• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Interesting sidenote on the C-17

The airlift capability of the C17 would be a very large valuable asset to the War happening over in the Middle East. Seems that although the aircraft may not fly directly out of Florida they would more then likely be involved in the never ending circuit of aircraft involved in the lift of supplies, troops and equipment. The sole reason for the purchase of the C17's is so that we can depoloy a limited force of our own and sustain them with out outside help so to speak. But when those great mammoth planes are sitting idle they can and will be employed by NATO. which in our case would be flying to the war. They may not be taking only our supplies, but the Americans, Brits, Unkraines etc.
They will be put into the large pool of heavy lift aircraft that is already in place by our allies. To transport the mentioned above.

As for a facility to maintain these aircraft.  Cold Lake seems to be the most economical solutions for such.
Cold Lake is close enough for direct support of the Western forces that could would and have deployed. The proximity to flying over the North to any hot spot is well suited and the large airbase with lots of room to expand for more hangers and storage means that Cold Lake can be well adapted to serve the high intensity of future heavy lift.
Not to mention they are close to Boeing for direct support and parts supply.
They are far enough away from major centers so as to not cause conflicting schedules. with large volumes of air traffic.
As for a East Coast center for heavy lift Not to sure. But Goose Bay could be a good choice, for the fact of it's large airfield Maybe even possibly Green Wood but I have never been there so not to sure of the layout of the ground. 
 
Cold Lake, Goose Bay and Greenwood!?!  I couldn't think of three M.O.B.'s that would be a worse location for a Strat-Lifter to live.  Goose Bay has one road that goes up there and it isn't even paved all the way - how would you expect the tonnes of equipment to arrive for shipment overeseas?

The base that houses these behemoths will need direct access to a multi-lane superhighway, rail link and access to a large commercial support base.  Let's see - where could that possibly be?  Oh yeh, Trenton.
 
I thought Cpl. anthony Boneca came home in a C-17 (I'm probably wrong), but can they do these airdrops also?
oops, didn't read far enough... it was Hercules CC-130

Canadian Forces air dropping supplies for first time in half-century
Ethan Baron and Ben O'Hara, CanWest News Service  -  Saturday, July 15, 2006
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/world/story.html?id=c3c34324-b027-4226-8d52-5f0d4606f2a7&k=77065

KANDAHAR, Afghanistan -- For the first time since the Korean War, Canadian Forces in Afghanistan are parachuting supplies to support combat troops.

The same type of airplane that on Monday carried the body of fallen Canadian soldier Cpl. Anthony Boneca home has been put into service dropping ammunition, food, water, razor wire and sandbags to coalition soldiers on combat missions.

"It was a historic day for the air force. We completed the first air drop for tactical resupply since the Korean war," said Capt. Aidan Costelloe of 436 Squadron, 8 Wing, based in Trenton, Ont.
More on link
 
The political games that are starting with the C-17 are driving me crazy, and you know what the worst of it is?  I have people who I work with that BELEIVE everything the LIBERALS are saying..... Where is my club when I need it?

All of our aircraft are yankee craft, (except the airbus, and the coromorant, oh and the challenger)  They have never Vetoed or prevented us from doing anything before.... I really don't get it.......What other Airframe is available right now that would be better for us than the C-17?  There isn't one, I know the russkies have some kit, I would think maintenance would be cheaper on a US bird....
 
One other thing.

Let's get this perfectly clear.  We build hangars to fit airplanes.  We do not EVER buy airplanes with the sole purpose in mind of fitting our existing hangars. 

Before we bought Hercs in 1963, we did not have proper hangar space for them either, most of our lines were still leftovers from WW2.  Guess what? We built new hangars.

Now, by the logic of the current Liberal defence critic, the Liberal Government of Mike Pearson should never have bought Hercs.  They were American built after all and the Americans might have stopped us from flying them to certain nations like Cuba.  And we did not have proper hangars.

Assclownry run amok...
 
Actually....we did.....  ( at leat the extended commonwealth we)

The Short Stirling was purchased BECAUSE its truncated wing-span fit neatly into the standard issue Hangar........( and its short falls were over-ridden on that point alone)


Ass-clownery CAN repeat itself......
 
I stand humbly corrected.

Still, look what happens when you base aircraft purchases on your available hangar space, vice your operational needs.
 
It's easy. Build a four lane highway and a railway to Goose Bay. There may be one little problem at the end of the road though because the hangars at The Goose are not very big. :o
Any place other than Trenton would be out of the question and would only create problems.
 
I think the gov't could easily spill this off as getting people work because we need new hangers.  Good for the economy.
 
An ingnored factor and pretty big one, being left  out of many articles on the C-17 and Strategic Airlifter Comparisons, is the runway takeoff length.  With the purchase of a new lifter,,, How many Canadian Airports can the different lifters can land at?

