Comments By Oppostion Defence Critic Regarding C-17 a/c

[Signalman150]

I'm a relative newbie to the boards, but I've been checking them out daily for the last Month. I'd like to enlist the help of some of the very learned and experienced members of Army.ca.

This is the news article that got me started:

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/politics/story.html?id=69a30adb-9d09-41da-a518-37fce61cc1db&k=80666

In short, Airbus and The Official Opposition are decrying the sole source selection of a new Heavy Lifter for the Air Force.  Although Ujjal Dosanjh has no authority on this issue, his comments stuck in my craw. I've prepared an email to send to his constituency office, and I've inserted it below.  I'd like some feedback from other members of the forum before sending it.  I've checked my facts, and they seem in order, but the effect of any such letter is lessened by mistakes and emotional haranguing.  Please review and comment.

Please note--I'm not looking for criticism such as "Geeeez... are you ever one stupid git!..." so much as on content, punctuation, facts etc.

Many thanks.

Msg follows:

********************************************

Ujjal Dosanjh M.P.
House of Commons
Ottawa, ON

Sir,

Re: Acquisition of New Cargo Aircraft for the CAF

With regard to the subject noted above, my credentials are limited, but valid.  I am a retired member of the Canadian Forces (Reserve), and My father was an aero engine technician in the RCAF, (he retired in 1966).

A news article published today by Canwest News Services reports that the Defence Critic for the Official Opposition said "a contract should not be issued to Boeing for new C-17 aircraft without competition". It specifically quotes you as saying  'Competition is very important, it is in fact the key and a fair and open competition always provides better value for taxpayers." The remainder of the article suggests the Airbus A400 should be seriously considered as an alternate to the Boeing Aircraft.

My research indicates the following:

a) The C-17 first went into service with the USAF in 1995. It is now used by Britain, and has been ordered by Australia;

b) The prototype A400 will not fly until 2007;

c) Richard Thompson, senior vice-president for Airbus Military, has pledged 16 - A400s to Canada by the year 2014; and

d)  The Canadian Forces has committed to an extended tour in Afghanistan, lasting until 2009.

The C-17 is a proven, reliable aircraft. Reports from both the USAF and the RAF have been excellent. Meanwhile the A400 has been plagued by delays, and Airbus cannot deliver aircraft to the Canadian Forces for another 8 years. 

Issues such as spin-offs, economic benefits, and "fair competition" cloud the fact that Canada needs these transports now. Previous governments have ignored the aging C-130 Hercules fleet, and it is far past time they were replaced. My father worked on some of the "Hercs" now in service, and you may have noticed that he retired forty years ago.  I am persuaded sir, that your priority--as an elected representative of Canada--must be the Canadian soldiers on the ground in Afghanistan, and the CAF airmen who take care of their airlift needs.

Time is of the essence, and we must move forward now to solve Canada's tactical and strategic military airlift needs. The Airbus A400 is not a proven vehicle and will take many years to deliver.  Airbus cannot meet the needs of the Canadian Forces, Boeing can.

Can you assure me Sir, that the Liberal party is prepared to support the immediate acquisition of new cargo aircraft, recognizing that the issue is critical to the well-being of Canadian service personnel who at this moment deployed on a very dangerous and demanding mission?  I would appreciate hearing from you at your earliest convenience.

Yours truly,

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

 

[GAP]

make sure you CC to Gordon O'Connor....

 

[vonGarvin]

The only thing I would do is provide sources for the results of your research, namely
a) The C-17 first went into service with the USAF in 1995. It is now used by Britain, and has been ordered by Australia;

b) The prototype A400 will not fly until 2007;

c) Richard Thompson, senior vice-president for Airbus Military, has pledged 16 - A400s to Canada by the year 2014; and

d)  The Canadian Forces has committed to an extended tour in Afghanistan, lasting until 2009.

Otherwise, I think it was well-done.

