"O'Connor has $8B military 'wish list"

[Ex-Dragoon]

There are a number of different plans and thoughts circulating from what I can understand. If they went for the LPD...i.e. a San Antonio class ship that they could get relatively fast and say get 3 or 4 of those these would fulfill the requirements of the BHS and we could take the crews from the 280s to man the LPDs. the San Antonio could do the command and control function that the 280s did and then some. thus they would not have to directly replace the 280s. At some far off point they would replace the CPFs with a bigger version with command and control functions as well....probably this is only one contingency plan but one I've heard MARS guys talk about in the Mess.
another thought I'm told is to get a Whitbey class or two while waiting for the San Antonios to be built. Probably a MARS fantasy but they are looking at a lot of possibilities.

You want to put an amphib in a command and control role for TG? We need to still look at AAD and an amphib just does not cut it. Its far to valuable of a target to be relelgated to C&C.

 

[yoman]

Tactical

Aircraft capabilities

The contractor selected for the tactical airlift project will be awarded a contract to deliver 17 aircraft that meet all the minimum mandatory capabilities of the Canadian Forces listed below:

- Range and payload - Sufficient range (4,630 kilometres) and payload capacity (8,165 kilograms) to support domestic and    international deployed operations. 

- Speed – Minimum acceptable enroute cruise speed that meets or exceeds that of the current Canadian Forces tactical transport aircraft, which is required to ensure the aircraft can quickly reach deployed troops and Canadians in distress.
   
- Global remote operations - Take off and landing from unpaved, short runways (914 metres by 27 metres).
   
- Cargo compartment - the aircraft must have adequate cargo compartment size to transport wheeled and NATO standard palletized equipment that is currently transportable with existing Canadian Forces tactical transport aircraft. As well, the aircraft must have the ability to load and unload palletized cargo at austere operating locations without the use of specialized loading equipment.
   
- Manoeuvrability – Allows tactical flight profiles at low-level altitudes (61 metres) in a threat environment.
   
- Aircraft certification –Aircraft must be certified to aviation certification standards recognized by Canada by the contract award date.
   
- Fleet size – Minimum fleet of 17 aircraft, sufficient to provide requisite tactical airlift, maintenance, test and evaluation and training, and to provide the flexibility to support three lines of operations simultaneously.
   
- Delivery – Delivery date of the first aircraft to be no later than 36 months after contract award and final aircraft delivery no later than 60 months after contract award.

http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/newsroom/view_news_e.asp?id=1970

Strategic

Aircraft capabilities

The contractor selected for the strategic airlift project will be awarded a contract to deliver four strategic aircraft that meet all the mandatory capabilities of the Canadian Forces listed below:

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

- Global remote operations - Capable of supporting Canadian Forces operations in Canada and potentially hostile theatres of operations overseas. The aircraft must be able to provide the required flexibility in a theatre of operations, capable of take off and landing from unpaved, short runways (1,219 metres by 27.4 metres) and airdrop personnel and/or equipment.
   
- Cargo compartment – Adequate cargo compartment size to transport wheeled and NATO standard palletized equipment (2.235 metres by 2.743 metres), wheeled equipment in a combat ready configuration and Canadian Forces tactical helicopter assets. The aircraft must have the ability to load and unload palletised cargo at austere operating locations without the use of specialized loading equipment.
   
- Aircraft certification – Aircraft must be certified to aviation certification standards recognized by Canada by the contract award date.
   
- Fleet size – Minimum fleet of four aircraft sufficient to provide requisite strategic airlift and maintenance, and to enable the operational flexibility to permit the conduct of multiple tasks in supporting domestic and international deployed operations.
   
- Delivery – Delivery of first aircraft as soon as possible but no later than 18 months after contract award and final aircraft delivery no later than 48 months after contract award.

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

I like how on the army website they are putting pictures of the A-400 and the Antonov even though they are not certified, thus not eligible. They also have a picture of a C-17 
http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/lf/English/6_1_1.asp?id=1127

 

[Journeyman]

You want to put an amphib in a command and control role for TG? ..... Its far to valuable of a target to be relelgated to C&C.

Don't we normally assign one of the 280s for C2 of any coalition ops? Is that not a valuable target?

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Well unless Airbus has a time machine, they ain’t meeting those delivery dates!!!


How about chartering a civilian RO-RO ship till the delivery of the new ships?

 

[cplcaldwell]

Well as you know they just announced the intent to purchase 21 new transport aircraft. I'll leave the details for you all to see at this spot.

