Harper to drop 15 billion in a "Christmas in June" for the military

Canmoore · 06-21-2006, 21:41 PM

CBC article here..click

On the christmas list is..

3 new Supply ships to built at a cost of 2.1 billion, to be announced in halifax, monday June 26.

New trucks for the military at a cost of 1.1 billion, to be annouced in Quebec, Tuesday June 27.

15 new Helicopters, to be announced in Edmonton on wednesday June 28, with a pricetag of 4.2 billion.

Finally, on Thursday at CFB Trenton in Ontario, Harper will announce a competition worth $4.6 billion to replace Canada's aging fleet of Hercules aircraft, some of which date back to the 1960s.

Harper will also promise to buy at least four C-17 transport planes, which are massive heavy-lift aircraft, at a cost of $3 billion.

tphuang · 06-21-2006, 23:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Canmoore

CBC article here..click

On the christmas list is..

3 new Supply ships to built at a cost of 2.1 billion, to be announced in halifax, monday June 26.

New trucks for the military at a cost of 1.1 billion, to be annouced in Quebec, Tuesday June 27.

15 new Helicopters, to be announced in Edmonton on wednesday June 28, with a pricetag of 4.2 billion.

Finally, on Thursday at CFB Trenton in Ontario, Harper will announce a competition worth $4.6 billion to replace Canada's aging fleet of Hercules aircraft, some of which date back to the 1960s.

Harper will also promise to buy at least four C-17 transport planes, which are massive heavy-lift aircraft, at a cost of $3 billion.

How much did he promise to spend prior to the election?

Canmoore · 06-21-2006, 23:48 PM

2006 election campaign promises

The Tory plan would amount to an annual $1.8 billion increase on top of projected spending by the Martin Liberals by 2010-2011. The minority Liberal government committed $12.8 billion over five years to military expansion in last February's budget.

So that's 14.6 billion.

**Officer of Engineers** · 06-21-2006, 23:54 PM

Can't see the need for C-17s. I know the Pakistani earthquake was a PR disaster but we've done well with renting AEROFLAUT and sea lift. All our air insert contigencies are being handled by the C130s.

smilingassassin · 06-22-2006, 04:25 AM

Its about damn time we got this stuff. wold the C-17's see enough use to justify their purchase? I suppose they would be usefull assets to NATO or UN commitments.

Canmoore · 06-22-2006, 19:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

Can't see the need for C-17s. I know the Pakistani earthquake was a PR disaster but we've done well with renting AEROFLAUT and sea lift. All our air insert contigencies are being handled by the C130s.

Maybe its just me...but i would rather have a self-reliant military than a penny pinching one that rents stuff, instead of buying our own.

The helicopters (presumably Chinooks, or another heavy lift chopper) will be of great value in Afghanistan.

The Brits and Americans use them for all there transportation of materials between bases...while the Canadians rely exclusively on armoured Convoys, which is much more dangerous.

Canmoore · 06-22-2006, 19:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smilingassassin

Its about damn time we got this stuff. wold the C-17's see enough use to justify their purchase? I suppose they would be usefull assets to NATO or UN commitments.

and also for domestic uses... In the remote aboriginal reserves in the north, a single C-17 can airdrop enough water and materials to last them a few months during an emergency... it could be alot cheaper than what we do now, which is airlift the entire reserve to a new destination untill the problem is fixed.

Not to mention that the military can get into the business of renting then out to other countries, that could be an option.

Whatever the uses, i live by the motto "be prepared".

**Officer of Engineers** · 06-22-2006, 20:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Canmoore

In the remote aboriginal reserves in the north, a single C-17 can airdrop enough water and materials to last them a few months

There's nothing up there that can handle a C-17.

**Officer of Engineers** · 06-22-2006, 20:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Canmoore

Maybe its just me...but i would rather have a self-reliant military than a penny pinching one that rents stuff, instead of buying our own.

We've been doing good thus far. We're not the US. Hell, only the US is the US. For everyone else, we had to rely on each other for assets that we may not have. We're not buying the HARRIER which has proven the CAS of choice (actually, availability) in Afghanistan.

It's not a matter of penny pinching. It's a matter of delivering appropriate force. Four C-17s can deliver an amoured company group. While a good initial entry force, it lacks sustainment and would need big time help real fast. If we restrict ourselves to foot infantry, then the C-130Js can deliver a full light infantry battalion into more theatres.

Ships can delivered a fully mechanized/armoured battle group much faster and cheaper than the C-17s. For the few times we may need to deliver a company group, renting is the more appropriate way to go.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Canmoore

The helicopters (presumably Chinooks, or another heavy lift chopper) will be of great value in Afghanistan.

