Helicopters and UAVs are still not "on order"
David Pugliese of the Ottawa Citizen explains how the government may speed up acquisition:
A Boeing representative has already commented on fast-tracking the Chinooks:
Also, if we buy US versions our aircrew could be rapidly trained on them in the US (as is being done with our C-17s) and perhaps they could initially be serviced and maintained by US personnel in Afstan. That would allow fairly rapid deployment while Canadian groundcrew were trained and a supply/maintenance system set up. Though such a rapid capability creation would surely have disruptive effects on Griffin and Cormorant squadrons.
And would we eventually upgrade these Chinooks with the extra capabilites our military wants? Or try just to lease them for eventual return?
Update More background from a Canwest News story by Mr Pugliese and Mike Blanchfield:
The Canadian Forces will lease unmanned aerial vehicles for the Afghanistan mission and is in discussions with the U.S. government for early delivery of Chinook helicopters.The article goes on to outline the many difficulties in leasing UAVs.
The two initiatives were quietly under way before the Manley report detailed them last week as a condition for continuation of the Afghan mission. Such equipment is seen by military leaders as vital in reducing the number of Canadian casualties, particularly from roadside bombs.
Details of the lease of long-range tactical UAVs to replace the existing Sperwer drones in Afghanistan is expected to be released to the defence industry in a month or so, according to industry officials.
Attempts to convince the U.S. military to divert some of its own order of Chinook helicopters for immediate Canadian use is ongoing and Canadian defence officials want to take their case for that right up to U.S. Defence Secretary Robert Gates.
The demand for Chinooks from the U.S. military and allied nations is high and the Boeing assembly line is producing the choppers as fast as it can. The largest order is for more than 450 Chinooks for the U.S. army, which has priority over other nations.
The Harper government announced in the summer of 2006 that it would purchase 16 Chinooks, but discussions for that helicopter deal have dragged on and a contract has yet to be signed. Even when it is signed later this year, delivery of the helicopters isn't expected until around 2011.
Last year, the air force recommended the purchase of the Predator unmanned aerial vehicle for use in Afghanistan, but members of the Harper cabinet derailed that proposal, citing concerns that yet another large-scale defence contract would be awarded to a U.S. firm [the concern appears not to have been the US firm per se but the fact that more sole-sourcing would have been controversial - MC]). Because of that, Canadian air force officials have now come up with a plan to lease UAVs for Kandahar...
A Boeing representative has already commented on fast-tracking the Chinooks:
Canada could...negotiate with Washington to snag some CH-47 Chinooks off the production line where they are now being made for the United States army, said Mark Kronenberg, vice-president of international business development for Boeing's defence business.These clearly would be US-spec aircraft. That would mean giving up special "Canadianization" requirements that seem to have been a major factor in delaying our contract, along with the distribution of regional benefits.
"There's going to have to be some government-to-government discussions. ... It's always in the realm of the doable when governments get together," he said in an interview.
Ottawa did a similar deal with Washington that allowed Canada's air force to take quick delivery of C-17 transport jets last year...
Also, if we buy US versions our aircrew could be rapidly trained on them in the US (as is being done with our C-17s) and perhaps they could initially be serviced and maintained by US personnel in Afstan. That would allow fairly rapid deployment while Canadian groundcrew were trained and a supply/maintenance system set up. Though such a rapid capability creation would surely have disruptive effects on Griffin and Cormorant squadrons.
And would we eventually upgrade these Chinooks with the extra capabilites our military wants? Or try just to lease them for eventual return?
Update More background from a Canwest News story by Mr Pugliese and Mike Blanchfield:
In recent weeks, the federal government has approached European allies and major U.S. manufacturers for four to six aircraft, on a lease or loan basis, but has had no luck.Update: A comment at Milnet.ca explains the personnel and technical difficulties in getting any Canadian Chinooks rapidly operational.
The government plans later this year to award a sole-sourced contract for 16 new CH-47 Chinook helicopters to the U.S. defence contractor Boeing, but because the first of those helicopters is not due to arrive until 2011, the military wants a temporary solution to the lack of air support in order to lessen the exposure of Canadian troops to deadly roadside bombs...
Now there is growing frustration within Defence Department headquarters over the delay in getting helicopters. Many are second-guessing a decision two years ago to pass on buying second-hand U.S. army Chinooks, while others are growing increasingly frustrated with the air force's position to hold out for the new fleet of customized Chinooks, instead of trying to find less deluxe versions that could be retrofitted for the battlefield in the coming year.
