC-130E	Canadian Armed Forces	CAF10327	             Trenton 8wg
4289	130328	CC-130E	Canadian Armed Forces	CAF10328	             Trenton 8wg
4553	130329	CC-130H	Canadian Armed Forces	73-1589	                       Crashed Edmonton 16.11.82
4555	130330	CC-130H	Canadian Armed Forces	73-1591	                       Collided mid air with 130331 29.3.85 CFB Namao
4559	130331	CC-130H	Canadian Armed Forces	73-1593	                       Collided mid air with 130330 29.3.85 CFB Namao
4568	130332	CC-130H	Canadian Armed Forces	73-1596	
4574	130333	CC-130H	Canadian Armed Forces	73-1599	                       Trenton 8wg
4580	130336	CC-130H	Canadian Armed Forces	N4246M, G-52-18	          Trenton 8wg, ex 1211 Abu Dhabi
4584	130337	CC-130H	Canadian Armed Forces	 N4247M, G-52-17	  Trenton 8wg, ex 1212 Abu Dhabi
4994	130334	CC-130H	Canadian Armed Forces		                            Trenton 8wg
4995	130335	CC-130H	Canadian Armed Forces		                            Trenton 8wg
5175	130338	CC-130H	Canadian Armed Forces		                            Edmonton 435 Sqn
5177	130339	CC-130H	Canadian Armed Forces		
5189	130340	CC-130H	Canadian Armed Forces		                            Edmonton 435 Sqn
5200	130341	CC-130H	Canadian Armed Forces		                            Edmonton 435 Sqn
5207	130342	CC-130H	Canadian Armed Forces		                            Edmonton 435 Sqn
5307	130343	CC-130H-30	Canadian Armed Forces	N41030	             Trenton 8wg
5320	130344	CC-130H-30	Canadian Armed Forces	N4080M	            Trenton 8wg


----------



## Kirkhill

Well done Army Matters.


----------



## Zoomie

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Can either the C27J or the C295/C235 be bought in sufficient numbers in time to take some of the load off the either TAC lift or SAR or both?



Kirkhill - the current plan is for the new FWSAR to completely remove the CC-130 from SAR duties.  Through your research and it being backed up by Armymatters excellent spread-sheet, we can see that there are 13 H models still left in service.   The question that must be brought up is - can Canada maintain an effective Tactical Airlift element with a pool of 13 aircraft.  Keep in mind that if FWSAR is brought online first, only two squadrons in Canada would still be flying the Hercules - one of them being the training unit (426 sqn).  With two H models overseas in Mirage at any given time - that would still leave 11 aircraft (minus one or two in periodic) with which to maintain pilot proficiencies, run the OTU, keep CFS Alert replenished and conduct any intra-national bulk movements.  If we throw in a strat lifter (C17 or whatever) we could effectively strike out the last two missions and also relieve the Herc fleet of MRPs to Hawaii for the Aurora and staging missions for the CF-188s to wherever they deploy.  A C-27J can also act intra-nationally as a lifter - one of the FWSAR requirements is for it to be able to carry a fully assembled propeller, for MRPs and the like.

[quote author=CdnBlackshirt]
If we brought in the FWSAR solution as recommended, wouldn't we need to transfer those techs to the new FWSAR airframes as opposed to consolidating them in Trenton to focus on the remaining C-130's? [/quote]

When it comes to techs - it is the periodical maintenance that occurs only in Trenton which is the most time-consuming.  All CC-130 airframes are rotated back to 8 Wing in order for these time intensive maintenance sessions to take place.  By removing all of the E models from service, we would be left with only 13 airframes to maintain in Trenton with a huge pool of spare parts.

So you tell me - would it make more sense to buy 15 J Models right now or 15 FWSAR?


----------



## Pendant

someone has probably already mentioned this but im going to go ahead and mention it aswell, Why the C-17 why not the Antonov 124's that we are already chartering from the russians they offered to sell us some and it it larger and costs less. Here is something i read on the internet

*One  citizen's  response  to  the  'intended'  purchase  of  four  Boeing C-17s

Honourable  Senators,  Members  of  Parliament:

According to news reports, DND is about to purchase four (4) Boeing C-17s for 300 million each, plus sign a 20 year maintenance contact for 2 billion dollars.

I will try to be short and simple in my arguments.

Four aircraft at $ 300 million = $ 1.2 billion  –  add to that $ 2.0 billion in contracts,
and it adds up to a total of $ 3.2 billion.

Aircraft cannot fly eternally. Each has what is called a 'service life', which is the number of hours after which the airframe must be retired. The Boeing C-17s have a service life of 30,000 hours.

Since we are spending 3.2 billion dollars on 4 aircraft that each have a service life of 30,000 hours, we can divide 3.2 billion dollars by 4 aircraft, which gives us the cost per Boeing C-17 over its life, than further divide by 30,000 hours which gives us what one hour of flight will cost Canadian taxpayers.

The hourly cost will be $ 26,666.

We have not yet put any pilots or loadmasters on board, paid the mechanics, put any fuel in the aircraft, or added other costs that are not included in the maintenance and parts contracts.

If we just add fuel, these aircraft burn about 6 tons an hour, which comes out to close to $ 3000 an hour of flight. Its easy to see that these aircraft will cost the Canadian taxpayer over $30,000 per hour to fly.

The Antonov 124s we had been chartering cost about $13,000 per hour, which includes just about everything, but they carry 120 tons of cargo.  The Boeing
C-17 will only take 77 tons, about half the payload.

[Author’s Update: Increasing fuel costs (up from US$3,700/hr in 2002 to US$8600/ hr in 2005) will raise An-124 charter costs you around $20,000 per hour rather than the older figure of  $13,000/hr.  The NATO SALIS aircraft will probably cost more due to NATO requirements –  dedicated base, standby, guarantees required, etc.]

So the hourly cost of flying our shiny C-17s will be about 2.5 times the cost of chartering Antonovs, but since the Boeing carries 1.55 times less cargo, the cost per ton carried will be about 3.9 times greater with the Boeings. That covers the cost issue.

This cost issue is the very reason that no other armed forces in any country outside the US has purchased any Boeing C-17s. In fact, the plant is about to be closed.  This is also why,  when Boeing attempted to market the aircraft as a civilian freighter, there was not a single order worldwide, not even in the US.

We  are  about  to  become  the  first  suckers,  thanks  to  Mr. Harper  and  his desperation  at  pleasing  the  White  House.  Even  the UK  (Mr. Blair)  did  not want to buy any C-17s.  (The UK  leased a few, waiting  for the  Airbus A400M).

[CASR  update:  In the end, both the UK  and  Australia decided  to buy  C-17s, each  driven  by  their  own  particular  political  and  military  imperatives  –  so, Canada  might  not be the  'first  adopter'  –  but we may very  well  be  the  last.]

The  Boeing  C-17s are going  to be  purchased  by DND  through  'sole-sourcing',
which  means  that  no alternative  bids  are  going  to  be  accepted.  Here's  what Canadian  law  has  to  say  about  sole - source  buying.*

When i read this i asked myself why are we buying these aircraft?


----------



## canuck101

;D This is going to be fun watching the responses to the last post  ;D


----------



## George Wallace

Pendant said:
			
		

> someone has probably already mentioned this but im going to go ahead and mention it aswell, Why the C-17 why not the Antonov 124's that we are already chartering from the russians they offered to sell us some and it it larger and costs less. Here is something i read on the internet
> 
> When i read this i asked myself why are we buying these aircraft?



Shall I be the first to make you chuckle canuck101    ;D

Pendant    :

Someone has alread mentioned all of this.
We too read on the internet.
When you go and read more of this post, you may have the answers for what you are asking.........answers to these questions that were answered several pages ago.  

Welcome to Army.ca

Enjoy the reading.

 ;D


----------



## Armymatters

The Antonov AN-124 has a service life of 24,000 hours, if the airframe was built after 2000. Anything built before 2000 has a service life of 7,000 hours. That is partially why an Antonov can be cheaper.

Edit: Also, the Antonov drinks fuel at about 0.0125 tons per nautical mile, from my calculations from 90,000kg, traveling 4000nm. Using block hours, the Antonov drinks 5 tons per block hour (not flight hours!). Over the service life of a late production Antonov, 120,000 tons of gas will be drunk. Using the same formula for fuel costs above, $60,000,000 of cash will be expended for fuel, and divided for every service hour, $2500 per flight hour. Remember I am using block hours, meaning that I am including calculating time on the ground when the airplane is on a mission.
http://www.skylineaviation.co.uk/data/an124.html

An Antonov requires a minimum of a crew of 6, compared to a C-17, which requires a crew of 3. Crew costs for a C-17 is cheaper than an Antonov AN-124.


----------



## Good2Golf

Three factors: 

capital costs, 
operational & maintenance (O&M) costs, and
political expediences.

I'd come up with a fancy formula linking all three to the Canadian situation, but I'm running short on sleep and figure my time is better spent examining the inside of my eyelids...   

Without going :"mentally mathematical" I will "qualitatively" assess that: 

  a) Antonov wins in the "capital cost" category

  b) C-17 wins in the "operational costs" category

  c) C-17 wins in the "political expediency" category

This is no less valid than the qualitative "_we need two brand new CL-604 jets from my brother-in-law's company because the rich Corinthian leather in my CL-601's "Grand Poohbah Seat" is wearing thin..._" which, BTW, was apparently good enough justification in it's day for a tortuous 48-hour long procurement process.  :

All things in balance...just because it's cheap doesn't make it good...and conversely, just because it's more expensive doesn't make it better (I love the add with the MP3 player that looks like a woofer-speaker  )

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## Kirkhill

> So you tell me - would it make more sense to buy 15 J Models right now or 15 FWSAR?



I think the point of contention here is the word "buy".   

We are boxed in because despite the fact that the "best" answer may be more apparent in 5 years time - once the Js have had a chance to rack up some fleet service and the A400M has at least had a chance to fly - 19 of our fleet won't last that long.  In addition, on the FWSAR contest, while I see the benefits of the C27J in particular and its commonality with the C130J (potentially),  from what I gather the Italian Air Force, although it was the first customer, has yet to take delivery of all twelve aircraft.  Greece and Bulgaria have moved ahead on the list.  Perhaps a bit more track record there would be nice as well.  The C295M/CN235 is perhaps not all that you might desire either.

On that basis I say "Punt".

Armymatters brought up the fact that Airbus offered some H's as bridging if we committed to the A400M.  Good business on their part but it still ends up committing us to an unproven aircraft.  What that offer did though, was tell me that there are H's to be had on the market.  As well we know there are Js available on the market from the RAF.

My suggestion is to lease.  A 5 to 7 year lease on the Hs or Js (with an option to buy on the Js).  Let the Hercs continue with the SAR duties, alongside your Buffalos and figure out whether the C27J/C130J combination is workable or the C295/A400M is acceptable.

It is not as if leasing is new.  We leased Leos initially when we let the Centurions get to the same state as your Hercs.  I also wouldn't be surprised if our government didn't follow our allies and lease some of this shipping they are talking about.  It seems to be quite common in the domestic patrol vessel and logistic support vessel categories.  They are insured on the "you break'em, you bought'em" principle.

There you go.  My canned answer. Prevaricate... ;D


----------



## geo

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Armymatters brought up the fact that Airbus offered some H's as bridging if we committed to the A400M.  Good business on their part but it still ends up committing us to an unproven aircraft.  What that offer did though, was tell me that there are H's to be had on the market.  As well we know there are Js available on the market from the RAF.



I was under the impression that the RAF did take delivery of the J's.?


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Can anyone tell me- has the policy changed that prohibited Canadian Soldiers (vice gear or supplies) from flying on the Russian aircraft supplying Kandahar?


----------



## Armymatters

geo said:
			
		

> I was under the impression that the RAF did take delivery of the J's.?



They no longer want them.

Edit: I over-generalized. They no longer want the regular J's. They want to hold onto the J-30's, for now.


----------



## KevinB

Armymatters said:
			
		

> They no longer want them.



Do you have a source for that -- the RAF pilots I have talked to here seem to like them...


----------



## Kirkhill

Geo (and Infidel-6):

From what I understand the RAF bought a mixed buy of 25 Hercules to replace/augment their existing fleet.  Of these 10 were C130Js  aka C5s and 15 were C130J-30s aka C4s.  The RAF will continue to operate a mixed fleet of C1s and C3s (aka C130Ks aka C130H-30s) edit:  alongside of the C4s and C5s.
http://www.raf.mod.uk/equipment/hercules.html
http://www.raf.mod.uk/equipment/c-130j.html

CASR speculates that the RAF is offering is willing to offer  these up so that the MOD will let them buy more C17s.
http://www.sfu.ca/casr/bg-airlift-raf.htm

Same source also notes that LM is offering J's on lease.  Airliner magazine confirms that LM made a similar offer to the German Air Force as a stopgap until the A400 comes on line.  No word on delivery schedule.

RAF offer, if real, is interesting because of the delivery time.  For the same reason late model Hs as offered by Airbus would also be interesting.

Interestingly, buried in an MOD accounting report of 2004 was a line item stating that a classified upgrade programme on the C130js had been cancelled as a cost saving measure.  UK MOD Annual Report and Accounts 2004.

Infidel - next time you run into one of those RAF fellas it would be interesting to find out what they have heard.  Cheers.


----------



## CougarKing

Pendant said:
			
		

> We  are  about  to  become  the  first  suckers,  thanks  to  Mr. Harper  and  his desperation  at  pleasing  the  White  House.  Even  the UK  (Mr. Blair)  did  not want to buy any C-17s.  (The UK  leased a few, waiting  for the  Airbus A400M).
> 
> [CASR  update:  In the end, both the UK  and  Australia  decided  to buy  C-17s, each  driven  by  their  own  particular  political  and  military  imperatives  –  so, Canada  might  not be the  'first  adopter'  –  but we may very  well  be  the  last.]
> 
> The  Boeing  C-17s are going  to be  purchased  by DND  through  'sole-sourcing',
> which  means  that  no alternative  bids  are  going  to  be  accepted.  Here's  what Canadian  law  has  to  say  about  sole - source  buying.[/b]
> 
> When i read this i asked myself why are we buying these aircraft?



In the May 2006 issue of the UK magainze "Air Forces Monthly", it stated that the RAAF chose to acquire 3-4 C-17As at a cost of $2 billion AUS or $ US 1.42 billion).The article also stated that the C-17's capacity to carry the Australian Army's new M1A1 tanks was one of the reasons why the RAAF acquired the planes, aside each C-17's capacity to transport four times the load of an RAAF C-130.  

I'm not voicing any opinion here, just adding more facts. Perhaps any Australian posters on this forum would like to share their own thoughts about their C-17s.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin

Armymatters said:
			
		

> They no longer want them.
> 
> Edit: I over-generalized. They no longer want the regular J's. They want to hold onto the J-30's, for now.



IIRC, this was NOT because of problems with the aircraft.  Instead, the RAF was looking at standardizing on "stretched" versions, while the original C-130Js had regular cargo capabilities.  I believe, based on reporting at the time, that these were the versions offered to Canada for lease.

Frankly, all these semantics about types of aircraft and the political invective are getting rather tiresome. The fact of the matter is: 

1.  The A400M is not flying right now and may have problems in the future.  This is what led the RAF to buy C-130Js and C-17s in the first place.

2.  The C-17 is a proven and highly capable aircraft flown by our major allies and of which - _having worked extensively with them on operations_ - I have heard nothing but praise.  Yes, they're expensive, but they provide enormous capability.

                  *Cargo*      *#463L*                   *CDS*         *Combat *    *Para*
                  *Floor*        *Pallets*    *Litters*    *Bundles*         *Troops*
*Model*

C-130J          55 ft          8          97           24           128           92
A400M          58 ft          9          66           24           120           120
(Proposed)
C-17             65 ft         18         36           40           102           102
C-130E/H      40 ft          6          74           16            92            64
C-130J
(Short)

To me, this is a no-brainer.  The C-17 will carry any tactical vehicle in the Army's inventory, plus twice as many cargo pallets as an A-400M.

3.  Boeing has stated categorically that these aircraft will be serviced in Canada and that we could take advantage - as the UK and Australians already have - of their global servicing network.  Moreover, to sooth the porkbarrel crowd, they've promised industrial offsets. 

4.  Much has been made of the fact that the C-17 will leave production in 2008.  So what?  Does this mean that spares will dry up?  Get real.  Given their past record, the USAF will keep C-17s in service for at least 40 years!

5.  The political BS claiming that the US will have tasking authority over our aircraft, that they'll have to be based in the US because the CF has no hangers and that all the maintenance will have do be conducted south of the border is just that - BS.  Worse, such claims are deliberate distortions of the truth designed to panic a gullible media and to pursue an anti-American agenda.

5.  CASR and others have argued for the purchase of Russian aircraft.  This is a non-starter for so many reasons that it almost defies description.  Incompatibility with STANAGs and ABCA standards, shoddy construction, unreliability, poor engines, increased fuel consumption, lack of a viable training regime, on and on.  These points have been gone over on other threads repeatedly, yet the same arguments crop up over and over again.  There is a reason why (unless things have changed in the last 12 months) CF personnel cannot fly on chartered Russian/Ukrainian aircraft - and it isn't all connected with aircrew reliability.

We are going round and round the same points, making the same arguments.  Those who believe we'd buy C-17s to appease Bush and suck up to the Americans will never be convinced.  Likewise, the techno-geeks out there will grind their teeth on every infinitesimal detail, trying to pick the proposed purchase apart.

You can make an argument that a CC-130 replacement is needed more than a new heavy-lifter.  However, you cannot argue that new aircraft are needed NOW, not later, and  quite frankly I don't give a damn about how many industrial offsets are going to Quebec and how we might appear to be sucking up to Dubya. 

As you might have guessed, I'm rounds expended on this subject.  My final word?  Damn the critics; buy C-17s AND C-130Js now, rather than wait for some nebulous future product that may or may not actually meet advertised timelines and/or capabilities.

Cheers,

TR


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

+1


----------



## Journeyman

Teddy, you really suck at waffling and flip-flopping on an issue. Are you _sure_ you're in Ottawa?   ;D


----------



## Mortar guy

Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> 5.  CASR and others have argued for the purchase of Russian aircraft.  This is a non-starter for so many reasons that it almost defies description.  Incompatibility with STANAGs and ABCA standards, shoddy construction, unreliability, poor engines, increased fuel consumption, lack of a viable training regime, on and on.  These points have been gone over on other threads repeatedly, yet the same arguments crop up over and over again.  There is a reason why (unless things have changed in the last 12 months) CF personnel cannot fly on chartered Russian/Ukrainian aircraft - and it isn't all connected with aircrew reliability.
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> TR



Teddy,

I don't disagree with most of what you're saying and I am in no way proposing we buy Russian aircraft, but this statement of yours above about engines and electronics is not entirely accurate. The AN-124-100M has been designed with western avionics (provided by Honeywell)  and the AN-124-210 adds to that by adding Rolls Royce RB211 engines. So, there is a Russian aircraft out there with western avoinics and engines that can carry more than a C-17 at less than half the price. I still agree that there are political reasons why it will never work but the technical ones are not that big.

Regards,

MG


----------



## MarkOttawa

Does anyone really think the A400M will be delivered on time (and on budget)?



> Airbus warns of expensive, new A380 production delays


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20060614.RAIRBUS14/TPStory/Business

'Airbus SAS revealed new delays of at least six months in deliveries of its A380 superjumbo yesterday, in an embarrassing new setback expected to blow a €2-billion ($2.8-billion) cash hole in parent EADS NV starting in 2007.

The European plane maker said it will still deliver the first aircraft to Singapore Airlines Ltd. in 2006, but will slow down deliveries from next year onwards because of problems with the installation of electrical wiring harnesses.

"We have had an industrial delay. It will shift the program to the right by six to seven months," said John Leahy, Airbus' chief commercial officer...

Airbus upset airlines earlier in the A380 production cycle by announcing a six-month delay in deliveries after insisting that the program was running to schedule...'

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Journeyman

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> *Does anyone really think the A400M will be delivered on time (and on budget)?*


Armymatters still seems to be campaigning on that promise   >


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Teddy, you really suck at waffling and flip-flopping on an issue. Are you _sure_ you're in Ottawa?   ;D



I'm not!  



> I don't disagree with most of what you're saying and I am in no way proposing we buy Russian aircraft, but this statement of yours above about engines and electronics is not entirely accurate. The AN-124-100M has been designed with western avionics (provided by Honeywell)  and the AN-124-210 adds to that by adding Rolls Royce RB211 engines. So, there is a Russian aircraft out there with western avoinics and engines that can carry more than a C-17 at less than half the price. I still agree that there are political reasons why it will never work but the technical ones are not that big.



It is accurate.  The aircraft don't exist.  From Jane's (current edition):



> *An-124-100M-150*
> 
> As for -100M, but enhanced navigation aids comprising Jeppersen global database in Leninets A-820M computer and UKRNIIRA SRPPZ-2000 GPWS, allowing aircraft to conform to P-RNAV requirements. _Prototype, conversion_ of RA-82008, first flew August 2004 at start of 34-sortie test programme.
> 
> *An-124-210*
> 
> Joint *proposal* with Air Foyle to meet UK's Short Term Strategic Airlifter (STSA) requirement; 273 kN (60,600 lb st) Rolls-Royce RB211-524H-T engines and Honeywell avionics. Weight empty 184,000 kg (405,650 lb); payload and MTOW as An-124-100. Range (30 min reserves plus 5 per cent) 2,267 n miles (4,200 km; 2,609 miles) with 120,000 kg (264,550 lb) max payload; 3,855 n miles (7,140 km; 4,436 miles) with 80,000 kg (176,375 lb); or 7,424 n miles (13,750 km; 8,543 miles) with max fuel. JAR 25 runway length 2,300 m (7,545 ft). Three flight crew. *STSA competition was abandoned in August 1999, then reinstated and won by Boeing C-17A.*



There are all sorts of other proposals for other engines and avionics, but the fact of the matter remains that none of these aircraft are actually flying.  The addition of a modicum of Western electronics does not resolve basic QA issues with the airframes themselves, nor does it address the other (training, spares, maintenance, etc.) problems that come up when dealing with Russian/Ukrainian aircraft.


----------



## Armymatters

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Armymatters still seems to be campaigning on that promise   >



They already gave us interm aircraft, so we can wait it out, and severely fine Airbus for the delay, if the government is smart enough to structure the deal carefully enough.


----------



## aesop081

Armymatters said:
			
		

> They already gave us interm aircraft, so we can wait it out, and severely fine Airbus for the delay, if the government is smart enough to structure the deal carefully enough.




 :


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Armymatters said:
			
		

> They already gave us interm aircraft, so we can wait it out, and severely fine Airbus for the delay, if the government is smart enough to structure the deal carefully enough.



Going by the way Government negotiates contracts, likely we will get penalized for finally having to break the contract and buy something else after waiting 15 years.


----------



## MarkOttawa

aesop081:



> AND TAKE A LAST, FLYING LOOK
> AT THE LAST LONELY HERCULES


http://www.nrpsmusic.com/music/lyrics/lastlonely.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## aesop081

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> aesop081:
> http://www.nrpsmusic.com/music/lyrics/lastlonely.html
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



Did i miss something ?

or am i just going blind on my OPME essay ?


----------



## Kirkhill

Armymatters, why would you make a 40 year commitment to an aircraft that hasn't flown when you don't have to?

They haven't "given" us interim aircraft.  They suggested using old aircraft from the competition as a bridge.  All they did by doing that is display that the competition is flying aircraft and they aren't.

It also demonstrated that there are other options to take away the time pressure the CF is under.  L3, I am sure would be pleased to help us with refurbished C130s, as would Lockheed Martin.  Both have got better track records in supplying and maintaining C130s than Airbus.   Interim Hercs from the people that build and maintain Hercs until new Hercs are available seems a lot more reasonable than interim Hercs from the supplier of a concept aircraft.  (

NB Detroit builds many concept cars, proceeds to prototypes, then to production and often modifies the vehicle once it is in production.  This aircraft has not yet been created of metal,  ie it is still at the concept stage.)

Airbus doesn't need this order.  They already have a full production slate.  The offset benefits have already been decided so there is little to be gained on that front, beyond the phony ones that will jack up the cost to the CF.  We are better to wait and see if the A400M is a good aircraft in service. 

In about 10-15 years that will become apparent, perhaps sooner.  By that time we should be starting to look at replacing any aircraft we acquire by lease or purchase now.

Cheers.


----------



## MarkOttawa

aesop081: Just an old country rock perspective on things current--suggesting that by the time we might get any A400Ms there might be a very lonely Herc(s).

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## aesop081

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> aesop081: Just an old country rock perspective on things current--suggesting that by the time we might get any A400Ms there might be a very lonely Herc(s).
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



Oh good..i was afraid you wanted me to write an essay about it..........


----------



## MarkOttawa

aesop081::A comparison of the New Riders of the Purple Sage, the Eagles, and Gram Parsons (esp. with Emmylou Harris) would be greatly appreciated.  Including the Stones' "Dead Flowers".   

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Armymatters

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> It also demonstrated that there are other options to take away the time pressure the CF is under.  L3, I am sure would be pleased to help us with refurbished C130s, as would Lockheed Martin.  Both have got better track records in supplying and maintaining C130s than Airbus.   Interim Hercs from the people that build and maintain Hercs until new Hercs are available seems a lot more reasonable than interim Hercs from the supplier of a concept aircraft.



I was informed that Airbus has talked with L-3 for the Herc rebuilds. Airbus will provide the Hercs and send them to L3 for refurbishment. It was an idea floated to add some additional Canadian industrial offset.

South Africa has purchased the A400M and they have Hercs older than our Hercs (their Hercs are model B's). Canada and South Africa are both in the same boat in terms of Hercules replacement urgency, with South Africa in a even more urgent situation (they are spending over $130 million US to keep their 9 Herc B's airworthy).

Edit: That news regarding the Airbus delay on the A380 jet? BAE is blaming EADS for deliberately making the announcement at this time to drive down the value of Airbus so that they can be shortchanged on the sale value of their holdings in Airbus:
http://news.independent.co.uk/business/news/article1014055.ece


----------



## Edward Campbell

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> The offset benefits have already been decided so there is little to be gained on that front, beyond the phony ones that will jack up the cost to the CF ...
> 
> Cheers.



There are no offset _benefits_, ever, in any way, to any customer.  All _benefits_ flow, 100% from customer to vendor.  It was ever thus; it is that way now and it will always be that way.

When dealing with any European Union vendor any and all non EU customers will get screwed- that's written into the Teatry of Rome.


----------



## Kirkhill

> There are no offset benefits, ever, in any way, to any customer.  All benefits flow, 100% from customer to vendor.  It was ever thus; it is that way now and it will always be that way.



Edward, on general principle I agree with you.  The exchange of funds known as offsets and IRBs is a political shell game.  

