A decent Canadian Purchase! (CC-117)

[yultoto]

I'm sure I've seen job postings from other companies in Canada stating the ITAR compliant prerequisite. Specifically Spar in Edmonton perhaps? L3?

Illegal! What if that ad, because it was to do an Israel contract stated "no arab born employees" or if to do a Saudi Contract stated "No Jews" or even "no women", or an Azerbaidjani contract and it stated "No Armenians" or an Indian contract and it stated "no Pakistanis".

Women, Jews, Arabs, Armenians etc are protected by the same clause of the Charter that states that in Canada, you cannot segregate based on sex, race, religion OR COUNTRY OF ORIGIN, even if the United States asks you to do it in order to obtain a jucy contract.

This is Canada, not Israel, not Saudi Arabia, not Azerbaidjan, not India and it is certainly not the United States.

[WJflyer]

I'm sure I've seen job postings from other companies in Canada stating the ITAR compliant prerequisite. Specifically Spar in Edmonton perhaps? L3?

Illegal! What if that ad, because it was to do an Israel contract stated "no arab born employees" or if to do a Saudi Contract stated "No Jews" or even "no women", or an Azerbaidjani contract and it stated "No Armenians" or an Indian contract and it stated "no Pakistanis".

Women, Jews, Arabs, Armenians etc are protected by the same clause of the Charter that states that in Canada, you cannot segregate based on sex, race, religion OR COUNTRY OF ORIGIN, even if the United States asks you to do it in order to obtain a jucy contract.

This is Canada, not Israel, not Saudi Arabia, not Azerbaidjan, not India and it is certainly not the United States.

It's perfectly legal, until a court rules otherwise. If you want to take this issue up with the Human Rights Tribunal, go right ahead. I myself had to go through a very through background and ITAR compliance check to get my job. Right now, our lawyers say it is perfectly legal as it is a bona fide occupational requirement.

Fact: there is always discrimination when hiring in the workplace. Most of the time, it is silent and unwritten. But other times, it maybe a job requirement.

Example: You cannot hire people on the basis of them being attractive, young and being slim. However, a restaurant chain where I live, the Cactus Club Cafe, likes to hire attractive, young, and slim people as waitresses. They can get away with this because one of their written job requirements states that you must be able to fit into their uniform, which, from what I understand, is not available in large or extra large.

[yultoto]

Example: You cannot hire people on the basis of them being attractive, young and being slim. However, a restaurant chain where I live, the Cactus Club Cafe, likes to hire attractive, young, and slim people as waitresses. They can get away with this because one of their written job requirements states that you must be able to fit into their uniform, which, from what I understand, is not available in large or extra large.

I'm really glad that DND and the CF take example on the Cactus Club Cafe and their sexy waitresses to uphold canadian law and the high moral principles that define this nation.

And this ITAR compliance has nothing to do with security clearances. On can have a TOP SECRET security clearance issued by the Canadian Government and still not be ITAR compliant (because one was born in Venezuela in 1953 for example, right before being adopted three months later by a Canadian couple)

[CD]

In the recent past, the Department of State has been limiting access to ITAR-controlled material to Canadian citizens, and denying access to Canadian citizens who possess dual nationality with a U.S. proscribed country. DND’s compliance with these restrictions would be inconsistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and human rights legislation, which prohibit discriminatory treatment of Canadian citizens, regardless of their country of origin or other nationality.

Arrangement Reached Concerning the Transfer, Access and Control of ITAR Controlled Defence Articles and Services

[yultoto]

Arrangement Reached Concerning the Transfer, Access and Control of ITAR Controlled Defence Articles and Services

This is the very agreement that made our Governor General and Head of the Canadian military "ITAR Compliant". Before that agreement, in early 2007, being born in Haiti, which is on the list, she was not.

And here is what that agrement says:

"Under the arrangement, access to defence articles and services exported under the ITAR will be granted to DND personnel who are Canadian citizens, including dual nationals, who have a need to know and a minimum secret-level security clearance. DND personnel includes Canadian Forces members, civilian employees, embedded contractors, and employees of other government departments working within DND. Canadian standards and procedures will continue to be used to process security clearances. "

Civilian contractors under DND contract are not covered. So an Air Canada employee, such as those presently maintaining the CC-150s would not be protected by this agreement, only people DIRECTLY EMPLOYED by the Federal governement. I am not certain how "embedded contractors" are defined. Is an L3 employee maintaining and upgrading CF-18s in the Mirabel airport plant "embedded"?

