Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Federal Platforms on the Military

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Federal Platforms on the Military

    Discuss and debate the various platforms on our Military here.
    Ow

  • #2
    Please post items or discussion points relevant to the thread title. I have unapproved the previous post.
    Ow

    Comment


    • #3
      I find it amazing that the Liberals have finally discovered veterans. These are the guys who sent our soldiers to the desert in green uniforms driving Volkswagon Cabriolets. (they called it the Iltis)
      I applaud the idea of paying for returning soldiers schooling but why not keep things simple? The military already provides training for the myriad of trades and professions they require. Many soldiers leave the forces with job skills in great demand. Instead of setting up a program and bureaucracy to process veterans education applications, why not just give them a lump sum severance when they are discharged. That way the vets who want to go on to further education can, and those that don't, have the option to use the money for what they need.
      It would save on administration costs and be helpful to all the vets.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by ralph60 View Post
        I find it amazing that the Liberals have finally discovered veterans. These are the guys who sent our soldiers to the desert in green uniforms driving Volkswagon Cabriolets. (they called it the Iltis)
        I applaud the idea of paying for returning soldiers schooling but why not keep things simple? The military already provides training for the myriad of trades and professions they require. Many soldiers leave the forces with job skills in great demand. Instead of setting up a program and bureaucracy to process veterans education applications, why not just give them a lump sum severance when they are discharged. That way the vets who want to go on to further education can, and those that don't, have the option to use the money for what they need.
        It would save on administration costs and be helpful to all the vets.
        Frankly, I don't see the Conservatives as being all that much better on defence. Harper has reneged on all sorts of promises once he saw the pricetag, with critical purchases either postponed, scaled back or even cancelled (JSS, armed heavy icebreakers, destroyers, patrol aircraft).

        And when he does buy something, he doesn't hold a competition and sole sources it, which winds up costing twice what was expected (the new Chinooks are a prime example of that).

        I think Harper had good intentions when he took over in 2006, but once he saw that big spending on defence does NOT translate into votes, he went back on promises.

        Comment


        • #5
          ^ummm, you do realize the Conservatives greatly expanded military capability, including for example adding the C17s? You don't remember how when crises used to occur, the Canadian government had to go out and lease Russian planes, often unable to do so because other countries got there first?

          Cancelling the F35 now will be a disaster in terms of time lines, the CF18s need to be replaced, we would end up with another SeaKing debacle with aircrew lives being lost because of Liberal political dithering (a Liberal party that actually got us into the F35 program in the first place).

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by moahunter View Post
            ^ummm, you do realize the Conservatives greatly expanded military capability, including for example adding the C17s? You don't remember how when crises used to occur, the Canadian government had to go out and lease Russian planes, often unable to do so because other countries got there first?

            Cancelling the F35 now will be a disaster in terms of time lines, the CF18s need to be replaced, we would end up with another SeaKing debacle with aircrew lives being lost because of Liberal political dithering (a Liberal party that actually got us into the F35 program in the first place).
            The real joke about the F-35's they don't even come with engines

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by nosheep View Post
              The real joke about the F-35's they don't even come with engines
              Best check your facts.
              Nobody knows where you are, how near or how far / shine on you crazy diamond

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by moahunter View Post
                ^ummm, you do realize the Conservatives greatly expanded military capability, including for example adding the C17s? You don't remember how when crises used to occur, the Canadian government had to go out and lease Russian planes, often unable to do so because other countries got there first?

                Cancelling the F35 now will be a disaster in terms of time lines, the CF18s need to be replaced, we would end up with another SeaKing debacle with aircrew lives being lost because of Liberal political dithering (a Liberal party that actually got us into the F35 program in the first place).
                Oh please, we spent $3 billion on four ariplanes - and in the same month we had the first one operational, we still used rented AN-124s to ship Leopards to Afghanistan. We could have had a Canadian company (Skylink) in Toronto lease four planes 24/7 for $42 million/year instead - or bought 8 AN-124s instead of those C-17s.

