# Military spending plan has many benefits: O'Connor



## Scoobie Newbie (25 Jun 2006)

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060625/military_spending_060625/20060625?hub=TopStories

CTV.ca News Staff

Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor says his $15 billion spending plan is necessary to update a military that has been hollowed out after years of underspending and cutbacks.

Speaking on CTV's Question Period, O'Connor said the massive spending plan is an absolute necessity.

"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."

Beginning this week, O'Connor and Prime Minister Stephen Harper will be visiting four Canadian cities across Canada to build support for the plan -- which makes the largest single defence spending bonanza in the nation's history. 

The wishlist includes $2 billion for three naval support ships, $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.

O'Connor countered allegations that he and Chief of the Defence Staff Gen. Rick Hiller were at odds over the spending plan. 

Insiders suggested Hillier wanted short-haul tactical airlift capable of landing on rough fields with speed and greater protection, while O'Connor wanted strategic lift.

O'Connor told Question Period the military, between 2003 and 2005, made four recommendations to the former Liberal government -- all of which were denied -- to acquire strategic lift. 

"The military are 100 per cent behind strategic lift and so is Gen. Hillier. The only issue is how much money we have and what we can afford to have," O'Connor said.

However, the military will be getting both needs answered -- ending any crossing of swords between Hiller and O'Connor.

"Right now the cabinet has provided me with enough money to buy strategic and tactical lift. So there's never been a dispute whatsoever."

Under the current arrangement, the Canadian military rents heavy-lift aircraft from Russia and Ukraine whenever it is needed.

That arrangement is unacceptable, O'Connor said, because it means those countries can refuse access to the equipment if they disagree with the purpose.

The planes are also available on the commercial market, which means the military is competing against other private customers to use the equipment.

In addition, the planes are not certified for use in Canada, beyond landing and taking off.

In addition to overseas use, the new equipment will give Canada the ability to meet needs within its own borders.

"We shouldn't be depending upon other countries. We shouldn't be depending upon other countries ... to lift our troops or our equipment. We've got to be self reliant."

O'Connor also dismissed suggestions he has major conflicts of interest on a number of spending announcements, stemming from his days as a lobbyist.

Critics have demanded he remove himself from the deal, but he has so far refused and shows no sign of changing his mind.

"I don't have any conflicts. I've said this a number of times. I have no relationships to any company at all. I own no shares, I have no revenues, I have nothing from these companies. And if you understand the process, I have no say in who competes and I have no say in who wins."

However Ujjal Dosanjh, the Liberal defence critic, told Question Period O'Connor has a number of conflicts because companies he was involved with as a lobbyist are bidding on the new contracts.

"If he's not involved then why doesn't he just recuse himself and say I wouldn't be involved. He has never said that. The fact is the people he used to meet with in his previous life as a lobbyist are now reporting to him, some of them are still there, with respect to joint support ships, with respect to trucks, and others, he is conflicted." 

Dawn Black, the New Democrat defence critic, criticized the speed at which the spending plan has been passed and the changing nature of the military. 

However, Black supported giving troops the equipment they require.

"Of course we support a well equipped Canadian Forces. We're asking the men and women of the Canadian Forces to take on ever more dangerous tasks, so they must be equipped with what they need to do the job we ask them to do."


----------



## paracowboy (25 Jun 2006)

Quagmire said:
			
		

> However Ujjal Dosanjh, the Liberal defence critic, told Question Period O'Connor has a number of conflicts because companies he was involved with as a lobbyist are bidding on the new contracts.
> 
> "If he's not involved then why doesn't he just recuse himself and say I wouldn't be involved. He has never said that. The fact is the people he used to meet with in his previous life as a lobbyist are now reporting to him, some of them are still there, with respect to joint support ships, with respect to trucks, and others, he is conflicted."


Still beating the same dead horse, and trying desperately to get the world to ignore basic facts, huh? Man needs to seriously get slapped in the kisser with a halibut.



> Dawn Black, the New Democrat defence critic, _*criticized the speed * _ at which the spending plan has been passed and the changing nature of the military.
> 
> However, Black *supported giving troops the equipment  * they require.
> 
> "Of course we support a well equipped Canadian Forces. We're asking the men and women of the Canadian Forces to take on ever more dangerous tasks, so they must be equipped with what they need to do the job we ask them to do."


so, it's okay for us to get, just not quickly enough to save lives, Dawnie-poo? Thanks, ever so!


