Questions Raised on Military Plane Purchases

[jdobbin]

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...tories&pr=0

Why has the United States dropped the plane from Army procurement?

[killjoy]

From the article:

"It's a fake competition, therefore you might not get at the right product," said Ujjal Dosanjh, the Liberal defence critic.

Now, some of Lockheed's competitors are trying to knock holes in the C-130Js suitability.

They note, for example, that the C-130J was recently dropped from a competition the U.S. military has underway for a new purchase of short-haul cargo planes.

"It seems incredible to me that we're looking at planes that other nations, like the Americans, have rejected," said Dawn Black, the NDP defence critic.

1. This is from the party that brought us leaky submarines and the Sea King so if we're going to listen to them now, well ok. They also wanted us to buy Russian. Ever try and get a replacement part for a Russian plane? Ever try and read Russian instruments?

2. The fact that the US 'rejected' this craft has everything to do with who win's a contract, which has much more to do with which state and which congressman is fighting for it, and little or nothing to do with 'technical concerns' and nothing to do with what we should base our decision on.

3. I can't help but reiterate my opinion that listening to the Liberals giving us military spending advice as a pretense to cover simple obstinate opposition is a little silly. Just my opinion.

The C-130J Super Hercules is the newest version of the Hercules and the only model still produced. Externally similar to the classic Hercules, the J model is a very different aircraft. These differences include new Rolls-Royce Allison AE2100 turboprops with six-bladed composite scimitar propellers, digital avionics (including head-up displays for each pilot), reduced crew requirements (2 pilots — no navigator or flight engineer), increased reliability and up to 27% lower operating costs. The C-130J is also available in a standard-length or stretched C-130J-30 version. Lockheed received the launch order for J model from the RAF, who ordered 25 aircraft, with first deliveries beginning in 1999. The RAF calls the C-130J the Hercules Mk 5 and the stretched C-130J-30 the Hercules Mk 4.

...

The C-130 is generally a highly reliable aircraft. The Royal Air Force recorded an accident rate of about one aircraft loss per 250,000 flying hours over the last forty years, making it one of the safest aircraft they operate (alongside Vickers VC10s and Lockheed Tristars with no flying losses).[9] However, more than 10% of production has been lost, mainly by the USAF while serving in the Vietnam war.[10]

link

.

[jdobbin]

From the article:

"It's a fake competition, therefore you might not get at the right product," said Ujjal Dosanjh, the Liberal defence critic.

Now, some of Lockheed's competitors are trying to knock holes in the C-130Js suitability.

They note, for example, that the C-130J was recently dropped from a competition the U.S. military has underway for a new purchase of short-haul cargo planes.

"It seems incredible to me that we're looking at planes that other nations, like the Americans, have rejected," said Dawn Black, the NDP defence critic.

1. This is from the party that brought us leaky submarines and the Sea King so if we're going to listen to them now, well ok. They also wanted us to buy Russian. Ever try and get a replacement part for a Russian plane? Ever try and read Russian instruments?

2. The fact that the US 'rejected' this craft has everything to do with who win's a contract, which has much more to do with which state and which congressman is fighting for it, and little or nothing to do with 'technical concerns' and nothing to do with what we should base our decision on.

3. I can't help be reintegrate my opinion that listening to the Liberals giving us military spending advice as a pretense to cover simple obstinate opposition is a little silly. Just my opinion.

Both the Conservatives and Liberals have made stupid sales and terrible purchases when it comes to the procurement. The Conservatives sold Canada's Chinooks and purchased patrol boats that are not fully capable of doing the job required of them.

I have no idea if the C-130s are the best aircraft. Isn't it important that we find out?

[killjoy]

Personally I don't think there's any comparing the Liberal record of military spending fiascos to the Conservative ones, but whatever.

I have no idea if the C-130s are the best aircraft. Isn't it important that we find out?

See my edit above.

.

[jdobbin]

Personally I don't think they're any comparing the Liberal record of military spending fiascos to the Conservative ones, but whatever.

I have no idea if the C-130s are the best aircraft. Isn't it important that we find out?

See my edit above.

It does seem an excellent plane but because we have been burned in the past, I look at all information out there.

As far as comparing records, the Conservatives made one big whopper that eventually killed the PC party. It was the CF-18 maintenance award to Quebec over Manitoba. It started the Reform movement in the west. That had to be the biggest fiasco of all time for a political party.

I disagreed with the decision to purchase the submarines. It was made to sound like a good deal in that they were sold as "drive them right off the lot." But Canada has had an awful record with subs and I wasn't entirely certain what purpose they'd serve. I honestly think the investment could have gone into anti-submarine surface ships.

[geoffrey]

That had to be the biggest fiasco of all time for a political party.

Enjoy hyperbole much?

--

The C-130 is a great plane, and it's very well suited to our goals and operations. We've had this discussion elsewhere, I can't track down the thread.

I am confused when the Liberals and NDP claim everyday that we need to make a solid definite effort to be completely different then the Americans, insult them, insure they don't encroach upon our freedom. Then when the US changes a contract they want us to follow suit.

It's truly unbelievable. The plane is the right choice.

