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

[vonGarvin]

He should try telling that to the Costa Ricans living along the San Juan River, who've been getting the shakedown from the Nicaraguans ever since ...

Costa Rica: A shining example of freedom and democracy for the world to follow.  Let's invade it, since they have no armed forces

 

[vonGarvin]

Thanks von Garvin.

You're welcome ;D

You have now done two things. 
The first is that you have verified that there is no way that the Cyclone with its capacity of 22 Troops is going to be in the running.
The second is that you have probably knocked the EH-101 out of the running as the spec issued as backgrounder called for "an infantry platoon" and stipulated "30 persons".  If an Infantry Platoon is more than 30, it will be standing room only (max capacity 45).  Otherwise the 30 number is wrong and you are back to the same problem you have with the LAV - fit vehicle to section and tactics or fit platoon and tactics to vehicle.

Well, with the LAV, the section was still 10 persons.  When in the LAV (on mech ops), you can dismount only 7.  If you leave the LAVs "elsewhere", you can have more.  Whatever...

Close to 45 

\

Yep.  With, of course, the "attachments", without whom the infantry platoon could not function.  Gee, platoons are getting almost as big as the Mortar Platoon of old! ;D

 

[Armymatters]

Costa Rica: A shining example of freedom and democracy for the world to follow.  Let's invade it, since they have no armed forces

Or, he is saying that Canada should be a desperately poor third world nation...

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

Or, he is saying that Canada should be a desperately poor third world nation...

Well, they DO have better surfing ...  :skull:

 

[Kirkhill]

You're welcome ;DWell, with the LAV, the section was still 10 persons.  When in the LAV (on mech ops), you can dismount only 7.  If you leave the LAVs "elsewhere", you can have more.  Whatever...\

Yep.  With, of course, the "attachments", without whom the infantry platoon could not function.  Gee, platoons are getting almost as big as the Mortar Platoon of old! ;D

And it all helps deployability.... Who gets to carry the kitchen sink?  >

 

[Danjanou]

Oh I do love that whenever a charter member of the Birkenstock Brigade trots out the tired old “we don’t need an army” line they always, always have to cite Costa Rica as a shiny example.Yes they do have better beaches and surfing ( great break north end of Playa Jaco) , but poverty inequal distribution of wealth, government corruption, and being in the middle of the major drug pipleine don't somehow don't seem to balance that out, at least for more a couple of weeks vacation.

I just wish for once they’d actually include all the facts re that argument, not the ones given by indoctrinated Tico tour guides to bus loads of Canadian sun seekers enroute from the beach resorts of Jaco to see the rain forest. Yes Costa Rica did  abolish it’s standing army in 1949 and yes some of the monies saved were dolled out to their social safety net and health care which is almost as much a sacred cow to the average politically aware Tico or Tica as it is to the frost bitten Timmies slurping hoser.

Couple of minor ommisions though. First of all the newly minted President who abolished the Army after ascending to that office on Dec 1 1948 ( it took some months for the paperwork to get done) was a former Senior officer in that self same force. José Figueres Ferrer came to power after a bloody Civil war and a series of Coups and counter coups that left thousands dead, a not uncommon feature of Central and South America political evolution in the period.

His abolishment of the military was not so much an act of selfless altruism but more so an act of Political self survival. He had no intention of allowing any surviving or future rivals manage to do what he did.

Secondly there is no mention of the rather large and heavily armed National Police Force the Fuerza Publica (Force Public) including Civil Guard, Rural Assistance Guard, and Frontier Guards, naval and air arms, and internal security units. This force that numbers  in excess of 10,000 (out of a population of 3.7 million) and has an operating budget in excess of $55,000,000 US annually is an army in all but name lacking only heavy artillery and main battle tanks. It was used to secure Costa Rica’s northern border with Nicaragua during that countries own civil war and later Contra incursion, and it’s mandate allows it to be called on by the Costa Rican Government to defend the country against external aggression and internal subversion in addition to what could be considered normal policing activities.