                Either option would have been far cheaper, been as or more capable and left room for his other defence promises - but no, we had to sole source the plane and we got gouged because of it. Same goes for the Chinooks we're going to get for Afghanistan in 2014 (even though our need for them ends this year) - instead holding a competition, we just ordered them outright. Now the project is expected to cost DOUBLE its original estimate.

                The point is the current government's tendency to sole source defence projects is costing us a fortune, which means that it forces us to postpone other vital projects.

                BTW, the Liberals only signed up for the F-35 program for the industrial offsets - they never ordered a single plane.

                All in all, the F-35 sounds like a very capable plane, but I doubt the wisdom of having a single engine fighter patrolling the High Arctic (the justification is to prevent those pesky Russians from invading our airspace - or so MacKay and Harper tell us).

                A proper competition would tell us whether or not it is in our best interests to buy the F-35 instead of the Typhoon (or something else).

                The government and military tell us we need to buy these planes NOW, because the CF-18s will need to be replaced by 2020. But what about our destroyers, which are 40 years old NOW and need replacement sooner? Or our AORs which need to be replaced by next year - yet we haven't even decided on a design yet, nevermind started building anything?

                Frankly, I don't care what the price for any particular weapons system is, as long as it is the right one. But how can we know what is the right one without a competition? It's simple - we can't.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by bootlegga View Post
                  Originally posted by moahunter View Post
                  ^ummm, you do realize the Conservatives greatly expanded military capability, including for example adding the C17s? You don't remember how when crises used to occur, the Canadian government had to go out and lease Russian planes, often unable to do so because other countries got there first?

                  Cancelling the F35 now will be a disaster in terms of time lines, the CF18s need to be replaced, we would end up with another SeaKing debacle with aircrew lives being lost because of Liberal political dithering (a Liberal party that actually got us into the F35 program in the first place).
                  Oh please, we spent $3 billion on four ariplanes - and in the same month we had the first one operational, we still used rented AN-124s to ship Leopards to Afghanistan. We could have had a Canadian company (Skylink) in Toronto lease four planes 24/7 for $42 million/year instead - or bought 8 AN-124s instead of those C-17s.
                  The C17 is one of the best transport aircraft flying in the world today, if not the best. Yes, it isn't big enough to carry a Leopoard, but their deployment is infrequent at best. If you look at any military analysis, the C17 comes out tops, all the main western militaries have been looking at purchasing them (including UK, and Australia who both did). Personally, I don't think it would be wise to give Canadian forces Russian aircraft, its only matter of time before one crashes (no different from commercial jets), it just isn't worth the risk in lives to save a few bucks.

                  On the engine issue, the F16 turned out to be a more reliable and safer aircraft than the F18, even though the F16 only has one engine versus the F18's two. This is an issue from the past when engines were less reliable, if anything today, the reduced maintenance makes a single engine aircraft more reliable and safer.
                  Last edited by moahunter; 20-04-2011, 12:36 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by soycd View Post
                    Originally posted by nosheep View Post
                    The real joke about the F-35's they don't even come with engines
                    Best check your facts.
                    The government will be required to provide engines for the 65 planes to be delivered by U.S. manufacturer Lockheed Martin, according to newly released Defence Department documents.“Engines are provided as gov’t furnished equipment,” noted the documents.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by moahunter View Post
                      The C17 is one of the best transport aircraft flying in the world today, if not the best. Yes, it isn't big enough to carry a Leopoard, but their deployment is infrequent at best. If you look at any military analysis, the C17 comes out tops, all the main western militaries have been looking at purchasing them (including UK, and Australia who both did). Personally, I don't think it would be wise to give Canadian forces Russian aircraft, its only matter of time before one crashes (no different from commercial jets), it just isn't worth the risk in lives to save a few bucks.