What I was thinking of here was real value in real jobs that occurs from being one of the vendors.  That usually happens at the beginning of a project and entails stepping up and taking risks that the venture might fail.  In particular, had the A400M team decided that the Pratt and Whitney Canada engine was the best engine for the job at the best price and opted to make that an integral part of their aircraft then, in my opinion, that would have constituted a real industrial benefit to Canada: regardless of whether or not Canada bought the aircraft.  The possibility that Canada might choose to buy the aircraft, sending funds to the EU, would then legitimately have been offset by EU funds coming to Canada for the engines.  

Having said that I recognize that the "hard" costs of components at the factory gate is usually only a fraction of the cost of any system.  Most "costs" are "soft costs" associated with engineering, marketing, risk management and financing. 

The Merlin/EH-101/Cormorant project was a better concept in that regard because Canada was buying in early, securing a stake in the manufacturing and marketing of the world-wide programme.  It wasn't taking a readily available, tried and tested product from the shelf and pretending that it had to tested for Canada and produced on a production line set up just to meet the needs of the Canadian market place. 

An economic digression here:  

This problem is not limited to the CF and DND.  

I have sold enough systems, in the US and Canada, based on European technology to have a pretty fair appreciation for the vagaries of the market.

My personal opinion is that the European engineering stands out head and shoulders above anything that is produced in North America.  However they are extraordinarily proud of their work, as reflected in the price.  They are extremely inflexible in adjusting to local situations (an argument in favour of Canadianization).  They are also abominable at supplying service support (another argument in support) although this is in part because the Europeans expect more from the maintenance engineers than North Americans.   

Europe, unlike North America, is still turning out lots of mechanical engineers from its schools.  North American engineers tend to be longer in the tooth than their Euro counterparts and their companies are struggling for investment dollars.  Their products reflect the conservatism of age as well as the lack of money to take risks and  innovate.

Regardless of source there are a lot of well-proven solutions to virtually every process and production problem under the sun.  It shouldn't be too hard to find one and make a decision on it.

I came to be astounded by the differences in the mentality of Canadian and American business.  In the US, I could make a business case based strictly on a cost/benefit analysis. In Canada, even if the project were profitable in own right the customer would invariably want to know:

Was he the first to use the machine in Canada so he could claim R&D credits - this despite the same machine was being used on the same fish 100 miles away in the US.  If he waited a week that same school would be swimming by his harbour mouth.

Did he have access to ACOA or WED or BDC funds? - apparently as the supplier of the equipment I was supposed to be up on the alphabet soup of government programmes and know where he was supposed to get the government money.

Assuming that it was agreed that the equipment was good, and would make him money, it still was acceptable if he couldn't get money from the government because Joe down the road "always" got government money to fund his acquisitions and he needed to get his share.

Accordingly I sold 100 dollars in the states for every dollar I sold in Canada.

Digression over and back to our regularly scheduled discussion.

Cheers.


----------



## MarkOttawa

> Supply ship contract could be awarded by end of June


http://thechronicleherald.ca/Metro/510261.html

Excerpts:

'The navy is expecting an announcement about replacements for its aging supply ships by the end of the month, says the region’s top sailor.

Irving is part of a consortium vying to bring the $2.1-billion contract to build and maintain the three 28,000-tonne joint support ships to Halifax. If it wins the bid, Irving estimates the project would employ about 400 workers at the Halifax Shipyard during the peak building phase.

"It will definitely be announced before the Parliament recesses for the summer," said Rear Admiral Dan McNeil, the commander of Joint Task Force Atlantic.

"My guess is they all want to go home to the beach in July and August. So my guess is by the end of June."..

"It’s about time we built some more ships, and I’m not just talking about joint support ships," said Rear Admiral McNeil.

"I’m talking about recapitalization of the coast guard. . . . We need some shipbuilding around here. It’s not for the navy. It’s not for the coast guard. It’s for the country. Because what we’re doing is stupid."..

"So we need a shipbuilding program."

Two groups, Canadian North Atlantic Marine Partnerships and BAE Systems Inc., are seeking to build the three joint support ships in Newfoundland and Labrador. The final bidder, SNC-Lavalin ProFac Inc., wants to construct the vessels in Victoria...

Delays may be tied to Tory plans to spend more than $8 billion on military equipment, including new transport aircraft, helicopters and logistics trucks.

"The hold-up is political announcements," said Frank Smith, business development director for Peter Kiewit Sons’ Co., which is working with Canadian North Atlantic Marine Partnerships. "They want to announce all the . . . stuff at the same time. And the aircraft one is the directed purchase (of four C-17 Globemaster long-range cargo planes from Boeing for $2.5 billion). So I think there’s some political flak going on."

The final contract for the joint support ships is slated to be awarded in 2008 with the delivery of the first of three ships scheduled for 2013...'

Now, what about the amphibious ship?
http://www.navy.forces.gc.ca/mspa_news/news_e.asp?id=164

As for the Coast Guard, itt should get any new arctic icebreakers (the Navy has not operated them for 49 years), which would be perfectly adequate in Coast Guard service for asserting arctic sovereignty. The Conservative election promise of armed Navy icebreakers was simply silly.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa

Airbus eyes votes:
http://www.ottawabusinessjournal.com/286337438811457.php

'Airbus outlines offer for military transports...

Airbus Industries has upped the ante in the contest to supply new long-range military transports to the Canadian Forces.

Airbus has made public its offer to supply the A400M tactical transport to replace the aging fleet of Hercules transports that are now the backbone of the military's airlift capability.

Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor has yet to make an announcement, but is thought to favour the purchase of two huge Boeing C-17 Globemasters that would be used to carry Canadian troops and their equipment to far-off locations, along with acquiring newer versions of the Herc. Opposition critics have condemned the minister for considering a "sole-source" contract rather than opening up the purchase to competitive bidding.

Airbus says with the A400M, the government can meet most of its tactical and strategic airlift requirements with a single aircraft, at a saving of up to $2 billion compared to purchasing, maintaining and operating two separate fleets.

Airbus says it can supply 16 A400Ms for $2.4 billion – some $2 billion less than if two separate strategic and tactical airlift fleets were purchased. It says nine countries, including major NATO partners, have so far ordered a total of 192 A400Ms.

Airbus and its parent company EADS are also promising substantial industrial benefits, saying they would partner with major Canadian companies, as well as small and medium enterprises, to return at least 100 per cent of the purchase costs in the form of industrial benefits to Canadian companies. Airbus also says virtually all the maintenance, repair and overhaul, modifications, engineering support, and flight and maintenance training would be done in Canada.

The A400M is still on the drawing board [so is the engine] and is scheduled to fly early 2008 and to obtain initial operating clearance late in 2009. The government is thought to favour an aircraft that is already certified and in production and that could be delivered within two years.'

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## aesop081

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> aesop081::A comparison of the New Riders of the Purple Sage, the Eagles, and Gram Parsons (esp. with Emmylou Harris) would be greatly appreciated.  Including the Stones' "Dead Flowers".
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



I hate you......


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

> Airbus says it can supply 16 A400Ms for $2.4 billion – some $2 billion less than if two separate strategic and tactical airlift fleets were purchased. It says nine countries, including major NATO partners, have so far ordered a total of 192 A400Ms.



My apologies, but my memory is failing me.  What is the other option they're comparing the (16) A400M's to?

(4) C-17's and (??) C-130J's?


Matthew.   ???


----------



## Journeyman

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> ... nine countries, including major NATO partners, have so far *ordered a total of 192 A400Ms*.


Adding _further_ delivery delays to this increasingly weighty albatross. Avoid it like the plague.


----------



## MarkOttawa

aesop081: Kiss, kiss.  Just now listening to "The Buddy Holly Collection", "Learning the Game".
http://www.amazon.ca/exec/obidos/ASIN/B000002OPE/sr=1-3/qid=1150417903/ref=sr_1_3/702-9510788-5934438?%5Fencoding=UTF8&s=music&v=glance

Chin up.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Armymatters

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Adding _further_ delivery delays to this increasingly weighty albatross. Avoid it like the plague.



Airbus made room for South Africa (they are also amongst the first ones to be receiving their A400M's). They already said slots for late 2010 / early 2011 can be made available to us.

I am just saying, buy the C-17's now for heavy lift, and then the A400M to replace the rest of the Herc fleet. Nothing about using a one size fit all approach.


----------



## Infanteer

Buy the Millenium Falcon for all I care, just buy something so we can put this thread to rest.  Teddy put the rounds on target, IMHO.... :skull:


----------



## aesop081

Armymatters said:
			
		

> Airbus made room for South Africa (they are also amongst the first ones to be receiving their A400M's). They already said slots for late 2010 / early 2011 can be made available to us.
> 
> I am just saying, buy the C-17's now for heavy lift, and then the A400M to replace the rest of the Herc fleet. Nothing about using a one size fit all approach.



herc fleet can't wait that long.......we already started retiring airframes, FWSAR isnt any closer to coming to fruition....and dont even start with the airbus CC-130 refurbs, no matter what you do to modernise those birds, they will still be ancient machines. C-17 is the way to go.


----------



## Armymatters

aesop081 said:
			
		

> herc fleet can't wait that long.......we already started retiring airframes, FWSAR isnt any closer to coming to fruition....and dont even start with the airbus CC-130 refurbs, no matter what you do to modernise those birds, they will still be ancient machines. C-17 is the way to go.



As mentioned South Africa is in a even more dire situation: they got Herc B's that are already way past retirement. Airbus was offering to find us Herc H's for an interm aircraft. Both Lockheed and Airbus said they couldn't deliver until 2010, so either way, we should get the more capable airplane.


----------



## Pendant

enough of the politics of it all though i say they choose one aircraft and stick with it because the more they talk about it the longer it will take for the new aircraft to be delivered


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060615/military_spending_060615/20060615?hub=TopStories

O'Connor seeks $15B in extra equipment for troops
Updated Thu. Jun. 15 2006 11:39 PM ET

CTV.ca News Staff

With Canada's military stretched thin in its largest overseas combat deployment since the Korean War, Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor has approached Cabinet with a $15-billion wish list for badly-needed equipment.

Government sources told CTV News Thursday that the most pressing requirement for the military is airlift capability, as the armed forces has reached their breaking point just by flying troops and supplies to and from Afghanistan. 

As part of its wish list, the military is asking for:

More than a dozen new Lockheed-Martin Hercules short-haul tactical aircraft; 
Up to five Boeing C-17 Globe Masters -- long-haul strategic transport planes currently being used by the U.S. military; 
Two naval supply ships, to replace vessels that have been in service for 40 years; and 
Boeing-built heavy-lift Chinook helicopters -- a staple of the U.S. and British armies.
The helicopters are capable of transporting artillery, equipment, supplies and soldiers directly to the battlefield, and would eliminate the need for troops to travel by vehicle on Afghanistan's deadly roads.

"If you want to send soldiers overseas, you need to send them and their equipment. That means you need big airplanes and big ships," said Lt.-Gen. Andrew Leslie, Canada's new commander of land forces, at a change-of-command ceremony in Ottawa on Thursday.

"We have to have helicopters to move our kids around the battlefield so they don't suffer unnecessary casualties." 

In its inaugural budget in May, the Conservatives pledged to buy more equipment to support a multi-role, combat-capable, maritime, land and air force, and promised to kick in an additional $5.3 billion over five years in spending for the military.

NATO Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer praised Canada on Thursday for increasing its military budget.

"That's to my joy, (that) the budget is going up," de Hoop Scheffer said at a Parliament Hill news conference following a meeting with O'Connor. 

"I visit too many allies, lambasting them for the downslide of their defence budgets. I'm glad to say in Canada we see a different direction here."

Compromise reached

The request for both short- and long-haul transports would seem to satisfy the wishes of both O'Connor and Chief of the Defence Staff, Gen. Rick Hillier.

"The two generals . . . were at swords' points over airlift," said CTV's chief political correspondent Craig Oliver. 

"O'Connor wanted strategic lift -- that is, big, heavy planes that can carry tanks and armoured personnel carriers over long distances," while Hillier favoured short-haul tactical airlifts capable of landing on rough fields with speed and greater protection. 

"They compromised. Instead of one or the other, they're getting both," said Oliver. "And apparently Hillier is quite happy about that."

But while Cabinet isn't likely to turn down the requests from two generals, it isn't quite a done deal. 

"It has not had final Cabinet approval yet," said Oliver. "But there are thousands of Canadians in hot combat zones who are going to be there for another two years . . . and it's hard to imagine that Cabinet would turn down a request from defence chiefs who say this is what they urgently require."

Airbus issues plea

Meanwhile, French plane manufacturer Airbus has issued a plea to the Tory government to ensure that a fair, competitive process is in place when it makes its multi-billion dollar purchase for long-range military transports. 

Richard Thompson, commercial director of Airbus Military, told reporters in Ottawa Thursday that a contract with Boeing would cost almost twice as much as a comparable one with his company.

Instead of buying two separate fleets, said Thompson, Canada would satisfy most of its tactical and strategic airlift requirements and save up to $2 billion with the A400M -- a four-engine turboprop military airlifter.

"All we're asking for is an open, fair competitive bidding process, and may the best plane win," said Thompson.

The A400M, however, isn't scheduled to fly until 2008; and it wouldn't be cleared for first delivery until a year later. 

Mission could scale down by 2009: NATO

While Canadian soldiers are currently taking part in a massive anti-Taliban operation across southern Afghanistan, De Hoop Scheffer suggested Thursday that they will be replaced by other allies, once their commitment ends in February, 2009. 

"Afghanistan is a long-term commitment and solidarity in the alliance means that I expect that all 26 allies ... participate in one way or the other as Canada is now participating very robustly, and taking a large responsibility," de Hoop Scheffer said.

"I would expect that after the commitments of allies like Canada ... other allies will step up and say we'll take over."

De Hoop Scheffer also praised Canada's commitment to provide an additional $15 million to the Asian Development Bank to help Afghanistan rebuild the country's agriculture and water projects. 

But he admitted aid will be only be truly effective once coalition troops establish more security.

Praise from NATO represents a stark contrast from the criticism Canada has received in the past for its lackluster defence spending.

O'Connor also confirmed that Canada is lobbying to take overall command of the Afghanistan mission in 2008 -- a role that would only require an extra 100 officers and support staff. 

"I'll be speaking to others as I speak to other defence ministers to basically say that Canada is more than able to command," he said.

With a report from CTV's chief political correspondent Craig Oliver


----------



## Good2Golf

Airbus has already pissed off its A380 customers by sliding deliveries at least six months, with potentially even greater delays on the horizon.  There is no reason to believe that this wouldn't happen with the A400M as well.  

One has to ask the question, "why would 190+ Airbus A400Ms already ordered not go to those nations that have already stepped up to Airbus' sales division? i.e. Wouldn't Canada be last on the delivery list in say, 2013/2014, after the other nations get their aircraft?"

Pleading and $1.39 will get you a large double-double...


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

You know the defene critics will gobble what A400 coy has to say and spew it out and spin it up.


----------



## Armymatters

Duey said:
			
		

> Airbus has already pissed off its A380 customers by sliding deliveries at least six months, with potentially even greater delays on the horizon.  There is no reason to believe that this wouldn't happen with the A400M as well.
> 
> One has to ask the question, "why would 190+ Airbus A400Ms already ordered not go to those nations that have already stepped up to Airbus' sales division? i.e. Wouldn't Canada be last on the delivery list in say, 2013/2014, after the other nations get their aircraft?"
> 
> Pleading and $1.39 will get you a large double-double...



There is evidence that the A380 delays are intentional. BAE is selling their stake in Airbus to EADS, and BAE has already blamed EADS for causing the delau to sink the value of Airbus so that it is worth less which will make it easier for EADS to buy the rest of Airbus.
http://news.independent.co.uk/business/news/article1014055.ece

In short, right now, if BAE sold off their share of Airbus to EADS, EADS has already saved 34%.


----------



## vangemeren

The article indicates that there are some differences in opinion between the MND and CDS, they were able to compromise this time, but will it become a proble later?



			
				Quagmire said:
			
		

> You know the defene critics will gobble what A400 coy has to say and spew it out and spin it up.



I am by no means an expert, but it doesn't require a long competition to figure out that Airbus cannot fill the order in the timeframe that the military wants. (or am I just a rambling idiot?)


----------



## Good2Golf

AM, nothing at all compells BAE to sell its 20% share to EADS.  If anything, THAT is a cover for major manufacturing problems on the A380...


----------



## Armymatters

Duey said:
			
		

> AM, nothing at all compells BAE to sell its 20% share to EADS.  If anything, THAT is a cover for major manufacturing problems on the A380...



Surprisingly most of the articles regarding the delay have mentioned the possbility of cancelation of orders for the A380. However, it is not the clients bringing up that possibility, but Airbus itself. That gives a bit of wind into BAE's argument that Airbus is deliberatly selling itself short. BAE already said they wanted to sell their stake for a long time. If BAE knew of troubles ahead, then they wasted a lot of time in not exercising their put option earlier and starting the clock for the 3rd party arbitration. It is their fault for not trying to come up with an agreement with Airbus for so long. If you made up your mind to sell and you know bad news is on the horizon, then by all means, pull the trigger quickly and be done with it. A week before the announcement of delays, there was news that there was deliberate sabotage to some of the A380 production wiring. There is good evidence that they are both connected.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO

OK here are my questions, and maybe some of you flyboys and recruiters know the answers

1. Up to 5 C17s, a whole bunch of Hercs and what......10 Chinooks. Do we have the aircrews to do this??
2. How long will it take us to train em?
3. What potential recruiting problems do we face?? I'm thinking it takes a long time to train a person from BOTC to wings to being Captain of a C17.
4. What about maintenance personnel? 
5. Do we have to build new infrastructure at Trenton to take the C17?
6. Where would we base the Chinooks...(What's their number again CH something?)

I'm just thinking that we have a lot of people shortage probs...how are we going to overcome them when we have the shiny kit?


----------



## Kirkhill

First of all its good to see a move made, any move.

Interesting timing, coincident with the change of command and other possible procurement changes.  One thing that took my notice was the reference on CTV was not to Joint Support Ships but to new Oilers, and not 3 just 2.  Any Navy types pick up on that?

But off to the commercial/political for a bit:

Reasons why BAE would like to sell out high - and why EADS would like to have to buy them out low.

It depends how badly BAE wants/needs the cash to proceed with an acquisition programme, a programme that would just make BAE that much stronger a competitor to EADS and put it in a better position for the North American market.



> Lynch believes that the key trigger is that BAE is close to an acquisition in the US market, where it is the USA's 7th-largest military supplier. That's part of the equation, and it is supported by BAE CEO Michael Turner's quote that: "We believe that now is the right time for us to divest our Airbus shareholding to allow us to concentrate on our core transatlantic defence and aerospace strategy."  This certainly has been BAE's trend over the last couple of years - not necessarily away from Europe or at its expense, just dwarfing it in terms of the opportunities pursued.





> ...take BAE out of any potential line of fire in future protectionist disputes...





> ..the potential for growing conflict with the US market due to escalating concerns about the potential for technology transfers to hostile regimes via French and other European partners.





> Another acquisition could also be in the offing, and names like L-3 Communications, DRS Inc., Honeywell, and others have been floated. Some analysts are debating whether BAE has a broad portfolio approach in mind, or intends to make one very major acquisition the centerpiece of its shift.



From Defense Industry Daily

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2006/04/reports-analysis-bae-in-talks-to-sell-its-20-stake-in-eads-airbus-updated/index.php


----------



## KevinB

IN HOC SIGNO said:
			
		

> OK here are my questions, and maybe some of you flyboys and recruiters know the answers
> 
> 1. Up to 5 C17s, a whole bunch of Hercs and what......10 Chinooks. Do we have the aircrews to do this??
> 2. How long will it take us to train em?
> 3. What potential recruiting problems do we face?? I'm thinking it takes a long time to train a person from BOTC to wings to being Captain of a C17.
> 4. What about maintenance personnel?
> 5. Do we have to build new infrastructure at Trenton to take the C17?
> 6. Where would we base the Chinooks...(What's their number again CH something?)
> 
> I'm just thinking that we have a lot of people shortage probs...how are we going to overcome them when we have the shiny kit?



I am in no way one to be able to answer these questions -- I would suggest that Duey, Zoomie and others of the AirForce be best suited for it.
However I beleive that Teddy R has already pointed out that the reduction of the number of Herc airframes will free up a lot of pilots to fly the C17 and the new C130J's, and consequently also the ground support systems.  I doubt C17 training would take very long (IIRC we already have some pilots who are qualified due to USAF exchange time).  My guess is the USAF would be more than willing to help us out in that department (as would the Brits and Aussies) until we could gain the base to do it ourselves

Chinooks are CH-47 (or MH-47's) - 450Sqn used to be in Ottawa (Uplands) and I am unsure of the other hook sqn name or loc.
My guess is they would put some in Pet for CSOR/JTF-2 (maybe some direct in Ottawa as well)
However I am guess the large bulk would be sent into theatre...


----------



## George Wallace

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Interesting timing, coincident with the change of command and other possible procurement changes.  One thing that took my notice was the reference on CTV was not to Joint Support Ships but to new Oilers, and not 3 just 2.  Any Navy types pick up on that?



There is a whole new thread for just that purpose......Keep the Navy stuff together, the Air Stuff together and the Land stuff together......

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/45213/post-395994.html#msg395994  (Kirkhills post in that thread)


----------



## Cloud Cover

There may be some errors in that that list. The JSS program is for three ships minimum, not 2.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I suspect another advantage of the C-17 over the A400 is that there are likely simulators and qualified instructors on the C-17 in existence, so as soon as the order is placed, pilots can be selected for flight training and be ready to pick up the aircraft as delivered. We could also send a few pilots and crews on exchange with the US to learn about the aircraft in actually operations. That is a big plus.


----------



## Kirkhill

George Wallace said:
			
		

> There is a whole new thread for just that purpose......Keep the Navy stuff together, the Air Stuff together and the Land stuff together......
> 
> http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/45213/post-395994.html#msg395994  (Kirkhills post in that thread)



Roger that GW.


----------



## Good2Golf

IN HOC SIGNO said:
			
		

> OK here are my questions, and maybe some of you flyboys and recruiters know the answers
> 
> 1. Up to 5 C17s, a whole bunch of Hercs and what......10 Chinooks. Do we have the aircrews to do this??
> 2. How long will it take us to train em?
> 3. What potential recruiting problems do we face?? I'm thinking it takes a long time to train a person from BOTC to wings to being Captain of a C17.
> 4. What about maintenance personnel?
> 5. Do we have to build new infrastructure at Trenton to take the C17?
> 6. Where would we base the Chinooks...(What's their number again CH something?)
> 
> I'm just thinking that we have a lot of people shortage probs...how are we going to overcome them when we have the shiny kit?



1.  There may be some balancing of crews within the various communities, but if prioritized appropriately, it will work.
2.  I'd be type rated on H47 after an 8-week course in Ft. Rucker, Alabama.
3.  Recruiting challenges, yes...but opportunities also...come fly serious front-line kit, etc....a recruiters dream
4.  A challenge.  May require interesting support from industry to kick things off...others have done this for ops...will just take care to make work.
5.  Likely.
6.  CH147...totally up for grabs...first op machines will no doubt go to theatre like I-6 says.

Cheers,
Duey

p.s. I-6, 447Sqn was the West Chinook unit (also the 147 school)


----------



## KevinB

Duey said:
			
		

> p.s. I-6, 447Sqn was the West Chinook unit (also the 147 school)



Thanks


----------



## Armymatters

Colin P said:
			
		

> I suspect another advantage of the C-17 over the A400 is that there are likely simulators and qualified instructors on the C-17 in existence, so as soon as the order is placed, pilots can be selected for flight training and be ready to pick up the aircraft as delivered. We could also send a few pilots and crews on exchange with the US to learn about the aircraft in actually operations. That is a big plus.



Airbus tends to have a policy of maintaining cockpit commonality with all of their recent products. That means a pilot that flys a A320 can easily fly a A330, after the pilot is familiarised with the handling characteristics of both airplanes, as the cockpits in both are very similar. Also, due to the fly-by-wire nature of recent Airbus jets, they can be re-programmed if you will to behave like another Airbus jet. If we want temporary jets to train our pilots on for pilot familiarisation, I know a pair of A340's in Canada that are due to be removed from service sometime soon, and will be available for lease.


----------



## Zoomie

Armymatters said:
			
		

> If we want temporary jets to train our pilots on for pilot familiarisation, I know a pair of A340's in Canada that are due to be removed from service sometime soon, and will be available for lease.



A military turbo-prop aircraft will most likely have nothing in common with a civilian registered high bypass turbo-fan airliner.  The cockpit commonalities will probably stop at the head-rests.

I guess the point that EADS is missing here is that Boeing has said that we could be flying a C-17 this time next year, can they say the same for their proposal?  Thanks for coming out EADS - we'll revisit your proposal when you actually have a flying plane.


----------



## Armymatters

Zoomie said:
			
		

> A military turbo-prop aircraft will most likely have nothing in common with a civilian registered high bypass turbo-fan airliner.  The cockpit commonalities will probably stop at the head-rests.
> 
> I guess the point that EADS is missing here is that Boeing has said that we could be flying a C-17 this time next year, can they say the same for their proposal?  Thanks for coming out EADS - we'll revisit your proposal when you actually have a flying plane.



Very true. However, with the limited defence budget, it is perhaps a good idea to get the most capable airplane we can get for our dollar. Buying both C-17 strategic and A400M for tactical airlift will mean that they both will add a good deal of capability to the CF for our limited funds.


----------



## GAP

It's probably not realistic, but since the A400 is not likely to delivered until well after 2012, what is the chances of getting 3-4 C-17 and then a couple of A400 for delivery in 2014-15?


----------



## Kirkhill

GAP said:
			
		

> It's probably not realistic, but since the A400 is not likely to delivered until well after 2012, what is the chances of getting 3-4 C-17 and then a couple of A400 for delivery in 2014-15?



That far down the road GAP,  why not just deal with it when we get there?  This current buy is apparently for 2-5 C17s (depending on source) and 12 Hercs.  As Zoomie has been saying there is still some life in the current Hs and also the Buffalos.  In the next 5 to 10 years we'll likely be looking at other competitions to replace them then we can take a look at the full range of C295/C27J/C130J/A400M all over again.


----------



## GAP

I agree, but don't you have order sometime around now to get "that" delivery date??


----------



## Kirkhill

Well, I would have agreed with you except that given that all the suppliers suddenly seem to make things possible on short order now - who knows what availability will be like then?


----------



## GAP

You're right...aircraft manufacturer's will promise you the moon, and sort it out later with production problems/delays, but they have to get the initial orders in so they can even start the production run. They won't produce it, if there are not enough initial orders.


----------



## Kirkhill

Airbus says they have 192 aircraft on order now.  That should keep them going for a year or two anyway.  

By contrast the C130J and C17 may be out of production by that time.


----------



## GAP

I have no idea what an initial run cutoff might be...but 197 doesn't sound like a lot....well, maybe...they're what..$85M ea??


----------



## Kirkhill

About - that results in about a 16 Billion Dollar revenue stream.  Maybe Armymatters can fill in the blanks here.


----------



## yoman

GAP said:
			
		

> I have no idea what an initial run cutoff might be...but 197 doesn't sound like a lot....well, maybe...they're what..$85M ea??



