Posted by "dave" <dave.newcombe@home.com> on Wed, 26 Apr 2000 22:04:53 -0700
With the amount of UN mission and humanitarian relief taskings we get, It
would be worth our while to have the capability to transport and deploy a
battaliion of troops, by sea. This would give us rapid deployment
capabilities for materiel, and a command and control platform in theatre.
We can airlift ours troops, but getting thier equipment to a hotspot is a
bit different.
A Naval platform with a battalion‘s light combat equipment pre-positioned,
would be a great headstart to loading out a Batt. and getting the logistics
of an around the world voyage sorted out.
----- Original Message -----
From: Gunner
To:
Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2000 3:50 PM
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Gov‘t Negligence]
> Does anyone know about building Hummers under license in Canada? I
> heard it was looked at but GM or the unions... wouldn‘t allow it.
>
> Agree with your comments about senior officers and NCMs working with
> companies that receive large contracts...GM Diesel LAV III rings a
> bell as does Computing Devices Canada TCCCS and Calian Technologies
> JANUS. Is this "featherbedding" or simply companies hiring
> experienced Canadian Officers and NCMs? I don‘t know.
>
> About the Frigates...that was a political hot potato and still is for
> that matter. You here calls from the Bloc Quebecois and PCs for the
> government to subsidize a national ship building program all the time.
> There is a reason the Canadian Navy ship wise is a relatively brand
> new fleet. I predict that the government will announce in the next year
> or two plans to build at least two - four of the proposed Navy ships
> combined comd and con/supply/tankers to replace the AORs.
>
> dave wrote:
> >
> > Have you ever followed the paer trail on one of these big contracts.
Ask
> > questions about the Navy‘s new Frigate program, like who are the primary
> > shareholders and company officers in Paramax prime software
contracter.
> > You might find them to be recentlyat the time retired Naval Officers.
> > Maybe they "bid" and won, but with 100 untried merchandise and a long
term
> > maintenance contract, it isn‘t hard to be cynical.
> > Since the designs we select are always built under licence by a Canadian
> > company, they we have every right to expect the very best for the
buck..We
> > can build Hummers under licence I‘m sure.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Gunner
> > To:
> > Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2000 3:20 PM
> > Subject: Re: [Fwd: Gov‘t Negligence]
> >
> > > I agree with you Carl...buy Canadian, however, it has to meet the
> > > minimum standards. As I mentioned the purchase of a Hummer although
> > > more expensive could have replaced the Iltis and the LSVW and the
Iltis
> > > replacement. Cost savings could have been realized in trg, spare
parts,
> > > etc, etc and you have an operationally proven veh an Arnie drives one
> > > as well!.
> > >
> > > Just because a vehicle fails the trials doesn‘t mean it will be
> > > discarded I‘m not sure if Andrew was involved in the post purchase
> > > trials or the after purchase trials as if it is easily fixed through
a
> > > modification, then, all is well. I think Andrew mentioned the Iltis
in
> > > sand trials... I never had a problem in sand unless I was trying to
get
> > > up a steep hill. Some of the other members may have alot more
> > > experience using the Iltis but I drove one for along time starting in
> > > 1986 and there wasn‘t many places it couldn‘t go. Anyone else have
> > > comments on the Iltis?? I haven‘t really "lived" in one for about
seven
> > > years.
> > >
> > > Carl Dinsdale wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Gunner,
> > > >
> > > > You‘ve brought up a very good point about keeping our spending
within
> > our borders, who can
> > > > argue with bolstering our own economy? However, Andrew waded in here
and
> > stated that he
> > > > was on the test team for the Iltis and it failed, but was still
> > purchased. I don‘t
> > > > disagree with Bombardier or any other Canadian company being awarded
> > contracts for DND
> > > > purchases, but the equipment should have to meet our testing and
> > standards prior to final
> > > > acceptance. The LSVW came in just before I got out, but once again I
> > heard it was
> > > > purchased despite failing trials miserably. Should we have bought
it?
> > Absolutely, BUT only
> > > > after it was improved to the point of passing our trials. Those
trials
> > are fine and dandy,
> > > > but are minimum standards, as pointed out by Andrew. They do not
come
> > close to the s**t
> > > > and abuse any vehicle is put through on a 6 week spring Ex.
> > > > I know there will be criticism for every and any military vehicle
ever
> > purchased, and I
> > > > obviously do not have the years of experience that you do in the
green
> > machine, but who is
> > > > making these decisions to purchase vehicles that fail our own
testing?
