Announcements & Decisions on Tactical & Stratigic Airlift (Fall 2005 and 2006)

[KevinB]

I am guess they mispoke with the C17 refrence in the Globe.

Personally I think we need the Hooks immediately as well--

 

[George Wallace]

I was wondering the same....but the C-17 J is a Boeing product.

 

[x-zipperhead]

Wow, that is a step in the right direction.  I wonder if the coming change of management in parliament could see the rug pulled out from under this a la EH 101 in '93. 

Until they are sitting on the ramp in Trenton I won't hold my breath. 

Still it seems like things are looking up!

 

[Teddy Ruxpin]

What I like about this - and other articles on this subject - is that finally we have a defence "official" telling it like it is (albeit an unnamed "official"), with the G&M willing to print his/her comments.  Some good shots at the lobby mafia, too...  We ain't dead yet!

I'm sure it's a misprint - C-17s aren't even on the radar and there's no such thing as a C-17J...

 

[George Wallace]

Sorry Bear

Boeing C-17: The bigger and extremely expensive Globemaster III is seen as a possible alternative by Belgium, France, Spain and Great Britain. She would be used as a strategic transport component in conjunction with a smaller aircraft like the C-130J. According to Boeing there is a need for 39 C-17J aircraft, which would be supplied from 2004. The cost is estimated at $7 bln, if one takes the amount of money the USAF paid for one aircraft, (i.e.$175 mio).

The C-17J has also been entered separately into the competition by the Royal Air Force. For the so-called Short Term Strategic Airlift the British require four aircraft. From 2001 these planes would be leased for seven years. Airbus' Beluga and the Antonow An-124 are pitted against the C-17. The Antonow is on offer in conjunction with Air Foyle. She has been modernised and fitted with Honeywell-Avionics and Rolls-Royce RB211-524HT engines

http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRheft/FRH9904/FR9904h.htm

 

[Teddy Ruxpin]

Seen.  But does it actually exist?  AFAIK, there are no variants of the C-17 beyond the basic model and USAF mods; there are some projected varieties.  The UK bought standard C-17s (Block XIIs, to be exact):

-  CX Initial project designation.
-  C-17A First prototype (T-1). Nose pitot boom. Reduced avionics fit.
-  C-17A Block I to XI Standard production version. P-1 to P-5 for development testing. P-13+ with interim strengthend wing, P-32+ with redesigned stronger wing structure, P-51+ with composite tailplane and improved avionics.
-  C-17A Block XII Improved production version (P-71+) with centre section wing fuel tank for extend range. Upgraded software and redesigned cockpit MFDs.
-  C-17A SOLL II Special Operations Low Level (SOLL) II variant to replace C-141B SOLL II.
-  EC-17 Projected airborne command post version to replace EC-135.
-  KC-17  Proposed tanker version. Additional fuel in wing centre tank and/or modular palletised tank in fuselage. Total capacity 165,513 litres. Refuelling boom and/or hose drum unit integated into rear cargo ramp door plus optional underwing pods. Operators station on modular pallet.
-  MD-17  Proposed dedicated commercial freighter variant.
-  BC-17X Proposed designation for commercially operated C-17A, subsidised by DoD to be available to USAF in time of crisis. [/list]

http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/c17/flash.html

For tons of detail, try here:

http://www.aeroflight.co.uk/types/usa/boeing/c-17/c-17.htm

Cheers,

Teddy

 

[Jungle]

I hope we get a chance to buy the A-400. Looking at the cargo compartment dimensions, it looks like an acceptable compromise between the C-130 and C-17. According to the web page, it can carry 2 x LAV-III.

A-400 Cargo Box Dimensions:
  Length (excluding ramp) 17.71 m
  Ramp Length   5.40 m
  Width   4.00 m
  Height   3.85 m
  Height (aft of wing) 4.00 m
  Max. Payload 37 tonnes

C-130J Internal Dimensions
Cabin length (excluding ramp) 40 ft / 12.19 m
Cabin length (including ramp)  50.7 ft / 15.44 m
Max. width  10.25 ft / 3.12 m
Max. height  9 ft / 2.74 m
Total useable volume  4,551 ft3 / 128.9 m3
Max. payload (2.5 g) 41,790 lb / 18,955 kg

 

[Slim]

Didn't I read someplace that that aircraft was not a 'military' designed one and would have to be retrofitted with cargo ramps and whatnot...?