Airbus offered 16 A400's for 2.4B$. So 2.400 / 16 = 0.15 or 150M$ a plane.

http://www.ottawabusinessjournal.com/286337438811457.php


----------



## Kirkhill

As seems to be universal these days yoman - it is difficult to figure out whether or not the numbers mentioned are aircraft prices or contract prices.  Contracts often include a lot of stuff other than aircraft and ships.  Stuff like, service contracts, spares, training etc.

Take any number seen in public with half a pound of salt.


----------



## Armymatters

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> As seems to be universal these days yoman - it is difficult to figure out whether or not the numbers mentioned are aircraft prices or contract prices.  Contracts often include a lot of stuff other than aircraft and ships.  Stuff like, service contracts, spares, training etc.
> 
> Take any number seen in public with half a pound of salt.



Nobody in the avaiation industry pays list price. For example, the price for a Boeing 747-400 is around $216 million dollars US. No one pays that price, period. Most pay at least 30% cheaper than list price or more. So if you see a price for an airplane quoted by the manufacturer, take it with a big grain of salt.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

So your saying the C 17's should be cheaper.


----------



## Armymatters

Quagmire said:
			
		

> So your saying the C 17's should be cheaper.



I am saying they CAN be cheaper (the up front cost of the airplane itself), if the government is any good with negotiating.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO

Duey said:
			
		

> 1.  There may be some balancing of crews within the various communities, but if prioritized appropriately, it will work.
> 2.  I'd be type rated on H47 after an 8-week course in Ft. Rucker, Alabama.
> 3.  Recruiting challenges, yes...but opportunities also...come fly serious front-line kit, etc....a recruiters dream
> 4.  A challenge.  May require interesting support from industry to kick things off...others have done this for ops...will just take care to make work.
> 5.  Likely.
> 6.  CH147...totally up for grabs...first op machines will no doubt go to theatre like I-6 says.
> 
> Cheers,
> Duey
> 
> p.s. I-6, 447Sqn was the West Chinook unit (also the 147 school)



Thanks Duey that's very informative.
I always wonder about the human aspect of things...guess thats the Padre in me talking.
We so often focus on kit and forget that we have to get real live human beings to make this stuff work.

It's sounds like exciting times for the Air Force community if we get this stuff.

I notice thought there isn't much in the way for the Fast Air Community...what say you on that one?


----------



## MarkOttawa

A400M problems, from June 5 Aviation Week (text not online):


> Airbus is striving to cut weight on its A400M military transport while increasing the aircraft's maximum takeoff figure by almost six tons to accommodate fuel.
> 
> The aim is to drive down structural weight, in what industry executives describe as an "aggressive" effort. "We have a robust weight-reduction program, and it is on target," one Airbus Military executive says. Range and payload are contractually guaranteed, but this is not the case for aircraft weight, he notes...
> 
> *First flight is also slipping* [emphasis added - MC]. Initially anticipated for January 2008, this is now foreseen as taking place slightly later in the first quarter. Overall, the development and production schedule remains tight, with little slack for any further delay if initial deliveries are not to be affected. Delivery of the first aircraft is due to France in 2009, 77 months after the May 31, 2003, contract award.
> 
> Maximum takeoff weight for the A400M has risen to 136.5 tons from 130, according to the Airbus executive. This is driven partly by redesign work to meet fuel payload requirements...
> 
> The A400M is now projected as being able to carry a 30-ton payload 2,400 naut. mi., down 150 naut. mi. from previous range estimates, says the Airbus executive. For a 20-ton payload this figure is now 3,450 naut. mi., a 100-naut.-mi. reduction. Its ferry range is also reduced by 150 naut. mi. to 4,750 naut. mi...[and Canada needs all the trans-oceanic range we can get - MC].



One also wonders how the all-new engine's development program is proceeding.

And Augusta-Westland is pitching the Cormorant for the helicopter (I hadn't known that).
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/32cbced2-ffb1-11da-93a0-0000779e2340.html



> Meanwhile, AgustaWestland, the helicopter group, is worried that Ottawa is set to give Boeing’s Chinook heavy-lift helicopters a head-start over Agusta’s Cormorant Mark II.
> 
> “We’re slightly concerned that we’re being frozen out of a competitive process that is open, fair and where the playing field would be level”, said Richard Thompson, senior vice-president at EADS’s military division.
> 
> Agusta-Westland is currently claiming C$1bn in damages from the Canadian defence department relating to a big helicopter contract awarded to US-based Sikorsky in 2004. The European group contends that the tender requirements were written in such a way to exclude rival bidders.



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Journeyman

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> A400M problems, from June 5 Aviation Week (text not online):


Well the Airbus apologist should be here any second to excuse this, or explain how _Aviation Week_ just doesn't get it either.....  :



> Agusta-Westland is currently claiming C$1bn in damages [contending]...that the tender requirements were written in such a way to exclude rival bidders.


OK, now please forgive me here; I'm not a lawyer - - in fact, my parents were married.....but _does_ the law state that contracts must be written so as to not exclude any manufacturer or his monkey from competition? Isn't that why you put the desired specifications out there?

Your helicopter is not what we wanted....so you're suing us because our "wants" didn't meet your "product"?  ???


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Well the Airbus apologist should be here any second to excuse this, or explain how _Aviation Week_ just doesn't get it either.....  :
> OK, now please forgive me here; I'm not a lawyer - - in fact, my parents were married.....but _does_ the law state that contracts must be written so as to not exclude any manufacturer or his monkey from competition? Isn't that why you put the desired specifications out there?
> 
> Your helicopter is not what we wanted....so you're suing us because our "wants" didn't meet your "product"?  ???



The problem is that paying lawyers to launch frivilous lawsuits often provides a good ROI considering the punitive damages that can often be obtained....

Think about it.  Even if you burn $500,000 in legal fees in an attempt to obtain $500 million reward, it's almost a lottery ticket.  If you leave even a tiny leg to stand on, someone with deep pockets can tie up a business entitity for years.

The system is truly broken....


M.


----------



## Rescue Randy

One of the things that you can always rely on is the media mixing up the stories.  The following quote is a good example:

_*Meanwhile, AgustaWestland, the helicopter group, is worried that Ottawa is set to give Boeing’s Chinook heavy-lift helicopters a head-start over Agusta’s Cormorant Mark II.

“We’re slightly concerned that we’re being frozen out of a competitive process that is open, fair and where the playing field would be level”, said Richard Thompson, senior vice-president at EADS’s military division.

Agusta-Westland is currently claiming C$1bn in damages from the Canadian defence department relating to a big helicopter contract awarded to US-based Sikorsky in 2004. The European group contends that the tender requirements were written in such a way to exclude rival bidders*._

The reality is that the reporter has mixed up the A400M proposal for the airlift competition with the helicopter competition.  EADS represents Eurocopter, not Agusta-Westland - that company is a direct competitor to EADS.  If Richard Thompson was promoting a helicopter for the Chinook competition, it would have been either the Eurocopter Cougar EC 725 or the NH-90.  Once again, you can't believe anything you read, very little of what you hear, and only half of what you see.....


----------



## TangoTwoBravo

Looking to capabilities for a moment, I wany my airforce to be able to do the following things:

a.   fly me and my stuff around theatre

b.   deliver lethal and precise fires against bad guys in theatre

c.   fly me to theatre

When it comes to priorities, I'm having a hard time deciding between a and b.  A couple of B1s or B52s flying around up top can provide thing b, and maybe we can keep on relying on somebody else providing them.  Tough call.  It sucks having to always have to ask somebody else's mom for a ride to the soccer game, even if she is hot.  Any word on our Chinooks?

Regarding thing c, I have noticed that C17s regularly take off and land beside my tent.  This tells me that they exist and actually fly and operate.  It also tells me that they are operated by our allies.


----------



## Good2Golf

2B: I'll do a) for you with a 'Hook and the guys need Herc's to do that too, since I include Mirage > KAF as in-theatre...B-52's out of Diego Garcia on station for 18-24 hrs will take care of b) for ya! 

In Hoc, Fast Air has pretty well all they need to come in to the box now...not sure what's going on there...discussions with buds at Cool Pool or Bagtown indicate the boys are getting pissed off theiy're not being put in now...some smell rotten in Denmark on this one?  Ideas?  ???

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## Mortar guy

Duey,

On my last trip to KAF I was told the runway repairs are what are holding up the deployment of anyone's fast air (less the Harriers) to Kandahar. This isn't secret as it is also discussed here:

http://www.theherald.co.uk/politics/59600.html

Perhaps that's one reason why we can't get the CF-18s there yet?

MG


----------



## Journeyman

Mortar guy said:
			
		

> Perhaps that's one reason why we can't get the CF-18s there yet?


The five-star hotel isn't _quite_ ready yet.   >


----------



## -dikweed-

C-17 annoucement coming friday in Quebec (obviously)

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=1dfa2584-b96c-4981-b801-4c19f265ea58&k=78835

The Harper government will announce a multibillion-dollar purchase of large, American-built military transport planes on Friday in Quebec City, in part to dampen criticism that the province's large aerospace industry would be deprived of lucrative economic spinoffs.

The expected announcement comes amid reports that the federal government is in discussions with the Bush administration to obtain one of the U.S. military's C-17s, a move that would allow the Canadian Forces to take quick delivery of the first of the four planes instead of waiting years for the order to be processed.

The discussions between U.S. and Canadian officials mirror similar talks the Pentagon had with Australia earlier this year before that country committed to purchasing up to four of the American-built C-17s from Boeing in California.

The Pentagon arranged to deliver to Australia its first C-17 by this December as part of the purchase deal -- instead of the aircraft going to the U.S. air force. The same process could allow Canada to take delivery of its first C-17 within nine months of an order being announced.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

I know military procurement should be separated from other issues, but I'd be on the phone with GWB indicating there will be no announcement and no contract on C-17's or any other military goods until Congress signs off on the Softwood deal.  Unfortunately, it's about the only leverage we have on Congress at the moment.


Matthew.   ???


----------



## prom

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> I know military procurement should be separated from other issues, but I'd be on the phone with GWB indicating there will be no announcement and no contract on C-17's or any other military goods until Congress signs off on the Softwood deal.  Unfortunately, it's about the only leverage we have on Congress at the moment.
> 
> 
> Matthew.   ???



turn off the oil taps and sell to china... lol


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO

Journeyman said:
			
		

> The five-star hotel isn't _quite_ ready yet.   >



But there is a nice B & B run by a guy who went back to A-Stan after Taliban left. Do you think that will do? :


----------



## MdB

Latest grocery list from Radio-Canada exclusively at 1820. Here's the link for those who read French or are doing SLT-French Des achats militaires de 15 milliards

They will announce in four different cities (Halifax, Québec City, Edmonton and Trenton) that the Government will purchase:

- 4 C-17
- 15 Hercs
- 3 JSS
- 15 Chinooks
- Undetermined number of MLVWs

There you go!! Man, can't wait to begin... this is interesting times!


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

Is that the replacement for the MLVW or a new MLVW type veh?


----------



## MdB

Quagmire said:
			
		

> Is that the replacement for the MLVW or a new MLVW type veh?



No idea, they just say military trucks for a total of 1.1 B$.


----------



## armybuck041

MdB said:
			
		

> They will announce in four different cities (Halifax, Québec City, Edmonton and Trenton) that the Government will purchase:
> 
> - 4 C-17
> - 15 Hercs
> - 3 JSS
> - 15 Chinooks
> - Undetermined number of MLVWs



Wow... Interesting times to say the least.


----------



## geo

why is it that I get this uncomfortable feeling in my tummy that the Gov't is drawing a line in the sand and daring the Opposition parties to bring down the Gov't?


----------



## Kirkhill

I am offering a small wager that MLVW selected will be the Stewart and Stevenson FMTV.

This month's Canadian Defence Review has an ad, jointly placed by Stewart and Stevenson and Oerlikon Contraves.  

Oerlikon and Quebec lose the MMEV?  Oerlikon and Quebec gain the FMTV?
Quebec gets spinoffs from C-17s and CH-47s?
Irving and the Maritimes get the JSS?
L-3 and Edmonton get the C130J?

I wonder what Ontario might get?


----------



## MdB

I think that, following Kirkill's comment logic, they Gov't won't be taken down. People in multiple provinces will be happy, including several MPs.

Very good strategic move. And even, the medias seems to oppose more (if not only) the fact this is single-sourced, but not the fact it costs much. They all know the CFs badly need it.


----------



## geo

if it goes thru with immediate delivery, I'll be impressed
if it gets tied up in red tape and gov't posturing..... I'll be depressed

BTW - anyone tell Ottawa procurement that we need some replacement LAVIIIs?
(pronto!)


----------



## MdB

geo said:
			
		

> BTW - anyone tell Ottawa procurement that we need some replacement LAVIIIs?
> (pronto!)



Haha, let them acknowledge it's already there! ;D

The infos in the media has it that the first C-17 will be delivered in 9 to 12 months. It's a plane that would have gone to the US Armed Forces, but 'hijacked' to Canada. Same thing for Australia. That's the reason why they can promise that timeframe. Well, it's to Boeing profit, the line will be kept open longer than 2008.


----------



## Infanteer

Looks like these projects are going to be a go time.  Isn't this the second time the purchase of the Hercs has been announced?  ???

Oh well, hopefully the Harper government lasts long enough to push this through.



> Harper set to announce $15 billion in military spending
> Last Updated Wed, 21 Jun 2006 20:42:30 EDT
> CBC News
> Ottawa will announce $15 billion in new spending on the Canadian military next week, CBC News has learned.
> 
> The country's aging Hercules fleet will be replaced. (Canadian Press) A report by SRC, the CBC's French language service, says the spending spree will be "Christmas in June for the Canadian Forces."
> 
> On Monday, Prime Minister Stephen Harper is set to announce in Halifax that the Conservative government will fund the building of three new supply ships. That is expected to cost about $2.1 billion.
> 
> On Tuesday, the announcement will be to give the army new trucks. That promise, worth about $1.1 billion, will be made in Quebec.
> 
> On Wednesday, in Edmonton, will come the official announcement about helicopters. The prime minister will issue an invitation to tender for 15 new helicopters at a cost of about $4.2 billion.
> 
> Finally, on Thursday at CFB Trenton in Ontario, Harper will announce a competition worth $4.6 billion to replace Canada's aging fleet of Hercules aircraft, some of which date back to the 1960s.
> 
> Harper will also promise to buy at least four C-17 transport planes, which are massive heavy-lift aircraft, at a cost of $3 billion.
> 
> That adds up to over $15 billion and fulfills a campaign promise by the Conservatives to make the Canadian military a top priority.


----------



## AndrewS

4 billion for 15 chinooks?  I know lifetime maint. costs and spare parts are included in the package but isn't that a little high for just 15 Helicopters?   Didn't the Aussies just order 30+ odd NH90s for 2billion AUD?  I know they aren't the same class of helicopter, and I'm not suggesting NH90s instead of Chinooks.

Kirkhill posted this US army release in this link http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/26851.0.html

some highlights-->


_'"All of the Army's CH-47 Chinooks will be upgraded to the new CH-47F models by 2018 as the result of a partnership between the service and Boeing, the helicopter's manufacturer.  

The Army will buy 55 new CH-47F models, have 397 helicopters re-manufactured into CH-47Fs, and have 61 re-manufactured to the CH47G used by Special Forces units. Total procurement costs through 2018 will be $11.4 billion."

"The upshot of these changes was a reduction in the price of a new helicopter from the $42 million to $30 million. The price for re-manufactured helicopters is expected to be slightly lower than $30 million, but is still being negotiated. Crosby said the lower cost became possible when the Army agreed to fund non-recurring costs at a higher rate. _ "


 I'm having a hard time comparing $4B CAD price and the US deal for $11.4B USD (of course theres is just the procurement but still).

 I'm just a civie, so in areas of military procurement and costing I could be completely wrong. Can anyone help me here?  Are they really going to cost that much over the lifetime?

_edit: removed a spelling error_


----------



## Rigger

Take note of the press release. Its says "issue an invitation to tender  for 15 new helicopters" no where does it say Chinooks. Also look at the Herc replacement "announce a competition worth $4.6 billion to replace Canada's aging fleet of Hercules aircraft" doesn't mention J model Hercs. Looks like long drawn out procceses (aka Seaking replacement).

Probabley time to re-name this thread to "O'Connor has $8B $15B military 'wish list"


----------



## AndrewS

I noticed that after I posted, but at the same time the french news story mentioned the Chinook. Which  is where i got my chinook fixation plus some posts earlier in the thread.  

If it is a competition, why would they know the cost of the helicopters to be bought?  Do we normally say we want 15 helicopters and will buy them for 4.2Billion before starting a competition?  Are they highballing and hoping competition drops the price a couple billion.  The current government and military leadership strikes me as a group that knows what it wants and goes after it.  Which is a good quality.  What use are procurements that get our soldiers the equipment they need today in 14 years?



_edit: spelling again, and grammar.. i must really read my own posts before i press post  _


----------



## Armymatters

Looks like C-17 is a done deal. Now, what's the official CF name for C-17? CC-170 Globemaster?


----------



## FormerHorseGuard

it seems that 15 billion no longer buys as much as it use to. 
the chopper program makes me wonder,  they purchased the bell 412 , 100 frames for 100 million, 1 mil per chopper if i remember right, so the next 15 are 4 billion plus? seems crazy unless the big choppers that  much more. just hard to understand the costs when they talk billions.

b-29 off the line during WW2 cost some where around    $639 000 http://137.240.249.5/pa/fs_b-29.asp dollars, 
sherman Tank Chrysler put a cost per tank of $33,500. 
http://www.allpar.com/history/military/arsenal-of-democracy.html

Ch 47 lots of different costs there 
 # eb 16/06: $24.4M for undefined new-build CH-47F
# Aug 30/05: $53.4M for 2 new-build CH-47F
# May 10/05: 186.2M for undefined new-build CH-47F
# Dec 23/04: $243.0M for 10 new-build CH-47F
# Dec 05/03: $151.5M for 7 new-build CH-47F
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2006/06/us-army-in-flight-on-production-of-renew-h47-chinooks-updated/index.php
understand now why the C17 is wanted , it can carry a ch 47 if i read the link correctly

C17  The price was  US $750M  for the lease and  US $400M  for support arrangements (maintenance, training, services etc).  The total cost was thus US $1.15B.

Based on this British precedent, a 7-year lease of  six  (6)  C-17s for the Canadian Forces would cost at least US $1.725B [US $1.15B ÷ 4 = US $287.5M per aircraft x 6 aircraft = US $1.725B] or  Cdn $2.0B. Thus, Canada would pay about $333M per aircraft in total, or $47.6M per aircraft, per year (assuming a 0.8584 exchange rate).

This is, of course,  if we are talking about a 7-year lease only  –  not the purchase price.  In the case of an outright purchase, the price would be higher.  According to Boeing data, USAF C-17 purchase prices range from  US $175M  to  US $232M
 see http://www.sfu.ca/casr/id-antonov-2.htm
  C 130e when first came off the line in 1961 to 1964  dropped in price from 13 million dollars to 6  millions dollars
C-130J, at $69 million per copy, cost six times as much as the first C-130H or eleven times as much as the last C-130E.
http://www.d-n-i.net/fcs/comments/c204.htm
after doing that bit of research i see how the 15 billion can be eaten up very quick.

used the ww2 equipement prices as a comparsions. 

do you think they can find the money to replace the lavs and g wagons damaged in ops? what is a few million extra?


----------



## geo

AndrewS said:
			
		

> I noticed that after I posted, but at the same time the french news story mentioned the Chinook. Which  is where i got my chinook fixation plus some posts earlier in the thread.
> If it is a competition, why would they know the cost of the helicopters to be bought?  Do we normally say we want 15 helicopters and will buy them for 4.2Billion before starting a competition?  Are they highballing and hoping competition drops the price a couple billion.  The current government and military leadership strikes me as a group that knows what it wants and goes after it.  Which is a good quality.  What use are procurements that get our soldiers the equipment they need today in 14 years?
> [/i]



note that while we state all our numbers in "lifetime" costs.... the US isn't obliged to do the same.
Thus, you are unable to compare numbers.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-boeing22jun22,1,3999961.story?track=crosspromo&coll=la-headlines-business&ctrack=1&cset=true

Future of C-17 Line Still Up in the Air
Despite objections by the Air Force, the House approves a bill to fund the purchase of three more of the Boeing jets.
By Martin Zimmerman, Times Staff Writer
June 22, 2006 


Despite clearing a key congressional test, efforts to extend the production of Boeing Co.'s C-17 military cargo jet and save the biggest private employer in Long Beach still face a cloudy future.

A defense appropriations bill approved by the House on Tuesday night includes $798 million to purchase three additional C-17s for the Air Force. Production of the plane, which is built at a Long Beach plant employing 5,500 workers, is scheduled to end in 2008 with delivery of the last of 180 aircraft ordered by the Pentagon. 

ADVERTISEMENTEven if funding for additional C-17s passes the Senate, Boeing executives said the new order would be insufficient to justify keeping the plant open.

"The fundamental bottom line is, Congress by itself cannot save this program," said Dan Page, Boeing's director of airlift business development. "It's going to take the administration from the White House on down acting to do that. What we really need is a long-term commitment" from the Air Force to buy more planes.

Saving the C-17 has become a priority for California's congressional delegation in the wake of the closing of the state's last commercial airplane plant last month. 

The C-17 is now the last major airplane factory left in Southern California, once a bastion of commercial and military aircraft production. Making aircraft and aircraft components now employs about 40,000 people in the Southland — down about three-quarters from the Reagan era.

An Air Force general said this month that the service doesn't need any more C-17s, and despite an intensive overseas sales effort, Boeing so far hasn't landed many orders. Australia has said it will buy four more of the aircraft and Britain one more, while Canada reportedly wants three.

"Even those orders, if you add them all up, are not enough to keep us going long-term," Page said.

Still, for officials desperate to keep the Long Beach plant running, the House vote is a ray of hope.

"It signifies the Defense Department's growing commitment to continued construction of the C-17 aircraft," said Andrea Taylor, spokeswoman for Rep. Juanita Millender-McDonald (D-Carson), who is leading the House effort to keep the C-17 alive.

"We think it's a positive first step, but it's a first step," said Robert Swayze, manager of economic development for Long Beach. "Boeing does need a long-term commitment for more planes."

Swayze heads the "red team" of elected officials and businesses that is pushing to keep the C-17 line open. Its efforts have included plant tours and discussions of lower electricity rates for Boeing, as well as a C-17 fly-by at the Toyota Grand Prix of Long Beach in April.

Because of the long lead time needed to procure parts from some of the program's 700 subcontractors, Boeing must decide in the next few weeks whether to keep financing advance work on components for aircraft that haven't been ordered yet — and may never be. Halting that advance work could make at least a temporary shutdown of the assembly line in 2008 inevitable.

"The viability of this program is very much at stake," said Rick Sanford, a spokesman for the Chicago-based Boeing.

A Senate subcommittee is expected to take up the additional C-17 appropriation next month, according to a spokesman for Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) who said the senator was "very supportive of the C-17."

The Air Force signaled late last year that it wouldn't request any more C-17s beyond its original order of 180. Air Force officials couldn't be reached for comment Wednesday. 

The C-17, known as the Globemaster III, transports troops and heavy equipment to trouble spots around the world, including Afghanistan and Iraq. It also ferried food and other relief supplies to the Gulf Coast after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. A total of 152 planes, which currently cost $186 million each, have been delivered since 1993.

Congress and defense officials have been debating whether to build more C-17s — the Air Force initially requested 222 — or spend billions refurbishing the service's aging fleet of C-5 Galaxy cargo jets.

As for the Globemaster, "the issue isn't really the aircraft," said Loren Thompson, defense policy analyst with Lexington Institute. "The Air Force loves the plane. The problem is that it simply doesn't have enough money to do everything else it wants to do, and it has higher priorities."

Specifically, the Air Force wants to replace its fleet of 1960s-era KC-135 aerial refueling jets, Thompson said. Tankers based on airliners produced by Boeing and its European rival Airbus are considered potential replacements


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

http://www.sfu.ca/casr/id-antonov-3.htm

Strategic Airlift Capability  –  Procurement  –  February 2006

Strategic Airlifters: a Comprehensive Comparison between the Boeing C-17 and the Antonov An-124-100   [Part 3]

Herman A. Kurapov,  Candidate,  Master of Engineering in Logistics, MIT


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[ NB :  for details on how Herman Kurapov arrived at his costing of An-124-100s,  see:  Average and Median Historic  An-124-100 Acquisition / Purchase Costs.]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Summary of  C-17 / An-124-100 Cost Comparison:

Using the experience of Britain’s Royal Air Force as a model, we see that a similar 7-year lease of six C-17s for the Canadian Forces would cost at least US $1.725B – or Cdn $2.0B (assuming a 0.8584 exchange rate).  If the An-124-100 were selected instead, this initial $2.0B estimate for CF strategic airlift capability would drop to:

   •   $87.0M for the purchase of three (3) An-124-100s
   •   $76.5M for the full lease of three (3) An-124-100s
   •   $12.7M for the partial lease (based on assured chartering hours).

The three An-124-100 options listed correspond to costs that are 25 to 150 times cheaper than the comparable purchase or lease of the C-17.

 Of course, these are only rough estimates.  There are other expenses  –  such as  training, certification  ( if required ), etc.  –  but,  such  costs  are  too  small  to effect dramatically the main thrust of the comparison.

The cost difference between choosing the C-17 and An-124 would be significant to Canadian taxpayers. But this is not the end of the strategic airlifter story.

Operational Aspects

So far, we have compared direct options without taking into account the various operating concepts / models, which make the An-124-100 even more appealing.

Volume of Operations

Historically, the Canadian Forces’ strategic airlifts  –  whether procured through commercial chartering or through ‘friendly forces’ – are not required year round. Strategic airlift is required for a maximum of  about a one-month period  at a time. Normally, 250-300 flight hours (to a maximum up to 500 flight hours) of heavy air freighter operations are used per year.  The operations are intense but limited in time  –  which brings up the issue of equipment idleness.

Individual An-124-100s have an average operating performance of  roughly 1000 hours per year (to a maximum of 1500 hours).  However, any acquired aircraft will be idle, on average, more than 80% of its potential operating time. In other words, in reality, an An-124-100 will average 300 hours of actual use versus its potential of 1000 hours. Aircraft are most expensive when idle –  they bring value or profit only while in operation.

Civil Aircraft versus Military Transports

The C-17 is a military plane. [Ed: McDonnell Douglas designed a civil derivative, the BC-17X, years ago but this aircraft has never been sold to any customer.]

By definition, the usage of any military aircraft, like the C-17, is very limited. Such aircraft mostly fly their military missions,  sometimes filling governmental roles or relief requests. But a military transport does not have the full operational freedom and flexibility of a civilian aircraft in so far as traffic rights, overflight permits, and licenses are concerned. Thus, by its very nature, a CF C-17 will be restricted in its potential operations other than purely military flights. That is, a CF C-17 would be destined to be idle most of the time  –  without the possibility to utilize it for profit because of its military ownership and regulatory restrictions.

