- Reaction score
- 3,947
- Points
- 1,260
RUMINT of Canada wanting more C-17's
- Thread starter The Bread Guy
- Start date
op:
- Reaction score
- 146
- Points
- 710
At twitter:
Full US government news release on RAAF:
http://www.dsca.mil/major-arms-sales/australia-c-17-globemaster-iii-aircraft-1
Mark
Ottawa
Full US government news release on RAAF:
http://www.dsca.mil/major-arms-sales/australia-c-17-globemaster-iii-aircraft-1
Mark
Ottawa
- Reaction score
- 17,324
- Points
- 1,280
MarkOttawa said:
It would be interesting to see where they park them. It's already getting pretty cramped on the tarmac in RAAF Base Amberley and they want to move more stuff there as well.
Aside from fighters and the King Air utility transports, the RAAF consolidates all of their types in one location (J-Hercs in RAAF Base Richmond, C-17s and KC-30 Tankers in Amberley, P-3s in RAAF Base Edinburgh, etc.)
Eye In The Sky
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 3,780
- Points
- 1,160
Is this done for strategic reasons? Logistical/maint efficiency?
- Reaction score
- 17,324
- Points
- 1,280
Eye In The Sky said:
I'd guess all three. No requirement to fly across the country for sims and heavy maintenance. The P-3s do have a rotating detachment up in Darwin for northern patrols, but their Southern Ocean SAR requirements mean that Adelaide is a good-enough spot to base them. Even the RAN helicopters are based 2 hours south of Sydney. I guess they fly/get transported to Perth to meet the west coast ships when they sail out.
Of course there are good side effects too - those bases are located close enough to cities (Adelaide, Brisbane, Sydney) that partners/spouses don't have as many problems finding jobs. In the case of P-3s, multiple squadrons and the school in one location means that unless being posted to a staff position in Canberra, many of them never leave Adelaide (for good or ill).
Of course, that plan wouldn't work seamlessly in Canada. We have population centres strung out in a line across the country, while Australia's population is heavily concentrated on the SE coast down to the south (Brisbane, Sydney, Canberra, Melbourne, Adelaide) with random pockets in Perth and Darwin. Also, historically their threat is from the north rather than both east and west. That means that aside from some fighting units in the north, everything can be located in the SE and a bit in the west and defend the majority of the population. Also note that aside from P-3s dropping SAR equipment, the RAAF doesn't have a SAR capability so that frees them from having to station units within a call-out time.
- Reaction score
- 146
- Points
- 710
Major Defense Industry Daily article:
Mark
Ottawa
Mark
Ottawa
Spencer100
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,200
- Points
- 1,040
CTV is saying we are getting one more for 1.2 billion that sounds like the price for 3 to 4. Could it be the lifecycle costs included?
- Reaction score
- 4,514
- Points
- 1,160
It's the new way media inflates the cost to sound like they're wasting money.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
I sure hope somebody at CTV got a little mixed up on that price number.
- Reaction score
- 5,429
- Points
- 1,260
I'm a big fan of full life cycle costing ... IF it is done consistently and across all of government.
The Government of Canada and, especially, DND didn't (when I served) and probably still doesn't use and/or even understand "full life cycle costing."
It is possible to assign every single dollar in personnel, administrative, support, infrastructure and capital equipment costs to "projects," and then to collect all those life cycle costed projects into a single, coherent defence services programme. It would be a bit strange, at first, to see e.g. the CDS and the NDHQ pay clerks 'costed' as part of the Defence Management project but we would/could get used to it. But it will only work properly when all the rest of government is forced to use the same techniques.
Until we can explain our own costs to ourselves, something we could not do - not, at least, at the VCDS/DCDS/ADM(Mat) level - when I served we will never explain them to a skeptical and, generally, innumerate media.
The Government of Canada and, especially, DND didn't (when I served) and probably still doesn't use and/or even understand "full life cycle costing."
