Acquisitions, in hindsight..

[kaiserbill]

NH90 seems to be troubled at the maintenance / flight rate level. More Super Pumas (whatever its current name, Caracal, EC-something) might have been a better bargain.

Super Pumas and Rooivalk.
Same engines and dynamic components such as main rotor, tail rotor, gearboxes...etc.
Maintenance, procurement and spares commonality.
The Rooivalk was excluded in many decisions due to political processes mainly, not due to ability.
As a result, it's an orphan, starved off.
It could and should have been different.

 

[apparition13]

LCS. What the USN wanted was an Absalon, only with 45 knot speed. What they got was 45 knots, without the Absalon. They should have just got Absalons. Maybe with the Iver Huitfeld powerplant for fleet speed, but still, Absalons.

Concered with Iranian boats? Replace the Millenium guns with OM 76mm SuperRapides with DART, which works agains boats as well as missiles. Put AH-1Zs in the hangar, and send them and their Hellfires out to hunt down the boats while they are still far out of range. Make a Stanflex module for Hellfires (or Brimstone). By weight a StanFlex module could support around 5 times as many of either as ESSMs, so instead of 12 ESSMs around 60. Fit two for 120. Add four to a Carrier group and use them as your anti-boat screen.

Really, really concerned with the boats? Buy Absalons, and half a dozen Hyugas, which since they are destroyers have destroyer speed. Put a squadron of AH-1s on each, and have a couple act as your anti-boat force, with some Absalons as a surface screen. Add some davit mounted Jurmo class landing craft with Nemo mortars and guided rounds to use as interceptors closer to the fleet, and I think you'd be good against boats. And when you're not using your Hyugas against boats, use them as Spruance replacements in the ASW role for Carrier groups.

 

[Archibald]

NH90 seems to be troubled at the maintenance / flight rate level. More Super Pumas (whatever its current name, Caracal, EC-something) might have been a better bargain.

Super Pumas and Rooivalk.
Same engines and dynamic components such as main rotor, tail rotor, gearboxes...etc.
Maintenance, procurement and spares commonality.
The Rooivalk was excluded in many decisions due to political processes mainly, not due to ability.
As a result, it's an orphan, starved off.
It could and should have been different.

I understand your reasonning and it makes some sense - but there is a major downside to. Puma dynamic components make the Rooivalk way too large; with flaws not unlike a Mi-24. A big oversized target, not agile enough. The Tigre is much smaller and agile.

As far as american helicopters go, it would be akin to: Sikorsky Blackhawk / Lockheed Cheyenne versus Apache and Cobra.

From the Soviet / Russian side: Mi-24 vs Mi-28.

In fact the South African made that controversial choice - building an attack chopper from an oversized transport helicopter - out of despair: because of the embargo.

 

[tomo pauk]

I understand your reasonning and it makes some sense - but there is a major downside to. Puma dynamic components make the Rooivalk way too large; with flaws not unlike a Mi-24. A big oversized target, not agile enough. The Tigre is much smaller and agile.

As far as american helicopters go, it would be akin to: Sikorsky Blackhawk / Lockheed Cheyenne versus Apache and Cobra.

From the Soviet / Russian side: Mi-24 vs Mi-28.

In fact the South African made that controversial choice - building an attack chopper from an oversized transport helicopter - out of despair: because of the embargo.

Mi-28 was bigger, heavier and with more engine power than Rooivalk. The Rooivalk is in same weight class with AH-64.
Puma was not a oversized transport helicopter.

 

[helmutkohl]

on the subject of Puma...
I'm surprised France doesn't really have a medium weight helicopter?

the Puma, Cougars, etc seem to be Mi-8 size.. but the Alouettes, etc are quite light.. I'm surprised they never developed something in between those two sizes. the NH-90 is close to that but still a bit big compared to the Blackhawk series and other similar helicopters

 

[tomo pauk]

on the subject of Puma...
I'm surprised France doesn't really have a medium weight helicopter?

the Puma, Cougars, etc seem to be Mi-8 size.. but the Alouettes, etc are quite light.. I'm surprised they never developed something in between those two sizes. the NH-90 is close to that but still a bit big compared to the Blackhawk series and other similar helicopters

Dauphin is 40+ years old now: link
Puma was probably a medium weight helicopter, the Super Frelon being the big one?

