# Announcements & Decisions on Tactical & Stratigic Airlift (Fall 2005 and 2006)



## 404SqnAVSTeach (15 Nov 2005)

> 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.
> 
> ...



http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2005/11/11/1302614-sun.html


----------



## Jarnhamar (15 Nov 2005)

I can see it now

Hours before that no confidence vote the liberals "somehow" come up with the money that was lost somewhere and purchase these suckers, thus gaining the favor of CF personal everywhere!

*cheers*

Hey but where did that money come from?
Quiet you!


----------



## The Gues-|- (15 Nov 2005)

If only somehow we could get every Canadian Forces personell to vote Conservative!   ;D


----------



## Baloo (15 Nov 2005)

The Gues-|- said:
			
		

> If only somehow we could get every Canadian Forces personell to vote Conservative!   ;D



And that would win us...what, exactly? The margin the Tories are losing by is not measured in the "tens of thousands."


----------



## karl28 (15 Nov 2005)

It would be awesome to see the new equipment .  I just have doubts about how sincere th government is about this. Just sounds like the  Lib trying to buy votes for the up coming election but that is just my two cents worth


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (15 Nov 2005)

> And that would win us...what, exactly?



Postings to Goose Bay??     (see the Army.ca editorial)


----------



## geo (15 Nov 2005)

Call me jaded but I don't trust any politician right now.
Libs are a known quantity that, recently, have provided some relief for the forces.
I have no faith in the NDP or the Bloc.
When I think about the PCs..... I think about their defence critic, that much touted retired General... who has been giving the CF grief about such things as grenades and the like... I think about Mr Harper..... and 
I just walk away while shaking my head 

Why is it  I get this feeling that we're about to get screwed (again)?


----------



## bossi (15 Nov 2005)

geo said:
			
		

> ... Why is it   I get this feeling that we're about to get screwed (again)?



BOHICA, geo.



> *Feds delay buying military aircraft
> Cabinet retreats in face of industry outcry*
> Nov. 15, 2005. 05:53 PM
> CANADIAN PRESS
> ...


----------



## geo (15 Nov 2005)

well................. And so the circus starts!!

Local manufacturers want to have a crack at the projects but don't necessarily have the expertise or an actual product they can propose or deliver.

The CDS & the current Gov't were ready to obtain and deliver something we want and need right this instant....  and it's being put on the back burner.......... Cheez!!!


----------



## FSTO (16 Nov 2005)

geo said:
			
		

> well................. And so the circus starts!!
> 
> Local manufacturers want to have a crack at the projects but don't necessarily have the expertise or an actual product they can propose or deliver.
> 
> The CDS & the current Gov't were ready to obtain and deliver something we want and need right this instant....   and it's being put on the back burner.......... Cheez!!!



And you honestly believed that this was going to make it through? After 20 years in the mob I knew this would happen.


----------



## Cloud Cover (16 Nov 2005)

There are some bad optics with this plan in that it appears that it was literally thrown together by the CAS and the CDS and they may have come off a little too strongly. I'm surprised, and pleased, that Graham stood by them (if that report is accurate).  

The biggest problem I have with saying "no" is that there is no useful "made in Canada" alternative. I think this sort of reaction can be expected from Canadian shipbuilders to the purchase of a foreign built BHS as well.   

A strong prime minister needs to step up to the plate and lead on these issues -make the tough decisions and do the right thing. Unfortunately, there is no such thing on the horizon. 

I think yesterday was a pretty good indicator of the magnitude of the job that lies before Hillier and Graham. I hate to say it, but the only way to get this resolved will be a liberla majority government, because no other party has a chance in hell of governing.

Cheers.


----------



## Baloo (16 Nov 2005)

I enjoyed the line by the Conservative "defense critic"...


"They're basically saying that these are needed tomorrow morning for Afghanistan and that's not true."

Thanks, Mr. O'Connor.


----------



## Pikache (16 Nov 2005)

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20051116.wxmilitary16/BNStory/National/

Fast Track Military Purchase On Hold

By MICHAEL DEN TANDT

Wednesday, November 16, 2005 Posted at 6:08 AM EST

From Wednesday's Globe and Mail

Ottawa â â€ The Liberal government has indefinitely shelved a Defence Department proposal to buy badly needed new military aircraft, including transports and helicopters for the troops in Afghanistan, *because it has been deemed too politically risky*

"I think there were some people making comparisons to Kim Campbell and helicopters and last-minute decisions, and they decided this might not be such a great idea," a source familiar with the situation said.

In 1993, the Liberals, led by Jean Chrétien, reduced Ms. Campbell's Conservatives to two seats in Parliament after a campaign during which Mr. Chrétien railed against a Tory plan to spend $4.8-billion to replace the military's 42-year-old Sea Kings.

After the election Mr. Chrétien ordered the helicopter contract revoked, at a cost of $500-million. Twelve years later, 28 new Sikorsky Cyclone helicopters are on order but the first is not due for delivery until 2008.

Advertisements
Click Here
click here

The helicopter saga has become anathema for Defence Department officials, who must mount a combat mission to Afghanistan in the new year, but are saddled with obsolete equipment in many areas of operation, particularly air transport.

Last week, it emerged that Chief of Defence Staff Rick Hillier had persuaded Defence Minister Bill Graham to implement a fast-track procurement process that would effectively allow the military to determine what aircraft best meet its needs and buy them, at a cost of $12.2-billion. All the money had been previously budgeted.

To this end the Defence Department drafted a number of very specific performance requirements for transport aircraft, search-and-rescue planes and medium- to heavy-lift helicopters, and invited industry to respond.

In the case of the helicopters and transports, the requirements were widely understood to rule out all but two aircraft -- the Chinook CH-47 and the Hercules C130J. A senior Defence Department official confirmed last week that these aircraft were favoured, while insisting that the department remained open to other options, should better ones present themselves.

"The whole idea is to more rapidly get the troops the equipment they need," the official said. Waiting for several years before making a decision simply puts money in defence lobbyists' pockets, the official added.

Prime Minister Paul Martin has repeatedly vowed to "get the troops the equipment they need." Sources said that until last week, both he and Mr. Graham had tacitly approved Gen. Hillier's proposal.

But a report about the plan in this newspaper last Friday ignited a flurry of weekend phone calls and e-mails, ranging from concerned to angry, at senior levels of the government, sources said.

The upshot was that, although the procurement plan was discussed as scheduled on Monday by the cabinet's powerful operations committee, it will go no further for now.

"Hillier's finding out that there are more factors at play here than simply coming up with a good idea," said Scott Taylor, editor of the military magazine Esprit de Corps. "At that big a dollar value, politics plays huge."

Indeed, the Prime Minister's Office appears to have washed its hands of the idea. A spokesman for Mr. Martin said yesterday that he knew nothing about the procurement plan and pointedly referred all media queries to the Defence Department.

Mr. Taylor said Gen. Hillier's plan is simply a common-sense approach to an intractable problem. "All the neglect of the past, everything rusting out simultaneously, means that no matter what kind of military we're going to have, even just having trucks and helmets, we need everything, all at once. It requires a huge outlay of cash."

Conservative defence critic Gordon O'Connor accused the Liberals of hurriedly trying to correct more than 10 years worth of mistakes. "We have the oldest Hercules [aircraft] on the planet," he said. "They've known for 10 or 12 years that they're old and need to be replaced."

A defence industry source said the Defence Department should have pitched the aircraft purchase to cabinet separately, rather than as a whole. The most controversial aspect of the plan, he said, is the fixed-wing search-and-rescue component, where Canadian firms -- including EADS Canada Inc. and Bombardier Inc. -- have made what they deem to be competitive proposals.


----------



## George Wallace (16 Nov 2005)

This is only one of the things put on hold by the Lieberals.  Look at all the Tax Breaks that they announced two days ago, and now plan on putting on hold until after the Election.  Looks to me more like a carrot that they are holding over the heads of the Canadian Voter.  Don't tell me it isn't "Vote Buying".


----------



## career_radio-checker (16 Nov 2005)

It's too bad the military isn't allowed to protest. One tactic I have put some thought into is dumping a Sea King on the Parliament lawn. And when they tell us we have to move it we can simply shrug our shoulders and say: "It took us an hour to get it here so it will be at least 30 hours before we can fix it and move it".


----------



## career_radio-checker (16 Nov 2005)

here's a video link on the subject on CTV.CA

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20051116/aircraft_purchase_051116/20051116?hub=Canada


----------



## Haggis (16 Nov 2005)

If any of you seriously think that even a penny of the propsed $13B or the new $12.2 B aircraft funding will actually see the light of day, you are quite deluded.

The minority Lieberals promised that $13B knowing full well that they would never be held to it.   Why do you think that it was forecast to kick in more than a year down the road?   The Lieberals were well aware that the Gomery Inquiry would result in the fall of thier minority government long before thay committed to this $13B.

The next election will be fought on a policy of fiscal restraint and responsibility by all concerned, under the shadow of Adscam.   Health and social programs will again take centre stage.

If the Lieberals win a majority, all previous bets are off.   All previous promises broken. 

If the Preservatives win a majority they will claim that the Lieberals so mishandled the public purse that they wil not be able to keep any of thier election promises (including those made by O'Connor) until they clean up the Lieberal mess. This, they will say, will likely take two terms.   (Doubt this?   Remember McGuinty in Ontario.)

If the Preservatives win a minority, they will be as hamstrung as the Fibberals are now.

