... 16 Billion $$$s on a SOLE SOURCE fighter contract with the US. Canadian Forces go along, even though they never buy single-engine fighters (due to the vast barren North that we have to defend)... Report indicates that new fighters could have been sourced much cheaper if the bidding was open and competitive.
Just one more way your Conservative "government" wastes YOUR taxes.
4 comments:
Yes, lets open it up to competitive bid and buy more crap for the military based on financial benefit to some important riding and NOT on what the military needs.
I assume you have a myriad of two-engine fighters in mind that meet the needs? Because I can think of three, two manufactured by Russia and China, both generation 4, and one that is a generation 4 (updated to 4.5, hah!) made by Boeing that originally flew in the 1970s. Which one?
No other Western military buys equipment the same as Canada USED to, with competitive bids that have more to do with economic benefit than military necessity, and it shows in the decrepitude of so much Canadian kit. Sole sourced targeted purchases based on military specs is the best way to go if effectiveness is your goal.
Liberal government spends $500 million dollars and receives NO helicopters...just another example of how a Liberal government wastes YOUR taxdollars.
Please elaborate on the alternatives.
We were in on the joint strike fighter since 2002, along with Austrailia, Norway, Denmark & Turkey. Keep in mind that we already build sub-components for a great deal of US Areospace brands. Something that likely won't happen if we buy from Europe.
This is only a small example of the closed tender process this government favors. Remember the troop transport aircraft?
Last I checked those Russian and Chinese aircraft are more capable than the F18s we have. India, I might add has built it's own Mig29s and Sukhoi 30s which it sells to countries like Vietnam and Indonesia. These planes have upgraded avionics and capability to operate with AWACS-like systems.
There are choices out there. They're just not "choices" for us, if we continue to blindly patronize our "favored manufacturers". The question becomes, if our military likes to play with toys that they specifically lust for, does it make it right for us to go out and splurge on them - even if they don't match mission requirements? We've all seen the roles we've been involved in - in this new type of war. How effective are ANY aircraft in this war (Afghanistan)? Not very. Non-descriptly slaughtering civilians on the ground because you can't tell them apart from the real "enemy". That obviously doesn't work.
The BEST work done by our forces in such situations continues to be our mechanized infantry and regular infantry units. The urban combat scenarios of the future also work best for the infantry. No armor. No carrier based bombers/fighters. Just helos and troop transports to put our pride and joy right where the action is.
I'm a big army fan. Mechanized infantry is my personal passion. I am also a fan of it's use in peacekeeping. I guess this passion goes back to family involvement in the Army (places like Suez, Golan Heights, etc.). At any rate, no-one can tell me that the flyboys can do anything near what the infantry can do on the ground in the modern combat situations. Bombers are simply to terrify and intimidate populations in such scenarios. Fighters can strafe the ground, but not much use for anything else when the enemy has 0 (zilch) aircraft.
Post a Comment