 

[helmutkohl]

on the subject of Puma...
I'm surprised France doesn't really have a medium weight helicopter?

the Puma, Cougars, etc seem to be Mi-8 size.. but the Alouettes, etc are quite light.. I'm surprised they never developed something in between those two sizes. the NH-90 is close to that but still a bit big compared to the Blackhawk series and other similar helicopters

Dauphin is 40+ years old now: link
Puma was probably a medium weight helicopter, the Super Frelon being the big one?

you're right.. totally forgot about the Dauphin.. but I associate it with the French Navy.. not the army.. (do they even use the Dauphin in the army?)

 

[zen]

Arguably what has been achieved with CAMM, could have been done earlier and should be done much more comprehensively.

A varient that matches Jumper (an INS/GPS based light artillery rocket) is and was quite feasible too.

Equally Brimstone/Sea Spear, ought to have been rolled out as widely as possible.

The loss of ALARM from the inventory is frankly more parsimony and folly. Until SPEAR EW comes ISD , the RAF is a bit lacking here.

The French AdlA seems to sometimes consider Brimstone.....

Having brought into air launched SCALP/Storm Shadow, it seems strange and incoherent to not acquire the ship and submarine variants. Was it worth the political and industrial benefit to increase the logistics and training burdens?
Was it just a fear of upsetting Russia to acquire TLAM and Anti-Ship Tomahawk for land and ship?

But has Sea Venom been worth it?

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

Arguably what has been achieved with CAMM, could have been done earlier and should be done much more comprehensively.

A varient that matches Jumper (an INS/GPS based light artillery rocket) is and was quite feasible too.

Equally Brimstone/Sea Spear, ought to have been rolled out as widely as possible.

The loss of ALARM from the inventory is frankly more parsimony and folly. Until SPEAR EW comes ISD , the RAF is a bit lacking here.

The French AdlA seems to sometimes consider Brimstone.....

Having brought into air launched SCALP/Storm Shadow, it seems strange and incoherent to not acquire the ship and submarine variants. Was it worth the political and industrial benefit to increase the logistics and training burdens?
Was it just a fear of upsetting Russia to acquire TLAM and Anti-Ship Tomahawk for land and ship?

But has Sea Venom been worth it?

Probably has more to do with fear of upsetting the Treasury more than the Russians.

 

[Archibald]

I understand your reasonning and it makes some sense - but there is a major downside to. Puma dynamic components make the Rooivalk way too large; with flaws not unlike a Mi-24. A big oversized target, not agile enough. The Tigre is much smaller and agile.

As far as american helicopters go, it would be akin to: Sikorsky Blackhawk / Lockheed Cheyenne versus Apache and Cobra.

From the Soviet / Russian side: Mi-24 vs Mi-28.

In fact the South African made that controversial choice - building an attack chopper from an oversized transport helicopter - out of despair: because of the embargo.

Mi-28 was bigger, heavier and with more engine power than Rooivalk. The Rooivalk is in same weight class with AH-64.
Puma was not a oversized transport helicopter.

I didn't said any of that. I said that the Puma (being an helicopter transport) subsystems were oversized for an attack chopper, and made Rooivalk too large and lacking agility.

 

[kaiserbill]

I understand your reasonning and it makes some sense - but there is a major downside to. Puma dynamic components make the Rooivalk way too large; with flaws not unlike a Mi-24. A big oversized target, not agile enough. The Tigre is much smaller and agile.

As far as american helicopters go, it would be akin to: Sikorsky Blackhawk / Lockheed Cheyenne versus Apache and Cobra.

From the Soviet / Russian side: Mi-24 vs Mi-28.

In fact the South African made that controversial choice - building an attack chopper from an oversized transport helicopter - out of despair: because of the embargo.

Mi-28 was bigger, heavier and with more engine power than Rooivalk. The Rooivalk is in same weight class with AH-64.
Puma was not a oversized transport helicopter.

I agree with Tomo Pauk here.
The Rooivalk is squarely in the same size and weight bracket as the Cheyenne, AH-64 Apache, the Mi-28, Ka-50, and the Bell AH-1Z Viper.

The S-67 Blackhawk and Hind are physically larger than these above, particularly length, due to a troop carrying component. The Blackhawk was as long as a Super Frelon for example.

The Tiger is in the lighter bracket below these, squarely in the bracket weight and size wise with the original AH-1 Cobra, the Agusta A129 Mangusta, HAL Light Combat Helicopter.

The Rooivalk is not based on an oversized transport helicopter. It has merely the same engines and dynamic components as the Puma.

Archie, look at it like the US Army requirement that the AAH (which led to the Ah-64-Apache)be fitted with the same GE T-700 engines and drivetrain as the UTTAS (which resulted in the Uh-60 Black Hawk).
I think this is extremely sensible. Boeing themselves on their website state this was done to reduce costs and simplify logistics. An excerpt below by General McNair before Congress explains it better.

