"O'Connor has $8B military 'wish list"

[_TheSaint_]

C-130J can't carry a LAV III, the premier CF land vehicle in any state of combat readyness (we have to pull the turret, remove all ammo and bolt on armour to get it to fit in a C-130 and within the weight limits of the aircraft, and even then the C-130 ain't going anywhere far). MGS will be far worst: It won't fit at all. A400M will easily take a LAV III or MGS in combat readyness (drive it off the airplane and straight into combat), without taxing a limited fleet of a future CF C-17 fleet.

Aww crap. I knew there must be some reason for the debate. Well then how about this.....buy C-17s  now for the big trips, and hold off on buying the smaller hop one till the A400 is ready.  I guess lease some other ones or continue to get rides till then.

We'll try not to start any unilateral wars till 2012 too.

 

[IN HOC SIGNO]

Didn't we order some C130s last fall under the Liberals? Or was that just more promises? I thought the CDS had asked for these immediately and they were ordered...to keep up with the increasing unreliability of the current fleet.
I know you fly guys and gals are going to jump on me but I thought we had ordered some...when if so will they be delivered? Is this new wish list in addition to that order?

 

[Armymatters]

Didn't we order some C130s last fall under the Liberals? Or was that just more promises? I thought the CDS had asked for these immediately and they were ordered...to keep up with the increasing unreliability of the current fleet.
I know you fly guys and gals are going to jump on me but I thought we had ordered some...when if so will they be delivered? Is this new wish list in addition to that order?

That got canned when the Liberals got kicked out of office. I expect a future competition between C-130J and A400M when the rest of the C-130 fleet needs to be replaced.

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

Question that I am sure has been answered.  How do our allies get their LAV's to the battlefield?
Proven airframe in combat conditions or a crap shoot plane that what we will be the first to test in real world conditions.  How about we get the C17's and Herc's and let some other poor country trial the A400.  Then we can better judge what's best.

 

[MarkOttawa]

What happened last fall:

1) Defence Minister Graham tried to get Cabinet approval for a big package: tac lift, heavy-lift helicopters, fixed-wing SAR;
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/Page/document/v4/sub/MarketingPage?user_URL=http://www.theglobeandmail.com%2Fservlet%2FArticleNews%2FTPStory%2FLAC%2F20051111%2FMILITARY11%2FTPFront%2FTopStories&ord=11898942&brand=theglobeandmail&redirect_reason=2&denial_reasons=none&force_login=false

2) Cabinet only approved tac lift;
http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=89b9d214-65ff-4ab9-a881-5023d094f953

"Nov. 22, 2005:
The armed forces was the beneficiary of the big ticket item this day – $4.6 billion to replace the aging fleet of Hercules aircraft. Sixteen new transport planes could be on their way."
http://www.cbc.ca/canadavotes/analysiscommentary/preelexspendingpromises.htm

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Armymatters]

Question that I am sure has been answered.  How do our allies get their LAV's to the battlefield?

Americans? They get their LAV's over using their own strategic lifters, mainly.
Everyone else? Hitch a ride on an American lifter or charter Russian/Ukrainian heavy lifters.

Proven airframe in combat conditions or a crap shoot plane that what we will be the first to test in real world conditions.  How about we get the C17's and Herc's and let some other poor country trial the A400.  Then we can better judge what's best.

Canada won't be first in line to be receiving the A400M if we make a purchase now. First flight is again anticipated in 2008, certification in 2009, with first deliveries to the Armée de l'Air (French Air Force) in October of 2009. Canada will receive the A400M in early 2011, right after the Germans, South Africans, and the Brits start receiving theirs. There will be about 1 year of operations by A400M by then.

With current computer engineering, we already have a very good idea of how an airplane will perform before we even build it. Only minor issues that can't be simulated or anticipated will be encountered. Airbus already offered refurbished C-130H's as an interm measure until we get our A400M's.

Edit: Another thing: The current European contracts for A400M are structured like a civilian airliner purchase, meaning guaranteed delivery schedules, performance, and final weights, otherwise Airbus gets a heavy penalty.

 

[Kirkhill]

...we already have a very good idea of how an airplane will perform before we even build it.

I remember those days.....it was great to be young.

How an aircraft flies, or any machine performs, is easy enough to model.  What you can't model is how all those loose bits fit together and hold up during operations.  Remember how many draftsmen, engineers, labourer and subcontractors were involved and many people will be flying each aircraft, maintaining it, flying it in different conditions, loading it.....you surely get my drift by now.

You can't model operational hours.  Cracked rotor hubs on the CH-149 are a prime example. 

The Euros are buying, or say they are buying, dozens of these things.  When the -A series shows up all the flaws in the design they will simply make the adjustments to the B and C series models which will make up most of their inventory.  If Canada bought them it would only likely be buying a few with the chances high that it would be stuck with an A series fleet.