----------



## Hot Lips (25 Jun 2006)

+1 Paracowboy

HL


----------



## ArmyRick (25 Jun 2006)

Roger, paracowboy, you are clear to engage liberal idiot and weapons free now, over.


----------



## Long in the tooth (25 Jun 2006)

Tendering for Liberal Ad agencies and the Gun Registry were done so honest and above board that we should trust them now.  I think we should should consider a tender for Airbus 400s, now that the 350s have been cancelled.  Maybe Liberal MPs should be paid with IOUs from my bank.... (I could be the lowest bidder, after all).  Where's Adelpate Axeworthy when you need him... I know, he's chancellor of the university of Winnipeg...


----------



## Stirling N6123 (25 Jun 2006)

I wish the same sort of response could be directed toward the Liberal Ontario Government. Dalton just spent 219,000$ to change the provincial Logo. Why?

It's gotta be a Liberal, I know how to piss taxpayer money down the tube, mentality. Is this taught at the liberal party meetings? Do the Liberals have some sort of secret college in Ottawa, where this wastage is taught? 

Maybe it's just an Ontario thing then eh?

It's about time we have someone at the helm that has a clue about where we are, where were going, and what we are going to do when we get there.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (25 Jun 2006)

I see your provincial logo and raise you a One million dollar toilet.  Yep our mayor at the time (in Wpg) spent a million bucks on a toilet as part of a bridge.  He then threw his hat into the federal ring as a Liberal.


----------



## HDE (26 Jun 2006)

I'd say the only "conflicted" person in the above article is Ujjal D.  Imagine trying to erase 13 years of Liberal ineptitude in managing the military and now trying to be taken seriously on matters of military spending.


----------



## GAP (26 Jun 2006)

Quagmire said:
			
		

> I see your provincial logo and raise you a One million dollar toilet.  Yep our mayor at the time (in Wpg) spent a million bucks on a toilet as part of a bridge.  He then threw his hat into the federal ring as a Liberal.



An promptly got his arse whooped in the federal election by my MP Steven Fletcher. So, in typical style, he skulked off to TO and started whining about what an unfair treatment he received in Winnipeg.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (26 Jun 2006)

HDE said:
			
		

> I'd say the only "conflicted" person in the above article is Ujjal D.  Imagine trying to erase 13 years of Liberal ineptitude in managing the military and now trying to be taken seriously on matters of military spending.



The radio mentioned that much of the defence spending had already been in the pipeline from the previous Liberal governments...is that true? I see the article mentions that the strategic lift a/c were not, just wondering about the other stuff...trucks, ships.


----------



## Kirkhill (26 Jun 2006)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> The radio mentioned that much of the defence spending had already been in the pipeline from the previous Liberal governments...is that true? I see the article mentions that the strategic lift a/c were not, just wondering about the other stuff...trucks, ships.



Michael - Facta non Verba, Deeds not Words


----------



## Canadian.Trucker (27 Jun 2006)

If the Liberals were indeed planning on spending for the military (and not just using it as a life preserver for the ship going down), then at least the Conservatives have continued the work instead of simply cancelling the projects *cough Chretien cough*

It's good to finally see these projects moving forward, afterall many of these vehicles ships planes etc. should have been replaced 10+ years ago.  I must actually say we're starting to get some good kit in the military to do our job.

Beans and bullets boys.


----------



## RangerRay (30 Jun 2006)

Any word on what kind of trucks we're getting?


----------



## Eland (30 Jun 2006)

RangerRay said:
			
		

> Any word on what kind of trucks we're getting?



Rumour has it they will be either US-made Stevenson & Stewart or Mercedes trucks built overseas in Germany or Austria. My bet is that we'll get the S & S trucks because of the proximity of the spare parts pipeline.

What's interesting about the big buy O'Connor has planned for the military is the almost-complete lack of industrial offsets for Canada.
That is, no contracts for Western Star, UTDC, or Bombardier et al. to build the trucks, planes and helos (or even major subsystems). It looks like a complete off-the-shelf package. That goes for the new Joint Support Ships, which will be designed and engineered by overseas firms, but built in Canada.

