# Harper government may face rough ride over military purchase



## kilekaldar (12 Jun 2006)

Great, from what the article says this Heavy Lift purchase will turn into another Sea King debacle.
We need cargo planes, both tactical and strategic and these guys can only bicker about politics and whose ridings are getting pork barrels.
Guess a few Hercs will have to crash with my friends and coworkers(or me) aboard before we get planes.
Pathetic, and so emblematic of canadian politicians.

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/politics/story.html?id=37a352eb-23ea-45f8-9fc9-a97e72da33d2&k=51063


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (12 Jun 2006)

Excuse my frankness but fuck the province of Quebec or any other province that wants kick backs.  AKA the LSVW.  We need all methods of tpt and the C17 is tried tested and true.  Harper should wait until parliment is on their summer siesta and make the announcement.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (12 Jun 2006)

I'll admit that I was completely mystified by this article and what its point was.  The author appears to be comparing a potential purchase of C-17s with the cancellation of the EH-101, even though the scenarios are completely different.  Then, he trots out a retired bureaucrat, one who bears a significant amount of responsibility for our current dismal situation, who wants us to investigate "alternatives".  What "alternatives"?  Russian aircraft?  Seriously?  As I have posted on other threads, there are no rational alternatives to the C-17.

Here's the problem as I see it.  The CF managed, after years of trying, to get the previous government to actually buy into a coherent policy.  Part of that effort was an attempt to manage expectations.  Jean Cretin said that we didn't require strategic lift, so that was left off the agenda, as were tracked vehicles - both because they couldn't be sold to the government of the day.  Did this mean that heavy lift wasn't required?  No.  Instead, the CF took a look at the priorities and at what was then the art of the possible and decided to drop heavy lift from the list of "must haves".

Now, we have a new government - one that's promised to provide all the items agreed to by the previous Liberal government PLUS add heavy lift.  Who is going to say no, particularly if other requirements have been addressed.  I certainly don't agree with everything proposed by the Conservatives in the defence arena, but they're not wrong here.

This article smacks of politics of the first order and a feeble attempt by a petrified bureaucracy to defend its turf and bleating by the BQ in its traditional attempt to ensure pork for Quebec.  Perhaps Mr Blanchfield could have done a modicum of reading and research before publishing such tripe.

TR


----------



## Fishbone Jones (12 Jun 2006)

He's already got my backing, and a timely decision, without worrying about the pigs at the trough, will only strengthen my support.


----------



## Enzo (12 Jun 2006)

Teddy - You said what I was thinking while I was reading this, so I'm just simply going to support your position 100%.

I can only laugh at the BQ over this, I can see it now: "The BQ proposes that Bombardier undertake to develop and produce the required transport aircraft ready for the CF in 2007, with full subsidization by the Federal Government of course."

And don't get me started on Dosanjh. I will never understand how a politician feels that by the mere action of being appointed to a post (defence critic) that in any way makes their opinion more than just that; an opinion since qualification and experience are less relevant than a timely soundbite.


----------



## geo (12 Jun 2006)

Quagmire said:
			
		

> Excuse my frankness but frig the province of Quebec or any other province that wants kick backs.  AKA the LSVW.  We need all methods of tpt and the C17 is tried tested and true.  Harper should wait until parliment is on their summer siesta and make the announcement.



Please stop making 1st kicks at Quebec........... over and over again (ad nauseum). Am black and blue and have had enough - thank you very much

Chimo!


----------



## Fishbone Jones (12 Jun 2006)

Never heard the BQ and the lieberals bleating when their boss 'la gangster de shawinigan' bought two new jets from his son in law at Bombardier, with defence funds. That process took what? 2 or 3 days? And we didn't even need those, just left over from a deal gone bad in South America. But hey , can't have his daughter's hubby looking bad to the shareholders, could he?


----------



## Enzo (12 Jun 2006)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Never heard the BQ and the lieberals bleating when their boss 'la gangster de shawinigan' bought two new jets from his son in law at Bombardier, with defence funds. That process took what? 2 or 3 days? And we didn't even need those, just left over from a deal gone bad in South America. But hey , can't have his daughter's hubby looking bad to the shareholders, could he?



Sweet  ;D


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (12 Jun 2006)

Did the RG-31's face any kind of competition?


