"O'Connor has $8B military 'wish list"
- Thread starter MarkOttawa
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 410
Quality control?
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 410
Something your not going to find with Russian kit.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Article in the paper this morning.
Saying that we're signing up for a number of C17s.
1st unit to be delivered by the end of this year. Would appear that accomodations have been made and we will take delivery of a unit already on production schedule for the Aussies.
(guess we know what the Aussie PM was doing in Ottawa recently)
Good on ya !
Saying that we're signing up for a number of C17s.
1st unit to be delivered by the end of this year. Would appear that accomodations have been made and we will take delivery of a unit already on production schedule for the Aussies.
(guess we know what the Aussie PM was doing in Ottawa recently)
Good on ya !
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 360
http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=1d82f90c-d3d2-4e83-b37f-92d88a63d16f&k=13773
Tories set to sink billions into cargo planes for military
Boeing expected to win $2.5B deal; $1B more to be spent on smaller crafts
Article Tools
Printer friendly
E-mail
Font: * * * * Mike Blanchfield, The Ottawa Citizen
Published: Saturday, June 03, 2006
As early as Monday, the Harper government will announce details of its multibillion-dollar equipment upgrade for the Canadian Forces, including the purchase of a new fleet of long-range cargo planes and the much-anticipated replacement of its aging Hercules transports.
The upgrades still require a final rubber stamp from cabinet, but it will represent the Conservative government's first response to the wish list presented to cabinet on May 30 by Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor. At that meeting, Mr. O'Connor pitched at least six major capital projects worth more than $8 billion.
Most of those projects, including armoured trucks, ships and other aircraft, have been pushed back to the fall, but two major transport aircraft purchases are ready to launch.
The most controversial of the two will likely be the purchase of four C-17 Globemaster long-range strategic transports at a cost of $1 billion for the planes themselves, plus a 20-year support and maintenance plan that will bring the overall cost to $2.5 billion.
The government is expected to "sole source" the purchase of the four aircraft from the American manufacturer, Boeing, instead of opening up the usual competition for bids for such an expensive purchase. The government is allowed to sole source if it can make the case that no other similar airplane can meet its needs. The only other large, long-range transports available are Russian-built.
The Russian government has attempted to cut into the competition by spearheading its own military trade mission to Ottawa this week, but it appears Canada has decided to buy American. The Forces will likely receive one of the four new C-17s late this year off the Boeing assembly line as part of an order that was already under way for the Australian air force.
Canada doesn't own large transports such as the C-17 and has normally leased such large planes from Russian or Ukrainian companies to carry its heavy equipment on overseas missions.
The Liberals considered a plan to buy large aircraft six years ago, but scrapped the idea. Since then, the deployment of the military's Disaster Assistance Response Team to two major crises -- the Dec. 26, 2004, Asian tsunami and last year's Central Asian earthquake -- has been delayed because transport was not readily available for its personnel and heavy equipment.
Under the government's new accrual accounting methods, the price of the expensive new planes -- among the largest transports in the world and bigger than anything now owned by the air force -- would essentially be spread over the life of the aircraft instead of requiring a lump-sum infusion of defence spending up front.
The Tories will also revive part of a plan announced by the Liberal government shortly before the last federal election to replace the aging fleet of Hercules transports at a cost of $3 billion for up to 16 new planes.
The government is expected to open that project for competitive bidding, but industry insiders say the specifications will likely favour the U.S. firm Lockheed Martin's modern version of the Hercules, the C-130J.
Sources say the Conservatives could not risk sole-sourcing two large airplane purchases, so they expected the statement of requirements for the Hercules replacement will be brief -- as short as one or two pages as opposed to thousands of pages of detailed specifications usually placed before bidders -- and it is expected to call for delivery of the planes by about two years.
That would eliminate the C-130J's main competitor, the Airbus A-400, which is still in the design phase and isn't expected to go into production until 2009.
Many of Canada's shorter-range tactical-lift Hercules date back to the 1960s and it is the workhorse of the current deployment to Afghanistan.
Gen. Rick Hillier, the chief of the defence staff, has said that replacing the Hercules was the top equipment priority of the military and that, if the fleet was ever grounded, Canada would be unable to sustain its overseas deployments.
Parliament recently voted to extend the Canadian military mission to Afghanistan to 2009. There are currently 2,300 troops in Afghanistan.
Other major equipment purchases that were part of the Conservatives' ambitious "Canada First" election platform for the military are being pushed back to later in the year. These include armoured trucks and transport helicopters for the army in Afghanistan, fixed-wing search and rescue planes, a joint supply ship, Arctic icebreakers, and unmanned surveillance aircraft, or drones, that could help patrol the Arctic and both coasts.
