bush_cheney2004 Posted March 5, 2008 Report Posted March 5, 2008 Why does it take Canada so long to procure or lease six measley rotary wing aircraft (that Canada use to have)? - sole source contract concerns? - poor planning? - modified specifications? - politics? All of the above! Supplying air transport to get soldiers off the bomb-strewn highways of Kandahar was one of the major conditions set down by the Manley panel for Canada's continued military involvement in the war-torn country. http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...?hub=TopStories Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Wilber Posted March 5, 2008 Report Posted March 5, 2008 All of the above! Yup. Modified specs: They should lease until they get the machines they really want because going by Canada's previous history, they will have to use them for at least 30 years. Sole source contracts: This sole source contract thing burns my ass for the reason stated above. Get machine you need. If only one company builds it, that's unfortunate but get it anyway. Purely political. Poor planning: Also purely political. The Conservatives canceled the original Chinook contract and the navy is still waiting for the helicopters Chretien canceled in 93. We once sent a frigate to the Gulf without a helicopter because they badly damaged one in landing accident the week before the ship left and didn't have a serviceable replacement to send. That's the way we do military things in Canada. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 5, 2008 Author Report Posted March 5, 2008 ....Also purely political. The Conservatives canceled the original Chinook contract and the navy is still waiting for the helicopters Chretien canceled in 93. We once sent a frigate to the Gulf without a helicopter because they badly damaged one in landing accident the week before the ship left and didn't have a serviceable replacement to send. That's the way we do military things in Canada. Must be frustrating that but for the proper aircraft in theatre, Canada wouldn't have to fly as many home in casualty containers. Unrelated, but an irony that the US was dumping perfectly good CH-47A's overboard in 1975. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Wilber Posted March 5, 2008 Report Posted March 5, 2008 Must be frustrating that but for the proper aircraft in theatre, Canada wouldn't have to fly as many home in casualty containers. Unrelated, but an irony that the US was dumping perfectly good CH-47A's overboard in 1975. On the other hand we were prepared as well for this war as any other we have taken part in. Probably better. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
M.Dancer Posted March 5, 2008 Report Posted March 5, 2008 On the other hand we were prepared as well for this war as any other we have taken part in. Probably better. Definately better.....during the opening stages of the battle of the Atlantic Canadian ships fresh from their launching were plying the North Atlantic with wooden deck guns until they could get proper kit. Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
AngusThermopyle Posted March 5, 2008 Report Posted March 5, 2008 North Atlantic with wooden deck guns until they could get proper kit. Other than ancient Chinese firearms I don't think I've heard of wooden guns before. Quote I yam what I yam - Popeye
M.Dancer Posted March 5, 2008 Report Posted March 5, 2008 Other than ancient Chinese firearms I don't think I've heard of wooden guns before. They were decoys, fakes...to fool an inquisitive Uboat cap't so he wouldn't pop up and use his gun, which was the prefered method of Uboat attack. Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
AngusThermopyle Posted March 5, 2008 Report Posted March 5, 2008 Oh...okay, gotcha. I thought you were saying they had come up with functional wooden guns. A lot on my mind today, sorry. Quote I yam what I yam - Popeye
Army Guy Posted March 11, 2008 Report Posted March 11, 2008 If there was anything we could fix in todays military, it would be HOW we purchase equipment, and stream linning the process...not because it's full of red tape, slow and costly...but because it saves lives....a minor consideration i know when compared to the almight dollar, and who is going to benifit from the contracts. Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
Army Guy Posted March 19, 2008 Report Posted March 19, 2008 (edited) Canada turns down us offer for 6 Blackhawk helo's. Mackay reports that a deal is close for 6 used chinooks. US helo's Edited March 19, 2008 by Army Guy Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
M.Dancer Posted March 19, 2008 Report Posted March 19, 2008 Canada turns down us offer for 6 Blackhawk helo's. Mackay reports that a deal is close for 6 used chinooks.US helo's It may be me or there may be a problem with the link Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
Army Guy Posted March 19, 2008 Report Posted March 19, 2008 Sorry can not make the link work, for some reason none of the links work from the national site. Story is from the ottawa citizen, by david pugileze The Defence Department has turned down an offer of six U.S. Blackhawk helicopters for its operations in Kandahar in the hope it can still acquire larger choppers for the Afghanistan mission. U.S. helicopter manufacturer Sikorsky offered the six Blackhawks, noting that it would be able to deliver the choppers to Kandahar this year. The Blackhawk, one of the U.S. army's main front-line aircraft, can carry 11 combat troops or haul a 105-mm howitzer plus ammunition. It is currently being used in Afghanistan. But the Defence Department says that is not enough to justify the purchase of the Blackhawks as a stopgap until it can get its larger Chinook choppers sometime in or after 2011. It wants any helicopters for the Afghan operation to be able to transport up to 30 soldiers and be able to carry the Canadian Forces' new 155-mm howitzer. In an e-mail, the Defence Department stated that no formal offer was received regarding the Blackhawk helicopters. "The Blackhawk helicopter does not meet the medium/heavy-lift capability