You can trust the CAW to go after your money, regardless of realities:
Defence Watch Editor’s note: Another point of view in the JSF debate [more here from me].
By Roland Kiehne
President
CAW Local 112 (Bombardier)On a hot summer day in the middle of July at a time when parliament is not sitting and with many Canadians enjoying vacation time with family, Department of National Defense Minister Peter McKay announces that the Federal government will spend upwards of $16 billion of taxpayers money on F-35 fighter jets…
With that said, Canadians must ask why the government would move forward with the purchase of foreign-built fighter jets at a time when, in the foreseeable future, no concrete need exists.
What makes more sense is for the government to blow the dust off the fixed-wing search & rescue file & purchase the Canadian-built Dash 8 Q400 proven for these types of missions. Bombardier’s Q-series/ Dash 8 has been modified for use as a maritime patrol and search aircraft, and serves with similar organizations like Australia’s Coastwatch.
This project is worth about $3-billion, including the maintenance of the aircraft over 20 years.
Most Canadians will agree that the purchase of aircraft that will be put to good use at home makes better sense than those purchased at a much higher price tag that, for the most part, will only been seen flying at air shows [and screw you too, Mr Kiehne].
As I wrote earlier about this pressure for jobs regardless of the aircraft’s job :
…
Michael Byers writes that “Canada’s most desperate procurement need is for fixed-wing search-and-rescue aircraft that could be built in Canada by Bombardier.” While a new aircraft of that sort is certainly required by the air force, Bombardier is not the company to build it. Such planes require a rear ramp for the rapid and accurate release of rescue materiel and personnel. Unfortunately the only aircraft Bombardier might offer for the role is an adapted version of its Q Series turboprop airliner–which has no rear ramp and cannot be fitted with one.
Professor Byers goes on “…opportunities for Canadian industry would be created by sourcing search-and-rescue planes here.” A major thrust of his piece is to argue against the sole-sourcing on our military aircraft, yet here he sees to be advocating it. Does he not want a fair competition that Bombardier would be free to enter. What gives? [more on who the good Prof. really is here]..
Other countries have indeed bought the Bombardier for maritime patrol–but search and rescue is a small part of that mission. Our SAR aircraft on the other hand have search and rescue as their primary role, perform many of their missions over land, and require different capabilities. Mr Kiehne is being less than forthcoming.
Here’s a March 2010 CF Backgrounder on fixed-wing SAR. And here are the details on the aircraft for Australia’s Coastwatch–see any mention of search and rescue? Their main mission is sophisticated surveillance, i.e. patrol.
Update: Lots more from Defense Industry Daily:
Rescue Required: Canada’s Search-And-Rescue Aircraft Program
Upperdate thought: There’s another factor, which the Air Force does not like to mention. Most of our fixed-wing SAR planes are older Hercs that do double duty as transports, see the squadrons here, here, and here. The old Hercs will be gradually retired as the new C-130Js come into service; but the total number of Hercs will end up about one half what it once was (the fleet was 32 aircraft, E and H models, we are only buying 17 Jercs). So the the Air Force would like the new SAR aircraft–fifteen are planned, they will also replace six very old Buffalos based in B.C.–also to be capable military transports. Which the Bombardier Q Series, with a narrow fuselage and no ramp, can never be.
Uppestdate thought: The Air Force’s fleet of Aurora maritime patrol aircraft is being reduced from 18 to 10. Those aircraft also do considerable non-military work. To reduce such demands on them why not expand and centralize the government’s current fleet of civilian maritime patrol aircraft, mainly used for pollution detection and fisheries enforcement? As far as I can determine there are seven planes, three Bombardiers owned and operated by Transport Canada, and three King Airs leased by Fisheries and Oceans.
Surely a few more such aircraft would be very helpful for general maritime surveillance, including such roles as law enforcement, migrant detection, vessel identification, and sovereignty patrols in the Arctic. Transport Canada could well operate such a fleet on behalf of Fisheries and Oceans, Canadian Coast Guard, Environment Canada, CBSA/RCMP, CF as required, and others.
A contract actually worth giving to Bombardier! After a suitable competition of course.
Mark
Ottawa
“Canadian-built Dash 8 Q400 proven for these types of missions. ”
Gawd there stupid . . and liars. Imagine using Chief Dorkus Byers as an expert on anything military.