Gen. Hillier and Mr. O'Connor have clashed on what the military needs most in terms of airlift. Mr. O'Connor wants a large airplane that can transport equipment overseas, such as the C-17, but Gen. Hillier says more Hercules, which can conduct more missions in hostile theatres under gruelling conditions, are needed.
Tories set to sink billions into cargo planes for military
Boeing expected to win $2.5B deal; $1B more to be spent on smaller crafts
Article Tools
Printer friendly
Font: * * * * Mike Blanchfield, The Ottawa Citizen
Published: Saturday, June 03, 2006
As early as Monday, the Harper government will announce details of its multibillion-dollar equipment upgrade for the Canadian Forces, including the purchase of a new fleet of long-range cargo planes and the much-anticipated replacement of its aging Hercules transports.
The upgrades still require a final rubber stamp from cabinet, but it will represent the Conservative government's first response to the wish list presented to cabinet on May 30 by Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor. At that meeting, Mr. O'Connor pitched at least six major capital projects worth more than $8 billion.
Most of those projects, including armoured trucks, ships and other aircraft, have been pushed back to the fall, but two major transport aircraft purchases are ready to launch.
The most controversial of the two will likely be the purchase of four C-17 Globemaster long-range strategic transports at a cost of $1 billion for the planes themselves, plus a 20-year support and maintenance plan that will bring the overall cost to $2.5 billion.
The government is expected to "sole source" the purchase of the four aircraft from the American manufacturer, Boeing, instead of opening up the usual competition for bids for such an expensive purchase. The government is allowed to sole source if it can make the case that no other similar airplane can meet its needs. The only other large, long-range transports available are Russian-built.
The Russian government has attempted to cut into the competition by spearheading its own military trade mission to Ottawa this week, but it appears Canada has decided to buy American. The Forces will likely receive one of the four new C-17s late this year off the Boeing assembly line as part of an order that was already under way for the Australian air force.
Canada doesn't own large transports such as the C-17 and has normally leased such large planes from Russian or Ukrainian companies to carry its heavy equipment on overseas missions.
The Liberals considered a plan to buy large aircraft six years ago, but scrapped the idea. Since then, the deployment of the military's Disaster Assistance Response Team to two major crises -- the Dec. 26, 2004, Asian tsunami and last year's Central Asian earthquake -- has been delayed because transport was not readily available for its personnel and heavy equipment.
Under the government's new accrual accounting methods, the price of the expensive new planes -- among the largest transports in the world and bigger than anything now owned by the air force -- would essentially be spread over the life of the aircraft instead of requiring a lump-sum infusion of defence spending up front.
The Tories will also revive part of a plan announced by the Liberal government shortly before the last federal election to replace the aging fleet of Hercules transports at a cost of $3 billion for up to 16 new planes.
The government is expected to open that project for competitive bidding, but industry insiders say the specifications will likely favour the U.S. firm Lockheed Martin's modern version of the Hercules, the C-130J.
Sources say the Conservatives could not risk sole-sourcing two large airplane purchases, so they expected the statement of requirements for the Hercules replacement will be brief -- as short as one or two pages as opposed to thousands of pages of detailed specifications usually placed before bidders -- and it is expected to call for delivery of the planes by about two years.
That would eliminate the C-130J's main competitor, the Airbus A-400, which is still in the design phase and isn't expected to go into production until 2009.
Many of Canada's shorter-range tactical-lift Hercules date back to the 1960s and it is the workhorse of the current deployment to Afghanistan.
Gen. Rick Hillier, the chief of the defence staff, has said that replacing the Hercules was the top equipment priority of the military and that, if the fleet was ever grounded, Canada would be unable to sustain its overseas deployments.
Parliament recently voted to extend the Canadian military mission to Afghanistan to 2009. There are currently 2,300 troops in Afghanistan.
Other major equipment purchases that were part of the Conservatives' ambitious "Canada First" election platform for the military are being pushed back to later in the year. These include armoured trucks and transport helicopters for the army in Afghanistan, fixed-wing search and rescue planes, a joint supply ship, Arctic icebreakers, and unmanned surveillance aircraft, or drones, that could help patrol the Arctic and both coasts.
Gen. Hillier and Mr. O'Connor have clashed on what the military needs most in terms of airlift. Mr. O'Connor wants a large airplane that can transport equipment overseas, such as the C-17, but Gen. Hillier says more Hercules, which can conduct more missions in hostile theatres under gruelling conditions, are needed.
+1 puts things into perspectiveKirkhill said:
anybody have any thoughts on how this is going to impact the CF budgets 10 years down the road when we have had a number of capital purchases with 20 year accrual lifespans, and suddenly they want upgrade another area. As the various accruals add to the total budget, suddenly they are going to be faced with a xxx$ budget with little wiggle room
- Reaction score
- 21,945
- Points
- 1,360
Interestingly, the media loves to push the full life-cycle costs when they are trying to portray something as unaffordable. Case in point, the EH101 $5.8B life-cycle cost was over 20 years and amortized out to $290M/year. The Air Force has a combined Ops and Engineering support budget of about $2.5B/year so the EH-101 fleet would have represented about 1/10 of the CC3 monies, still leaving the majority of the cash for the CF188 weapon system...
