Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next

Every gov't does the same, whether its farm subsidies, tax incentives, or just charging a very low rate on cutting lumber.

   

Few countries besides the US could ever fund and justify building a C17 type aircraft.

The largest economies in Europe are building the A400M. An aircraft that has been in development since I was in the RAF. I've been out 17 years now. It's still not flying, the C17 is.

Buying the C17 means we get the best aircraft of it's type in the world, without massive subsidies going to companies such as Bombardier. A better use of taxpayers money I believe.

   

Wait a minute, you'd be against a Canadian manufacturer building one or the other under licenese? Didn't you just say,



and this,




So in your world it's only good if we give money to American manufacturers who spend 40% in our market instead of a CANADIAN company who will spend MOST, if not all of it here, employing CANADIANS...

   

That's what I was trying to figure out... thanks Boot.

   

Sometimes decisions need to be made that are in the best interests of the operational ability of the military as opposed to the usual pork-barreling and waiting decades for a bit of kit so it can be made in Canada.
It didn't help the DART team to deploy, waiting for a 'made in Canada' solution.
Now at last we have true strategic airlift.

We could have waited the 17 years the A400M has been on the drawing board so we ensure proper Canadian content that would please the unions and is a pure political decision, or we could buy the stuff our boys need right now.

Our government chose the latter and now we can support our military without renting antonovs.

   

You know ridenrain, you still haven't answered my question...

   

Why don't we just assign the military a budget of X dollars to spend on new equipment and let them decide what equipment they need and how much of it they need?

Lets minimize the political considerations.

They will know how much they have right from the get go and can decide for themselves where to draw the line between affordability and effectiveness.

they will get exactly the equipment they want.

Seems reasonable enough right?

Scape? Bootlegga? Bart? Eyebrock? Arctic?

pros/cons as you see them?

   

I am totally pro-that. If I was Prime Minster, I'd assign a budget that could be expanded, etc. over time and according to need. Hillier would come to my Defence Minister with a list. He gives it to me, and I go shopping.

I think the upper echelons of the Canadian Military are fully aware of what they want, how much of what they want, and which things they want to get first.

   

Sounds great but will never happen. All governments, in every country, play politics when it comes to military hardware. Boosting local economy is a far more important aspect for government than getting the best AVAILABLE kit. If you can come up with a way to persuade whoever is the ruling party to implement this I would nominate you for the position of PM!

   

If we bought the Russian or EU planes we wouldn't be setting up Russian or EU companies in Canada to maintain them we would be using domestic. Boing has domestic but only 40%. I agree with the purchase but the maintenance should be 100% in Canada to service the armed forces simply on a matter of security if nothing else.

   

Oh, I never said I wanted or thought we should buy the A400M. I just find it hypocritical for RR to say in one breath that we shouldn't buy from a 'foreign' manufacturer when Boeing (a foreign manufacturer) will spend 40% of the cost here in Canada. Building something under license here would mean way more than 40% would be spent in Canada.

To me, the chioce was always between the An-124-100 and the C-17. Based on capabilities, cost, etc, I thought the Antonov was the better buy. We could have have 12 of them for the price of 4 C-17s. Need spare parts? Buy 8 or 10 and spend the rest on spares. Then we'd have warehouses full of spare parts and more planes that are more capable.

   

It does sound like the kind of sensible wishful thinking that never seems to filter up to the boys on the top.

The gov't has a former military defence advisor for that very purpose.

The realy question is if such a method were implemented what kind of infighting would we see between the branches and various units?

   

Make decisions purely on need as opposed to political expediency?

You mean get the best bit of kit we can to send our young people to war with instead of catering to party politics?

What ever next?

   

I'm betting the fighting would make Parliament look like a tea party!

   

Boots, the antonov is a piece of crap compared to the C17. It is antiquated technology that is far superceded by the nearly 40 year old C5 which it is more comparable to than the C17. I've been on a 124. It is not a pretty sight inside.

The C17 is a strat aircraft with tac capabilities.
It can use our existing airfield infrastructure.
It's about the same size as the pretty grey airbus's we already have.

The An124 is HUGE and can only lift 25% more payload, needs a longer runway, has a shorter payload to range factor and is notoriously unreliable.
We would have to spend a lot more money at Trenton to be able to handle four of those aircraft. Plus existing handling equipment, power sets etc would not be compatable. Our techs are used to US technology, engine design, avionics, cargo systems etc.
What you save in the intial purchase would have to spent on adapting our military to service a Soviet era lumbering giant.

We should remember it is made by the Russians who are increasingly becoming more anti-western orientated everyday.

This decision to buy the C17 is applauded by 100% of the military. Don't you think our guys deserve the best equipment or should we keep procurement at the level that got us four second hand British subs? Or CF18's that cost 30% to produce than the US version? Or an Iltis that cost 40% more than it's German version just because it was built in Quebec?

   

Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next