Bidding may be bypassed in $12.2B military deals

[Dissident]

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

 

[aesop081]

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

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

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

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

 

[KevinB]

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

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

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

 

[Kirkhill]

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

Agreed

 

[GO!!!]

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

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

I will defer to the knowledge of an aesop though!

 

[aesop081]

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

I will defer to the knowledge of an aesop though!

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

 

[Recce41]

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

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

 

[Kirkhill]

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

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

 

[GO!!!]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[KevinB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Recce41]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

,

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

 

[GO!!!]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Kirkhill]

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

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

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

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

 

[The_Falcon]

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

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

 

[DG-41]

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

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

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

DG

 

[GO!!!]

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

DG

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

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

 

[daniel h.]

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

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

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

 

[daniel h.]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[daniel h.]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Infanteer]

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

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

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