How does that old saying go a country will always have an army. It just has to decide whether it will be their own or someone elses.

 

[MarkOttawa]

And, contrary to the Star, this silliness from the Vancouver Sun, "Clarification needed on what our re-equipped military's mission is":
http://www.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=a6fabac8-76e6-438f-8562-c51909ea3962

The need for the new hardware is clear. The government will be replacing assets that are worn out, obsolete or simply non-existent [thank goodness that is conceded]...

But we have also seen how our needs change as the world changes around us and we adjust the way we want to respond.

Our combatant role in Afghanistan requires different tools than we needed in decades past for peacekeeping.

Nuts.  CF equipment has always been bought in the context of potential combat.  Semi-pointy-stuff for Afstan, LAV IIIs--including for "peacekeeping" in Kabul, was actually bought by the Liberals.  CF-18s sure did a lot of peacekeeping in Kosovo and Serbia.  Just like the PPCLI in Afstan in 2002.  The "traditional peacekeeping" myth that will not die.  In any case almost all Army equipment required is essentially the same.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[GAP]

Other than asking the obvious, what to do with our armed forces, for a change, I found it supportive. I know I know....they had to do a lot of gulping and swallowing, and probably scrubbed their keyboard with soap and water afterwards, but they got the words out, at least.
;D

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

You're all going to groan, but just getting CH47s is not enough.  They need escorts, and that means attack helicopters.  Without the attack helcopters we will still be beholden to other countries to move around theatre.

Sorry, just throwing that out there,

2B

 

[Kirkhill]

The idea being promoted by the new Conservative government is to better configure the Canadian Forces to project force, as well as humanitarian aid, far from our shores. And now that Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor has addressed the mobility issue, he is focusing on buying assault ships, Stryker mobile gun systems and attack helicopters.

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_PrintFriendly&c=Article&cid=1151617836064&call_pageid=970599119419

Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.  From the Toronto Star Editorial.

Perhaps somebody's listening to you 2B. 

Also further to the comments about Platoon size creeping up - It occurs to me that before WW1 when our current 4+/- Coy, 3 Platoon system was finalized, the working subunit for the Battalion was a company, a Captain's command, often with a strength in the 40 to 60 man range and deployed independently in places like Afghanistan, or Canada, or the Dakotas.

PS - I like Canada Day/Dominion Day but this is painful......... ;D

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

This is a list of the 27 countries that do not maintain any armed forces. The term "country" is used in the sense of independent state; thus, it applies only to sovereign states and not dependencies whose defence is the responsibility of another country, or an army alternative.