[yultoto]

http://start.shaw.ca/start/enCA/News/Wo ... 82990A.xml

Canadian C-17's first landing smooth and with little fanfare in Kandahar
at 20:58 on August 29, 2007, EST. By MARTIN OUELLET

KANDAHAR, Afghanistan (CP) - In the pitch darkness of night, the Canadian military's new C-17 transport plane touched down softly at Kandahar Military Airport on Wednesday in southern Afghanistan. The pilots landed the giant carrier with its lights extinguished, guided solely by night-vision goggles. "We took a tactical approach with the night-vision goggles, with the airplane lights turned off, with the engines idling," said Maj. Jean Maisonneuve, chief check pilot at 429 Transport Squadron, 8 Wing, in Trenton, Ont. "In a way, we're sort of pioneers."

See this post on the same subject:

http://boeingc17.blogspot.com/2007/08/c ... s-off.html

[monkeyspankmasterflex]

Yultoto

Why the large 'hate-on' for the C-17. I thought you had a lot of valid points with respect to their acquisition at the start of the year, but they've arrived and are performing as advertised...let it go. You probably don't need to do a NVG landing into Kandahar, but if you're capable, and your airplane looks American and there are armed ppl who do not like you, it might not be a bad idea. I'm sure if our Hercs were capable they would be doing the same thing.

Out

[WJflyer]

Arrangement Reached Concerning the Transfer, Access and Control of ITAR Controlled Defence Articles and Services

This is the very agreement that made our Governor General and Head of the Canadian military "ITAR Compliant". Before that agreement, in early 2007, being born in Haiti, which is on the list, she was not.

And here is what that agrement says:

"Under the arrangement, access to defence articles and services exported under the ITAR will be granted to DND personnel who are Canadian citizens, including dual nationals, who have a need to know and a minimum secret-level security clearance. DND personnel includes Canadian Forces members, civilian employees, embedded contractors, and employees of other government departments working within DND. Canadian standards and procedures will continue to be used to process security clearances. "

Civilian contractors under DND contract are not covered. So an Air Canada employee, such as those presently maintaining the CC-150s would not be protected by this agreement, only people DIRECTLY EMPLOYED by the Federal governement. I am not certain how "embedded contractors" are defined. Is an L3 employee maintaining and upgrading CF-18s in the Mirabel airport plant "embedded"?

A embedded contractor is one who actually works with the troops in the field servicing equipment. So a technician from GDLS working with the R22e Regiment in Afghanistan servicing LAV's in theatre is considered an embedded contractor.

The fact is, discrimination is a fact of life when it comes to employment. Certain people, due to their backgrounds are not suited for a particular job. Government lawyers have made this explicitly clear. Paul Cavalluzzo stated that: "The general rule is 'thou shall not discriminate, but a bona fide occupational requirement would be a defence to this claim." And if you do not know who is Paul Cavalluzzo, he is Mahar Arar's lawyer. He is one of Canada's foremost constitutional, labour and administrative law lawyers.

[WJflyer]

Yultoto

Why the large 'hate-on' for the C-17. I thought you had a lot of valid points with respect to their acquisition at the start of the year, but they've arrived and are performing as advertised...let it go. You probably don't need to do a NVG landing into Kandahar, but if you're capable, and your airplane looks American and there are armed ppl who do not like you, it might not be a bad idea. I'm sure if our Hercs were capable they would be doing the same thing.

Out

I can further point that in the long run, we are saving LOTS of money buying C-17's than continuing to rent Russian and Ukrainian lifters.

According to the Future Strategic Airlift statement of requirements from the project office of the Canadian Air Force, which is the bureau tasked with exploring all options prior to the decision by the Liberal government not to purchase large airlifters, a charter company would have to ensure that Canada would have access to two AN-124 aircraft within 48 hours with an additional two planes made available within seven days. It is estimated that 1,000 flying hours per year would meet the nation’s foreseeable needs. The cost of such a deal over a 30-year life-cycle would total $8.5 billion, which would equal the cost of owning (i.e., of acquiring and maintaining) 12 Airbus A400M, or six C-17's.

