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

FWSAR (CC130H, Buffalo, C27J, V22): Status & Possibilities

  • Thread starter Thread starter aesop081
  • Start date Start date
Timbit, there's a difference between making a well founded point, and coming out swinging (on shakey ground) at someone for whom you have little knowledge (if you hadn't yet reviewed their posts to see where they were coming from).

These things are not cut and dry, simple "state your needs, we'll all get along happily as an inter-departmental/industrial family".  Plenty of agendas going on both within, and outside all the involved organizations.

Haletown and dapaterson are not at all far off the mark.

Regards

G2G

 
dapaterson said:
However, Industry can look to DND and say "You've known about these problems for years and done nothing to replace the aircraft.  Why are your delays now reasons for you to circumvent the system you know so well?"

Very good point! Delays in procurement are no reason to go above the law.

Otherwise, we could use this reasonning for everything: JSS (or whatever it is/will be called) is mission-critical, let's buy off the shelf from one company. Destroyers must be replaced: let's buy this particular one.

This also applies to any other dept, not just DND (we are not always as special as we kind of hope). RCMP cruisers are in short supply, it's an emergency, let's buy Ford. Coast Guard needs bigger ships, let's buy this one.

And so on and so on.

I understand when new, flash requirements appear because of deployments and the likes (i.e. Nyala, Chinook, M777, even Globemasters), and that we might want to expedite these. But long-forecasted platform replacement? These should be forecasted long enough in advance so that we can respect the law and follow an objective purchasing process, OUTSIDE the politicians' hands. Why, they do not always favour an option in particular just to please the military (remember Airbus, 1980s?).

That said, of course I don't want someone to die. But I'm saying, we cannot take any opportunity to skip due process as we please.
 
Good2Golf said:
Timbit, there's a difference between making a well founded point, and coming out swinging (on shakey ground) at someone for whom you have little knowledge (if you hadn't yet reviewed their posts to see where they were coming from).

These things are not cut and dry, simple "state your needs, we'll all get along happily as an inter-departmental/industrial family".  Plenty of agendas going on both within, and outside all the involved organizations.

Haletown and dapaterson are not at all far off the mark.

Regards

G2G

I apologized to Haletown for the outburst. But I don't think I was swinging on shakey grounds. All-out attacks on the PS are as shaky as anything else.

Let's look at it this way: Industry Canada's job is to promote canadian businesses. Would it not be failing at its job if it didn't ask of DND to follow the law in processing a major equipment purchase program?

I understand there are agendas and everything... within DND as well. Which is why due process, objective procurement processes can, often, avoid giving in blindly to those agendas. Whose agenda would be served by this sole source purchase.
 
Protectionism.  Le sigh.


As someone who is feeling the economic pinch pretty harshly, you would expect me to be all for someone throwing me a home-grown bone.  Screw that.  The right tool for the job is far more important to me than pseudo make work.
 
Haven't we been through this already?  As far as I remember, the list of requirements was released, and the C27J and C295 were proposed.  Is this not correct?  Seems like a competition to me..
 
dapaterson said:
However, Industry can look to DND and say "You've known about these problems for years and done nothing to replace the aircraft.  Why are your delays now reasons for you to circumvent the system you know so well?"
As best as I can tell, we are not circumventing the system.  FWSAR will proceed through competition based on performance and technical specifications produced by DND.  Those specifications were developed to ensure that the aircraft procured meets Canada’s Search & Rescue needs throughout the envisioned life span of the aircraft.  The complaining seems to be that (because no Canadian made aircraft fits the specification) Canadian industry wants DND to water-down the specification.  In other words:  Lower the minimum standard so a Canadian aircraft can be competed, and pass the risk onto the Canadian citizens who’s lives will one day depend on it. 
 
I'm not a pilot nor an aircraft mechanic nor SAR tech, so I'm not in a position to comment on DND's tech specs for this requirement, but there have been attempts in the past to game the requirements, to deliberately exclude certain competitors, or influence the outcome towards a preferred supplier.

Hence the need for a two engine fighter aircraft - "because, in the arctic, pilots need two engines", put in place to remove the F-16 from consideration; then Boeing snuck in with the F-18 vice the F-15 that was the desired outcome.


DND's hands are not clean either; the constant adversarial clashes between the ECSes and ADM(Mat) and then DND and PWGSC serve only to further slow the processes.
 
dapaterson said:
I'm not a pilot nor an aircraft mechanic nor SAR tech, so I'm not in a position to comment on DND's tech specs for this requirement, but there have been attempts in the past to game the requirements, to deliberately exclude certain competitors, or influence the outcome towards a preferred supplier.