The An-124-100, on the other hand, is a civil commercial aircraft (albeit one which evolved from a strategic military airlifter). This civil Antonov was customized and optimized through the demands of more than 10 years of very intense commercial operations. An An-124-100 can do whatever military aircraft can do and more. As such, the An-124-100 has become an integral part of the global air cargo industry, familiar at many of the busiest airports in the world.

The military nature of  the C-17 means that this aircraft will stand  idle  for at least 80% of its operating potential. A purely military An-124-100 would be idle just as much. However, the civilian certification of the Antonov presents an opportunity. When not needed by the CF for strategic airlift, an An-124-100 offers tremendous possibilities for substantive ‘cost-recovery’ by the Government of Canada.

‘Idle’ An-124-100s could be operated on a capacity loan basis for  friendly forces and / or for commercial flights.[2] Unlike the hopelessly idle military C-17, a “dual purpose” An-124-100 represents a vast opportunity, selling its immense capacity to the lucrative outsized air cargo transportation market. In other words, a fleet of An-124-100s owned by the government could provide the CF with strategic airlift while, at the same time, also providing a genuine Canadian civil airlift capability.

Canadian Civil Air Cargo Industry - Overview

A lack of civil airlift capability is one of the biggest problems facing the Canadian air transport industry and Canadian international trade in general. Thus, the civil- certified An-124-100 can meet other vital Canadian national interests besides the long-standing military requirement.

Canada’s Peculiarity  –  Lots of Geography,  No Heavy Airlift Capability

Canada is the second biggest country in the world, with many locations which can only be reached by air. The country’s economy is very much export/import- oriented and highly dependant on international trade. Located, as it is, between Asia and Europe, Canada is also the natural gateway to the US and Mexico.

The ‘blood system’ of  the trade is air transport.  A significant portion of goods manufactured for export are high-value and time-sensitive products  (up to 30% for some markets)  –  these are the staple commodities of  the airfreight business. Canada is dotted with modern airports with state-of-the-art infrastructure. Despite this, Canada lacks the ‘main deck freighter’ capacity [ ie:  aircraft using their main decks for freight, as opposed to underfloor cargo compartments]  to carry all this aircargo (produced or consumed) and no large long-range transport aircraft at all.

 So, who does fly all  that  airfreight ?  US industry gets most of  the business,  which makes Canada even more dependent on its southern cousin. As a result, the bulk of Canadian-produced  – or consumed –  aircargo goes to/comes from Chicago, New York, Boston or even Los Angeles.  There is a single Air Canada ‘combi’ service [combining passengers and cargo on the aircraft’s main deck] from Toronto only.

Civil airlift is a part of  the national transport infrastructure  –  just as are airports, railways, and highway systems.  As such,  civil airlift  needs  federal government support and attention. The benefits of civil airlift (or detriments, if neglected) will have a comprehensive effect on the competitiveness of our national economy. If a fast, reliable transportation system exists, overall competitiveness is increased. Civil airlift is as strategic and important for the national interests as a military one. Possibly even more so.  Fortunately,  miltary and civilian airlift can be combined.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

Strategic Airlifters: a Comprehensive Comparison between the Boeing C-17 and the Antonov An-124-100   [Part 2]

Herman A. Kurapov,  Candidate,  Master of Engineering in Logistics, MIT


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[ NB :  for details on how Herman Kurapov arrived at his costing of An-124-100s,  see:  Average and Median Historic  An-124-100 Acquisition / Purchase Costs.]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Dispelling Myths About the Antonov An-124-100

There is a very serious misconception about the An-124-100  –  namely, that it is an old, inefficient, clumsy, Soviet-built military aircraft.  [Ed:  the original An-124 Condor, which first flew in Dec 1982, was a military transport but it was anything but clumsy or inefficient.]  In fact, the An-124-100 is a fully commercial derivative ( the world’s largest commercial air freighter ) with more than 14 years experience of intensive, global commercial operations. The civil An-124-100 was certified in 1992, a year after the supposedly super-modern Boeing C-17 first flew. [1]

The An-124-100 meets all current civil standards, including ICAO Stage/ Chapter III noise limits and modern navigational equipment requirements. It has improved performance engines, Western avionics, and is equipped with VHF radios, TCAS [or Traffic alerting and Collision Avoidance System] and RNAV [aRea Navigation which computes actual aircraft position/speeds relative to a selected flight route].

The estimated service life for the An-124-100, both in terms of its operational life and in the anticipation of the obsolescence of its technology and design, is fifty years.  It is projected to have at least twenty-five years of operation without any major repairs. The An-124-100 is a truly unique plane with unique capabilities  – that is why it has become such an unrivalled success in the international market.

As a conclusion, the An-124-100 out-performs the C-17. Much of the Antonov’s technology is on par with that of the “state-of-the-art” Boeing C-17 aircraft, lying within the strictest technological requirements of modern aviation.

Financial Aspects: Acquisition versus Guaranteed Access to Capability

[Ed: All figures are given in US dollars. Note that, for accounting reasons, prices for USAF C-17As are usually quoted in constant, Fiscal Year 1998 US dollars.]

We will compare the costs of different acquisition models:  lease, purchase, and assured chartering.

Boeing C-17 Globemaster III

 How much does it actually cost to purchase or to lease a C-17?  We have some historical evidence about C-17 unit costs.  In 2000, the UK’s Ministry of  Defence  (MoD)  signed a ‘lease-and-support’  agreement with  Boeing and the United States Air Force for the use of  four  Boeing C-17s  ( three + one “active reserve” ) for the period 2001 to 2007.

The price was  US $750M  for the lease and  US $400M  for support arrangements (maintenance, training, services etc).  The total cost was thus US $1.15B.

Based on this British precedent, a 7-year lease of  six  (6)  C-17s for the Canadian Forces would cost at least US $1.725B [US $1.15B ÷ 4 = US $287.5M per aircraft x 6 aircraft = US $1.725B] or  Cdn $2.0B. Thus, Canada would pay about $333M per aircraft in total, or $47.6M per aircraft, per year (assuming a 0.8584 exchange rate).

This is, of course,  if we are talking about a 7-year lease only  –  not the purchase price.  In the case of an outright purchase, the price would be higher.  According to Boeing data, USAF C-17 purchase prices range from  US $175M  to  US $232M.

[Ed:  the USAF cite unit costs of  FY1998 constant US $236.7M.  A 2002 contract for 60 more C-17s dropped  to US $161M  per aircraft  due to order size and cost- controlling measures. Note that the USAF costs generally do not reflect complete aircraft  –  the US government furnishes some C-17 components and equipment.]

Antonov An-124-100

Only 2 An-124-100s are required to carry the loads of 4 C-17s, or 3 An-124-100 to carry loads equivalent to 6 C-17s.  Thus, we see an economy of scale advantage.

 The purchase price for the An-124-100 is about US $25M  –  approximately 15% of the  C-17  purchase price (at an averaged US $185M ).  But,  the CF will need fewer An-124s  than  C-17s.  So,  based on cost and capacity,  or a value comparison,  the An-124-100 price is equivalent to 7.5% of the purchase price of  a new Boeing C-17.

[Ed:  Boeing now seems to have fixed the C-17’s price at US $220M per aircraft .]

A conventional ‘standby lease’ for one An-124-100  ( 1000 hours a year  –  at full standby option) is US $5M per year or 12% of the C-17 aircraft lease price. Based on the above capacity-for-value reasoning, an An-124-100 lease price amounts to only 6% of the C-17 lease price.

A third option is the so-called ‘assured chartering’ or ‘partial lease’. This is based on a maximum of 500 hours per year  –  a more realistic upper limit to annual needs for strategic airlift by the Canadian Forces. This lease arrangement would amount to approximately US $2.5M per year, or only 3% of the C-17 lease price.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 [1] Ed: Design work on the C-17  (originally the C-X ) began in 1980.  The concept was derived from the 1970s-vintage McDonnell Douglas YC-15 prototype airlifter.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

Strategic Airlifters: a Comprehensive Comparison between the Boeing C-17 and the Antonov An-124-100   [Part 3]

Herman A. Kurapov,  Candidate,  Master of Engineering in Logistics, MIT


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[ NB :  for details on how Herman Kurapov arrived at his costing of An-124-100s,  see:  Average and Median Historic  An-124-100 Acquisition / Purchase Costs.]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Summary of  C-17 / An-124-100 Cost Comparison:

Using the experience of Britain’s Royal Air Force as a model, we see that a similar 7-year lease of six C-17s for the Canadian Forces would cost at least US $1.725B – or Cdn $2.0B (assuming a 0.8584 exchange rate).  If the An-124-100 were selected instead, this initial $2.0B estimate for CF strategic airlift capability would drop to:

   •   $87.0M for the purchase of three (3) An-124-100s
   •   $76.5M for the full lease of three (3) An-124-100s
   •   $12.7M for the partial lease (based on assured chartering hours).

The three An-124-100 options listed correspond to costs that are 25 to 150 times cheaper than the comparable purchase or lease of the C-17.

 Of course, these are only rough estimates.  There are other expenses  –  such as  training, certification  ( if required ), etc.  –  but,  such  costs  are  too  small  to effect dramatically the main thrust of the comparison.

The cost difference between choosing the C-17 and An-124 would be significant to Canadian taxpayers. But this is not the end of the strategic airlifter story.

Operational Aspects

So far, we have compared direct options without taking into account the various operating concepts / models, which make the An-124-100 even more appealing.

Volume of Operations

Historically, the Canadian Forces’ strategic airlifts  –  whether procured through commercial chartering or through ‘friendly forces’ – are not required year round. Strategic airlift is required for a maximum of  about a one-month period  at a time. Normally, 250-300 flight hours (to a maximum up to 500 flight hours) of heavy air freighter operations are used per year.  The operations are intense but limited in time  –  which brings up the issue of equipment idleness.

Individual An-124-100s have an average operating performance of  roughly 1000 hours per year (to a maximum of 1500 hours).  However, any acquired aircraft will be idle, on average, more than 80% of its potential operating time. In other words, in reality, an An-124-100 will average 300 hours of actual use versus its potential of 1000 hours. Aircraft are most expensive when idle –  they bring value or profit only while in operation.

Civil Aircraft versus Military Transports

The C-17 is a military plane. [Ed: McDonnell Douglas designed a civil derivative, the BC-17X, years ago but this aircraft has never been sold to any customer.]

By definition, the usage of any military aircraft, like the C-17, is very limited. Such aircraft mostly fly their military missions,  sometimes filling governmental roles or relief requests. But a military transport does not have the full operational freedom and flexibility of a civilian aircraft in so far as traffic rights, overflight permits, and licenses are concerned. Thus, by its very nature, a CF C-17 will be restricted in its potential operations other than purely military flights. That is, a CF C-17 would be destined to be idle most of the time  –  without the possibility to utilize it for profit because of its military ownership and regulatory restrictions.

The An-124-100, on the other hand, is a civil commercial aircraft (albeit one which evolved from a strategic military airlifter). This civil Antonov was customized and optimized through the demands of more than 10 years of very intense commercial operations. An An-124-100 can do whatever military aircraft can do and more. As such, the An-124-100 has become an integral part of the global air cargo industry, familiar at many of the busiest airports in the world.

The military nature of  the C-17 means that this aircraft will stand  idle  for at least 80% of its operating potential. A purely military An-124-100 would be idle just as much. However, the civilian certification of the Antonov presents an opportunity. When not needed by the CF for strategic airlift, an An-124-100 offers tremendous possibilities for substantive ‘cost-recovery’ by the Government of Canada.

‘Idle’ An-124-100s could be operated on a capacity loan basis for  friendly forces and / or for commercial flights.[2] Unlike the hopelessly idle military C-17, a “dual purpose” An-124-100 represents a vast opportunity, selling its immense capacity to the lucrative outsized air cargo transportation market. In other words, a fleet of An-124-100s owned by the government could provide the CF with strategic airlift while, at the same time, also providing a genuine Canadian civil airlift capability.

Canadian Civil Air Cargo Industry - Overview

A lack of civil airlift capability is one of the biggest problems facing the Canadian air transport industry and Canadian international trade in general. Thus, the civil- certified An-124-100 can meet other vital Canadian national interests besides the long-standing military requirement.

Canada’s Peculiarity  –  Lots of Geography,  No Heavy Airlift Capability

Canada is the second biggest country in the world, with many locations which can only be reached by air. The country’s economy is very much export/import- oriented and highly dependant on international trade. Located, as it is, between Asia and Europe, Canada is also the natural gateway to the US and Mexico.

The ‘blood system’ of  the trade is air transport.  A significant portion of goods manufactured for export are high-value and time-sensitive products  (up to 30% for some markets)  –  these are the staple commodities of  the airfreight business. Canada is dotted with modern airports with state-of-the-art infrastructure. Despite this, Canada lacks the ‘main deck freighter’ capacity [ ie:  aircraft using their main decks for freight, as opposed to underfloor cargo compartments]  to carry all this aircargo (produced or consumed) and no large long-range transport aircraft at all.

 So, who does fly all  that  airfreight ?  US industry gets most of  the business,  which makes Canada even more dependent on its southern cousin. As a result, the bulk of Canadian-produced  – or consumed –  aircargo goes to/comes from Chicago, New York, Boston or even Los Angeles.  There is a single Air Canada ‘combi’ service [combining passengers and cargo on the aircraft’s main deck] from Toronto only.

Civil airlift is a part of  the national transport infrastructure  –  just as are airports, railways, and highway systems.  As such,  civil airlift  needs  federal government support and attention. The benefits of civil airlift (or detriments, if neglected) will have a comprehensive effect on the competitiveness of our national economy. If a fast, reliable transportation system exists, overall competitiveness is increased. Civil airlift is as strategic and important for the national interests as a military one. Possibly even more so.  Fortunately,  miltary and civilian airlift can be combined


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

Strategic Airlifters: a Comprehensive Comparison between the Boeing C-17 and the Antonov An-124-100   [Part 4]

Herman A. Kurapov,  Candidate,  Master of Engineering in Logistics, MIT


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[ NB :  for details on how Herman Kurapov arrived at his costing of An-124-100s,  see:  Average and Median Historic  An-124-100 Acquisition / Purchase Costs.]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 The US Civil Reserve Air Fleet (CRAF) Concept  –  a Flexible Operating Model

 An efficient and innovative concept for increasing airlift capability already exists  –  the Civil Reserve Air Fleet (CRAF) which is a part of the US National Airlift System (NAS consisting of both military and civilian airlift assets). The CRAF concept is straightforward  – it is simply a method of mobilizing the airlift potential represented by the large numbers of aircraft operated by American civilian air carriers.

Selected large aircraft from US airlines are contractually committed to  CRAF  and support  Department  of  Defense  (DOD)  airlift  requirements  in  emergencies  – that is,  whenever  the  need  for airlift exceeds  the  capability  of  military  aircraft. In turn, CRAF participants receive preference in  bidding  on  US  government  air transportation business.

CRAF can provide as much as  40% of the US  military’s capacity  to  airlift  cargo meaning that the DOD doesn’t need to purchase additional aircraft itself or incur the cost of operating them during peacetime. This allows the USAF Air  Mobility Command to focus on C-17 procurement and a C-141 SLEP Life Extension project. [Ed: The weak point of CRAF is its complete lack of out-sized cargo capabilities.]

 Thus, US national defence interests are flexibly combined with the needs and purpose of business. In this ‘win-win’ situtation, the  US  Government  receives a cost effective and  guaranteed contingency carrying capacity while, simulateously, optimizing the US  transport infrastructure.  Defence interests are satisfied while  giving a boost  to the  United States’  international  trade and increasing the competitiveness of their national economy.

Applying the CRAF Model to a Distinctly Canadian Operating Environment

Developing an  all-cargo  air transport  industry in Canada would require support from the government. This is about strategic infrastructure, logistics and trade at the national level as well as defence capabilities. Strategic government backing is the reason why air cargo industries were developed  in the US and  former Soviet  Union.  Both industries were started for the sake of defence (and remains partly so, in the case of the US). Now Canada has an opportunity to add a major advantage competitive edge to trade and its national economy  through a reliable air trans- port system. But, only if civilian-certified An-124- 100s were to be selected as our strategic airlifter.

So what is the market for the An-124-100?

Size and Segmentation of the An-124-100 Market

 In 2002, the global out-sized air cargo market amounts to about US$250M in annual sales (14600 flight hours flown 5300t of cargo carried). [1]  During the ’90s, the market grew 12% per year on average, compared to 5-6% growth for regular airfreight. By 2002 the business had quadrupled compared to the previous 10 years. Projections showed it reaching US $ 500M by 2010 and becoming worth US $ 2B within 30 years – but it grew even faster. By 2005, the annual An-124-100 market exceeded US $550M.  Global sales more than doubled in those three years.

More than 52% of this market  (or US$ 115M per year )  is US and Canada-related (35-40% of total sales in the US market, 11-12% in Canada).  The biggest sector in the combined US/Canada An-124-100 market is aerospace industry.  [Ed: eg , the An-124-100 is the only aircraft capable of  carrying the huge, 3.43m diameter GE90 engines which power the Boeing 777 airliner.] Aerospace accounts for 60% of the global aircargo contracts (approximately US$ 38M per year, or 2700 flight hours).

 About US$ 25M is currently spent  annually by the Government of Canada and  Canadian businesses  for the services of  An-124-100s. Two major Canadian industries  –  aerospace and  the oil and gas industry – are very much dependent on out-sized An-124-100 services.

For example, Bombardier Aerospace uses 800 hours of An-124-100 operations per annum [mostly delivering wing structures from suppliers to their assembly plant]. This averages out to mean weekly flights  –  mainly from Shorts Brothers, Belfast to Montreal but also from Kansai (Mitsubishi Heavy Industries) to Toronto.

Mackenzie Delta oil and gas fields development and the Alaskan Pipeline Project will both require additional An-124-100 capacity in the future. The aircraft would be profitable in the rapidly developing outsize commercial market while simultan- eously fulfilling the Canadian Forces strategic airlift requirements.

Beyond air transport’s general boost to an economy in general, there is also a so- called air transport multiplier. The multiplier represents the combined indirect and direct benefits from air transport services – generally said to equal 7.5 . That is, if An-124-100 sales in Canada generated US$ 28M a year , say, then the aggregated benefit to the Canadian economy would amount to 28 x 7.5 = US$ 210M per year.

[Ed:  see Appendix A for Some Practical Details on An-124-100 Operations.]

Conclusion & Summary

By comparing the relevant data for the Boeing C-17 Globemaster III and Antonov An-124-100 Ruslan, we can conclude safely that  –  by performance, capacity and financial factors – the An-124-100 is dramatically superior to the C-17 as a military strategic airlifter. The An-124-100 is also a well-established civil freighter, much in demand and well-utilized by Canadian business. As a result, the big Antonov can serve two major national interests – providing both Canadian military and civilian airlift capacity and capability at the same time. The latter is desperately lacked by the Canadian air transport infrastructure and needs the immediate solution.

The difference between two equipment options –  An-124-100 or C-17 –  amounts to Cdn $5.23B for only 7 years operation. Employing An-124-100s would result in Cdn $2.64B in direct cost savings plus $2.59B in additional economic benefits.


----------



## mover1

I can't wait to see new airframes flying around, I am sure that the NAVIGATOR and THE FLIGHT ENGINEER trades are panicking about their futures. J modles and C-17 don't require either. Just pilot co-pilot and a loadie. 

I hope that the varoius trade steering comitties don't screw things around by delving jobs out of trade (IE making a Nav or an FE into a laodmaster) just to keep themselves with a set of wings on their breasts.


----------



## GAP

Quagmire said:
			
		

> Strategic Airlifters: a Comprehensive Comparison between the Boeing C-17 and the Antonov An-124-100   [Part 4]
> 
> Herman A. Kurapov,  Candidate,  Master of Engineering in Logistics, MIT
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------  etc.



The one thing that strikes me about all this clapping for the AN-124 is what has been quoted in this and other threads....the cost of Canadianizing them and then getting the parts and service might outweigh any potential benefits, and still leave us with Airlift that requires a long runway, thus also limiting our access to certain areas.


----------



## tomahawk6

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/06/21/military21062006.html

Harper has a $15b shopping list including at least 4 C-17's.


----------



## Retired AF Guy

GAP said:
			
		

> The one thing that strikes me about all this clapping for the AN-124 is what has been quoted in this and other threads....the cost of Canadianizing them and then getting the parts and service might outweigh any potential benefits, and still leave us with Airlift that requires a long runway, thus also limiting our access to certain areas.



You bring up a very good point. The Russian aircraft would not only have to be fitted with Canadian avionics but also military comms and an Electronic Warfare protection suite [Missile Approach Warning System (MAWS), Laser Warning Receivers, IR jammers, chaff and flares). Most of this equipment we use is U.S. designed so I imagine they would have some concerns about installing it on a Russian aircraft, especially considering anytime you do upgrades Russian techs will likely be require to work on the aircraft, thus giving them access to the systems. If the EW suite is not installed, than you will not be able operate in an operational theatre where there is a threat from shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles or an EW threat, which pretty well negates any military advantages.


----------



## Zoomie

That CASR crap really makes me physically ill.  80% idleness of a military fleet?  What utter nonsense.

CASR and the folks at SFU insist that they are big CF supporters but then they go and post ignorant crap like that - they obviosuly have no clue as to how a military works.

They comment on how we would only use strat-lift for about one month a year - hmmm, really?


----------



## cplcaldwell

Ahhhh Zoomie you're beginning to sound bitter.

I think CASR has some points, if even only to throw in off the wall options. A while ago I posted on this thread about the IL-76 ( a CASR Modest Proposal), and I got back several answers from folks who clearly knew more about it. 

So now we're all clear on that: Globemasters are the way to go .... and new J's as well ??

Set yer RSS news feeds up right away folks, in the next few days we may actually see that we get new kit. 

Betcha won't be so bitter when you have to trade that Buff in for a Spartan eh???


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin

As someone else pointed out, CASR's love-in with Soviet (er, Russian) equipment is getting annoying.    Much of what they post/publish is complete rubbish - this being a good example.


----------



## geo

hehe.... Even the USAF has budget limitations


----------



## scm77

Check out some of the comments on the globeandmail site.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060622.wmilit0622/CommentStory/National/home
You'll need to either register for free, or you can try one of the logins from here: http://www.bugmenot.com/view/globeandmail.com

Some highlights


> Rey Dunca from Toronto, Canada writes: This is great news! We have a big country to defend so we need a big enough and appropriately equipped military to do the job well.





> Brian Sexsmith from Toronto, Canada writes: We could have free post-secondary education and a significant increase in seniors pensions with this money and the lost to coporate tax cuts, but I guess military equipment is a more intelligent investment for Canadians.





> L W from new york, United States writes: If Canadians are involved with any military missions overseas or at home, we need to ensure that they have adequate equipment. Our soldiers deserve the best..





> Michael Soft from Bloc Ontario, Canada writes: Good! We need to build WMD to defend us from american attacks.


Uhhhhh.....ok.



> lenny jones from Bangkok, Thailand writes: This government's priorities are clear. Not enough cash for day care spaces but enough to create future spaces for the cannon fodder those neglected children may well become one day.


So anyone raised by their parent(s) is neglected?  :


----------



## TangoTwoBravo

2B checked the flight line last night and still no Canadian CH-47s.  2B will check again this morning.

2B

p.s.  Beware.  Most analysts only know enough to be dangerous and they probably failed Phase II anyway.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

Try this one on.

Michael Gismondi from Vancouver, writes: 500 bucks for every man, woman and child in this country. What a waste of money. What of waste of time. What a waste of resources. What a disgrace. Right-wing zealots (I say that only because you would label me a liberal-lefty-commie) should be ashamed of yourselves for applauding such a ridiculous decision. There is nothing more disgraceful than the idea of men wearing matching hats and shirts armed with guns, rockets and missiles set out to kill other humans in order to reproduce the North American lifesytle. Organized sports with killing...what could be better? Not long until UFC allows killing and not long until War becomes a reality TV show. War is pathetic -- so is spending on a Canadian 'war machine'. 
Posted 22/06/06 at 12:13 PM EDT


----------



## aesop081

Quagmire said:
			
		

> Try this one on.
> 
> Michael Gismondi from Vancouver, writes: 500 bucks for every man, woman and child in this country. What a waste of money. What of waste of time. What a waste of resources. What a disgrace. Right-wing zealots (I say that only because you would label me a liberal-lefty-commie) should be ashamed of yourselves for applauding such a ridiculous decision. There is nothing more disgraceful than the idea of men wearing matching hats and shirts armed with guns, rockets and missiles set out to kill other humans in order to reproduce the North American lifesytle. Organized sports with killing...what could be better? Not long until UFC allows killing and not long until War becomes a reality TV show. War is pathetic -- so is spending on a Canadian 'war machine'.
> Posted 22/06/06 at 12:13 PM EDT



WOW !!!

This is the country i live in ?


----------



## GAP

Quagmire said:
			
		

> Try this one on.
> 
> Michael Gismondi from Vancouver, writes:
> 
> Garbage...
> 
> I read through all the G&M comments today and they were overwhelmingly negative. It was saddening to read comments from people who, by their comments, clearly showed they had no clue what it was all about. More often than not, I found the comments tended to have a media orientated thread, and they were parroting their interpretation of the stories.
> 
> If you look at the count of the comments, you find that the G & M cut them off pretty early.


----------



## MarkOttawa

How strange it is that not one of the pieces of equipment reported to be on tap actually kills anyone directly.  Why don't  these people get upset about the purchase of LAV IIIs?.  Or machine guns?   Or weapons for the RCMP?  Or...

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## mdh

I wouldn't put too much stock in what some chump from Vancouver has to say on the Globe and Mail website. It's probably part of an orchestrated peacenik campaign anyway.

Not that I'm not totally riveted by what "Lenny from Bangkok" has to say about Canadian military affairs and the world situation.


----------



## Kirkhill

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060622.wmilit0622/CommentStory/National/home

Actually G&M seems to have a second discussion going.  That may be the reason the closed the other one down.  The count is now up to 248 and overwhelmingly positive - at least from a random sample.  Can't be bothered reading most of it.


----------



## mdh

> Can't be bothered reading most of it.



Oh come on Kirkhill, "Lenny from Bangkok" is on a roll..... 8)


----------



## GAP

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060622.wmilit0622/CommentStory/National/home
> 
> Actually G&M seems to have a second discussion going.



You are right.  I felt compeled to add my 2 cents



> I am heartened to read all these comments of support. I thought Canada was losing sight of the issues, then lo and behold....I find tremendous support for the Canadian Forces right here at home. Thank you Canada for your forsight and most importantly,for SPEAKING UP.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

It seemed more pro then not.  I wasted about an hour addressing every negative poster personally.


----------



## GAP

Quagmire said:
			
		

> It seemed more pro then not.  I wasted about an hour addressing every negative poster personally.



You have far more stamina than I do....I just can't justify wasting that many hours  :brickwall:


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

In my belief if I don't at least try then I can't complain.


