Oh dear: Conservatives re-assessing equipment procurement
One wonders: how long will this take?
...
The big-ticket equipment projects, many put into motion last year by the Liberal government's defence policy paper, appear to now be in limbo, defence industry and military officials privately say.
In some cases, military planners are looking at rearranging the order of the purchases. Just before the election, the Liberal government announced it would spend $5 billion on buying replacements for the air force's aging Hercules transport planes. Now officers are re-examining that and looking at the likelihood of moving ahead first with the purchase of larger long-range transport planes [C-17s], a program favoured by the Harper government...
Defence industry officials say there have been discussions on whether to scale down the project to spend $2.1 billion on a Joint Support Ship, a combination troop and supply vessel. The Liberals had wanted to buy a fleet of those ships as well as an amphibious assault ship, a project estimated to cost around $1 billion.
But one scenario that has been discussed in the Defence Department is the purchase of less expensive commercial tankers to refuel navy ships at sea. Under that scheme, the amphibious assault ship would take on some of the roles that would have been filled by the Joint Support Ship...
[New vessels in French service that might fit the amphibious assault ship bill, and we should have two; I agree with ditching the JSS.]
The Conservatives have promised to buy some of the same gear as the Liberals. But the Harper government is also committed to building a fleet of armed icebreakers as well as a deep water port in the Arctic, projects that analysts say will cost billions.
The lack of direction on procurement programs was highlighted at the recent CANSEC defence equipment show in Ottawa. There, some industry officials expressed frustration that much-needed projects were being delayed.
In particular, they pointed to the Defence Department's decision to "fast-track" the purchase of fixed-wing search-and-rescue planes. That program, to replace aging Buffalo aircraft mainly based on the West Coast, was announced with great fanfare in 2003 and was considered a priority program. But industry officials say they have seen little movement on the project...
Adjectives that always go with certain nouns: "Vote-rich" Ontario and "aging" (Canadian Air Force) aircraft.
The Conservative promise to acquire armed icebreakers for the Navy is simply silly. Our Navy has not operated an icebreaker since 1957; there would be a rather steep and terribly inefficient learning curve getting back in the business.
Moreover the promise is completely unnecessary. Our icebreakers are operated by the Canadian Coast Guard which badly needs new ones. Civilian Coast Guard vessels are perfectly capable of asserting sovereignty in northern waters. An armed Navy icebreaker would be a ridiculous vessel for attempting to deal with US, UK, Russian or French submarines (should one be mad enough to try to).
Cross-posted to Daimnation!
...
The big-ticket equipment projects, many put into motion last year by the Liberal government's defence policy paper, appear to now be in limbo, defence industry and military officials privately say.
In some cases, military planners are looking at rearranging the order of the purchases. Just before the election, the Liberal government announced it would spend $5 billion on buying replacements for the air force's aging Hercules transport planes. Now officers are re-examining that and looking at the likelihood of moving ahead first with the purchase of larger long-range transport planes [C-17s], a program favoured by the Harper government...
Defence industry officials say there have been discussions on whether to scale down the project to spend $2.1 billion on a Joint Support Ship, a combination troop and supply vessel. The Liberals had wanted to buy a fleet of those ships as well as an amphibious assault ship, a project estimated to cost around $1 billion.
But one scenario that has been discussed in the Defence Department is the purchase of less expensive commercial tankers to refuel navy ships at sea. Under that scheme, the amphibious assault ship would take on some of the roles that would have been filled by the Joint Support Ship...
[New vessels in French service that might fit the amphibious assault ship bill, and we should have two; I agree with ditching the JSS.]
The Conservatives have promised to buy some of the same gear as the Liberals. But the Harper government is also committed to building a fleet of armed icebreakers as well as a deep water port in the Arctic, projects that analysts say will cost billions.
The lack of direction on procurement programs was highlighted at the recent CANSEC defence equipment show in Ottawa. There, some industry officials expressed frustration that much-needed projects were being delayed.
In particular, they pointed to the Defence Department's decision to "fast-track" the purchase of fixed-wing search-and-rescue planes. That program, to replace aging Buffalo aircraft mainly based on the West Coast, was announced with great fanfare in 2003 and was considered a priority program. But industry officials say they have seen little movement on the project...
Adjectives that always go with certain nouns: "Vote-rich" Ontario and "aging" (Canadian Air Force) aircraft.
The Conservative promise to acquire armed icebreakers for the Navy is simply silly. Our Navy has not operated an icebreaker since 1957; there would be a rather steep and terribly inefficient learning curve getting back in the business.
Moreover the promise is completely unnecessary. Our icebreakers are operated by the Canadian Coast Guard which badly needs new ones. Civilian Coast Guard vessels are perfectly capable of asserting sovereignty in northern waters. An armed Navy icebreaker would be a ridiculous vessel for attempting to deal with US, UK, Russian or French submarines (should one be mad enough to try to).
Cross-posted to Daimnation!
posted by Mark, Ottawa at 9:31 a.m.
1 Comments:
The Conservative promise to acquire armed icebreakers for the Navy is simply silly. Our Navy has not operated an icebreaker since 1957; there would be a rather steep and terribly inefficient learning curve getting back in the business.
Yes it is silly, but not for that reason. The learning curve for an icebreaker is pretty short and bringing people in who know the job would be very easy.
The reason it's silly is because it is two dimensional defence. The navy has always maintained that they need "under ice" capability to patrol the water column. O'Connor is now at odds with the admirals who are violently opposed to the whole idea.
Our icebreakers are operated by the Canadian Coast Guard which badly needs new ones.
Yup. And, since the new government moniker for the Northwest Passage is "Inland Waters", and Canada is laying claim to them as being inside headlands, it's no longer a naval problem.
Post a Comment
<< Home