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

[Cdn Blackshirt]

Very cool....thanks Duey.

Based on that, is Hillier's apparent prioritization on Herc's based on an assumption that we won't be doing much long range strategic lift and instead would be shipping a majority of materials to a nearby port and then using C-130's on shorter milk-runs?

And second, based on your own take if we can lighten the load on C-130 airframes by getting the (4) C-17's into service quickly, do you have a preference of the C-130J sooner vs the A400M later as the proper long-term solution for the air force?

Many thanks once again....


Matthew. 

 

[Good2Golf]

Matthew, I think Gen Hillier's take on the 130 before 17 is that the Polaris is doing not a bad job at strat from Canada to the Theatre airhead, but it's the condition of our TAT Hercs from the airhead into theatre that really needs to be remedied now. 

Re: the 130J...we need it now, we needed it yesterday.  Don't tell anybody I said this but I'd want to see 130J's go into service flown by my TAT buddies before I got to fly a Chinook, we need them that badly.

Re: A400M...if we had the luxury of time, then the A400M might not be a bad machine to do it all, but the problem is that in some cases it's too big for a true "tactical" transport, yet other times (heavy lift/long range) it's smaller than optimum...kind of a jack of all trades thing, IMO. 

I'll caveat my previous words with the fact that I have only ever sat in the back of a Herc and Polaris and haven't lived the "TAT dream"...although I did live some of my buddies' dreams of flying the C-130J from the back...  ;D

Cheers,
Duey

 

[Colin Parkinson]

PC, that's exactly right.  That's what happened when we took a transoceanic airliner and used it as an AMU-hopping commuter...in the later years, Boeing's were busting landing gear components and fatiguing dynamic parts like crazy because of the unintended usage.

Currently, Herc DO fly mostly intra-theatre.  Polaris is primary strat lifter in to theatre.  Yes, there are some items that come in on more-or-less "direct" flights by 130 but that's the exception, and very rare one at that.

Colin, just wondering...what makes a C130 (and its crew) more "expendable" than a C17?

Cheers,
Duey

16 old aircraft vs 4 very expensive brand new ones, plus everyone wants to join the airforce, so it shouldn't be hard to find new flight crews  ;D

 

[cplcaldwell]

Fascinating so far. But I want to stir the pot on this.

The differences from C-17, A400M and C130J-300 have all been made clear here, but, yes and I knew some of you were waiting for a dope like me to bring it up.... what about the IL 76!

Here's a quick rundown

C-17

IL76 (Standard)

IL76MD (ER)

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

Fascinating so far. But I want to stir the pot on this.

The differences from C-17, A400M and C130J-300 have all been made clear here, but, yes and I knew some of you were waiting for a dope like me to bring it up.... what about the IL 76!

Here's a quick rundown

C-17

IL76 (Standard)

IL76MD (ER)

Are you looking to get a virtual kick in the nads?


Matthew.  ;D

 

[cplcaldwell]

Oh, dear me, most embarrassing ... note to self, use preview button before posting complicated HTM table... much apologies.

Any way I think these numbers are good, some pulled from Boeing, some from airforce-technology, some from CASR...
Now I know the C-17 is a much more sophisticated aircraft, but for our purposes what's so bad about the IL??


The differences from C-17, A400M and C130J-300 have all been made clear here, but, yes and I knew some of you were waiting for a dope like me to bring it up.... what about the IL 76!

Here's a quick rundown

	C-17​	IL76​	IL76MD​	IL76MF​
		Standard​	Extended Range​	Extended Range​
				Extra Lift​
Cost ($Cdn)​	300M​	75M ​	80M ​	85M ​
Range (nm)​	4445​	3000 ​	4200 ​	5800 ​
@ Payload (tonnes)​	72.7​	47 ​	47 ​	58 ​
Takeoff (m@MGL)​	2359​	1600 ​	1700 ​	1700 ​
Cargo - Wid(m)​	5.5​	3.45 ​	3.45 ​	3.45 ​
Wingspan(m)​	51.8​	50.5​	50.5​	50.5​
Length(m)​	53.0​	46.6​	46.6​	53.2​
Height(m)​	53.0​	46.6​	46.6 ​	46.6 ​
Cargo - Len(m)​	20.8​	20.0​	20.0​	26.0​
Cargo - Wid(m)​	5.5​	3.45 ​	3.45 ​	3.45 ​

 
 
 
             
             
             
             
             
             
             
             
             
             
 
             
               
     
             
               
       
           
               
             
             
             
             

 

[Armymatters]

To cplcaldwell:
1. Russian engines are not as reliable and dependable as Western engines. They also use more fuel than comparable Western designs, and weight more. Also, Russian engines don't last as long as Western ones, usually 1/3 of a Western engine. For example, the mean time between overhaul (MTB) for the Russian RD-33 engine found in the MiG-29 is about 500 hours, with the German experience (Also, the Germans tuned their engines so that they operated at a lower thrust level for less wear and tear to get to this level of operational hours on the engine). There are two of these engines in a MiG-29. With Western designs, such as the GE F110 engine that is found in the F-14, F-15K, F-15SG, and F-16, the MTB is around 1000-1500 hours, over two times the life of the comparable Russian engine.
2. The Russians aren't known for quality control, compared to Western manufacturers. Airplanes built in the West are built to tight design specifications and tolerances, meaning that they often last longer and operate as specified.
3. The Russians aren't known as well to be good with reliable supplies of spare parts. The problems India is facing with their MiG-29 and Sukhoi fleet with reliable supplies of spares, especially new engines is an example.