More so for the ANA than for us. We can relieve them much faster when the crap hits the fan. The down side to this is that we're exposing our guys without the armour support that mech infantry is tasked with.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Canmoore

The Brits and Americans use them for all there transportation of materials between bases...while the Canadians rely exclusively on armoured Convoys, which is much more dangerous.

The other side of that is that we owned the roads and deny the roads to the Taliban. And we deliver a far more superior force than one that is air inserted.

**Officer of Engineers** · 06-22-2006, 21:08 PM

And with deals like these

Quote:

Ottawa Citizen

Toronto firm offers $42M-a-year airlift option: Forces can lease planes built in Russia rather than buy, company says

A Toronto-based commercial aviation company says it can meet all the Canadian Forces long-range transport needs for $42 million a year, instead of the $4 billion the Harper government plans to spend on a new fleet of large American-built military transports.

Skylink Aviation Inc., which charters commercial aircraft and already handles the Forces' strategic airlift needs, sent a proposal yesterday to Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor offering to lease any combination of several large Russian-built transports, and base them in Canada.

The planes would be available to the Forces 24 hours a day, seven days a week "on standby exclusive to DND," says a copy of the Skylink proposal, obtained by CanWest News Service.

The Conservatives are expected to announce tomorrow the purchase of four C-17 Globemaster transports, built by Boeing, the American company. The $4-billion purchase has been dogged by controversy because other companies won't be allowed to bid on it, which critics say will result in a bad deal for Canadian taxpayers.

Boeing's main European rival, the consortium EADS, has already taken the unusual step of going public with an unsolicited $2-billion bid for the airlift contract because it says it was getting the cold shoulder from the government.

Skylink has offered three different long-range transports, the two most relevant being the IL-76 Ilyushin, the Russian-built equivalent of the C-17, and the Antonov AN-124, which is one of the world's largest planes.

Skylink offers to base two of each aircraft permanently at CFB Trenton, where they would be at the exclusive disposal of the Forces on short notice.

Based on 400 hours of yearly flying time for each of the four aircraft, Skylink says the two Ilyushins would cost the government about $12 million a year, while the two Antonovs would cost about $30 million.

The C-17s are one of several large military purchases the Tories are expected to announce this week.

A small fleet of heavy-lift, twin-rotor Chinook helicopters is also being earmarked for Forces troops in Afghanistan. The helicopters are the top priority for Gen. Rick Hillier, chief of the defence staff, because of the continuing threat of roadside bombs to Canadian troops in Afghanistan.

Six Canadian soldiers were injured in a roadside bomb explosion and an attack by a suicide bomber in Afghanistan yesterday, prompting Forces spokesman Maj. Mario Couture -- a former aide to Gen. Hillier -- to say: "If you are going to carry troops into zones of operation, the Chinook might be the best tool that you can have."

A senior Canadian official for Boeing said this week that his company is talking to the government about a rush delivery of a new generation of Chinooks to the Forces.

Al DeQuetteville, vice-president of Boeing's Canadian operation, said Boeing's assembly line is already rolling out another 450 Chinooks for the Pentagon and other allies.

"There's a tremendous opportunity here, for a country like Canada to get involved. It's given us the opportunity to offer a price on the Chinooks that is extremely attractive," he said.

Gen. Hillier said yesterday that he has looked at the helicopters already owned by the Forces, including the aging Sea King, but none is suitable for the Afghanistan mission.

He stopped short yesterday of giving his blessing to the possible purchase of the C-17s, leaving open the possibility that the Forces could still lease strategic lift from a variety of sources.

"We are going to use strategic airlift, whether you rent it, whether you lease it, whether you buy it -- and balance that against doing something else," Gen. Hillier said.

Tronic · 06-22-2006, 21:28 PM

just curious... why does NATO still exist???

**Officer of Engineers** · 06-22-2006, 21:43 PM

11 September

Canmoore · 06-22-2006, 22:10 PM

The other side of that is that we owned the roads and deny the roads to the Taliban. And we deliver a far more superior force than one that is air inserted.

yeah i never thought of it that way.

But would it not be easier for the troops to concentrate on enforcing presence by patrolling the routes, instead of protecting a giant target that a convoy presents? and let the Choppers worry about transportation of materials?

**Officer of Engineers** · 06-22-2006, 22:16 PM

We do patrol and convoys are a show of force in challenging anyone to stop us. In other words, we're asking for a fight instead of looking for one which patrols are. It has an effect on the locals to see the Taliban chickening out.

