Squeaky wheels and greased ones

I had a chat with a fellow who knows something about DND procurement yesterday evening about the C-130J procurement issues Mark raised in this post. He said there were a few factors at work here (in no particular order, and with my editorializing):

• The C-17 purchase was the priority for the government (although not necessarily for the CF - Hillier's desire for a tactical transport replacement is well-known and on-the-record), and we simply don't have enough people who can put together complex aircraft acquisitions to do all of them quickly at the same time.


• Other than political optics, there was a good reason for that priority: there was an opportunity to jump right into the production line if we could move our bureaucratic back-ends quickly enough - which we did.


• The C-17 project bought into the American servicing arrangements, whereas the C-130J 20yr in-service support is being cobbled together in Canada specifically for our fleet, which takes time.


• According to my contact, the Globemaster and Jerc procurements aren't all that far off each other in terms of timelines (like maybe six months), other than for delivery, which we can't control. Not that I don't believe him, but I've asked to see timelines for the two projects so I can do a side-by-side comparison: it's the closet Missourian in me.


• Apparently, the tough part of the C-130J procurement is done now - that is, the requirements have been set out in detail - and we'll see the benefits of using the SOIQ process in a quicker process from here on in. I'm not sure I understand that argument. If we were certain enough of our requirements to use the SOIQ process and narrow the purchase down to one competitor so early in the process, shouldn't it have been relatively easy to dot the i's and cross the t's after that?

I also wonder if this government requirement has caused any foot-dragging:

Delivery date of the first aircraft to be no later than 36 months after contract award and final aircraft delivery no later than 60 months after contract award.

If there was no way we were going to be able to get an airframe earlier than 2010, then there was no reason to hurry with the contract, now was there?

Speaking of 2010, I found this snippet in the DND backgrounder of interest:

Canada’s Hercules fleet has logged more flying hours in total than any other military Hercules fleet in the world. Three aircraft have been taken out of active service and it is estimated that up to 14 may be grounded earlier than their planned estimated life expectancy of 2010 because of accumulated fatigue. In the absence of a replacement program, the retirement of these aircraft would have a significant negative impact on the Canadian Forces’ ability to fulfil domestic missions and support overseas operations. Without addressing the need to revitalize the Canadian Forces’ airlift capabilities, departmental analysis has shown that by 2010 the residual capacity of the Hercules fleet will be engaged in the top priority fixed-wing search and rescue role, to the extent that the Canadian Forces’ capacity to provide tactical airlift support to operations would almost be eliminated.

That timeline seems to be cutting things quite close, if our fleet is going to be falling out of the air in 2010, and we won't be getting new tails until that same year. At best, it leaves no room for delays.

Unless the projections didn't take into account the C-17 purchase, that is. Because it makes sense that the Globemaster purchase should take operational pressure off the Hercules fleet, and hopefully prolong their lifespans accordingly. I've also asked about that.

The perception is that the tactical transport procurement is crawling, while the strategic transport one sped along. I'm not sure what the reality is. As one online news source says... "Developing..."

Oh, and for no particular reason other than that I like the photo, here's our first C-17 being flight tested by Boeing at the end of July.