# Bidding may be bypassed in $12.2B military deals



## Pikache (11 Nov 2005)

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20051110.military11/BNStory/National/



By MICHAEL DEN TANDT

Thursday, November 10, 2005 Posted at 7:48 PM EST

Globe and Mail Update

Ottawa - On Monday key cabinet ministers will discuss plans to bypass much of the traditional competitive bidding process for a $12.2-billion purchase of 50 military aircraft -- including 15 Chinook helicopters for the mission in Afghanistan and 16 Hercules transports -- because the need for new planes is so urgent, sources say.

The proposal, driven by Chief of Defence Staff Rick Hillier, has tacit approval from Defence Minister Bill Graham and Prime Minister Paul Martin, sources say. But it is sending ripples of distress through the Canadian aerospace and defence industry, which stands to lose the biggest defence procurement contracts in a generation.

Gen. Hillier, a former commander of allied troops in Afghanistan, has mounted an intense personal lobbying effort to sell the fast-track plan to a reluctant political and policy establishment, sources say. His argument, in essence, is that the military's need for hardware is so urgent that it would be irresponsible to stick to the old decision-making process, which often took several years.

"Hillier's basically saying, we're getting this because I know what we need," said a defence department official familiar with the situation. "It's leadership. We haven't had that before."

Advertisements
click here
click here

In addition to helicopters and transports, the purchase is expected to include 15 fixed-wing search-and-rescue aircraft and four "northern utility" planes, according to defence department documents obtained by The Globe and Mail.

Department officials have not singled out a favoured rescue aircraft, but are leaning toward the C27J, made by Italian-based Alenia, defence industry sources say. Another option is Spanish-based EADS's C-295. A modified version of Montreal-based Bombardier's turboprop Dash 8 runs a distant third, sources say.

If the plan goes ahead, the first of the new aircraft would be delivered within 36 months, with the last coming into service within 60 months, the documents show. The plan is scheduled to be discussed Monday by Cabinet's powerful operations committee.

Global aerospace industry players, including Montreal-based Bombardier Inc. and Airbus, 80-per-cent owned by EADS, have mounted intense lobbying campaigns of their own to persuade the federal government that Gen. Hillier's plan is rash and will cost far more than it should because the new process is inherently non-competitive.

"It's the same thing as Gomery," said one defence industry insider. "They're saying, 'we've got to do it quickly, so we have to circumvent the process.'"

No one in the Canadian aerospace industry disagrees with the notion that the Canadian military needs new hardware as soon as possible, the insider said. "It's how [Gen. Hillier] is going about doing it. It's going to get them in trouble."

The heart of the matter, he said, is that Gen. Hillier is charismatic and persuasive, and, by virtue of his experience in Afghanistan and elsewhere, has strong ideas about what equipment he likes. As a result, he's pulled the politicians along in his wake, the source said. "He's going for the brass ring."

Although the proposed new procurement process pays lip-service to open bidding, the industry insider said, it's anything but. "They'll claim there's a competition. But the requirements have been set up so that only one aircraft will get the nod."

Senior defence department officials, while not denying this, view it differently.

It would be idiotic not to take senior officers' combat knowledge into account in making procurement decisions, they say. And traditional Canadian procurement is too bureaucratic and slow for a military heading into combat, with a dire need for airlift, and where there are already obvious solutions in the field.

The Chinook-CH47 helicopter, a department official pointed out, is in use now in Afghanistan. "If there's another helicopter that can do the job, we're happy to have it," the official said. "Bring it on." But the Chinook is the only rotary-wing aircraft that can operate "at 40 degrees, up 5,000 feet, pulling 5,000 pounds," the official said.

As for the Hercules transports, he said, the Canadian military uses an older version of the same aircraft now, which makes them easier to integrate.

The Canadian Defence Industries Association has urged the Liberal government to introduce "performance-based procurement," and that's what the government has promised and the military is proposing, the official said.

Tim Page, president of the CDIA, said that's open to interpretation. "The question is, what is a performance-based approach?"

Critics of Gen. Hillier's proposal say there may be aircraft other than the Chinook and Hercules that could do the job as well or better, though not in the precise way specified by the government's request for proposals. "Performance-based is you get yourself from home to work in X time," said one. "You're not out there deciding whether you want to drive in a Lamborghini or a Toyota Corolla."

The Canadian defence industry is adamant, Mr. Page said, that the government should take economic and regional development into account.

Bombardier's proposal to build search-and-rescue craft at its de Havilland plant in Toronto, a defence department official said, has created substantial backroom pressure on Prime Minister Paul Martin to have at least some of the new aircraft built in Canada. Ontario minister Joe Volpe has been active on the file, sources say.

But so far, he said, Mr. Martin has resisted the pressure. He has said the process must be transparent, founded on clear performance markers and open enough to allow any company an opportunity to participate, if it can. Beyond that, the message from the Prime Minister has been that "we will fulfill the commitment to get the troops the equipment they need," the official said.

Senator Colin Kenny, who heads the Senate defence committee, said the dilapidated state of the Canadian military's planes and helicopters requires urgent solutions. He said few in the military would find fault with either new Chinook helicopters or new Hercules transports. "Few people understand the extent of the rust-out," he said.


----------



## Big Foot (11 Nov 2005)

It disgusts me to see that politicians are still willing to put the lives and capabilities of Canadian soldiers on the line just so that a few of these projects can have a place in Canada. We need this stuff now, I don't think it should matter if it comes from Canada or not.


----------



## daniel h. (11 Nov 2005)

Big Foot said:
			
		

> It disgusts me to see that politicians are still willing to put the lives and capabilities of Canadian soldiers on the line just so that a few of these projects can have a place in Canada. We need this stuff now, I don't think it should matter if it comes from Canada or not.




Under the circumstances yeah....build in Canada for the long-term, now its too urgent.


----------



## Big Foot (11 Nov 2005)

I don't really see the need to build in Canada. We need to face the facts here, Canada does not have a huge aviation industry, especially in terms of a heavy lift building capability. We should really leave the building of these projects to the people who have experience and the expertise to build aircraft to the required specs. Forget Canadian industry, look at cost efficiency.


----------



## teddy49 (11 Nov 2005)

We need Chinooks.  They're only built by Boeing.  No other helicopter can do what the Chinook can as far as high altitude heavy lifting is concerned.  Except maybe the Sea Night, which is also built by Boeing.  

We need Hercules, because we already have Hercules, and there is no time to evaluate a new system and completely retrain pilots and restock the logistical system to support a new platform.  Hercules is built by Lockheed.

What's to compete?

Sounds like sour grapes coming from the Libs old cronies, cause they aren't automatically getting the work.