Country Comments
Andorra Defence of the country is the responsibility of France or Spain. Similar treaties with both, June 3, 1993.
Cook Islands Defence is provided by New Zealand, in consultation with the Cook Islands' government.
Costa Rica The constitution forbids a standing military in times of peace since 1949. Seat of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. Seat of the United Nations University of Peace.
Dominica No standing army since 1981, after the army attempted a coup. Defence is the responsibility of the United States.
Grenada No standing army since 1983, after the American-led invasion. Defence is the responsibility of the United States.
Haiti Disbanded on June, 1995, but rebels have demanded its re-establishment. The National Police maintains some military units.
Iceland No standing army, but is a member of NATO. There is a defence agreement with the U.S., which maintains, along with other NATO countries, a base in the country. Maintains an expeditionary peacekeeping force, Coast Guard and an Armed Police unit.
Kiribati The only forces permitted are the police and the coast guard.
Liechtenstein Abolished their army in 1868 because it was too costly. Depends on Switzerland for defence. Army does not exist in times of peace.
Maldives Has no army since its independence on 1965. Was invaded by mercenaries in 1988, and rescued by India. No known permanent defence treaty.
Marshall Islands Defence is the responsibility of the United States.
Mauritius A multicultural country without an army since 1968.
Micronesia Defence is the responsibility of the United States.
Monaco Renounced its military investment in the 17th century because the expansion of ranges of artillery had rendered it defenceless. Defence is the responsibility of France.
Nauru Under an informal agreement, defence is the responsibility of Australia.
Niue Defence is provided by New Zealand.
Palau The only country with an anti-nuclear constitution. Defence is the responsibility of the United States.
Panama Abolished their army in 1990, confirmed by a parliamentary unanimous vote for constitutional change in 1994. Some units within the Public Force (Police, Coast Guard, Air Service and Institutional Security) have limited warfare capabilities.
San Marino Maintains a ceremonial guard, a police and a border force.
Solomon Islands Has known a heavy ethnic conflict between 1998 and 2006, in which Australia and other Pacific countries finally intervened to restore peace and order. No standing army.
Saint Kitts and Nevis Maintains a small defence force for internal purposes.
Saint Lucia Maintains a special service unit.
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Maintains a special service unit.
Samoa No standing army. Defence is the responsibility of New Zealand.
Tuvalu Has no army, but its police force includes a Maritime Surveillance Unit.
Vanuatu Has a small mobile military force.
Vatican City The ceremonial Swiss Guard acts as a security police force.

Countries without an army (click to enlarge)Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Monaco and Palau have no say in defence matters and little say in international relations. Andorra can call for help. Iceland has a defence agreement with the USA. The Cook Islands and Niue both have a basic agreement with New Zealand that it should be responsible for their defence. All the others (19 countries) stand fully responsible and independent, without an army, for defence matters.

Seven of them (Costa Rica, Dominica, Grenada, Haiti, Liechtenstein, Monaco and Panama) went through a process of demilitarisation. All the 20 others, including Andorra 700 years ago, were born without an army, mostly because they were (some still are) under protection from a more powerful nation by the time they became independent. They are all said to be in a situation of "non-militarisation".

 

[IN HOC SIGNO]

Oh I do love that whenever a charter member of the Birkenstock Brigade trots out the tired old “we don’t need an army” line they always, always have to cite Costa Rica as a shiny example.Yes they do have better beaches and surfing ( great break north end of Playa Jaco) , but poverty inequal distribution of wealth, government corruption, and being in the middle of the major drug pipleine don't somehow don't seem to balance that out, at least for more a couple of weeks vacation.

I just wish for once they’d actually include all the facts re that argument, not the ones given by indoctrinated Tico tour guides to bus loads of Canadian sun seekers enroute from the beach resorts of Jaco to see the rain forest. Yes Costa Rica did  abolish it’s standing army in 1949 and yes some of the monies saved were dolled out to their social safety net and health care which is almost as much a sacred cow to the average politically aware Tico or Tica as it is to the frost bitten Timmies slurping hoser.

Couple of minor ommisions though. First of all the newly minted President who abolished the Army after ascending to that office on Dec 1 1948 ( it took some months for the paperwork to get done) was a former Senior officer in that self same force. José Figueres Ferrer came to power after a bloody Civil war and a series of Coups and counter coups that left thousands dead, a not uncommon feature of Central and South America political evolution in the period.

His abolishment of the military was not so much an act of selfless altruism but more so an act of Political self survival. He had no intention of allowing any surviving or future rivals manage to do what he did.

Secondly there is no mention of the rather large and heavily armed National Police Force the Fuerza Publica (Force Public) including Civil Guard, Rural Assistance Guard, and Frontier Guards, naval and air arms, and internal security units. This force that numbers  in excess of 10,000 (out of a population of 3.7 million) and has an operating budget in excess of $55,000,000 US annually is an army in all but name lacking only heavy artillery and main battle tanks. It was used to secure Costa Rica’s northern border with Nicaragua during that countries own civil war and later Contra incursion, and it’s mandate allows it to be called on by the Costa Rican Government to defend the country against external aggression and internal subversion in addition to what could be considered normal policing activities.