----------



## Michael Dorosh (13 Jun 2006)

Quagmire said:
			
		

> Did the RG-31's face any kind of competition?



RPGs and IEDs mostly. At that point, what else matters?


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (13 Jun 2006)

Well if our oppostion parties have RPG's there should be an investigation as to if they went through the equipment competition rules and if these RPG's were made in Canada.


----------



## Franko (13 Jun 2006)

First off where does Dosanjh get his info because it sure isn't from end users. This is yet another one of his knee-jerk reactions to the PCs spending on the CF.

He must have a buddy that has a vested interest in Bomardier     :

Well here we go into yet another fric frac over the procurment process.

Let the nagging begin.

As for the IL-76 purchase idea....it'll never happen from what I've been told about how AC are brought into the system. Too much money needed to train and convert things to Canadian standards IIRC.

My $0.02 worth.

Regards


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (13 Jun 2006)

I'd have to say the writer seems to have his own axe to grind with Harper which taints the rest of what appears to be a long whiney uneducated bitchfest.



> That will be good news for Boeing, the American manufacturer of the C-17, *as well as for the Bush administration.*



WTF is that?


Matthew.   :


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (13 Jun 2006)

I missed that little nugget buried in the pile of excrement...  So much for unbiased reporting.   :

Then again, I don't expect much lately...


----------



## Brad Sallows (13 Jun 2006)

>''It's easy to guess, well, we like C-17s. But you don't know until you test the marketplace whether or not it is the best product,''

"Test the marketplace"?  What marketplace?  What is there in production that is comparable?


----------



## Enzo (13 Jun 2006)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >''It's easy to guess, well, we like C-17s. But you don't know until you test the marketplace whether or not it is the best product,''



Amazing how once again a commercial mindset is applied to the M-I-L-I-T-A-R-Y.

It's just so assinine. Look at this guy's credentials; politics at its worst once again. Do you hear that sound? It's our ancestors rolling in their graves.

 >


----------



## Long in the tooth (13 Jun 2006)

All DND is to the Government, in the end, is a PR tool.  Right now we are highly visible due both to A-stan and the presence of the charismatic Gen Hillier.  We're still viewed as a big, slow and fat target by the pols and will be the first to be cut  So either we'll get new planes pronto or it will be studied and contracted to death, just like the helicopters.

Take a look at the subs - if the government wants it could be a decade of upgrades, trials and studies before we have 4 effective ships.  No matter how principled Harper is in his military views, we're still a political instrument.  In any contest with health or education we end up third.


----------



## Bobbyoreo (13 Jun 2006)

I've explained this to many people. Mostly Civy's but how hard is it to understand that the forces need planes now..not in the 8-15 years that they want to play around with a bidding process. Everyone I explain this too understands...now do I need to sit down with the librails and explain this with crayons and paper!!! Just buy the stuff we need. We already have SOME crews or people trained on the C17...lets just do it!!!


----------



## Kirkhill (13 Jun 2006)

> Alan Williams, a retired federal public servant who knows more about buying military hardware than just about anybody else in official Ottawa, said the plan to buy C-17s without competition is a bad deal for taxpayers because it robs the government of all leverage in negotiating.



Alan Williams, wasn't he the guy in that sweet little polka-dot bow-tie that "negotiated" the deal on the Subs.  What else did he negotiate between 1993 and now?  The Griffins and the Challengers?

I can't think of much other stuff that has been negotiated since then.


----------



## Enzo (13 Jun 2006)

> Alan Williams, a retired federal public servant who knows more about buying military hardware than just about anybody else in official Ottawa



That really isn't saying much is it. It's right up there with, "Kim Campbell was the best female Prime Minister that Canada ever had."  >


----------



## MarkOttawa (13 Jun 2006)

Cdn Blackshirt: 





> WTF is that?



A smear obviously--you know, like those "American-style" SUVs the RCMP are now using in the PM's protective detail.
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/politics/story.html?id=9d545fe4-c050-4a6b-ba16-72fde9a5fdad&k=70961

Most of our media have what is called an "agenda".

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## SeaKingTacco (13 Jun 2006)

Good Lord.

Just...buy...the...friggin...airplanes...already!!