Just my $0.02


----------



## Big Foot (11 Nov 2005)

My thoughts exactly, teddy. As for the comments about regional development, we're a military, not a social welfare program. We should be able to buy equipment from whoever can best meet our needs, not so that we can make work somewhere in Canada. Less talk, more action. Buy from those who can give us what we need.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (11 Nov 2005)

The Lieberals have had twelve years to get the helicopter thing right. They can't, won't and don't want to. Time to move on, both procurment wise and party wise. Both are losing propositions, for the populace and the CF..


----------



## Slim (11 Nov 2005)

*Military seeks $12.2B*

Forces scramble to get funding for new airplanes and helicopters before federal election call

By STEPHANIE RUBEC, SENIOR POLITICAL REPORTER

OTTAWA -- The Canadian Forces will call on a cabinet committee Monday to approve a $12.2-billion purchase of new airplanes and choppers, according to the documents obtained by Sun Media. 

A senior military officer confirmed the details of the cabinet submission, which includes long-awaited replacements for their aging Hercules transport planes and the Buffalo search-and-rescue aircraft. 

TO WOO MINISTERS 

It also allows for the purchase of new troop transport helicopters and provides a retainer for guaranteed use of giant transport planes. 

On Monday top military officials will woo a select group of ministers who sit on the operations committee and later other ministers from the domestic affairs committee, and hope to see Chief of Defence Staff Gen. Rick Hillier personally pitch the purchase to full cabinet on Nov. 24 for final approval. 

The defence department is scrambling to push the purchase through before a federal election call. 

The defence industry is in an uproar over the package, which they say ensures all competition is eliminated and favourites are guaranteed the lucrative contracts. 

Representatives of potential bidders privately agree that the Canadian Forces has set requirements for their new fleets to favour the new C130J Hercules, the C27J Spartan and the Boeing Chinook helicopter. 

$3B FOR 16 CRAFT 

A military official said the $3-billion budget for the replacement of Canada's Hercules with 16 aircraft means only updated versions of the same planes will fit the bill. 

"What we want is the cheapest one to replace the Herc," the senior officer said, adding that only leaves the C130J to become the air force's workhorse. 

The official said the military would prefer to purchase large transport planes to save on rental costs in the long run, but understands that the Liberal government isn't prepared to pay for them.


----------



## garb811 (11 Nov 2005)

Slim said:
			
		

> *Military seeks $12.2B*
> Forces scramble to get funding for new airplanes and helicopters before federal election call



Forgive me for having EH-101 flashbacks with regards to this.  I'm afraid that if an election is forced this could become a lightening rod as an example of yet more Liberal largesse.  

All of us on this board realize the reality and necessity of this move but Joe Canadian is a sucker for a flashy campaign ad which trashes the opponent by painting "their pet projects" as pork barrelling to their cronies that were rushed through just before the election was called.  I'd like to think better of the Conservatives given their words regarding defence but with this one going to be a very, very close thing and Harper being anxious for the win, desperation may override common sense.


----------



## jmackenzie_15 (11 Nov 2005)

I love the new CDS more and more every day.
Seriously, he is the man, and seems to be immune to political pressure to say and do certain things and co-operate.
He fights very hard and sincerely for the military and its needs, and tells it like it is. I love this guy.


----------



## UberCree (11 Nov 2005)

Ditto on support for the new CDS.   
We finally have a real leader in the position.   I hope that he inspires a new generation of leaders in the CF.


----------



## larry Strong (11 Nov 2005)

We've seen regional development before....it looks like the LSVW. I say it's about time. And I hope the new CDS works out also.


----------



## The_Falcon (11 Nov 2005)

MP 00161 said:
			
		

> Forgive me for having EH-101 flashbacks with regards to this.   I'm afraid that if an election is forced this could become a lightening rod as an example of yet more Liberal largesse.
> 
> All of us on this board realize the reality and necessity of this move but Joe Canadian is a sucker for a flashy campaign ad which trashes the opponent by painting "their pet projects" as pork barrelling to their cronies that were rushed through just before the election was called.   I'd like to think better of the Conservatives given their words regarding defence but with this one going to be a very, very close thing and Harper being anxious for the win, desperation may override common sense.



I don't think this is another example of a pet project or pork barrelling, as the CDS is basically twisting the politico's arms to do his bidding.  Also the fact that CDS has slammed the door on the prospect of any Canadian company getting any of the contracts by virtue of the fact no Canadian company makes the products he wants.  The only party I can see making a big deal about this during a possible election would be the NDP.  Maybe this will be a wake up call to the Canadian Defence industry that they will actually have to make quality products that work, because those guaranteed contracts they were so used to will no longer be there for them.  If not, well they can go back to making snowmobiles and sea-doos.  The fact that all these lobbyist are running scared, makes me happy, because I take it to mean that the government will go ahead with this.


----------



## GO!!! (11 Nov 2005)

MP 00161 is right though.

The EH 101 was a "good" contract for the military too. It gave us the choppers we needed. But it was shot down for little other than the political reasons behind it's purchase. It had nothing to do with the helo or the cost. It was simply the new lion killing all of the cubs of the previous lion.

Gen. Hillier is doing what he believes is right, and what I believe is right too, by getting this equipment as fast as possible. However, he will undoubtedly get some steel in the back for it in the very near future. If this is a close election, I fear the conservatives will turn on Hillier and the military, and try to paint this as a political issue, when it is anything but.

Besides, this helo contract is also the beginning - Gen. H is already in the market for an amphibious/troop carrying ship - that should be around .5 to a billion or so, and then it will need helos too - can't wait to see what the opposition has to say about that!


----------



## DG-41 (11 Nov 2005)

This is why the upcoming election has me so worried.

I'm having major flashbacks to the the "Challenge and Commitment" white paper days, and I can TOTALLY see a new government stopping this process in its tracks. "The Liberals were going to send your tax dollars to Italy and the US instead of buying Canadian! Those horrible horrible men!"

And then it's years for the usual suspects to bid on the contracts  and yadda yadda yadda.

I love it when stuff is made in Canada; I think it adds an element of national pride when our kit is home-grown. But first and foremost the shit has to do the job. Given the choice between home-grown shitpiles and outsourced functional kit, give me the functional stuff every single time.

Any lobbiyists reading? THE STUFF HAS TO WORK! 

I had such hopes for the LSVW when it came out, and that proved to be the single biggest steaming pile of merde in recent history. The CUCV kicked its ass, and that was just a plain old 5 quad with a diesel motor in it. And I keep hearing stories that the LSVW failed all its trials and still won the contract - why? 

If missing a round at the trough leads the homegrown industry to improve quality, then I say go Hillier! I just hope that whatever government winds up at the helm agrees.