----------



## Journeyman

According to the Ottawa Citizen, (insert legal copyright-babble here), Liberal Senator Kenny is actually calling for 6-8 heavy-lift aircraft! He also points out how little we spend on defence, in contrast to other countries. Wow, common sense from the unelected tax-drain Senate. I'm sure the rest of the Liberals are not amused.

Of course, the title is misleading, in that Kenny included a big "_if_" in his statement on C-17s

http://server09.densan.ca/archivenews/060623/cit/060623au.htm


> PUBLICATION:  The Ottawa Citizen
> DATE:  2006.06.23
> EDITION:  EARLY
> SECTION:  News
> PAGE:  A4
> BYLINE:  Mike Blanchfield
> SOURCE:  The Ottawa Citizen
> 
> *Grit senator backs Tories' plan to forgo bid for Forces aircraft: No alternatives to C-17s: Kenny*
> An influential Liberal senator has endorsed the Harper government's plan to buy $4-billion worth of new military transport planes without holding a commercial competition, as part of an expected $15-billion spending bonanza on ships, helicopters and trucks for the Canadian Forces.
> 
> The support from Liberal Senator Colin Kenny poured salt on Liberal wounds on a day when Prime Minister Stephen Harper, his cabinet ministers and Conservative senators were trumpeting their massive military spending plans and condemning the Grits for gutting the Forces for 13 years.
> 
> Mr. Kenny, chairman of the Senate's defence and security committee, said yesterday that the Forces need to purchase six to eight long-range heavy-lift airplanes, almost double the four Boeing C-17 Globemaster cargo jets that the government is planning to buy.
> 
> He and Conservative senators also said in a report released yesterday that the government won't be able to pay for its ambitious new military spending program -- to be unveiled with great fanfare next week at military bases across Canada -- unless it nearly doubles its projected defence budget to $35 billion from $20 billion.
> 
> Mr. Kenny dismissed suggestions that the amount of spending was politically unrealistic, saying Canada spends $343 per capita on defence, compared with $648 by Australia, $658 by the Netherlands and $903 by Britain.
> 
> The centrepiece, and most contentious part of the Tory spending plan, is the decision to sole-source the purchase of the American-built Boeing C-17s, a process that would prevent other airplane suppliers from bidding on the lucrative contract.
> 
> Mr. Kenny said that "generally speaking" he would oppose spending such a large amount of taxpayers' money without a competitive tendering process, but he said an exception could be made in this case, "if you can demonstrate it's the only aircraft that meets your needs."


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

The Liberals in the Defence committie have always insisted on more military spending. (sp)


----------



## MarkOttawa

As Sen. Kenny pointed out:
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=2032bfe9-2210-4824-8eab-dd9685351acb&k=45791



> ...Canada currently spends $343 per capita on the military compared with $648 for Australians, $658 for the Dutch and $903 for Britons.



Some war machine.

I like the double-Dutch.

Mark 
Ottawa


----------



## Kirkhill

Senator Kenny is one of the best things that has happened to the CF.  If all the Senators were of his quality, and to be fair a number of them are, then there would be much less carping about unelected Senators.  

A second thought:

More needs to be made of the fact that every piece of kit on this "shopping list" not only is useful in Afghanistan, and in any other theater, and in DART-type scenarios, but also _*right here at home then next time the lights go out.*_

For all those Canadians that think that charity begins at home consider this a personal donation to their own flood and fire insurance policy.  In the meantime, so that the CF can learn how to operate these things effectively while doing something useful they are helping out friends and neighbours rather than idly burning gas flitting around Canada.

Just like they want - our intrepid corps of "internationalists" that want to solve the world's problems with the other guy's Nickel. "Canada First".


----------



## KevinB

FWIW - with the new C17 and Herc's Canada could consider that it may be able to open a second "front" elsewhere from Aghanistan


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

Who wrote this?  I thought reporters weren't suppossed to have a bias.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/cdnmilitary/procurement.html

INDEPTH: CANADA'S MILITARY
Military procurement

CBC News Online | June 22, 2006


For military buffs, all next week should be like Saturday morning at Canadian Tire. That's because, with Parliament having risen, Prime Minister Stephen Harper is set to announce the Conservatives' much-trumpeted plan to buy new transport aircraft, helicopters, ships and trucks for the Armed Forces. 

In all, the purchase is expected to total roughly $15 billion, to be spread out over several years. And according to the CBC's French-language service Radio-Canada, Harper will unveil the plans in a series of announcements from Quebec to central Ontario to Alberta in a bid to underline the local benefits from such a massive procurement. 

According to news reports and what the military has said to date about its requirements, the purchases are expected to fall into five categories: 
Up to four heavy-lift long-range transport planes to move troops, tanks and entire hospital units halfway around the globe in one shot. Estimated cost: $3 billion. 
Up to 17 heavy-lift, mid-range transport planes to replace Canada's aging fleet of Hercules aircraft. Estimated cost: $4.6 billion 
A fleet of between 12 and 15 heavy-lift helicopters to move troops and supplies quickly around war zones. Estimated cost: $4.2 billion. 
Three new troop carrier ships. Estimated cost: $2 billion. 
Up to 1,000 new trucks for the army, likely to be built in Quebec. Estimated cost: $1.1 billion. 
Of the five, the three involving planes and helicopters have so far created the most controversy. 

Long-range transport planes: 

Boeing Globemasters, shown being unloaded in 2005, can transport entire strike teams or up to 144 soldiers with full equipment for 4,400 kilometres without refuelling then offload its entire cargo in minutes. (Mike Buytas/U.S. Air Force)This purchase is the pet project of Defence Minister Dennis O'Connor, a former brigadier-general — and former defence industry lobbyist. Because of that, and because of the way this contract is expected to be structured — in such a way that it can only be awarded to Boeing's giant Globemaster aircraft — this is the one element of the deal expected to kick up the most immediate fuss. 

More than three years ago, before he became a Conservative MP, O'Connor lobbied for Boeing and other defence companies. He is reportedly particularly enamoured of the Globemaster, a massive hulk that can transport entire strike teams or up to 144 soldiers with full equipment for 4,400 kilometres without refuelling, then offload its entire cargo in minutes. 

Boeing's main competition, Europe's EADS/Airbus consortium, says it can supply the same number of planes with similar capabilities for $2 billion, which is considerably less than the Globemaster price. It has a drawback, though. The Airbus version is still on the drawing board and won't be in the air until 2008 at the earliest, with delivery not expected for some years after that. 

Other options: A company called Skylink Aviation, which charters large aircraft for the commercial carriers and the Canadian military, says it can provide two Russian-built long-range carriers, which the Armed Forces have used in the past. According to the Skylink proposal, which was obtained by the Ottawa Citizen, Skylink has offered to lease two each of the smaller IL-76 Ilyushin and the somewhat bigger Antonov An-124 and base them at Canadian Forces Base Trenton in Ontario for the exclusive use of the Canadian military. Lease costs would be in the range of $46 million a year. 

The Antonov is a well-known Clydesdale of the sky. The Canadian-American Strategic Review, a think-tank that analyzes Canadian foreign and defence policies, says the Antonov can carry a bigger load than the Globemaster, has twice the maximum cargo volume and can fly 1,500 kilometres further when fully loaded. 

The Globemaster, CASR's reviewer admits, is more fun to fly and can be seen as heavy aviation's 'equivalent of the Lamborghini.' 

Mid-range planes: 

One of the Canadian military's aging Hercules makes a supply run in Northern Ontario. Of the 31 Hercules still in the air, 22 are at least 30 years old. (Jonathan Hayward/Canadian Press) Called strategic and tactical aircraft, the main competitors in this category are Lockheed Martin's revamped C130J Hercules and the Airbus A400M, which is not expected to come into service before 2010. 

The C103J Hercules is the new and upgraded version of the aging carrier that has served Canada's Armed Forces well over the years and also seems to be the plane of choice for the U.S. and British air forces, at least as an 'in theatre' carrier. The Brits are also upgrading and have offered to sell Canada some of their older and so-called shorter versions, which can carry heavier loads than other Hercs. 

But with the public still smarting from the fiasco involving refurbished British subs – which Canada's military bought for $891 million in 1998, only to face serious electrical problems, rust and general deterioration – it is hard to see the Harper government wanting to risk its reputation on more used goods. 

Canada currently has a squadron of 31 Hercs but 22 of these are more than 30 years old and nearing the end of their useful life. The new Hercules is said to be more fuel-efficient, with six propellers, up from four in the older models. Thanks to its improved electronics, it can also be piloted by a smaller crew. Its claim to fame is that it works well in battle situations — it can get in and out of difficult terrain while still carrying a pretty heavy load. 

The Airbus A400M is to be Europe's answer to the Hercules but design and construction delays have hurt its order sheet and some analysts question whether it can deliver what it has promised. Its posted price of roughly $90 million US is higher than that of the Hercules, which has been listed in the range of $60 million US. But it is a bigger plane than the C103J, boasts more sophisticated engines and other avionics, and is suggested to be the next-generation plane for NATO in Europe. 

A late entry into the competition is the Russian Ilyushin IL-76 Airlifter, a modernized Soviet-era freighter that is much in use today in Afghanistan, particularly by Canadian troops. The Russian planes have been listed for about $50 million US each and suppliers have reportedly told Canada they can deliver the planes directly to Kandahar within the next year. It has a carrying capacity of about 40 tonnes and a range of 5,000 kilometres when fully loaded. 

Heavy-lift helicopters: 

This is another controversial purchase if only because it is the main focus of Gen. Rick Hillier, the chief of defence. He wants many more of these aircraft – which are used as the taxis of the war zone to shuttle about soldiers and supplies – and fewer, if any, of the long-range transport. 

A U.S. military Chinook kicks up dust near Kabul, Afghanistan. Its two large counter-spinning rotors enable the Chinook to fly in hot, dry climates like Afghanistan's and let it hover with only its two back wheels touching down, for quick unloading. (Musadeq Sadeq/Associated Press)Canada, for the most part, has had to beg, borrow and lease Boeing-built Chinooks from the Americans in Afghanistan to resupply its forward bases — or else risk truck convoys that are often targeted by roadside bombers. The military now wants its own dedicated fleet. 

The battlefield bird of choice for Hillier (and the U.S. military), the Chinook can carry up to 44 fully equipped soldiers, land in tight places and hurl cargo from one of three distinct holds. Its main claim to fame, however, is its two large counter-spinning rotors. They enable the Chinook to continue to fly in hot, dry climates like Afghanistan's (where birds with small back rotors have difficulty, for some reason) and let it hover with only its two back wheels touching down, for quick unloading. 

The main problems with the Chinook at this point are its relatively high cost and its fairly high demand all over the globe. Canada would have to take a number. 

Options for the military, according to CASR, have included repainting and re-equipping Canada's new search-and-rescue helicopters, the Cormorant. They might be able to carry up to 30 soldiers but Canada would then need new search-and-rescue copters. 

There could also be some sort of deal with Washington to take possession of new or newish U.S. military Chinooks while both countries wait for the updated version to come off the assembly lines. 

Another proposal on the table is the Russian-built Mi-17 from MIL. It is smaller than both the Cormorant and the Chinook, with about a quarter of the carrying capacity of the Chinook, and can probably transport only about 24 or so soldiers (estimates vary). 

But at a listed price of about $5 million US a bird, it costs a fraction of the Chinook and has proven itself under fire. Mi-17s moved Canadian soldiers about in the Balkans during the NATO deployment there in the early and mid-1990s. The helicopter is also much in evidence now in Afghanistan, and Canadian Forces and technical personnel are said to be very familiar with its abilities.


----------



## Zoomie

Who the heck is Dennis O'Connor - I thought our MND was a Gord?  http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/minister/index_e.asp

Didn't he lobby for Airbus - not Boeing?

This guy has pretty much regurgitated what he found on the CASR DND 101 website - absolutely no ideas of his own and has the same bias and poor research that CASR loves to post.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

Perhaps CBC should hire more fact checkers and editors.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

From: 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_O'Connor

He was a Senior Associate with Hill & Knowlton Canada, a world-wide public relations, public affairs and strategic communications company. O'Conner has also been an official lobbyist for several defense industry companies. These companies include: BAE Systems (1996 to 2004), General Dynamics (1996 to 2001), Atlas Elektronik GmbH (1999 to 2004), and Airbus Military (2001 to 2004)


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

I just emailed CBC and pointed out the glaring errors they didn't bother to check.


----------



## MarkOttawa

> Canada currently has a squadron of 31 Hercs



Four actually, in three wings (as to how many Hercs can fly on any given day...); the word the author wanted was "fleet":

435 “Chinthe” Transport and Rescue Squadron
http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/17wing/squadron/435_e.asp

424 (Tiger) Squadron 
http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/8wing/squadron/424_e.asp

436 Squadron 
http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/8wing/squadron/436_e.asp

413 Transport and Rescue Squadron 
http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/14wing/squadron/413_e.asp



> The new Hercules is said to be more fuel-efficient, with six propellers, up from four in the older models.



Er,* six-bladed* propellers, but still four propellers.

Garbage.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

You got that right.  However we in BN like to use the word JUNK!


----------



## vonGarvin

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> FWIW - with the new C17 and Herc's Canada could consider that it may be able to open a second "front" elsewhere from Aghanistan


One day after Barbarossa day, you shouldn't be talking about a second front


----------



## KevinB

:-[

Well it seems like a good fit word at the time


----------



## North Star

The MNDs critics love to scream that he was a former lobbyist for an aviation company, but never admit he actuallty worked for Airbus as opposed to Boeing. Oh well, they need to try and slander him over something...


----------



## vonGarvin

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> :-[
> 
> Well it seems like a good fit word at the time


That's ok. I just wanted to say "barbarossa" on here in context

:cheers:


----------



## HDE

I much prefer the Libs declaring that purchases should be based on "military priorities', rather than "politics", then shilling shamelessly for Bombardier.  There was a great line in one of the newspapers on how tossing a bone to Bombardier scores votes "Why save lives when you can save a riding?".  I'd imagine most of the Liberal concern is the inability to loot the acquisition budget in this round of spending.


----------



## Carbon-14

Quagmire said:
			
		

> I just emailed CBC and pointed out the glaring errors they didn't bother to check.



The have fixed some of the most glaring errors in the article.  I'm guessing you weren't the only one to email them in.
IMO this is one of the least biased pieces I've read.  One in the National Post "O'Connor to make U.S. lobbyists rich" was much worse.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

Well if that's one of the least biased I'd hate to see the most.


----------



## Britney Spears

> ....heavy aviation's 'equivalent of the Lamborghini.'



*head explodes*


----------



## Mortar guy

That article reads as if it were written by a junior high school student. In depth my arse! Try counting the number of factual errors in that piece and I'm sure you'll have to take off your shoes as I did.

Being a journalist, editor or columnist has to be the best job in the world. You can produce an incredibly shoddy product, rife with errors and poorly written to boot, and you still take home a paycheque. Thank God most professions hold themselves to higher standards.

MG


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

Its odd.  A Cpl can effect change as reference to that article.  Very cool.


----------



## aesop081

maybe they should also correct their mention that the C-130 J has 6 propellers...up from 4

The C-130 has *FOUR* propellers....and they are *SIX*-bladed....

 :


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

aesop081 to be honest I couldn't past the initial bias and blatant errors so early on in the piece.


----------



## Carbon-14

Did you email them about it aesop081?  It actually might make a difference.

It seems like their main (only) reference source is CASR.  I used to like CASR but their now constant love affair with Russian equipment has become very annoying.  Before I thought they were just bring it up to just to bring ideas to the table.  But now they're pushing it so hard now its sickening.

**edited spelling**


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

Carbon it does make a difference as I emailed them with proof and then today I checked and the article was amended.


----------



## aesop081

Quagmire said:
			
		

> Carbon it does make a difference as I emailed them with proof and then today I checked and the article was amended.



Article is now gone.....at least its not in the news list anymnore........


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

I think its in the same place:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/cdnmilitary/procurement.html


----------



## TangoTwoBravo

2B's lonely vigil by the flightline has again gone unrewarded.  I'm starting to feel like Linus waiting for the Great Pumpkin.  Maybe next year...


----------



## GAP

Quagmire said:
			
		

> I think its in the same place:
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/cdnmilitary/procurement.html



complete with 6 propellers


----------



## Scoobie Newbie




----------



## aesop081

maybe this is the answer.....


----------



## AIC_2K5

Media advisory on DND site states that MND and CDS are going to make an announcement in Halifax at 1300 ADT.

"Canada First" Defence Procurement - http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/newsroom/view_news_e.asp?id=1957


----------



## -dikweed-

It appears that DND is now considering attack helis....is it possible the 4+ billion is for 15 Chinooks PLUS a few AH?

____________________

The prime minister is expected to be in Edmonton on Wednesday, where requirements for 15 new tactical helicopters, possibly Chinooks, will be released.

The $4.6 billion purchase would give Canadian troops, primarily in Afghanistan, the ability to move around the battlefield. More importantly, it would allow them to be resupplied from the air, instead of the ground where convoys face the deadly prospect of roadside bombs.

But the question in military circles is how those unarmed transport helicopters will be protected in combat zones, such as Afghanistan, where aircraft face the threat of rocket propelled grenade attacks from insurgents on the ground.

The air force will eventually need to either arm existing rotary aircraft or purchase attack helicopter, a senior military officer said in a background briefing.

"It's a capability we're going to have to address," said the high-ranking officer in Afghanistan, who asked not to be identified.

"On landing the (transport) choppers can be fired on with (rocket propelled grenades for example."

Canadians troops currently hitch rides on helicopters belonging to other coalition countries and those aircraft rarely leave Kandahar without an attack helicopter escort, usually U.S. Apache gunships.

One stop-gap measure being considered by military planners is to arm a handful of existing army utility helicopters until bona fide attack helicopters can be purchased. 

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060626/defence_spending_060626/20060626?hub=TopStories


----------



## Hot Lips

Quagmire said:
			
		

>


That's Peppermint Patty...where's Linus?

HL


----------



## Scoobie Newbie




----------



## Scoobie Newbie

Update

O'Connor confirms plan to build three new ships
Updated Mon. Jun. 26 2006 1:18 PM ET

CTV.ca News Staff

Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor confirmed  that the federal government will go ahead with its plan to commission the design and construction of three naval supply ships worth $2.1 billion.

O'Connor made the announcement in Halifax, from the deck of a navy frigate, HMCS St. John's. He was joined Monday by Chief of Defence Staff Gen. Rick Hillier and Public Works Minister Michael Fortier.

The new ships will replace vintage vessels built in the 1960s.

"They've done an excellent job for us, but they are now over 35 years old and have become difficult and costly to maintain," O'Connor said.

"The new ships ... will be capable of refueling and re-supplying other ships at sea and providing support for ship-borne helicopters. But they will also provide the navy with a three-ocean capability and the global reach necessary to transform Canadian Forces."

Hillier said the ships are crucial to the military's performance.

"Without them our ability to do what Canadians ask of us would be greatly diminished," he said.

Irving Shipbuilding, ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems AG, BAE Systems Ltd. and SNC Lavalin ProFac Inc. are bidding for the contract to build the 28,000 tonne ships.

The winning bidder will also receive an $800 million contract to provide support and maintenance throughout the life of the ships. 

O'Connor said the announcement is part of the government's "Canada first" military strategy.

"By fixing, transforming, expanding and properly equipping the Canadian Forces we will build a Canadian Forces where our men and women in uniform have what they need to effectively do the jobs Canadians expect them to do here at home and on the world stage," O'Connor said. 

"We will build a stronger Canadian Forces. We will build a stronger Canada."

The announcement is the first in $15 billion in planned military spending announcements this week for various projects.

Liberal defence critic Ujjal Dosanjh has claimed O'Connor has a conflict of interest with several of the companies bidding on contracts, and should recuse himself from the process. 

O'Connor has continually dismissed the claims, and says he has no personal involvement in awarding the contracts.

Fortier said the process is simple, fair and transparent. 

"The Minister of National Defence expresses the need, the Treasury Board approves the funding, and as minister of public works I decide how the equipment will be purchased," Fortier said. 

"In this respect I wish to assure you the acquisition process will be done fairly, openly and in a transparent way."

The remaining spending announcements to be unveiled in four Canadian cities this week will include capital purchases of ships, aircrafts, helicopters and trucks to strengthen Canada's fighting forces.

The spending announcements still fall short of a Senate committee's spending recommendations as well as some of the military's own requests, but O'Connor said the new ships are the first item on a long shopping list.

Most of the spending announcements were either promised by the Tories during the election campaign or were planned by the previous Liberal government. 

In addition to the $2 billion for the three naval support ships, the government is expected to announce $1.1 billion for new army trucks, $4.2 billion for 15 heavy-lift helicopters, and $7.5 billion for tactical and heavy-lift aircraft.



Are these 3 ships the troop carrying kind that have been talked about?


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

Michael Fortier (Public Works Minister) has indicated that the ships will be built in Canada.


----------



## Kirkhill

> Are these 3 ships the troop carrying kind that have been talked about?



No they are not.  

From the CDS's own remarks and the PMOJSS site they are Oilers first, Naval Resupply vessels second.  They have an ability to carry some vehicles and ISO containers.  They may also have a Medical facility and/or a C2 facility to support land operations.  They also have an ability to accomodate a sub-unit of troops.  

They are not troop-lifters.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

That's what I thought I read to but was under the impression we were gunning for troop carriers as well as kit so we wouldn't have to rely on the civies.  My mistake I guess.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Jihad_Joe said:
			
		

> It appears that DND is now considering attack helis....is it possible the 4+ billion is for 15 Chinooks PLUS a few AH?
> 
> ____________________
> 
> The prime minister is expected to be in Edmonton on Wednesday, where requirements for 15 new tactical helicopters, possibly Chinooks, will be released.
> 
> The $4.6 billion purchase would give Canadian troops, primarily in Afghanistan, the ability to move around the battlefield. More importantly, it would allow them to be resupplied from the air, instead of the ground where convoys face the deadly prospect of roadside bombs.
> 
> But the question in military circles is how those unarmed transport helicopters will be protected in combat zones, such as Afghanistan, where aircraft face the threat of rocket propelled grenade attacks from insurgents on the ground.
> 
> The air force will eventually need to either arm existing rotary aircraft or purchase attack helicopter, a senior military officer said in a background briefing.
> 
> "It's a capability we're going to have to address," said the high-ranking officer in Afghanistan, who asked not to be identified.
> 
> "On landing the (transport) choppers can be fired on with (rocket propelled grenades for example."
> 
> Canadians troops currently hitch rides on helicopters belonging to other coalition countries and those aircraft rarely leave Kandahar without an attack helicopter escort, usually U.S. Apache gunships.
> 
> One stop-gap measure being considered by military planners is to arm a handful of existing army utility helicopters until bona fide attack helicopters can be purchased.
> 
> http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060626/defence_spending_060626/20060626?hub=TopStories



I was trying to figure out the math for 15 Chinooks for $4 billion.  That's $266 million per unit.  Even with life-cycle costing, that seems really high.

And re: the potential of attack helicopters (if that really is under consideration) wouldn't the AH-1Z be a better fit considering it's already been spec'd out for shipborne use?


Matthew.


----------



## Sub_Guy

Quagmire said:
			
		

> That's what I thought I read to but was under the impression we were gunning for troop carriers as well as kit so we wouldn't have to rely on the civies.  My mistake I guess.



Not necessarily.  Keep your ears and eyes open as we are doing the Amphib  (SCTF) exercise in the fall for a reason...   We needed new AOR's there is no doubt about that.  But I suspect they are still pursuing the BHS idea....


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

seen


----------



## karl28

Should be interesting times in the recent weeks for the the CF . Just hope that the CF can get there new equipment  sooner rather than later


----------



## geo

> Irving Shipbuilding, ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems AG, BAE Systems Ltd. and SNC Lavalin ProFac Inc. are bidding for the contract to build the 28,000 tonne ships.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought that Irvind took apart it's shipyard after winding down the Frigate program.
> ThyssenKrupp marine appears to be the only player in this field who has a real functioning maritime shipbuilding yard capable of building anything.
Click to expand...


----------



## mjohnston39

> Are these 3 ships the troop carrying kind that have been talked about?



From the Chronicle Herald

15b military boost on way
Spending can’t cover all requests
By MURRAY BREWSTER The Canadian Press
ADVERTISEMENT 



Stephen Harper’s Conservative government is set to unleash a whirlwind of politically palatable defence spending this week that falls short of a Senate committee’s recommendations and in some cases the military’s own wish list.

Almost all of the $15 billion of capital purchases — ships, aircraft, helicopters and trucks — were either promised by the Tories in the last federal election or planned by the previous Liberal government.

While primarily meant to reverse the rust-out of Canadian military hardware over the last decade, a defence analyst said the shopping list is something voters — wary of defence spending — will swallow without much argument.

"The government doesn’t seem to be looking too far beyond these initial (purchase) priorities," said David Rudd, president of the Toronto-based Canadian Institute of Strategy Studies.

"It doesn’t want to leave the impression, I believe, that the Forces are benefiting at the expense of other priorities.

"The public will readily accept X number of projects and certain expenditures. If you start going too far beyond that too soon, then I think the government might start to run into more vigorous opposition."

Calls to Defence Minister Gordon O’Connor’s office went unanswered on Friday, but the minister told CTV’s Question Period on Sunday that the Conservatives consider the purchases to be a first step.

"What we’re trying to do now is put in place the very basic requirements of the military to be effective, mobilities — air mobility, army mobility on the ground and mobility at sea — so that’s where we’re starting," he said.

The first project, set to be announced in Halifax on Monday, will be the selection of a builder for the navy’s three new joint support ships. The $2.8 billion program was started under the former Liberal government.

A consortium led by General Dynamics Canada is thought to be leading contender and is expected to place much of the work at the Davie Shipyard in Quebec, a province where the Tories hope to make political gains. Halifax-based Irving Shipyard could also benefit from the project.

But the three supply ships — meant to replace two 1960s vintage vessels — are only half of what the navy needs.

*Engineers are currently drawing up a proposal to be presented to the government this summer for a single amphibious assault ship, capable of transporting thousands of troops and dozens of tanks and trucks to the world’s hotspots.*

Aside from the navy’s own desires, the Senate Committee on National Security and Defence also identified landing ships as a key priority for re-equipping the military.

Later in the week, the Conservatives will outline plans to spend $3 billion on four strategic lift aircraft — also meant to shuttle troops and equipment overseas in a hurry. A Senate committee recommended Ottawa purchase six to eight high-lift planes.

Ottawa will also set aside an additional $4.6 billion for tactical lift planes to replace aging Hercules transports, and 

there are plans to announce $1.1 billion in spending on military trucks in Quebec.

The prime minister is expected to be in Edmonton on Wednesday, where requirements for 15 new tactical helicopters, possibly Chinooks, will be released.

The $4.6 billion purchase would give Canadian troops, primarily in Afghanistan, the ability to move around the battlefield. More importantly, it would allow them to be resupplied from the air, instead of the ground where convoys face the deadly prospect of roadside bombs.