Department of Defense Appropriations for 1980: Army tank program. Army ammunition. Precision guided munitions. Tactical aircraft. Shipbuilding

books.google.ie

 

[kaiserbill]

I didn't said any of that. I said that the Puma (being an helicopter transport) subsystems were oversized for an attack chopper, and made Rooivalk too large and lacking agility.

See my post above.
This is the first time I've ever heard the claim that the Rooivalk lacks agility. I've seen statements and videos of the opposite.
Do you have any further info?

 

[Archibald]

Red that a while back in a magazine.

What went wrong with the Rooivalk

The Rooivalk: over sophisticated, over-delayed, over-expensive, outdated, and lacking economies of scale how did happen, and what next for the programme?

webcache.googleusercontent.com

 

[kaiserbill]

Yip.
It goes over the timeframe, and does delve into whether a lighter, less sophisticated attack helicopter should have been pursued. But with hindsight.
I think the path chosen was the correct one, as no-one predicted the rapid collapse of the USSR and the subsequent slashing of the defence budget.
The Rooivalk has first class agility btw, with a faster climb rate than the Tiger (by 30%) and has a side speed of about 100km/h, and has demonstrated the ability to perform a loop. It had a higher power-to-weight ratio than the Ah-64A Apache.

 

[GTX]

As to whether there was any 'pressure put on Australia to select the P-8', I don't know. All I recall is the then PM Tony Abbott seemingly pulling a rabbit out of his hat, which seemingly appear to be another PM Captains Picks to me, for I wasn't aware of any RfP by the RAAF

The P-8 was not a surprise for anyone in the know. I remember briefings on it (well really the then Multimission Maritime Aircraft/Broad Area Maritime Surveillance programs) back in the late 1990s when I was still with 92WG RAAF. The RAAF was already talking to USN and the like then. The following article gives you somewhat of a snapshot of some of the history:

AIR 7000 – ISR FOR THE 21ST CENTURY - APDR

Defence’s ambitious project to replace the current Lockheed Martin AP-3C Orion with both manned and unmanned aerial vehicles, is one of the ‘big ticket’ items of defence budgets over the […]

asiapacificdefencereporter.com

Realistically, there is/was no practical alternative to the P-8.

I was under the impression that the P-8 still didn't have a ASW torpedo capability due to its high speed to deploy existing air to sub-surface ASW torpedoes - so if this is correct, then it can't really be deployed in its principle role of ASW.

Don't fall into the trap of thinking one platform has to be an exact replacement for a former. The CONOPS of the P-8 is different to the AP-3C/P-3 before it, just as the P-3's was different to the P-2 Neptune before that and Avro Lincoln and so on. Different technologies, threats, expereinces etc all contribute here. Also, don't think that ASW is the primary role of the current P-8 fleet. The very fact that these are part of the RAAF's Surveillance and Response Group (SRG) kind of gives the game away. The RAAF already has four stated primary missions of Anti-Submarine Warfare, Anti-Surface Warfare, Maritime Surveillance and Search and Rescue and I would argue that theMaritime Survellance is the one that has the greatest use by far.

 

[apparition13]

The Rooivalk looks bigger than it is. It looks tall and long, but it is also exceedingly narrow. In terms of weight it's closes to the AH-1Z. AH-64 has a heavier MTOW, Mil-28 and Ka-52 are heavier both empty and MTOW. The problem isn't performance. I think you could make an argument that Oryx and Rooivalk were best in class circa 1993.

The problem is industrial support. Unless they get exported just after the end of Apartheid the industry that designed and built them is going to die on the vine, like it did.

 

[apparition13]

Realistically, there is/was no practical alternative to the P-8.

Kawasaki P-1. Also a product of the P-7 fiasco, since Japan had planned on the P-7 as their P-3 replacement as well.

 

[Lascaris]

Greece: Buy 100 F-18C (I understand F-18L was off the table by then) and join Rafale as a junior partner in 1985. I would also say buy Rafale in 1999 but I understand it was not on offer, there must had been a lot of gritted teeth in Paris when Greece had announced a commitment to Eurofighter back at the time ,although Dassault had the final laugh with a 20 year delay.

whats wrong with the Greek buy of the F-16 and M2K?

That it is two different types bought piecemeal and as a result could not be locally produced, cost more to procure and also cost more to maintain. Besides F-18 had come first in the HAF evaluation at the time, not surprising when it had things like BVR while two engines when operating mostly over sea was thought preferable. But to return to local production and costs, the contracts for the initial 40+40 cost the same with 100 aircraft of a single type... and 100 was the minimum to allow local production. Since Greece bought afterwards another 145 airframe there is something to be said about industrial benefits lost from not locally building ~250 aircraft.