I perceive these moves are intended to fast-track the projects so the kit reaches our sailors, soldiers and aircrew ASAP. It'll also stop all the politicking, pork-barreling, and inter-provincial/regional warfare and other crap that goes on during the contract-definition phase, slowing things down so much so that by the time the kit reaches the end users, it's 10 years later or probably obsolescent.

Personally, I'm ecstatic that we're buying 3 or 4 C17 transports. Finally, we're giving our military organic airlift assets instead of just renting them some unreliable and clapped-out Antonovs, which might (or might not) be available at the time they're needed. The beauty of the C17 is that you can move the entire DART team with one sortie of 4 C17's, or an understrength infantry battalion with most of its weapons and some munitions in two or three sorties - and do it all in a time frame of about D+72 or less. Try doing that with a limited fleet of Hercs!

My wife, who used to work in flight feeding in Trenton says that if CFB Trenton becomes the staging point for these aircraft, she would not want to be a cook there - the place would become a zoo operating 24/7 shifts, and right now there aren't enough people in flight operations in Trenton to handle all the flights that would be shuttling back and forth between Trenton and Afghanistan.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (30 Jun 2006)

Western Star can pound salt.


----------



## George Wallace (30 Jun 2006)

Eland said:
			
		

> Rumour has it they will be either US-made Stevenson & Stewart or Mercedes trucks built overseas in Germany or Austria. My bet is that we'll get the S & S trucks because of the proximity of the spare parts pipeline.



That may not even be a consideration, as we now have the Chrysler-Daimler Benz merger to nullify any such reasoning.


----------



## RangerRay (30 Jun 2006)

Mercedes?  As in Unimogs?  That would be so cool!  8)



			
				Eland said:
			
		

> That is, no contracts for Western Star, UTDC, or Bombardier et al. to build the trucks, planes and helos (or even major subsystems). It looks like a complete off-the-shelf package. That goes for the new Joint Support Ships, which will be designed and engineered by overseas firms, but built in Canada.



Good!  Most of the stuff we got as a consequence was over-priced, and delivered-late shyte!


----------



## mjohnston39 (1 Jul 2006)

> Western Star can pound salt.



Hasn't Western Star moved its production facilities to the US anyways??

Mike


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (1 Jul 2006)

Western Star
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Western Star is a manufacturer of large commercial trucks.

The company was formed after the collapse of White Trucks, when it was purchased by the Australian businessman Terry Peadbody. Under his leadership the company financial status was improved and the Canadian portions of the business was sold. The company is a division of Freightliner and sister to Sterling Trucks within DaimlerChrysler.

Peadbody still owns operations in Australia, which are based in Wacol, Queensland.


----------



## Spencer100 (1 Jul 2006)

Western Star closed the Canadian manufacturing operations in BC.  So they will never be a factor in DND contacts......but sister company Sterling in St. Thomas is still going strong.  Sterling builds the "old" Ford Louisville line of trucks.   They are all part of DCX.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (1 Jul 2006)

> What's interesting about the big buy O'Connor has planned for the military is the almost-complete lack of industrial offsets for Canada.



You're confusing industrial offsets with actual production.  While most of what is being contemplated (JSS aside) will be produced by foreign industry, each programme speaks very clearly of the requirement for industrial offsets.  In other words, companies selling the equipment agree to buy an equal value of goods from Canadian companies, thus offsetting the cost of the procurement.


----------



## Rory (1 Jul 2006)

I am so happy to be joining when the government is buying all this new equipment. Gives a sense of security and self reliance to it all.


----------



## rick7475 (2 Jul 2006)

With 3 or 4 C17 transports, don't they need air to air refueling over long hauls? We used have 707's do that, if I recall. I remember when they got rid of those.


