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

[Scoobie Newbie]

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

Update

O'Connor confirms plan to build three new ships
Updated Mon. Jun. 26 2006 1:18 PM ET

CTV.ca News Staff

Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor confirmed  that the federal government will go ahead with its plan to commission the design and construction of three naval supply ships worth $2.1 billion.

O'Connor made the announcement in Halifax, from the deck of a navy frigate, HMCS St. John's. He was joined Monday by Chief of Defence Staff Gen. Rick Hillier and Public Works Minister Michael Fortier.

The new ships will replace vintage vessels built in the 1960s.

"They've done an excellent job for us, but they are now over 35 years old and have become difficult and costly to maintain," O'Connor said.

"The new ships ... will be capable of refueling and re-supplying other ships at sea and providing support for ship-borne helicopters. But they will also provide the navy with a three-ocean capability and the global reach necessary to transform Canadian Forces."

Hillier said the ships are crucial to the military's performance.

"Without them our ability to do what Canadians ask of us would be greatly diminished," he said.

Irving Shipbuilding, ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems AG, BAE Systems Ltd. and SNC Lavalin ProFac Inc. are bidding for the contract to build the 28,000 tonne ships.

The winning bidder will also receive an $800 million contract to provide support and maintenance throughout the life of the ships.

O'Connor said the announcement is part of the government's "Canada first" military strategy.

"By fixing, transforming, expanding and properly equipping the Canadian Forces we will build a Canadian Forces where our men and women in uniform have what they need to effectively do the jobs Canadians expect them to do here at home and on the world stage," O'Connor said.

"We will build a stronger Canadian Forces. We will build a stronger Canada."

The announcement is the first in $15 billion in planned military spending announcements this week for various projects.

Liberal defence critic Ujjal Dosanjh has claimed O'Connor has a conflict of interest with several of the companies bidding on contracts, and should recuse himself from the process.

O'Connor has continually dismissed the claims, and says he has no personal involvement in awarding the contracts.

Fortier said the process is simple, fair and transparent.

"The Minister of National Defence expresses the need, the Treasury Board approves the funding, and as minister of public works I decide how the equipment will be purchased," Fortier said.

"In this respect I wish to assure you the acquisition process will be done fairly, openly and in a transparent way."

The remaining spending announcements to be unveiled in four Canadian cities this week will include capital purchases of ships, aircrafts, helicopters and trucks to strengthen Canada's fighting forces.

The spending announcements still fall short of a Senate committee's spending recommendations as well as some of the military's own requests, but O'Connor said the new ships are the first item on a long shopping list.

Most of the spending announcements were either promised by the Tories during the election campaign or were planned by the previous Liberal government.

In addition to the $2 billion for the three naval support ships, the government is expected to announce $1.1 billion for new army trucks, $4.2 billion for 15 heavy-lift helicopters, and $7.5 billion for tactical and heavy-lift aircraft.



Are these 3 ships the troop carrying kind that have been talked about?

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

Michael Fortier (Public Works Minister) has indicated that the ships will be built in Canada.

 

[Kirkhill]

Are these 3 ships the troop carrying kind that have been talked about?

No they are not. 

From the CDS's own remarks and the PMOJSS site they are Oilers first, Naval Resupply vessels second.  They have an ability to carry some vehicles and ISO containers.  They may also have a Medical facility and/or a C2 facility to support land operations.  They also have an ability to accomodate a sub-unit of troops. 

They are not troop-lifters.

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

That's what I thought I read to but was under the impression we were gunning for troop carriers as well as kit so we wouldn't have to rely on the civies.  My mistake I guess.

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

It appears that DND is now considering attack helis....is it possible the 4+ billion is for 15 Chinooks PLUS a few AH?

____________________

The prime minister is expected to be in Edmonton on Wednesday, where requirements for 15 new tactical helicopters, possibly Chinooks, will be released.

The $4.6 billion purchase would give Canadian troops, primarily in Afghanistan, the ability to move around the battlefield. More importantly, it would allow them to be resupplied from the air, instead of the ground where convoys face the deadly prospect of roadside bombs.

But the question in military circles is how those unarmed transport helicopters will be protected in combat zones, such as Afghanistan, where aircraft face the threat of rocket propelled grenade attacks from insurgents on the ground.

The air force will eventually need to either arm existing rotary aircraft or purchase attack helicopter, a senior military officer said in a background briefing.

"It's a capability we're going to have to address," said the high-ranking officer in Afghanistan, who asked not to be identified.

"On landing the (transport) choppers can be fired on with (rocket propelled grenades for example."

Canadians troops currently hitch rides on helicopters belonging to other coalition countries and those aircraft rarely leave Kandahar without an attack helicopter escort, usually U.S. Apache gunships.

