Harper government may face rough ride over military purchase

[Scoobie Newbie]

Hey Nemo

 

[Armymatters]

Guys, Nemo's right. It is a good way to drive a good deal, even though you realistically won't consider the other deal. Say that you are considering the Russian Antonov jet strongly, and Boeing will drop their price or include extras for us. It is like buying a car, you mention you are considering buying a car from another dealership, and the salesman at the current dealership will respond, even though the car at the current dealership is the car that fits your needs, and the other car at the other dealership is not what you want.

 

[Teddy Ruxpin]

Do you really think that that's a realistic proposition?  There is zero - zero - chance of Canada even remotely considering Soviet (er, Russian) equipment and any statements to the contrary would be immediately written off as a smoke screen.  Why try to BS our way around this procurement?  As I've said before, we need to get on with this and get on with it now, not in 2014 and certainly not with pie-in-the-sky aircraft that either (a) don't exist or (b) haven't flown yet.

 

[Armymatters]

Do you really think that that's a realistic proposition?  There is zero - zero - chance of Canada even remotely considering Soviet (er, Russian) equipment and any statements to the contrary would be immediately written off as a smoke screen.  Why try to BS our way around this procurement?  As I've said before, we need to get on with this and get on with it now, not in 2014 and certainly not with pie-in-the-sky aircraft that either (a) don't exist or (b) haven't flown yet.

It is a realistic propostion, as it is frequently done by airlines to get a better deal on their airplanes. And with the pie-in-the-sky comment, airlines frequently buy airplanes that don't exist or haven't flown yet. Look at Boeing's order book for the Boeing 787, an airplane that only exists on paper today. Boeing has 420 787's ordered by major airlines. If we just hand the contract over to Boeing, we are in short asking Boeing to go ahead and rip off the Canadian taxpayer by asking for a higher price.

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

AM it seems to me that you can't get your head wrapped around the fact that we can't wait for the A400 and I think it has been shown the the Russia plan is not practicle given the evidence here by memebers with first hand knowledge.  We need replacements years ago and unfortunately we can't wait for the long drawn out process of bids where you still may not even see the product with a change of gov't.  I don't recall a bidding war on the RG-31 or the M777.

 

[Armymatters]

AM it seems to me that you can't get your head wrapped around the fact that we can't wait for the A400 and I think it has been shown the the Russia plan is not practicle given the evidence here by memebers with first hand knowledge.  We need replacements years ago and unfortunately we can't wait for the long drawn out process of bids where you still may not even see the product with a change of gov't.  I don't recall a bidding war on the RG-31 or the M777.

I am not saying we should return to the old way of procurement (long and extremely drawn out, like the +10 years in regards to Sea King replacement). I am saying military procurement should mirror commerical procurement: a proper competition based on the merits of the product, price, and support of the product. In commerical procurement, waiting a year until you make a decision is considered a long time to make up your mind. I am saying being able to haggle down the price of the product and getting better value for the money spent is essential for government accountability.

 

[Kirkhill]

I am not saying we should return to the old way of procurement (long and extremely drawn out, like the +10 years in regards to Sea King replacement). I am saying military procurement should mirror commerical procurement: a proper competition based on the merits of the product, price, and support of the product. In commerical procurement, waiting a year until you make a decision is considered a long time to make up your mind. I am saying being able to haggle down the price of the product and getting better value for the money spent is essential for government accountability.

Is it conventional for commercial buyers to wait until there are zero hours left on their entire fleet before they ponder their options?  Or don't they tend to look ahead and constantly upgrade parts of the fleet on an ongoing basis?  And further to that thought, if uniformity of supply (for cost savings in maintenance etc) is so critical to successful performance why is it most airlines that I have flown on seem to operate mixed fleets?

 

[Armymatters]

Is it conventional for commercial buyers to wait until there are zero hours left on their entire fleet before they ponder their options?  Or don't they tend to look ahead and constantly upgrade parts of the fleet on an ongoing basis?  And further to that thought, if uniformity of supply (for cost savings in maintenance etc) is so critical to successful performance why is it most airlines that I have flown on seem to operate mixed fleets?

1. It is more coventional for commerical operators to plan ahead for their fleets as their fleets age become obsolete. Replacing airplanes before they can no longer fly is important for fleet sustainability, and that is what we are currently lacking: fleet sustainability. With the current method of procurement, any transport fleet we own will not be sustainable.