Now Greece has something of a policy by now, or excuse rather, of not wanting to rely solely on US made aircraft, but if we were not really trusting the Americans not to cut off spares in case of a crisis then the way to go would be to buy only Mirages and join Rafale early not to be buying part American and part French.

 

[GTX]

Realistically, there is/was no practical alternative to the P-8.

Kawasaki P-1. Also a product of the P-7 fiasco, since Japan had planned on the P-7 as their P-3 replacement as well.

As I stated, realistically, there is/was no practical alternative to the P-8. On price alone I believe the P-8 wins with the P-8 going for ~US$100M ea (based upon the German acquisition) and the P-1 quoted at between US$141M and US$167M ea.

 

[Archibald]

Austria - instead of Typhoons, Gripen

D@mn right.
Croatia is falling in the similar trap with Rafale purchase.

This is perhaps a little unfair to Rafale... and Croatia.

I see what you mean (twin jet, expensive,4.5th generation fighter is rather overkill for a small country) - but the Austrian case is... peculiar, to say the least. Special.

In the sense their procurement process was truly atrocious - in fact it turned into a major politicians-and-bribe scandal, AFAIK.

Also German Luftwaffe, 1st generation Typhoons were probably not a good bargain. At least the Rafales are F3R standard, even if second-hand.

Eventually, a EUR 1.63 billion compromise was set for 15 Tranche 1, Block 5 Eurofighter Typhoon fighters and support services

Austrian Typhoons were closer from Rafale F1 standard, vintage May 2001 - stripped down, rushed-to-IOC early production machines.

Note that French Navy Crusaders to be replaced were as antiquated as the Austrian Drakkens. In both cases, the Rafales and Typhoons that replaced them were seemingly "modern" but the devil was in the detail: the standard was an interim one... with all the according caveats.

Of course Croatia could still head toward an Austrian -like nightmare... we shall see.

 

[tomo pauk]

This is perhaps a little unfair to Rafale... and Croatia.

Rafale's maintenance cost and time will be 70-80% greater than on the Grippen. Fuel cost will be double. Our BDP is 1/7th of Austrian BDP. Our working population is shrinking due to a lot of people emigrating to richer countries of the EU, Switzerland and Norway.
Grippen would've been a better choice, not because it is somehow a better fighter (it is not IMO), but because we can afford it better in the years to come.

 

[Archibald]

Never realized before... you are from Croatia ?

 

[tomo pauk]

Never realized before... you are from Croatia ?

Yes
What were you thinking that I'm from?

 

[Lascaris]

Austria - instead of Typhoons, Gripen

D@mn right.
Croatia is falling in the similar trap with Rafale purchase.

This is perhaps a little unfair to Rafale... and Croatia.

I see what you mean (twin jet, expensive,4.5th generation fighter is rather overkill for a small country) - but the Austrian case is... peculiar, to say the least. Special.

In the sense their procurement process was truly atrocious - in fact it turned into a major politicians-and-bribe scandal, AFAIK.

Also German Luftwaffe, 1st generation Typhoons were probably not a good bargain. At least the Rafales are F3R standard, even if second-hand.

Eventually, a EUR 1.63 billion compromise was set for 15 Tranche 1, Block 5 Eurofighter Typhoon fighters and support services

Austrian Typhoons were closer from Rafale F1 standard, vintage May 2001 - stripped down, rushed-to-IOC early production machines.

Note that French Navy Crusaders to be replaced were as antiquated as the Austrian Drakkens. In both cases, the Rafales and Typhoons that replaced them were seemingly "modern" but the devil was in the detail: the standard was an interim one... with all the according caveats.

Of course Croatia could still head toward an Austrian -like nightmare... we shall see.

No Rafale is wrong for Croatia... it's used airframes Greece could be getting instead!

 

[Archibald]

Never realized before... you are from Croatia ?

Yes
What were you thinking that I'm from?

English, don't ask me why !

 

[Arjen]

Tomo pauk, Archibald. Draken with one K. Gripen with one P. Have pity on me. Please.

 

[Archibald]

No grippe, please. I will make drakkonian efforts to correctly write the name of these Swedish aircraft.

 

[GTX]

Rafale's maintenance cost and time will be 70-80% greater than on the Grippen. Fuel cost will be double. Our BDP is 1/7th of Austrian BDP. Our working population is shrinking due to a lot of people emigrating to richer countries of the EU, Switzerland and Norway.
Grippen would've been a better choice, not because it is somehow a better fighter (it is not IMO), but because we can afford it better in the years to come.