One stop-gap measure being considered by military planners is to arm a handful of existing army utility helicopters until bona fide attack helicopters can be purchased.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060626/defence_spending_060626/20060626?hub=TopStories

I was trying to figure out the math for 15 Chinooks for $4 billion.  That's $266 million per unit.  Even with life-cycle costing, that seems really high.

And re: the potential of attack helicopters (if that really is under consideration) wouldn't the AH-1Z be a better fit considering it's already been spec'd out for shipborne use?


Matthew. 

 

[Sub_Guy]

That's what I thought I read to but was under the impression we were gunning for troop carriers as well as kit so we wouldn't have to rely on the civies.  My mistake I guess.

Not necessarily.  Keep your ears and eyes open as we are doing the Amphib  (SCTF) exercise in the fall for a reason...  We needed new AOR's there is no doubt about that.  But I suspect they are still pursuing the BHS idea....     

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

seen

 

[karl28]

Should be interesting times in the recent weeks for the the CF . Just hope that the CF can get there new equipment  sooner rather than later

 

[geo]

Irving Shipbuilding, ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems AG, BAE Systems Ltd. and SNC Lavalin ProFac Inc. are bidding for the contract to build the 28,000 tonne ships.

I thought that Irvind took apart it's shipyard after winding down the Frigate program.
ThyssenKrupp marine appears to be the only player in this field who has a real functioning maritime shipbuilding yard capable of building anything.

 

[mjohnston39]

Are these 3 ships the troop carrying kind that have been talked about?

From the Chronicle Herald

15b military boost on way
Spending can’t cover all requests
By MURRAY BREWSTER The Canadian Press
ADVERTISEMENT



Stephen Harper’s Conservative government is set to unleash a whirlwind of politically palatable defence spending this week that falls short of a Senate committee’s recommendations and in some cases the military’s own wish list.

Almost all of the $15 billion of capital purchases — ships, aircraft, helicopters and trucks — were either promised by the Tories in the last federal election or planned by the previous Liberal government.

While primarily meant to reverse the rust-out of Canadian military hardware over the last decade, a defence analyst said the shopping list is something voters — wary of defence spending — will swallow without much argument.

"The government doesn’t seem to be looking too far beyond these initial (purchase) priorities," said David Rudd, president of the Toronto-based Canadian Institute of Strategy Studies.

"It doesn’t want to leave the impression, I believe, that the Forces are benefiting at the expense of other priorities.

"The public will readily accept X number of projects and certain expenditures. If you start going too far beyond that too soon, then I think the government might start to run into more vigorous opposition."

Calls to Defence Minister Gordon O’Connor’s office went unanswered on Friday, but the minister told CTV’s Question Period on Sunday that the Conservatives consider the purchases to be a first step.

"What we’re trying to do now is put in place the very basic requirements of the military to be effective, mobilities — air mobility, army mobility on the ground and mobility at sea — so that’s where we’re starting," he said.

The first project, set to be announced in Halifax on Monday, will be the selection of a builder for the navy’s three new joint support ships. The $2.8 billion program was started under the former Liberal government.

A consortium led by General Dynamics Canada is thought to be leading contender and is expected to place much of the work at the Davie Shipyard in Quebec, a province where the Tories hope to make political gains. Halifax-based Irving Shipyard could also benefit from the project.

But the three supply ships — meant to replace two 1960s vintage vessels — are only half of what the navy needs.

Engineers are currently drawing up a proposal to be presented to the government this summer for a single amphibious assault ship, capable of transporting thousands of troops and dozens of tanks and trucks to the world’s hotspots.

Aside from the navy’s own desires, the Senate Committee on National Security and Defence also identified landing ships as a key priority for re-equipping the military.

Later in the week, the Conservatives will outline plans to spend $3 billion on four strategic lift aircraft — also meant to shuttle troops and equipment overseas in a hurry. A Senate committee recommended Ottawa purchase six to eight high-lift planes.

Ottawa will also set aside an additional $4.6 billion for tactical lift planes to replace aging Hercules transports, and

there are plans to announce $1.1 billion in spending on military trucks in Quebec.

The prime minister is expected to be in Edmonton on Wednesday, where requirements for 15 new tactical helicopters, possibly Chinooks, will be released.

The $4.6 billion purchase would give Canadian troops, primarily in Afghanistan, the ability to move around the battlefield. More importantly, it would allow them to be resupplied from the air, instead of the ground where convoys face the deadly prospect of roadside bombs.

But the question in military circles is how those unarmed transport helicopters will be protected in combat zones, such as Afghanistan, where aircraft face the threat of rocket propelled grenade attacks from insurgents on the ground.

The air force will eventually need to either arm existing rotary aircraft or purchase attack helicopter, a senior military officer said in a background briefing.

"It’s a capability we’re going to have to address," said the high-ranking officer in Afghanistan, who asked not to be identified.

"On landing the (transport) choppers can be fired on with (rocket propelled grenades for example."