2. Most airlines may seem to operate mixed fleets, but you are forgetting some details: most airplane models from the same manufacturer belong in families, in which all models within the family have some commonality, in terms of maintenance, training and operations. Even if airplanes are from different manufacturers, airplanes as ordered by airlines have some commonality, for example, in the engines. Airplanes are also ordered by airlines are ordered based on technical merit and pricing. If the fleet is large enough, then there is enough technical commonality for the fleet to be a sub-fleet of an airline.

Example (numbers purely fictious):

Imagine you own an airline and you have 1 one aircraft, you will keep one spare landing gear in your inventory. You hardly ever need it, but in case you need it, you need to have it to stay flying, as ordering a new one or reparing takes a week to have delivered from when you order it and you can't miss your plane for a week or so.

Now, lets say your airline now has 20 airplanes of the same type. You can still do with one spare landing gear, as it is very unlikely that 2 airplanes will have a broken landing gear exactly in the same week, so if one landing gear breaks, you replace it and order a new one, as it is a reasonably safe assumption that another landing gear on another airplane will break in that week.

If your airline operates 20 airplanes, each of a different type, different story. You will keep one spare landing gear in your inventory, for each type of airplane you own. You will be wasting a lot of money for parts that are rarely needed for such a small fleet. Most sucessful airlines do not do this, they either stick with one type of airplane, or have fleets large enough so they can save money on a mixed fleet.

 

[Retired AF Guy]

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.

 

[Haggis]

The cool thing about being a minority government is that the Conservatives can make all kinds of spending and expansion promises for the historically unpopular military knowing full well that they may never be held accountable for them being fulfilled.

From all appearances, this Preservative government is a "flash in the pan" and the next election will sweep the Liberals back into power.  (We just missed being forced into a Fall 2006 election yesterday. http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Politics/2006/06/21/1645485-cp.html)

IF the Fibberals win the next election, all these "promises" (contracts) could be cancelled.  Remember the EH 101?  Remember FRP?

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

What appearences exactly are you referring too?

 

[Haggis]

What appearences exactly are you referring too?

1.  They have been on the defensive on military issues ever since election. Notwithstanding that the Opposition parties are throwing hogwash and innuendo, the Canadian taxpayer/voter doesn't see "the facts".  S/he only gets the "message" the Grit friendly media trots out.

2.  The Torys have alienated the media.

3. Several big issues will come to a vote in the fall session, some of which could be turned into confidence votes (if yesterday's performance is an indicator).

4.  The Opposition parties will have three full months to snipe at the Torys while the House in in recess.

5.  Once the Fibberal leadership issues are sorted out, this fall or winter, the campaign will start in earnest and hamper the minority government's ability to govern effectively.

6.  Canadian minority governments have a history of being politically suicidal.

 

[Spencer100]

You do not have to worry about a confidence vote till after 2007 and the Liberals have a new leader.  Plus the Liberal party is broke broke broke....no money to fight an election. 

The CPC may want a election before then.  They have money. 

Also I think average joes are starting to understand that the CF needs new kit. 

 

[Spencer100]

One more thing....the Liberal will not be taking the summer to criticize Harper and the CPC as they will be spending the time bashing each other over the head in the leadership race.

 

[mjohnston39]

Recent polls also show the CPC in the 35% to 40%+ support, with a strong showing in Quebec and the West. That's near majority gov. territory even with the media spat. The Harper gov. is well displicined, has learned from past mistakes and has made few mis-steps... They will be around for awhile... 

http://www.canadawebpages.com/pc-polls.asp

Mike

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

Polls mean nothing.  That said I hope your right.

 

[mjohnston39]

Polls mean nothing.

Not necessarily, we've seen governments call an election when they think they are above that magic 40% support level, even if they have a significant amount of time left in their mandate, as well the last election produced results that were very close to the extensive polling that was conducted. I can't see the Liberals pulling the trigger when they are behind the Torries by so much and not making any significant headway since the last election. You are right that the only poll that has real meaning is the one on election day, however, governments and parties will be swayed by what the public is thinking or is precieved as thinking...

Mike

 

[HDE]

So...

    We have a retired bureaucrat who spent most of his career in a system that seems mostly to secure wildly overpriced goods of dubious quality after many years of effort now lecturing us on the best method of doing things?  I love it when the media set out to find an "expert"  :

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

Whom are you refering too?

 

[Kirkhill]

Whom are you refering too?

I'm guessing HDE's thinking about Bowties.