----------



## Kirkhill (3 Jul 2006)

Strategic Lift Specs Required



> Range and payload - Sufficient un-refuelled range and payload capacity (6,482 kilometres with 39,000 kilograms) to support domestic and international deployed operations.


http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/newsroom/view_news_e.asp?id=1969

C17 Stats - 160,000 lbs for 2400nm (72,000 kg for 4400 km)
Difference between CF Required Payload (39,000 kg) and C17 Payload at 4400 km (72,000 kg) = 33,000 kg.  That leaves room for an additional 33,000 kg of fuel to reach the 6482 km threshold.
6482 km from Trenton equals any airport in Western Europe this side of Frankfurt as well as Copenhagen, Stockholm and Helsinki.  It also equals the distance to Peru or the North Coast of Brazil.  It is also roughly equal to the distance to Murmansk in Russia or Attu on the Aleutian Islands.  Fuel is available at all points.



> Maximum payload  170,900lb
> Maximum takeoff gross weight  585,000lb
> Empty weight  277,000lb
> Range, 160,000lb 2,400nm
> ...


http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/c17/specs.html

A400M Specs


> Maximum payload 37t
> Total internal fuel 47t
> Engines
> Type 4 x TP400-D6 turboprop
> ...



http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/fla/specs.html

A400 with a maximum payload of 37 tonnes (37,000 kg) is 2 tonnes short of the CF requirement under all conditions.  It has to reduce its payload to about the maximum payload of the C130 to meet the range requirement.

C17 doesn't need inflight refuelling.

PS - with all this talk about Industrial Benefits and Offsets and demanding that the suppliers (read Yanks) spend a dollar in Canada for every dollar they earn on this project I am curious as to where all these people were when The Yanks issued a contract for their Kiowa replacement programme that resulted in 368 helicopters being built in Montreal.  Can we expect that Bell Canada will be buying an equivalent amount of goods and services in the US?


----------



## HDE (4 Jul 2006)

I believe the UTDC shut down soon after finishing the contract to build the HLVW fleet some years ago.


----------



## Spencer100 (5 Jul 2006)

The line was shut down.  The government sold UTDC to guess who? 

Bombardier!  Yes everyone's favourite corporate wellfare bum

(UTDC Bombardier is working on getting the new TTC contract on single source.)


----------



## Armymatters (7 Jul 2006)

CISS has put out another commentary, this time regarding the new planned buys, and to summarize, they are all in favour, but warn that the orders could turn political, and nothing will be purchased, and that in all while with the purchases there is little to criticize, the new purchases do nothing as to resolving all the operations shortcomings facing the CF, including the pending loss of the destroyers, refits to the frigate fleet, replacement of the Aurora patrol aircraft, the lack of options for the CF when it cancels MGS and MMEV when it comes to anti-tank and air defence, attrition replacements for lost equipment while on missions, and most importantly, retention of CF personnel.
http://www.ciss.ca/Comment_july06.htm


----------



## Canadian.Trucker (7 Jul 2006)

Armymatters said:
			
		

> CISS has put out another commentary, this time regarding the new planned buys, and to summarize, they are all in favour, but warn that the orders could turn political, and nothing will be purchased, and that in all while with the purchases there is little to criticize, the new purchases do nothing as to resolving all the operations shortcomings facing the CF, including the pending loss of the destroyers, refits to the frigate fleet, replacement of the Aurora patrol aircraft, the lack of options for the CF when it cancels MGS and MMEV when it comes to anti-tank and air defence, attrition replacements for lost equipment while on missions, and most importantly, retention of CF personnel.
> http://www.ciss.ca/Comment_july06.htm



This both made me happy, and depressed me at the same time.  Kinda like a sugar high.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (7 Jul 2006)

Well to a certain extent I think O'Connor is being frank.  I believe that in each of the RFP's issued so far, although they haven't specified production within Canada, they have specified that the supplier must provide dollar-for-dollar economic investment in Canada.  In short, the Boeing C-17's may get built in California, but the contract will necessitate we get $2.0 billion in Boeing subcontracting perhaps for the 787-program.  Same demand with the helicopters and also the trucks. (The ships are to be built in Canada so that guarantees economic spin-off as well).

Bottom Line:  I'm impressed.....


Matthew.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (7 Jul 2006)

I see a lot of Sterling trucks running around BC, seems to be the biggest source of new trucks. Likely they would source the non-tactical out of them or similar and single source the Tactical.

I suppose they could reopen the line and just build new MLVWs, is there any major improvement over them by the newer tactical trucks used by the US?


----------