Canadians troops currently hitch rides on helicopters belonging to other coalition countries and those aircraft rarely leave Kandahar without an attack helicopter escort, usually U.S. Apache gunships.


Also:

http://www.jsscanada.com/index.html
http://www.canamp.ca/
Mike

 

[Kirkhill]

Mike, that's an interesting concept.

A single vessel for "thousands" of troops but only "dozens" of tanks AND trucks.  An exceptionally large but VERY light force.  ;D

 

[MarkOttawa]

From another thread
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/46379.0.html

(sorry for the repeat but I think relevant):

The JSSs announced today are being rather oversold.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060626.wdefen0626/BNStory/National/home

Their main role is still supply of ships at sea (auxiliary oiler replenishment--AOR) with an additional, limited capability to support things on land.

Relevant DND sites:

http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/newsroom/view_news_e.asp?id=1958
http://www.forces.gc.ca/admmat/dgmepm/pmojss/index_e.asp
http://www.navy.forces.gc.ca/mspa_news/news_e.asp?id=182
http://www.navy.forces.gc.ca/mspa_news/news_e.asp?id=164

See this from the last URL:

'-A support ship with some intrinsic fighting capability.

-Provides fuel, supplies, food and ammunition for ships in order to keep them at sea.

-Can carry up to 155 people in addition to the ship's crew.

-Can disembark equipment and personnel relatively slowly and methodically using Roll-On Roll-Off (RO-RO) and Lift-On Lift-Off (LO-LO) capabilities.

-Can offload equipment and personnel in a "permissive," or peaceful, environment.'

In other words, it cannot transport a significant number of troops such as a battalion and could not launch an amphibious assault.  One really wonders if we might not be better off buying less complicated AORs and one or two Amphibious Ships (also described at this URL):

'-A fighting ship with some intrinsic support capability.

-Consumes fuel, supplies, food and ammunition in order to project Canadian Forces ashore.

-Can carry a significantly larger military force with equipment and vehicles in 'fighting order,' enabling Canadian Forces to face armed opposition ashore.

-Can rapidly disembark personnel and equipment in 'waves' using 'connector systems' such as landing craft and/or helicopters.

-Can rapidly disembark personnel and equipment in 'waves' using 'connector systems' such as landing craft and/or helicopters.

-Project in early stages. Initial Concept of Operations under development.'

Moreover, there is a lot of doubt how capable Canadian shipyards (Davie in Quebec may be the only one) are of building a ship as complex as the JSS--especially on time and on budget.  It might well make a lot more sense to build less complex AORs here and simply have Amphibious Ship(s) built abroad.  See:

"Military procurement: Here's really hoping"
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2006/06/military-procurement-heres-really.html

And also a 2005 Fraser Institute paper:

"The Need for Canadian Strategic Lift"
http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/admin/books/files/CanadianStrategicLift.pdf

Mark
Ottawa

 

[geo]

Anybody read that they're gonna order up some more LAVs?
Between the projected increase of troops in the Land forces AND the beating that the existing fleet of LAVs is taking in Kandahar region.... we need more LAVs.  This Managed readiness BS isn't working and will unravel pretty soon IMHO

 

[prom]

I was trying to figure out the math for 15 Chinooks for $4 billion.  That's $266 million per unit.  Even with life-cycle costing, that seems really high.

And re: the potential of attack helicopters (if that really is under consideration) wouldn't the AH-1Z be a better fit considering it's already been spec'd out for shipborne use?


Matthew.   

you are very right my friend

All of the Army's CH-47 Chinooks are to 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. Under the plan, the Army will buy 55 new CH-47F models, have 397 helicopters remanufactured into CH-47Fs, and have 61 remanufactured to the CH47G used by Special Forces units. Total procurement costs through 2018 under the plan would amount to $11.4 billion. CH-47 helicopters that are remanufactured are to be rebuilt from the ground up and receive recapitalized depot-level repair components that are nearly "zero hour" or new. The aircraft themselves are to receive new airframes
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/ch-47f-ich.htm

The US are doing 513 total airframes for 11.4 Billion US. or around 22 mililion each. New is 32 million and referb is 8.5 million

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

LAV's and 5.56 geo.

Mark the only way to keep the lefties at bay is to have MAJOR Canadian business involved.  Hopefully we get something built well and on time and budget.

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

Senator Kenny (Liberal)  states 3 aren't enough.  Go figure.

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

For your viewing pleasure:

Ottawa to spend $2.1-billion on supply ships
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060626.wdefen0626/CommentStory/National/home

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

Quagmire,

Where did you get that picture of me?

All,

Things cost what they cost.  How much would your car cost if you looked at its whole life cycle?  What is important is that we are taking steps to improve our tactical, operational and strategic mobility.  If this goes through, we will be set up very well for the next twenty years or so. 

If we can get AHs then we will truly be ready for today's and tomorrow's wars.

Cheers,

2B

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

I'd take Cobra's for that matter.