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

"O'Connor has $8B military 'wish list"

I know military procurement should be separated from other issues, but I'd be on the phone with GWB indicating there will be no announcement and no contract on C-17's or any other military goods until Congress signs off on the Softwood deal.  Unfortunately, it's about the only leverage we have on Congress at the moment.


Matthew.  ???
 
Cdn Blackshirt said:
I know military procurement should be separated from other issues, but I'd be on the phone with GWB indicating there will be no announcement and no contract on C-17's or any other military goods until Congress signs off on the Softwood deal.  Unfortunately, it's about the only leverage we have on Congress at the moment.


Matthew.   ???

turn off the oil taps and sell to china... lol
 
Journeyman said:
The five-star hotel isn't quite ready yet.   >:D

But there is a nice B & B run by a guy who went back to A-Stan after Taliban left. Do you think that will do? ::)
 
Latest grocery list from Radio-Canada exclusively at 1820. Here's the link for those who read French or are doing SLT-French Des achats militaires de 15 milliards

They will announce in four different cities (Halifax, Québec City, Edmonton and Trenton) that the Government will purchase:

- 4 C-17
- 15 Hercs
- 3 JSS
- 15 Chinooks
- Undetermined number of MLVWs

There you go!! Man, can't wait to begin... this is interesting times! :salute:
 
Quagmire said:
Is that the replacement for the MLVW or a new MLVW type veh?

No idea, they just say military trucks for a total of 1.1 B$.
 
MdB said:
They will announce in four different cities (Halifax, Québec City, Edmonton and Trenton) that the Government will purchase:

- 4 C-17
- 15 Hercs
- 3 JSS
- 15 Chinooks
- Undetermined number of MLVWs

Wow... Interesting times to say the least.
 
why is it that I get this uncomfortable feeling in my tummy that the Gov't is drawing a line in the sand and daring the Opposition parties to bring down the Gov't?
 
I am offering a small wager that MLVW selected will be the Stewart and Stevenson FMTV.

This month's Canadian Defence Review has an ad, jointly placed by Stewart and Stevenson and Oerlikon Contraves. 

Oerlikon and Quebec lose the MMEV?  Oerlikon and Quebec gain the FMTV?
Quebec gets spinoffs from C-17s and CH-47s?
Irving and the Maritimes get the JSS?
L-3 and Edmonton get the C130J?

I wonder what Ontario might get?

 
I think that, following Kirkill's comment logic, they Gov't won't be taken down. People in multiple provinces will be happy, including several MPs.

Very good strategic move. And even, the medias seems to oppose more (if not only) the fact this is single-sourced, but not the fact it costs much. They all know the CFs badly need it.
 
if it goes thru with immediate delivery, I'll be impressed
if it gets tied up in red tape and gov't posturing..... I'll be depressed

BTW - anyone tell Ottawa procurement that we need some replacement LAVIIIs?
(pronto!)
 
geo said:
BTW - anyone tell Ottawa procurement that we need some replacement LAVIIIs?
(pronto!)

Haha, let them acknowledge it's already there! ;D

The infos in the media has it that the first C-17 will be delivered in 9 to 12 months. It's a plane that would have gone to the US Armed Forces, but 'hijacked' to Canada. Same thing for Australia. That's the reason why they can promise that timeframe. Well, it's to Boeing profit, the line will be kept open longer than 2008.
 
Looks like these projects are going to be a go time.  Isn't this the second time the purchase of the Hercs has been announced?  ???

Oh well, hopefully the Harper government lasts long enough to push this through.

Harper set to announce $15 billion in military spending
Last Updated Wed, 21 Jun 2006 20:42:30 EDT
CBC News
Ottawa will announce $15 billion in new spending on the Canadian military next week, CBC News has learned.

The country's aging Hercules fleet will be replaced. (Canadian Press) A report by SRC, the CBC's French language service, says the spending spree will be "Christmas in June for the Canadian Forces."

On Monday, Prime Minister Stephen Harper is set to announce in Halifax that the Conservative government will fund the building of three new supply ships. That is expected to cost about $2.1 billion.

On Tuesday, the announcement will be to give the army new trucks. That promise, worth about $1.1 billion, will be made in Quebec.

On Wednesday, in Edmonton, will come the official announcement about helicopters. The prime minister will issue an invitation to tender for 15 new helicopters at a cost of about $4.2 billion.

Finally, on Thursday at CFB Trenton in Ontario, Harper will announce a competition worth $4.6 billion to replace Canada's aging fleet of Hercules aircraft, some of which date back to the 1960s.

Harper will also promise to buy at least four C-17 transport planes, which are massive heavy-lift aircraft, at a cost of $3 billion.

That adds up to over $15 billion and fulfills a campaign promise by the Conservatives to make the Canadian military a top priority.
 