[jdobbin]

Enjoy hyperbole much?

--

The C-130 is a great plane, and it's very well suited to our goals and operations. We've had this discussion elsewhere, I can't track down the thread.

I am confused when the Liberals and NDP claim everyday that we need to make a solid definite effort to be completely different then the Americans, insult them, insure they don't encroach upon our freedom. Then when the US changes a contract they want us to follow suit.

It's truly unbelievable. The plane is the right choice.

There have many PCs who have traced the end of the PC party to that incident. It led to the Reform party and years of split conservative vote and ultimately the end of he federal PCs. Do you disagree?

As far as the plane goes, we have been told countless times about the worth of a purchase for the military. I think it is only correct to keep assessing those decisions.

[Ricki Bobbi]

It led to the Reform party and years of split conservative vote and ultimately the end of he federal PCs. Do you disagree?

As far as the plane goes, we have been told countless time about the worth of a purchase for the military. I think it is only correct to keep assessing those decisions.

Likening the CF-18 maintenance contract to the downfall of the Progressive Conservatives is akin to likening the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand to the start of WWI or the Gulf of Tomkin 'incident' starting the Vietnam War....

Both match the timeline but they were all inevitably going to happen.

It was impossible to maintain the Western Canada-Quebec coalition in the Mulroney-lead PCs. Especially given the inherent tensions that existed. It was far too complex a series of events to just have been caused by the awarding of one contract.

No sir, I do not agree with your analysis of the situation.

[JMH]

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...tories&pr=0

Why has the United States dropped the plane from Army procurement?

I'm tired of armchair soldier/know-it-alls talking about hardware. You haven't a clue.

[jdobbin]

I'm tired of armchair soldier/know-it-alls talking about hardware. You haven't a clue.

I take it that you work in the Defence industry or are a pilot in the Canadian air force with expertise in this particular plane?

[Argus]

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...tories&pr=0

Why has the United States dropped the plane from Army procurement?

It's a good plane. The US military owns hundreds of them. I don't know why the latest version was dropped from some competition, but it isn't really relevent. The requirements of that particular competition are not necessarily our requirments. And there really is no worthy competition for the aircraft we need.

As to the Liberals - I have said before and I say it again - the appointment of Dosanj, an ethically challenged former health minister, former NDP turncoat with ZERO knowledge of military matters shows that party's absolute lack of interest in the Canadian military except as a tool to attack the government. The man drips slime wherever he goes.

[Canadian Blue]

But the American Air Force uses that plane. So if it works for the USAF then I think it should work for us.

[geoffrey]

But the American Air Force uses that plane. So if it works for the USAF then I think it should work for us.

I disagree with that statement. Aircraft carriers work for the yankees, I don't think they'd work for us. Same with subs... what sillyness that was.

[Wilber]

From the article.

The U.S. army dropped the 130J from its latest competition citing concerns that it did not meet certain technical specifications the U.S. Army required.

It's a fake competition, therefore you might not get at the right product," said Ujjal Dosanjh, the Liberal defense critic.

"It seems incredible to me that we're looking at planes that other nations, like the Americans, have rejected," said Dawn Black, the NDP defense critic.

Does anyone know what the American specification is? Does Ujjal Dosanjh know what the American specification is? Does he know anything about military transports? Does anyone in the NDP know anything or even care about military transports? I doubt it. The article says the present USAF requirement is for a short haul transport. Canada is not looking for a short haul transport so why would we be using the same specification as the Americans for our requirement?

Aside from the USAF, Coast Guard and Marines, the 130J is operated by the RAF, RAAF, Italian, Kuwaiti and Danish air forces. Maybe others for all I know.

[jdobbin]

The U.S. army dropped the 130J from its latest competition citing concerns that it did not meet certain technical specifications the U.S. Army required.

Aside from the USAF, Coast Guard and Marines, the 130J is operated by the RAF, RAAF, Italian, Kuwaiti and Danish air forces. Maybe others for all I know.

Since it is the Canadian Army that will need the planes for their transport, I'd be very interested in knowing what specs the plane didn't meet.

[Wilber]

The U.S. army dropped the 130J from its latest competition citing concerns that it did not meet certain technical specifications the U.S. Army required.

Aside from the USAF, Coast Guard and Marines, the 130J is operated by the RAF, RAAF, Italian, Kuwaiti and Danish air forces. Maybe others for all I know.

Since it is the Canadian Army that will need the planes for their transport, I'd be very interested in knowing what specs the plane didn't meet.

Wouldn't mind knowing myself but a real critic would find out and explain why as they were criticizing. That is the difference between a real critic and a politician.

[jdobbin]

Wouldn't mind knowing myself but a real critic would find out and explain why as they were criticizing. That is the difference between a real critic and a politician.

The Opposition is there to ask questions. The government is there to answer questions.

The Defence critic is not the only one asking the question. When Conservative critics asked if the British subs were the best for Canada's navy, I thought it was a legitimate question.

[Wilber]

Wouldn't mind knowing myself but a real critic would find out and explain why as they were criticizing. That is the difference between a real critic and a politician.

The Opposition is there to ask questions. The government is there to answer questions.