Perfect is the enemey of good enough.  And after 13 years of dithering on this (and most other defence projects) we have pretty much run out of room to "explore other options".  We are in a corner, procurement-wise on airlift.  We either buy this year or next, or the whole TAL house of cards collapses.  It's that simple.

Cheers.


----------



## Pendant (13 Jun 2006)

yea i agree, if we dont get these pronto then we will be without another capability in the near future, buy them and get them here as soon as possible is what im sayin


----------



## MarkOttawa (14 Jun 2006)

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


----------



## Enzo (14 Jun 2006)

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

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



Nope to both. As was pointed out prior, the C-17 is tried, tested, currently integral with vital allies and available. What is the issue aside from politics?


----------



## Bobbyoreo (14 Jun 2006)

I really hope they just buy them and get them...this has dragged on way too long.


----------



## Pendant (14 Jun 2006)

whats new though, every procurement project in the past 30 years has dragged on far to long


----------



## Bobbyoreo (14 Jun 2006)

Well lets try something new...cause the old way aint working!!!


----------



## Colin Parkinson (14 Jun 2006)

It’s simple, just post that anyone interested in selling us a Heavy lift aircraft has 1 month to have an in production aircraft on the tarmac in Trenton to carry a load of supplies (greater than a Herc capacity)  to Afghanistan, in a limited time and return to Trenton. Competitors will be chosen from successful participants.  

That means it will be the Russians and the C-17, at the very worst we will get some supplies delivered for free.


----------



## Hebridean (17 Jun 2006)

A thought.  All this opppostion talk on the planes is simply opposition talk.  Last November you had Gordon O'Connor saying the same stuff on how we need a bidding proccess- the roles now are simply reversed.  The opposition is not going to agree with the government even if it is a good idea.  This is a debate for the sake of a debate.  I do think it is interesting the the four C-17's will likely be the first to be purchased since they are strategic airlift.  However, the funny thing in Canada is that  tactical airlift is employed strategically so it might be better to get a bunch of C-130 J's first since out CF pilots are already quite familiar with the aircraft by virtue of using their older brothers. With regard to the C-17's how come there has not been consideration to using civilian cargo aircraft? Do we really need the C-17's?  I mean you can carry alot of stuff on a 747 Cargo plane why is this not being considered?  Why not steal (nationalize them for national security purposes)  some planes from Air Canada and paint them green or blue and use them as strategic airlift until we replace the workhorse of the Airforce -the mighty Hercules?


----------



## Bob Terwilliger (17 Jun 2006)

Check out http://www.sfu.ca/casr/id-strategicair.htm for an eye opening comparison (capabilities and costs) between the AN 24 and the C 17. The C 17 will cost a lot more than what is being reported.


----------



## Armymatters (17 Jun 2006)

Bob Terwilliger said:
			
		

> Check out http://www.sfu.ca/casr/id-strategicair.htm for an eye opening comparison (capabilities and costs) between the AN 24 and the C 17. The C 17 will cost a lot more than what is being reported.



With the Antonov, spare parts availability is an issue. For example, the Germans had trouble getting spare parts for their MiG-29 fleet and they are down the road from Russia (hence the reason why the Germans got rid of their MiG's). We may end up with a grounded Antonov fleet right when we need them.


----------



## Bob Terwilliger (17 Jun 2006)

I tend to agree with you. The AN 124 would not be my first choice, but the article does illustrate the real cost of leasing or buying C 17s. Perhaps an upgraded IL 76,  with western avionics and engines, may be a cost efficient alternative.


----------



## George Wallace (17 Jun 2006)

Bob Terwilliger said:
			
		

> I tend to agree with you. The AN 124 would not be my first choice, but the article does illustrate the real cost of leasing or buying C 17s. Perhaps an upgraded IL 76,  with western avionics and engines, may be a cost efficient alternative.



We have been covering this discussion in detail in another Topic.


----------



## Kirkhill (17 Jun 2006)

Further to GW's:

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/37145.0.html
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/44825.0.html
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/41184.0.html
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/23889.0.html
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/32015.0.html
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/36075.0.html

And of course, this

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/44423.0.html


----------



## FSTO (18 Jun 2006)

Bob Terwilliger said:
			
		

> Check out http://www.sfu.ca/casr/id-strategicair.htm for an eye opening comparison (capabilities and costs) between the AN 24 and the C 17. The C 17 will cost a lot more than what is being reported.


