amraam Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 New Defence Minister lobbied for Airbus O'Connor pushed Ottawa to buy A400M but denies any conflict of interest CAMPBELL CLARK From Wednesday's Globe and Mail OTTAWA — Canada's new Defence Minister, Gordon O'Connor, was involved in lobbying the armed forces to buy military transport planes that are now at the centre of the hottest military-supply controversy in Ottawa -- one that he will have to settle. Airbus, which dearly wants to sell its A400M tactical airlift planes to replace the Canadian Forces' aging fleet of Hercules aircraft, has been pushing for the federal government to delay the process so that its plane, which has yet to roll off the production line, can compete. Mr. O'Connor was a lobbyist for Airbus from 2001 to February of 2004, four months before he was elected as an MP, according to the Lobbyists Registry. His former firm confirmed that he was involved in early efforts, roughly 2½ years ago, to interest the Department of National Defence in buying what became the A400M. "We went to DND to do some presentations, and at the time DND -- I guess money-wise and cash-wise -- was not interested in proceeding on any form of airlift, which they didn't," said Brian Mersereau, a vice-president of Hill & Knowlton in Ottawa, who is now working on the Airbus file. "There was no competition, there was nothing. We were trying to gauge level of interest." At the time, the Defence Department knew it would eventually have to replace its tactical aircraft, but did not have a budget to move forward in the near term. Last fall, however, the Liberal government announced plans for a $4.6-billion purchase of planes. The multibillion-dollar deal, still years away, has emerged as the most controversial battle in Ottawa's cutthroat lobbying wars over major military contracts. Mr. O'Connor -- and others -- later charged that the government plan appeared to be favouring Lockheed Martin's C130J aircraft, and that Airbus should be given a better chance to have its A400M compete. Among other things, the Defence Department wanted the new planes "certified to aviation certification standards" by 2007, before the A400M would be ready to fly in 2008, even though documents obtained by The Globe and Mail indicated the Lockheed plane would not be delivered until 2010. "They had preconceived what they wanted, and they were just driving for it," Mr. O'Connor said last December. "The way they set up the requirements, they're only going to end up with one possible solution." Mr. O'Connor, a retired brigadier-general, has insisted he will not face any conflicts of interest between his eight-year career as a lobbyist for major military-equipment suppliers and his new role as Defence Minister. "I will not recuse myself from anything. I do not have any links to any company whatsoever," he said on Monday. An aide said yesterday that Mr. O'Connor was not available for an interview. The Lobbyists Registry indicates that Mr. O'Connor lobbied for 27 clients between 1996 and 2004, including some of the world's largest military contractors, such as BAE Systems, General Dynamics and Airbus -- firms that often compete for Defence Department contracts. Some experts argue that because Mr. O'Connor has no financial ties to any firm, and has not lobbied for two years, he does not face any broad conflict-of-interest problems. But Mr. O'Connor may have to tackle questions on issues such as the tactical-airlift contract regardless of what he does. If he changes the competition in a way that gives more hope to Airbus, he might be accused of helping his former client; if he does not, he might be accused of holding back on an important decision to avoid the appearance of conflict. "If he wants to change the rules, he has to make a very good case. If he decides on reflection that he shouldn't change the rules, he has to make quite a good case," said Paul Pross, a former Dalhousie University professor of public administration who advised the Gomery inquiry on lobbying issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChicoChico Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 Airbus A400M Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fido Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 Airbus A400M This is the first time that I have looked at the specs and even pictures of this beast. How does it compare to the Herc? Is it actually flying yet? The pictures look real. Kip and others that flew the Hercules? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super 80 Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 The Americans have not been 100% delighted with the C-130J, but their is a reluctance to wait for the A400, the conservatives might also want to give the deal to the Americans as a good-will gesture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lazionic Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 This is the first time that I have looked at the specs and even pictures of this beast. How does it compare to the Herc? Is it actually flying yet? The pictures look real. Kip and others that flew the Hercules? Its not in service yet. http://www.airbusmilitary.com/press.html From this article. The A400M, 180 examples of which were ordered in May 2003 by seven European NATO nations, with a further eight ordered by South Africa in April 2005, will first fly in 2008 with deliveries beginning in 2009. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paunchy pilot Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 This is the first time that I have looked at the specs and even pictures of this beast. How does it compare to the Herc? Is it actually flying yet? The pictures look real. Kip and others that flew the Hercules? Really? I thought the picture looks fake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fido Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 Really? I thought the picture looks fake. The one showing the aircraft landing in the desert with the sand blowing around from the props in reverse looked pretty good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GDR Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 C130J specs http://www.lockheedmartin.com/wms/findPage...i=0&ti=0&sc=400 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Specs Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 No concerns about Fly By Wire in a military transport (A400M)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kip Powick Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 This is the first time that I have looked at the specs and even pictures of this beast. How does it compare to the Herc? Is it actually flying yet? The pictures look real. Kip and others that flew the Hercules? Looks like a nice aircraft. It is really difficult to compare the two as no one has had a chance to fly the Airbus product yet. The Mil has upgraded the cockpits of the present Herc Fleet and the guys now have glass cockpits and all the bells and whistles of the NG airplanes. Fly by wire is no big deal and would be easily accepted by the pilots ...hey...gives them a leg up for "future employment". A little factoid..... The bean counters in NDHQ said that in the RCAF/CF there have been only two aircraft that have paid for themselves......the DC3, (C47), and the C130.... The C130E/H was a pure joy to fly. I compared it to fighter, nimble, light on the controls and capable of much more than what the AOIs stated. The only really "hairy" flights were low level Tac in formation........at night !!! I'm sure Airbus has designed a great aircraft but it will have to prove that it is better than the Herc in all aspects before DND gets it ...and like all DND aircraft acquisitions the guys who will make the decision will have been out of the cockpit for years and will probably want it without the full package and a few years later they will all have to be retrofitted for the gear that they should have bought when the planes came into production..... DND acquisitions are done without too much forward thinking...... in an attempt to show how financially wise they are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pictues Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 No concerns about Fly By Wire in a military transport (A400M)? Where do you think Fly by Wire was designed? The Military had Fly By Wire long Before Civilian PLanes did Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tango Foxtrot Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 Would they consider building them with P&W Canada 100 series engines ? In true Canadian historical style. It would probobly be a better airplane, and ever so politicaly correct. Better yet, how about assembleing them in Toronto also! Tony! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kip Powick Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 Try as I might I can't find the crew complement data nor can I tell from any of the website "photos". I would assume that there has to be a Loadmaster onboard but even with the new glass/2 man cockpit evolution, I would hope there is an FE on board. l sure wouldn't be happy going anywhere without the FE. The Navigator is going the way of the Dodo but I think he/she would still be required on low Level Tal missions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Skirt Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 The C130E/H was a pure joy to fly. I compared it to fighter, nimble, light on the controls and capable of much more than what the AOIs stated. The 130 is a PIG. If you want true performance in a large turbo-prop, then fly the P-3 (140). (mind you ,we couldn't carry much cargo, but we did have a bomb bay and hard points) We could fly higher and faster on 3 engines than an E model 130 could on 4! Not to mention doing some 60/2s at 300' and a top speed of 405kts at sea level. Only problem was with the 4-5 navs you always had on board and working for the Navy was always a pleasure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dropzone Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 So what's wrong with the Boeing C17 ? Now that's a beast ! At least it's already flying and in production. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kip Powick Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 We could fly higher and faster on 3 engines than an E model 130 could on 4! Not to mention doing some 60/2s at 300' and a top speed of 405kts at sea level Must have been fun taking off and 10 hours later arriving at the same place you departed from . By the way...how many "around the world missions" did the P3 do?? How many Polar North to Polar South. How many times did you guys ever put that thing on the polar ice cap? Speed ??? Who cares. We got paid the same amount whether we went vne or vmg Ever been in a 12 plane formation Low Level Tal mission through the mountains............ at night ??? Yeh-yeh...I know...you flew so low that the altimeter read water pressure...heard it all but have never met a guy who came form MarCom who was disappointed in T C. Aircraft performance, (speed/ max alt) isn't everything...it's what the aircraft can do, its versatility that counts. SAR...I circled a sinking ship for 4 hours with 100 foot ceilings, directing in a rescue ship...not saying the P3 could not do that but the C-130 was not built for that type of mission..but it did it. But we could "discuss" our favourites all day and neither of us could convince the other. PS..just don't bad-mouth the T-Rex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super 80 Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 So what's wrong with the Boeing C17 ? Now that's a beast ! At least it's already flying and in production. Extremely expensive, combined with abysmal economics difficult to justify for anything other than its most specific purpose. Heavy lift into unimproved or non-existant airfields. It may also not be much longer to the world, Boeing is going to shut down the line, the US can't afford to buy any additional C-17's and no order from anyone else would be large enough to justify keeping it open. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