"They are looking into options," said a senior defence industry insider. "To accelerate the Chinooks or [by] going to other manufacturers to see what they have available or what can be made available."
Late last year, the government asked Germany if it could lend Canada four of its CH-53 transports. Germany was unable to do without any of the 18 specially retrofitted aircraft it currently rotates through Afghanistan because they are already being heavily used.
Germany offered less deluxe CH-53s that Canada could have had retrofitted with special filters to cope with southern Afghanistan's dusty climate as well as other features to protect the choppers from ground fire.
Upgrading the helicopters for Afghanistan could take anywhere from several months to a year.
Canada also approached Sikorsky Aircraft, the American company that makes the CH-53, but was told every aircraft the company has produced is now being used.
Some Defence Department insiders say the best option for getting a few new helicopters within the next year is to persuade Boeing to allow Canada to jump the queue on its current busy assembly line...
A Defence Department source blamed delays on the air force's desire to get a highly customized new fleet of the CH-47, instead of settling for a few "bare bones" versions of the helicopters in the short term.
"With the right amount of high-level political and military representation in Washington, we should be able to secure four to six airframes initially. Given that the Americans want us to stay in the south, they should be persuaded that giving up a few slots in the production line is a small price to pay to keep an important and trusted ally in the game," said the source...
14 Comments:
CH-53 are excellent aircraft but we would have to wet lease them to make it worthwhile - it would take a long time to get flight and ground crews up to qualification speed. Would the Germans let their crews flay after dark ??
Still feel the best bet is to go after a few of the hundreds of medium lift helicopters available in Europe from our Allies.
Or maybe we should have acquired a couple of squadrons of Blackhawks quickly instead of waiting for the perfect solution of the 47's.
High utility aircraft and while not perfect would cover a lot of lift req's in Afghanistan.
Good enough for the US Amry, could be "good enough" for us
Mark, have you seen this?
Raphael: No, and I will defer to the comments at the link except to say that the vehicle itself looks rather IED-vulnerable. Great photo. Just needs a robot at the wheel.
Mark
Ottawa
From the David Pugliese article:
Other aerospace executives said their companies won't be bidding because leasing UAVs in a combat zone is not a practical solution.
For info, the Australian Army has a contract with Boeing Australia for leased Scan Eagle UAVs:
http://www.defence.gov.au/opcatalyst/images/gallery/20070820/index.htm
http://www.defence.gov.au/opcatalyst/images/gallery/20061222/index.htm
So I guess it can be done if the will, and perhaps the budget, is there.
Further on that from a press release I just found:
BRISBANE, AUSTRALIA, Sept. 25, 2007 -- Boeing Australia Limited and Insitu, Inc., today announced that the ScanEagle unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) has provided 5,000 hours of eye-in-the-sky surveillance and reconnaissance services to Australian Army forces in Afghanistan and Iraq.
"By working together as trusted partners with a common purpose, the Australian Defence Force (ADF), Boeing Australia Limited and Insitu Inc., are delivering life-saving services to Australian soldiers who are on-the-ground risking their lives," said David Withers, president of Boeing Australia Limited. "It is has been extremely rewarding for Boeing to play a key role in establishing the highly-utilised ScanEagle UAV asset as a critical component of the Australian Army's overseas force protection operations." ...
Mark, "rather IED-vulnerable" may count as the understatement of the year.
Can you imagine that thing trying to move at speed? It's centre of gravity is so buggered that if you tried to turn it quickly (like if someone were, say, shooting at you and you wanted to, say, leave) it would flip.
I guess industrial offsets are much more important to Liberals than Canadian soldiers lives. Heaven forbid a sole-source contract be signed! It makes me sick that domestic politics has degraded this far that the 'right thing to do' has to defer to optics.
When the E.U. can deliver an off the shelf medium helicopter as capable as the CH-47, please let us know! Same goes for a tactical air-lifter. UAV? The Predator is also an off the shelf, proven unit. It can observe and defeat an identified foe. Are we at war or not? Can you imagine the debate in 1942, with the defense department debating the merits of sonar on our Corvettes?....." Gee, it doesn't seen very fair that we have this technological advantage over our enemy......maybe we should delay aquiring this device' ????????