DG


----------



## Kirkhill (11 Nov 2005)

If the Conservatives are smart they can play this as the exact opposite to the Liberals.

Remind the populace of the EH-101 fiasco, lobbyists, delays (think medical delays as well) by stating that the CPC will NOT do a Jean Chretien and cancel a needed military project for political gain.   Ultimately the Liberals bought the helicopter the Conservatives ordered.   The entire deal, including the unproven CH-148 has cost about the same.   It will be 20 years late and Canadian jobs were denied because of the decision.

Agree with the purchase but not the procurement.   Accept that the equipment needs to be purchased as urgent priority.   This is because the current system with the Gagliano/Brison PWGSC and the lobbyists is broken and needs to be fixed.

Remind the populace that it was the CPC and Harper that said that the forces needed a Hybrid Troop Carrier.   That notion was derided by the Liberals during the last election both in ads and from the PM's mouth (he said they needed aircraft - strategic C-17s implied - which are not being supplied).   If the CPC had been elected last time around the CDS would be that much closer to getting the ship that was clearly needed in the first place.

Just think how many hot buttons:   Jean Chretien, Alfonso Gagliano, Delays (health), Lies, Obfuscations, Ads, Lobbyists, EH-101, Military Neglect......it's like being dealt a full house.   The only way to screw up is   to not keep a straight face.


Edit:  The delay angle and Chretien could also be tied in to the impact of delays on HMCS Chicoutimi and the submarine programme.  Because the delay was financial as much as political (populace weren't believed to be accepting of military spending at a time of government cuts) then it can be tied back to Paul Martin's budget cuts.


----------



## The_Falcon (11 Nov 2005)

While I agree with you Kirkhill that the Conservatives are being handed all the ammo they need to bring down the liberals, however Canadians (Ontario in particular) have consistently been willing to look past these blunders and vote liberal.  Although the liberals have to do is mention "Private Health Care" with regard to the conservatives and they are sunk.  I can see the NDP getting all up in arms about giving the contracts to foreign companies.  So this going to be an interesting election when it doe happen.


----------



## Kirkhill (11 Nov 2005)

Your point is taken Hatchet Man.  The marketing might be easy.  The selling will continue to be difficult.


----------



## a_majoor (11 Nov 2005)

A lot of these comments are well taken, but the biggest "selling" point for us is the simple fact there are no equivalent products on the market. What else can do the job of a Herc or a Chinook? 

The smaller airplane is something which could go to a competative bid, since there are several different planes which could do the job. Of course, Gen Hillier should simply write the bidding process to be as quick and simple as possible:

"The airplane needs X range, y payload and the ability to fly in conditions A,B and C. Whichever company can supply the most complete airframes, parts and training for $(insert price here) by date z wins. Sorry, no cost plus or overruns, and penalties for failing to comply with contract. Love, the Treasury Board of Canada"

Post this form of contract on the PWGSC website for all to see, and enforce the terms in an open and transparent fashion and we will be in the good.


----------



## GO!!! (11 Nov 2005)

I agree with majoor on the topic of the smaller plane. 

This would be a perfect item to purchase "off the shelf"

New Twin Otters would be the best, but they stopped making them in 1988.

The Dash 8 is a high maintenance beast, and better suited to extreme cold than heat.

The extremely short timeline will ensure that only the most "motivated" companies will try for it, so I expect a foreign corp to win.


----------



## Dissident (12 Nov 2005)

Whas it not the Dash-8 that was labeled a gas guzzler? Or am I thinking of another plane?


----------



## aesop081 (12 Nov 2005)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> The Dash 8 is a high maintenance beast, and better suited to extreme cold than heat.



I beg to differ.....most of the unservicabilities we had on the CT-142 while i was flying it were cold related in one way, shape or form.



			
				Dissident said:
			
		

> Whas it not the Dash-8 that was labeled a gas guzzler? Or am I thinking of another plane?



 You must be thinking of something else.   We were getting 4 hours + endurance on the CT-142 which was good considering  the fuel load of 6500 lbs.


----------



## KevinB (12 Nov 2005)

In looking at what some of the SAR tech's have stated in the AirForce threads -- I would say the C27J is their pick in a similar vein to the Hook and Herc.  IIRC it was the only craft that had what is wanted/required...

 Common Sense must overrule policy in some situations -- this is an area where it MUST be done.

The CPC had best come around and NOT use these issues as an election platfrom -- or a bunch of us will lose faith...


----------



## Kirkhill (12 Nov 2005)

> The CPC had best come around and NOT use these issues as an election platfrom -- or a bunch of us will lose faith...




Agreed


----------



## GO!!! (12 Nov 2005)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> The Dash 8 is a high maintenance beast, and better suited to extreme cold than heat.



Relatives of mine have flown Dash 8 100s and 300s in the Middle East and North Africa, and they stated that it was simply ill suited to the effects of dust and heat. They ended up returning the aircraft before the lease was up and using the EMB 120 instead.

I will defer to the knowledge of an aesop though!


----------



## aesop081 (12 Nov 2005)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> Relatives of mine have flown Dash 8 100s and 300s in the Middle East and North Africa, and they stated that it was simply ill suited to the effects of dust and heat. They ended up returning the aircraft before the lease was up and using the EMB 120 instead.
> 
> I will defer to the knowledge of an aesop though!



To amplify my coment, i was speaking only to its cold weather ability, as i observed them.  I am not in a position to comment on its hot weather performance, as i flew on  them in winter in Winnipeg.


----------



## Recce41 (12 Nov 2005)

Big Foot said:
			
		

> I don't really see the need to build in Canada. We need to face the facts here, Canada does not have a huge aviation industry, especially in terms of a heavy lift building capability. We should really leave the building of these projects to the people who have experience and the expertise to build aircraft to the required specs. Forget Canadian industry, look at cost efficiency.


 As an EX AME, Canada has a great aviation industry, Most people that work for Boeing are Canadians. People like you destoryed our own. IE The Bobcat APC, Arrow, etc. We have lots of companies that can build better. It is that we don't invest in them. We dick around, and complain about how must it will cost. 
 If the goverment would just get off its a55 and invest in Canada it would be great.


----------



## Kirkhill (12 Nov 2005)

I don't necessarily disagree with you recce41.  The issue is though that most countries maintain a steady stream of purchasing allowing industries to operate efficiently, not on the feast or famine principle.

Canada's policy of buying a fleet every 20 years or so is not conducive to good business planning nor to maintaining competence in design and manufacturing.   Don't blame Big Foot for not wanting to buy overpriced equipment from non-existent or incompetent suppliers. Blame the government for not establishing conditions for competent suppliers to exist.


----------



## GO!!! (12 Nov 2005)

It is not the government's job to sustain industry. 

