# Let The Sucking Up Start- Defence Firms Converge on Ottawa



## Bruce Monkhouse (2 Apr 2006)

http://www.torontosun.com/News/Canada/2006/04/02/1516427-sun.html
Sun, April 2, 2006

Defence giants target Tories
By STEPHANIE RUBEC, SENIOR POLITICAL REPORTER

OTTAWA -- Armed with dirt on their rivals, the world's largest defence firms are converging on Ottawa this week in anticipation of a flood of billion-dollar federal contracts under the new Conservative government. 

Aerospace and trucking giants papered Parliament Hill with rumours and innuendo in the lead-up to a massive trade show this week in an effort to sully their competitors. 
The hottest contracts up for grabs will provide replacements for the ancient Hercules transport fleet, army vehicles and search-and-rescue aircraft. 

Paul Martin's Liberals inked a $12.2-billion deal shortly before the federal election to fast-track the purchase of tactical choppers, fixed-wing planes and selected Hercules' new C-130J to replace Canada's older fleet. 
However, both Boeing and Airbus have torqued up their lobbying efforts in hopes the Conservatives will rip up the deal for the C-130J. 
  
And Boeing is flying a huge C-17 to Ottawa Tuesday in an effort to convince Prime Minister Stephen Harper that the Canadian Forces need heavy lifting capabilities. 
Military firms are banking on the Conservative election platform which promised to fast track the replacement of rusting military equipment and boost the size of the Canadian Forces. 

Harper's Conservatives have pledged to hike military spending by $5.3 billion over the next five years and pump some of that money into bases and military housing, hire 23,000 more soldiers and buy big-ticket items such as ice breakers for Canada's North.


----------



## sneak and peek soldier (2 Apr 2006)

Honestly I'll just wait to see what happens i ain't getting my hopes up although i do think Harper does want to spend alot on getting new equipment...but it's just that I'll believe it when i see it.


----------



## JBP (2 Apr 2006)

I think he'd LOVE to sign some contracts for some of this hardware, but his hands are tied being that he's on a very tight minority leash. Not much he can do without the backing of everyone else. Sadly I fear these defence contractors are blowing hot air over nothing because there's not much Harper can do as of this time really...

We'll see...

----------> WATCH AND SHOOT!


----------



## DG-41 (2 Apr 2006)

The Grits were in the process of buying new kit when the election hit, so I think there'd be a majority of seats in Parliament willing to see equipment bought.

The question here isn't "will it or won't it?" but rather "HOW will it?" Will Reform maintain the Grit fast track purchases, or will they reopen bidding so "their" guys can get in on the deal (but slowing up the time when the guys get the kit)?

DG


----------



## Fishbone Jones (2 Apr 2006)

RecceDG said:
			
		

> The Grits were in the process of buying new kit when the election hit, so I think there'd be a majority of seats in Parliament willing to see equipment bought.



I think the lieberals were simply telling another vote garnering election promise. They would have broken it or modified it to the point where it wouldn't do what was intended. It would have stalled and been placed on the back burner. They've never kept a substantial promise in their lives. Just my opinion mind you.


----------



## Patrolman (2 Apr 2006)

All I can say is it is an exciting time to be in the CF. In my opinion we have come along way since I joined in  Nov.96. I am not saying that we are not still way behind the American and the British in kit acquirement. I remember well what it was like wearing the combat jean jacket, driving in 1960 era M113's,catching rides with the Americans and British on tour because we had no heavy lift choppers(still doing so), sleeping outside in the wet without a bivy bag etc. etc. Hopefully the Conservatives will be able to hold on to power long enough to supply us some of the big ticket items we need to become a major player on the world stage again.Bring on the Chinooks,Blackhawks, Ml replacements, ships,transport aircraft and everything else we need to get the job done.


----------



## KevinB (2 Apr 2006)

Keep in mind the CF is doign quite well on individual kit (albiet in too small numbers).  Most British units do not have effective night fighting equiptment at the dismounted Platoon...