NDP and Bloc are not a factor except to steal votes from the other two gangs parties, this forcing a slim majority or minority government.

All parties know that the CF is a silent majority, forbidden by statute and culture from criticizing the government or becoming politically involved in an election.   Even if the CDS were to speak out during the campaign, he'd be sacked and replaced sometime in early 2006 by a more acquiescent "leader", more in tune with the "soft power" foreign policy approach favoured by the Blue Helmet Mafias that influence our defence and foreign policy makers.

Get out of the dream world, folks. Go back to hoarding your regimental nickels and dimes.   You'll need them.


----------



## Infanteer (16 Nov 2005)

Ouch.   :-\


----------



## jmackenzie_15 (16 Nov 2005)

your words hurt me haggis  :-\

I never considered any of that.... crap.
Just when you think the military might get a much needed boost  

Hopefully it still comes to fruition but... you make some good points.


----------



## BSmith12 (16 Nov 2005)

Good points indeed. Is it possible that if our nation's people show more of their support for our CF, there may be a consideration for a bigger military budget? Perhaps an employment boom will open their eyes? Or maybe... more promotional material in society? My thoughts on the subject.


----------



## jmackenzie_15 (16 Nov 2005)

BSmith12 said:
			
		

> Good points indeed. Is it possible that if our nation's people show more of their support for our CF, there may be a consideration for a bigger military budget? Perhaps an employment boom will open their eyes? Or maybe... more promotional material in society? My thoughts on the subject.



There definately is not nearly enough public awareness... you can only blame the government so much for what the CF has become.
The people are most to blame. 

The people elected these people, and they said and did nothing as the military was cut down and cut down, but blaming people will fix nothing.
Not only do people need to be aware of the problems, they also have to care, and quite frankly i dont see that happening anytime soon, and ironically, a terrorist attack in canada would probobly be the best thing to happen to the military in years.

Originally nuetral and uncaring canadians would be out for blood and demand the military roll out in force.... surprise surprise, its withered away into a shell of its former self. Way to go voters.


----------



## Haggis (16 Nov 2005)

BSmith12 said:
			
		

> Good points indeed. Is it possible that if our nation's people show more of their support for our CF, there may be a consideration for a bigger military budget? Perhaps an employment boom will open their eyes? Or maybe... more promotional material in society? My thoughts on the subject.



My mom used to say there are three types of un-truths in the world:   lies, damn lies and statistics.

A pollster can ask the question:   _"If it can be done without a tax increase, do you favour more money being spent of Defence?"_ The answer will be "YES" 7 times out of 10. (With a margin for error of plus or minus three percentage points based on a random sampling of 50 Albertans contacted by phone during Hockey Night in Canada.)

A second pollster can ask the question: _"Do you favour more money being redirected to Defence from othe federal programs?"_   The answer will be "NO" 9 times out of 10. (With a margin for error of plus or minus three percentage points based on a random sampling of 1500 Toronto area Canadians contacted by phone during dinner hour.)

But, you see, it's the SAME QUESTION, just worded differently to get the statistical response that the pollster needs to prove his point (or support his political party)

Despite anything the CF does to promote itself, it is ultimately the government of the day that approves the release of CF information by the CF.   Why do you think CF recriuting materials are so politically correct, non gender specific, racially diverse and inoffensive?


----------



## BSmith12 (16 Nov 2005)

jmackenzie_15 said:
			
		

> There definately is not nearly enough public awareness... you can only blame the government so much for what the CF has become.
> The people are most to blame.
> 
> The people elected these people, and they said and did nothing as the military was cut down and cut down, but blaming people will fix nothing.
> ...



Yep, and they'll be kickin' themselves in the a** for not supporting the military sooner, the attitude of our society is questionable.
Why can't we all show our support for not only the ones who have fallen for us, but the ones who are still serving us every day? Why not join the CF for this reason? Why not? :-\


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (16 Nov 2005)

The fact of the matter is that there's a constituency in Federal politics that looks down upon anything military.

This group (and it crosses party lines) regards the CF as a waste of money, soldiers as marginally-intelligent idiots, the military leadership as a group of pathelogical liars out to pad their own nest by working hand-in-glove with defence contractors, and anyone agitating for defence issues as a "Col Blimp".  Typically, this group will regard anyone arguing for defence purchases - no matter how well reasoned - as being an American lackey.  Since we all know how well anti-Americanism plays with the electorate, politicos are thus reluctant to be seen to be supporting a pro-defence position unless it does something for them personally in their own ridings. 

This round of proposed purchases is even worse, as the requirement has been brought home by recent operations in Afghanistan and other less happy places.  This doesn't sit well with the anti-military cabal who would prefer a CF that is seen (preferably in blue berets "helping" people) and not heard.

Until the anti-military group in both Government and the public service realizes what desperate straits the CF is in, this farcical circus is going to continue.  Unfortunately, no amount of lobbying by the usual "suspects" (like the CDA, etc.) will convince them; it will take something far more dramatic from a far more unconventional source.  Unfortunately, there are few real independent defence experts in Canada that can sound the alarm bell to these people with anything approaching credibility.


----------



## Haggis (16 Nov 2005)

BSmith12 said:
			
		

> Yep, and they'll be kickin' themselves in the a** for not supporting the military sooner, the attitude of our society is questionable.





			
				Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> This doesn't sit well with the anti-military cabal who would prefer a CF that is seen (preferably in blue berets "helping" people) and not heard.



The attitude of our society is based on the much perpetuated myth of the "peacekeeper".  See my remarks in reply #21 regarding CF self promotion.



			
				Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> Until the anti-military group in both Government and the public service realizes what desperate straits the CF is in, this farcical circus is going to continue.   Unfortunately, no amount of lobbying by the usual "suspects" (like the CDA, etc.) will convince them; it will take something far more dramatic from a far more unconventional source.   Unfortunately, there are few real independent defence experts in Canada that can sound the alarm bell to these people with anything approaching credibility.



That's because there is no tangible, visible threat to Canada for an "expert" to use to bolster his/her credibility. Canadian soliders aren't dying at Yonge and Bloor Streets for a clearly defined reason.  They're dying in Afghanistan in a loosely defined "War Against Terror".  Most urban Canadians would argue that they'd be better employed in the Jayne and Finch area or Vancouver.

It's been over 150 years since an invader trod upon Canadian soil.   Our collective memory of those battles is mostly gone. (Only the oldest of RSMs was alive then. ;D)   If that were to happen again, most Canadians believe that the Americans will defend us.   Most probably, that's true as it would be in thier best interests to maintain a friendly, like-minded democracy on their northern border.   

Living next to the world's only remaining superpower is like living next to the police station.  You get protected by geography.  

But the question the public doesn't want to ask remains:   Once the US is done defending our soil, will they leave?


----------



## geo (16 Nov 2005)

There is one problem with living next to the only big bear in the neighborhood...
There's always the risk that "it" will roll over (though inadvertedly) and crush the "H" out of you....


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 Nov 2005)

Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> The fact of the matter is that there's a constituency in Federal politics that looks down upon anything military.
> 
> This group (and it crosses party lines) regards the CF as a waste of money, soldiers as marginally-intelligent idiots, the military leadership as a group of pathelogical liars out to pad their own nest by working hand-in-glove with defence contractors, and anyone agitating for defence issues as a "Col Blimp".   Typically, this group will regard anyone arguing for defence purchases - no matter how well reasoned - as being an American lackey.   Since we all know how well anti-Americanism plays with the electorate, politicos are thus reluctant to be seen to be supporting a pro-defence position unless it does something for them personally in their own ridings.
> 
> ...



I agree, but I would argue that it is even worse.

I believe there is a substantial slice of the most senior public servants who consider:

1.	Defence policy is a bad joke and little, beyond _maintenance_ should be spent on military hardware until coherent foreign and defence policies are enunciated;

2.	Defence management (civilian and military) is inept and dishonest -

2.1.	The top levels of DND are isolated in two _'stovepipes'_ - one military, one civil - the two do not work together, as a defence team in support of defence objectives.   Consequently most defence policy and procurement proposals are weak: poorly conceived and inadequately developed; that's one of the reasons funded projects now take 10-15 years from approval to hardware rather than seven, as they used to and as the still do in e.g. Australia and the UK, and

2.2.	Admirals and general are either liars or fools - they cry *"rust out"* again and again and again and then they go and find a way to do the job.   That means that all the 'fat' has not, yet, been cut so spending increases are unwarranted;

3.	 DND is a dumping ground for lazy bureaucrats;

4.	Admirals and generals are busy being (rank) amateur bureaucrats - which means that there are too few leaders looking after the CF; and

5.	Senior DND bureaucrats leave their military colleagues hung out to dry - again and again and again when a few simple lessons in Ottawa _bureaucratic politics_ are in order.

For all these reasons, and more, DND will remain a poor relation: poorly managed, badly led, under-funded, unappreciated, etc, etc, etc.

 Edit: correct typo and spelling


----------



## UberCree (16 Nov 2005)

Well I do believe most of us shere would agree with all 5 points.  So where does that leave us....

I think our only hope is to appeal to the doves and remind them that a robust, well led, combat ready military could in fact be used to stop genocide, or other such turmoil in the world (third world).  The answer doesn't lie in trying to convince the doves that we need to be more combat ready to assist the U.S., that would scare the shit out of them.  We need to cinvince the Bono's and gang that we can make a difference in the 'neglected' parts of the world.  This increases our soft power through hard power.
These guys are obviously the ones that are pulling the strings in Ottawa, they need to be convinced that a military is needed for purposes other than assisting the U.S..