The best way to shorten a war is to defeat the enemy as fast as possible. Let his casualties seem more than is acceptable and he will soon quit the fight. Overwhelming firepower is what won Gulf War 1.....and 2.
The best tools available..... this silly concept of 'Caddilac' this or that is simply deflecting the issue. Are our soldiers worth so little that we can't fast-track the tools they need or not?....there is no grey area here....zero!
Predators and Chinooks...and add a dash of F22's to add spice.....show no mercy and break their will to fight. You don't bring a knife to a gun-fight
I guess industrial offsets are much more important to Liberals than Canadian soldiers lives. Heaven forbid a sole-source contract be signed! It makes me sick that domestic politics has degraded this far that the 'right thing to do' has to defer to optics.
When the E.U. can deliver an off the shelf medium helicopter as capable as the CH-47, please let us know! Same goes for a tactical air-lifter. UAV? The Predator is also an off the shelf, proven unit. It can observe and defeat an identified foe. Are we at war or not? Can you imagine the debate in 1942, with the defense department debating the merits of sonar on our Corvettes?....." Gee, it doesn't seen very fair that we have this technological advantage over our enemy......maybe we should delay aquiring this device' ????????
The best way to shorten a war is to defeat the enemy as fast as possible. Let his casualties seem more than is acceptable and he will soon quit the fight. Overwhelming firepower is what won Gulf War 1.....and 2.
The best tools available..... this silly concept of 'Caddilac' this or that is simply deflecting the issue. Are our soldiers worth so little that we can't fast-track the tools they need or not?....there is no grey area here....zero!
Predators and Chinooks...and add a dash of F22's to add spice.....show no mercy and break their will to fight. You don't bring a knife to a gun-fight
arctic_front: The government involved in the current helicopter acquisition mess is not Liberal but Conservative. Think, man. And find the money for F-22s, much less F-35s.
Mark
Ottawa
"F-35s, much less F-22s".
Mark
Ottawa
Mark, another one called a MDARS-E [Mobile Detection Assessment and Response System - Exterior] is a UAV which can track movement. Just thought I'd continue to pass interesting links along.
Sorry, don't know why I wrote UAV. It's an unmanned vehicle. It doesn't fly, of course.
Raphael Alexander: Politically correct Canadians prefer the term "Uninhabited Vehicle".
Who would want to live in one? Sigh.
Mark
Ottawa
Mark:
It really doesn't matter who is running the show....politics are influencing the choices being made. I simply mentioned the liberals because they will howl with indignation everytime the Conservatives make a military equipment purchase. The Conservatives are bound to concerning themselves with 'optics' to avoid the liberal(NDP) howls. I know, as well as you, that we'd have already inked deals if it were not for the optics and other petty political considerations. And to be fair, the liberals are not to be blamed singularly. When in opposition, the conservatives made loud noises too. Bottom line is what tools are needed? and how soon can we get them? That should transcend partisan bickering.
Also, Mark......
I heard a rumour that the CAF spent 15 million dollars?( pick an outragious sum ) testing helmets to fit 'Canadian' heads! All this smoke and mirrors cuts into a badly needed and too small of a budget to aquire and field the tools and equipment our soldiers have to have NOW. I know Mulroney sold our CH-47's in the 80's....sad to be sure. But 20 years since then has gotten us nowhere.
The shopping list is long, the dollars big. But you can't keep letting petty politics get in the way of major defence procurement. F22's ( F-35's).....exspensive.....but pretty much inevitable.... F-18's won't last forever. Who has the 20 billion budgeted for them in the next 10 years?.... who has the billions for new ships budgeted? NOBODY. The CAF has to have this stuff.....there is no means to ear-mark these huge funds as non-discretionary, and outside control ( cancellation) of the 'current' or 'future' governments in power. The CAf will always get short-shrift because they can only count on at maximum a 4-yr. term and commitment from any government.
I propose a 'law' that states: CAF is provided a fixed-funding deal of 2% GDP for regular operations as required, and a further FIXED aquisition and procurement budget of an additional 1% GDP until 2020. That should keep the current governments as they may change from week to week from messing around with the CAF budget. It would allow them to up-grade and modernize ships, patrol planes, helicopters, jets, tanks and UAV's.
Dreaming?...ya, I know....but wouldn't it be nice to wake up one day and know that our CAF's were truly looked after like they should be? No political interference in procurement....no delays and games. Just buying the best stuff for the guys and gals we ask to do the heavy-lifting.
Post a Comment
<< Home