C17's would be nice - in addition to the C130J's

A lot of the Conservative promises however where not grounded in reality.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (2 Apr 2006)

KevinB said:
			
		

> A lot of the Conservative promises however where not grounded in reality.



Quite true Kev, but they made them with the best intentions and the CF's interest at heart. Not just as a way to garner votes and support, with no real intention of delivering.


----------



## KevinB (2 Apr 2006)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Quite true Kev, but they made them with the best intentions and the CF's interest at heart. Not just as a way to garner votes and support, with no real intention of delivering.



I agree somewhat (I think some of the local base ideas where vote buying...)  I was even more impressed when he showed up to Afghan (albiet his 40 vehicle motorcade tooling thru Kabul was a wee bit excessive)


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (2 Apr 2006)

Lets hope we don't have another 10+ year helicoptor type fiasco with regards to contracts and penalties etc.


----------



## Franko (2 Apr 2006)

Wonder what the blue uniform types think would be better....C17 or another Herc.

I think, personally, the C17 would be a better deal for the CF. At least we could fly in sustainment in our own AC    

Regards


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (2 Apr 2006)

But would you still not need Herc's to get in close on runways that are less then hospitible?  Can the KAF handle a C17?


----------



## GAP (2 Apr 2006)

There was a short program the other night on the C17. Sure sounded like a souped up Herc as far as runway and lift capacity. It would sure be nice to see them buy a couple of each...different scenario, tasking, etc


----------



## Franko (2 Apr 2006)

CFL said:
			
		

> But would you still not need Herc's to get in close on runways that are less then hospitible?  Can the KAF handle a C17?



PM inbound


----------



## JBP (2 Apr 2006)

As far as I know a C17 can still land on "rough" runways, The US had them C17's landing (and KC-130's mind you...) on hard-packed SAND runways quickly made by army engineers. Their landing gear would even sink into the soft sand on the end of the runways, helping them stop in a short distance.

This was from a book I read by a United States Navy F/A-18 pilot in Iraq called "Hammer from Above", this pilot wrote the book with strictly the air war aspect, retelling stories of transport aircraft like the C-17, fighters like the AV-8B Harrier and the F/A-18s and attack helicopters such as the AH-1 Super Cobra and AH64-D Apache, look it up on the internet, GREAT read!

Anyway, I think if we attained C-17's and KEPT the Herc's we currently have that would be an awesome combo. Heck, I think the C-17's are almost big enough to fit a Herc inside them to transport in-theatre.... Almost big enough... 

A C-5 Galaxy would be dreaming really, I see C-17's as doable and useful to the CF


----------



## ROTP Applicant (2 Apr 2006)

R031 Pte Joe said:
			
		

> Anyway, I think if we attained C-17's and KEPT the Herc's we currently have that would be an awesome combo.



Considering the fact that our 19 or so CC-130E's are close to 45 years-old and are going to be phased out in the very near future, keeping the Hercs and purchasing C-17's would be impossible. However, we do still have around 13 of the newer CC-130H's and along with a purchase of 15+ C-130J's and 5+ C-17's we'd be set in terms of airlift. This is obviously my opinion, but I'm pretty sure that we presently don't have the funds to purchase C-17's along with the C-130J's.


----------



## Kirkhill (2 Apr 2006)

Some additional research opportunities for those interested in pursuing the aerospace angle on this subject.

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/37145.0.html
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/22920.0.html
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/27489.0.html
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/23889.0.html

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/36075.0.html
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/32015.0.html

Mike offers additional opportunities for those interested in trucks, helicopters, LAVs, howitzers and other assorted gear.

Cheers


----------



## Franko (2 Apr 2006)

Just adding in here for all the doubters.....


----------



## Franko (2 Apr 2006)

Also:

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/afghanistan/images/kandahar_c-17_020110-M-5839E-509.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/afghanistan/kandahar_afld-gallery.htm&h=533&w=800&sz=131&tbnid=T-Hoz-vRMZN-bM:&tbnh=94&tbnw=142&hl=en&ei=ZoQwRPqpF6GcigH609SpCg&sig2=6uvT5tBCPDclqiRIHnqtGQ&start=1&prev=/images%3Fq%3DC17%2BKandahar%2BAfghanistan%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26safe%3Doff%26sa%3DG







Regards


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (2 Apr 2006)

Nice pics.  I thought we weren't allowed to take those though.