----------



## Haggis (16 Nov 2005)

Edward Campbell said:
			
		

> 1.	Defence policy is a bad joke and little, beyond _maintenance_ should be spent on military hardware until coherent foreign and defence policies are enunciated;



The CF represents "hard power": the ability to influence events in a visible, dramatic and immediate way.  Canadian foreign policy advocates the Axworthian "soft power":  diplomacy, in the hallowed and time tested traditions of the United Nations. This takes years to nurture and rarely shows results due to the ever changing face of the worlds stage.  Even if no results are evident, progress is, as the two (or more) sides are always seen as "negotiating".



			
				UberCree said:
			
		

> We need to convince the Bono's and gang that we can make a difference in the 'neglected' parts of the world.   This increases our soft power through hard power.



Any coherent joining of the two isn't possible at present without a drastic change in public services' perception of how the DND/CF and it's "hard power" can contribute to foreign policy by speeding the implementation of "soft power" initiatives.  As Teddy (Roosevelt not Ruxpin) said "walk softly and carry a big stick".




			
				Edward Campbell said:
			
		

> 2.2.	Admirals and general are either liars or fools - they cry *"rust out"* again and again and again and then they go and find a way to do the job.   That means that all the 'fat' has not, yet, been cut so spending increases are unwarranted;



There is tremendous fat in NDHQ (and, no, this isn't going to turn into another "fitness" thread) and all the HQs around the country.  I don't see CF Transformation doing away with that any time soon. That being said, the Admirals and Generals know full well that if they cannot find a way to "git 'er done" when the PMO comes calling, the Minister will find someone who can, and will, answer the government's bell. 



			
				Edward Campbell said:
			
		

> 3.	 DND is a dumping ground for lazy bureaucrats;



This I dispute as I've personally seen and worked for some highly energetic and innovative people in DND.  Unfortunately too often bureaucracy doesn't reward innovation.  Looking for lazy?  Maybe they should look towards PWGSC?



			
				Edward Campbell said:
			
		

> 4.	Admirals and generals are busy being (rank) amateurs bureaucrats - which means that there are too few leaders looking after the CF



There are still far too many "leaders" looking after themselves.  It's only very recently that the top uniformed positions in the CF have been held by members with real and recent operational experience.  Below them is where the careerism starts.



			
				Edward Campbell said:
			
		

> 5.	Senior DND bureaucrats leave their military colleagues hung out to dry - again and again and again when a few simple lessons in Ottawa _bureaucratic politics_ are in order.



Because the bureaucrats know that they CAN hang them out with impunity.  What career oriented CF member is going to publicy question a bureaucrat who makes a bad call?  They know it's better to "take one for the team" than to show the Defence Team in a bad light.


----------



## Infanteer (16 Nov 2005)

Just wait for it guys - if the American's can pull out of the spin dive of MacNamara and Vietnam, we can get away from Peacekeeping and "Soft Power".  Just got to keep up the good fight.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (16 Nov 2005)

Well, I was under the impression that we were slowly winning.  DND has a much higher profile than previously, with a minister that is actually "in the game" (as opposed to a hack who needed the job).  The minister seems to have bought into the vision for the CF and has - rather successfully - moved us away from the bizarre image so carefully crafted over the last three decades.  The crux of the problem is that the CF (and by extension DND) has had little success in articulating that vision - and it's requirements - to an audience beyond those already convinced.



> 2.2.   Admirals and general are either liars or fools - they cry "rust out" again and again and again and then they go and find a way to do the job.  That means that all the 'fat' has not, yet, been cut so spending increases are unwarranted;



Edward, once again, hits the nail on the head.  The CF, despite all its problems, has become very good at making things happen with minimal resources.  The politicos and bureaucrats don't see (or don't care about) the effect on our personnel or on our rapidly aging major equipment.  Their argument - and I've heard it before - would be "that's why they join" - despite the fact that we have soldiers doing multiple back to back tours in some instances.  Further, most of these people have little frame of reference upon which to base an opinion on military matters.  The lack of knowledge of some is quite stunning and there is little inclination to investigate issues to the depth they require.  With no experience (except that gained from watching TV), with preconcieved ideas and a political agenda, the bureaucratic "machine" exercises far more influence on the process than it deserves to.  Unfortunately, this is the audience that we - and all who care about the future of the military in Canada - must convince.

I would add something else in the current context.  CF Transformation is proceeded extremely rapidly - to the point where some of us are becoming somewhat uncomfortable at the lack of an articulate strategic "plan" and the forced pace of the changes.  Equipment purchases in the present environment cannot be conducted without fully describing how they fit into the plan.  I think  I have a decent idea, but no more, and I'm fairly close to the issues at hand.  I can only imagine what the anti-military establishment thinks when presented with a $12 billion dollar package that detractors claim is generated "off the cuff" by Generals to support a mission that, to their mind, is merely fighting a war on behalf of the Americans...


----------



## Haggis (19 Nov 2005)

Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> The CF, despite all its problems, has become very good at making things happen with minimal resources.   The politicos and bureaucrats don't see (or don't care about) the effect on our personnel or on our rapidly aging major equipment.   .... Further, most of these people have little frame of reference upon which to base an opinion on military matters.   The lack of knowledge of some is quite stunning and there is little inclination to investigate issues to the depth they require.  ....Unfortunately, this is the audience that we - and all who care about the future of the military in Canada - must convince.



Doubtless you've heard of the CF Parliamentarian Program, where MPs of all parties actually spend time with the troops on operations.  We had one on my last tour who, even though he was a Fibberal, left Bosnia with a completely different opinion of who we are and what we do.  He'd done other "viists" to the troops where he was whizzed from place to place in an air conditioned vehicle, and hosted in the messes.  I was told that our approach was a real eye opener.

The problem with this approach is that MPs and ADMs are not the real power brokers on DND or the government for that matter.  We have to target the DMs and the mandarins; those who remain in place to really run things, while goverments come and go.  Despite the party in power, the people and policies that drive our department haven't really changed much in over the years.

It's those policy makers and thier staffs who should be on these visits, not thier "temp help" elected masters.


----------



## KevinB (19 Nov 2005)

Targeting Deputy Ministers  

j/k


----------



## Edward Campbell (20 Nov 2005)

I agree that DND needs to _transform_ the attitudes and ingrained _beliefs_ of the most senior _Mandarins_ (the deputies).

Do not, however, minimize the importance of MPs: the PM lives and dies on the support of his caucus - a pro-military PM cannot _push_ an anti-military caucus very far.   Back-bench MPs are both leaders and follows with respect to their constituencies: they bring their constituents' POVs to Ottawa and they are supposed to bring the party's (cabinet's) POV back to the constituency.   When, as in Canada in 2000, one social issue, health care, totally dominates the political agenda there is neither much scope nor much need for Liberal MPs to do anything: their constituents' main concern - reinforced by so-called _journalists_ who are, in reality little more than stenographers, taking dictation from Liberal Party spin doctors - is also the central plank of the Liberal Party's platform.

There may, however, be a window in 2005/06.

"¢	Canadians are, I think (maybe I just hope and my _thought_ represents the triumph of hope over experience, again), becoming aware of the fact that the current health care model is unsustainable and, in fact, undesirable: the WHO ranks us 30th in health care performance - below _everyone_ in the OECD (the _developed_ world)? - but we are near the top in health care spending in GDP per capita terms.   Canadians are, slowly but surely, I think. coming to realize that they have been sold a bill of (Stalinist) goods.   They know the Canadian/Cuban/North Korean model is wrong; they know the system must change; they know the Liberal/NDP _alliance_ is incapable of making the change; and

"¢	Canadians are turning their attention to other, difficult, issues: aboriginals, infrastructure, productivity, education and foreign policy.   None are easy, none have anywhere near the political _traction_ of *free* health care, but all are climbing up the agenda - it might be that Canadians are waking from a 20 year political coma.

This is about defence, I promise; I'm just too lazy to organize my thoughts into a short, sharp, clear post.

So, MPs still matter and might matter a lot more now that there is an opportunity to broaden the political agenda to include foreign and defence policy,   MPs need to understand what General Hillier needs to do and why he needs to do it - build more efficient and combat effective, combat ready forces so that he can give the government more choice, more flexibility to do Canada's will in the world - and they need to take that back to their constituencies and do some _mind changing_.

I believe the deputies pose a different problem.   They do not, I think, disagree with much of anything General Hillier says or wants to do with the military.   They do not believe that DND (which includes the CF) is properly _managed_; they do not believe that the Department's _management_ can give effect to Hillier's ambitions.   Even worse: they believe Hillier is working in a policy vacuum.   Many (maybe even most) _mandarins_ understand that Canada does not have a coherent foreign policy.   We are, in effect, stuck in the 1969 model, which had two overwhelming faults _which made it a totally failed policy from the day it was published_:

"¢	It failed, totally and miserably, to address the central issue in Canadian foreign policy - the United States; and

"¢	It stated, explicitly, that Canada had neither the means nor even the will to make any appreciable   difference in the world.

The saddest thing about the '69 policy mess was, still is, that is popular - especially amongst Liberals and a large slice of the academic pseudo-_intelligentsia_.

If we have no coherent foreign policy, argue some _mandarins_, then how can we have a useful defence policy?   Why send good money after bad?   Absent a useful defence policy Hillier's ideas and plans are just band-aids - expensive band-aids.   DND doesn't need a band-aid, it needs major surgery.   Until that happens, they suggest, money is better spent on aboriginals, education, infrastructure, and, and, and, _ad infinitum_.

