ExFlyer Posted February 22 Report Share Posted February 22 46 minutes ago, Army Guy said: So we need to pad the accounts of national companies becasue they employ Canadians , where is the line drawn in the sand what was suppose to be 19 bil is now well over 60 bil, with not end in site...est cost per ship is 5.6 bil per... thats more than an Arleigh burke class destroyer...that has twice the capacity.. Another example of government poor leadership that contract should have been canceled for thousands of other reasons. why would we pick a one of helo whos spare parts is going to be shut down in a decade or so...we could have saved bils if we went with a combat proven design...like the Seahawk, or EH101...we repeat these same mistakes over and over. Another purchase with problems, internal cabin height is under 6 ft, great if your small but put your helmet on and your walking around bent over...I wonder just how much say the SAR techs had in that purchase...and why not pick an aircraft with more internal height... It is the government that released that media blurb, now whether it is to placate the US i don't know...but we had a chance to get in on BMD for much cheaper years ago, but like always failed...instead of intercepting missiles over the far north American BMD missiles will be intercepting over Canadian lands ...of course those missiles will be filled with radioactive material should be fun to watch.... I have said over and over, either do it right or get rid of it...why risk sending soldier into a battle field when their are not prepared or equiped right, i'll tell you why Canadians think it is cheaper to bury our brothers and sisters than to equip them with the right stuff.......and if that means getting rid of the army, then i'm all for it...but in doing so, we are going to lose some of our sovereignty...or all of it to the US.... Thats the problem is it not, "Canadians" can't even take the time out to research what our military does on a day to day basis...do they give a crap...no...but when the next forest fire or winter storm, earth quake etc... happens they will have to fend for themselves...and they'll have no one to blame but themselves...Karma baby....Climate change is a bitc*... So, the ship work for those 3 regions is paramount. The head height for the Cyclone is not ideal but it is very workable. Operational range is the biggest problem. I was on that program as a civil servant and am OK with that helicopter. I do have a number of issues but it was OK'd by the Air Force. The cabin height of the Kingfisher and the search capability is a different issue. Being hunched over when having to attend patients in the cabin is not fun and the landing gear structure makes it difficult for spotting when searching. We (Air Force) wanted the C-27J and the Americans offered us some at a huge discount but the government at the time (Conservative) did not accept the offer. There is no single political party to blame as the both were in power for the SAR Helicopter, Ships, Coast Guard, Maritime Helicopter and SAR fixed wing were being procured. The political interference is so severe, no one got what they really needed or wanted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted February 22 Report Share Posted February 22 11 minutes ago, ExFlyer said: The political interference is so severe, No! Oh well, bugger all anyone can do about that. Actually knowing how expensive this severity costs is the best argument there is against funding it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaétan Posted February 23 Report Share Posted February 23 When you see Navalny's wife go to embrace Joe Biden, responsible for a needless war that cost the lives of 500,000 Russian soldiers, you can easily understand why he didn't survive. I implore God to spare the innocent people manipulated by politicians and their corrupt media by arms dealers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExFlyer Posted February 23 Report Share Posted February 23 12 hours ago, eyeball said: No! Oh well, bugger all anyone can do about that. Actually knowing how expensive this severity costs is the best argument there is against funding it. The issue is the influence MP's and Ministers have on the procurement process. The Military has a request for proposal and the bids come in and are evaluated against the requirements. When the evaluation is over and the winning bidder is decided, it must go to Ministers offices for approval and if they don't like it, then we have to evaluate again and/or change the requirement as the Ministers offices see fit. The public hears about scope creep or changes or desire for more and that is rarely the case, it is more often ministerial interference so IRB's (Industrial regional Benefits) are more in flavor to some areas than others. Even Indian Affairs (or whatever they are called these days) has a lot to say about company's bids. The Military gets falsely blames for delays, increased costs and scope creep when in fact, IRB and political pressures and other external factors are to blame. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeaverFever Posted February 23 Author Report Share Posted February 23 (edited) 1 hour ago, Gaétan said: When you see Navalny's wife go to embrace Joe Biden, responsible for a needless war that cost the lives of 500,000 Russian soldiers, you can easily understand why he didn't survive. I implore God to spare the innocent people manipulated by politicians and their corrupt media by arms dealers. This thread is meant for serious discussions about the Canadian Armed Forces and Canadian defence policy. The only one responsible for the Ukraine war dead is the brutal dictator who started the war and refuses to end it by returning his invading troops home, Vladimir Putin. Take your crackpot Kremlin-made bullshit lies over to one of the Ukraine war threads if you want to debate that further instead of polluting this one, Now F*ck off. Edited February 23 by BeaverFever 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaétan Posted February 23 Report Share Posted February 23 1 hour ago, BeaverFever said: This thread is meant for serious discussions about the Canadian Armed Forces and Canadian defence policy. The only one responsible for the Ukraine war dead is the brutal dictator who started the war and refuses to end it by returning his invading troops home, Vladimir Putin. Take your crackpot Kremlin-made bullshit lies over to one of the Ukraine war threads if you want to debate that further instead of polluting this one, Now F*ck off. You are one among others being manipulated, i hope God will preserve your life anyway. God should take care of stupid people after all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonbox Posted February 23 Report Share Posted February 23 Gaetan looks like athos, under a different name. 