It is the government's job to represent us, the taxpayer, by purchasing the best equipment at the lowest price.

If industry cannot generate enough business to sustain itself without government contracts, it is not an industry that should be getting much attention from my elected officials, IMHO.

The aforementioned Avro Arrow, the LSVW, the Iltis, and the Bobcat APC are all examples of terrible projects and acquisitions that should have been scrapped the minute they failed the requirement tests or ran a day over on the timeline.

Military contracts are extemely lucrative, and if our industry cannot provide working demo vehicles, or build them in a timely manner, we should look elsewhere. 

*My life depends on the kit we buy.* When we lose focus of the objective; of cost - effective, functional, timely gear, and start looking at defence contracts as a "create work" projects for unproductive industries, and political payoff, then we are already setting ourselves up for failure.

Many industries (oil,lumber,gold for example) are able to effectively produce for the marketplaces' demands even with the wild fluctuations of that commodity. If the defence industry cannot adapt, it should perish.


----------



## KevinB (12 Nov 2005)

Well somewhere between GO!!! and Recce41 is a medium.

 While I agree in principle with GO!!! - however some items we as Canadians MUST maintain a manufacturing ability.

Specifically:  Small Arms (minimum) and Ammunition for all weapons systems.

 The above fields we must bite the bullet and accept that we need that capability and hopefully we have enough of a demand that it keeps the field competitive and we don't pay (like we do now) thru the nose.

 If one can work into specialized niches and take advantages of economies of scale with our allies when can ensure in other areas that we at least have some items that we can barter to ensure we are supplied in the event of a crisis of national interest.

99.9% we will best be suited to tagging on to US .mil orders - hopefully often enough that they will cross pollenate the border in trade quid pro quo.


----------



## Recce41 (12 Nov 2005)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> It is not the government's job to sustain industry.
> 
> It is the government's job to represent us, the taxpayer, by purchasing the best equipment at the lowest price.
> 
> ...


,

 The Arrow, Bobcat were before their time projects. Take a look at the Delta Dart/Dagger, they look the same as the Arrow, The 113/114 are close to the Bobcat. Yes the Iltis, but its designed for Europe, not 4X4 acroos the Matawa, or Lawfield. The LSVW, well its also a Good Europan veh produced bad.
 We produced very good vehs, Cougar, Coyote, LAV. Canadians designed the RAM, the baby brother of the Sherman. My father fought for 4 months in it before going to the Sherman.
 We as Canadians can have to support our own. Yes if I have to pay more for a better veh built in Canada I would. I find only the US and Euope support their own, we just complain and screaw ours.


----------



## GO!!! (12 Nov 2005)

The Avro Arrow was a money pit that never even came close to flying until the plug was pulled on their project. That provided them the "motivation" to stop milking the feds for all they were worth and actually make something work.

Avro failed in the production of the Arrow because they were supposed to be producing aircraft, and instead produced research about producing aircraft. The project deserved to die.

The new F22 Raptor also has some conceptual similaries to the Arrow.

I submit that if the Iltis and LSVW were such great pieces of kit, we would not be the only ones operating them in the present capacity. The germans and italians both "traded up" on theirs once these vehicles many deficiencies became apparent.

Finally, "we" did produce the LAV and AVGP families here in canada. But last time I checked, General Dynamics is a US company, and most of the profit returns to them, and most of the components are from the US. So are they really a "canadian" solution?

IMHO, purchases like the MILCOTS and the LUVW are a step in the right direction. *Buy a proven product with 20 years of performance behind it, and a long warranty*, not some half a$$ed, experimental, make work project like the LSVW or the Iltis. 

The new MGS cannot even be fired if the turret is turned more than 15degrees off of the hull. One more great idea...


----------



## Kirkhill (12 Nov 2005)

As Kevin says, somewhere between here and there is a medium.

Armaments have always been a particular problem, if only because if you want an edge over a competing country/nation/state/government then you are more likely to want to keep that under wraps and not put it onto the open market for the highest bidder.  That is one of the reasons why armaments industries have often been state enterprises and thus local monopolies rather than market economy enterprises.

Now when a technology is broadly available on the market there is little need to support a monopoly.  Having said that most of the companies now amalgamating under BAE or Lockheed-Martin or EADS or General Dynamics started out as state-owned enterprises or at very least single customer suppliers.  The way they stayed in business was their governments kept them in business by a combination of direct subsidy and a steady stream of contracts, not to mention transferring government man-hours to assist in everything from research and development, distribution and even sales.

Canada has never put that kind of concerted effort behind its defence industries.  They weren't designed primarily to supply Canadian forces with equipment.  They were designed to sell equipment to British and US forces during the Second World War.


----------



## The_Falcon (12 Nov 2005)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> Finally, "we" did produce the LAV and AVGP families here in canada. But last time I checked, General Dynamics is a US company, and most of the profit returns to them, and most of the components are from the US. So are they really a "canadian" solution?



Also they are based off the MOWAG PIRANHA design which is from Switzerland.


----------



## DG-41 (12 Nov 2005)

While I'm very much in favour of buying Canadian, it seems to me like our "buy Canadian" policy has encouraged shoddy engineering and vehicles (in particular) that don't meet the required specs.

Performance should come first. If a Canadian firm can meet the performance target, so much the better. But performance first!

I don't know why so many people are so down on the Iltis though. It's a great little vehicle.

DG


----------



## GO!!! (12 Nov 2005)

DG-41 said:
			
		

> I don't know why so many people are so down on the Iltis though. It's a great little vehicle.
> 
> DG



Just one too many times crawling around under the thing, burning my hand on the exhaust trying to tap the fuel pump with a leatheman I guess.

If you really like them, Michener Allen is auctioning them off these days.. http://www.michenerallen.com/Automotive.htm


----------



## daniel h. (12 Nov 2005)

Big Foot said:
			
		

> I don't really see the need to build in Canada. We need to face the facts here, Canada does not have a huge aviation industry, especially in terms of a heavy lift building capability. We should really leave the building of these projects to the people who have experience and the expertise to build aircraft to the required specs. Forget Canadian industry, look at cost efficiency.




This is patently false. Canada has the 3RD largest aviation industry in the world. It is true that Bombardier owns the government so much it can pretty well build the planes anywhere it wants, but the company is headquartered in Canada, and is the 3rd largest aerospace company in the world...like BAE Systems in the UK, it is partially made up of former crown corporations.

You are right we don't make big planes, and I agree we should buy the Lockheeds and the Alenias but only because it woudl not be worth designing an aircraft from scratch to simply meet our current needs, which are minimal....also we need them quickly.


