Defence Department under fire

[jdobbin]

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/06/09/...ontract009.html

The Defence Department has been forced to reconsider its requirements for choosing new search-and-rescue planes for the Canadian military amid accusations the process was rigged, CBC News has learned.

The department started searching for new aircraft to replace its aging fleet in 2002. Its requirements were so stringent that only one aircraft in the world — the C-27J by Italy's Alenia — could meet them, sources told the CBC.

That automatically excluded other credible competitors, they said.

The government is correct to call into account the gameplaying in terms of the bids. If Defence and Supply are going to simply write the exact specs of an aircraft of one company, the make a mockery of the bidding process.

[Borg]

There is of course far more to this than meets the eye - and of course CBC does not have all the facts - and in fact misrepresents some of those facts. Iwill even go so far as to say the CBC quite willingly ignores facts as well.

The SOR written for the new SAR aircraft has some very specific requirements due to the job the aircraft will be required to do.

Two small examples that will not violate the confidentiality of the SOR

Cabin height: Needs to be a specific minimum due to preparing the Para Rescue personnel for an actual jump with full bush penetration capability and full medical kit. This is more often than not completed in extremely rough weather at altitude and the the person is standing and unsupported while this takes place. Head clearance becomes vital. Imagine jamming your head into an over head ceiling as you prepare yourself while dressing for the jump.

Landing capability: This aircraft will not see a lot of pavement. In fact it will do a lot of very rough - and I do mean very rough - unprepared field - landings and take offs. This means the ground is soft / rocky / over grown with small tree / etc. I have chppped up small trees during some landings and take offs. Hard on the propellors and hard on the airframe.

I will not go further into this - I do agree the program is taking far too long. I also agree that the various governments in power have not been friendly towards the military in their search to replace the aging Bufflao - which is an outstanding aircraft - simply very old and out of date - therefore the capability is failing. Yes the libs are as much if not more to blame than the cons.

I am not up to date enough on the company that wants to build the Buffalo from scratch - but I have my doubts as to their ability to deliver - it is not like building a three bedroom bungalow. Viking may have honourable intentions but they do not havethefinancial backing or the infrastructure to put out the finished product and maintain time lines.

One thing I can assure you all - the military - when it commences the process to bring a new piece of equipment on line - is fair and accurate. Usually the problems begin when a potential bidding company realizes it cannot meet the SOR and complains that "the little piece" of the SOR that they CANNOT meet should not be a driver in removing them from the process. They start the political process and it delays everything.

If you want the right aircraft for the job, the people who fly in that aircraft and the people who jump out of that aircraft are the people who tell the NDHQ rats that write the SOR exactly what it is they need in that specific aircraft.

Truth is the 273 is the only aircraft that meets the SOR to the best of my knowledge - I have been away from NDHQ for a year now - so - let's look at it from another angle:

If it was your son or daughter flying that SAR aircraft - or your son or daughter jumping out of that aircraft - or your family member being operated on on the back of that aircraft (medical evacuations) - which requirement do you want the military to remove from the list?

I will give you some thought on this:

Cabin size - not only for Para Rescu / Sar Tech - now your wife is having serious complications and the medical team on the air evac needs to carry out a specific operation while in flight - do you want cramped quarters?

Runway capablity - your son or daughter or family member needs a medical evacuation right now - nearest helicopter is 500 miles away (very common by the way) - do you want this aircraft to be able to get to your position in heavy icing conditions and then be able to land on that rough strip?

Or do you want a Bombardier Dash 8 - that despite all claims by the company - and I have flown it - as the aircraft to come to your assistance? Hint - The Dash 8 fails miserabley at all of the above - it is an excellent aircraft - but not for this job - and do not think for an instant Bombardier are not eager to get the libs back in power - they exert a lot of influence through family connections and they are not happy the cons are there now. There are examples of lib aircraft purchases against the military advice - Griffon helos and Challenger come immediately to mind - political purcahses the military has to live with.

Bombardier is an incredible political power.

There are a great many companies out there that can build an aircraft than can ALMOST do the job. If you are the person who relies upon that SAR aircraft - do you want that "almost capable" airctaft - or do you want one that can do it all?

If politics (opposition demands for political reasons) and industry lobbying and media with an agenda were not involved to twist this exercise, the plane would not only have been purchased - it would have been in service.

Last one from me on this topic - I am sure there will be some who want to make it another media circus - but yes, it is as simple as I have explained it - outside agencies have made it complicated and the military has been required to make additional efforts to justify all parties - and to counter the complaining of international lobby teams who have the ear of the media.

