Military procurement: Here's really hoping

If these proposals go through the Canadian Forces will finally start getting a lot of the kit they desperately need. The $15 billion (life-cycle) cost is nothing to get excited about; last November Liberal Minister of National Defence Bill Graham put forward a $12.1 billion procurement plan. That failed to fly and was replaced by a $4.6 billion plan for a Hercules replacement.

With Canada's military stretched thin in its largest overseas combat deployment since the Korean War, Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor has approached Cabinet with a $15-billion wish list for badly-needed equipment...

...the military is asking for:

· More than a dozen new Lockheed-Martin Hercules short-haul tactical aircraft;

· Up to five Boeing C-17 Globe Masters -- long-haul strategic transport planes currently being used by the U.S. military;

· Two naval supply ships, to replace vessels that have been in service for 40 years; and

· Boeing-built heavy-lift Chinook helicopters -- a staple of the U.S. and British armies...

But while Cabinet isn't likely to turn down the requests from two generals, it isn't quite a done deal...

The main differences from the big November 2005 proposal are the addition of the C-17s and supply ships, and the deletion of a fixed-wing search and rescue aircraft replacement.

The Navy has been asking for three joint supply ships (JSS) with a much wider range of capabilities than the two aging auxiliary oiler replenishment (AOR) ships they are to replace, plus an amphibious ship.

Now the amphibious ship is rather like the "hybrid" aircraft carriers proposed by the Conservatives in the 2004 election--a proposal that the Liberals attacked mercilessly and maliciously. I wonder if the fact that only two supply ships are mentioned is a hint that these may be much more bare-bones than the JSS, that is just better AORs.

That might free up money down the road for the amphibious ship (ships?). The Dutch have a nifty example but there are several other possible sources (France, UK, US, Spain and Italy).

Of course Airbus is bleating hard.

Meanwhile, French plane manufacturer Airbus has issued a plea to the Tory government to ensure that a fair, competitive process is in place when it makes its multi-billion dollar purchase for long-range military transports.

Richard Thompson, commercial director of Airbus Military, told reporters in Ottawa Thursday that a contract with Boeing would cost almost twice as much as a comparable one with his company.

Instead of buying two separate fleets, said Thompson, Canada would satisfy most of its tactical and strategic airlift requirements and save up to $2 billion with the A400M -- a four-engine turboprop military airlifter...

And Airbus is lobbying furiously. And promising jobs for Quebec.

The A400M has not flown yet and it will have an all-new engine (PWC should have won the competition for this on merit but the Euros gave it to a Euro consortium--why should we reward this behaviour?). In any case the A400M simply does not have the trans-oceanic range and payload to be a good strategic lifter for Canada. Airbus has said first delivery to Canada would be in 2011 but it's unlikely that date could be met (denial from Airbus here). And the Hercules replacement in needed urgently.