----------



## daniel h. (12 Nov 2005)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> It is not the government's job to sustain industry.
> 
> It is the government's job to represent us, the taxpayer, by purchasing the best equipment at the lowest price.
> 
> ...




I dsiagree that it is not the government's job to sustain industry. The U.S. protects its shipbuilding industry and buys only American planes.

I think the government should not subsidize everything, but some things can be publicly run and run even at a loss. This would allow us to maintain jobs and a manufacturing capacity.

There is no point in having a private aerospace company in a country of only 30 million, as without guaranteed orders it will perish, so if the government has to guarantee the orders, the public might as well own the company.

The U.S. government as I mentioned subsidized their defence industry, as much as any communist dictatorship or even more. Sweden, Brazil, Russia, France, almost all countries do. They have to.

We had the 4th largest industrial economy in 1945 when the government was intervening more in the economy during the war...now we are number 15 and dropping. I do however think our business class is lazy and pathetic.


----------



## daniel h. (12 Nov 2005)

KevinB said:
			
		

> Well somewhere between GO!!! and Recce41 is a medium.
> 
> While I agree in principle with GO!!! - however some items we as Canadians MUST maintain a manufacturing ability.
> 
> ...




Canada will never be a great country if it relies 99.9% of U.S. goods. Even in W.W.II we relied less than that on U.S. and British goods. CP built a tank, and many of our ships were Canadian designed and almost all were Canadian built except for some destroyers. As for planes, they were not all Canadian obviously but were at least built in Canada. Why should we go backwards? Right now I agree with you, but 20 years from now who knows where we could go....


----------



## Infanteer (12 Nov 2005)

daniel h. said:
			
		

> Maybe the buyWe had the 4th largest industrial economy in 1945 when the government was intervening more in the economy during the war...now we are number 15 and dropping. I do however think our business class is lazy and pathetic.



I hate it when people use 1945 stats to justify how shitty things are now - remember, in 1945 most of the world's industry was flattened due to being a FIBUA site.   Building a boat or a plane today is not like building a Corvette or a Spitfire in 1945.

Anyways, I don't see these issues as being connected.  The Military's job is to protect Canadian soveriegnty and interests.  It does this by taking the best people and the best tools that it can find.  It's job isn't to prop up Canadian Industry.  If you're concerned about a Defence Industry, bug Industry Canada....


----------



## Acorn (13 Nov 2005)

daniel h. said:
			
		

> Canada will never be a great country if it relies 99.9% of U.S. goods. Even in W.W.II we relied less than that on U.S. and British goods. CP built a tank, and many of our ships were Canadian designed and almost all were Canadian built except for some destroyers. As for planes, they were not all Canadian obviously but were at least built in Canada. Why should we go backwards? Right now I agree with you, but 20 years from now who knows where we could go....



None of our warships were Canadian designed in WWII. Today's aviation industry comprises Bombardier and several companies that do electronics/avionics etc. not exactly robust, and Bombardier isn't in the biz of producing tactical military airfames - rotary or fixed wing.

If you want to *build* Canada's military industry you'll need a substantial infusion of cash and a *plan*. One can't sustain an aviation industry or a shipbuilding industry through a one-time bulk purchase and then nothing for 20+ years.

And I couldn't agree more strongly with Kevin - we need a small-arms and ammo industry. Not just small arms ammo either.

Acorn


----------



## Guest (13 Nov 2005)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> The new MGS cannot even be fired if the turret is turned more than 15degrees off of the hull. One more great idea...



I'm a lurker, however I had to poke my head up on this one.

You are DEAD wrong on this statement. 

The MGS can fire it's main gun while moving, over the COMPLETE 360 deg traverse. 

Do you SERIOUSLY think we would build something that couldn't?!?.. wow.. 

If you did a little bit of digging, you'd even find public domain videos showing the MGS using it's gun at 20, 45 and even 90 deg. WHILE MOVING!

I respect alot of you guys, I agree withalot of your opinions.

On the subject of the MGS however, most of you.. have no experience working with the prodiuction protos.. so I'm at a loss how you all became "experts"

I assume it is because of a few heavily biased reports release a few years back by the M8 camp <can you say political interests?!?>

There is NOTHING wrong with the autoloader, nor is gun stability an issue.
Recoil issues have been resolved from early tests. (MGS parts do NOT go flying off, ect..)

No, it's not a tank.. it's not supposed to be.. but it's more than an "Assault Gun"..It will be interesting to see how ther CF deploys it.

MGS works.. and works well. (aside form a small ammo load, IMHO)

Here's a link to DND's vid:

http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/lf/Video/2_0/MGS.mpg

I have a couple mre that have some good shots at 90 deg. I'll have to upload.

You certainly have no reason to listen to what I say.. I'nm not claiming to be anything, just some guy.

Consider what I've said though.. Just like I know nothing about the infantry, how many of you could HONESTLY say you know what the MGS can, or cannot do?

I'd appreciate it, when in due time most of sceptics will be big enough to admit they're wrong when she rolls out.


----------



## Infanteer (13 Nov 2005)

Guest said:
			
		

> but it's more than an "Assault Gun"



If it's "more than an assault gun", than what is it?


----------



## Expat (13 Nov 2005)

Can't Canada just licence the tech and build their own stuff. Oh wait that ended with Avro along time ago. 

I don't see why Canada has never considered purchasing Russian technology.  South Korea also has some nifty stuff like the upcoming T50 trainer. I think the military should start thinking out of the box. Looking for alternatives seems like a good idea to me.


----------



## KevinB (13 Nov 2005)

You want an Army/Navy/AF that has parts and training comonality with allies.

 If you need me to explain why - then you should not be posting here - but doing more reading/listening.


Re: MGS
 From my understanding (as it was explained to us by the MGS people)

1) With the Muzzle brake - it can fire thru 360 - BUT is dangerous to dismounted troops within a large arc (+90 L and R) with it attached - so VERY hard to use as an Infantry close support system to make breaches etc.