It is obvious that CBC has an agenda when I read this.

Bottom line - there is a requirements list - if the aircraft can do it - then it is on the competition - if it cannot - then it is out.

Borg

[jdobbin]

If politics (opposition demands for political reasons) and industry lobbying and media with an agenda were not involved to twist this exercise, the plane would not only have been purchased - it would have been in service.

Um, this stoppage has come from the government. No mention of the media or the Opposition causing the stoppage.

The Auditor has rightly pointed out the Defence Department's wasting of at least $300 million in the recent year and in terms of procurement, the story gets worse as contractors routinely start billing higher than what they bid for the project and generally blame everyone but themselves for the delays and cost overruns.

In short, it is the government itself that has delayed the process because it appears that Defence tries to game the system. If they want a particular aircraft, they simply adopt the specs of that aircraft and say no other will do. Undermines the bidding process and the contractor simply can charge whatever they want. And do.

Last one from me on this topic - I am sure there will be some who want to make it another media circus - but yes, it is as simple as I have explained it - outside agencies have made it complicated and the military has been required to make additional efforts to justify all parties - and to counter the complaining of international lobby teams who have the ear of the media.

I guess it would help if military people would not rotate out of Defence after awarding contracts to bidders on military contracts. It is not exactly give people the sense that fair play is happening or fiscal responsibility.

It is obvious that CBC has an agenda when I read this.

And so does the military.

Bottom line - there is a requirements list - if the aircraft can do it - then it is on the competition - if it cannot - then it is out.

If the bidding is gamed from the start, there is no competition.

[Borg]

Um, this stoppage has come from the government. No mention of the media or the Opposition causing the stoppage.

The Auditor has rightly pointed out the Defence Department's wasting of at least $300 million in the recent year and in terms of procurement, the story gets worse as contractors routinely start billing higher than what they bid for the project and generally blame everyone but themselves for the delays and cost overruns.

In short, it is the government itself that has delayed the process because it appears that Defence tries to game the system. If they want a particular aircraft, they simply adopt the specs of that aircraft and say no other will do. Undermines the bidding process and the contractor simply can charge whatever they want. And do.

I guess it would help if military people would not rotate out of Defence after awarding contracts to bidders on military contracts. It is not exactly give people the sense that fair play is happening or fiscal responsibility.

And so does the military.

If the bidding is gamed from the start, there is no competition.

Dobbin you write like the military is the bad guy - I tried to be up front and logical on this - your comment about the military having an agenda is written in a manner that makes one think they are on the take.

The agenda is simply this - They want the best equipment for the job period - there is no gaming - I know - I have written SORs - which ones are not for public disclosure.

If the stoppage comes it is because the opposition will play games - the justifications need to be water tight - not always easy to do as there are multiple ways to play politics. It goes into the house of idiots and the media reports on what happens during question period. The military is not allowed to go public to explain their reasoning for the SOR. That is why I gave you a couple of examples.

I do not claim the military is flawless and do not waste money - however much of that waste is to keep the politicians and media happy and to keep Treasury happy - miss their date by one minute and you are out for possibly months - if they decide they are too busy to see you - once again you are out for months. I have never missed Treasury - but they have often delayed me.

Politics makes it a lousy job in NDHQ - which is why everyone runs from there at the first chance - I hated it - I know no one who loves it - because politicians treat them like shit - ever been treated like shit every day of your life? It is far better under the cons - but still not fun - I will quit before I go back. No matter who is in power - they are concerned about the opposition and the questions and the media and the agendas - Cons are bad - fucking libs are the worst - NDP we simply ignored

No gaming - want the best - the competition that cannot meet the initial requirements spends a lot of lobby money toget the requirements reduced, eased, slacked or whatever you want. The competition unable to meet the rrequirements will almost always spin a great story - they will spend millions to turn the story around.

Bottom line - they cannot meet the requirements.

It is a lot of money and those who cannot meet the requirement will be doing their damndest to complicate the process.

Read what I wrote and think on the examples - then ask yourself if you want those requirements reduced - especially if you are the person counting on that airplane coming to get you. Or you are the person working in that airplane.

If what I read from your response is written to be the way I took it - then you are similar to the folks that cause the problem.

Meet the requirements. If you cannot - then you can go cry to the media and politicians - and CBC is the worst for misrepresentation of the story - cannot wait until they go tits up.

So - in closing - want to be a bidder? Meet the requirements.

Borg

Edited June 10, 2009 by Borg

[Smallc]

DND has requirments that can't be filled by the aircraft currently doing the job? Right.

