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

[Kirkhill]

Armymatters, why would you make a 40 year commitment to an aircraft that hasn't flown when you don't have to?

They haven't "given" us interim aircraft.  They suggested using old aircraft from the competition as a bridge.  All they did by doing that is display that the competition is flying aircraft and they aren't.

It also demonstrated that there are other options to take away the time pressure the CF is under.  L3, I am sure would be pleased to help us with refurbished C130s, as would Lockheed Martin.  Both have got better track records in supplying and maintaining C130s than Airbus.  Interim Hercs from the people that build and maintain Hercs until new Hercs are available seems a lot more reasonable than interim Hercs from the supplier of a concept aircraft.  (

NB Detroit builds many concept cars, proceeds to prototypes, then to production and often modifies the vehicle once it is in production.  This aircraft has not yet been created of metal,  ie it is still at the concept stage.)

Airbus doesn't need this order.  They already have a full production slate.  The offset benefits have already been decided so there is little to be gained on that front, beyond the phony ones that will jack up the cost to the CF.  We are better to wait and see if the A400M is a good aircraft in service.

In about 10-15 years that will become apparent, perhaps sooner.  By that time we should be starting to look at replacing any aircraft we acquire by lease or purchase now.

Cheers.

 

[MarkOttawa]

aesop081: Just an old country rock perspective on things current--suggesting that by the time we might get any A400Ms there might be a very lonely Herc(s).

Mark
Ottawa

 

[aesop081]

aesop081: Just an old country rock perspective on things current--suggesting that by the time we might get any A400Ms there might be a very lonely Herc(s).

Mark
Ottawa

Oh good..i was afraid you wanted me to write an essay about it..........

 

[MarkOttawa]

aesop081::A comparison of the New Riders of the Purple Sage, the Eagles, and Gram Parsons (esp. with Emmylou Harris) would be greatly appreciated.  Including the Stones' "Dead Flowers". 

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Armymatters]

It also demonstrated that there are other options to take away the time pressure the CF is under.  L3, I am sure would be pleased to help us with refurbished C130s, as would Lockheed Martin.  Both have got better track records in supplying and maintaining C130s than Airbus.  Interim Hercs from the people that build and maintain Hercs until new Hercs are available seems a lot more reasonable than interim Hercs from the supplier of a concept aircraft.

I was informed that Airbus has talked with L-3 for the Herc rebuilds. Airbus will provide the Hercs and send them to L3 for refurbishment. It was an idea floated to add some additional Canadian industrial offset.

South Africa has purchased the A400M and they have Hercs older than our Hercs (their Hercs are model B's). Canada and South Africa are both in the same boat in terms of Hercules replacement urgency, with South Africa in a even more urgent situation (they are spending over $130 million US to keep their 9 Herc B's airworthy).

Edit: That news regarding the Airbus delay on the A380 jet? BAE is blaming EADS for deliberately making the announcement at this time to drive down the value of Airbus so that they can be shortchanged on the sale value of their holdings in Airbus:
http://news.independent.co.uk/business/news/article1014055.ece

 

[Edward Campbell]

The offset benefits have already been decided so there is little to be gained on that front, beyond the phony ones that will jack up the cost to the CF ...

Cheers.

There are no offset benefits, ever, in any way, to any customer.  All benefits flow, 100% from customer to vendor.  It was ever thus; it is that way now and it will always be that way.

When dealing with any European Union vendor any and all non EU customers will get screwed- that's written into the Teatry of Rome.

 

[Kirkhill]

There are no offset benefits, ever, in any way, to any customer.  All benefits flow, 100% from customer to vendor.  It was ever thus; it is that way now and it will always be that way.

Edward, on general principle I agree with you.  The exchange of funds known as offsets and IRBs is a political shell game. 

What I was thinking of here was real value in real jobs that occurs from being one of the vendors.  That usually happens at the beginning of a project and entails stepping up and taking risks that the venture might fail.  In particular, had the A400M team decided that the Pratt and Whitney Canada engine was the best engine for the job at the best price and opted to make that an integral part of their aircraft then, in my opinion, that would have constituted a real industrial benefit to Canada: regardless of whether or not Canada bought the aircraft.  The possibility that Canada might choose to buy the aircraft, sending funds to the EU, would then legitimately have been offset by EU funds coming to Canada for the engines. 

Having said that I recognize that the "hard" costs of components at the factory gate is usually only a fraction of the cost of any system.  Most "costs" are "soft costs" associated with engineering, marketing, risk management and financing.

The Merlin/EH-101/Cormorant project was a better concept in that regard because Canada was buying in early, securing a stake in the manufacturing and marketing of the world-wide programme.  It wasn't taking a readily available, tried and tested product from the shelf and pretending that it had to tested for Canada and produced on a production line set up just to meet the needs of the Canadian market place.