2) W/O it cannot fire outside of arcs GO!!! listed 

If the above is incorrect - then the publicists for MGS should correct the info they are giving out to the troops.  BUT till that happens, I will trust the data from them as opposed to that off a annonymous internet user named "GUEST"


----------



## GO!!! (13 Nov 2005)

MGS-specific criticisms
The C-130 cannot carry the heavier Mobile Gun System at all, thus totally failing the "Key Performance Factor" above. 
Instead of using a low pressure gun like the M8 (or the Russian 2S25), the Stryker MGS uses the M60's 105mm M68A1 cannon. This gun has far too much recoil for the Stryker's weight class. 
Thus, they added a muzzle brake. Muzzle brakes reduce recoil at the cost of extra blast and noise. The noise level in tests approached 200dB. It is estimated that means a soldier cannot safely approach within 450m of a firing Stryker MGS. The blast debris was also extensive, forcing the crew to fight in the buttoned-up position. 
Even with the muzzle brake, the recoil still damages the MGS' more delicate internals, such as night vision electronics, the lights, instrumentation and helmets worn by test dummies. Without the muzzle brake, the recoil mechanism is destroyed. 
Unlike the M8 autoloader, the MGS autoloader apparently cannot reliably select the right type of round. It also has a carousel with half the capacity, reducing its battle endurance. 
Only 2-axles on a Stryker are equipped with run-flat tires. The MGS is too heavy to be supported on 2 axles. 
No winch means no self-recovery 
Various other ergonomic and survivability flaws. 
[edit]
Updates
According to a Washington Post article, the Stryker vehicle has some serious faults; e.g. the insufficient ability to carry additional armor for protection against rocket-propelled grenades. The 5,000 pounds armor that was added caused problems with the automatic tire pressure system, causing crews to check tire pressure three times a day. Other problems include:

As designed, the weapon system does not shoot accurately  when the Stryker is moving. 
Troops cannot fasten their seat belts when they are wearing bulky body armor. This contributed to the death of one soldier when his Stryker vehicle rolled over. This problem was fixed by the time the CALL report was published and six months prior to the Washington Post article. 
Computer systems for communications, intelligence and other systems have malfunctioned in the desert heat due to air conditioning problems. 
Washington Post Article http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A14284-2005Mar30.html
POGO article http://www.pogo.org/p/defense/da-050304-stryker.html

I found this in a five minute serach on google.

I can't source the origional statement, but I remember footage of an MGS firing with the turret 90 degrees to the hull, and rolling over. I assume that this was without the muzzle brake.

Many of the complaints in the articles are stryker and not MGS specific, but I question the use of such a vehicle especially one that a soldier cannot stand within 450m of when the main gun is being fired.

As for your dismissal of the small ammunition capacity of the MGS, I would consider this to be a serious flaw. The vehicles high speed, yet only having 400 rounds of .50 cal and 18 rounds  of 105mm is hardly compensated for with 3400 rounds of 7.62. That tells me that you have a vehicle that can outrun it's supply, quickly run out of ammunition, have it's tires flattened by small arms fire and be finished off with an RPG 6 or 7 while trying to defend itself with a co-ax c6. Why are we better off without the Leo again?

(Edited for clarity and spelling)


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (13 Nov 2005)

Guest said:
			
		

> No, it's not a tank.. it's not supposed to be.. but it's more than an "Assault Gun"..It will be interesting to see how ther CF deploys it.
> 
> MGS works.. and works well. (aside form a small ammo load, IMHO)
> 
> ...



Well, it WILL be interesting to see how the CF employs it when it was purchased before any doctrine was developed against a "situated estimate" SOR.   Frankly, there is LOTS wrong with the MGS, particularly when you examine it in the context of the "system of systems" load of BS being hoisted on the Armour Corps at the moment - yes, that means I think MMEV is a bad joke.

Since you claim to be in the know, "Guest", can the MGS actually be lifted over any usable distance (ie: more than 100km) by a CC-130 (the ones we have), since this is the reason most often cited for the MGS purchase in the first place?   Have they come up with a mechanism for clearing stoppages on the coax without the crew commander getting his head shot off?   Do you have a link/source to back up your claim that the autoloader problems have been resolved?   How were the over pressure problems resolved (since this is what caused bits to fly off of the vehicle)?   What's the plan for uparmour to increase the vehicle's dismal protection (please don't tell me the "birdcage" stuff)?

It have been stated loud and clear that black hats are not to question the MGS purchase - the brain trust knows best - but I can't help myself.   Most of all, I can't help but recall a mid-nineties study that compared an MGS-like vehicle with our current "clapped out" old Leopards.   The MGS lost out on all counts.   If I can find the study, I'll post it later this week.

If I (as a naysayer) am wrong - great - I'll STFU.   However, Kevin makes an excellent point - the project's supporter need to make a real effort to reassure the guys on the ground that this is the way to go and to provide the "real" data to back it up.   Over to you.



> I don't see why Canada has never considered purchasing Russian technology.



Because, by and large, the Russians build unsupportable junk suitable for Third World armies - which is why it's so cheap.   We do, though license and build a great deal of our own stuff - which is part of the problem.   Equipment is often selected more for its ability to be produced in a politically sensitive riding than for its operational utility and effectiveness.


----------



## Infanteer (13 Nov 2005)

What is the status of the MGS now - did we actually buy them?

http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/caj/documents/vol_06/iss_3/CAJ_vol6.3_08_e.pdf

I thought this article made a good case for NOT buying the MGS and opting for a 120mm instead.  Tactically, fiscally, doctrinally - it seemed like a better deal.  I guess, since it is a couple years old, that nobody listened to it....


----------



## George Wallace (13 Nov 2005)

Guest said:
			
		

> On the subject of the MGS however, most of you.. have no experience working with the prodiuction protos.. so I'm at a loss how you all became "experts"
> 
> I assume it is because of a few heavily biased reports release a few years back by the M8 camp <can you say political interests?!?>
> 
> ...



Have you any Armour or even Army experience to make the statements you have about the MGS, or are you just going off PR material from some Commercial Enterprise?

Although I have not worked with or on a MGS, I very experienced in the Armour Corps.  I know the Regimental Gunnery Warrant Officer who took three Troopers from my Regiment down to do the Trials on the MGS.  They FAILED it.  I will take the word of a Senior Gunnery SME in the Armour Corps over the word of a GM or General Dynamics Salesperson any day.  

We have listed the major faults of the MGS in other threads including the small Ammo Load.  We also stated what was our major concern with the Autoloader.  Even if it works properly, no breakdowns, it is still too slow in switching from one type of Ammo to another, for a Cbt Vehicle.  If you will search out our discusions on the MGS, you will find that there are some serious problems with the vehicle and its' design.

We would appreciate it, when in due time most of Proponents of the MGS will be big enough to admit they're wrong when she rolls out.


----------



## Gobsmacked (13 Nov 2005)

teddy49 said:
			
		

> We need Hercules, because we already have Hercules, and there is no time to evaluate a new system and completely retrain pilots and restock the logistical system to support a new platform.  Hercules is built by Lockheed.
> What's to compete?
> 
> Sounds like sour grapes coming from the Libs old cronies, cause they aren't automatically getting the work.
> ...