handyman Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 The C130E/H was a pure joy to fly. I compared it to fighter, nimble, light on the controls and capable of much more than what the AOIs stated. The only really "hairy" flights were low level Tac in formation........at night !!! I was lucky enough to get some stick time on both the C130 and 707 and I must agree the C130 was very light and nimble compared to the 707...but please...it's not fighter like! I suggest they purchase some good used "H" or later models and overhaul the aircraft they have to keep them operational for another 10-15 years. Then more options\data\upgrades to "J" models will be available. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GDR Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 I thought that the C-130 felt very much like the DC9 on the controls. The C-130 really could do it all. I agree with Kip in that it was a great for TAL and yet it could still do medium to long haul not too badly. It would do Trenton - Lahr non stop if there was reasonably favourable winds and you didn't have too large a load. My time instructing in the TAL school was the best flying that I had in over 40 years in the trade. Greg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kip Powick Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 but please...it's not fighter like Compared to the Cosmo, Dash7/8, Buffalo, and any other prop planes in Transport Command it handled like a fighter. For example I spent 6 years on the Cosmo, (CV580) and the rudders were interconnected with the ailerons and it flew like a brick and was awkward to handle in a X-wind because of the interconnect. The C-130 was just an overgrown "fighter" with 16 speedbrakes and a pure pleasure to fly anywhere, anytime, in any weather. As far as the boeing 707 goes...well I would rather have 4 slow xxxxxx than 4 quick blow xxxx anytime Edited... cause I got carried away......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
handyman Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 Compared to the Cosmo, Dash7/8, Buffalo, and any other prop planes in Transport Command it handled like a fighter. For example I spent 6 years on the Cosmo, (CV580) and the rudders were interconnected with the ailerons and it flew like a brick and was awkward to handle in a X-wind because of the interconnect. The C-130 was just an overgrown "fighter" with 16 speedbrakes and a pure pleasure to fly anywhere, anytime, in any weather. As far as the boeing 707 goes...well I would rather have 4 slow xxxxxx than 4 quick blow xxxx anytime Edited... cause I got carried away......... Ok, ok Kip. From a taxi drivers perspective a Corvette is a F1 car. What would a Corvette be to a F1 driver? C130 is a great machine which has proven itself over and over. So like I said, why not top-up the fleet with used ones to defer the decision 10 years? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AME Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 So what's wrong with the Boeing C17 ? Now that's a beast ! At least it's already flying and in production. It's a Boeing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest rattler Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 Ok, ok Kip. From a taxi drivers perspective a Corvette is a F1 car. What would a Corvette be to a F1 driver? C130 is a great machine which has proven itself over and over. So like I said, why not top-up the fleet with used ones to defer the decision 10 years? IAirbus A400M Back in the Canadian Race? Posted 26-Dec-2005 20:13 | Permanent Link Related stories: Americas - Other, Boeing, EADS, Lobbying, Lockheed Martin, Other Corporation, RFPs, Rumours, Transport & Utility Airbus A400M concept On November 24, 2005, DID covered Canada's urgent $4 billion election eve competition (following sustained inaction) to replace at least 19 of its extremely aged CC-130E Hercules aircraft. DID offered extensive background re: Canada's fleet and condition, noted the factors that made a win by Boeing's C-17 or EADS' A400M challenging, and described an alternative that could give Lockheed's favoured C-130J Hercules a run for its money. Now CASR reports that the competition has taken an interesting twist. New C-130Js will apparently be unavailable for delivery until 2010, which would break the must-replace deadline of 3 years. Meanwhile, EADS Airbus Military is reportedly floating a trial balloon around acquiring and refurbishing C-130Hs within the deadline, then offering them later as trade-ins for the Airbus A400M. Will Lockheed now follow suit with a similar offer? C130J pictures down south Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dropzone Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 It's a Boeing Makes no sense...best airplanes I have ever flown were Boeings with one exception Lockheed L1011. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super 80 Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 The C-17 is not a Boeing, its Douglas! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.