CTV: Billions more for defence ...

[MarkOttawa]

Teddy Ruxpin: Utility aircraft were in the Liberal 2005 budget:
http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/news/crew/04-05/04_e.asp

Utility aircraft for the North

The federal budget also announced funding for new utility aircraft for operations in the North. The Government of Canada has placed increased emphasis on Canada’s northern regions, and the decision to acquire new utility aircraft to operate in this environment will enable the Air Force to replace the Twin Otters and maintain the ability to continue to operate in the North.

Now the Bombardier Q Series (ex-Dash 8; easy error, David) can do most of the missions the Twotters do in the north, but not the STOL missions (a small part of the total).  If the Qs are bought what does the STOL missions?

Mark
Ottawa

 

[observor 69]

More on this topic at:

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/23889.0.html

I was at CFB Summerside when the Buffalo replaced the old Albatross SAR aircraft.
http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/equip/historical/albatrosslst_e.asp

In almost every respect the Buff was grossly inferior to the WWII era Albatross, range, all up weight and navigation suite come first to mind. At the time the USCG was using Herc's.  And yes we have managed at great expense to modify and equip the BUff to do a better job.
Let's get a fully mission capable FWSAR aircraft this time.

 

[R933ex]

The STOL issue with the twin may be moot. Currently 440 doesn't do allot of off strip flying, no float work and mostly workhorse duties throughout the North so the need isn't really there. In addition only 2 active runways within the North will not take the Dash ( and these are so far off the beaten track that 440 very rarely deploys to them, its usually chartered out) so when you factor in load capacity, distances to be travelled the DASH 8 is more then suitable replacement.

 

[Jantor]

Would something like a CASA 212 work better in the utility roll with it's rear ramp? I've seen pictures of the Dash-7 Combi being loaded with a forklift through the side door and looks a little awkward.









Grrr...spelling

 

[R933ex]

I used to work part time loading and unloading AC up here and it does gets to be a pain when trying to load a truck into a DASH 7 or DASH 8 combie. However the main clients for the Military Airlift support up here are Ranger instructors and cadets, and they rarely have loads that can't be accommodated by the main cargo doors.

 

[tasop_999]

Just throwing this out there for anyone who might have the technical knowledge, were the CPFs not designed with 'light arctic operations' in mind? Might the government produce another version of the CPF that has been strengthened for ice operations rather than going overseas to find a suitable ship?

On another note, well done to David Akin for using this site.  Interesting report.

 

[MarkOttawa]

David: From your story:

"This government is doing so much in secret with no accountability to the Canadian taxpayer, to Canadian Parliament," said Dawn Black, the NDP Member of Parliament for New Westminster-Port Coquitlam and her party's defence critic. "I'm frankly appalled that they would be letting these kinds of contracts without at least coming to the Defence Committee of the House of Commons. Everything done in secret! I don't understand it. What is it that they're afraid of?"

It seems to me more context is required in the reporting.  For the equipments you mention in the story it appears that there will be real competitions for all (except maybe the Bombardier Q Series as utility aircraft!).  No contracts are now being let in these cases.  Why do you quote Ms. Black without making these facts clear?  Where is the secrecy? 

What is interesting in these cases is that there are genuine alternatives, as really was not the case for the C-17s, C-130Js and CH-47s.  Your story might have pointed out this distinction.

The one scandal will be if the Arctic ships are built in Canada at excessive cost and time--it's almost certain the JSS vessels will be built here with the same penalties, but let's not add to the problem.  But then politics with ship acquisitions rules all.  That the government can well be called on---perhaps you might consider a story later on this issue?

In any event, bravo for posting here.  We certainly all need to educate one other.

Finally, where are the protests by mayors et al. over this spewing of lead into the waters?
http://www.lookoutnewspaper.com/archive/20061120/index.shtml

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Go gentle on her, FOR ONCE, at least she got something right.

Quote,
" I don't understand it."

 

[Loachman]

Go gentle on her, FOR ONCE, at least she got something right.

Quote,
" I don't understand it."

Now if we could convince all journalists everywhere to default to that when quoting her in the future...

 

[peaches]

This is all a great start, C17's, C130J's, new ships, Chinooks.  Now we need some new Leopards, F35 JSF and a squadron or two of attack helos.  There is no resaon under the sun a small military cannot be effective and lethal......

 

[Mike Baker]

This is all a great start, C17's, C130J's, new ships, Chinooks.  Now we need some new Leopards, F35 JSF and a squadron or two of attack helos.  There is no resaon under the sun a small military cannot be effective and lethal......

If we could get some F35's which wont be in service until 2010 (?not quite sure) and have one or two squadrons of attack helocopters(good idea), why can't we get something like M1A2's instead of more Leos?