SFU has decided that it will fall on its sword regarding the C17. My personnel choice is that we should stay away from European machinery in general and Russian equipment in particular. The Navy's experience with French engines in its ships have been a costly problem for years. We all breathed a heavy sigh relief when we found out that the ORCA's would be equipped with CAT Marine Diesels.


----------



## GK .Dundas (18 Jun 2006)

FSTO said:
			
		

> SFU has decided that it will fall on its sword regarding the C17. My personnel choice is that we should stay away from European machinery in general and Russian equipment in particular. The Navy's experience with French engines in its ships have been a costly problem for years. We all breathed a heavy sigh relief when we found out that the ORCA's would be equipped with CAT Marine Diesels.


 I am at the point where I really want to know who is really funding  the SFU Webpage?They have this incredible attraction to Russian made gear  to the point it almost seems obsessive.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (18 Jun 2006)

CASR is the bright-ideas gang.  Too many copies of Jane's and Air Forces Monthly and not enough experience...  IMHO, of course.


----------



## Nemo888 (18 Jun 2006)

One thing for certain. If a car salesman knew he was the only game in town you would pay through the nose for his vehicles. The more noise about buying Russian equipment the better


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (18 Jun 2006)

> The more noise about buying Russian equipment the better



Have you read any of the threads on this subject?   :


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (18 Jun 2006)

Hey Nemo


----------



## Armymatters (18 Jun 2006)

Guys, Nemo's right. It is a good way to drive a good deal, even though you realistically won't consider the other deal. Say that you are considering the Russian Antonov jet strongly, and Boeing will drop their price or include extras for us. It is like buying a car, you mention you are considering buying a car from another dealership, and the salesman at the current dealership will respond, even though the car at the current dealership is the car that fits your needs, and the other car at the other dealership is not what you want.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (18 Jun 2006)

Do you really think that that's a realistic proposition?  There is zero - zero - chance of Canada even remotely considering Soviet (er, Russian) equipment and any statements to the contrary would be immediately written off as a smoke screen.  Why try to BS our way around this procurement?  As I've said before, we need to get on with this and get on with it now, not in 2014 and certainly not with pie-in-the-sky aircraft that either (a) don't exist or (b) haven't flown yet.


----------



## Armymatters (18 Jun 2006)

Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> Do you really think that that's a realistic proposition?  There is zero - zero - chance of Canada even remotely considering Soviet (er, Russian) equipment and any statements to the contrary would be immediately written off as a smoke screen.  Why try to BS our way around this procurement?  As I've said before, we need to get on with this and get on with it now, not in 2014 and certainly not with pie-in-the-sky aircraft that either (a) don't exist or (b) haven't flown yet.



It is a realistic propostion, as it is frequently done by airlines to get a better deal on their airplanes. And with the pie-in-the-sky comment, airlines frequently buy airplanes that don't exist or haven't flown yet. Look at Boeing's order book for the Boeing 787, an airplane that only exists on paper today. Boeing has 420 787's ordered by major airlines. If we just hand the contract over to Boeing, we are in short asking Boeing to go ahead and rip off the Canadian taxpayer by asking for a higher price.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (18 Jun 2006)

AM it seems to me that you can't get your head wrapped around the fact that we can't wait for the A400 and I think it has been shown the the Russia plan is not practicle given the evidence here by memebers with first hand knowledge.  We need replacements years ago and unfortunately we can't wait for the long drawn out process of bids where you still may not even see the product with a change of gov't.  I don't recall a bidding war on the RG-31 or the M777.


----------



## Armymatters (18 Jun 2006)

Quagmire said:
			
		

> AM it seems to me that you can't get your head wrapped around the fact that we can't wait for the A400 and I think it has been shown the the Russia plan is not practicle given the evidence here by memebers with first hand knowledge.  We need replacements years ago and unfortunately we can't wait for the long drawn out process of bids where you still may not even see the product with a change of gov't.  I don't recall a bidding war on the RG-31 or the M777.



I am not saying we should return to the old way of procurement (long and extremely drawn out, like the +10 years in regards to Sea King replacement). I am saying military procurement should mirror commerical procurement: a proper competition based on the merits of the product, price, and support of the product. In commerical procurement, waiting a year until you make a decision is considered a long time to make up your mind. I am saying being able to haggle down the price of the product and getting better value for the money spent is essential for government accountability.