And our Hercs are also capable of doing a NVG, tactical landing; we done it before in Bosnia during the Siege of Sarajevo.

[yultoto]

but they've arrived and are performing as advertised...
Out

Are they? They were supposed to be able to land on a 3,500 foot runway according to the SOR. It turns out no C-17 has ever done so. They were supposed to land on a 4,000 foot runway according to the ACAN. It turns out no C-17 has even done so.

Note, there is a huge difference between "landing in under 3,500 feet on a longer runway" and "landing on a 3,500 foot runway" as the SOR called for and on a 4,000 foot runway as the ACAN called for.

I asked that a 3,500 foot runway landing demonstration be done, in a real 3,500 foot runway as dot Canada's northern communities. Not a 4,000 foot runway with a 500 foot overun at the end. It was never done.

Next, it turns out that the short landings the C-17 can do, it can only do on dry runways. A US DOD document I found stated that when the runways are wet, landing in under 5,000 feet or more, is out of the question.
Imagine that: "we have to abort the mission sir, going back to base, a small rainshower just passed over the runway"

Next, the Pavement Classification Number of the C-17 is so high, that it would damage most gravel runways in Canada if it attempted to land on them, even those that are long enough. That is why the civilian BC-17, if its ever built, will have an extra center landing gear to allow it to land in these airfields without having to pay to repair them afterwards.

And finally, it seems we have at least a half dozen or more of our new loaned German Leopard 2A6s tanks on the ground in Kandahar.
http://canadadefencesovereignty.blogspo ... -from.html
How did they get there? In our C-17? I sure hope so, because if that is not the case, why not?

And please, if we learn that all arrived inside leased An-124s, lets ask some hard questions and expect real answers, not lame excuses.

[WJflyer]

but they've arrived and are performing as advertised...
Out

Are they? They were supposed to be able to land on a 3,500 foot runway according to the SOR. It turns out no C-17 has ever done so. They were supposed to land on a 4,000 foot runway according to the ACAN. It turns out no C-17 has even done so.

Note, there is a huge difference between "landing in under 3,500 feet on a longer runway" and "landing on a 3,500 foot runway" as the SOR called for and on a 4,000 foot runway as the ACAN called for.

I asked that a 3,500 foot runway landing demonstration be done, in a real 3,500 foot runway as dot Canada's northern communities. Not a 4,000 foot runway with a 500 foot overun at the end. It was never done.

Next, it turns out that the short landings the C-17 can do, it can only do on dry runways. A US DOD document I found stated that when the runways are wet, landing in under 5,000 feet or more, is out of the question.
Imagine that: "we have to abort the mission sir, going back to base, a small rainshower just passed over the runway"

Next, the Pavement Classification Number of the C-17 is so high, that it woudl damage most gravel runways in Canada if it attempted to land on them, even those that are long enough. That is why the civilian BC-17, if its ever built, will have an extra center landing gear to allow it to land in these airfields without having to pay to repair them afterwards.

And finally, it seems we have at least a half dozen or more of our new loaned German Leopard 2A6s tanks on the ground in Kandahar.
http://canadadefencesovereignty.blogspo ... -from.html
How did they get there? In our C-17? I sure hope so, because if that is not the case, why not?

And please, if we learn that all arrived inside leased An-124s, lets ask some hard question and expect real answers, not lame excuses.

1. I can point out that if the C-17 can land within a 3500ft long rectangle marked out on the primary runway of Edwards Air Force Base, which is 7.5 miles long, it can land on a 3500ft long runway. It does not need a 7.5 mile long runway to land! Nobody does it because there is no real need to do it, and it is an issue of risk analysis (you don't risk people and equipment unnecessarily).

2. Your quoting a 13 year old document... and you never bothered to see if there was a later document. When aircraft are introduced, there is normally a report that is issued very early on in the fielding stating the current deficiencies and issues with the equipment. You identify the issues, consult the manufacturer, and if you decide to press on, apply a fix.

3. So what if they arrived in a leased AN-124? It might not be us leasing the AN-124's, it may have been the Germans, as the tanks are their property, and they told us that we didn't have to pay a cent to borrow and send the tanks over to Afghanistan. And as long as the Germans own the tanks, they can do whatever they please to get the tanks into our hands.