----------



## Franko (2 Apr 2006)

C17 is off another site.

The IL76 was taken in accordance to the rules.   

Regards


----------



## a_majoor (3 Apr 2006)

Those contractors are in for a bit of a shock when they realize the current government has only a slim minority and will have to proceed with extreme caution before purchasing coffee cup holders for the G wagons, much less a billion dollar slate of aircraft, helicopters, warships, trucks, boots, tents, barracks, modular load carrying vests.........


----------



## zipperhead_cop (3 Apr 2006)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> Those contractors are in for a bit of a shock when they realize the current government has only a slim minority and will have to proceed with extreme caution before purchasing coffee cup holders for the G wagons, much less a billion dollar slate of aircraft, helicopters, warships, trucks, boots, tents, barracks, modular load carrying vests.........



They'll be in for a shock when they see that Bombardier gets the contracts, regardless of what is being bought.


----------



## LordOsborne (3 Apr 2006)

Just throwing my 0.02 into the ring... I've read the CASR article on heavy-lift options, and the argument of the IL-76MF vs C-17 seemed to make sense to me, especially in the quantity department. I know the PM's platform was looking for "at least three" heavy-lift aircraft. Seems to me if we went with IL-76s, we'd either save a lot of money for other things, or buy more airframes for the equivalent price of 3 C-17s. 

Just my take on the whole thing. I'll take cover now.


----------



## Jake (3 Apr 2006)

Here's a link with some nice pictures and the specifications of the C-17 http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/c-17.htm


----------



## Franko (3 Apr 2006)

LordOsborne,

I can tell you that, from practicle experience, the C17 can carry a lot more cargo than an IL76. Also it's alot more easier to load and unload.

Methinks it was pretty much designed by load masters.

Regards


----------



## HDE (3 Apr 2006)

I think the CASR bit compared the C-17 and the Antonov AN-124.


----------



## aesop081 (3 Apr 2006)

LordOsborne said:
			
		

> Just throwing my 0.02 into the ring... I've read the *CASR* article on heavy-lift options, and the argument of the IL-76MF vs C-17 seemed to make sense to me, especially in the quantity department. I know the PM's platform was looking for "at least three" heavy-lift aircraft. Seems to me if we went with IL-76s, we'd either save a lot of money for other things, or buy more airframes for the equivalent price of 3 C-17s.
> 
> Just my take on the whole thing. I'll take cover now.





			
				HDE said:
			
		

> I think the *CASR * bit compared the C-17 and the Antonov AN-124.



CASR/DND101 have their own political axe to grind


----------



## LordOsborne (3 Apr 2006)

Franko said:
			
		

> LordOsborne,
> 
> I can tell you that, from practicle experience, the C17 can carry a lot more cargo than an IL76. Also it's alot more easier to load and unload.
> 
> ...



I know CASR isn't above bias, but i thought the article at least deserves some points for raising an alternative option that could (potentially) save money. I am aware that the IL-76 carries less than a C-17, but if we had more of them, say 6 IL-76s versus 3 C-17s, the combined space of 6 ILs would beat out the 3 C-17s, and it would still be cheaper to have twice as many airframes (at least, that's what i gathered from the article). I'm not saying the C-17 isn't a great aircraft; I'm sure it'd be an excellent addition to the CF and it would serve us very well. I'm simply suggesting that for the price, (CASR estimated 194 Million USD per), it might be good to at least discuss other options. 

HDE, the article comparing the AN-124 is a fairly recent addition. CASR had a fairly extensive set of pages on the IL-76.