[Keepitsimple]

There is of course far more to this than meets the eye - and of course CBC does not have all the facts - and in fact misrepresents some of those facts. Iwill even go so far as to say the CBC quite willingly ignores facts as well.

The SOR written for the new SAR aircraft has some very specific requirements due to the job the aircraft will be required to do.

Two small examples that will not violate the confidentiality of the SOR

Cabin height: Needs to be a specific minimum due to preparing the Para Rescue personnel for an actual jump with full bush penetration capability and full medical kit. This is more often than not completed in extremely rough weather at altitude and the the person is standing and unsupported while this takes place. Head clearance becomes vital. Imagine jamming your head into an over head ceiling as you prepare yourself while dressing for the jump.

Landing capability: This aircraft will not see a lot of pavement. In fact it will do a lot of very rough - and I do mean very rough - unprepared field - landings and take offs. This means the ground is soft / rocky / over grown with small tree / etc. I have chppped up small trees during some landings and take offs. Hard on the propellors and hard on the airframe.

.............................................

It is obvious that CBC has an agenda when I read this.

Bottom line - there is a requirements list - if the aircraft can do it - then it is on the competition - if it cannot - then it is out.

Borg

Thanks for your thoughtful and knowledgeable reply. It's always nice to learn a few things from someone who's been there. CBC with an agenda? Who would have thought.

Edited June 10, 2009 by Keepitsimple

[Argus]

The Auditor has rightly pointed out the Defence Department's wasting of at least $300 million in the recent year and in terms of procurement, the story gets worse as contractors routinely start billing higher than what they bid for the project and generally blame everyone but themselves for the delays and cost overruns.

And yet again we see your obsession with money and costs overrides concerns for health and safety. What is it about the Left which doesn't care about people dying so long as they can shave a nickel off the cost?

[Argus]

Hey Borg, This is a little off topic, but only a little. We've heard a lot about the EH-101s, with suggestions they're not up to what was promised, that essentially, we shouldn't have bought them. Do you have an opinion on that?

[Jerry J. Fortin]

How far off the mark is the Buffalo? Little company in BC builds them now......

[August1991]

Or do you want a Bombardier Dash 8 - that despite all claims by the company - and I have flown it - as the aircraft to come to your assistance? Hint - The Dash 8 fails miserabley at all of the above - it is an excellent aircraft - but not for this job - and do not think for an instant Bombardier are not eager to get the libs back in power - they exert a lot of influence through family connections and they are not happy the cons are there now. There are examples of lib aircraft purchases against the military advice - Griffon helos and Challenger come immediately to mind - political purcahses the military has to live with.

Bombardier is an incredible political power.

You may have hit the key behind this CBC report. Great post, BTW.

[Borg]

Hey Borg, This is a little off topic, but only a little. We've heard a lot about the EH-101s, with suggestions they're not up to what was promised, that essentially, we shouldn't have bought them. Do you have an opinion on that?

Sorry - I have an opinion ......

But, not going there

It's more fun making the perfect people spin - cannot be ruining my reputation!

Got to get back to the old style - have a good one

Borg

Edited June 10, 2009 by Borg

[Smallc]

So again, how can the aircraft that we use now not be up for the job?

[Jerry J. Fortin]

So again, how can the aircraft that we use now not be up for the job?

If it were up to me, lucky for Canadians it is not, this nation would build V-22's under license and design and construct a small fleet of mini-carriers to house them. These things would be freaking ideal for us in terms of both search and rescue and coastal defense.

[Smallc]

While I think that would be cool, I just don't see why an updated Buffalo couldn't work.

[Argus]

If it were up to me, lucky for Canadians it is not, this nation would build V-22's under license and design and construct a small fleet of mini-carriers to house them. These things would be freaking ideal for us in terms of both search and rescue and coastal defense.

Just don't stand under the sucker because it's a pig in high winds and not terribly safe the rest of the time. A lot of money greased a lot of palms to get this overpriced hangar queen bought by the US defence department.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Just don't stand under the sucker because it's a pig in high winds and not terribly safe the rest of the time. A lot of money greased a lot of palms to get this overpriced hangar queen bought by the US defence department.

I have been lead to believe that the software issues for the flight computer were resolved. It was actually Canadair http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadair_CL-84 that invented the damned thing, but they had major issues and dropped the project.

[Borg]

So again, how can the aircraft that we use now not be up for the job?

Sigh - it is old and worn out- it is still used - but there are more operational restrictions and there are more "work arounds" to get the job done.