An economic digression here: 

This problem is not limited to the CF and DND. 

I have sold enough systems, in the US and Canada, based on European technology to have a pretty fair appreciation for the vagaries of the market.

My personal opinion is that the European engineering stands out head and shoulders above anything that is produced in North America.  However they are extraordinarily proud of their work, as reflected in the price.  They are extremely inflexible in adjusting to local situations (an argument in favour of Canadianization).  They are also abominable at supplying service support (another argument in support) although this is in part because the Europeans expect more from the maintenance engineers than North Americans. 

Europe, unlike North America, is still turning out lots of mechanical engineers from its schools.  North American engineers tend to be longer in the tooth than their Euro counterparts and their companies are struggling for investment dollars.  Their products reflect the conservatism of age as well as the lack of money to take risks and  innovate.

Regardless of source there are a lot of well-proven solutions to virtually every process and production problem under the sun.  It shouldn't be too hard to find one and make a decision on it.

I came to be astounded by the differences in the mentality of Canadian and American business.  In the US, I could make a business case based strictly on a cost/benefit analysis. In Canada, even if the project were profitable in own right the customer would invariably want to know:

Was he the first to use the machine in Canada so he could claim R&D credits - this despite the same machine was being used on the same fish 100 miles away in the US.  If he waited a week that same school would be swimming by his harbour mouth.

Did he have access to ACOA or WED or BDC funds? - apparently as the supplier of the equipment I was supposed to be up on the alphabet soup of government programmes and know where he was supposed to get the government money.

Assuming that it was agreed that the equipment was good, and would make him money, it still was acceptable if he couldn't get money from the government because Joe down the road "always" got government money to fund his acquisitions and he needed to get his share.

Accordingly I sold 100 dollars in the states for every dollar I sold in Canada.

Digression over and back to our regularly scheduled discussion.

Cheers.

 

[MarkOttawa]

Supply ship contract could be awarded by end of June

http://thechronicleherald.ca/Metro/510261.html

Excerpts:

'The navy is expecting an announcement about replacements for its aging supply ships by the end of the month, says the region’s top sailor.

Irving is part of a consortium vying to bring the $2.1-billion contract to build and maintain the three 28,000-tonne joint support ships to Halifax. If it wins the bid, Irving estimates the project would employ about 400 workers at the Halifax Shipyard during the peak building phase.

"It will definitely be announced before the Parliament recesses for the summer," said Rear Admiral Dan McNeil, the commander of Joint Task Force Atlantic.

"My guess is they all want to go home to the beach in July and August. So my guess is by the end of June."..

"It’s about time we built some more ships, and I’m not just talking about joint support ships," said Rear Admiral McNeil.

"I’m talking about recapitalization of the coast guard. . . . We need some shipbuilding around here. It’s not for the navy. It’s not for the coast guard. It’s for the country. Because what we’re doing is stupid."..

"So we need a shipbuilding program."

Two groups, Canadian North Atlantic Marine Partnerships and BAE Systems Inc., are seeking to build the three joint support ships in Newfoundland and Labrador. The final bidder, SNC-Lavalin ProFac Inc., wants to construct the vessels in Victoria...

Delays may be tied to Tory plans to spend more than $8 billion on military equipment, including new transport aircraft, helicopters and logistics trucks.

"The hold-up is political announcements," said Frank Smith, business development director for Peter Kiewit Sons’ Co., which is working with Canadian North Atlantic Marine Partnerships. "They want to announce all the . . . stuff at the same time. And the aircraft one is the directed purchase (of four C-17 Globemaster long-range cargo planes from Boeing for $2.5 billion). So I think there’s some political flak going on."

The final contract for the joint support ships is slated to be awarded in 2008 with the delivery of the first of three ships scheduled for 2013...'

Now, what about the amphibious ship?
http://www.navy.forces.gc.ca/mspa_news/news_e.asp?id=164

As for the Coast Guard, itt should get any new arctic icebreakers (the Navy has not operated them for 49 years), which would be perfectly adequate in Coast Guard service for asserting arctic sovereignty. The Conservative election promise of armed Navy icebreakers was simply silly.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[MarkOttawa]

Airbus eyes votes:
http://www.ottawabusinessjournal.com/286337438811457.php

'Airbus outlines offer for military transports...

Airbus Industries has upped the ante in the contest to supply new long-range military transports to the Canadian Forces.

Airbus has made public its offer to supply the A400M tactical transport to replace the aging fleet of Hercules transports that are now the backbone of the military's airlift capability.

Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor has yet to make an announcement, but is thought to favour the purchase of two huge Boeing C-17 Globemasters that would be used to carry Canadian troops and their equipment to far-off locations, along with acquiring newer versions of the Herc. Opposition critics have condemned the minister for considering a "sole-source" contract rather than opening up the purchase to competitive bidding.