That raises an interesting subject that many forget - it is no point having the 'best' platform/system in the world if you cannot support/sustain and thus operate it. Gripen does come with some advantages in this regard as they offer a lease deal with, as I understand it, all major maintenance done back in Sweden. I believe the Hungarians and Czechs both use this as do the Thais to an extent even though they purchased their Gripens rather than lease. The flip side of this though is that while one might get lower sustainment cost demands, one is also tied to an external party for ongoing operational capability to a larger extent.

 

[Archibald]

Tomo pauk, Archibald. Draken with one K. Gripen with one P. Have pity on me. Please.

I understand, but you have no idea how many times I've seen RAFALE (which means SQUALL, damn it) written RAFAEL.

Maybe it's because of the Israeli aerospace company (maybe because France sold Mirages back then ?)

Or like the name, Rafael
(reminds me of two songs... excepts it writes Raphael, damn it)

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=riXYWLo622w

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHJoY0oSD_Y


To complicates matters even more, Carla (Sarkozy) Bruni's Raphael is NOT the Raphael singer, but another Raphael, an older one and not a singer: a philosopher.

Raphaël Enthoven - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Raphaël Haroche - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Dear God... my brain is bleeding in pain.

 

[tomo pauk]

I understand, but you have no idea how many times I've seen RAFALE (which means SQUALL, damn it) written RAFAEL.

It is very easy to me.
'Rafale' as a burst of fire from a machine gun, that was called 'rafal' in the ex-Yu army. (they have had a lot, a lot of borrowed words in their vocabulary). 'Rafael' is yet another name from the Bible.

 

[riggerrob]

The P-8 was not a surprise for anyone in the know. I remember briefings on it (well really the then Multimission Maritime Aircraft/Broad Area Maritime Surveillance programs) back in the late 1990s when I was still with 92WG RAAF. The RAAF was already talking to USN and the like then. The following article gives you somewhat of a snapshot of some of the history:

AIR 7000 – ISR FOR THE 21ST CENTURY - APDR

Defence’s ambitious project to replace the current Lockheed Martin AP-3C Orion with both manned and unmanned aerial vehicles, is one of the ‘big ticket’ items of defence budgets over the […]

asiapacificdefencereporter.com

Realistically, there is/was no practical alternative to the P-8.


Don't fall into the trap of thinking one platform has to be an exact replacement for a former. The CONOPS of the P-8 is different to the AP-3C/P-3 before it, just as the P-3's was different to the P-2 Neptune before that and Avro Lincoln and so on. Different technologies, threats, expereinces etc all contribute here. Also, don't think that ASW is the primary role of the current P-8 fleet. The very fact that these are part of the RAAF's Surveillance and Response Group (SRG) kind of gives the game away. The RAAF already has four stated primary missions of Anti-Submarine Warfare, Anti-Surface Warfare, Maritime Surveillance and Search and Rescue and I would argue that theMaritime Survellance is the one that has the greatest use by far.

A recent curfuffle in Ottawa was the RCAF’s decision to single-source a contract to buy 18 P-8 Poseidan long-range patrol airplanes from Boeing. Boeing was threatening to shut down the P-8 production line in 2025 after they have fulfilled all their NATO and 5 Eyes contracts.
After the Canadian P-8 contract was announced, Bombardier/Canadair demanded that the contract be re-opened for bidding because they want to submit a variant of the Challenger/Global Express. Never mind that none of those ASW avionics have ever been installed in a Bombardier airframe and integration will take the better part of a decade.
Even my local Member of Parliament (Peter Julian NDP representing New Westminster, B.C.) favors re-opening bidding. I tried to express my opinion - in person - on Saturday, but who knows how much sank in.
Ottawa politics were never meant to be understood by enlisted men.

I could write an entire book about Canadian Defense procurement blunders, but it would be too depressing.
WW1 water bottles, Ross rifles and boots
1930s Bren gun scandal
Grumman Goblin fighter production
WW2 Lysander production
Helldiver production
Hellfire anti-tank rocket
Bobcat armored personnel carrier
Avro Jet Liner
Avro Arrow
Bomark missiles
RCN Banshee jet fighters
CF-104 Starfighter
CF-5 Freedom Fighter production at Canadair
Greb Kodiak boots
HMCS Brasdor
Renta-Panzer Leopard 1
2 different CH-47 Chinook fleets
Purchasing CF-18s without spare parts
C-7 rifles
SeaKing replacement …. Cormorant, Cyclone
On again, off again F-35 fighter jets
P-8 Poseidan current debate,
Etc.
Which rant would you like to hear next?
Hah!
Hah!