4 billion for 15 chinooks?  I know lifetime maint. costs and spare parts are included in the package but isn't that a little high for just 15 Helicopters?   Didn't the Aussies just order 30+ odd NH90s for 2billion AUD?  I know they aren't the same class of helicopter, and I'm not suggesting NH90s instead of Chinooks.

Kirkhill posted this US army release in this link http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/26851.0.html

some highlights-->


'"All of the Army's CH-47 Chinooks will be upgraded to the new CH-47F models by 2018 as the result of a partnership between the service and Boeing, the helicopter's manufacturer. 

The Army will buy 55 new CH-47F models, have 397 helicopters re-manufactured into CH-47Fs, and have 61 re-manufactured to the CH47G used by Special Forces units. Total procurement costs through 2018 will be $11.4 billion."

"The upshot of these changes was a reduction in the price of a new helicopter from the $42 million to $30 million. The price for re-manufactured helicopters is expected to be slightly lower than $30 million, but is still being negotiated. Crosby said the lower cost became possible when the Army agreed to fund non-recurring costs at a higher rate.
"


I'm having a hard time comparing $4B CAD price and the US deal for $11.4B USD (of course theres is just the procurement but still).

I'm just a civie, so in areas of military procurement and costing I could be completely wrong. Can anyone help me here?  Are they really going to cost that much over the lifetime?

edit: removed a spelling error
 
Take note of the press release. Its says "issue an invitation to tender for 15 new helicopters" no where does it say Chinooks. Also look at the Herc replacement "announce a competition worth $4.6 billion to replace Canada's aging fleet of Hercules aircraft" doesn't mention J model Hercs. Looks like long drawn out procceses (aka Seaking replacement).

Probabley time to re-name this thread to "O'Connor has $8B $15B military 'wish list"
 
I noticed that after I posted, but at the same time the french news story mentioned the Chinook. Which  is where i got my chinook fixation plus some posts earlier in the thread. 

If it is a competition, why would they know the cost of the helicopters to be bought?  Do we normally say we want 15 helicopters and will buy them for 4.2Billion before starting a competition?  Are they highballing and hoping competition drops the price a couple billion.  The current government and military leadership strikes me as a group that knows what it wants and goes after it.  Which is a good quality.  What use are procurements that get our soldiers the equipment they need today in 14 years?



edit: spelling again, and grammar.. i must really read my own posts before i press post  ;)
 
Looks like C-17 is a done deal. Now, what's the official CF name for C-17? CC-170 Globemaster?
 
it seems that 15 billion no longer buys as much as it use to.
the chopper program makes me wonder,  they purchased the bell 412 , 100 frames for 100 million, 1 mil per chopper if i remember right, so the next 15 are 4 billion plus? seems crazy unless the big choppers that  much more. just hard to understand the costs when they talk billions.

b-29 off the line during WW2 cost some where around    $639 000 http://137.240.249.5/pa/fs_b-29.asp dollars,
sherman Tank Chrysler put a cost per tank of $33,500.
http://www.allpar.com/history/military/arsenal-of-democracy.html

Ch 47 lots of different costs there
# eb 16/06: $24.4M for undefined new-build CH-47F
# Aug 30/05: $53.4M for 2 new-build CH-47F
# May 10/05: 186.2M for undefined new-build CH-47F
# Dec 23/04: $243.0M for 10 new-build CH-47F
# Dec 05/03: $151.5M for 7 new-build CH-47F
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2006/06/us-army-in-flight-on-production-of-renew-h47-chinooks-updated/index.php
understand now why the C17 is wanted , it can carry a ch 47 if i read the link correctly

C17  The price was  US $750M  for the lease and  US $400M  for support arrangements (maintenance, training, services etc).  The total cost was thus US $1.15B.

Based on this British precedent, a 7-year lease of  six  (6)  C-17s for the Canadian Forces would cost at least US $1.725B [US $1.15B ÷ 4 = US $287.5M per aircraft x 6 aircraft = US $1.725B] or  Cdn $2.0B. Thus, Canada would pay about $333M per aircraft in total, or $47.6M per aircraft, per year (assuming a 0.8584 exchange rate).

This is, of course,  if we are talking about a 7-year lease only  –  not the purchase price.  In the case of an outright purchase, the price would be higher.  According to Boeing data, USAF C-17 purchase prices range from  US $175M  to  US $232M
see http://www.sfu.ca/casr/id-antonov-2.htm
  C 130e when first came off the line in 1961 to 1964  dropped in price from 13 million dollars to 6  millions dollars
C-130J, at $69 million per copy, cost six times as much as the first C-130H or eleven times as much as the last C-130E.
http://www.d-n-i.net/fcs/comments/c204.htm
after doing that bit of research i see how the 15 billion can be eaten up very quick.

used the ww2 equipement prices as a comparsions.

do you think they can find the money to replace the lavs and g wagons damaged in ops? what is a few million extra?