----------



## Kirkhill (18 Jun 2006)

> I am not saying we should return to the old way of procurement (long and extremely drawn out, like the +10 years in regards to Sea King replacement). I am saying military procurement should mirror commerical procurement: a proper competition based on the merits of the product, price, and support of the product. In commerical procurement, waiting a year until you make a decision is considered a long time to make up your mind. I am saying being able to haggle down the price of the product and getting better value for the money spent is essential for government accountability.



Is it conventional for commercial buyers to wait until there are zero hours left on their entire fleet before they ponder their options?  Or don't they tend to look ahead and constantly upgrade parts of the fleet on an ongoing basis?  And further to that thought, if uniformity of supply (for cost savings in maintenance etc) is so critical to successful performance why is it most airlines that I have flown on seem to operate mixed fleets?


----------



## Armymatters (18 Jun 2006)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Is it conventional for commercial buyers to wait until there are zero hours left on their entire fleet before they ponder their options?  Or don't they tend to look ahead and constantly upgrade parts of the fleet on an ongoing basis?  And further to that thought, if uniformity of supply (for cost savings in maintenance etc) is so critical to successful performance why is it most airlines that I have flown on seem to operate mixed fleets?



1. It is more coventional for commerical operators to plan ahead for their fleets as their fleets age become obsolete. Replacing airplanes before they can no longer fly is important for fleet sustainability, and that is what we are currently lacking: fleet sustainability. With the current method of procurement, any transport fleet we own will not be sustainable.

2. Most airlines may seem to operate mixed fleets, but you are forgetting some details: most airplane models from the same manufacturer belong in families, in which all models within the family have some commonality, in terms of maintenance, training and operations. Even if airplanes are from different manufacturers, airplanes as ordered by airlines have some commonality, for example, in the engines. Airplanes are also ordered by airlines are ordered based on technical merit and pricing. If the fleet is large enough, then there is enough technical commonality for the fleet to be a sub-fleet of an airline. 

Example (numbers purely fictious):

Imagine you own an airline and you have 1 one aircraft, you will keep one spare landing gear in your inventory. You hardly ever need it, but in case you need it, you need to have it to stay flying, as ordering a new one or reparing takes a week to have delivered from when you order it and you can't miss your plane for a week or so.

Now, lets say your airline now has 20 airplanes of the same type. You can still do with one spare landing gear, as it is very unlikely that 2 airplanes will have a broken landing gear exactly in the same week, so if one landing gear breaks, you replace it and order a new one, as it is a reasonably safe assumption that another landing gear on another airplane will break in that week.

If your airline operates 20 airplanes, each of a different type, different story. You will keep one spare landing gear in your inventory, for each type of airplane you own. You will be wasting a lot of money for parts that are rarely needed for such a small fleet. Most sucessful airlines do not do this, they either stick with one type of airplane, or have fleets large enough so they can save money on a mixed fleet.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (22 Jun 2006)

The latest news is that PM Harper will announce next week which is likely the biggest shopping spree for the military in Canadian history:

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/06/21/military21062006.html

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_PrintFriendly&c=Article&cid=1150927810023&call_pageid=970599119419

However, some people in the media have their reservations as this editorial in the Montreal Gazette makes clear. The editorial says the military should look at the A400M but makes no mention of the fact that the A400M_ hasn't even been built yet!_ 

http://www.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=7a5dd40a-3fb3-413c-b2b9-88e6c556e8b7

Then there are the people are still trying to push the Russian line:

http://server09.densan.ca/archivenews/060622/cit/060622am.htm

The problem with this offer by Skylink is that these would be civilian aircraft, flown buy civilian aircrew. That means they have no Electronic Warfare protection suite to defend against shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles so that means they can't be used in a operational theatre (e.g. Kandahar). Also, would the civilian aircrew even fly into a operational zone.


----------



## Haggis (22 Jun 2006)

The cool thing about being a minority government is that the Conservatives can make all kinds of spending and expansion promises for the historically unpopular military knowing full well that they may never be held accountable for them being fulfilled.