The one part I loved was this little jewel, by the esteemed Mr Ujjal Dosanjh;

Liberal defence critic said the strategic-lift aircraft are unnecessary, and suggested their purchase would be a blow to Canadian sovereignty.

"Despite the fact they say there will be accountability, these are essentially sole-source purchases with no competition," said Dosanjh. "If you define the requirements as leading to only one conclusion, and that's the C-17, where is the competition?"

Dosanjh said the Liberals fear the planes will be housed and maintained in the United States.

ROFLMFAO

 

[MarkOttawa]

Anything that gets the Liberals quaking in the boots... I wonder what Mickey I. makes of all this nonsense.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[DocBacon]

Mr Ujjal Dosanjh:

Are you an NDP, a Liberal, or a beanbag chair (retaining the impression of the last ashole who came along)?  In your whole, sad, career, have you ever done anything that was right, just for the sake of doing the right thing, instead of for a political flash in the press?

I'm sick of this guy.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Don't we normally assign one of the 280s for C2 of any coalition ops? Is that not a valuable target?

Yes we do and a 280 is also an AAD platform, more then capable of defending itself and any of its escorting frigates.

 

[vonGarvin]

An infantry platoon is 3 sections of 8 infanteers = 24 as well as at least a Platoon Leader and a Second in Command = 26 plus a 3 person weapons detachment and 1 medic =30.

Nope, not close.  Light Infantry Platoon has more than 30.  Not going to give ORBAT here, but its more

 

[geo]

When you get down to it and without slicing hairs to the 4 winds, a platoon is anything more than a section...

 

[scm77]

This guy seems to think the money could be better spent elsewhere.... :

Abolish Canada's military forces
Jun. 30, 2006. 01:00 AM

Military spending

Editorial cartoon, June 23.

Here we go again — the federal government has just announced its plan to spend another $15 billion on military hardware.

What an outrage.

The Star's June 23 editorial cartoon carried an important message.

It showed a long lineup of the sick and dying, waiting for care that wasn't coming.

At the same time, in the background, a military parade was passing by.

The message was clear as a cry to heaven — for God's sake abolish the military.

Yes, abolish and eliminate this sacred cow and use these found billions to save our failing health system and help the poor and the homeless.

It is time for Canadians to raise this very question.

We need to see that we don't need the armed forces for our protection because we are blessed, more than other people in the world, to live in country that is protected on three sides by wide oceans and a great democracy to the south.

We should follow the shining example of Costa Rica, the Central American republic which, two generations ago, constitutionally abolished its military. Since then, the citizens of Costa Rica have enjoyed peace and stability, so they don't appear to have missed having a military.

As for the Canadian peace missions in the world, young Canadians can volunteer to serve in the planned United Nations armed forces.

There's no doubt that this bold initiative calls for a great leader and statesman, but he will also need the support from the grassroots Canadians.

Ron Levy, Toronto

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_PrintFriendly&c=Article&cid=1151617835978&call_pageid=970599119419
-------------------------

 

[geo]

Putz!

 

[George Wallace]

Ron Levy, Toronto

My roll of tin foil has just run out.  Can I borrow some of yours?  If you come to Army.ca we have a topic you may want to partake in:  "Will Canada be invaded for its' water?"
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/45142.0.html

 

[cplcaldwell]

RE: Ron Levy

It's always interesting to see that those that espouse a strong Canada through disarmament are quick to point out that we are protected by three oceans and a strong neighbour to the south. Sorry buddy, but where I come from strong means kicking in and contributing to it, not riding along on the poxied arse of a welfare state donkey.

Now, I'm going to say something here, so just ry to remember I mean no personal insult to you or our comrades, I'm talking about UN boners here, not the failure of individuals or formations to perform. If your still insulted, sorry, but UN peacekeeping is in a shambles and that needs to be fixed before they get a standing army, IMHO.

As for the UN Army, great idea! That way we can wear 'UN' on our flashes and not 'Canada'. Then we will not have to hang our heads in shame when the boneheads in New York come up with real jewels like "Pull out of Srebrencia", "Just secure Sarajevo airport", "Okay this East Timor thing looks solved let's go..." or my favourite of all time "Kigali... where's that?...."

But seriously...Outside of saving troops from having to bear that ignominy, it would be hard to think of a greater waste of time and money than a UN Army (yes, yes I know, but even with the Long Gun Registry, Jane Stewart's version of management at HRDC and the $500M-for-nothing 'round one' version of the MHP I still think a UN Army is a dopey thought.)

