- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 50
Posted by Gunner <randr1@home.com> on Thu, 27 Apr 2000 07:26:06 -0600
Totally agree with you! However, my point was the Navy may get new
ships prior to the Air Force getting new helicopters and aircraft. The
government may decide that the CF will buy something for instance the
CC150 Airbus‘s. Its not DND top priority, but, we have to fund the
purchases.
dave wrote:
>
> With the amount of UN mission and humanitarian relief taskings we get, It
> would be worth our while to have the capability to transport and deploy a
> battaliion of troops, by sea. This would give us rapid deployment
> capabilities for materiel, and a command and control platform in theatre.
> We can airlift ours troops, but getting thier equipment to a hotspot is a
> bit different.
> A Naval platform with a battalion‘s light combat equipment pre-positioned,
> would be a great headstart to loading out a Batt. and getting the logistics
> of an around the world voyage sorted out.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Gunner
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2000 3:50 PM
> Subject: Re: [Fwd: Gov‘t Negligence]
>
> > Does anyone know about building Hummers under license in Canada? I
> > heard it was looked at but GM or the unions... wouldn‘t allow it.
> >
> > Agree with your comments about senior officers and NCMs working with
> > companies that receive large contracts...GM Diesel LAV III rings a
> > bell as does Computing Devices Canada TCCCS and Calian Technologies
> > JANUS. Is this "featherbedding" or simply companies hiring
> > experienced Canadian Officers and NCMs? I don‘t know.
> >
> > About the Frigates...that was a political hot potato and still is for
> > that matter. You here calls from the Bloc Quebecois and PCs for the
> > government to subsidize a national ship building program all the time.
> > There is a reason the Canadian Navy ship wise is a relatively brand
> > new fleet. I predict that the government will announce in the next year
> > or two plans to build at least two - four of the proposed Navy ships
> > combined comd and con/supply/tankers to replace the AORs.
> >
> > dave wrote:
> > >
> > > Have you ever followed the paer trail on one of these big contracts.
> Ask
> > > questions about the Navy‘s new Frigate program, like who are the primary
> > > shareholders and company officers in Paramax prime software
> contracter.
> > > You might find them to be recentlyat the time retired Naval Officers.
> > > Maybe they "bid" and won, but with 100 untried merchandise and a long
> term
> > > maintenance contract, it isn‘t hard to be cynical.
> > > Since the designs we select are always built under licence by a Canadian
> > > company, they we have every right to expect the very best for the
> buck..We
> > > can build Hummers under licence I‘m sure.
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: Gunner
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2000 3:20 PM
> > > Subject: Re: [Fwd: Gov‘t Negligence]
> > >
> > > > I agree with you Carl...buy Canadian, however, it has to meet the
> > > > minimum standards. As I mentioned the purchase of a Hummer although
> > > > more expensive could have replaced the Iltis and the LSVW and the
> Iltis
> > > > replacement. Cost savings could have been realized in trg, spare
> parts,
> > > > etc, etc and you have an operationally proven veh an Arnie drives one
> > > > as well!.
> > > >
> > > > Just because a vehicle fails the trials doesn‘t mean it will be
> > > > discarded I‘m not sure if Andrew was involved in the post purchase
> > > > trials or the after purchase trials as if it is easily fixed through
> a
> > > > modification, then, all is well. I think Andrew mentioned the Iltis
> in
> > > > sand trials... I never had a problem in sand unless I was trying to
> get
> > > > up a steep hill. Some of the other members may have alot more
> > > > experience using the Iltis but I drove one for along time starting in
> > > > 1986 and there wasn‘t many places it couldn‘t go. Anyone else have
> > > > comments on the Iltis?? I haven‘t really "lived" in one for about
> seven
> > > > years.