[yultoto]

Lame excuses! The C-17 will not be landing in any of Canada's 3,500 foot to 4,000 foot runways because its too risky to do so: meaning it can't do it.

The C-17 will not be landing in any of Canada's gravel runways because it will damage them.

The C-17 will not be landing on any wet runways under 6,000 feet because it may over-run it. This US Air Force article is from November 2006, less than a year old:

http://www.afmc.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123032752

The biggest concern we had was executing this test on a relatively short runway," Mr. Christou said. "Most of the runways, with the exception of the Edwards runway, are 5,800-feet long. For the wet-testing we proposed in the test plan, we really didn't have enough room to execute on a fully-wetted runway. So, we split the runway into a partial wet section and a partial dry section to ensure the aircraft could perform stopping as well as takeoff (again)."

In plain english, this guy says that a fully wetted 5,800 foot runway is too short for a C-17.

As for the Germans insisting on delivering their Leos at their own expense and in the aircraft of their choice provided by them.......

I find DND's, Combat Camera's, Army.ca's and the Press's silence about the Leo 2s arriving in force in Kandahar a bit suspicious......

Is there a technical reason preventing Leopard 2s from flying in C-17s?

[WJflyer]

Lame excuses! The C-17 will not be landing in any of Canada's 3,500 foot to 4,000 foot runways because its too risky to do so: meaning it can't do it.

The C-17 will not be landing in any of Canada's gravel runways because it will damage them.

The C-17 will not be landing on any wet runways under 6,000 feet because it may over-run it. This article US Air Force article is from November 2006, less than a year old:

http://www.afmc.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123032752

The biggest concern we had was executing this test on a relatively short runway," Mr. Christou said. "Most of the runways, with the exception of the Edwards runway, are 5,800-feet long. For the wet-testing we proposed in the test plan, we really didn't have enough room to execute on a fully-wetted runway. So, we split the runway into a partial wet section and a partial dry section to ensure the aircraft could perform stopping as well as takeoff (again)."

In plain english, this guy says that a fully wetted 5,800 foot runway is too short for a C-17.

As for the Germans insisting on delivering their Leos at their own expense and in the aircraft of their choice provided by them.......

I find DND's, Combat Camera's, Army.ca's and the Press's silence about the Leo 2s arrinving in force in Kandahar a bit suspicious......

Someone's gone off the deep end....

1. If there is a need to land within a 3,500ft to 4,000ft runway, C-17 can do it. There is currently no need to do so. Make a distinction between aircraft capability and risk assessment. One is a technical issue; the other is a human issue.

2. And so does a AN-124, C-5 Galaxy, Il-76, etc, etc, etc. The only aircraft that can in our inventory and do it without damaging the runway is the C-130 Herc. C-17 is NOT meant to fly into remote northern Canadian cities to haul groceries and pop. The Herc does that. That's their separate jobs. You don't drive a tractor trailer to buy groceries, and you don't use a sedan to move your furniture.

3. Any airplane has trouble landing on a wet runway. A Boeing 777 needs more runway space. A Airbus A380 does as well. Thanks for pointing out the blatantly obvious.

4. One acronym: OPSEC. Look it up. Army.ca has a thread, but it is hidden in a special secure internal subforum due to OPSEC issues.

5. I don't know who's high horse you came off of, but whatever your real motives are for your blog and your incessant rants, it isn't about the CAF having the right aircraft for the job, it's about partisan politics and getting more pork-barrel for Quebec, as your complete ignorance of the facts speak volumes. I can further state that you are also ignorant of what the Canadian Forces does, and what the C-17 is supposed to do for us. Leave military procurement to the experts; the guys in NDHQ in charge of developing these specifications to buy equipment.

[yultoto]

your real motives are for your blog and your incessant rants, ..... it's about partisan politics and getting more pork-barrel for Quebec

I dare you to find anything in my Blog or elsewhere that supports that last statement you just wrote. I never wrote anything in support of Quebec getting anything. Minister Maxime Bernier might have done that. Not me.

I sounded great though. Harper might order you get a raise.

[linecrew]

Are the P-3 and CP-140 different aircraft? Not to my knowledge. If they're not different aircraft, then don't give them different names.