It is possible to assign every single dollar in personnel, administrative, support, infrastructure and capital equipment costs to "projects," and then to collect all those life cycle costed projects into a single, coherent defence services programme. It would be a bit strange, at first, to see e.g. the CDS and the NDHQ pay clerks 'costed' as part of the Defence Management project but we would/could get used to it. But it will only work properly when all the rest of government is forced to use the same techniques.
Until we can explain our own costs to ourselves, something we could not do - not, at least, at the VCDS/DCDS/ADM(Mat) level - when I served we will never explain them to a skeptical and, generally, innumerate media.
- Reaction score
- 1,665
- Points
- 1,140
E.R. Campbell,
It is he ultimate and probably on way to compare project/program costs however, where do you make it stop? How much of the CDS' time is accounted towards a given project?
I am personally a big fan of comparing everything non-personnel related (material, spares, POL, infrastructure) and leave salaries, TD, toilet paper out of the equation. What we need is a standard of what to include and for how long. Once a figure is obtained, it needs to be annualized so people (the media in particular) can compare apples to apples (ie: how much does an effect cost on a yearly basis)
It is he ultimate and probably on way to compare project/program costs however, where do you make it stop? How much of the CDS' time is accounted towards a given project?
I am personally a big fan of comparing everything non-personnel related (material, spares, POL, infrastructure) and leave salaries, TD, toilet paper out of the equation. What we need is a standard of what to include and for how long. Once a figure is obtained, it needs to be annualized so people (the media in particular) can compare apples to apples (ie: how much does an effect cost on a yearly basis)
McG
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 2,922
- Points
- 1,160
Wishing pay out of the equation does not get us the most mileage for our money. Some solutions require more investment in materiel and facilities, other solutions need more investment in personnel. If it takes twice as many pers and more expensive training to implement the least low cost materiel solution, that low cost material solution is likely the actual bigger consumer of department resources.
- Reaction score
- 1,665
- Points
- 1,140
Personnel and PML should not change significantly for a given project. For example, I doubt we would create extra positions if we were to buy those C-17. Nothing would change or positions from other organizations would be transferred but it would be a 0 sum game. Only if positions have to be created (NOT transferred) should we count it. Otherwise the real money cost is 0.
McG
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 2,922
- Points
- 1,160
How do you compare the cost of capability options if you do not reduce to a common denominator? Cost to cost comparison is apples to apples; cost to PY is apples to doorknobs.
It also tells the truth to the public. Canadian voters seem to get sticker shock fairly quick when it comes to capital equipment, but that could be tempered if they also were shown the lifecycle cost of the manpower intensive alternative.
... And let's not forget that not all PYs are equal when it comes to dollars. An organization skewed toward spec pay and/or higher ranks will cost more.
It also tells the truth to the public. Canadian voters seem to get sticker shock fairly quick when it comes to capital equipment, but that could be tempered if they also were shown the lifecycle cost of the manpower intensive alternative.
... And let's not forget that not all PYs are equal when it comes to dollars. An organization skewed toward spec pay and/or higher ranks will cost more.
- Reaction score
- 1,665
- Points
- 1,140
MCG,
I understand your points, but we have no say in how many PY (at all ranks/levels) we have.
When 2 AEW was stood up, we had to go through the pain of finding lines to transfer to the Wing at 0 cost. Same goes to the splitting of fighter squadrons. We traded higher rank lines to get more lower rank lines.
Since increasing our PY in lieu of getting equipment is not something that is feasible (especially not for capital projects), I still think it should be left out as there are far too many variables to include (what fraction of the CDS salary and expenses do we include?) and it would be difficult to come up with comparable figures. It would also be far too complex for the general public to understand.
I understand your points, but we have no say in how many PY (at all ranks/levels) we have.
When 2 AEW was stood up, we had to go through the pain of finding lines to transfer to the Wing at 0 cost. Same goes to the splitting of fighter squadrons. We traded higher rank lines to get more lower rank lines.
Since increasing our PY in lieu of getting equipment is not something that is feasible (especially not for capital projects), I still think it should be left out as there are far too many variables to include (what fraction of the CDS salary and expenses do we include?) and it would be difficult to come up with comparable figures. It would also be far too complex for the general public to understand.
Similar threads