 

[Shec]

Good one.   Unless I'm stretching it a bit you may wish to reference section 6 of  Government Contracts Regulations (GCRs Section 6)  which allow  a sole source procurement when:

6.(a) the need is one of pressing emergency in which delay would be injurious to the public interest;

and in this case the pressing emergency is the operational requirement to provide an in-house reliable strategic airlift capability in direct support of Canadian troops currently on active service half a world away.  Relying upon foreign commercial charters over the medium to long term cannot assure this.  This lack of ability to guarantee the sustenance of committed combat operations is injurious to the public interest .

 

[Bob Terwilliger]

You may wish to remind the honourable gentleman that his party's track record on aircraft procurement(other than Challenger jets with the rich Corinthian leather) is questionable at best.

 

[Kirkhill]

I'm with the rest of them Signalman150.

Von Garvin's references will add weight.  And the cross-posting to O'Connor isn't a bad idea either.

+1

 

[Signalman150]

Thank-you all for excellent suggestions.  I did info the MND, and added references to each of my "research" points.

I have to admit, I resisted mentioning the dismal Liberal record in equipping our Armed Forces, simply because it smacks of "baiting", however valid.  I wanted the letter to be simple facts, plainly put.  On the other had, if Dosanjh replies w/ something that blatantly ignores  said "dismal record", I will happily point it out.

And Shec, yr suggestion regarding Sec 6 of  Government Contracts Regulations is excellent.  I'm going to hold that one in reserve for an anticipated answer from Dosanjh.

Again, many thanks for your feedback.

SHOT OUT

 

[Genetk44]

Signalman150, i just copied this tidbit off of the Airbus page...the bold is mine.  Cheers
Gene.
The A400M will first fly in early 2008 with deliveries beginning in 2009.

 

[TCBF]

"The A400M will first fly in early 2008 with deliveries beginning in 2009."

- Max 23 months from first flight to deliveries?  Including flight testing and modifications?  Is that a little tight?

 

[Genetk44]

Sorry...my point in posting that was that the actual first flight appears to be a year later(2008) than in your letter(2007)...it backs your case even more ;D

 

[Signalman150]

Appreciate you pointing that out.  Fortunately for me, when I was getting all my references together before mailing, I checked this website

http://www.airbus.com/en/presscentre/pressreleases/pressreleases_items/05_27_03_A400M.html

and found the error.  So, the email went out with the 2008 date for the first flight.  Gotta use all the ammo I can find.

Cheers,

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Don't worry about it to much. Dosanjh and his pack have never been real big on the true facts anyway

 

[a_majoor]

The reference to the Airbus A-400 is simply a means of looking good, since most people have no idea the A-400 does not even exist yet. The dichotomy of asking for a competition between an existing, in service product and something which exists as a computer graphic on a sales brochure is never openly stated, so never crosses voter's minds.

If we had a press which actually did investigative reporting, this would have come out right away and the Liberal defence critic laughed right out of the room. As it stands, by asking for a competition with a non existent aircraft, the Liberals are trying to delay the much needed purchase of strategic airlift, and should the government fall and they get back in power, you can bet this project gets put on the back burner for a decade at least.

I have reservations about the C-17, particularly the immense cost per unit, but given the lack of any viable alternative, we need to make due with what we can get to fill the need. After all, even flying across Canada would be considered a "strategic" distance by most of the world's air forces, and getting to where we have to go in due time is THE key to undertaking operations in today's security environment.

 

[GAP]

The reference to the Airbus A-400 is simply a means of looking good, since most people have no idea the A-400 does not even exist yet. The dichotomy of asking for a competition between an existing, in service product and something which exists as a computer graphic on a sales brochure is never openly stated, so never crosses voter's minds.

If we had a press which actually did investigative reporting, this would have come out right away and the Liberal defence critic laughed right out of the room. As it stands, by asking for a competition with a non existent aircraft, the Liberals are trying to delay the much needed purchase of strategic airlift, and should the government fall and they get back in power, you can bet this project gets put on the back burner for a decade at least.

Ah la EH101 ??