 
AndrewS said:
I noticed that after I posted, but at the same time the french news story mentioned the Chinook. Which  is where i got my chinook fixation plus some posts earlier in the thread. 
If it is a competition, why would they know the cost of the helicopters to be bought?  Do we normally say we want 15 helicopters and will buy them for 4.2Billion before starting a competition?  Are they highballing and hoping competition drops the price a couple billion.  The current government and military leadership strikes me as a group that knows what it wants and goes after it.  Which is a good quality.  What use are procurements that get our soldiers the equipment they need today in 14 years?
[/i]

note that while we state all our numbers in "lifetime" costs.... the US isn't obliged to do the same.
Thus, you are unable to compare numbers.
 
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-boeing22jun22,1,3999961.story?track=crosspromo&coll=la-headlines-business&ctrack=1&cset=true

Future of C-17 Line Still Up in the Air
Despite objections by the Air Force, the House approves a bill to fund the purchase of three more of the Boeing jets.
By Martin Zimmerman, Times Staff Writer
June 22, 2006


Despite clearing a key congressional test, efforts to extend the production of Boeing Co.'s C-17 military cargo jet and save the biggest private employer in Long Beach still face a cloudy future.

A defense appropriations bill approved by the House on Tuesday night includes $798 million to purchase three additional C-17s for the Air Force. Production of the plane, which is built at a Long Beach plant employing 5,500 workers, is scheduled to end in 2008 with delivery of the last of 180 aircraft ordered by the Pentagon.

ADVERTISEMENTEven if funding for additional C-17s passes the Senate, Boeing executives said the new order would be insufficient to justify keeping the plant open.

"The fundamental bottom line is, Congress by itself cannot save this program," said Dan Page, Boeing's director of airlift business development. "It's going to take the administration from the White House on down acting to do that. What we really need is a long-term commitment" from the Air Force to buy more planes.

Saving the C-17 has become a priority for California's congressional delegation in the wake of the closing of the state's last commercial airplane plant last month.

The C-17 is now the last major airplane factory left in Southern California, once a bastion of commercial and military aircraft production. Making aircraft and aircraft components now employs about 40,000 people in the Southland — down about three-quarters from the Reagan era.

An Air Force general said this month that the service doesn't need any more C-17s, and despite an intensive overseas sales effort, Boeing so far hasn't landed many orders. Australia has said it will buy four more of the aircraft and Britain one more, while Canada reportedly wants three.

"Even those orders, if you add them all up, are not enough to keep us going long-term," Page said.

Still, for officials desperate to keep the Long Beach plant running, the House vote is a ray of hope.

"It signifies the Defense Department's growing commitment to continued construction of the C-17 aircraft," said Andrea Taylor, spokeswoman for Rep. Juanita Millender-McDonald (D-Carson), who is leading the House effort to keep the C-17 alive.

"We think it's a positive first step, but it's a first step," said Robert Swayze, manager of economic development for Long Beach. "Boeing does need a long-term commitment for more planes."

Swayze heads the "red team" of elected officials and businesses that is pushing to keep the C-17 line open. Its efforts have included plant tours and discussions of lower electricity rates for Boeing, as well as a C-17 fly-by at the Toyota Grand Prix of Long Beach in April.

Because of the long lead time needed to procure parts from some of the program's 700 subcontractors, Boeing must decide in the next few weeks whether to keep financing advance work on components for aircraft that haven't been ordered yet — and may never be. Halting that advance work could make at least a temporary shutdown of the assembly line in 2008 inevitable.

"The viability of this program is very much at stake," said Rick Sanford, a spokesman for the Chicago-based Boeing.

A Senate subcommittee is expected to take up the additional C-17 appropriation next month, according to a spokesman for Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) who said the senator was "very supportive of the C-17."

The Air Force signaled late last year that it wouldn't request any more C-17s beyond its original order of 180. Air Force officials couldn't be reached for comment Wednesday.

The C-17, known as the Globemaster III, transports troops and heavy equipment to trouble spots around the world, including Afghanistan and Iraq. It also ferried food and other relief supplies to the Gulf Coast after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. A total of 152 planes, which currently cost $186 million each, have been delivered since 1993.

Congress and defense officials have been debating whether to build more C-17s — the Air Force initially requested 222 — or spend billions refurbishing the service's aging fleet of C-5 Galaxy cargo jets.

As for the Globemaster, "the issue isn't really the aircraft," said Loren Thompson, defense policy analyst with Lexington Institute. "The Air Force loves the plane. The problem is that it simply doesn't have enough money to do everything else it wants to do, and it has higher priorities."

Specifically, the Air Force wants to replace its fleet of 1960s-era KC-135 aerial refueling jets, Thompson said. Tankers based on airliners produced by Boeing and its European rival Airbus are considered potential replacements
 
Back
Top