Hint: I spent most of my RCAF service elbow-deep in helicopter grease

Master Corporal (retired) Rob Warner CD, BA, etc.

 

[Apophenia]

... Which rant would you like to hear next?...

More on most them, really Rob

But, first, some comments (arranged in the order you've given) ...

1930s Bren gun scandal: My impression that this 'scandal' was purely the invention of muck-raking journalists at Maclean's. The Bren contract was assigned to 'appliance maker' John Inglis and Company who produced 200,000 LMGs without issue.

A number of sources suggest that John Inglis had been purchased in 1937 solely because the new owner - Major J. E. Hahn, ex-Canadian Intelligence Corps, CEF - was prescient enough to see that Canada had few manufacturers capable of executing a pending Bren gun contract (which Maj. Hahn had been aware of through the War Office since Nov. 1936). Taking over a bankrupt 'appliance maker', proved to be the right move.
-- https://www.forgottenweapons.com/john-inglis-and-bren-production/

A 'right move' immediately suggests 'scandal' to journalists. The Commission report (Bren Machine Gun Contract) makes clear that, if there was any scandal, it was in the GoC's delay in committing to purchasing Brens from Inglis - a basic contract condition stipulated by the War Office.

Grumman Goblin fighter production: The Goblin purchase was foisted upon the RCAF in order to keep CC&F workers at Fort William active. Of course, in no sensible world would CC&F have been assembling obsolete Grumman carrier fighters without an honest market. CC&F had staff who were too smart for that - eg; GM Dave Boyd who quit in 1941 to help form Victory Aircraft and his brilliant wife, designer and engineer Elsie MacGill. But such people would always be over-ruled by CC&F top managers like President V. M. Drury (such was the sway of all Canadian establishment 'railway families' at the time).

But, before we start feeling sorry for the RCAF here, let's remember that our interfering lad, Drury, had been named honorary commander of 115 Squadron on 01 Sept 1938. (Obviously the RCAF kettle felt no need to call the colour of this CC&F tosspot ;p) In the end, CC&F was saved by local MP, C.D. Howe, ensuring that Fort William got the order (Dec 1938) to produce Hawker Hurricanes in Canada.

WW2 Lysander production: Actually, Malton did a pretty good job on Lysanders. The first 'scandal' came from the Globe & Mail noting the slowness of delivery. National Steel Car took the blame but, at the time, their plant ceiling was festooned with Lysander assemblies awaiting government-furnished equipment - most critical of all being the imported propellers (Rotols, IIRC) which RCAF HQ had simply forgotten to order.

Helldiver production: Not really a Canadian procurement, since the SBWs ordered were all for the US Navy (including Lend-Lease). As for the choice of producing the truly dreadful Helldiver in the first place ... well, we're back to CC&F management interference again.

Avro Jet Liner: Again, not really a Canadian procurement. Or were you referring to the C102's cancellation?

The Jetliner's stop-work order was down to ... once again ... C.D. Howe. Pushing aside the almost-done second prototype for later completion would have been a no-brainer - but we are talking about C.D. Howe here. The rationale was the Avro Canada needed to focus on the CF-100 (which needed its spars put right) and more general work to support allies in the Korean conflict.

Renta-Panzer Leopard 1: My sense is that Canada got a good deal on those leased Leopard 1A2s. Those 35 x Bundewsehr loaners arrived just as the Centurions were phased out and allowed RCD personnel to train on close approximations of the 1A3s/LeopardC1s which would be delivered the following year.

SeaKing replacement …. Cormorant, Cyclone: Too easy!

A real challenge would be finding a non-embarassing point in the Sea King Replacement, New Shipboard Aircraft, Maritime Helicopter Project, or Interim MHP histories. There must've been one of two. I just can't find 'em ...

 

[riggerrob]

The Bobcat armored personnel carrier project was started in 1952 by Leyland of Canada. Leyland Motors of Canada was only founded in 1948 never sold large numbers of trucks on the Canadian market. Leyland was absorbed in a series of mergers into Canadian Car and Foundry, then Avro Canada, then Hawker Sideley, etc.
Leyland finally completed a Bobcat running prototype but it performed poorly during testing in 1963 and the project was cancelled in favor of the ubiquitous FMC M113 APC.
Only 3 Bobcat prototypes were built: a pair of APCs and a self-propelled gun. Bobcat suspension was based upon a WW2 tracked, armored artillery tractor meant to to primarily on snow. Driving on gravel roads is tougher on tracks and driving on hard-surfaces roads is even tougher.
Bobcat prototypes suffered a multitude of problems including shedding tracks while running on hard surfaces. The configuration placed the poor bloody infantry near priority last with a front-mounted engine, a long drive shaft through the middle of the troop compartment leading to a traverse gear box across the rear of the troop compartment. Aside from all the noise, the troop compartment suffered from a pair of small doors (ala. Saracen) and a high threshold making for slow and awkward mounting or dis-mounting.

