Aristides Posted February 25 Report Share Posted February 25 (edited) 14 minutes ago, ExFlyer said: 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. Yes but it was the Martin government that decided to go with a one off orphan that will be expensive, difficult and possibly impossible to maintain over the long term. We still don't have the last two because Sikorsky is waiting for parts. We can't expect anywhere near the Sea King's life span for that reason alone. The Liberals bought it for no other reason than it wasn't the EH-101 and they were willing to believe anything Sikorsky told them. There was no reason to try and reinvent the wheel, it's not like no other navy operates ASW helicopters. Edited February 25 by Aristides Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I am Groot Posted February 25 Report Share Posted February 25 On 2/24/2024 at 10:59 AM, ExFlyer said: No we won't. The same countries that are laggard now will be laggard tomorrow. 18 will reach the goal by end of year, and all have given NATO formal plans to reach 2% by stated dates. Except Canada. On 2/24/2024 at 10:59 AM, ExFlyer said: No, saying the excuses you make are very conservative like. What excuses have I made for anything? You're the one who seems to be making excuses to do nothing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExFlyer Posted February 25 Report Share Posted February 25 (edited) 37 minutes ago, Aristides said: Yes but it was the Martin government that decided to go with a one off orphan that will be expensive, difficult and possibly impossible to maintain over the long term. We still don't have the last two because Sikorsky is waiting for parts. We can't expect anywhere near the Sea King's life span for that reason alone. The Liberals bought it for no other reason than it wasn't the EH-101 and they were willing to believe anything Sikorsky told them. There was no reason to try and reinvent the wheel, it's not like no other navy operates ASW helicopters. What aircraft it a one off orphan? Not sure what point you are trying to make? Reliving the woulda shoulda times are long past. Spilled milk has been wiped up. We got what the governments wanted. Also, one of the causes of delay is the Industrial Regional Benefits packages that Sikorsky had to set up. As I said, I was with the program as a public servant. If you think you have some insight, well say it but be sure you know what you are talking about and not stuff you think you might know. Parts are not a problem, new technology and changing requirements (scope creep) are. It is not solely ASW, it is also to be SAR and other military duties. I was there. 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 25 minutes ago, I am Groot said: 18 will reach the goal by end of year, and all have given NATO formal plans to reach 2% by stated dates. Except Canada. What excuses have I made for anything? You're the one who seems to be making excuses to do nothing. Incorrect, 18 will have definitive plans and dates by the end of the year,not reach the goal.. Canada is the only one that has not committed to plans or dates. The US Ambassador to NATO was just on Question Period saying that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aristides Posted February 25 Report Share Posted February 25 (edited) 18 minutes ago, ExFlyer said: What aircraft it a one off orphan? Not sure what point you are trying to make? Reliving the woulda shoulda times are long past. Spilled milk has been wiped up. We got what the governments wanted. Also, one of the causes of delay is the Industrial Regional Benefits packages that Sikorsky had to set up. As I said, I was with the program as a public servant. If you think you have some insight, well say it but be sure you know what you are talking about and not stuff you think you might know. Parts are not a problem, new technology and changing requirements (scope creep) are. It is not solely ASW, it is also to be SAR and other military duties. I was there. The CH-148. There will never be more than 27 of them. Will be whipping up spilled milk with this thing for as long as we have it. Even if it does turn out to be a good machine it will continue to be a troublesome money pit for as long as we have them. Parts are already a problem. Edited February 25 by Aristides Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaétan Posted February 25 Report Share Posted February 25 Who says that the war in Ukraine is not a conspiracy to enrich the arm industries? Now many countries in the world are arming themself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I am Groot Posted February 25 Report Share Posted February 25 Ex head of the defense staff says Canada faces irrelevance due to our lack of military and lack of serious foreign policy. “Our irrelevance. The fact that nobody even bothers to phone us if they’re talking about doing something as a group of Three Eyes or a group of Five Eyes or things of that nature,” Hillier said. “All those things you described are very real geopolitical and strategic threats and they can destabilize the world even more than it is now. And when the world is destabilized, it’s