> > > >
> > > > Carl Dinsdale wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Gunner,
> > > > >
> > > > > You‘ve brought up a very good point about keeping our spending
> within
> > > our borders, who can
> > > > > argue with bolstering our own economy? However, Andrew waded in here
> and
> > > stated that he
> > > > > was on the test team for the Iltis and it failed, but was still
> > > purchased. I don‘t
> > > > > disagree with Bombardier or any other Canadian company being awarded
> > > contracts for DND
> > > > > purchases, but the equipment should have to meet our testing and
> > > standards prior to final
> > > > > acceptance. The LSVW came in just before I got out, but once again I
> > > heard it was
> > > > > purchased despite failing trials miserably. Should we have bought
> it?
> > > Absolutely, BUT only
> > > > > after it was improved to the point of passing our trials. Those
> trials
> > > are fine and dandy,
> > > > > but are minimum standards, as pointed out by Andrew. They do not
> come
> > > close to the s**t
> > > > > and abuse any vehicle is put through on a 6 week spring Ex.
> > > > > I know there will be criticism for every and any military vehicle
> ever
> > > purchased, and I
> > > > > obviously do not have the years of experience that you do in the
> green
> > > machine, but who is
> > > > > making these decisions to purchase vehicles that fail our own
> testing?
> > > The down time,
> > > > > parts, repairs etc. experienced after their purchase seems like
> spending
> > > good money after
> > > > > bad. The long term be thought about during these purchase decisions
> as
> > > well because we
> > > > > constantly try to get 20 years out of vehicles that were purchased
> with
> > > 10 years in mind.
> > > > >
> > > > > Am I way off base here? If so, by all means enlighten me.
> > > > >
> > > > > Carl
> > > > >
> > > > > Gunner wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > DND spending billions of dollars on new kit IS a political issue.
> > > > > > Canadian Taxpayers are the ones financing these purchases and they
> > > have
> > > > > > a reasonable expectation that most of the money will be spent in
> > > Canada
> > > > > > vice the US or some other country. That‘s reality and I don‘t
> think
> > > > > > the government is wrong. It‘s my tax dollars too and I want some
> type
> > > > > > of economic spinoff for Canadians...who can deny the benefit of
> the
> > > MLVW
> > > > > > and Iltis contract to Bombardier?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Secondly, was the Iltis the best veh for the job of battlefield
> taxi.
> > > > > > Probably not the best, but, it is able to accomplish that mission.
> > > Now
> > > > > > if you argued the economics of buying an Iltis, LSVW and the
> upcoming
> > > > > > LLVW Iltis replacement instead of buying one vehicle ie the
> Hummer
> > > > > > which was able to fulfill all these roles with its different
> variants.
> > > > > > I could see alot of cost savings in having only one vehicle....one
> > > > > > vehicle for three purposes means, less trg of veh techs, simpler
> spare
> > > > > > parts reqr, less dvr trg, etc etc. I think the Hummer is a diesel
> as
> > > > > > well, further simplifying the POL supply chain as we would have a
> > > > > > predominately diesel fleet.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Gunner sends.....
> > > > > >
> > > > > > PS. Its‘ a better vehicle then the other pieces of s**t that we
> > > bought.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Carl DINSDALE wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I didn‘t think my point was the "after-market value" of the
> Iltis,
> > > but it is a valid
> > > > > > > point. The Iltis may have been intended for the battlefield, but
> > > anyone who drove it
> > > > > > > can attest to the fact that it wasn‘t engineered very well for
> that
> > > environment.