But the question in military circles is how those unarmed transport helicopters will be protected in combat zones, such as Afghanistan, where aircraft face the threat of rocket propelled grenade attacks from insurgents on the ground.

The air force will eventually need to either arm existing rotary aircraft or purchase attack helicopter, a senior military officer said in a background briefing.

"It’s a capability we’re going to have to address," said the high-ranking officer in Afghanistan, who asked not to be identified.

"On landing the (transport) choppers can be fired on with (rocket propelled grenades for example."

Canadians troops currently hitch rides on helicopters belonging to other coalition countries and those aircraft rarely leave Kandahar without an attack helicopter escort, usually U.S. Apache gunships.


Also:

http://www.jsscanada.com/index.html
http://www.canamp.ca/
Mike


----------



## Kirkhill

Mike, that's an interesting concept. 

A single vessel for "thousands" of troops but only "dozens" of tanks AND trucks.  An exceptionally large but VERY light force.  ;D


----------



## MarkOttawa

From another thread 
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/46379.0.html

(sorry for the repeat but I think relevant):

The JSSs announced today are being rather oversold. 
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060626.wdefen0626/BNStory/National/home

Their main role is still supply of ships at sea (auxiliary oiler replenishment--AOR) with an additional, limited capability to support things on land. 

Relevant DND sites:

http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/newsroom/view_news_e.asp?id=1958
http://www.forces.gc.ca/admmat/dgmepm/pmojss/index_e.asp
http://www.navy.forces.gc.ca/mspa_news/news_e.asp?id=182
http://www.navy.forces.gc.ca/mspa_news/news_e.asp?id=164

See this from the last URL:

'-A support ship with some intrinsic fighting capability.

-Provides fuel, supplies, food and ammunition for ships in order to keep them at sea.

-Can carry up to 155 people in addition to the ship's crew.

-Can disembark equipment and personnel relatively slowly and methodically using Roll-On Roll-Off (RO-RO) and Lift-On Lift-Off (LO-LO) capabilities.

-Can offload equipment and personnel in a "permissive," or peaceful, environment.'

In other words, it cannot transport a significant number of troops such as a battalion and could not launch an amphibious assault.  One really wonders if we might not be better off buying less complicated AORs and one or two Amphibious Ships (also described at this URL):

'-A fighting ship with some intrinsic support capability.

-Consumes fuel, supplies, food and ammunition in order to project Canadian Forces ashore.

-Can carry a significantly larger military force with equipment and vehicles in 'fighting order,' enabling Canadian Forces to face armed opposition ashore.

-Can rapidly disembark personnel and equipment in 'waves' using 'connector systems' such as landing craft and/or helicopters.

-Can rapidly disembark personnel and equipment in 'waves' using 'connector systems' such as landing craft and/or helicopters.

-Project in early stages. Initial Concept of Operations under development.'

Moreover, there is a lot of doubt how capable Canadian shipyards (Davie in Quebec may be the only one) are of building a ship as complex as the JSS--especially on time and on budget.  It might well make a lot more sense to build less complex AORs here and simply have Amphibious Ship(s) built abroad.  See:

"Military procurement: Here's really hoping"
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2006/06/military-procurement-heres-really.html

And also a 2005 Fraser Institute paper:

"The Need for Canadian Strategic Lift"
http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/admin/books/files/CanadianStrategicLift.pdf

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## geo

Anybody read that they're gonna order up some more LAVs?
Between the projected increase of troops in the Land forces AND the beating that the existing fleet of LAVs is taking in Kandahar region.... we need more LAVs.  This Managed readiness BS isn't working and will unravel pretty soon IMHO


----------



## prom

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> I was trying to figure out the math for 15 Chinooks for $4 billion.  That's $266 million per unit.  Even with life-cycle costing, that seems really high.
> 
> And re: the potential of attack helicopters (if that really is under consideration) wouldn't the AH-1Z be a better fit considering it's already been spec'd out for shipborne use?
> 
> 
> Matthew.



you are very right my friend

_All of the Army's CH-47 Chinooks are to be upgraded to the new CH-47F models by 2018 as the result of a partnership between the service and Boeing, the helicopter's manufacturer. Under the plan, the Army will buy 55 new CH-47F models, have 397 helicopters remanufactured into CH-47Fs, and have 61 remanufactured to the CH47G used by Special Forces units. Total procurement costs through 2018 under the plan would amount to $11.4 billion. CH-47 helicopters that are remanufactured are to be rebuilt from the ground up and receive recapitalized depot-level repair components that are nearly "zero hour" or new. The aircraft themselves are to receive new airframes_
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/ch-47f-ich.htm

The US are doing 513 total airframes for 11.4 Billion US. or around 22 mililion each. New is 32 million and referb is 8.5 million


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

LAV's and 5.56 geo.

Mark the only way to keep the lefties at bay is to have MAJOR Canadian business involved.  Hopefully we get something built well and on time and budget.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

Senator Kenny (Liberal)  states 3 aren't enough.  Go figure.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

For your viewing pleasure:

Ottawa to spend $2.1-billion on supply ships
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060626.wdefen0626/CommentStory/National/home


----------



## TangoTwoBravo

Quagmire,

Where did you get that picture of me?

All,

Things cost what they cost.  How much would your car cost if you looked at its whole life cycle?  What is important is that we are taking steps to improve our tactical, operational and strategic mobility.  If this goes through, we will be set up very well for the next twenty years or so.  

If we can get AHs then we will truly be ready for today's and tomorrow's wars.

Cheers,

2B


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

I'd take Cobra's for that matter.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Quagmire: Quite.  Amazing that the lefties are so in love with the Arrow.  Goddamn Norwegians for not buying it.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

Will these contracts be available for the general public to look through?


----------



## Cloud Cover

What happened to the FWSAR project? I see Chinooks, C-17's, Hercs, Cyclones, rumours of maybe a few gunships but no FWSAR.


----------



## aesop081

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> no FWSAR.



and no news of the financing for AIMP......... :-[


----------



## Chubbard

With the Navy wanting to buy the BHS after they get their JSS's, when does it plan to replace the Iroquois-Class destroyers?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Chubbard said:
			
		

> With the Navy wanting to buy the BHS after they get their JSS's, when does it plan to replace the Iroquois-Class destroyers?



Not even going to be seriously looked at until probably around the 2009 time frame


----------



## Chubbard

But arent the Iroquois Class supposed to last only until 2010? Would they just be expected to continue or would we have to get along without them?


----------



## Sub_Guy

I know lets buy off the shelf!  Ok I'll stop saying that, but I still don't get why have to build our ships here.  We aren't going to build the C-17s here, so whats the big deal.   I know the reasons for it though, keep our shipbuilding industry alive, and the money spent stays in Canada, blah blah blah..... I would like to see more bang for our buck.

Type 45  or Horizon

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/52/Italian_destroyer_Andrea_Doria_%282008%29.jpg


----------



## Chubbard

Well couldn't we build off the shelf ships in our own shipyards? Much like the US building Harriers in North America. It might cost a bit more (getting rights and all that), but it would be an easier sell to voters, and give the military a proven piece of equipment. Unless there is something I'm missing here (which is highly probable).


----------



## geo

Quagmire said:
			
		

> LAV's and 5.56 geo.
> 
> Mark the only way to keep the lefties at bay is to have MAJOR Canadian business involved.  Hopefully we get something built well and on time and budget.



5.56 is an ongoing expense - the LAVs are capital items that have, up until now, been bought in job lots.


----------



## MarkOttawa

CF procurement and expansion: Steve Madely of CFRA, Ottawa, speaks with National Defence Minister O'Connor. 
http://www.cfra.com/chum_audio/Gordon_OConnor_June27.mp3

Note the larger plan supposed to go to Cabinet this fall, and the limits on increase in CF numbers caused by lack of trainers. Anyone have a plane to propose for the Hercules replacement and for the strategic lift requirement?
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2006/06/canadian-air-force-procurement-euro_20.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa

Jim Travers of the Toronto Star has a column today 





> For Harper, the price is right


http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1151361017232&call_pageid=968256290204&col=968350116795

which led me to write this letter to the editor:



> Jim Travers, in dealing with the government's apparent intention to buy C-17 Globemaster strategic airlifters, writes that "...it's a help to both the Pentagon and Boeing as they try to extend the slowing Globemaster production run as far as possible."  Mr Travers also writes that "Among those Harper is pleasing...[is] George W. Bush..."
> 
> That is dead wrong.  The Bush adminstration has been trying to stop production of C-17s; it is Congress that is trying to extend procurement--as anyone who follows US defence policy would know.  But of course facts never stand in the way when one wants to try and discredit the government by dragging President Bush's name into the discussion.
> 
> Reference:
> 
> "Senate Appropriators Boost Funding For C-17, Osprey
> By Michael Bruno/Aerospace Daily & Defense Report
> 04/05/2006 09:09:58 AM"
> http://www.aviationow.com/avnow/search/autosuggest.jsp?docid=595427&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aviationnow.com%2Favnow%2Fnews%2Fchannel_defense_story.jsp%3Fview%3Dstory%26id%3Dnews%2FOSP04056.xml



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MdB

Mark, to further your comment about this lame article, here's my worst quote:



> It's easy to argue that those billions could be better spent on, say, health, education, the environment or finally doing something about squalid aboriginal life.
> 
> *But by squeezing the military for so long, Liberals made it easy for Conservatives to justify the largest military procurement since Canada built new frigates.*



Oh man, no credit due to the Conservatives. It's all Liberals fault that they allowed that to happen. What BS.

It's the damn other way around. The Convervatives have actually the guts to do it, before it all falls down. And even, this so much in need that virtually no one oppose the buying, only the BQ opposing the *way* it is done.

I was listening to Radio-Canada's radio, and even this left-leaning turf is not bashing the move. When it's rightly explained and put in context, people see the need for it. Communication and education of the public is the way to go.


----------



## GAP

Here we are in Canada having a full blown debate about spending 15 billion on much needed equipment..

Check out this report on what the US is going to have to put out *each year* to replace wornout/damaged equipment

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0627/dailyUpdate.html


----------



## MarkOttawa

> Tories OK Liberal military buys: $2B fleet of ships among purchases planned by Grits



In April 2004, then-prime minister Paul Martin launched the same program, with Liberal defence minister David Pratt announcing the exact details Mr. O'Connor outlined yesterday in Halifax...

...now, in a savvy public relations move, the Conservative government has embraced the Joint Support Ship program as its own, highlighting it as evidence of its commitment to rebuild the Canadian Forces...

Several of the military equipment announcements by the Conservative government over the next few days may be equally familiar.

Today in Valcartier, Que., it will announce the purchase of a new fleet of trucks, also originally outlined in the Liberals' defence policy paper last April, albeit with few details. The same goes for the plan to buy new medium-lift helicopters, an acquisition process the Harper government is to release tomorrow in Edmonton.

On Thursday, the Conservatives will announce the procurement of tactical airlift planes. Last fall, the Martin Liberals announced the same $5-billion program to buy a replacement for the aging Hercules aircraft, but didn't get far into the project before losing the January federal election.

The Harper government differs from its Liberal predecessor when it comes to long-range military transport planes. The Liberals decided those were too expensive to buy, especially since such aircraft could be quickly leased or obtained from NATO when needed..."

Fine and good. This is what the military has said it needed, not the Liberals. And the Liberals never actually bought one thing on the list.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060627/trucks_military_060627/20060627?hub=TopStories

Feds unveil plan to purchase trucks for military
Updated Tue. Jun. 27 2006 11:59 AM ET

CTV.ca News Staff

Ottawa unveiled a plan on Tuesday to spend $1.2 billion on the acquisition of 2,300 new medium-sized logistics trucks and associated equipment for the Canadian military.

"Without this, the Canadian Forces cannot accomplish their tasks at home or abroad. We must make the Forces self-reliant by giving them the tools they need to succeed," Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor said at the Canadian Forces Base Val Cartier near Quebec City on Tuesday.

"It is only in this way that Canada can be more secure at home and have a greater impact abroad," he said.

The new vehicles, which will replace a fleet of trucks that came into service in the early 1980s, will be used by the regular and reserve forces.

The project aims to procure approximately: 

1500 standard military pattern vehicles with up to 300 trailers; 
800 commercial vehicles adapted for military use; 
1000 specially equipped vehicles kits, such as mobile kitchens, offices and medical or dental stations; 
300 armour protection systems.
"The introduction of these modern and reliant vehicles will dramatically improve the capability of our land forces," O'Connor said.

The defence minister was also quick to stress that Ottawa would follow a competitive procurement process to select the contractor for the new truck fleet.

"The entire procurement process will be fair, open and transparent and will be in line with the federal Accountability Act that was passed by the House of Commons last week," he said.

Lt.-Gen. Marc Dumais of Commander Canada Command welcomed the plan, which is the second of $15 billion in planned military spending announcements this week.

"These new trucks will ensure the lifeline of supply for front-line troops will continue," Dumais said. "This fleet will continue the extremely important support role when the current MLVW fleet reaches the end of its life cycle."

The Defence Ministry also added that for every contract dollar awarded, the contract will commit a corresponding dollar in economic activity in Canada.

"We expect contractors to deliver one dollar in high-quality economic activity in Canada for every dollar they are awarded as part of this project," Industry Minister Maxime Bernier said in a written statement.

"This economic benefits package will mean billions in long-term business activity in Canada."

Defence analyst Scott Taylor believes the acquisition is long overdue.

"The existing truck fleet is now up into its 24th or 25th year of service," said Taylor, editor in chief of military magazine Esprit de Corps.

Taylor told CTV Newsnet some of the aging trucks in the existing fleet underwent upgrades costing $35,000 to $80,000 so that they could remain in service.

"No one in their right mind puts 80,000 into a 25-year-old truck, knowing that you're about to replace it, so of course finally we've got a bit of common sense."


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

Must be a good thing if Scott Taylor thinks so.


----------



## MdB

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> And the Liberals never actually bought one thing on the list.



*+1*

Really, I don't give a damn what they can or could say. That's what they *do* that counts, and what they do not count equally if not more.

Seems some journalists have lost that sense of getting things done rather than talking about getting it done.


----------



## Haggis

We should buy Russian trucks.  They would fit in the Russian airplanes.

No....?


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Haggis said:
			
		

> We should buy Russian trucks.  They would fit in the Russian airplanes.
> 
> No....?



I'll reserve judgement until CASR tells me it's a good idea.


Matthew.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Haggis said:
			
		

> We should buy Russian trucks.  They would fit in the Russian airplanes.
> 
> No....?



As long as neither is built by Bombardier I can live with that.  ;D


----------



## Cloud Cover

Scott Taylor is not  a defence analyst and I don't think he has ever held himself out to be. Arm chair general maybe, but not an analyst.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

no argument there whiskey


----------



## Infanteer

So are these intended to replace the MLs and the LS or just the ML?


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

The news indicated only the ML but who knows.  There a couple different types of truck.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO

Chubbard said:
			
		

> But arent the Iroquois Class supposed to last only until 2010? Would they just be expected to continue or would we have to get along without them?



There are a number of different plans and thoughts circulating from what I can understand. If they went for the LPD...i.e. a San Antonio class ship that they could get relatively fast and say get 3 or 4 of those these would fulfill the requirements of the BHS and we could take the crews from the 280s to man the LPDs. the San Antonio could do the command and control function that the 280s did and then some. thus they would not have to directly replace the 280s. At some far off point they would replace the CPFs with a bigger version with command and control functions as well....probably this is only one contingency plan but one I've heard MARS guys talk about in the Mess.
another thought I'm told is to get a Whitbey class or two while waiting for the San Antonios to be built. Probably a MARS fantasy but they are looking at a lot of possibilities.


----------



## Cloud Cover

IN HOC SIGNO said:
			
		

> There are a number of different plans and thoughts circulating from what I can understand. If they went for the LPD...i.e. a San Antonio class ship that they could get relatively fast and say get 3 or 4 of those these would fulfill the requirements of the BHS and we could take the crews from the 280s to man the LPDs. the San Antonio could do the command and control function that the 280s did and then some. thus they would not have to directly replace the 280s. At some far off point they would replace the CPFs with a bigger version with command and control functions as well....probably this is only one contingency plan but one I've heard MARS guys talk about in the Mess.
> another thought I'm told is to get a Whitbey class or two while waiting for the San Antonios to be built. Probably a MARS fantasy but they are looking at a lot of possibilities.



3 or 4 LPD' 17's are a fantasy. Hell, even 1 LPD 17 is a fantasy. We'll get a ship like the LSD 41 class and maybe another similar ship a few years after that, and that's about it.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> 3 or 4 LPD' 17's are a fantasy. Hell, even 1 LPD 17 is a fantasy. We'll get a ship like the LSD 41 class and maybe another similar ship a few years after that, and that's about it.


Yeah the Whitbey Class (LPD 41 is USS Whitbey Island  http://www.whidbey-island.navy.mil/ )....I think there's talk that they have a few of those surplus and they were mentioned as a quick fix while they await a bigger fix. Of course the problem is that Governments don't last long enought to see through a ship building project that large.


----------



## Kirkhill

Moving on from LPDs to trucks for a moment ....

How do you suppose the "reporter" came up with this beauty?

From CP: http://www.mytelus.com/news/article.do?pageID=canada_home&articleID=2304822



> O'Connor's shopping list includes 1,500 vehicles built exclusively for military purposes, and 800 commercial trucks which will be adapted for the army.
> 
> The trucks come on top of plans to acquire 300 defence systems for the Forces's armoured vehicles, 300 special tow trucks and 1,000 pieces of equipment for specialized vehicles, such as mobile kitchens and offices.



Actual Announcement

1500 SMP vehicles 
800 Commercial Pattern

So far so good

Then come:

300 armour kits for the 300 of the SMP vehicles (not defence systems for armoured vehicles)
300 trailers (not special tow trucks)
1000 SEV kits (not 1000 pieces of kit for SEV vehicles).

From the DND backgrounder: http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/newsroom/view_news_e.asp?id=1961



> The project aims to procure approximately:
> 
> 1500 standard military pattern vehicles (designed specifically for military use) with up to 300 load-handling system companion trailers;
> 
> 800 commercial vehicles adapted for military use;
> 
> 1000 specially equipped vehicles kits (such as mobile kitchens, offices and medical or dental stations); and,
> 
> 300 armour protection systems.



Now it seems they can't even be bothered to cut and paste.  :


----------



## yoman

> Aircraft capabilities
> 
> The contractor selected for the medium-to heavy-lift helicopter project will be awarded a contract to deliver 16 medium-to heavy-lift helicopters that meet all the minimum mandatory capabilities of the Canadian Forces listed below:
> 
> * Internal lift – Cabin space to accommodate an infantry platoon (30 soldiers) with full combat equipment, including weapons, body armour, rucksacks, rations and communications (4,763 kilograms).
> * External lift – Lift multiple loads, including a lightweight field howitzer and associated equipment (a minimum of 5,443 kilograms).
> * Range – Flying endurance to ensure a relevant radius of operation (a minimum of 100 kilometres) with either the internal or external load described as above and at the temperatures and altitudes defined below to effectively cover CF tactical areas of responsibility.
> * Temperature and altitude – Power and endurance to accomplish the lift and range parameters defined above, at altitudes and temperatures found in the most likely Canadian Forces theatres of operations (1,220 metres above sea level and 35 degrees Celsius).
> * Aircraft certification – Aircraft must be certified to aviation certification standards recognized by Canada by the contract award date.
> * Fleet size – Minimum fleet of 16 aircraft, sufficient to sustain a minimum of three deployed helicopters in addition to maintenance, test and evaluation, and training at two main operating bases.
> * Delivery – Delivery date of first aircraft must be no later than 36 months after contract award and final aircraft delivery no later than 60 months after contract award.
> 
> An Advance Contract Award Notice (ACAN) will be the procurement approach used to acquire 16 medium-to heavy-lift helicopters. The estimated total projectcost for the acquisition phase is $2 billion, including the cost to purchase the aircraft. An additional $2.7 billion has been estimated for 20 years of in-service support, for which a separate contract will be competed by the prime helicopter manufacturer through a request for proposals. The requirement for this equipment is urgent. Delivery is expected as soon as possible and will continue until the requirement is fully met.


http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/newsroom/view_news_e.asp?id=1968

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060628.wchop0628/BNStory/National/home


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Post deleted....

I know NUUUUUTHING!


----------



## GAP

Or buy some accompanying firepower to protect them.


----------



## George Wallace

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> I know NUUUUUTHING!



Now that you've let the 'cat out of the bag' for all the Press who lurk here looking for a scoop; how do you feel?   ;D


----------



## GAP

;D ;D ;D  lick  meow


----------



## Kirkhill

A few other observations:

Spec calls for >30 passengers and at least 5443 kg underslung 

Sikorsky H92/CH148 Cyclone carries 22 seated troops and has a hook rated at 4535 kg
EH-101 Merlin/CH149 Cormorant carries 30 seated and 5443 kg 
Boeing CH-47 Chinook/CH-147 carries 44 seated and 12,000 kg
Sikorsky CH-53 carries 55 seated and 16,330 kg

A light artillery piece (M777 currently in service) has a production weight of 3745 kg
An infantry platoon is 3 sections of 8 infanteers = 24 as well as at least a Platoon Leader and a Second in Command = 26 plus a 3 person weapons detachment and 1 medic =30.

Sikorsky may be "out" on the H92 end but "in" on the CH-53 end.

http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRTypen/FRS-92.htm
http://www.sikorsky.com/file/popup/1,,186,00.pdf 
http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRTypen/FREH101.htm
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/chinook/
http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRTypen/FRCH-53E.htm

DND Backgrounder: http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/newsroom/view_news_e.asp?id=1968


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> A few other observations:
> 
> Spec calls for >30 passengers and at least 5443 kg underslung
> 
> Sikorsky H92/CH148 Cyclone carries 22 seated troops and has a hook rated at 4535 kg
> *EH-101 Merlin/CH149 Cormorant carries 30 seated and 5443 kg *
> Boeing CH-47 Chinook/CH-147 carries 44 seated and 12,000 kg
> Sikorsky CH-53 carries 55 seated and 16,330 kg
> 
> A light artillery piece (M777 currently in service) has a production weight of 3745 kg
> An infantry platoon is 3 sections of 8 infanteers = 24 as well as at least a Platoon Leader and a Second in Command = 26 plus a 3 person weapons detachment and 1 medic =30.
> 
> Sikorsky may be "out" on the H92 end but "in" on the CH-53 end.
> 
> http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRTypen/FRS-92.htm
> http://www.sikorsky.com/file/popup/1,,186,00.pdf
> http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRTypen/FREH101.htm
> http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/chinook/
> http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRTypen/FRCH-53E.htm
> 
> DND Backgrounder: http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/newsroom/view_news_e.asp?id=1968



....the math becomes interesting if Augusta-Westland takes their lawsuit off the table as part of their bid.


Matthew.


----------



## yoman

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> A few other observations:
> 
> Spec calls for >30 passengers and at least 5443 kg underslung
> 
> Sikorsky H92/CH148 Cyclone carries 22 seated troops and has a hook rated at 4535 kg
> EH-101 Merlin/CH149 Cormorant carries 30 seated and 5443 kg
> Boeing CH-47 Chinook/CH-147 carries 44 seated and 12,000 kg
> Sikorsky CH-53 carries 55 seated and 16,330 kg
> 
> A light artillery piece (M777 currently in service) has a production weight of 3745 kg
> An infantry platoon is 3 sections of 8 infanteers = 24 as well as at least a Platoon Leader and a Second in Command = 26 plus a 3 person weapons detachment and 1 medic =30.
> 
> Sikorsky may be "out" on the H92 end but "in" on the CH-53 end.
> 
> http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRTypen/FRS-92.htm
> http://www.sikorsky.com/file/popup/1,,186,00.pdf
> http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRTypen/FREH101.htm
> http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/chinook/
> http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRTypen/FRCH-53E.htm
> 
> DND Backgrounder: http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/newsroom/view_news_e.asp?id=1968



Question. Can they all operate at high altitudes and temperatures like Afghanistan? Or would one (thinking Chinook) be better at it?


----------



## blacktriangle

pm sent


----------



## Jantor

I'd be surprised if the CH-53E/F were considered for this contract because of the timeline for production wouldn't meet the contract specs.

http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles/2006/04/11/Navigation/177/205881/USMC+orders+CH-53K.html

I too would be interested to find out how the British are getting along with the Merlin in A-stan.


----------



## Kirkhill

yoman said:
			
		

> Question. Can they all operate at high altitudes and temperatures like Afghanistan? Or would one (thinking Chinook) be better at it?



Same specification calls for 1220m (4000 ft) and 35C. Mission radius 100 km.  Sounds fairly "modest" to this ignoramus.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

IN HOC SIGNO said:
			
		

> There are a number of different plans and thoughts circulating from what I can understand. If they went for the LPD...i.e. a San Antonio class ship that they could get relatively fast and say get 3 or 4 of those these would fulfill the requirements of the BHS and we could take the crews from the 280s to man the LPDs. the San Antonio could do the command and control function that the 280s did and then some. thus they would not have to directly replace the 280s. At some far off point they would replace the CPFs with a bigger version with command and control functions as well....probably this is only one contingency plan but one I've heard MARS guys talk about in the Mess.
> another thought I'm told is to get a Whitbey class or two while waiting for the San Antonios to be built. Probably a MARS fantasy but they are looking at a lot of possibilities.



You want to put an amphib in a command and control role for TG? We need to still look at AAD and an amphib just does not cut it. Its far to valuable of a target to be relelgated to C&C.


