Military spending plan has many benefits: O'Connor

[Teddy Ruxpin]

What's interesting about the big buy O'Connor has planned for the military is the almost-complete lack of industrial offsets for Canada.

You're confusing industrial offsets with actual production.  While most of what is being contemplated (JSS aside) will be produced by foreign industry, each programme speaks very clearly of the requirement for industrial offsets.  In other words, companies selling the equipment agree to buy an equal value of goods from Canadian companies, thus offsetting the cost of the procurement.

 

[Rory]

I am so happy to be joining when the government is buying all this new equipment. Gives a sense of security and self reliance to it all.

 

[rick7475]

With 3 or 4 C17 transports, don't they need air to air refueling over long hauls? We used have 707's do that, if I recall. I remember when they got rid of those.

 

[Kirkhill]

Strategic Lift Specs Required

Range and payload - Sufficient un-refuelled range and payload capacity (6,482 kilometres with 39,000 kilograms) to support domestic and international deployed operations.

http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/newsroom/view_news_e.asp?id=1969

C17 Stats - 160,000 lbs for 2400nm (72,000 kg for 4400 km)
Difference between CF Required Payload (39,000 kg) and C17 Payload at 4400 km (72,000 kg) = 33,000 kg.  That leaves room for an additional 33,000 kg of fuel to reach the 6482 km threshold.
6482 km from Trenton equals any airport in Western Europe this side of Frankfurt as well as Copenhagen, Stockholm and Helsinki.  It also equals the distance to Peru or the North Coast of Brazil.  It is also roughly equal to the distance to Murmansk in Russia or Attu on the Aleutian Islands.  Fuel is available at all points.

Maximum payload  170,900lb
Maximum takeoff gross weight  585,000lb
Empty weight  277,000lb
Range, 160,000lb 2,400nm
Cruise speed  0.74 to 0.77 Mach 
Service ceiling  45,000ft 
Ferry range (unladen range)  4,700nm
Takeoff field length, at maximum gross weight  7,740ft 
Landing field length, with 160,000lb of cargo 3,000ft 

http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/c17/specs.html

A400M Specs

Maximum payload 37t
Total internal fuel 47t
Engines
Type 4 x TP400-D6 turboprop
Power Over 11,000shp each
Performance
Cruise speed Mach 0.68 to 0.72
Maximum operating speed 300kt CAS
Range at maximum payload 1,800nm
30t payload range  2,600nm
20t payload range 3,750nm 
Maximum operating altitude 37,000ft
Tanker performance characteristics 2-point role-convertible tanker/transporter
Fuel capacity 46.7t or 58t with two cargo bay fuel tanks 

http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/fla/specs.html

A400 with a maximum payload of 37 tonnes (37,000 kg) is 2 tonnes short of the CF requirement under all conditions.  It has to reduce its payload to about the maximum payload of the C130 to meet the range requirement.

C17 doesn't need inflight refuelling.

PS - with all this talk about Industrial Benefits and Offsets and demanding that the suppliers (read Yanks) spend a dollar in Canada for every dollar they earn on this project I am curious as to where all these people were when The Yanks issued a contract for their Kiowa replacement programme that resulted in 368 helicopters being built in Montreal.  Can we expect that Bell Canada will be buying an equivalent amount of goods and services in the US?

 

[HDE]

I believe the UTDC shut down soon after finishing the contract to build the HLVW fleet some years ago.

 

[Spencer100]

The line was shut down.  The government sold UTDC to guess who?

Bombardier!  Yes everyone's favourite corporate wellfare bum

(UTDC Bombardier is working on getting the new TTC contract on single source.)

 

[Armymatters]

CISS has put out another commentary, this time regarding the new planned buys, and to summarize, they are all in favour, but warn that the orders could turn political, and nothing will be purchased, and that in all while with the purchases there is little to criticize, the new purchases do nothing as to resolving all the operations shortcomings facing the CF, including the pending loss of the destroyers, refits to the frigate fleet, replacement of the Aurora patrol aircraft, the lack of options for the CF when it cancels MGS and MMEV when it comes to anti-tank and air defence, attrition replacements for lost equipment while on missions, and most importantly, retention of CF personnel.
http://www.ciss.ca/Comment_july06.htm

 

[Canadian.Trucker]

CISS has put out another commentary, this time regarding the new planned buys, and to summarize, they are all in favour, but warn that the orders could turn political, and nothing will be purchased, and that in all while with the purchases there is little to criticize, the new purchases do nothing as to resolving all the operations shortcomings facing the CF, including the pending loss of the destroyers, refits to the frigate fleet, replacement of the Aurora patrol aircraft, the lack of options for the CF when it cancels MGS and MMEV when it comes to anti-tank and air defence, attrition replacements for lost equipment while on missions, and most importantly, retention of CF personnel.
http://www.ciss.ca/Comment_july06.htm

This both made me happy, and depressed me at the same time.  Kinda like a sugar high.

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

Well to a certain extent I think O'Connor is being frank.  I believe that in each of the RFP's issued so far, although they haven't specified production within Canada, they have specified that the supplier must provide dollar-for-dollar economic investment in Canada.  In short, the Boeing C-17's may get built in California, but the contract will necessitate we get $2.0 billion in Boeing subcontracting perhaps for the 787-program.  Same demand with the helicopters and also the trucks. (The ships are to be built in Canada so that guarantees economic spin-off as well).

Bottom Line:  I'm impressed.....


Matthew. 

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I see a lot of Sterling trucks running around BC, seems to be the biggest source of new trucks. Likely they would source the non-tactical out of them or similar and single source the Tactical.

I suppose they could reopen the line and just build new MLVWs, is there any major improvement over them by the newer tactical trucks used by the US?