> > > > > > > That gutless 1.4 litre engine does not go very well with a four
> > > wheel drive
> > > > > > > suspension, especially one equipped with a differential lock. It
> > > seemed like they
> > > > > > > had endless electrical and fuel system problems and the best
> thing
> > > the little bugger
> > > > > > > was good for was summer road moves from London to Pet with the
> top
> > > down. I‘m way off
> > > > > > > topic here, in my original message I was simply trying to
> express my
> > > frustration
> > > > > > > with military acquisitions being made for political or fiscal
> > > reasons instead of
> > > > > > > because it is simply the best equipment available for the job.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Carl
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Bradley Sallows wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >I went to a Crown Assest auction last year and they were
> selling
> > > off a few
> > > > > > > > Iltis‘, but there were big signs on them stating they could
> not be
> > > registered in
> > > > > > > > Manitoba. When i asked why, they informed me that they had
> grossly
> > > failed
> > > > > > > > collision tests, with the hood regularly detaching and
> punching
> > > through the
> > > > > > > > windscreen. This would decapitate anyone in the front seat and
> is
> > > just not
> > > > > > > > acceptable for Joe Civie, but hey, soldiers are a dime a
> dozen,
> > > right?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > No one should minimize the shame of requiring soldiers to use
> > > equipment which is
> > > > > > > > hazardous due to sheer age eg. Labrador. However, why
> should we
> > > expect
> > > > > > > > military pattern vehicles to be engineered to the safety
> standards
> > > required for
> > > > > > > > passenger automobiles? The Iltis was intended for the
> battlefield
> > > where there
> > > > > > > > are greater hazards than collisions, not the freeway. The
> > > after-market value
> > > > > > > > in Canadian jurisdictions was never, and should never be, a
> > > consideration.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Brad Sallows
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > > > NOTE: To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> > > > > > > > to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
> > > > > > > > to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> > > > > > > > message body.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > > NOTE: To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> > > > > > > to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
> > > > > > > to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> > > > > > > message body.
> > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > NOTE: To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> > > > > > to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
> > > > > > to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> > > > > > message body.
> > > > >
> > > > > --------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > NOTE: To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> > > > > to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
> > > > > to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> > > > > message body.
> > > > --------------------------------------------------------
> > > > NOTE: To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> > > > to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
> > > > to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> > > > message body.
> > >
> > > --------------------------------------------------------
> > > NOTE: To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> > > to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
> > > to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> > > message body.
> > --------------------------------------------------------
> > NOTE: To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> > to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
> > to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> > message body.
>
> --------------------------------------------------------
> NOTE: To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
> to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> message body.
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.
Totally agree with you! However, my point was the Navy may get new
ships prior to the Air Force getting new helicopters and aircraft. The
government may decide that the CF will buy something for instance the
CC150 Airbus‘s. Its not DND top priority, but, we have to fund the
purchases.
dave wrote:
>
> With the amount of UN mission and humanitarian relief taskings we get, It
> would be worth our while to have the capability to transport and deploy a
> battaliion of troops, by sea. This would give us rapid deployment
> capabilities for materiel, and a command and control platform in theatre.
> We can airlift ours troops, but getting thier equipment to a hotspot is a
> bit different.
> A Naval platform with a battalion‘s light combat equipment pre-positioned,
> would be a great headstart to loading out a Batt. and getting the logistics
> of an around the world voyage sorted out.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Gunner
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2000 3:50 PM
> Subject: Re: [Fwd: Gov‘t Negligence]
>
> > Does anyone know about building Hummers under license in Canada? I
> > heard it was looked at but GM or the unions... wouldn‘t allow it.
> >
> > Agree with your comments about senior officers and NCMs working with
> > companies that receive large contracts...GM Diesel LAV III rings a
> > bell as does Computing Devices Canada TCCCS and Calian Technologies
> > JANUS. Is this "featherbedding" or simply companies hiring
> > experienced Canadian Officers and NCMs? I don‘t know.
> >
> > About the Frigates...that was a political hot potato and still is for
> > that matter. You here calls from the Bloc Quebecois and PCs for the
> > government to subsidize a national ship building program all the time.
> > There is a reason the Canadian Navy ship wise is a relatively brand
> > new fleet. I predict that the government will announce in the next year
> > or two plans to build at least two - four of the proposed Navy ships
> > combined comd and con/supply/tankers to replace the AORs.
> >
> > dave wrote:
> > >
> > > Have you ever followed the paer trail on one of these big contracts.