The SP version was simply too light for its 105mm howitzer. “Every time it fired, it landed in a different grid square!”

 

[riggerrob]

…. Renta-Panzer Leopard 1: My sense is that Canada got a good deal on those leased Leopard 1A2s. Those 35 x Bundewsehr loaners arrived just as the Centurions were phased out and allowed RCD personnel to train on close approximations of the 1A3s/LeopardC1s which would be delivered the following year.
……

I wore a black beret from 1974 to 1979.
Most of the Canadian fleet of Centurians were rusted out by the time that I started. They rest were waiting for spare parts and long over-due for a major overhaul (ala. Israel). Most of the maintenance efforts were devoted to the single tank regiment deployed to West Germany.
Rumor has it that the European Economic Union told Prime Minister Trudeau that the Canadian Army could either fulfill its NATO commitments, our Mr. Trudeau Luke forget about the next trade pact. So Canada rented a batch of Leopard 1s from the West German Army and sent them to CFB Lahr, West Germany where the Royal Canadian Dragoons scrambled to train up on their new mounts.
During the autumn of 1978, I was assigned to the RCD for the annual Reinforce Europe Exercises (REFORGER 1978). That was unofficially referred to as the last Renta-Panzer Exercise before the purpose-built Leopard C1s were delivered.
Fast forward to the War in Afghanistan and the Canadian Army suddenly discovered a need for heavy tanks so they rushed to purchase a batch of Leopard 2s. The Taliban declined to fight Leopards directly.
Canadian tank purchases have always lurched along driven more by politics than by maintenance concerns.

 

[riggerrob]

More on most them, really Rob

….. Helldiver production: Not really a Canadian procurement, since the SBWs ordered were all for the US Navy (including Lend-Lease). As for the choice of producing the truly dreadful Helldiver in the first place ... well, we're back to CC&F management interference again. …

It was more of a problem with Curtiss management who took a long time to work out all the design flaws with balance, tail flutter, etc.
All those engineering changes caused so many delays in CCF’s production that production engineer Elsie McGill was fired.
The RCN never operated Curtiss Helldivers.
Helldivers were unpopular with US Navy pilots. Immediately after WW2, the USN retired all of their Helldivers.
Only the Helldivers given to the French remained in service, mainly bombing Viet Minh. We have to wonder what the French did to offend the USN???

 

[riggerrob]

…. WW2 Lysander production: Actually, Malton did a pretty good job on Lysanders. The first 'scandal' came from the Globe & Mail noting the slowness of delivery. National Steel Car took the blame but, at the time, their plant ceiling was festooned with Lysander assemblies awaiting government-furnished equipment - most critical of all being the imported propellers (Rotols, IIRC) which RCAF HQ had simply forgotten to order.

It was more a problem of the wrong TYPE of airplane being produced. While Lysander may have been huge improvement over the biplanes that it replaced, Lysander was rapidly rendered obsolete by Messerschmitt’s fast 109 fighter.
My grand-uncle Wilbur D. Van Vliet led the first RCAF squadron to the UK in early 1940. RCAF 110 Army Cooperation Squadron flew Lysanders and were scheduled to fly missions over Dunkirk when an RAF squadron of Nimrod biplanes got mauled over the beaches. The RAF quickly cancelled Lysander missions over Dunkirk. Later on WC Van Vliet commanded BCATP bases that included Lysanders towing aerial targets.
Most of the surviving Lysanders - in museums - were built in Canada and never served overseas.

 

[Apophenia]

Centurions: Oddly, the Canadian tanks were all eventually sold to Israel. Doubtless the worst of them would have rendered down to spares but most were upgraded/re-engined as operational Sho't Kals. Mind you, Israel probably uses a bare minimum of road salt ...

According to Frank Maas at the Laurier Centre, the Trudeau Cabinet wanted to replace Lahr-based Centurions with air-portable Scorpions. Force Mobile Command, on the other hand, were advocating the 'Patturion' - basically another Centurion upgrade, this time with the M60's running gear (which is not a bad description of the Israeli Sho't Kal). The most interesting alternative was an unsolicited Cent upgrade proposed by Teledyne - re-engined, uparmoured, and fitted with a Low-Profile Turret.