Cheers,
Duey
Cheers,
Duey
- Reaction score
- 8,279
- Points
- 1,160
In fairness to the media - it isn't just them that have found advantages in toting up all costs and creating big numbers. A big number can make it look as if you are taking a hard decision and doing something or it can make it look, as you say Duey, unaffordable - depending on how you want to spin it.
Alternatively numbers can be downsized for similar purposes: 12,000,000,000 Dollars/30,000,000 Canadians/365 days = $1.10 per Canadian per day on Defence.
4 C17s at 1,000,000,000 Dollars/20 years/30,000,000 Canadians/ 365 days = 0.4 CENTS per day per Canadian to supply the aircraft for 20 years and another 0.6 Cents per day per Canadian for the 20 year service plan.
The cost of buying and maintaining 4 C17s for 20 years = 1 Penny per Canadian per day.
Doncha jus' luv numbers. ;D
Alternatively numbers can be downsized for similar purposes: 12,000,000,000 Dollars/30,000,000 Canadians/365 days = $1.10 per Canadian per day on Defence.
4 C17s at 1,000,000,000 Dollars/20 years/30,000,000 Canadians/ 365 days = 0.4 CENTS per day per Canadian to supply the aircraft for 20 years and another 0.6 Cents per day per Canadian for the 20 year service plan.
The cost of buying and maintaining 4 C17s for 20 years = 1 Penny per Canadian per day.
Doncha jus' luv numbers. ;D
- Reaction score
- 146
- Points
- 710
I wonder if the delay on fixed-wing SAR will enable Bombardier to make an irresistable political case for a (now non-existent) Q Series derivative for this role, rather than the C-27J or C-295/235.
Mark
Ottawa
Mark
Ottawa
- Reaction score
- 8,279
- Points
- 1,160
MarkOttawa:
That's an interesting thought. On the one hand I am as leary as you of "pork barrelling". On the other hand.....
When you look at what the C27J/C295/C235 are being considered for, around the world, to replace DHC-4 Cariboo/DHC-5 Buffalo/DHC-6 Twin Otter, and you think that a lot of those aircraft are still flying because their operators can find anything in the current "catalog" that meets those capabilities - it does make you think that maybe there is a niche there that needs filling. I am guessing that Bombardier owns all the old drawings and engineering on those aircraft. It is just too bad that with an 18 year hiatus between the last Twin Otter produced in 1988 (for Malaysian Airlines - 844 produced in total) and today and a 20 year hiatus between the last DHC-5 (delivered to the Kenyan Air Force in 1986 - 126 produced in total) that a lot of the SMEs in the field have likely long since retired. Still.....
It would be nice if somebody could build domestically a cheap, simple, rugged, over-engineered aircraft to take over from the Buffs and Twotters.
And deliver it in the next 2 to 5 years.....
That's an interesting thought. On the one hand I am as leary as you of "pork barrelling". On the other hand.....
When you look at what the C27J/C295/C235 are being considered for, around the world, to replace DHC-4 Cariboo/DHC-5 Buffalo/DHC-6 Twin Otter, and you think that a lot of those aircraft are still flying because their operators can find anything in the current "catalog" that meets those capabilities - it does make you think that maybe there is a niche there that needs filling. I am guessing that Bombardier owns all the old drawings and engineering on those aircraft. It is just too bad that with an 18 year hiatus between the last Twin Otter produced in 1988 (for Malaysian Airlines - 844 produced in total) and today and a 20 year hiatus between the last DHC-5 (delivered to the Kenyan Air Force in 1986 - 126 produced in total) that a lot of the SMEs in the field have likely long since retired. Still.....
It would be nice if somebody could build domestically a cheap, simple, rugged, over-engineered aircraft to take over from the Buffs and Twotters.
And deliver it in the next 2 to 5 years.....
- Reaction score
- 2,827
- Points
- 940
At the risk of oversimplification, the reason that 'Boos, Buffs, and Twotters.....and hell, even 1943-vintage DC-3s, are still flying, is that they're not pressurized. The Dash-8 Q series, I believe (and hence am amenable to correction), is all pressurized.....which stresses not only the airframe, but maintainers in Upper Waterbuffalo Hump, Africa to keep them flying. Therefore, there's not as much attraction to re-starting a production line.....Kirkhill said:
TangoTwoBravo
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 3,276
- Points
- 1,110
Do we have the CH-47s yet?
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
Kirkhill said:
I am hearing rumors that Viking Air out of Sydney, BC, will be restarting Twotter production again soon.
Similar threads