 

[Jungle]

No, it's an entire new aircraft that Airbus has been working on for some time. 16 of those would give the CF a decent strategic airlift capability, with the remaining (more recent) C-130s for tactical airlift.

 

[blacktriangle]

Does anyone know off the top of their heads whether anyone else is using the military A-400?

Just curious.

 

[Jungle]

It is not yet in servive anywhere. We better hurry up if we want any before 2015...

The A400M, 180 examples of which were ordered in May 2003 by seven European NATO nations, will first fly in 2008 with deliveries beginning in 2009.

 

[Infanteer]

It's a paper airplane - they haven't even built one yet.

 

[Jungle]

It's a paper airplane - they haven't even built one yet.

Yeah... everything starts out that way !! 

 

[KevinB]

An ideal mix of C5A's and C17's would be my personal wish list... (5 and 10 maybe - wish wish wish)  IRRC the C17 works out to about 1/4 of a B USD's  -- unless the tooth fairy is awful generous I can't see the CDN Gov't funding it.


The CF needs lift now not in 2015 -- the A400 may be a nice spec'd piece of paper - but it does not get bean and bullets into K-town...

 

[geo]

Read somewhere that if ordered now, the new J Hercs would start coming in by 08. Also read that the US gov't had contracted for some C17s just to keep the production line going... Cda could take over contract for 3 (?) and take delivery even faster than the Hercs... Imagine!

 

[Zoomie]

Last I heard, the A-400M hasn't made it out of the wind tunnel.  At best, there are 10 engines out there somewhere on a test bed undergoing run-ups.  The J model hercs are at least operational...  If this happens, we're going to have more of a nightmare to contend with.  We'll have H models and Buffs doing SAR, with the J's conducting TAL.  That's three distinct airframes with supply chains for each, can you say logistical clusterfark?

 

[a_majoor]

Of course, any amount of extra money could simply flow down the black hole without some reorg at a very high level. I got this email from the CDAI today:

Dear Colleagues:

The Conference of Defence Associations (CDA) would like to bring your attention to an article which appeared in the Ottawa Citizen on Saturday (see link below).  The author, General (Ret'd) Paul Manson, President CDA Institute, comments on the recommendations put forth in WOUNDED: Canada's Military and the Legacy of Neglect (see link below), a recently published report from the Senate Committee on National Security and Defence.  The report argues that the CF has inadequate resources and is suffering from a rapid decline in CF capabilities due to years of overcommitment, decades of inadequate levels of Canadian defence spending, and complex, inefficient administrative processes.  In order to arrest this decline, the report states that the government should increase defence spending to $25-$35 billion per year.

Although General Manson believes that an immediate boost in defence funding is imperative, he does not state that the funding levels should be immediately increased to the $25-$35 a year level.  Rather, he reminds readers that the Senate report's projections of $25-$35 billion dollars are for fiscal year 2011-2012. Additionally, Manson suggests that Canada needs to reform its administrative system to manage defence procurement, since the system "can scarcely manage current levels of defence spending." Without quick and forceful action, the federal government is not going to be able to transform the Canadian Forces into an organization that can execute the demands of the recent Defence Policy Statement 

Fulfilling all of these requirements will take time, money, and careful planning.  Above all, it will require a government that is willing to ensure that defence procurement is not sidelined by parochial domestic interests.  In this vein, the CDA is encouraged by the expectation that the government will soon agree to a plan to proceed with a $4.6 billion purchase for 16 badly needed C-130J Hercules transport aircraft (see link for Stephen Thorne's news article below).  The CDA hopes that both present and future governments will support this procurement effort, as well as approve other desperately needed capital equipment acquisition initiatives, particularly the much-needed medium lift helicopters and the search and rescue aircrafts. . 

We invite those interested in learning more about the shortfalls in Canada's system of defence administration to read a recent editorial published in The Hill Times by General Manson and Dr. Douglas Bland (see link below), as well as a presentation to the Standing Committee on National Security and Defence (SCONDVA) given by Dr. Douglas Bland and Colonel (Ret'd) Howie Marsh.