                      On the engine issue, the F16 turned out to be a more reliable and safer aircraft than the F18, even though the F16 only has one engine versus the F18's two. This is an issue from the past when engines were less reliable, if anything today, the reduced maintenance makes a single engine aircraft more reliable and safer.
                      A C-17 has no problem transporting a fully armed/armoured Leopard (C1/C2 or 2). You're right, they are an amazing aircraft.

                      Originally posted by nosheep
                      The government will be required to provide engines for the 65 planes to be delivered by U.S. manufacturer Lockheed Martin, according to newly released Defence Department documents.“Engines are provided as gov’t furnished equipment,” noted the documents.

                      Read more: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Ca...#ixzz1K5dbQQFl
                      as per the article:
                      But the e-mail suggested the cost of the engines is included in the overall price.
                      Its normal for the aircraft and engines to be a seperate contract. The same thing was done for the CH-147s.

                      Originally posted by bootlegga View Post
                      And when he does buy something, he doesn't hold a competition and sole sources it, which winds up costing twice what was expected (the new Chinooks are a prime example of that).
                      The estimated costs of the Chinooks and 20 years servicing was $4.6B for 16 aircraft. The final cost (with servicing for 20 years) was $4.9B for 15 aircraft. Not quite double. And the airforce got a superior aircraft model then initially planned.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by moahunter
                        Personally, I don't think it would be wise to give Canadian forces Russian aircraft, its only matter of time before one crashes (no different from commercial jets)
                        Do you have a source or backing for the claim that Russian aircraft crash more frequently, whether military or commercial?

                        Originally posted by Carbon-14
                        Its normal for the aircraft and engines to be a seperate contract. The same thing was done for the CH-147s.
                        I don't much care if they're a separate contract. The bottom line price is what concerns me. Laurie Hawn was interviewed along with an NDP and Liberal candidate by Evan Solomon and he was outright belligerent claiming that the bottom line cost for the 65 fighters would be 8-9 billion dollars, including maintenance. Which is ludicrously cheap compared to what every other country that's involved in the program is expecting to pay. When Solomon tried to pin him in a corner about the quantity of planes, he again declared there would be 65 planes, that the numbers wouldn't be reduced.

                        I don't disagree with the need for a next generation aircraft. But I'd certainly like to have a fair appraisal of what the actual cost is going to be, and we aren't getting one.

                        http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/cana...f35-costs.html (first video)

                        I must say, Hawn comes across as a #1 ***hole in that video, continually interrupting the others when they were trying to speak, yet when someone chuckles when he makes a point at about 7:35 he tells them to be quiet.
                        Last edited by Marcel Petrin; 20-04-2011, 01:29 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by moahunter View Post
                          Originally posted by bootlegga View Post
                          Originally posted by moahunter View Post
                          ^ummm, you do realize the Conservatives greatly expanded military capability, including for example adding the C17s? You don't remember how when crises used to occur, the Canadian government had to go out and lease Russian planes, often unable to do so because other countries got there first?

                          Cancelling the F35 now will be a disaster in terms of time lines, the CF18s need to be replaced, we would end up with another SeaKing debacle with aircrew lives being lost because of Liberal political dithering (a Liberal party that actually got us into the F35 program in the first place).
                          Oh please, we spent $3 billion on four ariplanes - and in the same month we had the first one operational, we still used rented AN-124s to ship Leopards to Afghanistan. We could have had a Canadian company (Skylink) in Toronto lease four planes 24/7 for $42 million/year instead - or bought 8 AN-124s instead of those C-17s.
                          The C17 is one of the best transport aircraft flying in the world today, if not the best. Yes, it isn't big enough to carry a Leopoard, but their deployment is infrequent at best. If you look at any military analysis, the C17 comes out tops, all the main western militaries have been looking at purchasing them (including UK, and Australia who both did). Personally, I don't think it would be wise to give Canadian forces Russian aircraft, its only matter of time before one crashes (no different from commercial jets), it just isn't worth the risk in lives to save a few bucks.