🙄 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeaverFever Posted February 23 Author Report Share Posted February 23 12 minutes ago, Gaétan said: God should take care of stupid people after all. He does. As of yesterday, he’s “taken care of” 407,240 Russian soldiers since February 2022, with many more to come. Now F*ck off this thread and go pollute a different area of this forum. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaétan Posted February 23 Report Share Posted February 23 8 minutes ago, BeaverFever said: He does. As of yesterday, he’s “taken care of” 407,240 Russian soldiers since February 2022, with many more to come. Now F*ck off this thread and go pollute a different area of this forum. There are smart, money-hungry people who tell stupid people what to think, I have a plan to abolish money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaétan Posted February 23 Report Share Posted February 23 21 minutes ago, Moonbox said: Gaetan looks like athos, under a different name. 🙄 Athos is he a greek god? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted February 23 Report Share Posted February 23 21 hours ago, ExFlyer said: So, the ship work for those 3 regions is paramount. The head height for the Cyclone is not ideal but it is very workable. Operational range is the biggest problem. I was on that program as a civil servant and am OK with that helicopter. I do have a number of issues but it was OK'd by the Air Force. The cabin height of the Kingfisher and the search capability is a different issue. Being hunched over when having to attend patients in the cabin is not fun and the landing gear structure makes it difficult for spotting when searching. We (Air Force) wanted the C-27J and the Americans offered us some at a huge discount but the government at the time (Conservative) did not accept the offer. There is no single political party to blame as the both were in power for the SAR Helicopter, Ships, Coast Guard, Maritime Helicopter and SAR fixed wing were being procured. The political interference is so severe, no one got what they really needed or wanted. Bullshit, why is it all right to almost completely wipe out ship building industry for decades...then today it is paramount to save it today....how about we let another nation with a well developed industry build us these ships for a 1/3 of the cost...get more capabilities and ships for the same price...OR a fully funded social program with the savings....or does the 10,000 jobs really worth the cost of 60 bil to save... the cyclone is a perfect example of a failed program...we choose a helo that was not even in production yet, not to mention all the problems that incurs....it spare parts will not be available for the entire life of the helo, considering the length of time we kept the sea king...meaning it is going to be that more expensive to keep them flying....also No other allied flys them so no extra source of parts is available....there was more capable helos on the market for much cheaper price that meet or beat all the specs we had...And this is coming from an Army guy...with no purchasing experience...but lots of experience with testing and evaluating new equipment for the army...The Air force had it's head up its as& when it aproved of these or someone got a huge check in the mail... Politics should be taken out of the equation all together , left to strategic weapons' or systems like nuc's or chemical weapons' as examples.. once a pool of funding is approved it should be a military decision on what is purchased..right now it is like sending you wife out to buy your power tools and hoping they buy the right stuff. Army was also excited about C-27J, just for the ability to jump out of, making jumping cheaper there fore more jumps... Well the liberals did promise to fix all of that and reinvent our purchasing policies...more lies...and you 100 % right all parties are responsible for our current mess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I am Groot Posted February 24 Report Share Posted February 24 On 2/22/2024 at 12:39 PM, ExFlyer said: Trump ain't gonna embarrass us into paying for military. Conservatives and Liberals alike have been threatened for many decades and we are still not living up to our obligations. NDP want to do away with the Military and Bloc, well, they are Bloc LOL We are already being left out of agreements (AUKUS) between Australia/US and Britain in the Pacific. We cannot even get a seat on the UN Security Council. In past days we were far from the only country that was a laggard. The Germans weren't much better, and only a very few actually came close to meeting the goal. Now it's different. Something like 18 will by the end of this year, and every country EXCEPT Canada has provided NATO with a plan and date for when they will meet the 2% minimum. It's one thing to be one of a bunch of laggards, and another to be there all alone while everyone else stares us down. I'm hoping that provides inspiration to get it done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExFlyer Posted February 24 Report Share Posted February 24 56 minutes ago, I am Groot said: In past days we were far from the only country that was a laggard. The Germans weren't much better, and only a very few actually came close to meeting the goal. Now it's different. Something like 18 will by the end of this year, and every country EXCEPT Canada has provided NATO with a plan and date for when they will meet the 2% minimum. It's one thing to be one of a bunch of laggards, and another to be there all alone while everyone else stares us down. I'm hoping that provides inspiration to get it done. Never said we were the only ones. Making excuses sounds very conservative LOL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I am Groot Posted February 24 Report Share Posted February 24 13 hours ago, ExFlyer said: Never said we were the only ones. Making excuses sounds very conservative LOL My point was that we WILL be the only one. Are you saying Trudeau is a conservative? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExFlyer Posted February 24 Report Share Posted February 24 (edited) 1 hour ago, I am Groot said: My point was that we WILL be the only one. Are you saying Trudeau is a conservative? No we won't. The same countries that are laggard now will be laggard tomorrow. No, saying the excuses you make are very conservative like. The conservatives shared in being laggard. We have been laggard for more decades than we want to count. Question is, have we ever lived up to the requirement? Edited February 24 by ExFlyer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CdnFox Posted February 24 Report Share Posted February 24 6 hours ago, ExFlyer said: No we won't. The same countries that are laggard now will be laggard tomorrow. No, saying the excuses you make are very conservative like. The conservatives shared in being laggard. We have been laggard for more decades than we want to count. Question is, have we ever lived up to the requirement? Do they? I seem to recall them buying helecopters that got cancelled, fighters that got cancelled (and now will be bought for more money in lower numbers) And we were in fact closer to the 2 percent by far under harper. So i'm not sure you could really paint it as an 'equal' issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aristides Posted February 25 Report Share Posted February 25 6 hours ago, CdnFox said: Do they? I seem to recall them buying helecopters that got cancelled, fighters that got cancelled (and now will be bought for more money in lower numbers) And we were in fact closer to the 2 percent by far under harper. So i'm not sure you could really paint it as an 'equal' issue. It was when we were in Afghanistan but after 2012 it dropped as low as 1% under Harper. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeaverFever Posted February 25 Author Report Share Posted February 25 7 hours ago, CdnFox said: Do they? I seem to recall them buying helecopters that got cancelled, fighters that got cancelled (and now will be bought for more money in lower numbers) And we were in fact closer to the 2 percent by far under harper. So i'm not sure you could really paint it as an 'equal' issue. As point of fact: -Helicopters that got cancelled: Mulroney deal cancelled by Chretien. New deal awarded under Harper with major flaws we area still dealing with - fighters that got canceled: we are buying larger numbers than under Harper - many of the new capabilities acquired for Afghanistan like air defence, Leopard 2 tansy and TOW were discontinued or put in ling term storage by Harper gov Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CdnFox Posted February 25 Report Share Posted February 25 5 hours ago, Aristides said: It was when we were in Afghanistan but after 2012 it dropped as low as 1% under Harper. It dropped that low very very briefly in one year - it was significantly above 1 percent the rest of the time and it would have been higher for most of his term if he'd had a majority. As it was when he got a majority he went to work, got the plane deal figured out as well as some significant naval spending. The libs shot all that down. So just as harper's rebuilding things during his only majority the libs jumped in and scuttled it. Which is the second time - you'll recall chretein and the helecopters. And even a good hunk of the current military spending is acutally going to ukraine. It's not going to OUR military. Our apc's got gifted, we've bought them AA system (made in other countries and now used by another country) etc etc. It didn't go to improving our own military. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExFlyer Posted February 25 Report Share Posted February 25 (edited) 14 hours ago, CdnFox said: Do they? I seem to recall them buying helecopters that got cancelled, fighters that got cancelled (and now will be bought for more money in lower numbers) And we were in fact closer to the 2 percent by far under harper. So i'm not sure you could really paint it as an 'equal' issue. Oh stop. Your partisanship is showing out of your zipper LOL Harper was as laggard during his tenure. Some years a bit higher some years a bit lower, just like the Liberals. Harper was also as laggard with defence spending as Trudeau. "While the Conservative government claims its defence spending over the years has risen massively, independent studies show the Tories actually underspent their own approved military budgets by close to $10 billion. They also chopped nearly $5 billion from defence since 2012, in large part to help Stephen Harper reach his much proclaimed budget surplus." https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-defence-spending-brian-stewart-1.3242611 I served through several iterations of Liberal and Conservative governments and saw decline in the MIlitary during all of them. Do not try an tell me one party was better than the other, they both decimated the Military and that will continue. If you think PP will save the Military, you are eating too much conservative slop stew. He won't have the money and he will continue with all the social programs the liberals are putting in place because there is no way he can take that