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

What I meant was what type of plane gets their LAV's to KAF or Iraq Airport.

 

[Teddy Ruxpin]

Perhaps we should tell Airbus that we'll buy their computer-generated aircraft if they install Pratt and Whitney Canada engines as originally planned. 

I've only just now had a look at the history of the A400M and it doesn't fill me with confidence.  The programme has been plagued with political interference, international in-fighting, cost overruns and cancellations.  We should ask ourselves why the British leased the C-17 in the first place... 

Frankly, I should think that a proven product, already flying, is preferable to something that isn't even built yet.  The C-17 is a very, very capable aircraft and is ideally suited to the strategic role.  The C-130J has had problems, but at least it is a familiar product that can be integrated into a strategic plan now, not five years from now...

FWIW.

Quagmire:  the Yanks lift armour with C-17s or C-5Bs.

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

Thank you Teddy.

 

[Armymatters]

Perhaps we should tell Airbus that we'll buy their computer-generated aircraft if they install Pratt and Whitney Canada engines as originally planned. 

I think PWC dumped the engined they proposed. Also, Pratt has burned Airbus severely in the past with their projects. Take the Airbus A318 airliner. Airbus originally sourced the primary engine for it from Pratt (the PW6000), but Pratt ran into difficulties with the design, as it burned way more fuel than expected. By the time a competitor (CFM International, a consortium of SNECMA and GE Aircraft Engines) had a engine ready, most A318 customers backed out of the project.

The Europrop engine already has a Canadian component: the FADEC (Dual channel full authority digital engine control) will come from Hispano-Suiza (Safran Group) in Peterborough, Ontario, according to my source inside Airbus.

Another issue was arms control issues. PWC is a American company, despite "Canada" being part of its name. PWC is owned by an American company, United Technologies, a Hartford, Connecticut based company. The airplane was designed in part to promote European self-sufficiency in arms. Any export orders are icing on the cake.

 

[KevinB]

The airplane was designed in part to promote European self-sufficiency in arms.

Let Europe rot...


The C17 and C130J are in service.  95% of our international operations are with the Americans -- maybe it is wiser to use their kit...
  Oh and it works too.

 

[Armymatters]

Let Europe rot...


The C17 and C130J are in service.  95% of our international operations are with the Americans -- maybe it is wiser to use their kit...
  Oh and it works too.

C-130J has issues with software integration, and with the FBW controls, so I won't be declaring that it works. Even the Brits are complaining about the issues with their C-130J's, software wise.

The RR AE2100 engine are also not as reliable as the older Allison T-56. On top of that, the engines and props create excessive vibration, causing issues with noise in the cabin, causing fatigue for anyone inside the cabin, and the crew members, according to the Australian experience.

In all, most operators of C-130J's are not happy at all with the type. At one time the Brits even refused delivery of the airplanes and demanded that the current issues be fixed. The Danes decided to let their delivery schedules slip for Lockheed to start resolving the issues before they arrived (I've been told that the issues for the Danes have been resolved to a point where the Danes were happy). Even the USAF has mixed feelings regarding C-130J. On top of all that, Lockheed doesn't seem to want even help resolve the issues, letting the customers find and pay for the fixes. With the UK, full operation readyness was slated to be in 1999. It is 2006, and the UK Herc J's still aren't ready yet. New plans will be for the UK to ditch the current fleet of C-130K's for A400M's instead of more Herc J's, and the current 'J fleet might also end up on the chop block.

The C-130J is really a major boondoogle, and Lockheed is to blame for mishandling the issues. Calling these teething issues is not even close to the problems with the bird. The bird was in short half baked and the current problems stem from this. Lockheed's reputation with some customers has been tarnished really badly over the issues. Lockheed is really lucky that V-22 Osprey is currently taking the lime-light for operational bugs otherwise they will be feeling the flak full on.

http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0105/012405cdpm3.htm
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199899/cmselect/cmdfence/241/9021005.htm
http://www.stsc.hill.af.mil/CrossTalk/2001/09/conn.html

I'm not saying C-130J is a bad airplane; it will be a excellent airplane, but right now, it is bugs galore.

 

[KevinB]

I was talking to a Brit pilot over a beer here (Afghanistan) -- he was saying they have no issues with the J other than due to the Engines and Props they cannot jump folk via paratroop doors - ramp is necessititated (A big issue in my mind -- but apparently it can be fixed by using the old props)  The Brit SOF aviation uses the K's now due to this issue.

IMHO taking a plane with some bugs is better than a plane that does not fly (A400).

No to mention with the Brits using C17's as well as the Aussies - ABCA would be 100% C17.
  With the J in service as well that would give us 100% airframe compatibility.