Bobcat: Yup, perfect example of a design-by-committee disaster. Part of the difficulty was insistence upon the 'economy' of off-the-rack components. How could it be made worse? Add Canadian Car and Foundry into the mix?

One can't help but wonder if the mid-'50s back-up scheme to convert Sherman hulls into modernized Kangaroos mightn't have been better. Certainly couldn't have been worse.

Helldiver: Yup, the Helldiver was a deathtrap before its bugs were worked out and a dreadful mediocrity once it was 'fixed'. Elsie MacGill opposed its construction by CC&F from the outset. And it is always dangerous to one's career to prove that idiot bosses were wrong all along.

Lysander: Absolutely the wrong aircraft to build ... but no-one could have known that at the time. Less obvious but also true of the Bolingbroke, Hampden, Stirling (which, fortunately, was eclipsed by the Lancaster. Some would probably add the Stranraer to that list (though I wouldn't).

On S/L Van Vliet, this may be old news to you but just in case ...
-- https://www.thehistoryhangar.ca/400-squadron-bay/history-section/110sqnFlag

Greb Kodiaks: Stinkers among stinkers (no foot odour puns intended). The solution has been obvious for over a decade - instead of throwing money at Royer, ditch procurements altogether and standardize the boot allowance (highest rate for infanteers, lowest for Admin Clerks).

I'd be curious to hear your take on HMCS Bras d'Or and the Diemaco C7 series.

 

[riggerrob]

…. I'd be curious to hear your take on HMCS Bras d'Or ….

The basic time-line of HMCS Bras d’or (FHE 400) was published in George H, Lynch’s book entitled “The Flying 400 - Canada’s Hydrofoil Project” (Nimbus Publishing, Halifax,1983).
Military hydrofoils started as a 1950s (British) Royal Navy Coastal Command project to develop a faster patrol torpedo boat for the English Channel. When a post-WW2 economic slump dried up development funds in Britain, they robbed the project off on the National Research Council of Canada who in turn fobbed the project off to the Royal Canadian Navy.
HMCS Brasdor pushed the edges of the envelope in developing gas turbine propulsion, hydraulics, metallurgy, foil design, automated bridge design, etc giving her better endurance than a helicopter and dash speed double that of a destroyer escort with a displacement hull. I question whether her small crew would have the endurance of a DDE. She met her speed objectives during sea trials, but was never fitted with armament or the full range of anti-submarine sensors (e.g. sonar).

Back in 1992, I chatted with the chief engineering officer of HMCS Brasdor who explained that she was too far ahead of the metallurgy of her day. She suffered cracks, hydraulic leaks, etc.
Ironically, the RCN was not seriously interested in developing hydrofoils - for the sub-hunting mission - because they had already decided to narrow their focus to helicopter-carrying destroyers and had already devoted a few million dollars to developing the Bear Trap haul down and securing system for landing on small decks.
I worked with the Bear Trap system on the flight decks of HMCS Athabaskan (DDH 282) and HMCS Iroquois (DDH 280).

In the end, HMCS Bras d’or proved an expensive hole in the water fulled with scarce development dollars during an era of ever decreasing Defense budgets. She retired to an obscure maritime museum on the Lower Saint Lawrence River, a long way from the eyes of tax-payers.

 

[riggerrob]

…. Lysander: Absolutely the wrong aircraft to build ... but no-one could have known that at the time. Less obvious but also true of the Bolingbroke, Hampden, Stirling (which, fortunately, was eclipsed by the Lancaster. Some would probably add the Stranraer to that list (though I wouldn't).

On S/L Van Vliet, this may be old news to you but just in case ...
-- https://www.thehistoryhangar.ca/400-squadron-bay/history-section/110sqnFlag …..

No I did not know that. Thanks for filling in that gap in our family history.
The last time I spoke with cousin Walter Hoerning (October 2019), he mentioned donating his uncle’s log books to the museum in Rockcliffe, where I found them.
I am currently researching “Fliers In Our Family” in which Pilot Officer W.D. Van Vliet fills the first and fattest chapter.

 

[Archibald]

It was more of a problem with Curtiss management who took a long time to work out all the design flaws with balance, tail flutter, etc.
All those engineering changes caused so many delays in CCF’s production that production engineer Elsie McGill was fired.
The RCN never operated Curtiss Helldivers.
Helldivers were unpopular with US Navy pilots. Immediately after WW2, the USN retired all of their Helldivers.
Only the Helldivers given to the French remained in service, mainly bombing Viet Minh. We have to wonder what the French did to offend the USN???

All in the nickname: SB2C as in "Son of a Bitch, 2nd Class" ROTFL