From all appearances, this Preservative government is a "flash in the pan" and the next election will sweep the Liberals back into power.  (We just missed being forced into a Fall 2006 election yesterday. http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Politics/2006/06/21/1645485-cp.html)

IF the Fibberals win the next election, all these "promises" (contracts) could be cancelled.  Remember the EH 101?  Remember FRP?


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (22 Jun 2006)

What appearences exactly are you referring too?


----------



## Haggis (22 Jun 2006)

Quagmire said:
			
		

> What appearences exactly are you referring too?



1.  They have been on the defensive on military issues ever since election. Notwithstanding that the Opposition parties are throwing hogwash and innuendo, the Canadian taxpayer/voter doesn't see "the facts".  S/he only gets the "message" the Grit friendly media trots out.

2.  The Torys have alienated the media.

3. Several big issues will come to a vote in the fall session, some of which could be turned into confidence votes (if yesterday's performance is an indicator).

4.  The Opposition parties will have three full months to snipe at the Torys while the House in in recess.

5.  Once the Fibberal leadership issues are sorted out, this fall or winter, the campaign will start in earnest and hamper the minority government's ability to govern effectively.

6.  Canadian minority governments have a history of being politically suicidal.


----------



## Spencer100 (22 Jun 2006)

You do not have to worry about a confidence vote till after 2007 and the Liberals have a new leader.  Plus the Liberal party is broke broke broke....no money to fight an election.  

The CPC may want a election before then.  They have money.  

Also I think average joes are starting to understand that the CF needs new kit.


----------



## Spencer100 (22 Jun 2006)

One more thing....the Liberal will not be taking the summer to criticize Harper and the CPC as they will be spending the time bashing each other over the head in the leadership race.


----------



## mjohnston39 (22 Jun 2006)

Recent polls also show the CPC in the 35% to 40%+ support, with a strong showing in Quebec and the West. That's near majority gov. territory even with the media spat. The Harper gov. is well displicined, has learned from past mistakes and has made few mis-steps... They will be around for awhile...  

 http://www.canadawebpages.com/pc-polls.asp

Mike


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (22 Jun 2006)

Polls mean nothing.  That said I hope your right.


----------



## mjohnston39 (22 Jun 2006)

> Polls mean nothing.



Not necessarily, we've seen governments call an election when they think they are above that magic 40% support level, even if they have a significant amount of time left in their mandate, as well the last election produced results that were very close to the extensive polling that was conducted. I can't see the Liberals pulling the trigger when they are behind the Torries by so much and not making any significant headway since the last election. You are right that the only poll that has real meaning is the one on election day, however, governments and parties will be swayed by what the public is thinking or is precieved as thinking...

Mike


----------



## HDE (23 Jun 2006)

So...

    We have a retired bureaucrat who spent most of his career in a system that seems mostly to secure wildly overpriced goods of dubious quality after many years of effort now lecturing us on the best method of doing things?   I love it when the media set out to find an "expert"  :


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (23 Jun 2006)

Whom are you refering too?


----------



## Kirkhill (23 Jun 2006)

> Whom are you refering too?



I'm guessing HDE's thinking about Bowties.


----------



## HDE (24 Jun 2006)

Sorry!

   I was just commenting on how the article we're discussing uses a retired admnistrator, with many years in "defence acquisitions", to take the Tories to task.  When I see the long timeline needed to acquire just about any piece of kit, the political/industrial issues taking priority over getting the most effective equipment, etc.  I can't help but think that he's not a great source of wisdom  on how things oughta be done.  Personally I like the idea of spending less time and money on the "process" of acquiring equipment and focussing on actually getting the stuff into the hands of the folks who need it.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (26 Jun 2006)

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> The latest news is that PM Harper will announce next week which is likely the biggest shopping spree for the military in Canadian history:
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/06/21/military21062006.html
> 
> ...




I suspect that it would be a lot easier getting the Russian civilian (read: ex military or on leave) to fly in to the hot zone for the right money, however if the aircraft gets shot down, who pays? The company may walk away from the contract because of upped insurance rates and likely would not own the planes but would be leasing them, so nothing to go after if they default.