----------



## yoman

Tactical 



> *Aircraft capabilities*
> 
> The contractor selected for the tactical airlift project will be awarded a contract to deliver 17 aircraft that meet all the minimum mandatory capabilities of the Canadian Forces listed below:
> 
> - Range and payload - Sufficient range (4,630 kilometres) and payload capacity (8,165 kilograms) to support domestic and    international deployed operations.
> 
> - Speed – Minimum acceptable enroute cruise speed that meets or exceeds that of the current Canadian Forces tactical transport aircraft, which is required to ensure the aircraft can quickly reach deployed troops and Canadians in distress.
> 
> - Global remote operations - Take off and landing from unpaved, short runways (914 metres by 27 metres).
> 
> - Cargo compartment - the aircraft must have adequate cargo compartment size to transport wheeled and NATO standard palletized equipment that is currently transportable with existing Canadian Forces tactical transport aircraft. As well, the aircraft must have the ability to load and unload palletized cargo at austere operating locations without the use of specialized loading equipment.
> 
> - Manoeuvrability – Allows tactical flight profiles at low-level altitudes (61 metres) in a threat environment.
> 
> - Aircraft certification –Aircraft must be certified to aviation certification standards recognized by Canada by the contract award date.
> 
> - Fleet size – Minimum fleet of 17 aircraft, sufficient to provide requisite tactical airlift, maintenance, test and evaluation and training, and to provide the flexibility to support three lines of operations simultaneously.
> 
> - Delivery – Delivery date of the first aircraft to be no later than 36 months after contract award and final aircraft delivery no later than 60 months after contract award.


http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/newsroom/view_news_e.asp?id=1970

Strategic



> *Aircraft capabilities*
> 
> The contractor selected for the strategic airlift project will be awarded a contract to deliver four strategic aircraft that meet all the mandatory capabilities of the Canadian Forces listed below:
> 
> - Range and payload - Sufficient un-refuelled range and payload capacity (6,482 kilometres with 39,000 kilograms) to support domestic and international deployed operations.
> 
> - Global remote operations - Capable of supporting Canadian Forces operations in Canada and potentially hostile theatres of operations overseas. The aircraft must be able to provide the required flexibility in a theatre of operations, capable of take off and landing from unpaved, short runways (1,219 metres by 27.4 metres) and airdrop personnel and/or equipment.
> 
> - Cargo compartment – Adequate cargo compartment size to transport wheeled and NATO standard palletized equipment (2.235 metres by 2.743 metres), wheeled equipment in a combat ready configuration and Canadian Forces tactical helicopter assets. The aircraft must have the ability to load and unload palletised cargo at austere operating locations without the use of specialized loading equipment.
> 
> - Aircraft certification – Aircraft must be certified to aviation certification standards recognized by Canada by the contract award date.
> 
> - Fleet size – Minimum fleet of four aircraft sufficient to provide requisite strategic airlift and maintenance, and to enable the operational flexibility to permit the conduct of multiple tasks in supporting domestic and international deployed operations.
> 
> - Delivery – Delivery of first aircraft as soon as possible but no later than 18 months after contract award and final aircraft delivery no later than 48 months after contract award.


http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/newsroom/view_news_e.asp?id=1969

I like how on the army website they are putting pictures of the A-400 and the Antonov even though they are not certified, thus not eligible. They also have a picture of a C-17  
http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/lf/English/6_1_1.asp?id=1127


----------



## Journeyman

Navymatters said:
			
		

> You want to put an amphib in a command and control role for TG? ..... Its far to valuable of a target to be relelgated to C&C.



Don't we normally assign one of the 280s for C2 of any coalition ops? Is that not a valuable target?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Well unless Airbus has a time machine, they ain’t meeting those delivery dates!!!


How about chartering a civilian RO-RO ship till the delivery of the new ships?


----------



## cplcaldwell

Well as you know they just announced the intent to purchase 21 new transport aircraft. I'll leave the details for you all to see at this spot. 

The one part I loved was this little jewel, by the esteemed Mr Ujjal Dosanjh; 



> _Liberal defence critic said the strategic-lift aircraft are unnecessary,* and suggested their purchase would be a blow to Canadian sovereignty. *
> 
> "Despite the fact they say there will be accountability, these are essentially sole-source purchases with no competition," said Dosanjh. "If you define the requirements as leading to only one conclusion, and that's the C-17, where is the competition?"
> 
> Dosanjh said the Liberals fear the planes will be housed and maintained in the United States. _



ROFLMFAO


----------



## MarkOttawa

Anything that gets the Liberals quaking in the boots... I wonder what Mickey I. makes of all this nonsense.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## DocBacon

Mr Ujjal Dosanjh:

Are you an NDP, a Liberal, or a beanbag chair (retaining the impression of the last ashole who came along)?  In your whole, sad, career, have you ever done anything that was right, just for the sake of doing the right thing, instead of for a political flash in the press?

I'm sick of this guy.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Don't we normally assign one of the 280s for C2 of any coalition ops? Is that not a valuable target?



Yes we do and a 280 is also an AAD platform, more then capable of defending itself and any of its escorting frigates.


----------



## vonGarvin

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> An infantry platoon is 3 sections of 8 infanteers = 24 as well as at least a Platoon Leader and a Second in Command = 26 plus a 3 person weapons detachment and 1 medic =30.


Nope, not close.  Light Infantry Platoon has more than 30.  Not going to give ORBAT here, but its more


----------



## geo

When you get down to it and without slicing hairs to the 4 winds, a platoon is anything more than a section...


----------



## scm77

This guy seems to think the money could be better spent elsewhere.... :

*Abolish Canada's military forces*
Jun. 30, 2006. 01:00 AM

Military spending

Editorial cartoon, June 23.

Here we go again — the federal government has just announced its plan to spend another $15 billion on military hardware.

What an outrage.

The Star's June 23 editorial cartoon carried an important message.

It showed a long lineup of the sick and dying, waiting for care that wasn't coming.

At the same time, in the background, a military parade was passing by.

The message was clear as a cry to heaven — for God's sake abolish the military.

*Yes, abolish and eliminate this sacred cow and use these found billions to save our failing health system and help the poor and the homeless.*

It is time for Canadians to raise this very question.

*We need to see that we don't need the armed forces for our protection because we are blessed, more than other people in the world, to live in country that is protected on three sides by wide oceans and a great democracy to the south.*

We should follow the shining example of Costa Rica, the Central American republic which, two generations ago, constitutionally abolished its military. Since then, the citizens of Costa Rica have enjoyed peace and stability, so they don't appear to have missed having a military.

As for the Canadian peace missions in the world, young Canadians can volunteer to serve in the planned United Nations armed forces.

There's no doubt that this bold initiative calls for a great leader and statesman, but he will also need the support from the grassroots Canadians.

Ron Levy, Toronto

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_PrintFriendly&c=Article&cid=1151617835978&call_pageid=970599119419
-------------------------


----------



## geo

Putz!


----------



## George Wallace

Ron Levy, Toronto

My roll of tin foil has just run out.  Can I borrow some of yours?  If you come to Army.ca we have a topic you may want to partake in:  "Will Canada be invaded for its' water?"
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/45142.0.html


----------



## cplcaldwell

RE: Ron Levy

It's always interesting to see that those that espouse a strong Canada through disarmament are quick to point out that we are protected by three oceans and a strong neighbour to the south. Sorry buddy, but where I come from strong means kicking in and contributing to it, not riding along on the poxied arse of a welfare state donkey.

_Now, I'm going to say something here, so just ry to remember I mean no personal insult to you or our comrades, I'm talking about UN boners here, not the failure of individuals or formations to perform. If your still insulted, sorry, but UN peacekeeping is in a shambles and that needs to be fixed before they get a standing army, IMHO._

*As for the UN Army, great idea!* That way we can wear 'UN' on our flashes and not 'Canada'. Then we will not have to hang our heads in shame when the boneheads in New York come up with real jewels like "Pull out of Srebrencia", "Just secure Sarajevo airport", "Okay this East Timor thing looks solved let's go..." or my favourite of all time "Kigali... where's that?...."

*But seriously...*Outside of saving troops from having to bear that ignominy, it would be hard to think of a greater waste of time and money than a UN Army (yes, yes I know, but even with the Long Gun Registry, Jane Stewart's version of management at HRDC and the $500M-for-nothing 'round one' version of the MHP I _still_ think a UN Army is a dopey thought.)


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

These are the same people that complain about US policies.  Well I think if the States is footing the bill for our securtiy they just may move in themselves to insure we are safe.


----------



## Kirkhill

von Garvin said:
			
		

> Nope, not close.  Light Infantry Platoon has more than 30.  Not going to give ORBAT here, but its more



Thanks von Garvin.

You have now done two things.  

The first is that you have verified that there is no way that the Cyclone with its capacity of 22 Troops is going to be in the running.
The second is that you have probably knocked the EH-101 out of the running as the spec issued as backgrounder called for "an infantry platoon" and stipulated "30 persons".  If an Infantry Platoon is more than 30, it will be standing room only (max capacity 45).  Otherwise the 30 number is wrong and you are back to the same problem you have with the LAV - fit vehicle to section and tactics or fit platoon and tactics to vehicle.



> Internal lift – Cabin space to accommodate an infantry platoon (30 soldiers) with full combat equipment, including weapons, body armour, rucksacks, rations and communications (4,763 kilograms).



http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/newsroom/view_news_e.asp?id=1968

Having said that I fully admit that my platoon formula was notional and based on the 30 persons stipulated and me trying to figure out how that translates into a platoon.  

Cheers.


----------



## KevinB

Close to 45


----------



## Kirkhill

Thanks Infidel.

On another topic related to this burgeoning thread:  Trucks.  I came across this article today about the Brits exercising an option on a contract issued last year to buy 5000 MAN trucks.  The option is for a further 2077 trucks.  The original contract was for 1.1 Billion Pounds or 2.3 Billion Canadian Dollars.  That works out to an average vehicle cost of 452,000 dollars.  The option is for 250 Million Pounds.  That works out to 247,000 dollars or about half the price.  I am guessing that the 452 k price includes the infrastructure and that the 247 k price is closer to the actual vehicle value.

Interestingly the MNDs announcement of 2300 trucks at 1.1 Billion Dollars equates to 479 k per truck.  I wonder what a follow on price might look like.

Troops Keep On Trucking With New Deal  
  
  


> (Source: UK Ministry of Defence; issued June 29, 2006)
> 
> 
> The UK's Armed Forces will get an extra 2,000 trucks under a deal announced today by Defence Procurement Minister, Lord Drayson.
> 
> The Defence Procurement Minister said the MoD was taking up an option to extend the £1.1 Billion contract it placed last year and would buy a further 2,077 vehicles in addition to the approx 5,000 earlier announced.
> 
> Worth in the region of £250 million, the taking up of the option with MAN ERF UK Ltd is part of the MoD's biggest truck deal in over quarter of a century and will see a fleet of new trucks and recovery vehicles replacing the existing vehicles.
> 
> Lord Drayson said: "By taking up this option our Armed Forces will take delivery of a further 2,000 modern, versatile and robust support vehicles which will carry out the vital task of supplying our front line troops. This is in addition to the 5,000 vehicles which we announced last year and which will start coming into service from next year."
> 
> Helping support some 400 UK jobs the Support Vehicle programme includes a Contractor Logistic Support package which will lead to a long term partnering arrangement consistent with the DIS published last December. The vehicles are specially designed so they can be quickly fitted with 'armour kits' which will help protect drivers and crew from blast and small arms attack.
> 
> The vehicles will be capable of transporting large quantities of bulk equipment to our front-line troops wherever they are operating. Partly built in the UK the new fleet will consist of a mix of cargo and recovery vehicles. They will replace the MOD's tri-service fleet of four, eight and 14 tonne cargo vehicles and recovery trucks.
> 
> -ends-


  

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?session=dae.16882086.1133972074.Q5cKasOa9dUAAFC2ZcA&modele=jdc_34


----------



## MarkOttawa

Miracle of miracles: a Toronto Star editorial is all in favour of the government's procurement plans, "Canada's military gets more mobile".
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_PrintFriendly&c=Article&cid=1151617836064&call_pageid=970599119419

And even seems to support buying firepower:



> And now that Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor has addressed the mobility issue, he is focusing on buying assault ships, Stryker mobile gun systems and attack helicopters.



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## I_am_John_Galt

Scotty said:
			
		

> We should follow the shining example of Costa Rica, the Central American republic which, two generations ago, constitutionally abolished its military. Since then, the citizens of Costa Rica have enjoyed peace and stability, so they don't appear to have missed having a military.



He should try telling that to the Costa Ricans living along the San Juan River, who've been getting the shakedown from the Nicaraguans ever since ...


----------



## vonGarvin

I_am_John_Galt said:
			
		

> He should try telling that to the Costa Ricans living along the San Juan River, who've been getting the shakedown from the Nicaraguans ever since ...


Costa Rica: A shining example of freedom and democracy for the world to follow.  Let's invade it, since they have no armed forces


----------



## vonGarvin

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Thanks von Garvin.


You're welcome ;D


			
				Kirkhill said:
			
		

> You have now done two things.
> The first is that you have verified that there is no way that the Cyclone with its capacity of 22 Troops is going to be in the running.
> The second is that you have probably knocked the EH-101 out of the running as the spec issued as backgrounder called for "an infantry platoon" and stipulated "30 persons".  If an Infantry Platoon is more than 30, it will be standing room only (max capacity 45).  Otherwise the 30 number is wrong and you are back to the same problem you have with the LAV - fit vehicle to section and tactics or fit platoon and tactics to vehicle.


Well, with the LAV, the section was still 10 persons.  When in the LAV (on mech ops), you can dismount only 7.  If you leave the LAVs "elsewhere", you can have more.  Whatever...


			
				Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> Close to 45


\

Yep.  With, of course, the "attachments", without whom the infantry platoon could not function.  Gee, platoons are getting almost as big as the Mortar Platoon of old! ;D


----------



## Armymatters

von Garvin said:
			
		

> Costa Rica: A shining example of freedom and democracy for the world to follow.  Let's invade it, since they have no armed forces



Or, he is saying that Canada should be a desperately poor third world nation...


----------



## I_am_John_Galt

Armymatters said:
			
		

> Or, he is saying that Canada should be a desperately poor third world nation...



Well, they DO have better surfing ...   :skull:


----------



## Kirkhill

von Garvin said:
			
		

> You're welcome ;DWell, with the LAV, the section was still 10 persons.  When in the LAV (on mech ops), you can dismount only 7.  If you leave the LAVs "elsewhere", you can have more.  Whatever...\
> 
> Yep.  With, of course, the "attachments", without whom the infantry platoon could not function.  Gee, platoons are getting almost as big as the Mortar Platoon of old! ;D



And it all helps deployability.... Who gets to carry the kitchen sink?  >


----------



## Danjanou

Oh I do love that whenever a charter member of the Birkenstock Brigade trots out the tired old “we don’t need an army” line they always, always have to cite Costa Rica as a shiny example.Yes they do have better beaches and surfing ( great break north end of Playa Jaco) , but poverty inequal distribution of wealth, government corruption, and being in the middle of the major drug pipleine don't somehow don't seem to balance that out, at least for more a couple of weeks vacation.

I just wish for once they’d actually include all the facts re that argument, not the ones given by indoctrinated Tico tour guides to bus loads of Canadian sun seekers enroute from the beach resorts of Jaco to see the rain forest. Yes Costa Rica did  abolish it’s standing army in 1949 and yes some of the monies saved were dolled out to their social safety net and health care which is almost as much a sacred cow to the average politically aware Tico or Tica as it is to the frost bitten Timmies slurping hoser.

Couple of minor ommisions though. First of all the newly minted President who abolished the Army after ascending to that office on Dec 1 1948 ( it took some months for the paperwork to get done) was a former Senior officer in that self same force. José Figueres Ferrer came to power after a bloody Civil war and a series of Coups and counter coups that left thousands dead, a not uncommon feature of Central and South America political evolution in the period.

His abolishment of the military was not so much an act of selfless altruism but more so an act of Political self survival. He had no intention of allowing any surviving or future rivals manage to do what he did.

Secondly there is no mention of the rather large and heavily armed National Police Force the Fuerza Publica (Force Public) including Civil Guard, Rural Assistance Guard, and Frontier Guards, naval and air arms, and internal security units. This force that numbers  in excess of 10,000 (out of a population of 3.7 million) and has an operating budget in excess of $55,000,000 US annually is an army in all but name lacking only heavy artillery and main battle tanks. It was used to secure Costa Rica’s northern border with Nicaragua during that countries own civil war and later Contra incursion, and it’s mandate allows it to be called on by the Costa Rican Government to defend the country against external aggression and internal subversion in addition to what could be considered normal policing activities.

How does that old saying go a country will always have an army. It just has to decide whether it will be their own or someone elses.


----------



## MarkOttawa

And, contrary to the Star, this silliness from the Vancouver Sun, "Clarification needed on what our re-equipped military's mission is":
http://www.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=a6fabac8-76e6-438f-8562-c51909ea3962



> The need for the new hardware is clear. The government will be replacing assets that are worn out, obsolete or simply non-existent [thank goodness that is conceded]...
> 
> But we have also seen how our needs change as the world changes around us and we adjust the way we want to respond.
> 
> Our combatant role in Afghanistan requires different tools than we needed in decades past for peacekeeping.



Nuts.  CF equipment has always been bought in the context of potential combat.  Semi-pointy-stuff for Afstan, LAV IIIs--including for "peacekeeping" in Kabul, was actually bought by the Liberals.  CF-18s sure did a lot of peacekeeping in Kosovo and Serbia.  Just like the PPCLI in Afstan in 2002.  The "traditional peacekeeping" myth that will not die.  In any case almost all Army equipment required is essentially the same.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## GAP

Other than asking the obvious, what to do with our armed forces, for a change, I found it supportive. I know I know....they had to do a lot of gulping and swallowing, and probably scrubbed their keyboard with soap and water afterwards, but they got the words out, at least.
 ;D


----------



## TangoTwoBravo

You're all going to groan, but just getting CH47s is not enough.  They need escorts, and that means attack helicopters.  Without the attack helcopters we will still be beholden to other countries to move around theatre.

Sorry, just throwing that out there,

2B


----------



## Kirkhill

> The idea being promoted by the new Conservative government is to better configure the Canadian Forces to project force, as well as humanitarian aid, far from our shores. And now that Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor has addressed the mobility issue, he is focusing on buying assault ships, Stryker mobile gun systems and *attack helicopters*.



http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_PrintFriendly&c=Article&cid=1151617836064&call_pageid=970599119419

Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.  From the Toronto Star Editorial.

Perhaps somebody's listening to you 2B.  

Also further to the comments about Platoon size creeping up - It occurs to me that before WW1 when our current 4+/- Coy, 3 Platoon system was finalized, the working subunit for the Battalion was a company, a Captain's command, often with a strength in the 40 to 60 man range and deployed independently in places like Afghanistan, or Canada, or the Dakotas.

PS - I like Canada Day/Dominion Day but this is painful......... ;D


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

This is a list of the 27 countries that do not maintain any armed forces. The term "country" is used in the sense of independent state; thus, it applies only to sovereign states and not dependencies whose defence is the responsibility of another country, or an army alternative.

Country Comments 
 Andorra Defence of the country is the responsibility of France or Spain. Similar treaties with both, June 3, 1993. 
 Cook Islands Defence is provided by New Zealand, in consultation with the Cook Islands' government. 
 Costa Rica The constitution forbids a standing military in times of peace since 1949. Seat of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. Seat of the United Nations University of Peace. 
 Dominica No standing army since 1981, after the army attempted a coup. Defence is the responsibility of the United States. 
 Grenada No standing army since 1983, after the American-led invasion. Defence is the responsibility of the United States. 
 Haiti Disbanded on June, 1995, but rebels have demanded its re-establishment. The National Police maintains some military units. 
 Iceland No standing army, but is a member of NATO. There is a defence agreement with the U.S., which maintains, along with other NATO countries, a base in the country. Maintains an expeditionary peacekeeping force, Coast Guard and an Armed Police unit. 
 Kiribati The only forces permitted are the police and the coast guard. 
 Liechtenstein Abolished their army in 1868 because it was too costly. Depends on Switzerland for defence. Army does not exist in times of peace. 
 Maldives Has no army since its independence on 1965. Was invaded by mercenaries in 1988, and rescued by India. No known permanent defence treaty. 
 Marshall Islands Defence is the responsibility of the United States. 
 Mauritius A multicultural country without an army since 1968. 
 Micronesia Defence is the responsibility of the United States. 
 Monaco Renounced its military investment in the 17th century because the expansion of ranges of artillery had rendered it defenceless. Defence is the responsibility of France. 
 Nauru Under an informal agreement, defence is the responsibility of Australia. 
 Niue Defence is provided by New Zealand. 
 Palau The only country with an anti-nuclear constitution. Defence is the responsibility of the United States. 
 Panama Abolished their army in 1990, confirmed by a parliamentary unanimous vote for constitutional change in 1994. Some units within the Public Force (Police, Coast Guard, Air Service and Institutional Security) have limited warfare capabilities. 
 San Marino Maintains a ceremonial guard, a police and a border force. 
 Solomon Islands Has known a heavy ethnic conflict between 1998 and 2006, in which Australia and other Pacific countries finally intervened to restore peace and order. No standing army. 
 Saint Kitts and Nevis Maintains a small defence force for internal purposes. 
 Saint Lucia Maintains a special service unit. 
 Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Maintains a special service unit. 
 Samoa No standing army. Defence is the responsibility of New Zealand. 
 Tuvalu Has no army, but its police force includes a Maritime Surveillance Unit. 
 Vanuatu Has a small mobile military force. 
 Vatican City The ceremonial Swiss Guard acts as a security police force. 

Countries without an army (click to enlarge)Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Monaco and Palau have no say in defence matters and little say in international relations. Andorra can call for help. Iceland has a defence agreement with the USA. The Cook Islands and Niue both have a basic agreement with New Zealand that it should be responsible for their defence. All the others (19 countries) stand fully responsible and independent, without an army, for defence matters.

Seven of them (Costa Rica, Dominica, Grenada, Haiti, Liechtenstein, Monaco and Panama) went through a process of demilitarisation. All the 20 others, including Andorra 700 years ago, were born without an army, mostly because they were (some still are) under protection from a more powerful nation by the time they became independent. They are all said to be in a situation of "non-militarisation".


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO

Danjanou said:
			
		

> Oh I do love that whenever a charter member of the Birkenstock Brigade trots out the tired old “we don’t need an army” line they always, always have to cite Costa Rica as a shiny example.Yes they do have better beaches and surfing ( great break north end of Playa Jaco) , but poverty inequal distribution of wealth, government corruption, and being in the middle of the major drug pipleine don't somehow don't seem to balance that out, at least for more a couple of weeks vacation.
> 
> I just wish for once they’d actually include all the facts re that argument, not the ones given by indoctrinated Tico tour guides to bus loads of Canadian sun seekers enroute from the beach resorts of Jaco to see the rain forest. Yes Costa Rica did  abolish it’s standing army in 1949 and yes some of the monies saved were dolled out to their social safety net and health care which is almost as much a sacred cow to the average politically aware Tico or Tica as it is to the frost bitten Timmies slurping hoser.
> 
> Couple of minor ommisions though. First of all the newly minted President who abolished the Army after ascending to that office on Dec 1 1948 ( it took some months for the paperwork to get done) was a former Senior officer in that self same force. José Figueres Ferrer came to power after a bloody Civil war and a series of Coups and counter coups that left thousands dead, a not uncommon feature of Central and South America political evolution in the period.
> 
> His abolishment of the military was not so much an act of selfless altruism but more so an act of Political self survival. He had no intention of allowing any surviving or future rivals manage to do what he did.
> 
> Secondly there is no mention of the rather large and heavily armed National Police Force the Fuerza Publica (Force Public) including Civil Guard, Rural Assistance Guard, and Frontier Guards, naval and air arms, and internal security units. This force that numbers  in excess of 10,000 (out of a population of 3.7 million) and has an operating budget in excess of $55,000,000 US annually is an army in all but name lacking only heavy artillery and main battle tanks. It was used to secure Costa Rica’s northern border with Nicaragua during that countries own civil war and later Contra incursion, and it’s mandate allows it to be called on by the Costa Rican Government to defend the country against external aggression and internal subversion in addition to what could be considered normal policing activities.
> 
> How does that old saying go a country will always have an army. It just has to decide whether it will be their own or someone elses.



I didn't even bother to read what that wooly headed thinker had to say....does anyone really take people like that seriously? (Besides those of like mind who are certainly not the mainstream) Just reading the title...get rid of the military is enough to make me skip to the next article. It's right up there with "Get rid of the police."


----------



## GAP

Quagmire said:
			
		

> This is a list of the 27 countries that do not maintain any armed forces. The term "country" is used in the sense of independent state; thus, it applies only to sovereign states and not dependencies whose defence is the responsibility of another country, or an army alternative.


Excellent...never knew that, thanks


----------



## MarkOttawa

> EADS and Airbus bosses both quit.


   Enough said.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/5138840.stm

Mark 
Ottawa


----------



## Armymatters

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Enough said.
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/5138840.stm
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



More of one got fired, and the other took a fall for the team. Forgeard was forced out due to allegations of insider trading, while Humbert resigned as he felt as co-CEO of EADS, he was the leader of the Airbus team, he is ultimately responsible for any failures of the team. Their replacements, Louis Gallois and Christian Streiff, respectively, are both good leaders. Gallois was the CEO of SNCF, and was CEO for over 10 years. He has done much better than many previous CEO's of SNCF, taking into account the highly difficult environment (politicians who ask for the impossible: balance the budget BUT don't reduce any train service, especially in MY constituency; Unions: more money NOW; Europe: competition NOW, etc, etc), and he was quite good in navigating between all these elements. The fact that he had been chairman of SNCF for over 10 years, while others do not stay very long, is an indication. Streiff used to head Aerospatiale, so he has aerospace experience. He has also had experience navigating politics and business, of which EADS and Airbus, are both embroiled in.


----------



## GAP

All that being said, I think it kills the idea of them being a real contender, not that they really were anyway.


----------



## Armymatters

GAP said:
			
		

> All that being said, I think it kills the idea of them being a real contender, not that they really were anyway.



Not really. Airbus SAS is the division of EADS suffering from problems. Airbus Military, a completely seperate division from Airbus SAS, is not the one suffering from issues. However, I will conceed that publically, they are not much of a contender.

Edit: Why? Because under Forgeard, EADS was completely amatuerish, as he was constantly trying to undermine Humbert, the guy who was trying to run EADS.


----------



## MarkOttawa

The Armchair General: Problems with A400M too.  This is from "Weight Watchers" in the June 5 issue (text only for subscribers) of Aviation Week and Space Technology (to which all Canadian journalists covering the military should subscribe, but I doubt that even one does).

'Airbus is striving to cut weight on its A400M military transport while increasing the aircraft's maximum takeoff figure by almost six tons to accommodate fuel.

The aim is to drive down structural weight, in what industry executives describe as an "aggressive" effort. "We have a robust weight-reduction program, and it is on target," one Airbus Military executive says. Range and payload are contractually guaranteed, but this is not the case for aircraft weight, he notes...

*First flight is also slipping* [emphasis added - MC]. Initially anticipated for January 2008, this is now foreseen as taking place slightly later in the first quarter. Overall, the development and production schedule remains tight, with little slack for any further delay if initial deliveries are not to be affected. Delivery of the first aircraft is due to France in 2009, 77 months after the May 31, 2003, contract award.

Maximum takeoff weight for the A400M has risen to 136.5 tons from 130, according to the Airbus executive. This is driven partly by redesign work to meet fuel payload requirements...

The A400M is now projected as being able to carry a 30-ton payload 2,400 naut. mi., down 150 naut. mi. from previous range estimates, says the Airbus executive. For a 20-ton payload this figure is now 3,450 naut. mi., a 100-naut.-mi. reduction. Its ferry range is also reduced by 150 naut. mi. to 4,750 naut. mi...[and Canada needs all the trans-oceanic range we can get - MC].'

One also wonders how the all-new engine's development program is proceeding.

Meanwhile, the A380's problems were known quite some time ago--from Der Spiegel:
http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,424819,00.html

'...
Such problems will not be solved simply by replacing a few managers. At the beginning of last week Forgeard and other top managers were still denying vehemently that they knew about problems in the manufacture of the A380 before the profit revision of June 13.

Yet as early as February 24 a paper was already being passed round work committees and trade unions in the Airbus factory in Toulouse, where the final assembly takes place, in which the manager in charge of production was sounding the alarm.