Hence the need for a two engine fighter aircraft - "because, in the arctic, pilots need two engines", put in place to remove the F-16 from consideration; then Boeing snuck in with the F-18 vice the F-15 that was the desired outcome.


DND's hands are not clean either; the constant adversarial clashes between the ECSes and ADM(Mat) and then DND and PWGSC serve only to further slow the processes.

Actually, both aircraft (F-18 and F-15) were from the same company (McDonnell Douglas).  I don't understand how "they snuck in with the F-18", only to remove the F-15 from the competition.
 
TimBit said:
Let's look at it this way: Industry Canada's job is to promote canadian businesses. Would it not be failing at its job if it didn't ask of DND to follow the law in processing a major equipment purchase program?

Are you implying that DND is not following the law?  Could you elaborate on what law you are refering to that Industry Canada believes/claims/states? (Ref:?) that DND is not complying with?

In the world of "Rules", there is legislation (a.k.a. the law), and there are regulations and policies that affect Government of Canada procurement in general, and in some cases by Departmental policies (such as the policies of the Defence Services Program) -- all are being followed by DND.  DND developed operational requirements representing the best balance of a fixed-wing SAR capability that was currently being provided by a number of legacy fleets (CC115, CC130).  The case was presented to and approved by Treasury Board to continue the definition of the capability, which is what DND has done to date.

That non-100% synchronized effort is causing some frustration amonst some involved in the effort is understandable, but care should be taken to not imply that illegal activity is being taken on the part of DND, or any other department or agency, for that matter.

Regards,

G2G

 
SupersonicMax said:
Actually, both aircraft (F-18 and F-15) were from the same company (McDonnell Douglas).  I don't understand how "they snuck in with the F-18", only to remove the F-15 from the competition.

Mea culpa; I forgot that both were from the same parent company.  However, to my knowledge the overall integration of aircraft, sensors and weapons were proposed by two different consortia; the preferred option was the F-15 (longer range, greater payload, faster).  I don't think the project staff expected the F-18 offer, coming up the middle; otherwise they'd have included a more stringent combat radius requirement (F-15s have nearly triple the range of the F-16 or F-18).

A friend of mine is a professional magician who explained that stacking the deck is much more difficult than it looks, and should be left to professionals - otherwise it looks obvious and no one is fooled.
 
I see Aviation Week has an article about how Viking Air plans to restart Buffalo production. ::)

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/BUFFALO032709.xml&headline=Viking%20Eyes%20Restarting%20Buffalo%20Line&channel=defense

KJK :cdn:
 
Aside from all this elevated argument my 27 frustrated years in the air force is a history of consistent political interference with the optimal military choice. This would be why the C-17 purchase stands out so strongly as an anomaly, the right purchase for the right reasons.
One of the reasons I like many in the military study history is to figure out WTF happened ? Well after a few years as a civy and much reading I find reality is political manipulation and interference is the norm not the exception, as it is in many countries and has been for centuries.

IT'S HARD TO SOAR WITH THE EAGLES WHEN YOU'RE SURROUNDED BY TURKEYS
 
Baden  Guy said:
Aside from all this elevated argument my 27 frustrated years in the air force is a history of consistent political interference with the optimal military choice. This would be why the C-17 purchase stands out so strongly as an anomaly, the right purchase for the right reasons.
One of the reasons I like many in the military study history is to figure out WTF happened ? Well after a few years as a civy and much reading I find reality is political manipulation and interference is the norm not the exception, as it is in many countries and has been for centuries.

IT'S HARD TO SOAR WITH THE EAGLES WHEN YOU'RE SURROUNDED BY TURKEYS

For all the good and the bad reasons, that's why it's called democracy. ;D
 
TimBit said:
These should be forecasted long enough in advance so that we can respect the law and follow an objective purchasing process, OUTSIDE the politicians' hands.

FWIW FWSAR replacement has been an ongoing project since the turn of the century.  That is plenty of time for any and all competitors to get their proposed product in order.  New additions to the melee have been popping up at the last minute and crying foul about the timing, etc.

Why, they do not always favour an option in particular just to please the military (remember Airbus, 1980s?).

What about Airbus?  Are you talking about the 5 Polaris aircraft that we picked up off of Canadian Airlines ?
 
LGen Watt fights back (usual copyright disclaimer):

Air force chief defends $3B plan for new aircraft
Competition for search-and-rescue planes not rigged, general says

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/force+chief+defends+plan+aircraft/1437937/story.html

Canada's air force chief blasted lobbyists and aerospace industry players Friday for "beating" on the Defence Department for its handling of the $3-billion plan to buy a new fleet of fixed-wing search-and-rescue planes.