----------



## George Wallace (3 Apr 2006)

LordOsborne said:
			
		

> I know CASR isn't above bias, but i thought the article at least deserves some points for raising an alternative option that could (potentially) save money. I am aware that the IL-76 carries less than a C-17, but if we had more of them, say 6 IL-76s versus 3 C-17s, the combined space of 6 ILs would beat out the 3 C-17s, and it would still be cheaper to have twice as many airframes (at least, that's what i gathered from the article). I'm not saying the C-17 isn't a great aircraft; I'm sure it'd be an excellent addition to the CF and it would serve us very well. I'm simply suggesting that for the price, (CASR estimated 194 Million USD per), it might be good to at least discuss other options.



I wonder how the price looks after you factor in the costs for repairs and maintainance to an older Soviet Aircraft as compared to a brand new aircraft off a US assembly line?


----------



## SeaKingTacco (3 Apr 2006)

groan... not ANOTHER C-17 vs Russian (anything) thread....


----------



## Jones598 (3 Apr 2006)

My solution is as follows. Fund our own research, development, and manufactuer of Canadian designed, built and owned aircraft, and then, if we want, sell them to other militaries and reinvest the profits into our own forces. By building and developing at home we provide jobs and fuel the economy, not to mention all the other benefits to constructing our own military as opposed to peicing it together from bits and peices all flowing from the worlds lowest-bidders.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (3 Apr 2006)

hey Jones-

ever heard of an "iltis"?  Or "GACS with beacon on"?  Or "TCCS"?

We have been down your road to the tune of several billion bucks and 100's of 1000's of man-years wasted effort.

Let's try "off the shelf" for a while.  It can't be any worse...


----------



## LordOsborne (3 Apr 2006)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I wonder how the price looks after you factor in the costs for repairs and maintainance to an older Soviet Aircraft as compared to a brand new aircraft off a US assembly line?



Part of the reason CASR was looking at the IL-76 is because the Russian Air Force re-activated the production line, buying brand-new stretched IL-76s in the "MF" version instead of designing and building a completely new aircraft. The idea was to tag onto their production run.


----------



## Blue Max (4 Apr 2006)

Lord Osborne, I highly doubt IMHO, that the CAF would fly a Russian AC (or Chinese for that matter) with Russian avionics and motors. It has been pointed out by others on this site more in the now then I am, that a starting point for the CAF to even consider flying these Russian/Chinese airframes, would be to change most of the main componets (electrical, hydraulic, avionics, comm...) to western standards. 

Do you have any idea what this re-engineering would cost?  Don't forget there are other factores such as certification... :blotto:

Meanwhile Australia has ordered four C17's last month for $1.49B-US, with the first C17 delivered in 2006 and the last one in 2008.  :


----------



## LordOsborne (4 Apr 2006)

Blue Max, I have read about this stigma in the West about russian / easter equipment. I know it's highly unlikely we'd use the IL-76, especially with Russian engines, given their track record. The CASR article did however briefly discuss this. this quote is from one of the pages on the article entitled "Parfectly Candid"



> Aircraft can never be described as cheap.  For sake of comparison, the cost of a C-17 is in the range of US$250M. New-built IL-76MFs would likely cost one quarter as much. ( IL-76MFs were to be made in Uzbekistan. When the Russian Air Force was told that the per unit price would be US$40M, the entire factory was moved to Voronezh.) Western engines and avionics would likely raise costs by US$15M+.



From this page: http://www.sfu.ca/casr/mp-airlift-il76-2.htm


----------



## KevinB (4 Apr 2006)

Uhm - while NATO avionics plug and play -- you woudl have to rip the A/C down to its compontents and rebuild - and modifiy spars and other structural items to fit the different sized engines -- - then the time frame to get them inspection passed and certified -- yeah a real deal  :

C17 in KAF -- I don't have rulez


----------



## MarkOttawa (4 Apr 2006)

Rubec doesn't have a clue about the subject (as usual for Canadian reporters when dealing with defence): "Paul Martin's Liberals inked a $12.2-billion deal shortly before the federal election to fast-track the  purchase of tactical choppers, fixed-wing planes and selected Hercules' new C-130J to replace Canada's older fleet."