bad for Canada.” https://globalnews.ca/news/10310531/rick-hillier-canada-defence-irrelevance/ 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExFlyer Posted February 25 Report Share Posted February 25 (edited) 2 hours ago, Aristides said: The CH-148. There will never be more than 27 of them. Will be whipping up spilled milk with this thing for as long as we have it. Even if it does turn out to be a good machine it will continue to be a troublesome money pit for as long as we have them. Parts are already a problem. OK??? All Military equipment is a money pit. When you live on the pointy end of technology, it costs a lot, not staying at the pointy end will cost you even more. You know best LOL 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 2 minutes ago, ExFlyer said: OK??? All Military equipment ids a money pit. When you live on the pointy end of technology, it costs a lot, not staying at the pointy end will cost you even more. Are these machines at the pointy end and if so will we be able to keep them there as there is no one to share development and upgrade costs? There are money pits and there are money pits. The CH-148 is a poster child for what happens when politicians put their short term political interests ahead of the military's needs. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExFlyer Posted February 25 Report Share Posted February 25 31 minutes ago, I am Groot said: Ex head of the defense staff says Canada faces irrelevance due to our lack of military and lack of serious foreign policy. “Our irrelevance. The fact that nobody even bothers to phone us if they’re talking about doing something as a group of Three Eyes or a group of Five Eyes or things of that nature,” Hillier said. “All those things you described are very real geopolitical and strategic threats and they can destabilize the world even more than it is now. And when the world is destabilized, it’s bad for Canada.” https://globalnews.ca/news/10310531/rick-hillier-canada-defence-irrelevance/ Oh, is he saying it is all political?? How profound! What a brain fart!! LOL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aristides Posted February 25 Report Share Posted February 25 1 hour ago, Gaétan said: Who says that the war in Ukraine is not a conspiracy to enrich the arm industries? Now many countries in the world are arming themself. Do you think Putin is part of a conspiracy to enrich western arms companies? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaétan Posted February 25 Report Share Posted February 25 2 minutes ago, Aristides said: Do you think Putin is part of a conspiracy to enrich western arms companies? No but Trudeau and Biden could be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExFlyer Posted February 25 Report Share Posted February 25 3 minutes ago, Aristides said: Are these machines at the pointy end and if so will we be able to keep them there as there is no one to share development and upgrade costs? There are money pits and there are money pits. The CH-148 is a poster child for what happens when politicians put their short term political interests ahead of the military's needs. Once again "All Military equipment is a money pit. When you live on the pointy end of technology, it costs a lot, not staying at the pointy end will cost you even more. " Being such a smart person when it comes to Military, please give me a list of Military equipment that does not cost a lot to procure and maintain and keep up to date? The CH148 was a desperate requirement for the Navy to replace it's 55 year old helicopters. They were the ones with problems with getting parts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suds Posted February 25 Report Share Posted February 25 A couple of simple questions for you guys as you seem to be fairly knowledgeable about this military stuff. There's no question we need new fighter aircraft and whatever that entails, but shouldn't we be seriously considering nuclear powered subs for maintaining our sovereignty in the Arctic? And what is it about this reluctance to get nuclear powered ones? Is it cost, or something else? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aristides Posted February 25 Report Share Posted February 25 (edited) 22 minutes ago, ExFlyer said: Once again "All Military equipment is a money pit. When you live on the pointy end of technology, it costs a lot, not staying at the pointy end will cost you even more. " Being such a smart person when it comes to Military, please give me a list of Military equipment that does not cost a lot to procure and maintain and keep up to date? The CH148 was a desperate requirement for the Navy to replace it's 55 year old helicopters. They were the ones with problems with getting parts. It was only desperate because of how long it took and it was caused by a political party putting its short term political interests ahead of the military's needs. The EH-101 was cancelled 21 years ago and we still haven't received the final two CH-148. Who ever thought it was a wise idea to own 28 unique machines for which we would have to eat all the development and upgrade costs as well as the production of parts that are unique to these machines? Is it so superior to every other navy's ASW helos the we were justified in going our own route? Basically it is a mini example of what would have happened if we had gone ahead with the Arrow without any export orders. 