 

[a_majoor]

If we could get some F35's which wont be in service until 2010 (?not quite sure) and have one or two squadrons of attack helocopters(good idea), why can't we get something like M1A2's instead of more Leos?

What is really needed is a thourough defence review and perhaps a new White Paper. Much of the buying (current and proposed) is reflexive in nature; purchasing things to make up for immediate needs in theater or replace kit which is so old it is virtually unservicable. With a defence review and White Paper, we will forcast what we expect to do in the next decade or so, and then decide what equipment is needed to fulfill the needs.

 

[vonGarvin]

why can't we get something like M1A2's instead of more Leos?

I've put it elsewhere, but a newer leo would be more accomodating for some pretty odd reasons.  Firstly, the learning curve from Leo C2 to a Leo 2Ax would be easier, though obviously any tanker worth his weight in salt could easily adapt to any M1 variant.  More obscure is the fact that Leo 2Ax are identical in width to a Leo C2 (helps logisticians plan things like tanker bays here in Canada, in garrison, which should be a factor: it's no use to buy a tank you cannot park indoors).  Still, any M1 variant (with 120mm main gun, naturally!) would be good for us, IMHO.

Still, A_Majoor makes an excellent point regarding longer term thinking, although the reflexive nature of recent procurements would be unneccessary had Canada had the foresight many MANY moons ago to phase in this big purchases.

 

[Mike Baker]

I've put it elsewhere, but a newer leo would be more accomodating for some pretty odd reasons.  Firstly, the learning curve from Leo C2 to a Leo 2Ax would be easier, though obviously any tanker worth his weight in salt could easily adapt to any M1 variant.  More obscure is the fact that Leo 2Ax are identical in width to a Leo C2 (helps logisticians plan things like tanker bays here in Canada, in garrison, which should be a factor: it's no use to buy a tank you cannot park indoors).  Still, any M1 variant (with 120mm main gun, naturally!) would be good for us, IMHO.

Still, A_Majoor makes an excellent point regarding longer term thinking, although the reflexive nature of recent procurements would be unneccessary had Canada had the foresight many MANY moons ago to phase in this big purchases.

Ahh I see where you and A_Majoor are comming from. So will our new purchases be considered "thinking ahead"?

 

[vonGarvin]

Well, I'd call it "managing chaos" rather than "thinking ahead".  I suspect, however, that there is some foresight in these procurements.

 

[Kirkhill]

What is really needed is a thourough defence review and perhaps a new White Paper. Much of the buying (current and proposed) is reflexive in nature; purchasing things to make up for immediate needs in theater or replace kit which is so old it is virtually unservicable. With a defence review and White Paper, we will forcast what we expect to do in the next decade or so, and then decide what equipment is needed to fulfill the needs.

Agreed ----  Coincidentally David noted this:

CTV News has learned that the Department of National Defence has submitted its "Canada First Defence Strategy", a so-called defence capabilities plan that sketches out the sorts of missions the military should be prepared to carry out and what kind of role it ought to play over the next several decades in support of Canadian foreign policy and Canadian domestic policy.

It looks like a step along the way.

 

[Mike Baker]

Well, thats good to know, I guess. I hope it work's out with our new hardware.

 

[MarkOttawa]

For what it's worth, I think a true defence/foreign policy review would come up with something like this as the logical conclusion: the Army will be the main military implement of Canadian foreign policy for the forseeable future and, given that military threats to our homeland are small, the CF should be transformed, in most respects, into a smaller version of the US Marine Corps.  With appropriate air and naval supporting assets.  Which seems to be in many aspects the way things are going.

I suspect Gen. Hillier may have a similar view, though he dare not say it.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Hawker]

Interesting that there is a separate requirement for a SAR and a utility transport plane...or is this done so that Bombardier gets a slice of the contract without having a plane that the SAR types would be happy with?

 

[George Wallace]

I've put it elsewhere, but a newer leo would be more accomodating for some pretty odd reasons.  Firstly, the learning curve from Leo C2 to a Leo 2Ax would be easier, though obviously any tanker worth his weight in salt could easily adapt to any M1 variant.  More obscure is the fact that Leo 2Ax are identical in width to a Leo C2 (helps logisticians plan things like tanker bays here in Canada, in garrison, which should be a factor: it's no use to buy a tank you cannot park indoors).  Still, any M1 variant (with 120mm main gun, naturally!) would be good for us, IMHO.

Still, A_Majoor makes an excellent point regarding longer term thinking, although the reflexive nature of recent procurements would be unneccessary had Canada had the foresight many MANY moons ago to phase in this big purchases.

This is a very important point that is usually overlooked.  The Americans found out when they started deploying their tanks to Germany that now they had to build twice the number of Tank Hangars then what they currently had.  The M1 exhausts were burning the paint off of the tanks in the bays behind them.  They could no longer back tanks into bays opposite each other, so they now required twice the facilities to house the same number of tanks.