required by the Canadian Forces in Afghanistan," the e-mail stated. There were also concerns that Sikorsky could not deliver all the Blackhawks by 2009, defence officials privately say. The Conservative government announced the purchase of new Chinook helicopters in the summer of 2006, but a contract has yet to be signed with the manufacturer Boeing. The Chinooks aren't expected to be delivered for at least another three years. Helicopters are critical to the Afghanistan mission since they allow for the quick transport of troops and supplies. Military officers say the use of such aircraft would reduce the number of ground convoys needed and because of that the number of attacks and casualties would go down. It is easier for insurgents to strike at ground convoys. Earlier this month, Defence Minister Peter MacKay said discussions to acquire six U.S. choppers for Afghanistan were almost complete and an announcement would be made soon. Those six are expected to be Chinooks. The Defence Department is trying to acquire the older model Chinooks to bridge the gap until the first of the newer versions of the same helicopter can arrive. Helicopters may also be leased from an allied nation. Minister Peter MacKay said discussions to acquire six U.S. choppers for Afghanistan were almost complete and an announcement would be made soon. Those six are expected to be Chinooks. The Defence Department is trying to acquire the older model Chinooks to bridge the gap until the first of the newer versions of the same helicopter can arrive. Helicopters may also be leased from an allied nation Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
kp186 Posted March 27, 2008 Report Posted March 27, 2008 There was a time when we'd design and build our own helicopter specifically for our needs. We did it with the Arrow and the CF-100. If only we could get our so-called "leaders" to actually lead instead of playing politics, which is all they seem to know how to do. Quote
Wilber Posted March 27, 2008 Report Posted March 27, 2008 There was a time when we'd design and build our own helicopter specifically for our needs. We did it with the Arrow and the CF-100. If only we could get our so-called "leaders" to actually lead instead of playing politics, which is all they seem to know how to do. The cost of developing a major weapons system is so high that few countries can afford to do it unless they have a major export market which means it has to meet other peoples needs as much as your own. Probably more. Developing a new machine when only 16 are required would be playing politics on an insane scale. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
Qwerty Posted April 22, 2008 Report Posted April 22, 2008 We used to have quite a few Chinook helicopters. The sad thing is that The Liberal government sold our entire fleet of Chinooks to the Netherlands and never replaced them. Quote
Wilber Posted April 23, 2008 Report Posted April 23, 2008 We used to have quite a few Chinook helicopters. The sad thing is that The Liberal government sold our entire fleet of Chinooks to the Netherlands and never replaced them. Think it was the PC's actually but no government took action to replace them until now. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
M.Dancer Posted April 23, 2008 Report Posted April 23, 2008 We used to have quite a few Chinook helicopters. The sad thing is that The Liberal government sold our entire fleet of Chinooks to the Netherlands and never replaced them. I would ask for a citation but I'm pretty sure you would hem and haw about something or another blaming the left or the Liberals (or is it liberals?) so I won't. The Chinooks were sold to Holland by the Mulroney government in 1991 Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
Qwerty Posted April 23, 2008 Report Posted April 23, 2008 I would ask for a citation but I'm pretty sure you would hem and haw about something or another blaming the left or the Liberals (or is it liberals?) so I won't.The Chinooks were sold to Holland by the Mulroney government in 1991 Whatever Dancer. They were sold is the point. Who cares who did it, they're gone. Move on. No wonder government can't get anything done. Quote
M.Dancer Posted April 23, 2008 Report Posted April 23, 2008 Whatever Dancer. They were sold is the point. Who cares who did it, they're gone. Well apparently you cared enough when you thought it was the Liberals. Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
Qwerty Posted April 23, 2008 Report Posted April 23, 2008 Well apparently you cared enough when you thought it was the Liberals. I'll find some way to blame PET, give me some time. Quote
M.Dancer Posted April 23, 2008 Report Posted April 23, 2008 I'll find some way to blame PET, give me some time. Try this then...they were bought when he was PM. Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
Right-Wing Posted April 24, 2008 Report Posted April 24, 2008 (edited) In 1968, when Trudeau went from rich, socialist professor who had never held a real job in his life to prime minister, Canada’s national debt was a modest $11.3 billion; the federal deficit was zero. When Trudeau left office in 1984, the debt had mushroomed to $128 billion; the deficit to $25 billion annually. Edited April 24, 2008 by Right-Wing Quote
M.Dancer Posted April 24, 2008 Report Posted April 24, 2008 (edited) In 1968, when Trudeau went from rich, socialist professor who had never held a real job in his life to prime minister, Canada’s national debt was a modest $11.3 billion; the federal deficit was zero. When Trudeau left office in 1984, the debt had mushroomed to $128 billion; the deficit to $25 billion annually. Maybe it was because he bought the Chinooks....but that's okay, as you know now, Mulroney sold them. But you are absolutely right and Trudeau never holding a real job because, well, editing isn't a real job nor is being a professor of law. The flip side is Harper hasn't really had a real job either...and it will be left to be seen how he handles our debt and surpluses... Edited April 24, 2008 by M.Dancer Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.