The Defence critic is not the only one asking the question. When Conservative critics asked if the British subs were the best for Canada's navy, I thought it was a legitimate question.

I don't dispute that but a critics function is to criticize not ask questions and there should be some substance to the criticism, so why do we call them critics? I don't think it is to much to ask for a critic to have some knowledge of the subject. Critics should be able to suggest alternatives. I also think the government should be able to justify the purchase to Parliament and the public.

From what I have seen the only real alternative is an aircraft from Airbus that hasn't even flown yet, built by a company that has no experience with this type. That doesn't mean it won't be a very good machine but who wants to be the launch customer of a new type with all the teething problems that go along with them, when there is a proven alternative. I'm pretty sure the military doesn't. They will want what they know which is the C-130.

[jdobbin]

I don't dispute that but a critics function is to criticize not ask questions and there should be some substance to the criticism, so why do we call them critics? I don't think it is to much to ask for a critic to have some knowledge of the subject. Critics should be able to suggest alternatives. I also think the government should be able to justify the purchase to Parliament and the public.

From what I have seen the only real alternative is an aircraft from Airbus that hasn't even flown yet, built by a company that has no experience with this type. That doesn't mean it won't be a very good machine but who wants to be the launch customer of a new type with all the teething problems that go along with them, when there is a proven alternative. I'm pretty sure the military doesn't. They will want what they know which is the C-130.

Since the PMO has been extremely secretive along with the Defence department (they are even censoring data from World War II now), it is hard to get the raw data of what specs are required for the plane and how they can be met by the C-130. The one thing a critic has left is to question how the procurement is going and whether the American Amy specs are similar to what Canada's might be. What alternatives are the U.S. looking at?

[Wilber]

Since it is the Canadian Army that will need the planes for their transport, I'd be very interested in knowing what specs the plane didn't meet.

The Air Force will be responsible for operating the aircraft but one of its main functions will be to carry army personel and equipment. The Army's needs will just be one factor in the specification but a major one.

[Wilber]

Since the PMO has been extremely secretive along with the Defence department (they are even censoring data from World War II now), it is hard to get the raw data of what specs are required for the plane and how they can be met by the C-130. The one thing a critic has left is to question how the procurement is going and whether the American Amy specs are similar to what Canada's might be. What alternatives are the U.S. looking at?

Good question but remember this is the aircraft the military want. It's nice that they are getting something they want for a change instead of being told what they want. The 130J may not be able to do everything they would like it to do but my guess is it comes closer than anything else. It is also available now. The Americans continually upgrade their military so they aren't so desperate for new equipment. They may well be able to wait a few years until Boeing or someone else comes up with a new design that fits their spec exactly. It is decades since this country has been able to write the specification of a new type. We just don't require enough so we have to buy what's available then try and tailor it to our needs. We also have a tendency to let everything wear out then panic because everything is worn out and we really need it. Like now.

Still, I agree that the government should be explaining things better.

[jdobbin]

Good question but remember this is the aircraft the military want. It's nice that they are getting something they want for a change instead of being told what they want. The 130J may not be able to do everything they would like it to do but my guess is it comes closer than anything else. It is also available now. The Americans continually upgrade their military so they aren't so desperate for new equipment. They may well be able to wait a few years until Boeing or someone else comes up with a new design that fits their spec exactly. It is decades since this country has been able to write the specification of a new type. We just don't require enough so we have to buy what's available then try and tailor it to our needs. We also have a tendency to let everything wear out then panic because everything is worn out and we really need it. Like now.

Still, I agree that the government should be explaining things better.

I'm certainly not out to tank the purchase but it is important to find out answers to questions on procurements.

I wasn't very convinced on the submarine purchase. The explanations from the Liberals and the military didn't seem to answer how the subs would meet our defence needs.

We definitely need lift planes. I just hope the Conservatives keep us informed along the way so there are no surprises later on.

[Wilber]

JCA

Could this be the competition they are talking about? I don't think we are looking for an aircraft that can only carry 25,000 lbs just 1000 NM. Particularly one that hasn't been built yet or even contracted. The Americans are after something different if this is the spec. It would seem the 130J is too large for their intended use.

[Remiel]

Back when I was comparing the stats on the three planes, the C-130 did seem to be the superior aircraft. I believe they are right when they point out the landing distance as being far superior to the other two craft, important in rough terrain.

[Wilber]

When you look at what is available it is a no brainer as far as I can see. The C-27J and C-295 that the Americans are looking at for their short range transport don't have the capability. Arctic sovereignty is an issue these days. At best these two aircraft could carry less than 15,000 lbs into Alert from the nearest Canadian forces base and be right at the limit of their range. The 130J could haul as much as 35,000 lbs from several bases. The A400M won't be in service until 2010 if everything goes to plan. God knows when we would see one in service. Airbus has no track record when it comes to military transports so don't expect things to go smoothly. The A380 is well behind schedule, Virgin has just put back their delivery dates 4 years till 2013 because of the problems it is having. Against this you have a proven aircraft that has been in service in several countries for several years and of a type with which our air force has decades of experience. What's to think about?