Airports - with paved runways:  total: 508
    over 3,047 m: 18
            2,438 to 3,047 m: 15
            1,524 to 2,437 m: 151
              914 to 1,523 m: 247
      under 914 m: 77

Airports - with unpaved runways:  total: 823
            1,524 to 2,437 m: 66
                914 to 1,523 m: 351
      under 914 m: 406

Nomen          Runway Take off Length    % of CDN Airports
C-17            1,064 m                              51.089
AN-124-100  2,800 m                              1.126
Il-76            1,700 m                              35.762

Overseas and in Canada, you will not always have a large International airport to land your lifter at, It makes more sense to me that any lifter purchase will maximize use within Canada, plus many hotspots around the world, will have small unimproved runways, 

I did my numbers, with the basic info I was able to google about the Aircrafts,


 
Not being a pilot, when they talk about unpaved runways, are we not talking about the grass runways that are often used by local flying clubs, or bush runways that although a dot on a map really aren't "Airports" in any real sense?

I should add, that since the C-130J requires 3,050 ft (which is pretty damned close to 1,000 meters), there's no measureable difference between the two.


Matthew.    ???

Statistics reference:  http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/hercules/specs.html
 
Cdn Blackshirt said:
I should add, that since the C-130J requires 3,050 ft (which is pretty damned close to 1,000 meters), there's no measureable difference between the two.

I had the impression right from the start, that the C-17 was favored simply because it only needed a runway as short as a c-130, but could lift a larger load. 
 
These statistics are great - even though completely useless.

Let's be realistic here folks - we are not going to take a C-17 into a grass strip (at least in Canada we're not).  Even the Buffalo rarely goes into one - and when we do, it's just for training.

Overseas we could expect any strat lift to work out of hardpacked surfaces (ie asphalt) with plenty of ground support.  Any Strat lifters would probably only goes as far as Mirage, and let the TAL elements take it the rest of the way to Kabul.  Only in cases of over-sized loads (i.e. LAV 3) would a C-17 be making the tactical insertion into Afghanistan.  Who knows - maybe the strat lifters will make the hop from Mirage to the 'Ghan and let a TAL element make intra-theatre drops throughout the region.
 
The USAF flys them into Kandrahar.It's a major airport from what I saw on TV a few years ago.
 
Zoomie quote "completely useless" eh?

Your right landing C-17 on a grass landing strip isn't going happen, so we eliminate all of the unpaved runways from the evaluation, because it is not worth the effort to eliminate the runways with inefficient soil density to land a strategic lifter.  So we are left the number of paved runways in Canada, and with the capabilities to land the C-17 approx. 351 of out 508 ~ 69%

To make explicitly clear my main point,

To evaluate the number of runways in Canada (as determined by length of runway) that the potential strategic lifter candidates (As stated by media and internet sources), can take off from.

Runway length should be important because Canada is geographically isolated from itself and the rest of world,  The more runways a plane can land at, increases the options for operations.

Zoomie, If you still can not see the usefulness in maximizing the use of airports within Canada, a new Strat lifter purchase can land at, let me know or if you're confused about anything else I have posted, please let me know, I would be happy to break things down for you
 
"landing C-17 on a grass landing strip isn't going happen, so we eliminate all of the unpaved runways from the evaluation,"

the alternative to PAVED runways is not grass strips  . . the Battle of Britain is over.  Gravel is what is used - actually carefull sifted gravel on properly engineered support layers and built up with suitable crowns, drainage etc.

Gravel strips are highly suitable and used all the time,  especially  up north.  737's regularly land on gravel strips (with a minor mod rock deflector kit on the nosewheel).  The DEW line runwas were about 90% "improved gravel" - only the MAIN sites have paved runways and they are very good runways that a C 17 would zero problems with.

 
2FtOnion said:
Zoomie, If you still can not see the usefulness in maximizing the use of airports within Canada, a new Strat lifter purchase can land at, let me know or if you're confused about anything else I have posted, please let me know, I would be happy to break things down for you

Please do - break things down for me...  Being an Airforce Strat/SAR pilot - I am always interested to glean more information from those who seem to think they know more.

Apart from deploying a mechanized platoon to Alert - where else would a C-17 (or its counterpart) really need to land in Canada that is not accessible by rail, road or sea?  Keep in mind that intra-Canada relief efforts can be effectively deployed via our current fleet of aircraft (i.e. ROWPU).

I agree that having the ability to conduct STOL operations is a good thing to have in your back pocket.  We practice landing and taking off the Buffalo via STOL operations all the time - we have never needed to use that ability in anger.
 
Apart from the whole landing strip discussion, I noticed that the Combat Camera website has some pics of Hercs performing resupply ops by parachute in Afghanistan in a manner they claim has not been done by the CF for a number of years.

When the CDS mentions TAL, I assume he is also talking about this sort of air drop of supplies to a company/battalion in the field?  Is this something we would also use the C-17 for, i.e. maybe drop a vehicle or piece of equipment or perhaps even paratroopers?   
 
Back
Top