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 18 minutes ago, suds said: A couple of simple questions for you guys as you seem to be fairly knowledgeable about this military stuff. There's no question we need new fighter aircraft and whatever that entails, but shouldn't we be seriously considering nuclear powered subs for maintaining our sovereignty in the Arctic? And what is it about this reluctance to get nuclear powered ones? Is it cost, or something else? As always, cost is the biggest factor. Canada has some sort of angst against nuclear power. Prime reason is why we were kept off AUKUS. "AUKUS is intended to strengthen the ability of each government to support security and defense interests, building on longstanding and ongoing bilateral ties. " "Canada doesn't operate or manufacture nuclear submarines, or aspire to build a nuclear fleet, it wasn't part of the dialogue". 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeaverFever Posted February 25 Author Report Share Posted February 25 19 minutes ago, suds said: A couple of simple questions for you guys as you seem to be fairly knowledgeable about this military stuff. There's no question we need new fighter aircraft and whatever that entails, but shouldn't we be seriously considering nuclear powered subs for maintaining our sovereignty in the Arctic? And what is it about this reluctance to get nuclear powered ones? Is it cost, or something else? Yes we should be. Reluctance nowadays is due to cost mostly and historically a fear of anything with the word “nuclear” in it, especially if it’s related to the military. Assuming Canada stays in the submarine business after the current submarines are done, my guess is that we will pursue “Air Independent Propulsion” subs rather than nuke. AIP use tech like hydrogen fuel cells so can operate under ice but currently they can only stay submerged for a few weeks vs nukes which in theory can remain submerged indefinitely 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aristides Posted February 25 Report Share Posted February 25 (edited) If we want subs that can operate year round in the arctic, they will pretty well have to be nukes. Sweden has some AIP subs but they are very slow when just operating on the Stirling engine and quite small. Basically designed for use in the Baltic. Edited February 25 by Aristides 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExFlyer Posted February 25 Report Share Posted February 25 3 minutes ago, Aristides said: It was only desperate because of how long it took and it was caused by a political party putting its short term political interests ahead of the military's needs. The EH-101 was cancelled 21 years ago and we still haven't received the final two CH-148. Who ever thought it was a wise idea to own 28 unique machines for which we would have to eat all the development and upgrade costs as well as the production of parts that are unique to these machines? Is it so superior to every other navy's ASW helos the we were justified in going our own route? Basically it is a mini example of what would have happened if we had gone ahead with the Arrow without any export orders. Your song is getting tiresome. We got what we got. Military is not a priority in Canada. Social programs are. The Military is happy with anything and everything they get. No, ours is not "so superior" but it is designed and built for us, for our ships, for our needs. All military aircraft are "unique". Unique to the country that procures them for their needs, purposes and for their budget. There ain't no Best Buy for weapons systems. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aristides Posted February 25 Report Share Posted February 25 1 minute ago, ExFlyer said: Your song is getting tiresome. We got what we got. Military is not a priority in Canada. Social programs are. The Military is happy with anything and everything they get. No, ours is not "so superior" but it is designed and built for us, for our ships, for our needs. All military aircraft are "unique". Unique to the country that procures them for their needs, purposes and for their budget. There ain't no Best Buy for weapons systems. There are very good reasons to buy machines that are in common with our allies. Basically that is the reason the present government had to eat crow and order the F-35. Yes we got what we got and the extra expense of operating a small quantity of a unique type will drag on the defence budget for decades. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExFlyer Posted February 25 Report Share Posted February 25 22 minutes ago, Aristides said: There are very good reasons to buy machines that are in common with our allies. Basically that is the reason the present government had to eat crow and order the F-35. Yes we got what we got and the extra expense of operating a small quantity of a unique type will drag on the defence budget for decades. Yes, sometimes. Our navt helicopters and SAR helicopters will be soleley our usage. We need not share technology nor equipment . The f35 is a different situation where our fighters will be deployed to international sites and being unique would be a determent. Canada's involvement in F35 design, build and testing has been ongoing for 25+ years. No one had to eat crow, it was well known we would get F35's. "Canada’s total investment in the F-35 to US$613 million since 1997,...to remain a partner country in the F-35 project. " That may be news to you but that Military and government involvement is old news. The political rhetoric by both parties was just an underinflated political football LOL We were always gonna get the F35. Unique to our country (and and every other country) is what military procurement is all about. What Canada needs is different than what the US or Sweden or Germany or Mexico or Great Britain or..on and on needs. Wake up and smell the weapon systems world LOL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeaverFever Posted February 25 Author Report Share Posted February 25 (edited) 2 hours ago, Aristides said: Who ever thought it was a wise idea to own 28 unique machines for which we would have to eat all the development and upgrade costs as well as the production of parts that are unique to these machines? Is it so superior to every other navy's ASW helos the we were justified in going our own route? Well at the time we didn’t think we’d be the only ones. The Cyclone is American made and meant to a larger version of the widely used Seahawk. The civilian version of the cyclone is also widely used. The alternatives of this size category are European NH-90 and EH/AW-101 which at the time had their own troubling technical problems Canada is just a bad launch customer for any military product. Edited February 25 by BeaverFever Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aristides Posted February 25 Report Share Posted February 25 (edited) 8 minutes ago, BeaverFever said: Well at the time we didn’t think we’d be the only ones. The Cyclone is American made and meant to a larger version of the widely used Seahawk. The civilian version of the cyclone is also widely used. The alternatives of this size category are European NH-90 and EH/AW101 which at the time had their own, both of which had troubling technical problems of their own at the time. Canada is just a bad launch customer for any military product. We are the only customer. Who else was showing interest in this machine? Other countries form partnerships to develop these systems before they go out on a limb to build them. We have a small military and can't afford to play these games. Edited February 25 by Aristides Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CdnFox Posted February 25 Report Share Posted February 25 8 hours ago, ExFlyer said: Oh stop. Why are the facts annoying you again ? LOL Quote Harper was as laggard during his tenure. Some years a bit higher some years a bit lower, just like the Liberals. Not really accurate. He had one 4 year term where he had a majority and moved to significanlty incease spending during that time. Quote Harper was also as laggard with defence spending as Trudeau. Really. What major defense spending contracs did harper cancel again? Ohhhhh that's right... none. THat was justin. Quote "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. Sure - he ran on doing that and did it. And once he'd achieved that he ordered a significant increase in defense spending. That is a simple fact. Couldn't do anything with a minority. Got a majority - got his budget under control and then when the economy started to strengthen he laid out the most extensive increase in military spending we've seen in decardes. Planes, boats etc. And Justin cancelled it . Say what you like - but it's always the liberals who cancel spending procurements, it wasn't the PC and it wasn't the CPC. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suds Posted February 25 Report Share Posted February 25 1 hour ago, ExFlyer said: As always, cost is the biggest factor. Canada has some sort of angst against nuclear power. Prime reason is why we were kept off AUKUS. "AUKUS is intended to strengthen the ability of each government to support security and defense interests, building on longstanding and ongoing bilateral ties. " "Canada doesn't operate or manufacture nuclear submarines, or aspire to build a nuclear fleet, it wasn't part of the dialogue". So we developed our own nuclear reactors and sold them around the world but using nuclear to power a Canadian submarine is out of the question. That's why I asked in the first place because (as you also seem to agree) ..... it's sort of stupid isn't it? I have to wonder sometimes what our priorities are when it comes to military spending. Top priorities should be defending our borders (and sovereignty) and insuring that those men and women who undertake that task are properly equipped to do the job. Then comes NATO and peacekeeping. 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.