I suggest 'we' (General Hillier, actually) do not need to take the deputies to Afghanistan.   The deputies already know that the men and women in units and formations, including their commanders, are good people doing the right thing and doing things right.   They believe that those _few good men_ (and women) are ill-served in Ottawa, by Ottawa.   We do need to change the deputies' minds but words will not do the trick unless they are White Paper words backed up by bureaucratic and management reform _within_ DND and, equally important, within the incredibly complex, inefficient and highly politicized defence procurement process.

The problems and solutions are not, in so far as I understand the _mandarins'_ views, just within the budget and procurement processes.   The problems start with policy and include organization, management (including the civilian military 'split' and 'overlaps' in NDHQ), _communications_ (public relations) and money and procurement.

If I understand them then I agree with the _mandarins_.

 Edit: corrected grammar


----------



## JackD (20 Nov 2005)

i think part of the problem Canada has with its military is the lack of politicians who have done military service - who was the last Prime Minister with "true" military service - Pearson... Unlike the Americans, having done military service as a Canadian is considered a disgrace - or seems to be - i lost my job at a university in Canada due to rumours that "He was in the army therefore he is a crazed killer". (The University of Saskatchewan by way). Until more former soldiers enter politics or enter positions of seniority in government or business, not much will change. In otherwords, all serving and ex-soldiers, airmen and sailors must be ambassadors for the Armed Forces. The generals i think have not caught this either... Are we soldiers mostly hidden away from the public and the true interface, the militia, is it not still starved for funds and even respect amongst the brass-hats?


----------



## Pencil Tech (20 Nov 2005)

From the Globe And Mail 20/11/2005

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20051120.wmilitary1119/BNStory/National/

All of a sudden the Hercs have turned into Galaxys.  ???


----------



## Slim (20 Nov 2005)

I'm posting the whole article as this one is too good to miss and the link may die within a day or so.

Cheers

Slim



> Ottawa â â€ The federal government expects to announce Tuesday it will proceed with the $4.6-billion purchase of 16 transport aircraft for the Canadian military.
> 
> Despite industry protests to the contrary, officials insist the accelerated, streamlined process will be based on open bidding. They say at least two companies â â€ Airbus and Lockheed Martin â â€ are in the running.
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (20 Nov 2005)

This is still a long way from being _approved_ â â€œ in the Blue Book, etc.  But it is a huge step in the right direction.

The real message is that the Liberals' own polling says that Canadians want this, now â â€œ the Liberals' left and the NDP must be in shock.  It is important that both the Liberals and the Conservatives restate this _election promise_ (because that's really all it is) during the campaign.

Tory defence critic O'Connor has got to engage his brain before he puts his mouth in gear and bad mouths this.


----------



## career_radio-checker (20 Nov 2005)

Just a couple eye candy visuals of the C-130J and the Airbus A-400

Herc
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/wms/findPage.do?dsp=fec&ci=11165&rsbci=0&fti=126&ti=0&sc=400 

A-400
http://www.airbusmilitary.com/specifications.html


----------



## Slim (20 Nov 2005)

career_radio-checker said:
			
		

> Just a couple eye candy visuals of the C-130J and the Airbus A-400
> 
> Herc
> http://www.lockheedmartin.com/wms/findPage.do?dsp=fec&ci=11165&rsbci=0&fti=126&ti=0&sc=400
> ...



OK...So is it the C130J or the Globemaster? I see both in the articles above.


----------



## KevinB (20 Nov 2005)

I am guess they mispoke with the C17 refrence in the Globe.

 Personally I think we need the Hooks immediately as well--


----------



## George Wallace (20 Nov 2005)

I was wondering the same....but the C-17 J is a Boeing product.


----------



## x-zipperhead (20 Nov 2005)

Wow, that is a step in the right direction.  I wonder if the coming change of management in parliament could see the rug pulled out from under this a la EH 101 in '93.  

Until they are sitting on the ramp in Trenton I won't hold my breath.  

Still it seems like things are looking up!


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (20 Nov 2005)

What I like about this - and other articles on this subject - is that finally we have a defence "official" telling it like it is (albeit an unnamed "official"), with the G&M willing to print his/her comments.  Some good shots at the lobby mafia, too...  We ain't dead yet! 

I'm sure it's a misprint - C-17s aren't even on the radar and there's no such thing as a C-17J...


----------



## George Wallace (20 Nov 2005)

Sorry Bear 





> Boeing C-17: The bigger and extremely expensive Globemaster III is seen as a possible alternative by Belgium, France, Spain and Great Britain. She would be used as a strategic transport component in conjunction with a smaller aircraft like the C-130J. According to Boeing there is a need for 39 C-17J aircraft, which would be supplied from 2004. The cost is estimated at $7 bln, if one takes the amount of money the USAF paid for one aircraft, (i.e.$175 mio).
> 
> The C-17J has also been entered separately into the competition by the Royal Air Force. For the so-called Short Term Strategic Airlift the British require four aircraft. From 2001 these planes would be leased for seven years. Airbus' Beluga and the Antonow An-124 are pitted against the C-17. The Antonow is on offer in conjunction with Air Foyle. She has been modernised and fitted with Honeywell-Avionics and Rolls-Royce RB211-524HT engines


http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRheft/FRH9904/FR9904h.htm


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (20 Nov 2005)

Seen.  But does it actually exist?  AFAIK, there are no variants of the C-17 beyond the basic model and USAF mods; there are some projected varieties.  The UK bought standard C-17s (Block XIIs, to be exact):

-  CX Initial project designation. 
-  C-17A First prototype (T-1). Nose pitot boom. Reduced avionics fit. 
-  C-17A Block I to XI Standard production version. P-1 to P-5 for development testing. P-13+ with interim strengthend wing, P-32+ with redesigned stronger wing structure, P-51+ with composite tailplane and improved avionics. 
-  C-17A Block XII Improved production version (P-71+) with centre section wing fuel tank for extend range. Upgraded software and redesigned cockpit MFDs. 
-  C-17A SOLL II Special Operations Low Level (SOLL) II variant to replace C-141B SOLL II. 
-  EC-17 Projected airborne command post version to replace EC-135. 
-  KC-17  Proposed tanker version. Additional fuel in wing centre tank and/or modular palletised tank in fuselage. Total capacity 165,513 litres. Refuelling boom and/or hose drum unit integated into rear cargo ramp door plus optional underwing pods. Operators station on modular pallet. 
-  MD-17  Proposed dedicated commercial freighter variant. 
-  BC-17X Proposed designation for commercially operated C-17A, subsidised by DoD to be available to USAF in time of crisis. [/list]

http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/c17/flash.html

For tons of detail, try here:

http://www.aeroflight.co.uk/types/usa/boeing/c-17/c-17.htm

Cheers,

Teddy


----------



## Jungle (20 Nov 2005)

I hope we get a chance to buy the A-400. Looking at the cargo compartment dimensions, it looks like an acceptable compromise between the C-130 and C-17. According to the web page, it can carry 2 x LAV-III.

*A-400 Cargo Box Dimensions:*
   Length (excluding ramp) 17.71 m 
   Ramp Length   5.40 m 
   Width   4.00 m 
   Height   3.85 m 
   Height (aft of wing) 4.00 m
   Max. Payload 37 tonnes 

*C-130J Internal Dimensions *
Cabin length (excluding ramp) 40 ft / 12.19 m 
Cabin length (including ramp)  50.7 ft / 15.44 m 
Max. width  10.25 ft / 3.12 m 
Max. height  9 ft / 2.74 m 
Total useable volume  4,551 ft3 / 128.9 m3
Max. payload (2.5 g) 41,790 lb / 18,955 kg


----------



## Slim (20 Nov 2005)

Didn't I read someplace that that aircraft was not a 'military' designed one and would have to be retrofitted with cargo ramps and whatnot...?


----------



## Jungle (20 Nov 2005)

No, it's an entire new aircraft that Airbus has been working on for some time. 16 of those would give the CF a decent strategic airlift capability, with the remaining (more recent) C-130s for tactical airlift.


----------



## blacktriangle (20 Nov 2005)

Does anyone know off the top of their heads whether anyone else is using the military A-400?

Just curious.


----------



## Jungle (20 Nov 2005)

It is not yet in servive anywhere. We better hurry up if we want any before 2015...


> The A400M, 180 examples of which were ordered in May 2003 by seven European NATO nations, will first fly in 2008 with deliveries beginning in 2009.


----------



## Infanteer (20 Nov 2005)

It's a paper airplane - they haven't even built one yet.


----------



## Jungle (20 Nov 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> It's a paper airplane - they haven't even built one yet.


Yeah... everything starts out that way !!


----------



## KevinB (21 Nov 2005)

An ideal mix of C5A's and C17's would be my personal wish list... (5 and 10 maybe - wish wish wish)  IRRC the C17 works out to about 1/4 of a B USD's  -- unless the tooth fairy is awful generous I can't see the CDN Gov't funding it.


 The CF needs lift now not in 2015 -- the A400 may be a nice spec'd piece of paper - but it does not get bean and bullets into K-town...


----------



## geo (21 Nov 2005)

Read somewhere that if ordered now, the new J Hercs would start coming in by 08. Also read that the US gov't had contracted for some C17s just to keep the production line going... Cda could take over contract for 3 (?) and take delivery even faster than the Hercs... Imagine!