Yup...we have a customized avionics package that was based on the S-3 Viking. Then again...the P-3 is actually a Lockheed L-188 Electra with a MAD boom stuck on it's ass. So why not call it the Electra? LOL!

[yultoto]

Can Leopard 2A6 tanks fly inside C-17s or not?

http://boeingc17.blogspot.com/2007/09/w ... tanks.html

[WJflyer]

your real motives are for your blog and your incessant rants, ..... it's about partisan politics and getting more pork-barrel for Quebec

I dare you to find anything in my Blog or elsewhere that supports that last statement you just wrote. I never wrote anything in support of Quebec getting anything. Minister Maxime Bernier might have done that. Not me.

I sounded great though. Harper might order you get a raise.

There's no need. Your whole blog stinks of it. Almost every strategic think tank in Canada from right leaning to left leaning suggested purchasing or renting C-17 (except those idiots at SFU). Everyone from the Fraser Institute, to the Ploughshares Monitor suggested buy or lease C-17's. The only people who are against the purchase are those who are always opposed to military spending, or who are ignorant (such as Ujjal Dosanjh), or those with an axe to grind (such your self and the NDP). Most people, once we have explained why we need C-17's understand immediately why we need these birds.

[yultoto]

How about a reply to the question in my previous post which you keep avoiding?

[WJflyer]

How about a reply to the question in my previous post which you keep avoiding?

http://boeingc17.blogspot.com/2007/03/p ... -have.html

I believe a poster called you:
1. An idiot.
2. Ignorant.

And you haven't criticized any purchases made in Quebec... even though most things coming out of Quebec for the military is often shoddily done (such as upside down gunner sights in our refurbished Leopard C2 tanks)... only purchases of equipment made in the USA (as seen by your rants over the Chinook), and from your other blog, which indicates to me, you are also anti-American.

You have no experience with procurement, the military, and the civil service. What you have just done is to tarnish those who make the decisions and those in the civil service, the project managers and the military by calling them liars without reasonable proof (which in turns, makes you a liar). And from what we can tell from those in the military and those in the civil service, most of us agree, you have a axe to grind. You quote half truths and lies to justify your views, views that are incorrect, and can lead to the unnecessary deaths of Canadians deployed overseas.

We in the civil service and those in the military take pride in our work and the fact that we, as a whole, are independent from those who are elected to government. We service the government of the day, be it Conservative, Liberal, New Democrat, Communist, etc. We give them advice and suggestions, and it is up to the government of the day to either listen and agree with our recommendations, or ignore us. The Liberal government of the past decade has ignored our recommendations to buy strategic aircraft, more specifically, the Boeing C-17.

It took those in the DND many long years compiling research, studying alternatives, to come up with the proposal to buy a handful of C-17's for our own use. We also presented an alternative proposal in the form of a long term immediate access lease to AN-124's. The government of the day, did neither, and preferred to do ad-hoc charters. When that government was swept from power, the new government, which had members sit along side the Liberals, the Bloc, and the New Democrats at the project manager's office during the time the previous government was in power, decided to act on our proposal. Someone was paying attention and trying to understand what we were saying. They understood the realities, and politics be damned, acted on our proposals.

We at the DND don't care how military hardware gets into our hands; all we care is that it is the right piece of equipment. We spent many painstakingly long years doing our hard work that gives little reward to draw up specifications for hardware that we need. Those in the military understand and have been asking for our own C-17's because the realities are that we needed the birds. We didn't want AN-124's or IL-76's. They didn't do the job we wanted them to do.

When you enter the real world, instead of a weekend warrior pilot buzzing around/activist, there are certain things that cannot be done due to realities of life. Certain things that may make sense on paper may not in the real world. I suggest you get your head checked, as perhaps one of your landings may have jarred a screw loose.

I don't need a freaking MBA or my Masters to realize what you represent and what you are proposing is silly; a vast majority of us in the DND know this just by reading your blogs.

[yultoto]

And which you have avoided again.

Could it be possible, (another pro-Quebec, anti-American, anti-military rant coming up again, I am warning you, so sit down and take a pill), could it be possible that the weight of the Leopard 2A6 exceeds the maximum weight permitted across the C-17 loading ramp (130,000 pounds), and that no-one at DND noticed that detail until both C-17 and Leopard 2A6 had already been purchased?