> Ask
> > > questions about the Navy‘s new Frigate program, like who are the primary
> > > shareholders and company officers in Paramax prime software
> contracter.
> > > You might find them to be recentlyat the time retired Naval Officers.
> > > Maybe they "bid" and won, but with 100 untried merchandise and a long
> term
> > > maintenance contract, it isn‘t hard to be cynical.
> > > Since the designs we select are always built under licence by a Canadian
> > > company, they we have every right to expect the very best for the
> buck..We
> > > can build Hummers under licence I‘m sure.
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: Gunner
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2000 3:20 PM
> > > Subject: Re: [Fwd: Gov‘t Negligence]
> > >
> > > > I agree with you Carl...buy Canadian, however, it has to meet the
> > > > minimum standards. As I mentioned the purchase of a Hummer although
> > > > more expensive could have replaced the Iltis and the LSVW and the
> Iltis
> > > > replacement. Cost savings could have been realized in trg, spare
> parts,
> > > > etc, etc and you have an operationally proven veh an Arnie drives one
> > > > as well!.
> > > >
> > > > Just because a vehicle fails the trials doesn‘t mean it will be
> > > > discarded I‘m not sure if Andrew was involved in the post purchase
> > > > trials or the after purchase trials as if it is easily fixed through
> a
> > > > modification, then, all is well. I think Andrew mentioned the Iltis
> in
> > > > sand trials... I never had a problem in sand unless I was trying to
> get
> > > > up a steep hill. Some of the other members may have alot more
> > > > experience using the Iltis but I drove one for along time starting in
> > > > 1986 and there wasn‘t many places it couldn‘t go. Anyone else have
> > > > comments on the Iltis?? I haven‘t really "lived" in one for about
> seven
> > > > years.
> > > >
> > > > Carl Dinsdale wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Gunner,
> > > > >
> > > > > You‘ve brought up a very good point about keeping our spending
> within
> > > our borders, who can
> > > > > argue with bolstering our own economy? However, Andrew waded in here
> and
> > > stated that he
> > > > > was on the test team for the Iltis and it failed, but was still
> > > purchased. I don‘t
> > > > > disagree with Bombardier or any other Canadian company being awarded
> > > contracts for DND
> > > > > purchases, but the equipment should have to meet our testing and
> > > standards prior to final
> > > > > acceptance. The LSVW came in just before I got out, but once again I
> > > heard it was
> > > > > purchased despite failing trials miserably. Should we have bought
> it?
> > > Absolutely, BUT only
> > > > > after it was improved to the point of passing our trials. Those
> trials
> > > are fine and dandy,
> > > > > but are minimum standards, as pointed out by Andrew. They do not
> come
> > > close to the s**t
> > > > > and abuse any vehicle is put through on a 6 week spring Ex.
> > > > > I know there will be criticism for every and any military vehicle
> ever
> > > purchased, and I
> > > > > obviously do not have the years of experience that you do in the
> green
> > > machine, but who is
> > > > > making these decisions to purchase vehicles that fail our own
> testing?
> > > The down time,
> > > > > parts, repairs etc. experienced after their purchase seems like
> spending
> > > good money after
> > > > > bad. The long term be thought about during these purchase decisions
> as
> > > well because we
> > > > > constantly try to get 20 years out of vehicles that were purchased
> with
> > > 10 years in mind.
> > > > >
> > > > > Am I way off base here? If so, by all means enlighten me.
> > > > >
> > > > > Carl
> > > > >
> > > > > Gunner wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > DND spending billions of dollars on new kit IS a political issue.
> > > > > > Canadian Taxpayers are the ones financing these purchases and they
> > > have
> > > > > > a reasonable expectation that most of the money will be spent in
> > > Canada
> > > > > > vice the US or some other country. That‘s reality and I don‘t
> think
> > > > > > the government is wrong. It‘s my tax dollars too and I want some
> type
> > > > > > of economic spinoff for Canadians...who can deny the benefit of
> the
> > > MLVW
> > > > > > and Iltis contract to Bombardier?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Secondly, was the Iltis the best veh for the job of battlefield
> taxi.