----------



## Zoomie (21 Nov 2005)

Last I heard, the A-400M hasn't made it out of the wind tunnel.  At best, there are 10 engines out there somewhere on a test bed undergoing run-ups.  The J model hercs are at least operational...  If this happens, we're going to have more of a nightmare to contend with.  We'll have H models and Buffs doing SAR, with the J's conducting TAL.  That's three distinct airframes with supply chains for each, can you say logistical clusterfark?


----------



## a_majoor (21 Nov 2005)

Of course, any amount of extra money could simply flow down the black hole without some reorg at a very high level. I got this email from the CDAI today:



> Dear Colleagues:
> 
> The Conference of Defence Associations (CDA) would like to bring your attention to an article which appeared in the Ottawa Citizen on Saturday (see link below).  The author, General (Ret'd) Paul Manson, President CDA Institute, comments on the recommendations put forth in WOUNDED: Canada's Military and the Legacy of Neglect (see link below), a recently published report from the Senate Committee on National Security and Defence.  The report argues that the CF has inadequate resources and is suffering from a rapid decline in CF capabilities due to years of overcommitment, decades of inadequate levels of Canadian defence spending, and complex, inefficient administrative processes.  In order to arrest this decline, the report states that the government should increase defence spending to $25-$35 billion per year.
> 
> ...


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (21 Nov 2005)

Zoomie said:
			
		

> Last I heard, the A-400M hasn't made it out of the wind tunnel.   At best, there are 10 engines out there somewhere on a test bed undergoing run-ups.   The J model hercs are at least operational...   If this happens, we're going to have more of a nightmare to contend with.   We'll have H models and Buffs doing SAR, with the J's conducting TAL.   That's three distinct airframes with supply chains for each, can you say logistical clusterfark?



That being said, at least the A400M can carry a LAV-III.   Since the C-130J cannot, I do not understand why it is even being considered in any significant numbers.   I guess if you want to use it for tactical resupply or for SAR within Canada (where you don't have to move LAV-III's or anything really heavy) then great, but otherwise I don't see it as providing enough capability to justify making it the foundation of our airlift that based on current policy changes is going to have a fulfill a much more expeditionary role in future years.

Personally, I think it would be worthwhile to try to cut a direct deal with the Russians for 10-12 IL-76MF's with with NATO-ized avionics.   The recent deal with Jordan worked out to less than $50 million USD per copy represents tremendous value for money.   I would add that I think Canada would have some leverage to get excellent pricing as it would represent Ilyushin's first ever deal with a NATO member..









> "Jordan, meanwhile, purchased a pair of stretched Ilyushin IL-76MF military transports for $100 million. Note that the capacity of the IL-76MF variant is approximately 70-80% of an American C-17 Globemaster III in an aircraft with comparable range, and that this deal places them at approximately one-quarter of a C-17's cost."



Source: *http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2005/08/maks2005-makes-1b-for-russian-firms/index.php*



> As a yardstick, a recent deal with Jordan for the stretched IL-76MF (fully westernized version) worked out to about $50 million per plane. The cost of a comparable American C-17 is about $160 million, the Airbus A400M will cost about $100-120 million each, and a C-130J Hercules costs about $66 million. As yet, Rosoboronexport has not released an official statement.



Source: *http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2005/09/china-to-buy-38-il76-heavy-transports-il78-tankers/index.php#orison_mc*



Matthew.


----------



## Infanteer (21 Nov 2005)

Buying a plane because it can carry a LAVIII is a red herring - Canada will never have the numbers to move LAV's in significant numbers to make a useful force - even the American's have trouble doing this.  We need to get this into our head when we shop for "medium weight, deployable forces".  There is a good RAND study on this.

Let's get out of this bizarre, CSAR-inspired plan to buy every piece of Soviet-era junk.  Simple data, prices and fancy pictures don't cut it when it comes to purchasing an airframe - I don't think we've had one aviator to date support the idea of bringing these into our air fleet....


----------



## SeaKingTacco (21 Nov 2005)

> Let's get out of this bizarre, CSAR-inspired plan to buy every piece of Soviet-era junk.  Simple data, prices and fancy pictures don't cut it when it comes to purchasing an airframe - I don't think we've had one aviator to date support the idea of bringing these into our air fleet....



Amen, brother!


----------



## KevinB (21 Nov 2005)

+1


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (22 Nov 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Buying a plane because it can carry a LAVIII is a red herring - Canada will never have the numbers to move LAV's in significant numbers to make a useful force - even the American's have trouble doing this.   We need to get this into our head when we shop for "medium weight, deployable forces".   There is a good RAND study on this.



Maybe I'm the board simpleton then but to me it appears you either need a plane that can carry your kit, or your need to resdesign your forces to suit your transport assets.

So if we are going to go to C-130, then the LAV-III shouldn't be the backbone and instead we should be move to a light infantry force based on our maximizing the potency of our G-Wagens.

However, if the LAV-III is the backbone, then we bloody well need something to carry it.

Bottom Line:  It appears to me that this may be the only opportunity the Canadian Forces will have in the next 25 years to procure air assets that will allow for a real rapid reaction force, and if we miss it by purchasing aircraft that are too small, then we'll be right back in the same position we've been for the last 20, owning assets we have no way to effectively deploy or support.


JMHO,

Matthew.   

P.S.  RE: The Ilyushin's quality assessment - Has anyone here actually ever been in one?  I've been inside a C-5, a C-17 and a number of a C-130's at the Trenton Air Show but have no knowledge of the Ilyushin's capability outside the statistics provided by various publications.


----------



## KevinB (22 Nov 2005)

Matthew,

Rapid reactions are done by Light forces.  We will NEVER have enough A/C to be able to immediately insert a medium force.  

Even if you shuttled LAV's in the A400 or IL's  you would end up being able to drop a Platoon or at most a Company (-).  Which woudl then have NO supplies.   Issues like Non-Combatant Evacuation operations are best done by light forces who can secure a airhead and send out platoons or sections depending upon threat to secure the civilians for removal.   If you send out a LAVIII force -- fine where do the civilians fit?

And if you are proposing moving a BattleGroup or Brigade - Sealift will get you their much faster than a series of nonsop onezy twoezy lifts.

 I believe the CF's vision for this is to keep tactical transport with a rough field capability, using shipborne transport for our medium assets.


----------



## tomahawk6 (22 Nov 2005)

Evidently the government is going ahead to buy 16 transports. The competition is between Boeing and A400M.


----------



## Infanteer (22 Nov 2005)

http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR1606/

Here is the RAND report on transportability of Stryker units.  You can download the entire document in a PDF file.


----------



## UberCree (22 Nov 2005)

The folk I know in the Stryker units said that their transport is very limited.  You have to take off armour, deflate tires, empty gas etc. to make them transportable.
Mind you they found them VERY useful in urban ops and the high speed light infantry unit is getting some because of this.  Not sure how they will make them easily / rapidly transportable.


----------



## Infanteer (22 Nov 2005)

Does anyone have any links to Lessons Learned/AARs on the Strykers?  Ubercree says they are useful for Urban operations, but I've seen guys say the opposite.  I know a Stryker unit was used in Op AL FAJR (Fallujah), but I think it was a cordon unit.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (22 Nov 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR1606/
> 
> Here is the RAND report on transportability of Stryker units.   You can download the entire document in a PDF file.



Thanks Infanteer.  That looks like it will make some great reading tonight.



Matthew.


----------



## Pikache (22 Nov 2005)

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20051122.wmilit1122/BNStory/National/

Liberals defend 4.6 billion aircraft purchase



By ALLISON DUNFIELD

Tuesday, November 22, 2005 Posted at 2:46 PM EST

Globe and Mail Update

Defence Minister Bill Graham made official Tuesday the announcement that the federal Liberals are spending $4.6-billion to purchase new military transport planes, and then immediately began to defend that decision.

Mr. Graham has been under fire from opposition MPs who insist that the Canadian military intends to bypass competition in order to speed replacement of its dilapidated Hercules transport planes.

The Conservative Party argues that the government is rushing the decision so they can use it as part of the Liberal platform in the coming election campaign.

However, the Defence Minister told a press conference in Ottawa on Tuesday that he had been involved personally in procuring the 16 planes for the past six months.

Advertisements
click here

Both he and Public Works Minister Scott Brison said the plan to replace the military's Hercules aircraft will be fast, open and fair.

"Our department will help ensure that the acquisition of the replacement aircraft is carried out in a fair, open, and transparent process," Mr. Brison said.

He also said the government will assign a "fairness monitor" to oversee the process.

*The two ministers say the military's needs â â€ not industrial and regional benefits â â€ will be the priority.*

The Canadian aerospace industry fears that the government's single page of performance-based requirements favours Lockheed Martin's C-130J airplane and eliminates other key competitors.

Government officials say the document is still being drafted.

Mr. Graham said procuring new equipment is "essential" because of the military's commitments over the next six months. The military is preparing for a combat mission to Afghanistan in the new year.

"You will see more significant defence procurements in the near future, but we start today," he said.
Last week, Mr. Graham had declared a $12.2-billion, three-aircraft procurement plan dead, after sharp criticism of the proposed bidding process from sources in the Canadian defence industry.

But over the weekend the Defence Minister revived what the military considers to be the most important part of its plan, a $4.6-billion purchase of 16 transport planes, because he thinks it is both politically feasible and urgently needed, sources say. A formal announcement is expected today.