Could it be that the M-1 Abrams tanks which are just as heavy, do not have the same problem because a special study was done by the US military and by Boeing that determined that the M-1 Abrams, whose weight exceeded the max ramp weight of the C-17 rear ramp by 5,000 pounds, could be rolled across that ramp without damaging it, and that a special waiver was granted to allow the M-1 Abrams and the M-1 Abrams tanks only to be loaded in a C-17, waiver which is not applicable to the Leopard A26, which may be the very reason the Australians, who also had Leopard 1s, opted to purchase used M-1 Abrams instead of upgraded Leos?

No. I don't think what I just wrote could be remotely possible. DND could not have such incompetence within it. So you must be correct. I probably did a few too many hard landings. If An-124s are delivering Canadian Leopards to Kandahar, its just that the Germans want to be nice to us.

I hope that the next time you write, before you insult me any further, you will first reassure me and tell me that the 3.4 billion dollars worth of C-17s we just purchased, is capable of flying our billion dollars of new tanks around the world, without having to charter An-124s to do it for us.

[WJflyer]

And which you have avoided again.

Could it be possible, (another pro-Quebec, anti-American, anti-military rant coming up again, I am warning you), could it be possible that the weight of the Leopard 2A6 exceeds the maximum weight permitted across the C-17 loading ramp (130,000 pounds), and that no-one at DND noticed that detail until both C-17 and Leopard 2A6 were purchased?

Could it be that the M-1 Abrams tanks which just as heavy, does not have the same problem because a special study was done by the US military and by Boeing that determined that the M-1 Abrams, whose weight exceeded the max ramp weight of the C-17 ramp by 5,000 pounds, could be rolled across that ramp without damaging it, and that a special waiver was granted to allow the M-1 Abrams and the M-1 Abrams tanks only to be loaded in a C-17, waiver which is not applicable to the Leopard A26, which may be the very reason the Australians, who also had Leopard 1s, opted to purchase used M-1 Abrams instead of upgraded Leos?

No. I don't think what I just wrote could be remotely possible. DND could not have such incompetence within it. So you must be correct. I probably did a few too many hard landings. If An-124s are delivering Canadian Leopards to Kandahar, its just that the Germans want to be nice to us.

I can point that the even heavier Challenger II tank can be carried by the C-17, if needed.

The reason why the Aussies purchased refurbished M1A1's was that the USA gave the Aussies a real sweetheart deal over the sticker price of the M1A1. The Aussies before the Americans gave them that deal were about to choose the Leopard 2 instead.

[yultoto]

I can point that the even heavier Challenger II tank can be carried by the C-17, if needed.

I am sorry, I am very stupid. Was that a "yes the Leopard 2A6 can and will be carried inside Canada's C-17" ?

[WJflyer]

I can point that the even heavier Challenger II tank can be carried by the C-17, if needed.

I am sorry, I am very stupid. Was that a "yes the Leopard 2A6 can and will be carried inside Canada's C-17" ?

Yep. Can, and able, because if you haven't noticed, the combat weight of the M1A2 has grown to around 63.1 tonnes, due to the SEP modification. That's more than the Leopard 2.

Someone needs to check his facts... even my copy of Jane's Tank Recognition Guide states that the M1A2 weights 63.1 tonnes, which is more than a Leopard 2 in full combat readiness configuration.

Edit: And you can get a copy here:
http://www.amazon.ca/gp/product/0007183 ... 12-3370763

[yultoto]

Good, cant wait to see the pictures of the Leo 2s coming out of a C-177. I hope I wont have to wait too long. We'll leave it at that, so you can save some of your insults for other people.

[monkeyspankmasterflex]

You two should really go outside and enjoy the weekend.

Yultoto, I'd be more inclined to believe you (re tank capacity) if I hadn't been following along for a while. It seems as though you create a conclusion and piece together facts retroactively to support it. My guess is we'll continue to contract out airlift and that's why the tanks have yet to be transported via our c17s.

WJ, there's no way c17's are cheaper than contracted airlift. Think infrastructure, fuel, labour...What's a An-124 per hour anyway? Herc crews may have borrowed the army's NVG's, but I'm pretty sure our hercs are not NVG compatible.