Airbus says with the A400M, the government can meet most of its tactical and strategic airlift requirements with a single aircraft, at a saving of up to $2 billion compared to purchasing, maintaining and operating two separate fleets.

Airbus says it can supply 16 A400Ms for $2.4 billion – some $2 billion less than if two separate strategic and tactical airlift fleets were purchased. It says nine countries, including major NATO partners, have so far ordered a total of 192 A400Ms.

Airbus and its parent company EADS are also promising substantial industrial benefits, saying they would partner with major Canadian companies, as well as small and medium enterprises, to return at least 100 per cent of the purchase costs in the form of industrial benefits to Canadian companies. Airbus also says virtually all the maintenance, repair and overhaul, modifications, engineering support, and flight and maintenance training would be done in Canada.

The A400M is still on the drawing board [so is the engine] and is scheduled to fly early 2008 and to obtain initial operating clearance late in 2009. The government is thought to favour an aircraft that is already certified and in production and that could be delivered within two years.'

Mark
Ottawa

 

[aesop081]

aesop081::A comparison of the New Riders of the Purple Sage, the Eagles, and Gram Parsons (esp. with Emmylou Harris) would be greatly appreciated.  Including the Stones' "Dead Flowers".   

Mark
Ottawa

I hate you......

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

Airbus says it can supply 16 A400Ms for $2.4 billion – some $2 billion less than if two separate strategic and tactical airlift fleets were purchased. It says nine countries, including major NATO partners, have so far ordered a total of 192 A400Ms.

My apologies, but my memory is failing me.  What is the other option they're comparing the (16) A400M's to?

(4) C-17's and (??) C-130J's?


Matthew.  ???

 

[Journeyman]

... nine countries, including major NATO partners, have so far ordered a total of 192 A400Ms.

Adding further delivery delays to this increasingly weighty albatross. Avoid it like the plague.

 

[MarkOttawa]

aesop081: Kiss, kiss.  Just now listening to "The Buddy Holly Collection", "Learning the Game".
http://www.amazon.ca/exec/obidos/ASIN/B000002OPE/sr=1-3/qid=1150417903/ref=sr_1_3/702-9510788-5934438?%5Fencoding=UTF8&s=music&v=glance

Chin up.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Armymatters]

Adding further delivery delays to this increasingly weighty albatross. Avoid it like the plague.

Airbus made room for South Africa (they are also amongst the first ones to be receiving their A400M's). They already said slots for late 2010 / early 2011 can be made available to us.

I am just saying, buy the C-17's now for heavy lift, and then the A400M to replace the rest of the Herc fleet. Nothing about using a one size fit all approach.

 

[Infanteer]

Buy the Millenium Falcon for all I care, just buy something so we can put this thread to rest.  Teddy put the rounds on target, IMHO.... :skull:

 

[aesop081]

Airbus made room for South Africa (they are also amongst the first ones to be receiving their A400M's). They already said slots for late 2010 / early 2011 can be made available to us.

I am just saying, buy the C-17's now for heavy lift, and then the A400M to replace the rest of the Herc fleet. Nothing about using a one size fit all approach.

herc fleet can't wait that long.......we already started retiring airframes, FWSAR isnt any closer to coming to fruition....and dont even start with the airbus CC-130 refurbs, no matter what you do to modernise those birds, they will still be ancient machines. C-17 is the way to go.

 

[Armymatters]

herc fleet can't wait that long.......we already started retiring airframes, FWSAR isnt any closer to coming to fruition....and dont even start with the airbus CC-130 refurbs, no matter what you do to modernise those birds, they will still be ancient machines. C-17 is the way to go.

As mentioned South Africa is in a even more dire situation: they got Herc B's that are already way past retirement. Airbus was offering to find us Herc H's for an interm aircraft. Both Lockheed and Airbus said they couldn't deliver until 2010, so either way, we should get the more capable airplane.

 

[Pendant]

enough of the politics of it all though i say they choose one aircraft and stick with it because the more they talk about it the longer it will take for the new aircraft to be delivered

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060615/military_spending_060615/20060615?hub=TopStories

O'Connor seeks $15B in extra equipment for troops
Updated Thu. Jun. 15 2006 11:39 PM ET

CTV.ca News Staff

With Canada's military stretched thin in its largest overseas combat deployment since the Korean War, Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor has approached Cabinet with a $15-billion wish list for badly-needed equipment.

Government sources told CTV News Thursday that the most pressing requirement for the military is airlift capability, as the armed forces has reached their breaking point just by flying troops and supplies to and from Afghanistan.