Well I'll give you my (inflation-adjusted) $0.01

An important point also ballyhooded about in other threads - *the 'much touted' C-130J vs C-130E/H Commonality - THIS SIMPLY DOES NOT EXIST.*
 :rofl:
This is a fallacy which LMC in their Kanata Ont office - that I'm betting is in the riding of a Liberal Cabinet Minister? - is happy to keep floating about.    >
Even the AF noted (officials intimately involved with FSA management), when the FSA program was actually still running before Political Cancellation, that *the 'Only Reason the C-130J was being considered was due to Extreme Political Pressure* as it was Not Suitalble to the FSA requirement for Outsize/Oversize Strategic airlift' - which is what Canada needs to get its troops/equipment anywhere (always overseas).    :argument:

As noted by Senior USAF Officers, including a former Commander of AMC, _"*the C-130J is basically a 70% - 80%* _(two similar quotes)_ *New airplane*"_.  This has also been acknowledged in CAF reports that are available by ATI.  Other than basic airframe parts, the main up-front cost savings available from the C-130J - vs A400M or C-17 or BC-17X - is that the same hangers can be utilized without modification or new construction being required.    :tsktsk:


----------



## Guest (13 Nov 2005)

Go!!, and the others...

Those reports you mentioned  are very biased, not to mention the Washington post article is using claims made from as far back as 2003, and do not reflect the MGS in it's current form.

On the topic of RPG.. optional add-on kit will be RPG7 resistant (I'm not talking about slat, either)

Of course there have been/ are issues..

What weapons system doesn't have development hangups.

Again, I will say.. the autoloader in it's current stage of development, has none of the problems that have been mentioned..
Breech jams are not a major occurrence, nor is ammo selection a problem.

Final design has been approved and Curtiss-Wright has the contract.

There are currently NO gun stabilization problems.. NONE.. she can hit whatever target she wants, at any angle of traverse, in motion.

I cannot comment on how long it takes to switch loadouts as I have no knowledge in that area.

coax reloading.. well I agree that is a problem


There will be no issues regarding either over-pressure or recoil effects. (That seriously impede mission performance)

There IS a small increase in recoil and over-pressure effects.. she's not a 70 ton MBT, but it is manageable.

Anything statements relating to overall platform stability don't hold any water. She has a lower CG compared to the LAV III (Look at the 2 side by side)

KevB< I don't think you want to be 5 yards from a LEO's frontal gun arc either.. 
(I have to wonder about this 90 deg thing tho.. I've never heard it)

Bottom line: MGS can acquire, track and engage without tipping over, killing CF infantry with concussive over-pressure nor making it's crew deaf or shake itself to pieces.

My only real point is criticise the CF concept of the DFS troop, of not replacing LEOS with other tanks, of the high-tech money pit known as the MMEV (betcha it'll make good coffee too).

But why not wait for the production version to appear before you guys talk about what a POS it is.


----------



## George Wallace (13 Nov 2005)

Guest said:
			
		

> Again, I will say.. the autoloader in it's current stage of development, has none of the problems that have been mentioned..
> Breech jams are not a major occurrence, nor is ammo selection a problem.


I am curious how long it takes to cycle through the Carousel, and change ammo in an Engagement, say from Sabot to Hesh?   It was a problem before.   From what you imply, it is no longer a rather time consuming process anymore.   A matter that a crew would have a great deal of concern with, in Combat.

And the problem of the Commanders Fields of View?  I know....a silly question.  He doesn't have 360 and never will (safely).

Crew fatique in prolonged operations?  They won't be scooting down to the Mall, they will have to go into Hides and pull Sentry and Radio Watches, as well as do Maint.  Less hands make more work.

We are all waiting with Baited breath.


----------



## Cloud Cover (13 Nov 2005)

Guest said:
			
		

> Go!!, and the others...
> 
> Those reports you mentioned   are very biased, not to mention the Washington post article is using claims made from as far back as 2003, and do not reflect the MGS in it's current form.



Fair enough, but 2003 is not that long ago.



> What weapons system doesn't have development hangups.



You just made the point of several others here- why develop a new system for our tiny army when there are other systems out there that are modern, developed, less expensive and, this is the big one- trusted by the troops that have them   



> Breech jams are not a major  occurrence, nor is ammo selection a problem.



So I take it the jams still occur? Did you mean to say they are not a major occurence under controlled test conditions?



> There are currently NO gun stabilization problems.. NONE.. she can hit whatever target she wants, at any angle of traverse, in motion.



After nearly 85 years of tank development, thats a relief. 



> coax reloading.. well I agree that is a problem



Thats a huge problem if you're the guy that has to reload the thng. 



> There will be no issues regarding either over-pressure or recoil effects. (That seriously impede mission performance)



Not even close to good enough. 




> she's not a 70 ton MBT, but it is manageable.


Need more be said?



> Bottom line: MGS can acquire, track and engage without tipping over, killing CF infantry with concussive over-pressure nor making it's crew deaf or shake itself to pieces.



Certain restrictions apply. See dealer for details. 



> But why not wait for the production version to appear before you guys talk about what a POS it is.



Well, as has been pointed earlier, that is the standard order given to the armour types about this machine - I guess they are all supposed to STFU and die.


----------



## Andyd513 (13 Nov 2005)

> Representatives of potential bidders privately agree that the Canadian Forces has set requirements for their new fleets to favour the new C130J Hercules, the C27J Spartan and the Boeing Chinook helicopter.



Perhaps we're in a potential combat situation in harsh terrain and "potential bidders" have nothing that performs to the standards that we need. Christ, they want us to lower our standards so they can make bids and we won't be able to use their equipment in the place thats causing us to buy this equipment... anyone else think this is backwards thinking?


----------



## Recce41 (13 Nov 2005)

For one I think the MGS is good for what it is designed for. Only 2 run flats, you can change the damn tyres. As for the M60 cannon, just because it's the same does not mean its the same. IE recoil can be changed, by a different round. 
The iltis was a good vehicle for it's time, the Germans changed because it was getting old. 
As I said the Arrow was a great aircraft, yes a cost over run, but that was not the fault of AVRO. It was the fault of constent changes. All NEW things do cost more to design. 
As for ships, we designed many that were in WW1 and 2. Many of you are buy what ever. Why? just because it's biult in the US does not mean its good. The HUMMV is the most maintance painful veh. The M1 is the biggest pain for any crew, The Bradley failed but was bought.
 I could go on. 
 We have to support our own. We have many good engineers that can design anything, ONLY IF WE STOP DICKING AROUND. If DND went to a company and told them to design and biuld it. They would, if not they don't get payed. DND/CF is going that way, now any civie company fails, they don't get payed. 
 BUY CANADIAN< SUPPORT OUR OWN!


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (13 Nov 2005)

Guest said:
			
		

> There are currently NO gun stabilization problems.. NONE.. she can hit whatever target she wants, at any angle of traverse, in motion.



What's the engagement time, then?  The platform rock has to be absolutely brutal...