----------



## canuck101 (23 Nov 2005)

The is only one choice as alot of the other posts have said the A-400 is just starting to but built and there are 198 orders for them so far and it we were to add to that it would be over 200 but we would be at the back of the line waiting for many years too receive any.We needed replacement's many years ago and we can not wait. There would be a much shorter wait for c-130 J's and we can always chose if we want to get A-400's or c-17 later for strategic transport.

list of countries that have orders for the A-400:
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/fla/


----------



## career_radio-checker (23 Nov 2005)

I'm no pilot but you have to admit, the A-400 is the  sexiest of them all.


----------



## JasonH (23 Nov 2005)

Government of Canada Announces $4-5 Billion Tactical Airlift Project To Replace Aging Hercules  	  Print   	  E-mail
by Government of Canada   
Tuesday, 22 November 2005

The Government of Canada today announced it will move forward with the competitive procurement of a new tactical airlift fleet for the Canadian Forces. The tactical airlift project will see the purchase of at least 16 new aircraft valued at between $4-5 billion, including a 20-year in-service support contract.

"The Defence Policy Statement identifies airlift as a priority for the Canadian Forces and a new tactical airlift fleet, to replace the aging Hercules, is the first step in delivering on the promises of this policy," said Bill Graham, Minister of National Defence. "I am confident in the procurement strategy. We intend to buy military equipment faster and more efficiently than in the past by basing the competition on performance requirements such as range, speed and the ability to operate in remote and hostile environments."
"My department is committed to supporting National Defence in its program to replace its Hercules fleet. We will ensure the acquisition of replacement aircraft is carried out in a timely fashion while ensuring that the procurement process remains fair, open and transparent," said the Honourable Scott Brison, Minister of Public Works and Government Services.

"This new fleet will provide the men and women our forces with the right tools to do their job," said General Rick Hillier, Chief of the Defence Staff. "The new aircraft will provide an essential airlift lifeline service to Canadians in distress and deployed forces, both at home and abroad."

The new tactical airlift aircraft will replace 13 older CC-130 Hercules, the workhorses of the Canadian Forces' transport fleet. Different variants of this rugged and versatile aircraft have served the Canadian Forces well since the early 1960s. The current CC-130 fleet continues to be the primary aircraft for tactical airlift, tactical air-to-air refuelling, and search and rescue.
    
The competitive procurement of these aircraft will begin immediately without compromising operational requirements, quality or cost. The procurement approach, a solicitation of interest and qualification, will be pursued to select the right aircraft for the Canadian Forces.


----------



## Edward Campbell (23 Nov 2005)

Kudos to the DND Public Affairs/Communications staff for this excellent piece in the _National Post_ - which is reproduced under the fair comment provision of the Copyright Act:

http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=c9fdcd0e-0a5e-4f23-a04a-946e5dee8817


> Requiem for a veteran Hercules
> Longest-serving aircraft of its kind in the world
> 
> Chris Wattie
> ...



I am guessing that Chris Wattie didn't just decide, one recent morning, to pop by Trenton and see if he could find a good 'Herc' story.  I'm guessing that:

"¢	He may have contacted DND public affairs and said: "Got anything good to follow up on the new aircraft purchase?  Maybe something about the old ones?" or

"¢	Journalists may have got a press release from DND with a story about No. 315 and Wattie may have been the guy to pick it up.

So BZ Public Affairs types for either starting the story or making sure that Wattie/_National Post_ got enough good access to write a good one.

I'm betting that this story is worth more than all the Graham press conferences/news releases combined.  It tells ordinary Canadians why the new airplanes are necessary - sooner rather than later.


----------



## Slim (23 Nov 2005)

...And, perhaps, what airplane we are going to buy! Lets face it if we're retireing C130's right now, the Airbus is not going to cut it with a delivery date of 2015...


----------



## geo (23 Nov 2005)

only options at present are the 130J and the C17. As stated the A400, though promissing specs - would be delivered after too long a wait.

From what I saw in the news, the US gov't recently signed a contract to fund/build 3 x C17s without an end user in sight... just to keep the production line going. Do we need a mix of C17s and 130Js or are we better off with a fleet centered around the Herc?


----------



## Infanteer (23 Nov 2005)

Sounds like 315 (or at least the cockpit and nose end) should be sent to the Canadian War Museum.   The Americans put the Enola Gay on display at the Udvar Hazy Air and Space Center; it's neat to be able to get up close to a piece of Aviation history.


----------



## KevinB (23 Nov 2005)

I am sure the CF could make use of a mixed C17 and C130 fleet...  


Heck add a few C5A's and your a first world airforce  ;D


----------



## Hmm donuts! (23 Nov 2005)

I love how the Airbus A400 was even being considered, even though it only exists on paper. I definitly agree with the C17 and C130 idea, at least 3-4 C17's would put us up there. We do not necessarily need C5's, plus I've never heard of the U. S. selling them to anyone else.


----------



## Armymatters (21 Apr 2006)

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060421.wxplanes21/BNStory/Front/?page=rss&id=RTGAM.20060421.wxplanes21

Also of note is that there are talks to be bumped up the production line by taking airframes already on queue for the USAF, as we have US approval to do so. So C-17's will help ease the transport crunch for a while until we more immediate solutions come by? Thoughts?


----------



## COBRA-6 (21 Apr 2006)

Good move, but I agree with Senator Kenny:



> Senator Colin Kenny, former head of the Senate defence committee and a long-time advocate of greater defence spending, said new strategic airlift capability is long overdue. "We'll be a hell of a lot better off and there'll be a whole lot less strain on the system," he said.
> 
> Mr. Kenny cautioned, however, that such a purchase must not come at the expense of buying new tactical or short-haul transport planes. "Both have to come. And any solution that doesn't include a mix is not a satisfactory one for Canada."


----------



## Bomber (21 Apr 2006)

Git er done, 4.6 BILLION for 16 Hercs, or 1.2 BILLION for 6 C17's.  Hello savings.  Lets get 23 C-17's for 4.6 BILLION, two things solved, stategic and tactical, now, those 9 H models, used for SAR stuff.  I bet if we offer cash, we might get lucky, end month quota for the sales guy, and get 25 for 4.6.  All is well in the realm.


----------



## CdnArtyWife (21 Apr 2006)

I certainly can't comment on the CFs other needs (tactical, short haul etc) but what I can comment on is my first hand knowlege of the C-17.

My brother is a TSgt with the USAF and was part of the primary AFOTEC team working on the C-17 when the USAF had their first 6-10 of these aircraft. I have seen them up close and personal, and watched them take off and land. I have believed for years, that the C-17 would be an ideal replacement for the C-130 for Canada. They are impressive aircraft with their short and rough landing strip capabilities, and they are certainly spacious inside.

I will dig through my photos and scan any that I feel may be of interest here, re the C-17 if people are interested.

In short, I think it would be good news, and I agree with the above quote as well.


----------



## vonGarvin (21 Apr 2006)

CdnArtyWife said:
			
		

> I will dig through my photos and scan any that I feel may be of interest here, re the C-17 if people are interested.


I would be interested in seeing some photos.

Also, count this voter as supporting such a purchase.  I was involved with the MND's visit to Astra to see a LAV APC loaded onto a herc.  Ironically, the herc was permanently grounded due to something or other (structural stress in the wings, I believe).  The point was that yes, a LAV APC can fit in a herc, but its range is quite limited, and no stores can be on it due to weight (eg: you cannot have ammo in it, the crew in the same aircraft and forget about the add-on armour package).


----------



## exon (21 Apr 2006)

Bomber said:
			
		

> Git er done, 4.6 BILLION for 16 Hercs, or 1.2 BILLION for 6 C17's.  Hello savings.  Lets get 23 C-17's for 4.6 BILLION, two things solved, stategic and tactical, now, those 9 H models, used for SAR stuff.  I bet if we offer cash, we might get lucky, end month quota for the sales guy, and get 25 for 4.6.  All is well in the realm.



I may be way off base (please correct me if so), but isn't 1.2B for 6 C-17's only the airframe cost?  Wouldn't the airframe-only cost of 16 Hercs be about the same (~80M each)?  I was under the impression that the Herc 4.6B pricetag was the lifetime cost that included parts, service etc.  If that's the case then this report is a bit mis-leading (with respect to price).


----------



## Jungle (21 Apr 2006)

vonGarvin said:
			
		

> I would be interested in seeing some photos.


Unless you really care about the outside of the thing...  
Here's a pic of what is most important to us, the cargo compartment; strangely, there are Paratroopers involved !!  8) 102 of them, with full-eqpt !!!


----------



## tomahawk6 (22 Apr 2006)

The AN-124 is going back into production with 50 aircraft to be built. Cost is $150m each with a payload of 120t. The AN-225 may become available at close to $200m.Work on a second aircraft that had been suspended is now being completed. It can carry over 250t of cargo. In comparison the C-17 carries 79t of cargo. For my money and to help Ukraine I think the western air forces should buy AN-124's.


----------



## MarkOttawa (22 Apr 2006)

exon: You're absolutely right.  The price for C-17s is ex-factory, not life-cycle as with the Hercs.  !6 Hercs would cost $1.28 billion ex-factory, about the same as 6 C-17s.  The Globe report is thus completely misleading; the "industry sources" (Boeing?) are deliberately low-balling the cost and the reporter, Michael den Tandt, is too dim to notice.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (22 Apr 2006)

From an August 2005 Fraser Institute study, "The Need for Canadian Strategic Lift"
http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/admin/books/files/CanadianStrategicLift.pdf

(which is also not keen on the Navy's Joint Support Ship as now configured)
http://www.navy.forces.gc.ca/mspa_news/news_e.asp?id=164

(second paragraph out of sequence for flow):

"...
To get where they are needed in theatres overseas, strategic lift is needed. Tactical lift--mostly by air--refers to the ability to move around in a given theatre...