Yes, there is a danger but we're asking for it.

canoe · 06-22-2006, 23:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

We do patrol and convoys are a show of force in challenging anyone to stop us. In other words, we're asking for a fight instead of looking for one which patrols are. It has an effect on the locals to see the Taliban chickening out.

Yes, there is a danger but we're asking for it.

I still like the concept of having the Chinooks for critical supplies, medivacs and to rapidly bring in reinforcements or evac troops if one of our convoys does get hit.

Having no air capability at all sucks imo, and helos are one area I'd really prefer Canada was self sufficent.

06-21-2006, 21:41 PM	#1 (permalink)
Canmoore *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 05-18-06 Location: Canada Posts: 1,341 Country:	Harper to drop 15 billion in a "Christmas in June" for the military CBC article here..click On the christmas list is.. 3 new Supply ships to built at a cost of 2.1 billion, to be announced in halifax, monday June 26. New trucks for the military at a cost of 1.1 billion, to be annouced in Quebec, Tuesday June 27. 15 new Helicopters, to be announced in Edmonton on wednesday June 28, with a pricetag of 4.2 billion. Finally, on Thursday at CFB Trenton in Ontario, Harper will announce a competition worth $4.6 billion to replace Canada's aging fleet of Hercules aircraft, some of which date back to the 1960s. Harper will also promise to buy at least four C-17 transport planes, which are massive heavy-lift aircraft, at a cost of $3 billion.

06-21-2006, 23:54 PM	#4 (permalink)
Officer of Engineers *Military Professional* Moderator Scotch taster Join Date: 08-06-03 Posts: 16,553 Country:	Can't see the need for C-17s. I know the Pakistani earthquake was a PR disaster but we've done well with renting AEROFLAUT and sea lift. All our air insert contigencies are being handled by the C130s. __________________ Chimo

06-22-2006, 21:28 PM	#11 (permalink)
Tronic Navajo Code Talker *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 12-27-04 Location: Patiala, India Posts: 5,361 Country:	just curious... why does NATO still exist??? __________________ *Nabha Sparasham Deeptam* *-Touch The Sky With Glory*

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Pakistan Economy	Neo	Political Discussions	3653	11-06-2007 10:30 AM
Interview with PLAAF LGen Liu Yazhou	Officer of Engineers	The Field Mess	34	05-10-2007 15:44 PM
Journos don't know stats! and the "de-politicization" of the military	Shek	Political Discussions	5	01-05-2007 23:46 PM
Articles and links for the Military Professional	Officer of Engineers	The Staff College	115	11-20-2006 11:28 AM
Bangladesh plays the China card	Ray	South Asian Defense Topics	136	10-17-2005 10:14 AM

06-21-2006, 23:48 PM	#3 (permalink)
Canmoore *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 05-18-06 Location: Canada Posts: 1,341 Country:	2006 election campaign promises The Tory plan would amount to an annual $1.8 billion increase on top of projected spending by the Martin Liberals by 2010-2011. The minority Liberal government committed $12.8 billion over five years to military expansion in last February's budget. So that's 14.6 billion.

06-22-2006, 04:25 AM	#5 (permalink)
smilingassassin *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 12-12-03 Location: Vancouver Canada Posts: 2,736 Country:	Its about damn time we got this stuff. wold the C-17's see enough use to justify their purchase? I suppose they would be usefull assets to NATO or UN commitments.

06-22-2006, 21:43 PM	#12 (permalink)
Officer of Engineers *Military Professional* Moderator Scotch taster Join Date: 08-06-03 Posts: 16,553 Country:	11 September

06-22-2006, 22:10 PM	#13 (permalink)
Canmoore *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 05-18-06 Location: Canada Posts: 1,341 Country:	The other side of that is that we owned the roads and deny the roads to the Taliban. And we deliver a far more superior force than one that is air inserted. yeah i never thought of it that way. But would it not be easier for the troops to concentrate on enforcing presence by patrolling the routes, instead of protecting a giant target that a convoy presents? and let the Choppers worry about transportation of materials?

06-22-2006, 22:16 PM	#14 (permalink)
Officer of Engineers *Military Professional* Moderator Scotch taster Join Date: 08-06-03 Posts: 16,553 Country:	We do patrol and convoys are a show of force in challenging anyone to stop us. In other words, we're asking for a fight instead of looking for one which patrols are. It has an effect on the locals to see the Taliban chickening out. Yes, there is a danger but we're asking for it.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)