As part of its wish list, the military is asking for:

More than a dozen new Lockheed-Martin Hercules short-haul tactical aircraft;
Up to five Boeing C-17 Globe Masters -- long-haul strategic transport planes currently being used by the U.S. military;
Two naval supply ships, to replace vessels that have been in service for 40 years; and
Boeing-built heavy-lift Chinook helicopters -- a staple of the U.S. and British armies.
The helicopters are capable of transporting artillery, equipment, supplies and soldiers directly to the battlefield, and would eliminate the need for troops to travel by vehicle on Afghanistan's deadly roads.

"If you want to send soldiers overseas, you need to send them and their equipment. That means you need big airplanes and big ships," said Lt.-Gen. Andrew Leslie, Canada's new commander of land forces, at a change-of-command ceremony in Ottawa on Thursday.

"We have to have helicopters to move our kids around the battlefield so they don't suffer unnecessary casualties."

In its inaugural budget in May, the Conservatives pledged to buy more equipment to support a multi-role, combat-capable, maritime, land and air force, and promised to kick in an additional $5.3 billion over five years in spending for the military.

NATO Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer praised Canada on Thursday for increasing its military budget.

"That's to my joy, (that) the budget is going up," de Hoop Scheffer said at a Parliament Hill news conference following a meeting with O'Connor.

"I visit too many allies, lambasting them for the downslide of their defence budgets. I'm glad to say in Canada we see a different direction here."

Compromise reached

The request for both short- and long-haul transports would seem to satisfy the wishes of both O'Connor and Chief of the Defence Staff, Gen. Rick Hillier.

"The two generals . . . were at swords' points over airlift," said CTV's chief political correspondent Craig Oliver.

"O'Connor wanted strategic lift -- that is, big, heavy planes that can carry tanks and armoured personnel carriers over long distances," while Hillier favoured short-haul tactical airlifts capable of landing on rough fields with speed and greater protection.

"They compromised. Instead of one or the other, they're getting both," said Oliver. "And apparently Hillier is quite happy about that."

But while Cabinet isn't likely to turn down the requests from two generals, it isn't quite a done deal.

"It has not had final Cabinet approval yet," said Oliver. "But there are thousands of Canadians in hot combat zones who are going to be there for another two years . . . and it's hard to imagine that Cabinet would turn down a request from defence chiefs who say this is what they urgently require."

Airbus issues plea

Meanwhile, French plane manufacturer Airbus has issued a plea to the Tory government to ensure that a fair, competitive process is in place when it makes its multi-billion dollar purchase for long-range military transports.

Richard Thompson, commercial director of Airbus Military, told reporters in Ottawa Thursday that a contract with Boeing would cost almost twice as much as a comparable one with his company.

Instead of buying two separate fleets, said Thompson, Canada would satisfy most of its tactical and strategic airlift requirements and save up to $2 billion with the A400M -- a four-engine turboprop military airlifter.

"All we're asking for is an open, fair competitive bidding process, and may the best plane win," said Thompson.

The A400M, however, isn't scheduled to fly until 2008; and it wouldn't be cleared for first delivery until a year later.

Mission could scale down by 2009: NATO

While Canadian soldiers are currently taking part in a massive anti-Taliban operation across southern Afghanistan, De Hoop Scheffer suggested Thursday that they will be replaced by other allies, once their commitment ends in February, 2009.

"Afghanistan is a long-term commitment and solidarity in the alliance means that I expect that all 26 allies ... participate in one way or the other as Canada is now participating very robustly, and taking a large responsibility," de Hoop Scheffer said.

"I would expect that after the commitments of allies like Canada ... other allies will step up and say we'll take over."

De Hoop Scheffer also praised Canada's commitment to provide an additional $15 million to the Asian Development Bank to help Afghanistan rebuild the country's agriculture and water projects.

But he admitted aid will be only be truly effective once coalition troops establish more security.

Praise from NATO represents a stark contrast from the criticism Canada has received in the past for its lackluster defence spending.

O'Connor also confirmed that Canada is lobbying to take overall command of the Afghanistan mission in 2008 -- a role that would only require an extra 100 officers and support staff.

"I'll be speaking to others as I speak to other defence ministers to basically say that Canada is more than able to command," he said.

With a report from CTV's chief political correspondent Craig Oliver

 

[Good2Golf]

Airbus has already pissed off its A380 customers by sliding deliveries at least six months, with potentially even greater delays on the horizon.  There is no reason to believe that this wouldn't happen with the A400M as well. 

One has to ask the question, "why would 190+ Airbus A400Ms already ordered not go to those nations that have already stepped up to Airbus' sales division? i.e. Wouldn't Canada be last on the delivery list in say, 2013/2014, after the other nations get their aircraft?"

Pleading and $1.39 will get you a large double-double...