For airlift, using large airlifters for small cargo loads in inefficient. Rather, it may well be in the interest of the Air Force to have a mixed fleet of larger, medium, and small transport aircraft [e.g. C-27Js or C-295s also doubling as fixed-wing SAR, and not a Bombardier Q Series derivative]...

A well-rounded airlift fleet for Canada, therefore, would entail six to eight C-17s or equivalent number of other aircraft to provide strategic airlift needs, and 15 to 20 C-130Js to replace the older model Hercules in the current fleet..."

H/t to Spotlight on Military News and International Affairs.
http://www.cfc.forces.gc.ca/spotnews_e.html

The Globe story on C-17s does not list a Hercules replacement amongst the equipment acquisition priorities. Maybe by the time, if re-elected, the Conservatives get around to that the C-130J will be out of production and only the A-400M well remain.
http://home.businesswire.com/portal/site/google/index.jsp?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20060320005949&newsLang=en

And maybe the Air Force will get the C-17s in time to take up the slack as the Hercs age.
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_PrintFriendly&c=Article&cid=1140390609515 

But I wonder.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (24 Apr 2006)

Meanwhile, now we will have a fair degree of Antonov access via NATO.
http://www.sfu.ca/casr/bg-airlift-nato.htm

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (25 Apr 2006)

Jim Travers of the Toronto Star thinks the Air Force will get both strategic and tactical lift in the budget.
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1145875389133&call_pageid=968256290204&col=968350116795

Excerpts:

"...
Hillier will get the tactical aircraft required by an operations-oriented military and O'Connor will get the heavy-lift transporters needed to wave the flag.

It's not yet clear that either will get everything they want. Purchase orders for Hillier's 16 short-haul Lockheed-Martin Hercules and O'Connor's six Boeing Globemasters would effortlessly exceed the additional $5.3 billion that Harper promised during the winter election to make the military more muscular..."

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## geo (25 Apr 2006)

............ so you're suggesting that we'll go hungry while taking delivery of airframes (and parts) for the transport of troops that we won't be able to field due to lack of cash?....... Cheez - does this sound familiar? (exlcuding the shiny new planes)


----------



## MarkOttawa (8 May 2006)

Both Boeing and Airbus have full-page colour ads in the May 8 Hill Times aimed at our politicians and political media.
http://www.hilltimes.com/index.php

Boeing's for the C-17 points out:

'...its unmatched ability to support troops and deliver humanitarian relief virtually anywhere, anytime...'

Airbus, for its part, takes the following line, appealing to traditional Canadian parsimony in defence purchases:

'A400M: Get more -pay less!

Canada wants a new tactical military transport aircraft. There is also a demand for a new strategic airlift capability. The A400M does both without finding new tax dollars to buy and maintain tow separate aircraft fleets [Airbus' emphasis]...the A400M will be delivered on time and ready for service in 2009...'

Nothing from Lockheed Martin touting the C-130J. Confidence?

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## geo (8 May 2006)

a lot of confidence for the A400. From what I had heard, the 1st copy wasn't certified and there has to be other Airforces already in line to pick up some of these aircraft.... or are there?

WRT the C17.... If we are going for strategic aircraft then it's either "it" or the antonov.

Last I heard from the C17, Dubya had authorized the construction of some C17s withouth there being an ultimate owner on the hook.... so there are 2 or 3 that are already in production -


----------



## McG (27 Oct 2006)

> Critics take aim at plan to buy new Lockheed planes
> Updated Fri. Oct. 27 2006 9:29 PM ET
> David Akin, CTV News
> 
> ...


http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20061027/military_planes_061027/20061027?hub=TopStories

Does anybody else find it funny that the Liberals are now saying the exact same things that the Conservatives were saying prior to the last election, and at the same time the Conservatives have taken to supporting the plane that the Liberals were ready to buy?  ("C130 =  Bad; A400 = Good")


> "It's a fake competition, therefore you might not get at the right product," said Ujjal Dosanjh, the Liberal defence critic.


----------



## GAP (27 Oct 2006)

> ("C130 =  Bad; A400 = Good")



How do arrive at that? This board and just about every blog and paper out there was enspousing the c130, now, because the c130 didn't meet the specs of some US contract, we should change, or am I confused....that's alright you can tell me...I feel that way, I just want it confirmed....


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (28 Oct 2006)

This may have more to do with US Army/USAF interservice politics than anything with the aircraft.  Can you imagine the USAF permitting the _Army_ to fly a C-130, an aircraft it regards as its exclusive domain?  I seem to recall there being a similar discussion in the 1960s, when the Army lost its Caribous...

As for Dosanjh...  :


----------



## McG (28 Oct 2006)

GAP said:
			
		

> How do arrive at that?


I don't.  It seems to be the default position of who ever is in oposition.


----------



## Kirkhill (28 Oct 2006)

I was under the impression that the army wanted a cheap, short haul aircraft with an extremely short landing capability.  The USAF already has C130s and is not able to meet the US Army's needs, for whatever reason.  Meanwhile the Army has been getting the job done with the Sherpa and the CH-47.  Both of which are in too short supply.

Then, as TR said, there is Army/Air Force politics involved in the debate.  The US Air Force seems to continue to have a problem with giving up fix wings to the Army or else deciding to support the Army the way the Army needs/wants.

None of that has anything to do with the C130J which, counter to Ujjal and Dawn, has been accepted into service by the UK, Australia, Denmark,............and the US.



> ...The improvements built into the C-130J, which entered production in 1997, have enhanced the performance of the aircraft in terms of range, cruise ceiling time to climb, speed and airfield requirements.
> 
> A stretched version, the C-130J-30 has been developed and is designated CC-130J by the USAF. The first C-130J-30 for the UK RAF (the launch customer) was delivered in November 1999.
> 
> ...



http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/hercules/


----------



## Nug (28 Oct 2006)

I don't want to knock AirBus because I think they make a good product but the fact is the C130J is flying now. The A400M hasn't had its maiden flight yet, I don't believe they have even completed the first air frame. They say they could deliver the A400M in the same time frame as the C130J but what happens if they have construction or technical problems, what about the other countries that have agreed to by the plane that are in line for it before us?


----------



## geo (28 Oct 2006)

Airbus is having all sorts of problems right now.
The german workers are even talking about...... strikes

Airbus has bet it's reputation on the A380 - which is way behind schedule and waaaaaay over budget.... the A400 is only an afterthought.


----------



## Nug (28 Oct 2006)

geo said:
			
		

> Airbus is having all sorts of problems right now.
> The german workers are even talking about...... strikes
> 
> Airbus has bet it's reputation on the A380 - which is way behind schedule and waaaaaay over budget.... the A400 is only an afterthought.



Even better reason not to get involved.


----------



## Kirkhill (28 Oct 2006)

Just to let folks around here know.

I emailed David Akin to express my concern about the impression left by Dawn Black's words going uncontested - that Canada was going to be buying an aircraft rejected by other nations.  While it is true it has been turned down by one service of one nation for one mission that same nation, and many others have selected the same aircraft for other missions.  Those missions are broadly in keeping with the role the C130J is likely to be asked to undertake, IMHO.

I got a very prompt and considered reply.  The essence of which is that while Mr. Akin was aware of the "back story" on the aircraft he apparently couldn't get any senior public figures to go on the record to refute Ms. Black's claim.

I think that says as much about information management as it does about news reporting.


----------



## Good2Golf (28 Oct 2006)

Having toured around the AFG airspace in both our C130s and a RAF C130J, having an aviation background myself, and having spoken in depth with both CAN and GBR 130 crews, I can say that I think/assess that the 130J will work very well for us, for reasons beyond just being the only aircraft that will actually be available when we need them (i.e. yesterday!)  

I would also like to wager that the A400M doesn't go IOC until 2011.

G2G


----------



## SeaKingTacco (28 Oct 2006)

> I would also like to wager that the A400M doesn't go IOC until 2011.



I'll take your 2011 and raise you 2013...


----------



## MarkOttawa (28 Oct 2006)

A post on this at "The Torch";

"Dishonesty in Journalism, Graduate School Division"
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2006/10/dishonesty-in-journalism-graduate_28.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Kirkhill (28 Oct 2006)

geo said:
			
		

> Airbus is having all sorts of problems right now.
> The german workers are even talking about...... strikes
> 
> Airbus has bet it's reputation on the A380 - which is way behind schedule and waaaaaay over budget.... the A400 is only an afterthought.