away from folks then. Edited February 25 by ExFlyer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExFlyer Posted February 25 Report Share Posted February 25 (edited) 9 hours ago, BeaverFever said: As point of fact: -Helicopters that got cancelled: Mulroney deal cancelled by Chretien. New deal awarded under Harper with major flaws we area still dealing with - fighters that got canceled: we are buying larger numbers than under Harper - many of the new capabilities acquired for Afghanistan like air defence, Leopard 2 tansy and TOW were discontinued or put in ling term storage by Harper gov Incorrect. The SAR Helicopter, Cormorant, is far from flawed. The Cormorant has more range, more capability, more equipment than the old Labrador ever had. It has also done more than ever before and is far more reliable. It is very far from flawed. Edited February 25 by ExFlyer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aristides Posted February 25 Report Share Posted February 25 1 hour ago, ExFlyer said: Incorrect. The SAR Helicopter, Cormorant, is far from flawed. The Cormorant has more range, more capability, more equipment than the old Labrador ever had. It has also done more than ever before and is far moie reliable. It is very far from flawed. The SAR helicopter is a derivative of the EH-101 which was cancelled by the Liberals. The CH-148 is over 20 years late and is turning into a disaster. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExFlyer Posted February 25 Report Share Posted February 25 (edited) 39 minutes ago, Aristides said: The SAR helicopter is a derivative of the EH-101 which was cancelled by the Liberals. The CH-148 is over 20 years late and is turning into a disaster. The SAR helicopter is an EH101. The SAR Helicopter project went through the entire procurement process with many bidders as opposed to the previous selection which was pretty well pre selected. It was cancelled primarily because the cost of the Maritime Helicopter was out of line and most of all, they did not fit on our ships. Also, as I already said "The Cormorant has more range, more capability, more equipment than the old Labrador ever had. It has also done more than ever before and is far more reliable. " and it has won more International SAR awards than Canada has ever won before. The CH 148 Cyclone is another project (started by the Conservatives) which has had innumerable political interference's as well as Sikorskys failure to provide what they bid and required one contract amendment after another. Sikorsky made promises it could not keep. Both Conservative and Liberal governments could have cared less. I was in both programs, in and out of the Military. Edited February 25 by ExFlyer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aristides Posted February 25 Report Share Posted February 25 (edited) 26 minutes ago, ExFlyer said: The SAR helicopter is an EH101. The SAR Helicopter project went through the entire procurement process with many bidders as opposed to the previous selection which was pretty well pre selected. It was cancelled primarily because the cost of the Maritime Helicopter was out of line and most of all, they did not fit on our ships. Also, as I already said "The Cormorant has more range, more capability, more equipment than the old Labrador ever had. It has also done more than ever before and is far more reliable. " and it has won more International SAR awards than Canada has ever won before. The CH 148 Cyclone is another project (started by the Conservatives) which has had innumerable political interference's as well as Sikorskys failure to provide what they bid and required one contract amendment after another. Sikorsky made promises it could not keep. Both Conservative and Liberal governments could have cared less. I was in both programs, in and out of the Military. The CH-148 program was started in 2004 by the Martin government. It was a case of anything but the EH-101. The Conservatives did a review on it and decided to keep it because almost 2 billion had already been spent on the project. In retrospect, that was a mistake. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/cyclone-helicopter-canadian-forces-1.7079088 Edited February 25 by Aristides Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExFlyer Posted February 25 Report Share Posted February 25 11 minutes ago, Aristides said: The CH-148 program was started in 2004 by the Martin government. It was a case of anything but the EH-101. The Conservatives did a review on it and decided to keep it because almost 2 billion had already been spent on the project. In retrospect, that was a mistake. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/cyclone-helicopter-canadian-forces-1.7079088 17 minutes ago, Aristides said: The CH-148 program was started in 2004 by the Martin government. It was a case of anything but the EH-101. The Conservatives did a review on it and decided to keep it because almost 2 billion had already been spent on the project. In retrospect, that was a mistake. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/cyclone-helicopter-canadian-forces-1.7079088 Actually, Identification was started by Chretien in 2003 but you are correct, it was anything but the 101. So Sikorsky wins by default. Kinda put them in the drivers seat. They had no ASW helicopter so put forth a bunch of unproven and not yet designed let alone tested proposals and they were all accepted, until they could not be done. They even promised the commercial S-92 could be made into a ASW and combat ready machine. As time went on, that became a falsehood and all the development and design came up short and we still do not have them all delivered. Not only that, there are a bunch of variants in the fleet. Number 1 is far from number 5 and even farther from number 10 and so on. We identified innumerable shortcomings and had to change the contract to make them acceptable. A very sad thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
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.