A lot easier to borrow a part off the USAF in theatre than ring up AirBus and beg.

*edit for spelling

 

[Journeyman]

I remember those days.....it was great to be young.

:rofl:

Canada won't be first in line to be receiving the A400M if we make a purchase now. First flight is again anticipated in 2008, certification in 2009, with first deliveries to the Armée de l'Air (French Air Force) in October of 2009. Canada will, (could - edited for grammar and reality)  receive the A400M in early 2011 right after the Germans, South Africans, and the Brits start receiving theirs. There will be about 1 year of operations by A400M by then.

By which time, the flaws would be obvious to even the naked emperor, and we'd be locked into a contract for this albatross.

Let Europe rot...
The C17 and C130J are in service.  95% of our international operations are with the Americans -- maybe it is wiser to use their kit...

(nice name change Infidel-6; I like it    )
Despite the various degrees of anti-Americanism in Ottawa and elsewhere, and members of Quebec caucuses looking whistfully back to the francophonie motherland, the reality is Canada is part of ABCA, not EU. Until we tear up our roots and paddle the country across the Atlantic to lash-up with Europe, making interoperability with ABCA should play a large, logical role in procurement. A400M will not fill the bill.

Even the USAF has mixed feelings regarding C-130J.
http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0105/012405cdpm3.htm
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199899/cmselect/cmdfence/241/9021005.htm
http://www.stsc.hill.af.mil/CrossTalk/2001/09/conn.html

I can, however, see the opposite side of the arguments. There are still problems with the C-130J. In reality, it only looks like a Herc. It is a completely (+/- 70%) new aircraft. And the USAF has "mixed feelings" because they never wanted it - - still don't. It was decreed from on high that they would take it, in order to maintain 8,000 jobs in Marietta, Georgia - - a congressional district that is home to Lockheed Martin. (Does this sound familiar?)

However, citing three online documents that are dated Jan 2005, Feb 1999, and Sep 2001 respectively to make your case is somewhat disingenuous. Many things have changed since 1999 - - hey, several readers of this site may even have hit puberty. 

 

[Good2Golf]

...The RR AE2100 engine are also not as reliable as the older Allison T-56. On top of that, the engines and props create excessive vibration, causing issues with noise in the cabin, causing fatigue for anyone inside the cabin, and the crew members, according to the Australian experience.

...I'm not saying C-130J is a bad airplane; it will be a excellent airplane, but right now, it is bugs galore.

:

Armymatters, your "book barfing" is way out to lunch on this one!

I'll match your "books",and raise you with a  "personally flying on the RAF C130J Kandahar-Farah-Herat-Mazar-Kabul 5-hour milk run" and tell you that your information is WRONG.  In fact, I could actually take my earplugs out and listen to my iPod quite nicely, thank you.

Duey

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

I believe that is called Check and Mate.

 

[Wizard of OZ]

I would much rather see the CF have a plane that they could use in the visable future then to place our eggs in the basket of a plane that is not even off of the drawing board yet. 

And hey if in 2015 the A400 is ready and able then we could buy another 15 to have the gap filled, plus this allows us to work in Europe with our partners there if anything should happen.  But for now I say stick with what you know and we know the Herc I mean they are buying the dam things back from us to figure out how we kept them flying so long.  That should be worth some discount.

As for the rest of the proposal I gotta feel kinda bad for the fighter jocks, down to around 60 working craft and nothing on the radar to replace or increase those numbers.  Gonna be some hard years on those boys in blue.

 

[Infanteer]

:

Armymatters, your "book barfing" is way out to lunch on this one!

I'll match your "books",and raise you with a  "personally flying on the RAF C130J Kandahar-Farah-Herat-Mazar-Kabul 5-hour milk run" and tell you that your information is WRONG.  In fact, I could actually take my earplugs out and listen to my iPod quite nicely, thank you.

Duey

Damn you and your real-world experience!!!

 

[Good2Golf]

I would much rather see the CF have a plane that they could use in the visable future then to place our eggs in the basket of a plane that is not even off of the drawing board yet. 

And hey if in 2015 the A400 is ready and able then we could buy another 15 to have the gap filled, plus this allows us to work in Europe with our partners there if anything should happen.  But for now I say stick with what you know and we know the Herc I mean they are buying the dam things back from us to figure out how we kept them flying so long.  That should be worth some discount.

As for the rest of the proposal I gotta feel kinda bad for the fighter jocks, down to around 60 working craft and nothing on the radar to replace or increase those numbers.  Gonna be some hard years on those boys in blue.

Oz, don't feel to bad for them...ECP583 is a nice mod -- the APG-73 radar kicks a$$ and they finally have HAVEQUICK II(+)...  ;D