> > > > > > Probably not the best, but, it is able to accomplish that mission.
> > > Now
> > > > > > if you argued the economics of buying an Iltis, LSVW and the
> upcoming
> > > > > > LLVW Iltis replacement instead of buying one vehicle ie the
> Hummer
> > > > > > which was able to fulfill all these roles with its different
> variants.
> > > > > > I could see alot of cost savings in having only one vehicle....one
> > > > > > vehicle for three purposes means, less trg of veh techs, simpler
> spare
> > > > > > parts reqr, less dvr trg, etc etc. I think the Hummer is a diesel
> as
> > > > > > well, further simplifying the POL supply chain as we would have a
> > > > > > predominately diesel fleet.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Gunner sends.....
> > > > > >
> > > > > > PS. Its‘ a better vehicle then the other pieces of s**t that we
> > > bought.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Carl DINSDALE wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I didn‘t think my point was the "after-market value" of the
> Iltis,
> > > but it is a valid
> > > > > > > point. The Iltis may have been intended for the battlefield, but
> > > anyone who drove it
> > > > > > > can attest to the fact that it wasn‘t engineered very well for
> that
> > > environment.
> > > > > > > That gutless 1.4 litre engine does not go very well with a four
> > > wheel drive
> > > > > > > suspension, especially one equipped with a differential lock. It
> > > seemed like they
> > > > > > > had endless electrical and fuel system problems and the best
> thing
> > > the little bugger
> > > > > > > was good for was summer road moves from London to Pet with the
> top
> > > down. I‘m way off
> > > > > > > topic here, in my original message I was simply trying to
> express my
> > > frustration
> > > > > > > with military acquisitions being made for political or fiscal
> > > reasons instead of
> > > > > > > because it is simply the best equipment available for the job.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Carl
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Bradley Sallows wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >I went to a Crown Assest auction last year and they were
> selling
> > > off a few
> > > > > > > > Iltis‘, but there were big signs on them stating they could
> not be
> > > registered in
> > > > > > > > Manitoba. When i asked why, they informed me that they had
> grossly
> > > failed
> > > > > > > > collision tests, with the hood regularly detaching and
> punching
> > > through the
> > > > > > > > windscreen. This would decapitate anyone in the front seat and
> is
> > > just not
> > > > > > > > acceptable for Joe Civie, but hey, soldiers are a dime a
> dozen,
> > > right?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > No one should minimize the shame of requiring soldiers to use
> > > equipment which is
> > > > > > > > hazardous due to sheer age eg. Labrador. However, why
> should we
> > > expect
> > > > > > > > military pattern vehicles to be engineered to the safety
> standards
> > > required for
> > > > > > > > passenger automobiles? The Iltis was intended for the
> battlefield
> > > where there
> > > > > > > > are greater hazards than collisions, not the freeway. The
> > > after-market value
> > > > > > > > in Canadian jurisdictions was never, and should never be, a
> > > consideration.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Brad Sallows
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > > > NOTE: To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> > > > > > > > to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
> > > > > > > > to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> > > > > > > > message body.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > > NOTE: To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> > > > > > > to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
> > > > > > > to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> > > > > > > message body.
> > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > NOTE: To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> > > > > > to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
> > > > > > to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> > > > > > message body.
> > > > >
> > > > > --------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > NOTE: To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> > > > > to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
> > > > > to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> > > > > message body.
> > > > --------------------------------------------------------
> > > > NOTE: To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> > > > to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
> > > > to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> > > > message body.
> > >
> > > --------------------------------------------------------
> > > NOTE: To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> > > to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
> > > to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> > > message body.
> > --------------------------------------------------------
> > NOTE: To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> > to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
> > to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> > message body.
>
> --------------------------------------------------------
> NOTE: To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
> to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> message body.
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.