Byers is out of his depth in a parking lot puddle on a hot summer day.
Where’s the ramp & the jump door the SAR Techs need? Maritime coastal patrol is NOT SAR.
Unions . . . not just greedy, but stupid as well.
Many older Canadians will remember a hot July in 1939 when no one was concerned about procuring better equipment as well….how did that turn out?
Canada went to war unprepared in 1939; after all, we had fought ‘the war to end all wars’ and to borrow a more modern term, we were spending our peace dividend and fashioning our swords into plow shears.
On the eve of war In July 1939, Canada had a minuscule professional army, a proud but woefully ill equipped( and aged) reserve force, no navy to speak of and machine guns -for an entire national army- that numbered in the dozens – the dozens!
Canada’s navy was less than 30 year old and had virtually no blue water projection capability; indeed it would fight the bulk of the battle of the Atlantic in corvettes, converted whalers meant for inter coastal waters.
Canada’s air force was comprised of aging biplanes, no fighter capability to speak of ( that wasn’t two generations in technology behind) and no transport ( sound familiar?)
It was only through bitter trial and error in combat that Canada fashioned a semblance of a professional armed forces and even then that was well into the third year of the war.
We Canadians need to provide the best equipment for our men and women in uniform and we certainly need take no lessons from partisan union leaders.
Mark, I have heard and believe the plan is to keep the 13 H models and use them for SAR and refueling missions for the Hornets. I did a quick check and I am posting a link to a Maple Leaf article.
http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/commun/ml-fe/article-eng.asp?id=6251
Kursk, I agree with your argument but I would point out that the Libs were trying to upgrade the Canadian Army, Navy and Airforce prior to 1939. It had become apparent after 1936 that the world had become a more dangerous place and that Canada needed a more capable military. Unfortunately, Canada had little ability to produce its own weapons and Briton and the USA were rebuilding their own militaries and had little to spare for Canada.
This is a valuable lesson to Canada. What we have now is what we will fight with. Even our Reserve force is not equipped with the tools it would need to fight as it is assumed it would fill out the Reg force (as it has done in Afghanistan) and use their equipment.
Rearming and building the three services should be a top priority because like 1936, the world is more dangerous than ever before and if we need to fight we do not have the ability to buy or make what we need in a timely manner.
The Hs are aging fast, heavy Afstan use amongst other things. Fifteen new SAR planes are planned along with 17 Jercs. That gives 32 planes. I cannot imagine a large number of Hs being kept in service too long to add to that number.
Remember we used to have 32 E and H Hercs plus six Buffalos for 38 total. I can’t see that number going up, more likely down to 32 total again (depending on what SAR aircraft is bought).
Mark
Ottawa
Canada saw it coming, they brought in a RA Officer to determine how to update coastal defense in 1936, by 1938 fortifications were being built. I suspect the money just wasn’t there. To bad had we gotten the plans to the Vicker mediums and the US M2 combat car in 1936 we could have been ahead of the curve.
http://www.fieldav.com/about/photos.aspx
The door is just on the side. You can launch jumpers and cargo.
The reason the CF wants a ramp has nothing to do with transport capacity. It has to do with the safety of the SAR techs jumping from these aircraft.
Jumping out of small side doors into a moving airstream in bad weather increases risks of immediate and long term repetitive stress injuries.
As for transport capacity, one C-17 can do the job of 4 Hercs in terms of range-payload. The 19 Hercs and 4 C-17s are more than enough transport capacity for the CF.
Bombardier would have a shot if they just put in a ramp on the Q400. They’d probably get more international sales too. But they don’t want to go through the effort and make the investment, so they deserve the goose egg they’ll get as soon as the Fixed Wing SAR project does go.
That said, perhaps there is room for the Q400 as an ASW platform. And maybe the government should consider acquiring some CSeries platforms with Wedgetail airborne surveillance radars, ground surveillance radars (like the NATO AGS) and VIP transport. That’d be a good way to buy a few Canadian aircraft, give Bombardier a boost, and bulk up the CF at the same time.
Trying to shoehorn aircraft not designed for a role into one, is just a bad idea. Just look at the Griffon. Need I say more?