Alain Pellerin,

Executive Director CDA

613-236-1252

Links:

Bland, Douglas, and Paul Manson.  "Transforming DND Administration Next Challenge for Graham," The Hill Times, September 26, 2005 (see full text below). (not posted due to size)

Evidence, 38th Parliament, 1st Session, Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs, October 25, 2005.  Available from http://www.parl.gc.ca/committee/CommitteePublication.aspx?SourceId=134193

Manson, General (Ret'd) Paul.  "In Defence of Defence Spending "  Ottawa Citizen, November 19, 2005, B7, available from http://www.cda-cdai.ca/presentations/What_Price_Defence.htm     

Thorne, Stephen.  "Government to Announce Tuesday it will Proceed with Military Aircraft Purchase," Canada.com News, November 21, 2005, available from http://www.canada.com/components/printstory/printstory4.aspx?id=3f54ced0-9c21-4cba-af2b-780182f63cf0

WOUNDED: Canada's Military and the Legacy of Neglect, Senate Committee on National Security and Defence, September 2005.  Available from http://www.parl.gc.ca/38/1/parlbus/commbus/senate/com-e/defe-e/rep-e/repintsep05-e.pdf

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

Last I heard, the A-400M hasn't made it out of the wind tunnel.   At best, there are 10 engines out there somewhere on a test bed undergoing run-ups.   The J model hercs are at least operational...   If this happens, we're going to have more of a nightmare to contend with.   We'll have H models and Buffs doing SAR, with the J's conducting TAL.   That's three distinct airframes with supply chains for each, can you say logistical clusterfark?

That being said, at least the A400M can carry a LAV-III.   Since the C-130J cannot, I do not understand why it is even being considered in any significant numbers.   I guess if you want to use it for tactical resupply or for SAR within Canada (where you don't have to move LAV-III's or anything really heavy) then great, but otherwise I don't see it as providing enough capability to justify making it the foundation of our airlift that based on current policy changes is going to have a fulfill a much more expeditionary role in future years.

Personally, I think it would be worthwhile to try to cut a direct deal with the Russians for 10-12 IL-76MF's with with NATO-ized avionics.   The recent deal with Jordan worked out to less than $50 million USD per copy represents tremendous value for money.   I would add that I think Canada would have some leverage to get excellent pricing as it would represent Ilyushin's first ever deal with a NATO member..

"Jordan, meanwhile, purchased a pair of stretched Ilyushin IL-76MF military transports for $100 million. Note that the capacity of the IL-76MF variant is approximately 70-80% of an American C-17 Globemaster III in an aircraft with comparable range, and that this deal places them at approximately one-quarter of a C-17's cost."

Source: http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2005/08/maks2005-makes-1b-for-russian-firms/index.php

As a yardstick, a recent deal with Jordan for the stretched IL-76MF (fully westernized version) worked out to about $50 million per plane. The cost of a comparable American C-17 is about $160 million, the Airbus A400M will cost about $100-120 million each, and a C-130J Hercules costs about $66 million. As yet, Rosoboronexport has not released an official statement.

Source: http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2005/09/china-to-buy-38-il76-heavy-transports-il78-tankers/index.php#orison_mc



Matthew.    

 

[Infanteer]

Buying a plane because it can carry a LAVIII is a red herring - Canada will never have the numbers to move LAV's in significant numbers to make a useful force - even the American's have trouble doing this.  We need to get this into our head when we shop for "medium weight, deployable forces".  There is a good RAND study on this.

Let's get out of this bizarre, CSAR-inspired plan to buy every piece of Soviet-era junk.  Simple data, prices and fancy pictures don't cut it when it comes to purchasing an airframe - I don't think we've had one aviator to date support the idea of bringing these into our air fleet....

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Let's get out of this bizarre, CSAR-inspired plan to buy every piece of Soviet-era junk.  Simple data, prices and fancy pictures don't cut it when it comes to purchasing an airframe - I don't think we've had one aviator to date support the idea of bringing these into our air fleet....

Amen, brother!