How does that old saying go a country will always have an army. It just has to decide whether it will be their own or someone elses.

I didn't even bother to read what that wooly headed thinker had to say....does anyone really take people like that seriously? (Besides those of like mind who are certainly not the mainstream) Just reading the title...get rid of the military is enough to make me skip to the next article. It's right up there with "Get rid of the police."

 

[GAP]

This is a list of the 27 countries that do not maintain any armed forces. The term "country" is used in the sense of independent state; thus, it applies only to sovereign states and not dependencies whose defence is the responsibility of another country, or an army alternative.

Excellent...never knew that, thanks 

 

[MarkOttawa]

EADS and Airbus bosses both quit.

  Enough said.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/5138840.stm

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Armymatters]

  Enough said.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/5138840.stm

Mark
Ottawa

More of one got fired, and the other took a fall for the team. Forgeard was forced out due to allegations of insider trading, while Humbert resigned as he felt as co-CEO of EADS, he was the leader of the Airbus team, he is ultimately responsible for any failures of the team. Their replacements, Louis Gallois and Christian Streiff, respectively, are both good leaders. Gallois was the CEO of SNCF, and was CEO for over 10 years. He has done much better than many previous CEO's of SNCF, taking into account the highly difficult environment (politicians who ask for the impossible: balance the budget BUT don't reduce any train service, especially in MY constituency; Unions: more money NOW; Europe: competition NOW, etc, etc), and he was quite good in navigating between all these elements. The fact that he had been chairman of SNCF for over 10 years, while others do not stay very long, is an indication. Streiff used to head Aerospatiale, so he has aerospace experience. He has also had experience navigating politics and business, of which EADS and Airbus, are both embroiled in.

 

[GAP]

All that being said, I think it kills the idea of them being a real contender, not that they really were anyway.

 

[Armymatters]

All that being said, I think it kills the idea of them being a real contender, not that they really were anyway.

Not really. Airbus SAS is the division of EADS suffering from problems. Airbus Military, a completely seperate division from Airbus SAS, is not the one suffering from issues. However, I will conceed that publically, they are not much of a contender.

Edit: Why? Because under Forgeard, EADS was completely amatuerish, as he was constantly trying to undermine Humbert, the guy who was trying to run EADS.

 

[MarkOttawa]

The Armchair General: Problems with A400M too.  This is from "Weight Watchers" in the June 5 issue (text only for subscribers) of Aviation Week and Space Technology (to which all Canadian journalists covering the military should subscribe, but I doubt that even one does).

'Airbus is striving to cut weight on its A400M military transport while increasing the aircraft's maximum takeoff figure by almost six tons to accommodate fuel.

The aim is to drive down structural weight, in what industry executives describe as an "aggressive" effort. "We have a robust weight-reduction program, and it is on target," one Airbus Military executive says. Range and payload are contractually guaranteed, but this is not the case for aircraft weight, he notes...

First flight is also slipping [emphasis added - MC]. Initially anticipated for January 2008, this is now foreseen as taking place slightly later in the first quarter. Overall, the development and production schedule remains tight, with little slack for any further delay if initial deliveries are not to be affected. Delivery of the first aircraft is due to France in 2009, 77 months after the May 31, 2003, contract award.

Maximum takeoff weight for the A400M has risen to 136.5 tons from 130, according to the Airbus executive. This is driven partly by redesign work to meet fuel payload requirements...

The A400M is now projected as being able to carry a 30-ton payload 2,400 naut. mi., down 150 naut. mi. from previous range estimates, says the Airbus executive. For a 20-ton payload this figure is now 3,450 naut. mi., a 100-naut.-mi. reduction. Its ferry range is also reduced by 150 naut. mi. to 4,750 naut. mi...[and Canada needs all the trans-oceanic range we can get - MC].'