When you are "on top" and talking to people on the ground - or your buddies jump out the back end you will move heaven and earth to make sure it all comes out ok. Not like working in a bank - one of the tellers gets hurt everyone still goes home - in this business when one gets left behind it is usually a funeral - got 16 names in my log book - that is 16 friends I have stood over and held hands with wives, mothers and daughters - most during the fucking lib phase - and therefore due to publicity restrictions most never made the back page of the local penny advertiser - in this business you go out as a team and you come back as a team.

Over stresses on the airframe from terrain/mountain waves, hard icing, salt and corrosion from ocean work, tough landing conditions, no oxygen except supplemental about 10K - so they suck on a oxygen tube about the size of your pen or wear the oxygen mask, plenty of skin wrinkles from twisting motion and so on

Complete and full refurbishment will not bring it back to where it was

Wing spars, control surfaces, engines, propellors, interior panels, electrical connections, scuffed wire bundles, avionics are old and in the case of the Buffalo - there was still a mount for a sextant a couple of years ago - perhaps it could be considered time to update?

Bases have been closed and ranges need to be extended

Spares are no longer even made in some cases, serviceability is now an issue - in other words sometimes you cannot start it, taxi it, fly it etc

If your father was driving a 1962 tandem dump truck with a two range / five speed tranny - when would you replace it? Or do you continue to refurbish?

Same with the Herc. Same with a bunch of other aircraft. You can only flex metal so many times before it fails or becoms unsafe to use.

This is not an airliner - it is a 4X4 and it is hard used. And many love to make it political.

Not as simple as many would like to make it out.

Think my student friend - think.

OK now?

Borg

Edited June 10, 2009 by Borg

[Army Guy]

How far off the mark is the Buffalo? Little company in BC builds them now......

So again, how can the aircraft that we use now not be up for the job?

I know i don't always see eye to eye with SmallC but he may be on to something here, and after doing alittle research on the topic i don't see how, the C-27J beat out a C-115 redesigned aircraft. Perhaps there are other missions that the Buf's accomplish or new missions which will suit the C-27J better....but as a sar aircraft maybe we should be looking at a home grown version.

Viking

I can see how the C-27 beats out the C-295 but i'm lost at how it beats out the redesigned Buf

Comparison

[Smallc]

Sigh - it is old and worn out

Complete and full refurbishment will not bring it back to where it was

Reading is your friend. You should try it sometime. The article at the beginning of this thread seems especially important in this case.

Edited June 10, 2009 by Smallc

[Oleg Bach]

Sigh - it is old and worn out

Complete and full refurbishment will not bring it back to where it was

Wing spars need to be repaired, avionics are old and in the case of the Buffalo - there is still a mount for a sextant - perhaps it could be considered time to update?

Bases have been closed and ranges need to be extended

Spares are no longer even made in some cases, serviceability is now an issue - in other words sometimes you cannot start it, taxi it, fly it etc

If your father was driving a 1962 tandem dump truck - when would you replace it?

Same with the Herc. Same with a bunch of other aircraft. You can only flex metal so many times before it fails or becoms unsafe to use.

This is not an airliner - it is a 4X4 and it is hard used.

Not as simple as many would like to make it out.

OK now?

Borg

Borg stop broad casting a weakness to the world - tell your bosses what to do -

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Out of curiosity why was the Super Herc considered? http://www.lockheedmartin.com/products/c130/c-130j-specs.html ://http://www.lockheedmartin.com/produ...30j-specs.html

[Oleg Bach]

Out of curiosity why was the Super Herc considered? http://www.lockheedmartin.com/products/c130/c-130j-specs.html ://http://www.lockheedmartin.com/produ...30j-specs.html ://http://www.lockheedmartin.com/produ...30j-specs.html

[Smallc]

I think it's because they want a smaller dedicated aircraft. Right now they use a combination of 3 different fixed wing aircraft (including the Hercules) to do the job. This seems to be an attempt to completely separate tactical transport, SAR, and coastal defence.

Also, this was another attempt by defence to go with only who they wanted...meaning we don't get as good of a price. We've done that too many times lately.

Edited June 10, 2009 by Smallc

[Smallc]

At the end, the idea is that we will have about 25 tactical transports (17 super and about 9 regular Hercules), a number of SAR craft in the mid teens, and about a dozen coastal patrol aircraft that can be completely dedicated to that job.

[Borg]

Reading is your friend. You should try it sometime. The article at the beginning of this thread seems especially important in this case.

And you might use your brain to read the complete finised post - I was in the middle of an edit - now - go back to your law books and study to make the world a better place by stepping from Mom amd Dad to a nice job somewhere - or get out and do a few things to gain a little experience first

Cheers

Borg