The $12.2 billion proposal--heavy-lift helicopters (CH-47), fixed-wing SAR (should be C-27J or C-295 but Bombardier mucked that up), C-130J--was shot down by Cabinet in November.  What was approved was a $4.6 billion proposal to fast-track the selection of a tactical transport (i.e. C-130J).  
http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=89b9d214-65ff-4ab9-a881-5023d094f953
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20051122/military_aircraft_051122/20051122?hub=TopStories

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Zoomie (5 Apr 2006)

Sigh.. It looks like the science fiction writers at CASR/DND 101 caught another fish on their line.  It seems that anyone can publish a website today and spout ideas as if they were fact.  Russian aircraft will never be a solution for Canada's airlift needs - what guarantee will we have for parts existing in 10-30 years?  At best Russia is a faltering first world nation - we don't need those kind of problems, we have enough of our thanks...


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (5 Apr 2006)

Zoomie, if you were selecting the mix of new transport aircraft, how would you allocate your resources?

Thanks in advance, 

Matthew.


----------



## Armymatters (5 Apr 2006)

Personally for me, I would take the Airbus offer for refurbished C-130H's to replace our E's that need replacement, and when Airbus gets around to certifying and flying the A400M, they replace the H's Airbus refubished for us. The remaining C-130's that aren't being replaced can be replaced with J-model Hercs or more A400M's, depending on how the A400M's perform in CF service. A very heavy-lift airplane like the C-17 or AN-124 does have a very useful role for the CF in quickly moving equipment overseas, and they should most likely be procured (perhaps to replace the remaining H's in CF service after we get the E's gone) if we want to maintain our standing in the world. 4-5 new C-17's are well within our means right now, as the Aussies have purchased 4 for $1.5 billion USD, and that contract includes the following:
    * Up to four C-17 GLOBEMASTER III aircraft
    * Up to 18 Pratt & Whitney F117-PW-100 engines
    * Up to four AN/AAQ-24V(13) Large Aircraft Infrared Countermeasures (LAIRCM) Systems
    * Up to 15 AN/AVS-9 Night Vision Goggles; plus
    * Personnel Life Support equipment, spare and repair parts, supply support, training equipment and support, publications and technical data.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2006/04/australia-to-spend-up-to-15-bn-on-4-c17s-updated/index.php#more

My policy with procurement for any military is that if it ain't up to specifications that we set out or it ain't up the job, it should not be purchased. Get the best we can afford. However realistic this idea is totally up in the air.


----------



## ROTP Applicant (5 Apr 2006)

Armymatters said:
			
		

> Personally for me, I would take the Airbus offer for refurbished C-130H's to replace our E's that need replacement, and when Airbus gets around to certifying and flying the A400M, they replace the H's Airbus refubished for us. The remaining C-130's that aren't being replaced can be replaced with J-model Hercs or more A400M's, depending on how the A400M's perform in CF service.



That looks like a decent plan; do you have a source for this (I'm curious to read about it some more)? However, realistically speaking, the earliest time frame for getting the A400M would be in the 2014-2016 range, this is due to the fact that the delivery date keeps changing and Canada would obviously not be at the front of the line for receiving the aircraft. Moreover, it is almost guaranteed that in the early life stage of the A400M, there would be a number of issues and bugs that would need to be addressed. Therefore, instead of waiting for the A400M, a safe bet would be to get C-130J's ASAP and C-17's in the near future. I apologize in advance if this is way off-topic.


----------



## MarkOttawa (5 Apr 2006)

A source for the refurbished Hercs and A-400Ms deal:
http://www.sfu.ca/casr/bg-airlift-tactical.htm

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Daidalous (5 Apr 2006)

What ever they decide to get they better get it soon.  There are now 2 Herc's fully retired on the tarmac in Trenton just this year.  I don't think we have 5-8 years to replace our aircraft.  I would not be surprised if we see a huge defence spending spree during the budget, in the 8-12 billion range, of course spread out over 4 years.