> > The down time,
> > > > parts, repairs etc. experienced after their purchase seems like
spending
> > good money after
> > > > bad. The long term be thought about during these purchase decisions
as
> > well because we
> > > > constantly try to get 20 years out of vehicles that were purchased
with
> > 10 years in mind.
> > > >
> > > > Am I way off base here? If so, by all means enlighten me.
> > > >
> > > > Carl
> > > >
> > > > Gunner wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > DND spending billions of dollars on new kit IS a political issue.
> > > > > Canadian Taxpayers are the ones financing these purchases and they
> > have
> > > > > a reasonable expectation that most of the money will be spent in
> > Canada
> > > > > vice the US or some other country. That‘s reality and I don‘t
think
> > > > > the government is wrong. It‘s my tax dollars too and I want some
type
> > > > > of economic spinoff for Canadians...who can deny the benefit of
the
> > MLVW
> > > > > and Iltis contract to Bombardier?
> > > > >
> > > > > Secondly, was the Iltis the best veh for the job of battlefield
taxi.
> > > > > Probably not the best, but, it is able to accomplish that mission.
> > Now
> > > > > if you argued the economics of buying an Iltis, LSVW and the
upcoming
> > > > > LLVW Iltis replacement instead of buying one vehicle ie the
Hummer
> > > > > which was able to fulfill all these roles with its different
variants.
> > > > > I could see alot of cost savings in having only one vehicle....one
> > > > > vehicle for three purposes means, less trg of veh techs, simpler
spare
> > > > > parts reqr, less dvr trg, etc etc. I think the Hummer is a diesel
as
> > > > > well, further simplifying the POL supply chain as we would have a
> > > > > predominately diesel fleet.
> > > > >
> > > > > Gunner sends.....
> > > > >
> > > > > PS. Its‘ a better vehicle then the other pieces of s**t that we
> > bought.
> > > > >
> > > > > Carl DINSDALE wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I didn‘t think my point was the "after-market value" of the
Iltis,
> > but it is a valid
> > > > > > point. The Iltis may have been intended for the battlefield, but
> > anyone who drove it
> > > > > > can attest to the fact that it wasn‘t engineered very well for
that
> > environment.
> > > > > > That gutless 1.4 litre engine does not go very well with a four
> > wheel drive
> > > > > > suspension, especially one equipped with a differential lock. It
> > seemed like they
> > > > > > had endless electrical and fuel system problems and the best
thing
> > the little bugger
> > > > > > was good for was summer road moves from London to Pet with the
top
> > down. I‘m way off
> > > > > > topic here, in my original message I was simply trying to
express my
> > frustration
> > > > > > with military acquisitions being made for political or fiscal
> > reasons instead of
> > > > > > because it is simply the best equipment available for the job.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Carl
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Bradley Sallows wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >I went to a Crown Assest auction last year and they were
selling
> > off a few
> > > > > > > Iltis‘, but there were big signs on them stating they could
not be
> > registered in
> > > > > > > Manitoba. When i asked why, they informed me that they had
grossly
> > failed
> > > > > > > collision tests, with the hood regularly detaching and
punching
> > through the
> > > > > > > windscreen. This would decapitate anyone in the front seat and
is
> > just not
> > > > > > > acceptable for Joe Civie, but hey, soldiers are a dime a
dozen,
> > right?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > No one should minimize the shame of requiring soldiers to use
> > equipment which is
> > > > > > > hazardous due to sheer age eg. Labrador. However, why
should we
> > expect
> > > > > > > military pattern vehicles to be engineered to the safety
standards
> > required for
> > > > > > > passenger automobiles? The Iltis was intended for the
battlefield
> > where there
> > > > > > > are greater hazards than collisions, not the freeway. The
> > after-market value
> > > > > > > in Canadian jurisdictions was never, and should never be, a
> > consideration.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Brad Sallows
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > > NOTE: To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> > > > > > > to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
> > > > > > > to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> > > > > > > message body.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > NOTE: To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> > > > > > to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
> > > > > > to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> > > > > > message body.
> > > > > --------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > NOTE: To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> > > > > to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
> > > > > to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> > > > > message body.
> > > >
> > > > --------------------------------------------------------
> > > > NOTE: To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> > > > to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
> > > > to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> > > > message body.
> > > --------------------------------------------------------
> > > NOTE: To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> > > to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
> > > to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> > > message body.
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------
> > NOTE: To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> > to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
> > to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> > message body.
> --------------------------------------------------------
> NOTE: To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
> to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> message body.
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.
