• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Harper government may face rough ride over military purchase

Sorry!

  I was just commenting on how the article we're discussing uses a retired admnistrator, with many years in "defence acquisitions", to take the Tories to task.  When I see the long timeline needed to acquire just about any piece of kit, the political/industrial issues taking priority over getting the most effective equipment, etc.  I can't help but think that he's not a great source of wisdom  on how things oughta be done.  Personally I like the idea of spending less time and money on the "process" of acquiring equipment and focussing on actually getting the stuff into the hands of the folks who need it. 
 
Retired AF Guy said:
The latest news is that PM Harper will announce next week which is likely the biggest shopping spree for the military in Canadian history:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

See my post here:

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

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

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

You do have to say one thing for Russian "engineering" it is rugged and utilitarian. Just doesn't work too well.
 
.... sorta explains the titanium undersides of some soviet era fighter / bombers :)
 
Some people need a reality check:

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

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

OTTAWA -- The Harper government officially released a plan yesterday to direct $8-billion in military contracts to the Boeing Co. to buy made-in-the-USA aircraft, insisting that the same amount of money will come back into Canada.

But the Liberal opposition said the government is using an uncompetitive strategy to please the Americans on the eve of today's meeting between Prime Minister Stephen Harper and U.S. President George W. Bush.

"It's an irresponsible way for the government to move forward and they're simply doing it to please Mr. Bush. It's going to be a very expensive handshake that Mr. Harper will have with Mr. Bush," said Liberal defence critic Ujjal Dosanjh.

The Department of Public Works invoked national security and a lack of competing aircraft as it signalled its desire to buy 16 Chinook helicopters for $2.7-billion, and four Globemaster C-17 cargo airplanes at $3.4-billion. When maintenance is included, the total deal will reach $8-billion.

Public Works Minister Michael Fortier said no other aircraft are believed to offer the same capacities, and unless a competitor comes forward within 30 days, the two contracts will be awarded to Boeing.

Among other things, the government is seeking helicopters that can carry an infantry platoon of 30 fully armed soldiers, and planes that can carry 39 tonnes of material over more than 6,000 kilometres.

"Although preliminary industry research indicates that there might only be one type of aircraft that suits the Canadian Forces requirements, I want to make sure . . . that the Government of Canada asks the market about other options that might be out there," Mr. Fortier said in a news release. "We welcome competition and manufacturers are invited to submit proposals."

The government said if Boeing gets the contract, it will have to invest the same amount of money in direct and indirect benefits in Canada for work on these contracts or on other products.

But Mr. Dosanjh said there is no guarantee Canada will get the aircraft at the best possible price.

"The requirements are made in a way that there is no competition," the Liberal MP said in an interview.

Mr. Dosanjh said the government's purchase strategy, with its reliance on U.S. products, is putting Canada's sovereignty at risk. Mr. Dosanjh said the United States could prevent the Canadian Air Force from undertaking a humanitarian mission in Cuba with a C-17.

But Al DeQuetteville, the vice-president of Boeing Aerospace in Canada, said the Liberals have it wrong and that Canada will have full control over its planes. "It's nonsense," he said, pointing out that the Australian and the British air forces have also bought C-17s.

The Canadian Forces used to own seven Chinook helicopters, but they were sold to the Netherlands in the mid-1990s because they were too costly. Mr. DeQuetteville said the Chinook has been modernized and costs 50 per cent less to operate and maintain now.

Also yesterday, Public Works launched a process to purchase 17 aircraft to replace Canada's fleet of Hercules transport planes. The government is seeking letters of interest from companies that want to bid on the $4.9-billion contract.


It is far more important to prepare to bail out Cuba than support our own national interest.......... ::)
 
I'd say our "sovereignty is being put at risk" when we have to ask other countries to carry our troops and equipment; certainly it doesn't reflect an nation fully capable of looking after the needs of it's military.  It appears Ujjal is becoming increasing irrational in his attacks on the PCs; I'd imagine trying to rewrite 13 years of Liberal mismanagement of the military would send anyone over the edge ;D 
 
Letter in Globe today (text not online), "A little military reality":

"A little military reality

MARK COLLINS

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

Mark
Ottawa

 
Quagmire said:
How could the US prevent us from doing anything with our own planes?
They can't .... but slowing down / blocking the supply chain of spare parts is always possible.  Take a look at the F14 Tomcats that Iran bought under the Shah.  With the Ayatolas in charge, the spare parts just stopped coming.
 
Im not sure where all these parts for the C-17 come from....but is it not possible that WE make alot of the parts in Canada? If so then this would give Canadians jobs. If Im wrong then Im wrong... Please correct me if you know anything about this. Seeing as we have a few Boeing shops around here.
 
Our Defence Critic is not the sharpest knife in the drawer. It's too bad... a good defence critic actually helps the CF and DND. But so far he's only fired off ill-founded anti-American innuendo and thrown around Polaris Institute tripe. Next he'll be quoting the Senlis Institute...
 
I quit trying to understand politicians actions and motives a long time ago. You think you have them figured out and then they pull a 180.
 
North Star said:
Our Defence Critic is not the sharpest knife in the drawer. It's too bad... a good defence critic actually helps the CF and DND. But so far he's only fired off ill-founded anti-American innuendo and thrown around Polaris Institute tripe. Next he'll be quoting the Senlis Institute...

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