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

These are the same people that complain about US policies.  Well I think if the States is footing the bill for our securtiy they just may move in themselves to insure we are safe.

 

[Kirkhill]

Nope, not close.  Light Infantry Platoon has more than 30.  Not going to give ORBAT here, but its more

Thanks von Garvin.

You have now done two things. 

The first is that you have verified that there is no way that the Cyclone with its capacity of 22 Troops is going to be in the running.
The second is that you have probably knocked the EH-101 out of the running as the spec issued as backgrounder called for "an infantry platoon" and stipulated "30 persons".  If an Infantry Platoon is more than 30, it will be standing room only (max capacity 45).  Otherwise the 30 number is wrong and you are back to the same problem you have with the LAV - fit vehicle to section and tactics or fit platoon and tactics to vehicle.

Internal lift – Cabin space to accommodate an infantry platoon (30 soldiers) with full combat equipment, including weapons, body armour, rucksacks, rations and communications (4,763 kilograms).

http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/newsroom/view_news_e.asp?id=1968

Having said that I fully admit that my platoon formula was notional and based on the 30 persons stipulated and me trying to figure out how that translates into a platoon. 

Cheers.

 

[KevinB]

Close to 45 

 

[Kirkhill]

Thanks Infidel.

On another topic related to this burgeoning thread:  Trucks.  I came across this article today about the Brits exercising an option on a contract issued last year to buy 5000 MAN trucks.  The option is for a further 2077 trucks.  The original contract was for 1.1 Billion Pounds or 2.3 Billion Canadian Dollars.  That works out to an average vehicle cost of 452,000 dollars.  The option is for 250 Million Pounds.  That works out to 247,000 dollars or about half the price.  I am guessing that the 452 k price includes the infrastructure and that the 247 k price is closer to the actual vehicle value.

Interestingly the MNDs announcement of 2300 trucks at 1.1 Billion Dollars equates to 479 k per truck.  I wonder what a follow on price might look like.

Troops Keep On Trucking With New Deal 
 
 

(Source: UK Ministry of Defence; issued June 29, 2006)
 
 
The UK's Armed Forces will get an extra 2,000 trucks under a deal announced today by Defence Procurement Minister, Lord Drayson. 

The Defence Procurement Minister said the MoD was taking up an option to extend the £1.1 Billion contract it placed last year and would buy a further 2,077 vehicles in addition to the approx 5,000 earlier announced. 

Worth in the region of £250 million, the taking up of the option with MAN ERF UK Ltd is part of the MoD's biggest truck deal in over quarter of a century and will see a fleet of new trucks and recovery vehicles replacing the existing vehicles. 

Lord Drayson said: "By taking up this option our Armed Forces will take delivery of a further 2,000 modern, versatile and robust support vehicles which will carry out the vital task of supplying our front line troops. This is in addition to the 5,000 vehicles which we announced last year and which will start coming into service from next year." 

Helping support some 400 UK jobs the Support Vehicle programme includes a Contractor Logistic Support package which will lead to a long term partnering arrangement consistent with the DIS published last December. The vehicles are specially designed so they can be quickly fitted with 'armour kits' which will help protect drivers and crew from blast and small arms attack. 

The vehicles will be capable of transporting large quantities of bulk equipment to our front-line troops wherever they are operating. Partly built in the UK the new fleet will consist of a mix of cargo and recovery vehicles. They will replace the MOD's tri-service fleet of four, eight and 14 tonne cargo vehicles and recovery trucks. 

-ends- 

 

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?session=dae.16882086.1133972074.Q5cKasOa9dUAAFC2ZcA&modele=jdc_34

 

[MarkOttawa]

Miracle of miracles: a Toronto Star editorial is all in favour of the government's procurement plans, "Canada's military gets more mobile".
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_PrintFriendly&c=Article&cid=1151617836064&call_pageid=970599119419

And even seems to support buying firepower:

And now that Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor has addressed the mobility issue, he is focusing on buying assault ships, Stryker mobile gun systems and attack helicopters.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

We should follow the shining example of Costa Rica, the Central American republic which, two generations ago, constitutionally abolished its military. Since then, the citizens of Costa Rica have enjoyed peace and stability, so they don't appear to have missed having a military.

He should try telling that to the Costa Ricans living along the San Juan River, who've been getting the shakedown from the Nicaraguans ever since ...