What if the plane crashes full of Cdn troops because of a mechanical failure, that would be a political nightmare.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (26 Jun 2006)

> I suspect that it would be a lot easier getting the Russian civilian (read: ex military or on leave) to fly in to the hot zone for the right money, however if the aircraft gets shot down, who pays? The company may walk away from the contract because of upped insurance rates and likely would not own the planes but would be leasing them, so nothing to go after if they default.
> 
> What if the plane crashes full of Cdn troops because of a mechanical failure, that would be a political nightmare.



See my post here:

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/35058/post-276930.html#msg276930


----------



## Colin Parkinson (28 Jun 2006)

Well that was interesting


----------



## Kirkhill (28 Jun 2006)

"Viktor Suvorov" nom de plume for the author that wrote a book called "The Liberators" IIRC, about the Russian invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968, discussed how Russian aircraft (and vehicles) used grain alcohol in place of hydraulic fluid.   A recurring problem for the Air Forces were hard landings because ground crews were tapping the landing gear for parties.

Maybe the pilot tapped his own gear and determined he really didn't need those wheels anyway.  ;D

You do have to say one thing for Russian "engineering" it is rugged and utilitarian. Just doesn't work too well.


----------



## geo (28 Jun 2006)

.... sorta explains the titanium undersides of some soviet era fighter / bombers


----------



## Kirkhill (28 Jun 2006)

Skid plates?


----------



## geo (30 Jun 2006)

alternative landing gear


----------



## a_majoor (7 Jul 2006)

Some people need a reality check:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20060706.CHOPPERS06/TPStory/National



> *Boeing deal an $8-billion 'handshake' with Bush, Liberals say*
> U.S. firm in line for military contract
> DANIEL LEBLANC
> 
> ...




It is far more important to prepare to bail out Cuba than support our own national interest.......... :


----------



## HDE (7 Jul 2006)

I'd say our "sovereignty is being put at risk" when we have to ask other countries to carry our troops and equipment; certainly it doesn't reflect an nation fully capable of looking after the needs of it's military.  It appears Ujjal is becoming increasing irrational in his attacks on the PCs; I'd imagine trying to rewrite 13 years of Liberal mismanagement of the military would send anyone over the edge ;D


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (7 Jul 2006)

How could the US prevent us from doing anything with our own planes?


----------



## MarkOttawa (7 Jul 2006)

Letter in Globe today (text not online), "A little military reality":

"A little military reality

MARK COLLINS

Ottawa -- Liberal defence critic Ujjal Dosanjh says he's worried that the Americans could prevent our air force from undertaking a humanitarian mission to Cuba with a C-17 cargo plane since it's a U.S. product (Boeing Deal An $8-Billion 'Handshake' With Bush, Liberals Say -- July 6). When is Mr. Dosanjh going to express his horror at the fact that our C-130 Hercules transports are also, gasp, a U.S. product? Those poor Cubans."

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## geo (7 Jul 2006)

Quagmire said:
			
		

> How could the US prevent us from doing anything with our own planes?


They can't .... but slowing down / blocking the supply chain of spare parts is always possible.  Take a look at the F14 Tomcats that Iran bought under the Shah.  With the Ayatolas in charge, the spare parts just stopped coming.


----------



## Bobbyoreo (7 Jul 2006)

Im not sure where all these parts for the C-17 come from....but is it not possible that WE make alot of the parts in Canada? If so then this would give Canadians jobs. If Im wrong then Im wrong... Please correct me if you know anything about this. Seeing as we have a few Boeing shops around here.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (7 Jul 2006)

good point Mark


----------



## North Star (7 Jul 2006)

Our Defence Critic is not the sharpest knife in the drawer. It's too bad... a good defence critic actually helps the CF and DND. But so far he's only fired off ill-founded anti-American innuendo and thrown around Polaris Institute tripe. Next he'll be quoting the Senlis Institute...


----------



## Inspir (7 Jul 2006)

I quit trying to understand politicians actions and motives a long time ago. You think you have them figured out and then they pull a 180.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (9 Jul 2006)

North Star said:
			
		

> Our Defence Critic is not the sharpest knife in the drawer. It's too bad... a good defence critic actually helps the CF and DND. But so far he's only fired off ill-founded anti-American innuendo and thrown around Polaris Institute tripe. Next he'll be quoting the Senlis Institute...



This is a very polite way to describe him, hell he is not even liked in his own community.


----------