----------



## LordOsborne (5 Apr 2006)

Zoomie said:
			
		

> Sigh.. It looks like the science fiction writers at CASR/DND 101 caught another fish on their line.  It seems that anyone can publish a website today and spout ideas as if they were fact.  Russian aircraft will never be a solution for Canada's airlift needs - what guarantee will we have for parts existing in 10-30 years?  At best Russia is a faltering first world nation - we don't need those kind of problems, we have enough of our thanks...



Zoomie, I'm simply suggesting that the option deserves some consideration. I'm no expert on parts, so forgive my question: can't we just buy 30 years' worth of parts in the contract? Russia isn't all that stable a country; that's a given. However, since we have ordered vehicles from South Africa both in the past and recently, I think DND has shown that it is willing to look the other way in some cases. I realise that buying Russian is a huge leap of faith for any western nation to make, so CASR's rosy picture of the situation likely won't ever see the light of day. 

one last point i'd like to make... canada already uses the IL-76 and the An-124 regularily - does that not mean it's met our needs? 
I'll duck and cover now..


----------



## Armymatters (5 Apr 2006)

If Airbus does score this contract, with their two stage proposal, they better deliever on time. I remember what happened when the Italians sent their Hercs to EADS/Airbus for work... that contract was eventually settled with a contractual penalty against EADS, and the Italian government had to recently source additional upgrades/repairs to compensate for what Airbus/EADS did not do under the contract... Perhaps Airbus can just source the airplanes and say, partner with Spar Aerospace/L-3 or Cascade Aerospace for the Herc rebuild for the Canadian industrial offset as a sweetener for the deal, as Airbus can't give any industrial offset to Canada with the A400M.


----------



## Armymatters (5 Apr 2006)

Sorry for double posting, but according to this article, if we want C-17's, we better move within 3 months, as Boeing is starting to procure parts for the last C-17's comming off the assembly line. It mentions that Canada is going to make a decision on the C-17 in the 'near-term'. Ordering right now according to Boeing will ensure a good price. 
http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles/2006/04/04/Navigation/190/205791/Time+begins+to+run+out+to+extend+production+of+C-17.html


----------



## WannaBeFlyer (5 Apr 2006)

On my routine stop by YOW on the way home (OK I live 2 minutes away), I had a nice treat.  I saw the USAF C-130 and C-17 that were in town for the Boeing dog and pony show parked at the avitat and reception centre. Sorry all I had was the Kodak Easy Share in the beater and I had to cram them down to post them but still a nice peak at the aircrafts. 

Man that C-17 looks great with the Maple Leaf in front of it!


----------



## MarkOttawa (6 Apr 2006)

Armymatters:



> Airbus can't give any industrial offset to Canada with the A400M.



Not quite:
http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/business/story.html?id=a0af43ac-ba87-42e8-ac78-d0a20c07cb19

'Airbus woos Quebec partners: Aims to replace Hercules transports; Change in government could lead to review of aircraft purchase program

SHEILA McGOVERN, The Gazette
Published: Friday, January 20, 2006

Aerospace giant Airbus is courting local companies as potential business partners and friends as it pursues a $3-billion contract to replace the Canadian military's aging Hercules aircraft...

...Airbus also has to do some groundwork. Any company that wins the $3-billion deal would be expected to offset that purchase price through doing business with Canadian companies.

Right now, Airbus does about $300,000 of business with such Canadian companies as Bombardier and Alcan. It buys engines from Pratt & Whitney and flight simulators from CAE.

But "$3 billion is a lot of money," Sefzig said, and there is also a $1.6-billion maintenance deal at stake.

So Airbus contacted the Association quebecoise de l'aerospatiale to set up a one-day seminar and reverse trade show, where everybody from information technology companies to machine shops to major aerospace suppliers can find out what Airbus needs and figure out if they can work together...

...Airbus also hopes to be a contender for a $1.8-billion deal to rejuvenate Canada's search and rescue fleet with its CASA 295. The business Airbus does with Canadian companies doesn't have to be tied to a specific plane, but must equal the value of any deal it signs with the government. So it has come courting for partners, which it hopes will also be supportive of it efforts to land the deals in the first place...'

Mark
Ottawa


----------