One also wonders how the all-new engine's development program is proceeding.

Meanwhile, the A380's problems were known quite some time ago--from Der Spiegel:
http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,424819,00.html

'...
Such problems will not be solved simply by replacing a few managers. At the beginning of last week Forgeard and other top managers were still denying vehemently that they knew about problems in the manufacture of the A380 before the profit revision of June 13.

Yet as early as February 24 a paper was already being passed round work committees and trade unions in the Airbus factory in Toulouse, where the final assembly takes place, in which the manager in charge of production was sounding the alarm.

Large numbers of improperly equipped fuselages kept arriving at the enormous construction hall. As a result the experienced engineer ordered that tools be laid down straightaway at position 40, where the giant aircraft are put together. He also called for further deliveries from the factories in Hamburg and St. Nazaire to be halted.

As a result hundreds of men, who could have been putting their time to better use, suddenly found themselves tinkering with half-naked aircraft hulls. According to one employee representative, months before this, the company's European works council was already discussing the A380's production problems, and the effects these would have on employees.

"The whole world knew," the employee representative says angrily. "So apparently the bosses of Airbus and EADS are the only ones who didn't have a clue?"..'

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Armymatters]

The Armchair General: Problems with A400M too.  This is from "Weight Watchers" in the June 5 issue (text only for subscribers) of Aviation Week and Space Technology (to which all Canadian journalists covering the military should subscribe, but I doubt that even one does).

'Airbus is striving to cut weight on its A400M military transport while increasing the aircraft's maximum takeoff figure by almost six tons to accommodate fuel.

The aim is to drive down structural weight, in what industry executives describe as an "aggressive" effort. "We have a robust weight-reduction program, and it is on target," one Airbus Military executive says. Range and payload are contractually guaranteed, but this is not the case for aircraft weight, he notes...

First flight is also slipping [emphasis added - MC]. Initially anticipated for January 2008, this is now foreseen as taking place slightly later in the first quarter. Overall, the development and production schedule remains tight, with little slack for any further delay if initial deliveries are not to be affected. Delivery of the first aircraft is due to France in 2009, 77 months after the May 31, 2003, contract award.

Maximum takeoff weight for the A400M has risen to 136.5 tons from 130, according to the Airbus executive. This is driven partly by redesign work to meet fuel payload requirements...

The A400M is now projected as being able to carry a 30-ton payload 2,400 naut. mi., down 150 naut. mi. from previous range estimates, says the Airbus executive. For a 20-ton payload this figure is now 3,450 naut. mi., a 100-naut.-mi. reduction. Its ferry range is also reduced by 150 naut. mi. to 4,750 naut. mi...[and Canada needs all the trans-oceanic range we can get - MC].'

One also wonders how the all-new engine's development program is proceeding

Doesn't every new airplane design has had issues? I remember the issues with the first C-17's: the wings were too weak and overweight. McDD later was able to fix the issues so that it is now the roaring sucess it is.

And engine development is on track apparantly. They already tested the engine on a static frame with the prop (and apparantly, the engine was a sucess), and they will test the engine on a modified Herc now.

And I can say the same about a Boeing product: The Boeing Wedgetail. Australia is furious over the delays and issues with the birds.
http://today.reuters.com/stocks/QuoteCompanyNewsArticle.aspx?view=CN&storyID=2006-06-28T204502Z_01_N284000_RTRIDST_0_ARMS-AUSTRALIA-BOEING.XML&rpc=66

 

[MarkOttawa]

Armymatters (sorry about wrong name above): I quite agree, but the inevitable slippages--I would guesstimate at least two years--mean that first delivery for Canada would be impossible before 2013 at the earliest.  Even if the A400M was the best plane for Canadian Air Force requirements (and I don't think it is--too big and costly for tactical, too small for trans-oceanic strategic) we simply cannot wait another seven years.

Mark
Ottawa