Large numbers of improperly equipped fuselages kept arriving at the enormous construction hall. As a result the experienced engineer ordered that tools be laid down straightaway at position 40, where the giant aircraft are put together. He also called for further deliveries from the factories in Hamburg and St. Nazaire to be halted.

As a result hundreds of men, who could have been putting their time to better use, suddenly found themselves tinkering with half-naked aircraft hulls. According to one employee representative, months before this, the company's European works council was already discussing the A380's production problems, and the effects these would have on employees.

"The whole world knew," the employee representative says angrily. "So apparently the bosses of Airbus and EADS are the only ones who didn't have a clue?"..'

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Armymatters

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> The Armchair General: Problems with A400M too.  This is from "Weight Watchers" in the June 5 issue (text only for subscribers) of Aviation Week and Space Technology (to which all Canadian journalists covering the military should subscribe, but I doubt that even one does).
> 
> 'Airbus is striving to cut weight on its A400M military transport while increasing the aircraft's maximum takeoff figure by almost six tons to accommodate fuel.
> 
> The aim is to drive down structural weight, in what industry executives describe as an "aggressive" effort. "We have a robust weight-reduction program, and it is on target," one Airbus Military executive says. Range and payload are contractually guaranteed, but this is not the case for aircraft weight, he notes...
> 
> *First flight is also slipping* [emphasis added - MC]. Initially anticipated for January 2008, this is now foreseen as taking place slightly later in the first quarter. Overall, the development and production schedule remains tight, with little slack for any further delay if initial deliveries are not to be affected. Delivery of the first aircraft is due to France in 2009, 77 months after the May 31, 2003, contract award.
> 
> Maximum takeoff weight for the A400M has risen to 136.5 tons from 130, according to the Airbus executive. This is driven partly by redesign work to meet fuel payload requirements...
> 
> The A400M is now projected as being able to carry a 30-ton payload 2,400 naut. mi., down 150 naut. mi. from previous range estimates, says the Airbus executive. For a 20-ton payload this figure is now 3,450 naut. mi., a 100-naut.-mi. reduction. Its ferry range is also reduced by 150 naut. mi. to 4,750 naut. mi...[and Canada needs all the trans-oceanic range we can get - MC].'
> 
> One also wonders how the all-new engine's development program is proceeding



Doesn't every new airplane design has had issues? I remember the issues with the first C-17's: the wings were too weak and overweight. McDD later was able to fix the issues so that it is now the roaring sucess it is.

And engine development is on track apparantly. They already tested the engine on a static frame with the prop (and apparantly, the engine was a sucess), and they will test the engine on a modified Herc now.

And I can say the same about a Boeing product: The Boeing Wedgetail. Australia is furious over the delays and issues with the birds.
http://today.reuters.com/stocks/QuoteCompanyNewsArticle.aspx?view=CN&storyID=2006-06-28T204502Z_01_N284000_RTRIDST_0_ARMS-AUSTRALIA-BOEING.XML&rpc=66


----------



## MarkOttawa

Armymatters (sorry about wrong name above): I quite agree, but the inevitable slippages--I would guesstimate at least two years--mean that first delivery for Canada would be impossible before 2013 at the earliest.  Even if the A400M was the best plane for Canadian Air Force requirements (and I don't think it is--too big and costly for tactical, too small for trans-oceanic strategic) we simply cannot wait another seven years.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Edward Campbell

This is from our friend and irregular participant Jack Granatstein in today’s _Globe and Mail_.  It is published under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com//servlet/story/LAC.20060704.CODEFENCE04/TPStory/Comment/


> Paper promises or real defence purchases?
> 
> *This equipment is genuinely needed, says historian J.L. GRANATSTEIN, and the Conservatives appear intent on doing what they say*
> 
> J.L. GRANATSTEIN
> 
> Hallelujah and hosannas. That seems to be the response of the supporters of the Canadian Forces to last week's extraordinary string of announcements. On Monday, it was $2.9-billion for three Joint Support Ships for the navy. On Tuesday, the army got the news that it would get 2,300 medium trucks at a cost of $1.2-billion. The next day, it was medium- to heavy-lift helicopters, at least 16 of them, for $4.7-billion, and on Thursday $8.3-billion worth of strategic and tactical lift aircraft. The total is $17.1-billion, a good week's work for the military, and extraordinarily quick work by the Conservative government. In fewer than five months in office, the Harper government has moved decisively to meet the most pressing requirements of the Canadian Forces.
> 
> The equipment is genuinely needed. The army's trucks, for example, are more than 20 years old and cost, most sources agree, more in ongoing maintenance than they are worth. The new vehicles, besides creating jobs in Canada, will save the Canadian Forces money that can be used for other purposes than trying to keep old clunkers on the road.
> 
> The Air Force's 32 C-130 Hercules are also overused and costly to keep flying. Getting 17 new C-130Js will provide tactical lift into the future and, with the four C-17s also being purchased, give Canada at last a capacity to respond to major domestic crises (an earthquake in British Columbia or an ice storm in Montreal, to cite only two possibilities) without needing to beg the United States for heavy lift. The C-17s will add capabilities to the Canadian Forces as well, giving the military a strategic flexibility it has never before had.
> 
> Similarly, the helicopters and the Joint Support Ships meet pressing needs. Canada stupidly sold its Chinook helicopters to the Dutch a decade ago, and we have paid the price ever since. The JSS will replace the navy's two ancient replenishment ships and add a roll on/roll off capacity and the ability to transport a company and a half of soldiers.
> 
> But the Canadian Forces still have requirements that must be met if Canada is to truly rebuild its military capacity. Word from Ottawa suggests the government is backing away from its plan to purchase Stryker Mobile Gun Systems, a wheeled artillery platform in an armoured hull. Instead, the old Leopard tanks are apparently to be kept in service until 2015. The artillery will require new guns now, and consideration will need to be given to acquiring a newer main battle tank. (The decision to scrap the Stryker purchase, some say, will come about because the "black hats," the armoured corps, rule at National Defence Headquarters -- the Minister, the Chief of the Defence Staff, and the Vice-Chief are all tank drivers by trade). And the Joint Support Ships, while a huge improvement over the present, cannot transport the personnel or the equipment required to deploy a task force abroad. Only what General Rick Hillier called "a big honking ship" can do that, and ideally the navy should have two or three of those.
> 
> Above all, the services need more soldiers, sailors, and airmen and women. With a nominal strength of just above 60,000 and an effective strength of 53,000, the Canadian Forces need the government to meet its pledges to quickly add 13,000 regulars, as well as another 10,000 reservists. In an era of nearly full employment and an aging population, this will not be easy. The problem will be made even worse by the pending retirement or resignation of at least 10,000 members of the military in the next several years. These are the technicians, the warrant officers and the majors, who make the military function. How they can be replaced is problematic at best.
> 
> Still, it's good news tonight. The one caveat is that Canadians have been promised military goodies in the past and seen contracts ripped up before. The infamous EH-101 Cormorant helicopter deal, tossed aside by Jean Chrétien in his first days in office in 1993, is the most recent example of partisanship trumping defence needs. Paper promises do not always translate into boots on the ground, ships at sea, or aircraft overhead. It could happen again, not least because the Conservative government is in a minority position with all three opposition parties soft on defence. Former defence minister Bill Graham would likely say that he isn't, and there is some justice in that. In his tenure much of the planning for the present purchases was done, and he deserves credit for his work in pressing the Martin government to begin to repair the wreckage of the Canadian Forces. It is equally true, however, that not one contract was let by the Liberals for any of the equipment the Conservatives announced plans to buy. Every indication suggests this government actually intends to do what it says.
> 
> So hallelujah and hosannas. There will be a long wait for even the first elements of new equipment to come into service, but Canadian Forces' morale will rise simply as a result of the announcements. Within five years, the military will be able to respond better to domestic and international crises than at any time in the past half-century.
> 
> _J. L. Granatstein writes on behalf of the Council for Canadian Security in the 21st Century (http://www.ccs21.org)._



I appreciate his note of caution: there are, indeed, many a slip twixt cup and lips and much can – *will* happen between promise/fanfare and delivery.  Dr. Granatstein is also very right to point out that the five recent big announcements need to be followed by dozens (scores?  hundreds?) more – small, big and (big honking ship) even bigger.


----------



## George Wallace

A good read, but this paragraph is right out to lunch and Mr. Granatstein should research a little more into what the MGS really is, as well as the "System of Systems" that was flaunted:



> But the Canadian Forces still have requirements that must be met if Canada is to truly rebuild its military capacity. Word from Ottawa suggests the government is backing away from its plan to purchase Stryker Mobile Gun Systems, a wheeled artillery platform in an armoured hull. Instead, the old Leopard tanks are apparently to be kept in service until 2015. The artillery will require new guns now, and consideration will need to be given to acquiring a newer main battle tank. (The decision to scrap the Stryker purchase, some say, will come about because the "black hats," the armoured corps, rule at National Defence Headquarters -- the Minister, the Chief of the Defence Staff, and the Vice-Chief are all tank drivers by trade). And the Joint Support Ships, while a huge improvement over the present, cannot transport the personnel or the equipment required to deploy a task force abroad. Only what General Rick Hillier called "a big honking ship" can do that, and ideally the navy should have two or three of those.



The Stryker Mobile Gun System is not a wheeled artillery platform.  It is a POS that was proposed as a replacement for the Leopard tanks and one of three elements in the System of Systems that included the MMEV (a new ground role for the ADATS) and TOW.  And although both the Minister and CDS are former RCD, the plans to follow through with the MGS would have done more harm to the Armour Corps than to the Artillery, so there definitely was no partisanship there.  I'm sure we should now point him in the direction of all the discussions we have already had on this site about the MGS, MMEV, System of Systems, etc and their worth or lack there of.


----------



## geo

As an arm wide revamp, an MGS / MBT mix would be a good thing.
Only tracked or Only wheeled is not, IMHO advisable.  Amongst others. the South Africans, Italians, French all have a MGS variant that could be considered (don't think we need to spend R&D$) as an ability enhancement (not a ability replacement).


----------



## Kirkhill

I can only think that Geo has it right here.   The French mix ERC-90s and AMX-10s with their LeClercs.  The Italians have Centauros and Arietes.  The Spaniards have both Centauros and Leopard 2s.  All of them are recently confirmed mixes - not make do decisions because they can't afford better.    I would further suggest that the French have seen more service out of their ERC-90s than they have had out of any of their MBTs.  Likewise for the Italians and their Centauros.

I don't know if Stryker MGS is good, bad or POS.  That's for others.  But while I see the continuing need for a Heavy Cavalry assault/shock force based on the MBT and tracked support vehicles I also see the need for a far-ranging wheeled Light Cavalry force (Dragoons, Mech Infantry or otherwise) that needs some large calibre, long range fire power that can keep up.

As Geo says - there are options.  As George says - they have been discussed at length.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

"As George says - they have been discussed at length."
Exactly and lets leave the comparisons to those threads.

I liked the article except for MGS/Armoured running NDHQ bit.


----------



## Kirkhill

Further to the Airbus/BAE debacle - 

BAE has been given an audited price for its EADS shares to take to its shareholders.  They are considering their options.



> Summary:
> 
> -- Aggregate consideration for the Company's 20 per cent. interest in Airbus of euros 2,750 million (£1,903 million)
> 
> -- Net proceeds to BAE Systems, after offsetting outstanding loans between BAE Systems and Airbus and transaction costs, of approximately euros 1,650 million (£1,142 million)
> 
> -- Price determined by the independent expert appointed in accordance with the terms of the shareholders' agreement between BAE Systems, EADS and Airbus
> 
> -- Proposed Disposal subject to the approval of BAE Systems' shareholders
> 
> -- Having received the determination of the Price, the Board of BAE Systems will now consider its recommendation to shareholders regarding the Proposed Disposal
> 
> -- Further details regarding the Proposed Disposal will be set out in a circular to be sent to BAE Systems' shareholders shortly (ends)
> 
> 
> Click here for the full text of this announcement, on the BAE Systems website.



http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?session=dae.16882086.1133972074.Q5cKasOa9dUAAFC2ZcA&modele=jdc_34

What really had me grinning though is this line from the linked full text release :



> BAE SYSTEMS PLC
> 
> 2 July 2006
> 
> 
> 
> Not for release, publication or distribution in or into the United States,
> 
> Canada, Australia, Japan or the Republic of Ireland.



Everybody avert their eyes and forget everything you just read.  ;D

What hath the internet wrought?


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

Perhaps you should forward that to the minister of Public Works.  I wonder what Airbus' official Army.ca spokesman has to say.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

http://ir.baesystems.com/bae/news_presentations/reg_announc/rnsitem?id=1151906421nRNSC5294F&t=printer

REG-BAE SYSTEMS PLC  Airbus valuation 
03/07/2006



RNS Number:5294F 
BAE SYSTEMS PLC 
02 July 2006 

BAE SYSTEMS PLC 

2 July 2006 



   Not for release, publication or distribution in or into the United States, 

              Canada, Australia, Japan or the Republic of Ireland. 


          BAE SYSTEMS PLC PROPOSED DISPOSAL OF ITS AIRBUS SHAREHOLDING 


BAE Systems plc ("BAE Systems" or the "Company") announces that the price (the " 
Price") payable by European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company EADS N.V. (" 
EADS") in relation to the proposed disposal of BAE Systems' entire interest in 
Airbus S.A.S. ("Airbus") (the "Proposed Disposal") has today been determined by 
an independent expert to be e2,750 million (£1,903 million(1)). 


Summary: 


-        Aggregate consideration for the Company's 20 per cent. interest in 
         Airbus of e2,750 million (£1,903 million) 

-        Net proceeds to BAE Systems, after offsetting outstanding loans between 
         BAE Systems and Airbus and transaction costs, of approximately  
         e1,650 million (£1,142 million) 

-        Price determined by the independent expert appointed in accordance with 
         the terms of the shareholders' agreement between BAE Systems, EADS and  
         Airbus 

-        Proposed Disposal subject to the approval of BAE Systems' shareholders 

-        Having received the determination of the Price, the Board of BAE 
         Systems will now consider its recommendation to shareholders regarding  
         the Proposed Disposal 

-        Further details regarding the Proposed Disposal will be set out in a 
         circular to be sent to BAE Systems' shareholders shortly 


This summary should be read in conjunction with the full text of this 
announcement. 


Enquiries: 


BAE Systems 
Andy Wrathall (Investor relations)                         Tel: +44 1252 383 820 
John Neilson (Media relations)                             Tel: +44 1252 384 795 


Goldman Sachs International (Financial adviser to BAE Systems) 
Simon Dingemans                                            Tel: +44 20 7774 1000 
Dominic Lee 


Gleacher Shacklock LLP (Financial adviser to BAE Systems) 
Tim Shacklock                                              Tel: +44 20 7484 1150 
James Dawson 


This announcement is for information purposes only and does not constitute an 
offer or invitation to acquire or dispose of any securities or investment advice 
in any jurisdiction. 


Goldman Sachs International, which is authorised and regulated by the Financial 
Services Authority, is acting exclusively for BAE Systems in relation to the 
matters described in this announcement and is not advising any other person and 
accordingly will not be responsible to any person other than BAE Systems for 
providing the protections afforded to the customers of Goldman Sachs 
International or for providing advice in relation to the matters described in 
this announcement. 


Gleacher Shacklock LLP, which is authorised and regulated by the Financial 
Services Authority, is acting exclusively for BAE Systems in relation to the 
matters described in this announcement and is not advising any other person and 
accordingly will not be responsible to any person other than BAE Systems for 
providing the protections afforded to the customers of Gleacher Shacklock LLP or 
for providing advice in relation to the matters described in this announcement. 


This announcement includes 'forward-looking statements'. All statements other 
than statements of historical facts included in this announcement, including, 
without limitation, those regarding the Company's financial position, business 
strategy, plans and objectives of management for future operations are 
forward-looking statements. Such forward-looking statements involve known and 
unknown risks, uncertainties and other important factors which could cause the 
actual results, performance or achievements of the Company or the markets and 
economies in which the Company operates to be materially different from future 
results, performance or achievements expressed or implied by such 
forward-looking statements.  The Company cannot give any assurance that the 
Proposed Disposal will be completed or that it will be completed on the terms 
described in this announcement. 


This announcement is not an offer for sale within the United States of any 
security of the Company. Securities of the Company, including its ordinary 
shares, may not be offered or sold in the United States absent registration 
under the U.S. securities laws or unless exempt from registration under such 
laws. 



   Not for release, publication or distribution in or into the United States, 
              Canada, Australia, Japan or the Republic of Ireland. 



          BAE SYSTEMS PLC PROPOSED DISPOSAL OF ITS AIRBUS SHAREHOLDING 



1.   Introduction 


BAE Systems plc ("BAE Systems" or the "Company") announces that the price (the " 
Price") payable by European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company EADS N.V. (" 
EADS") in relation to the proposed disposal of BAE Systems' entire interest in 
Airbus S.A.S. ("Airbus") (the "Proposed Disposal") has today been determined by 
an independent expert to be e2,750 million (£1,903 million(1)). 


Due to its size, the Proposed Disposal requires the approval of BAE Systems' 
shareholders at an extraordinary general meeting (the "Extraordinary General 
Meeting").  Having received the determination of the Price, the Board of BAE 
Systems will now consider its recommendation to shareholders, details of which 
will be set out in a circular (the "Circular") to be sent to shareholders 
shortly. 



2.   Background to and Reasons for the Proposed Disposal 


BAE Systems' 20 per cent. shareholding in Airbus (the "Airbus Shareholding") 
represents a minority shareholding in a business over which BAE Systems does not 
have full control.  Furthermore, the Board of BAE Systems has determined that 
the Airbus Shareholding is non-core to the long-term development of BAE Systems. 
On 7 April 2006, BAE Systems therefore announced that it had entered into 
discussions with EADS regarding the disposal of its Airbus Shareholding. 


In accordance with the provisions of the shareholders' agreement dated 11 July 
2001 between EADS, BAE Systems and Airbus (the "Shareholders' Agreement"), BAE 
Systems served upon EADS on 7 June 2006 a formal notice of exercise of its put 
option requiring EADS to purchase the Airbus Shareholding on the terms set out 
in that agreement.  On 20 June 2006, in accordance with the Shareholders' 
Agreement, BAE Systems and EADS appointed N M Rothschild & Sons Ltd and 
Rothschild & Cie (together, "Rothschild") to act as an independent expert for 
the purposes of determining the Price.  Rothschild today informed BAE Systems 
and EADS of its determination of the Price. 



3.   Information on Airbus 


Airbus is a leading manufacturer of commercial aircraft.  The Airbus product 
line includes a comprehensive range of passenger aircraft models, from the 
100-seat, single-aisle A318 jetliner to the new, long-range 555 (or more) seat 
A380.  In addition to commercial jet airliners, Airbus produces freighter 
aircraft and is developing the A400M military transport aircraft. 


The Airbus Shareholding represents 20 per cent. of Airbus' ordinary issued share 
capital.  The remaining 80 per cent. of Airbus' ordinary issued share capital is 
owned by EADS.  Airbus has no other shareholders. 


For the year ended 31 December 2005, BAE Systems' 20 per cent. share in Airbus 
generated profits before taxation of £254 million on sales of £3,002 million. 
As at 31 December 2005, BAE Systems' 20 per cent. share in Airbus represented an 
amount of net assets of £110 million and gross assets (including goodwill) of 
£5,847 million. 


On 13 June 2006, Airbus announced that the delivery schedule for the A380 
programme would undergo a delay of six or seven months due to production ramp-up 
issues, which are likely to limit aircraft deliveries to nine in 2007 and result 
in further delivery shortfalls in 2008 and 2009.  Airbus stated that these 
delays were caused by industrial issues, which are mainly traceable to 
bottlenecks formed in the definition, manufacture and installation of electrical 
systems and resulting harnesses. 



4.   Principal Terms of the Proposed Disposal 


The Proposed Disposal would be structured as the sale by BAE Systems to EADS of 
BAE Systems France (Holdings) S.A.S., a wholly owned subsidiary of BAE Systems 
and the entity that holds its 20 per cent. shareholding in Airbus. 


Under the terms of the Shareholders' Agreement, the form of the aggregate 
consideration to be paid by EADS to BAE Systems will be determined by EADS prior 
to completion of the Proposed Disposal.  EADS can elect to satisfy the aggregate 
consideration in cash, by an allotment of shares in EADS to BAE Systems, or by a 
mixture of cash and EADS shares.  In the event that EADS were to elect to 
satisfy part or all of the consideration by an allotment of EADS shares, the 
number of shares is to be determined on the basis of the average closing mid 
market price of EADS over the period of ten trading days prior to completion of 
the Proposed Disposal.  Depending on prevailing market conditions, BAE Systems 
will seek to sell any EADS shares received as part of the consideration for the 
Proposed Disposal as soon as it deems the sale both practicable and attractive 
for the Company. 


The Proposed Disposal is conditional upon the approval of BAE Systems' 
shareholders at the Extraordinary General Meeting.  If BAE Systems shareholder 
approval for the Proposed Disposal is obtained, completion of the transaction 
will take place not later than ten days after the date of receipt of such 
approval. 



5.   Financial Effects of the Proposed Disposal and Use of Proceeds 


Although the Proposed Disposal would result in significant near-term earnings 
dilution, it would strengthen BAE Systems' financial position.  The Proposed 
Disposal would also enable BAE Systems management to focus on the Company's core 
defence and aerospace businesses, which it believes offer good prospects for 
growth both organically and through selective acquisitions. 


The aggregate consideration for BAE Systems' 20 per cent. shareholding in Airbus 
is e2,750 million (£1,903 million).  Following repayment of debts outstanding 
between BAE Systems and Airbus at completion and the payment of transaction 
related costs, net proceeds to BAE Systems are estimated to be approximately 
e1,650 million (£1,142 million). 


It is anticipated that there would be no material taxation payable on the 
Proposed Disposal, although this would require formal clearance from HM Revenue 
& Customs. 


It is expected that the Circular will contain additional information regarding 
the use of proceeds in the event that BAE Systems shareholder approval for the 
Proposed Disposal is obtained. 



6.   Management and Employees 


So as to provide continuity of pension rights, it is intended that the Airbus UK 
employees would remain in the BAE Systems group pension plans and that the 
contributions for both employees and Airbus UK would remain unchanged.  These 
arrangements are the subject of continuing discussions between BAE Systems and 
EADS.  BAE Systems also understands that EADS has reiterated its strong 
commitment to Airbus' UK operations and the sites at Broughton and Filton. 



7.   Extraordinary General Meeting and Shareholder Approval 


The Proposed Disposal will be subject to the approval of BAE Systems' 
shareholders at the Extraordinary General Meeting.  The Circular containing 
further details of the Proposed Disposal and setting out the notice of the 
Extraordinary General Meeting will be sent to BAE Systems' shareholders shortly. 



Enquiries: 


BAE Systems 
Andy Wrathall (Investor relations)                         Tel: +44 1252 383 820 
John Neilson (Media relations)                             Tel: +44 1252 384 795 


Goldman Sachs International (Financial adviser to BAE Systems) 
Simon Dingemans                                            Tel: +44 20 7774 1000 
Dominic Lee 


Gleacher Shacklock LLP (Financial adviser to BAE Systems) 
Tim Shacklock                                              Tel: +44 20 7484 1150 
James Dawson 



This announcement is for information purposes only and does not constitute an 
offer or invitation to acquire or dispose of any securities or investment advice 
in any jurisdiction. 


Goldman Sachs International, which is authorised and regulated by the Financial 
Services Authority, is acting exclusively for BAE Systems in relation to the 
matters described in this announcement and is not advising any other person and 
accordingly will not be responsible to any person other than BAE Systems for 
providing the protections afforded to the customers of Goldman Sachs 
International or for providing advice in relation to the matters described in 
this announcement. 


Gleacher Shacklock LLP, which is authorised and regulated by the Financial 
Services Authority, is acting exclusively for BAE Systems in relation to the 
matters described in this announcement and is not advising any other person and 
accordingly will not be responsible to any person other than BAE Systems for 
providing the protections afforded to the customers of Gleacher Shacklock LLP or 
for providing advice in relation to the matters described in this announcement. 


This announcement includes 'forward-looking statements'. All statements other 
than statements of historical facts included in this announcement, including, 
without limitation, those regarding the Company's financial position, business 
strategy, plans and objectives of management for future operations are 
forward-looking statements. Such forward-looking statements involve known and 
unknown risks, uncertainties and other important factors which could cause the 
actual results, performance or achievements of the Company or the markets and 
economies in which the Company operates to be materially different from future 
results, performance or achievements expressed or implied by such 
forward-looking statements.  The Company cannot give any assurance that the 
Proposed Disposal will be completed or that it will be completed on the terms 
described in this announcement. 


This announcement is not an offer for sale within the United States of any 
security of the Company. Securities of the Company, including its ordinary 
shares, may not be offered or sold in the United States absent registration 
under the U.S. securities laws or unless exempt from registration under such 
laws. 


--------------------------------- 

Notes: 


(1)  All figures in this announcement, excluding the historical information set 
out in Part 3, have been converted at an exchange rate of e1.445 = £1.000, 
unless otherwise stated. 


                      This information is provided by RNS 
            The company news service from the London Stock Exchange 
END 

DISUUURRNVRBRUR 

small e before a number denotes euros


----------



## MarkOttawa

Excerpts from Toronto Star article July 4, "Drones on military wish list" (article also forms start for new thread  "The "Wish List" Part Deux") 
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1151963410111&call_pageid=968332188774&col=968350116467

'Canada's air force hopes to buy a fleet of sophisticated aerial drones — unmanned "eyes in the sky" — to patrol Canadian territory and waters as well as spy on enemy troops in hot spots like Afghanistan, a top general says.

Lt.-Gen. Steve Lucas, the head of the air force, said he hopes the purchasing process for 18 drones, valued at $500 million, will begin this fall.

As well, the air force hopes to finally move on the long-delayed purchase of 19 new search-and-rescue aircraft [that's a story in itself] 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2006/03/somehow-aircraft-just-dont-get.html

for an estimated $2 billion to replace the old Hercules planes now doing the task, he said...

Lt.-Gen. Andrew Leslie, the new head of the army, said he wants to tweak capabilities to cope with evolving conflicts that demand a mix of guerrilla fighting and development work.

"I think what we're doing in places like Afghanistan will be our stock-in-trade for a good many years," Leslie told the Star, describing the mission as "dangerous and complicated."

With that in mind, he and his colleagues are now talking with the government about the next investments to enable troops to fight more effectively. His wish list includes the next generation of night vision goggles, new communications gear, improved protection for the troops and new technology to combat rocket propelled grenades, which have killed and wounded soldiers in Afghanistan...

Leslie's also looking at a few shake-ups with the current army — and that could include reversing a decision to mothball Canada's fleet of Leopard tanks.

It's said that Leslie is *no fan of the mobile gun system* [my emphasis - MC] — an armoured vehicle equipped with a 105-mm gun that critics say would leave troops vulnerable to attack.

Leslie also envisages a "smarter" battle force, using battlefield sensors and spy planes to detect enemies...'

Mark
Ottawa


----------