"We're getting beat up too much on fixed-wing SAR," Lt.-Gen. Angus Watt said Friday afternoon at Defence Department headquarters.

"The problem is we haven't been able to tell our story because normally it's 'advice to government.' Until the government approves our program, we try and keep things internal to the department," said Watt, who then launched into a Power Point presentation of the detailed specifications of Canada's new fleet of 15 search-and-rescue planes -- specs that have yet to be made public, including to the consortiums that will eventually bid on the airplane contract.

"Everybody else has had a free rein to pitch their view of what Canada's needs are," said Watt, saying the slides were his "advice to government on what our next planes should look like."

Watt said he had the blessing of Defence Minister Peter MacKay to discuss the specifications of what he believes the air force needs to replace its ageing fleet of Hercules and Buffalo aircraft that date back to the 1960s. The fixed-wing search-and-rescue procurement has been mired in government and industry infighting that has frustrated the military and led lobbyists to level a familiar accusation that has bedeviled many lucrative military aircraft purchases: That the government has tailored its specifications to favour one particular airplane.

"Unlike certain accusations that have been floating around, we did not design these high-level capabilities to match a specific airplane. We designed for the mission," said Watt. However, Watt allowed that the Alenia C-27J, an Italian plane that would be built at a U.S. plant, meets the specifications. "That's one, but there's other possibilities," said Watt.

In January, the Ottawa-based Aerospace Industries Association of Canada complained in a letter to MacKay and Industry Minister Tony Clement that the military reliance on U.S. manufacturers was depriving Canadian companies of jobs. The accusation incensed MacKay, who insisted that the government's regional benefits policy would be respected -- that for every dollar given to a foreign company, one dollar in regional benefits for Canadian industry would be spent.

Earlier this week, reports emerged that Industry Canada was determined to draw a "line in the sand" with the Defence Department to ensure that the aircraft purchase did not discriminate against Canadian companies. "I'm after an airplane that will provide an equivalent level of service to that which Canadians currently enjoy with the Buffalo and the Herc. I'm not looking to gild the lily. I'm not looking to do anything beyond anything Canadians have a right to expect," said Watt.

Mark
Ottawa
 
uncharacteristically direct from an Airforce General, timely. I hope the CF is allowed more opportunity to speak like this. I love the Buffalo. But she is like an old companion dog, way past her prime, and only around because I don't have the courage to take her out behind the barn. The crews are losing confidence and proficiency, and I think RCC is losing confidence in our ability to complete our task. As I've said before, the buff is rectangular in cross section, and no new buff will be pressurized, so should not be considered. I hope that Viking builds Buffalos. I think it will be great to see that plane continue flying. But I do not want my new plane to be my old plane. I want improved capability. I want to be able to prepare my rescue equipment while in transit, not be tied to an oxygen mask. I want improved sensors, and a proper place to house them. I Need a ramp, and I'd like to walk upright in the cabin. I'd love the C27, would make due with the C295, and would prefer a Herc to a Buff. Whatever plane we decide, should be a common platform cross Canada. Crew training in small split fleets is ridiculously time and resource intensive. I think we should have enough C27 to do Domestic transport and SAR, and leave C130J to work internationally with the c17. The Buff is on borrowed time.
 
A Torch post--with lots of background detail to the issue:

Fixed-wing SAR aircraft: Chief of the Air Staff fights back...
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/03/fixed-wing-sar-aircraf-chief-of-air.html

Mark
Ottawa
 
LGen Watt needs a better PAff O.  Friday afternoon press conferences get lost in the weekend.
 
dapaterson:
Friday afternoon press conferences get lost in the weekend.
 

Hardly, when the press smells blood--for example:

http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/609870
http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/force+hits+back+critics+search+rescue+purchase/1436752/story.html
http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/force+hits+back+critics+search+rescue+purchase/1436752/story.html
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/force+hits+back+critics+search+rescue+purchase/1436752/story.html
http://www2.canada.com/nanaimodailynews/news/story.html?id=1436752
http://www.nationalnewswatch.com/
http://www.members.shaw.ca/nspector4/MIND.htm [see end]

May be more.  And then there's this:

CANADA'S BULLY BOY AEROSPACE INDUSTRY BEATS UP ON ANGUS AND NDHQ GANG
http://communities.canada.com/ottawacitizen/blogs/defencewatch/archive/2009/03/28/canada-s-bully-boy-aerospace-industry-beats-up-on-angus-and-ndhq-gang.aspx

Mark
Ottawa
 
Back
Top