Further to Geo's comment:



> Airbus Confirms Further A380 DelayLaunches Company Restructuring Plan   Toulouse, 03 October 2006
> 
> Airbus has informed its A380 customers about a further delay in the delivery schedule of the A380. According to this revised plan, the first A380 will be delivered in October 2007. Thirteen more will be delivered in 2008 and 25 in 2009. The industrial ramp-up will be completed in 2010, when 45 A380s are going to be delivered.
> 
> ...



http://eads.net/web/lang/en/1024/content/OF00000000400004/8/52/41142528.html/41180009_41180009/content/OF00000040950509/1/33/41480331.html

Meanwhile 



> Airbus Signed Agreement With CASGC For Largest Single Transaction Ever - 170 AircraftToulouse, 26 October 2006
> 
> China Aviation Supplies Import and Export Group Corporation (CASGC) signed a General Terms Agreement (GTA) for the purchase of 150 A320 Family aircraft and a Letter of Intent (LOI) for 20 A350XWB aircraft with Airbus in Beijing.
> 
> China Aviation Supplies Import and Export Group Corporation (CASGC) signed a General Terms Agreement (GTA) for the purchase of 150 A320 Family aircraft and a Letter of Intent (LOI) for 20 A350XWB aircraft with Airbus in Beijing .......


http://eads.net/web/lang/en/1024/content/OF00000000400004/8/52/41142528.html/41180009_41180009/content/OF00000040950509/1/33/41480331.html

And



> Airbus Signs Framework Agreement With Chinese Consortium On A320 Final Assembly Line In China Toulouse, 26 October 2006
> 
> Airbus has signed today the Framework Agreement with a Chinese Consortium comprising Tianjin Free Trade Zone (TJFTZ), China Aviation Industry Corporation I (AVIC I) and China Aviation Industry Corporation II (AVIC II) in Beijing on the establishment of an A320 Family Final Assembly Line in China. This follows the study initiated in late 2005 and is part of Airbus’ commitment to increasing its industrial cooperation with China.
> 
> Airbus has signed today the Framework Agreement with a Chinese Consortium comprising Tianjin Free Trade Zone (TJFTZ), China Aviation Industry Corporation I (AVIC I) and China Aviation Industry Corporation II (AVIC II) in Beijing on the establishment of an A320 Family Final Assembly Line in China. This follows the study initiated in late 2005 and is part of Airbus’ commitment to increasing its industrial cooperation with China.




In one fell swoop it appears that Airbus has received a significant cash infusion, a lower manufacturing cost for a proven aircraft and a tie to a potentially very lucrative customer.  As well as bypassing German labour problems to an extent.  And China gains.....

As to the "learning curve" issue: Is that perhaps due to too many new projects at that same time with too many new hires?


----------



## Kirkhill (28 Oct 2006)

Mark - I responded at "The Torch".

Cheers, Chris.


----------



## Rescue Randy (29 Oct 2006)

There is a factor that is valid in the CTV story - certification is a problem for the C-130J and will be a problem for Canada if they purchase the aircraft.  According to the story in the following link, it was primarily a certification issue that was the reason the aircraft was rejected by the US JCA competition. 
http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-1994000.php


----------



## geo (29 Oct 2006)

C27J Spartan...... isn't that the "mini" Herc that the Airforce already has ( and has parked on the ramp for lack of parts & other service issues)?

I believe the CF was looking at the C27J as a replacement for the old Buffalo


----------



## MarkOttawa (29 Oct 2006)

My further take:

"New planes for Air Force: Critics take aim at media and politicians"
http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/007994.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## geo (29 Oct 2006)

OHHH..... canonball!


----------



## The Bread Guy (29 Oct 2006)

This looked like the best place to share this latest bit - feel free to move it as you see fit mods.  Am I the only one worried about this jacking up the cost, and slowing the delivery clock?

 Shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the Copyright Act - http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/info/act-e.html#rid-33409

*Choppers could carry troops into Afghanistan*
Murray Brewster, Canadian Press, via Globe & Mail 29 Oct 06
Permalink

OTTAWA — Ottawa has quietly amended its contract with the maker of the navy's new Cyclone helicopters to ensure that the choppers will not only be able to hunt submarines, but also carry troops.

The design change, expected to add roughly $5-million to the overall price tag, would allow the air force to assign the choppers to a wide variety of different roles — including potential air support for the army in Afghanistan.

The Defence Department, however, denies that it's making the move with the Afghan mission specifically in mind.

Colonel Dave Burt, director of air requirements for the department, acknowledged that being able to strip the H-92 quickly of its sonar and radar gear, and strap in troop seats, was not part of the initial design for the Cyclones, the long-awaited replacements for the decades-old Sea Kings.

The change “will provide us with far better flexibility and capability,” said Col. Burt.

As it stands, Canadian soldiers operating in Afghanistan must hitch chopper rides into battle with other NATO countries.

But the decision to order the change to the Cyclone was not directly driven by the need for air support among Canada's 2,500 troops in Kandahar, said Col. Burt.

Nor has there been any decision to send the choppers to Afghanistan after they begin rolling off the assembly line in 2008, he said.

“There was no specific theatre — or specific event — that was brought to mind when the decision was made. This was done in the interest of transformation of the forces,” he said.

All three branches of the military are in the midst of a major shake-up orchestrated by Chief of Defence Staff General Rick Hillier, who is trying to break down the traditional barriers between the army, air force and navy. The idea is to make them more nimble and able to respond rapidly to crises at home and aboard.

As part of that plan Gen. Hillier wants to see the navy purchase or build an amphibious landing transport — or “Big Honkin' Ship” as he calls it — to rapidly deploy soldiers to global hot spots. Troop-carrying helicopters are a must for that kind of warship.

The air force is already preparing for its new role by training existing Sea King pilots on the finer points of picking up and dropping off troops.

The former Liberal government signed a $1.8-billion deal with Sikorsky Aircraft Corp. of Stratford, Conn., to build 28 helicopters and begin delivering one per month starting in November 2008. In addition, the company won a $3.2-billion, 20-year service contract.

In the meantime, there has been speculation that the breakdown-prone Sea Kings might see service in Afghanistan, in the hope that airlifts could help stem the tide of casualties from roadside bomb attacks.

The design changes ordered to the Cyclone will not affect its 2008 delivery date, said Col. Burt.

Ideally, the air force would like to see mechanics able to rip out the helicopter's submarine-hunting gear and replace it with troops seats on demand. Converting the old Sea Kings from one role to another is a long, painful process that requires putting the aircraft into the shop for months at a time.


----------



## Kirkhill (29 Oct 2006)

I saw that article as well.  The thing that surprised me was the statement that the role-switching option wasn't in the final contract.  I thought that was in the Statement of Requirement from the beginning.


----------



## The Bread Guy (30 Oct 2006)

KH - if that's the case, I'm a >LITTLE< less concerned about escalating costs.  Not that the troops aren't worth it, mind you, (Lord _knows _ they've been waiting long enough), but every $ you don't have to spend on x and still get a good product, the more is available to spend on y.


----------



## Kirkhill (30 Oct 2006)

milnewstbay said:
			
		

> KH - if that's the case, I'm a >LITTLE< less concerned about escalating costs.  Not that the troops aren't worth it, mind you, (Lord _knows _ they've been waiting long enough), but every $ you don't have to spend on x and still get a good product, the more is available to spend on y.



Don't get me wrong.  It's not that I am not concerned about costs.  I am just confused about the ability to roll the Anti-Sub gear out and install seats.


----------



## beenthere (30 Oct 2006)

Just speculation here but the change mentioned could be something that really cuts down the configuration time from one role to another. Like changing how the ASW gear is fitted into the cabin. If all of the equipment was configured to be latched in place vs. nuts and bolts it would be much easier to do a quick conversion. Not just for troop support but for medevac, cargo and evacuation missions. It would greatly enhance the capability to respond to any situation without delay while people dismantle gear that is installed by the usual methods.


----------



## Cloud Cover (30 Oct 2006)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Don't get me wrong.  It's not that I am not concerned about costs.  I am just confused about the ability to roll the Anti-Sub gear out and install seats.



Slide and pin-lock systems for interior and easy access removable sensors on the exterior. Getting it all out and off is the small [not so easy]part. Easy re-installation, calibration and acceptance by the crew is quite another kettle of fish.


----------



## Kirkhill (30 Oct 2006)

Understood whiskey and thanks.

Was it just my imagination or was that in the original Statement of Requirement?


----------



## Baz (30 Oct 2006)

No, it wasn't in the SOR. The SOR talks about the requirement and justificaton and ends with "Therefore, the MH must be capable of transferring a minimum of six passengers."

The MHRS (Maritime Helicopter Requirements Spec) is more specific:
3.12.8 Furnishings and Equipment
3.12.8.1 Seats
3.12.8.1.1 Passenger Seats
3.12.8.1.1.1 The MH shall incorporate and include six passenger seats, two of which are fitted at all
times. The remaining four seats may be ROLE FIT EQUIPMENT.
3.12.8.1.1.2 All passenger seats shall be stowable while fitted within the helicopter.

beenthere is largely correct - the change was to move the tactical console from facing forwards in the rear of the aircraft to facing left along the left side, repositioning the ASW gear, and ensuring they go in and out easily.  There are various configs, one is full up ASW with up to six seats, one is hybrid (all sensors but ASW) and up to 13 seats, and one is no console or mission rack and up to 22 seats.  A large part of the extra cost is the seats...


----------



## Kirkhill (30 Oct 2006)

Much appreciated Baz.


----------



## beenthere (1 Nov 2006)

"A large part of the extra cost is the seats..." A large price for "seats troop folding nylon red".


----------



## SeaKingTacco (1 Nov 2006)

> "A large part of the extra cost is the seats..." A large price for "seats troop folding nylon red".



I think that you will all be pleasantly surprised that the day of folding nylon seats is past.  All troop seats in the future will be crash resistant with 4 point harnesses.  Luxury!


----------



## geo (1 Nov 2006)

Hmmm.... reading in today's paper.

Would appear that one part of US Gov't is placing blocks on our procuring all this new geewizz kit cause it's too sensitive.  Guess the PM & the Pres will have to do some talking if they're expecting us to do some fightin'


----------