> coax reloading.. well I agree that is a problem



Exactly.  And I'm not going to be happy leaping out of the vehicle to try and clear stoppages.  Coax is a major weapons choice in the enviornment we're talking about...especially with the tiny number of main gun rounds. 



> There IS a small increase in recoil and over-pressure effects.. she's not a 70 ton MBT, but it is manageable.



Ever been in a Cougar?  The platform rock from a 76mm main gun was ridiculous.  Why should we assume that it is any better using a 105mm high pressure gun, despite a heavier vehicle and a lower CG...?  Yes, I've seen the video.



> But why not wait for the production version to appear before you guys talk about what a POS it is.



Because, as we have said, there are far too many unanswered questions.  I did note that my major point regarding CC-130 tranportability - THE major raison d'etre for this rather dubious concept - hasn't been answered yet...


----------



## Infanteer (13 Nov 2005)

Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> Exactly.   And I'm not going to be happy leaping out of the vehicle to try and clear stoppages.   Coax is a major weapons choice in the enviornment we're talking about...especially with the tiny number of main gun rounds.



From what I've read, it seems that mounted coax weapons were one of the biggest killers in OIF - for example, Bing West's The March Up constantly reffered to Infantryman being unneeded as the armour had killed attackers with 7.62mm/.50 cal weapons mounted on the M1.


----------



## KevinB (13 Nov 2005)

Gobsmacked-
  The Airframe is still similar - longer, different avionics, different engines -- but we can jump out of them the same way.
I dont see the J's as a C17 side step -- we still need new Hercs or a least a new tactical A/C -- we will not get enough C17's (if we get them) to do anything more than Strategic theatre ressupply - or national level of impotance "tactical" usage.

 Guest.  
   Anything with a muzzle brake is nasty - heck a C8CQB with a brake as opposed to flash hider or (better yet) a [noise/flash] suppressor (silencer for the laymen) is awful -- try the .50 with the brake as opposed to suppresor...
L5 Pack How - M109 -- all equally awful to be around.
 IF the MGS has a muzzle brake - it may make platform rock and other issues more accpetable -- but it will make its effectiveness with dismoutned troops NILL.  I have been around Leopard fire while being a crunchie - bad but not ruin your whole F*(&ing day bad.

I have ZERO armoured experience so I will let the Armoured guys argue the fighting and dyign the vehicle stuff -- I'm just saying it ain't something I'd want making a breach of firing in support of me -- and you cant fight in a city behind the 2nd road wheel...


----------



## GrimRX (14 Nov 2005)

KevinB said:
			
		

> Gobsmacked-
> The Airframe is still similar - longer, different avionics, different engines -- but we can jump out of them the same way.
> I dont see the J's as a C17 side step -- we still need new Hercs or a least a new tactical A/C -- we will not get enough C17's (if we get them) to do anything more than Strategic theatre ressupply - or national level of impotance "tactical" usage.
> 
> ...



what IS a muzzle break anyways?


----------



## KevinB (14 Nov 2005)

A muzzle brake/break is designed to vent expanding gasses back towards the shooter/weapon platform in order to minimise the recoil - keeping the muzzle steadier - in small arms this allows for faster follow up shots - with the acceptance of a large weapon signature (noise, flash and dust)

Here is an example - Wes Grant of MSTN designed for 3 gun shooters (who are NOT tactically oreintated) hwere quick follow up shots are desired and they are not worried about weapon signature issues.








 In larger weapons it saves on wear and tear (hence the puny L5 Pack How) which could be jumped (somewhat effectively) and manhandled into postions.  




Firing one was always a pleasure if you where new and no one told you to turn around and step back - hat/ear defenders and whatever went flying...


end result they direct gases BACK toward the friendlies...


----------



## Dissident (14 Nov 2005)

re edit: Someone knows better.


----------



## ghazise (14 Nov 2005)

The purpose of a Muzzle break is not to minimize (counteract) recoil, because the amount of Force acted on the Gun during expansion of gases onto the projectie while inside the guntube (closed system), is negliable to the amount of Force acted onto the gun during the moment when the projectile leaves the muzzle (open system), therefore the amount of force acting on to the gun to account for recoil at the moment of projection is minimal because it is an open system, the expanding gases are no longer acting onto the projectile, 

The purpose of the muzzle break is to (1) direct/vent the gases opposite and equally to the horizontal of the muzzle for add to tube stability, not to reduce recoil (2) tactical concealment.


----------



## JasonH (14 Nov 2005)

New Herc plane passes pilot's test
By STEPHANIE RUBEC, PARLIAMENTARY BUREAU

A veteran Canadian Forces pilot flying for the U.S. Marine Corps on an exchange program yesterday mounted a heated defence of the newly designed Hercules transport plane on the Defence Department's wish list. 

Capt. Steve Lamarche slammed defence industry insiders who've labelled the Hercules C-130J a lemon and he dismissed two Pentagon reports that have labelled it "unfit" for service. 

Lamarche has spent 500 hours flying the new C-130Js with the Marine Corps in North Carolina. 

VETERAN FLYER 

He's clocked another 4,500 hours flying Canada's older Hercules models during his 16 years in the Canadian Forces, first as a navigator and since 1998 as a pilot. 


"I truly enjoy the new aircraft for its reliability and technological advantages over the older aircraft I used to fly back home," said Lamarche. "The aircraft has performed extremely well in all conditions." 

Today, the Canadian military will ask ministers who sit on a special cabinet committee to approve the purchase of $12.2 billion in aircraft, including a new search and rescue fixed-wing plane, troop-transport helicopters and replacements for Canada's 32 Hercules. 

Military brass and defence industry insiders think only the new C-130J will meet the requirements of a new transport plane fleet because of budget constraints. 

A Pentagon report published last year found the aircraft was "unfit for duty" -- unable to drop heavy equipment, operate well in cold weather or perform combat search-and-rescue missions. 

Lamarche said the C-130J did perform those kinds of missions.


----------



## Acorn (15 Nov 2005)

Recce41 said:
			
		

> As for ships, we designed many that were in WW1 and 2. Many of you are buy what ever. Why? just because it's biult in the US does not mean its good.


We designed NO warships used by the RCN (or any other navy) in WWI or WWII. We may have designed a merchie or two, and there were a few gate vessles and minor patrol vessles used by the RCNR that were basically civvy craft pressed into service.

Canada BUILT quite a few British-designed Flower-class corvettes and other hulls up to destroyer. All those built in Canada were British designed.

*After* the war Canada designed and built warships (the Restigouche class for example) and after the late sixties (when the last of the WWII Tribals and the Bonnie were retired) never employed surface warships that weren't designed and built in Canada.


----------