                          On the engine issue, the F16 turned out to be a more reliable and safer aircraft than the F18, even though the F16 only has one engine versus the F18's two. This is an issue from the past when engines were less reliable, if anything today, the reduced maintenance makes a single engine aircraft more reliable and safer.
                          Sure the C-17 can transport a Leopard. It can also carry two LAVs or a lot of palletized cargo. The point isn't that the C-17 isn't capable - it is.

                          Nations like the Brits leased the C-17s before buying - just to make sure it was the right aircraft for them. We just jumped in and bought them.

                          The point is that the government sole sourced the contract and didn't examine other options. And like I said, even after we bought the C-17s we're still renting inadequate Russian planes. Do you know why? They cost about 40% less to operate than our C-17s do (as well as having a longer range and bigger payload). That means that the inferior Russian planes can lift more cargo farther and for less than our C-17s. No wonder we're still renting AN-124s occasionally.

                          Let me ask you a hypothetical question - when you are planning to buy a new car/truck, do you go to the dealer and say, "Hey, your vehicle is the only one for me - how much is it"?

                          Of course not, you go to a couple of places, look at all the options and then decide which to buy.

                          Unlike previous governments or even most people, the Conservative government never did that. It simply looked at one option and wrote a check. That's irresponsible and reckless IMHO.

                          I'll take your word that the F-16 was more reliable than the F-18 (as I've never heard that), but we're not buying F-16s. And it's easy for armchair generals to say single engine planes are fine for Arctic patrols - it's not them flying over Ellesmere Island trying to intercept a Russian bomber when their engine dies out. Take a look at the Canadian Arctic - how many jet capable airstrips do you think are up there? Not very many, and that’s why some people are concerned at the lack of a second engine – and at $65 -150 million per plane (depending on who’s math you believe), we really can’t afford to have any crash on us.

                          I’m concerned with buying the most capable aircraft for Canada, not the cheapest or the most expensive. If an open competition determines that the F-35 does meet all of our needs then so be it. But we shouldn’t commit to tens of billions of dollars without doing some tire-kicking first.
                          Last edited by bootlegga; 20-04-2011, 02:53 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Bootlegga's comment:
                            "BTW, the Liberals only signed up for the F-35 program for the industrial offsets"
                            is absolutely astounding.
                            We ask our soldiers, sailors and airmen to risk their lives and often give their lives in our defence.
                            To enter an equipment program for industrial offsets is criminal. If we are going to put our kids in harms way, they deserve the absolute best in equipment. Industrial offsets should be a side benefit, not the determining factor in an equipment program.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Carbon-14 View Post
                              Originally posted by bootlegga View Post
                              And when he does buy something, he doesn't hold a competition and sole sources it, which winds up costing twice what was expected (the new Chinooks are a prime example of that).
                              The estimated costs of the Chinooks and 20 years servicing was $4.6B for 16 aircraft. The final cost (with servicing for 20 years) was $4.9B for 15 aircraft. Not quite double. And the airforce got a superior aircraft model then initially planned.
                              That's not what the Auditor General says - her notes the Chinooks were initailly expected to cost $1.4 billion (2.1 billion with maintenance), but have jumped to the $4.9 billion you mentioned.

                              In 2009, a directed contract with a $1.4-billion value was awarded to The Boeing Company for 15 “Canadianized” Chinook helicopters. An amendment to this contract is planned in 2013, to provide for long-term in-service support. The new fleet will be located at CFB Petawawa.
                              The total project cost of 15 Chinook helicopters, together with initial set-up, training, and long-term maintenance, is now estimated at more than $4.9 billion.
                              http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/En...6_e_34289.html

                              That's $2.8 Billion that could be spent elsewhere if the government had done its homework. That would have almost entirely paid for the three Joint Support Ships Harper had originally promised to build (at a cost of $2.9 billion). Now, because of backtracking and stalling, we're going to wind up with TWO JSS for $2.9 billion.

                              See a pattern here?

                              Based on the history the government has with fudging numbers on defence projects, it's no wonder the Liberals have made it an election issue.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X