Edit: Forgot a couple punctuation marks...

 

[KevinB]

cplcaldwell - several of the zoomie types on this board also pointed out the cost to rewire the entire system with western aviontics and the time it would take to get certified for Cdn flight would be prohibitive...

 

[Hawker]

Matthew, I think Gen Hillier's take on the 130 before 17 is that the Polaris is doing not a bad job at strat from Canada to the Theatre airhead, but it's the condition of our TAT Hercs from the airhead into theatre that really needs to be remedied now... 

Cheers,
Duey

Perhaps this is a dumb question, but given the job that the Polaris has done, would it make sense to acquire a couple more used A-310?  Now granted there aren't any being flown by Canadian airlines that would be surplus (which is how I believe we got both the Polaris and the 707's before them), but for certain there are some out there on the market.  Would this help with intercontinental lift at all, if only of certain types of cargo and pers?

 

[Mortar guy]

According to Airfax, there are only 5 A310s available on the market right now and most of those are for lease. See link for further details:

http://www.airtrading.com//a310.htm

Homme de mortiers

 

[vonGarvin]

According to Airfax, there are only 5 A310s available on the market right now and most of those are for lease. See link for further details:

http://www.airtrading.com//a310.htm

Homme de mortiers

Nice reference.  My only question: How many LAV III APCs can fit in a polaris?


PS: wouldn't it be "homme des mortiers?"  or even "homard des mortiers?" 
(just kidding, naturally.  My French is so poor that I couldn't talk my way out of a french kiss!)  /rimshot/


It does sound better in German, though
"Mörsermensch"

Cheers

 

[Mortar guy]

PS: wouldn't it be "homme des mortiers?"  or even "homard des mortiers?" 
(just kidding, naturally.  My French is so poor that I couldn't talk my way out of a french kiss!)  /rimshot/


It does sound better in German, though
"Mörsermensch"

Cheers

Morsermensch. Sehr gut. Wie hast du die umlaut machen?

(My German is so poor I couldn't talk my way out of a scheise video!) /airball/

 

[vonGarvin]

ALT and 148 = ö
You have to hold the alt and use the numbers from the number pad, not the ones above the letters.


Nice use of the "Scheißeporn"

(ß=ALT and 225)

 

[IN HOC SIGNO]

Nice reference.  My only question: How many LAV III APCs can fit in a polaris?


PS: wouldn't it be "homme des mortiers?"  or even "homard des mortiers?" 
(just kidding, naturally.  My French is so poor that I couldn't talk my way out of a french kiss!)  /rimshot/


It does sound better in German, though
"Mörsermensch"

Cheers

I don't think you're supposed to talk durning a french kiss
that's what I've heard anyway.

 

[Good2Golf]

Perhaps this is a dumb question, but given the job that the Polaris has done, would it make sense to acquire a couple more used A-310?  Now granted there aren't any being flown by Canadian airlines that would be surplus (which is how I believe we got both the Polaris and the 707's before them), but for certain there are some out there on the market.  Would this help with intercontinental lift at all, if only of certain types of cargo and pers?

They're not doing a BAD job, but they are not anywhere near optimum.  A large/outsize lifter like C-17 would be far more efficient AND effective than the Polaris...it's just that tac/intra-theatre airlift in the form of the Herc is in such a hurt-locker right now...

Cheers,
Duey

 

[Armymatters]

They're not doing a BAD job, but they are not anywhere near optimum.  A large/outsize lifter like C-17 would be far more efficient AND effective than the Polaris...it's just that tac/intra-theatre airlift in the form of the Herc is in such a hurt-locker right now...

Cheers,
Duey

We are also better off getting the newer Airbus A330 as well... they even have a tanker version, and a cargo version is apparantly in the works. Bigger, more capable, and newer than a A310.

Hawker: Air Transat uses the Airbus A310, but they aren't letting them go yet. However, Air Canada does use the Airbus A330 series jets, as do Air Transat and Skyservice.

 

[Good2Golf]

We are also better off getting the newer Airbus A330 as well... they even have a tanker version, and a cargo version is apparantly in the works. Bigger, more capable, and newer than a A310.

Hawker: Air Transat uses the Airbus A310, but they aren't letting them go yet. However, Air Canada does use the Airbus A330 series jets, as do Air Transat and Skyservice.

AM, the point is, that military cargo does not always fit neatly into an LD3 container.  310/330/340/380/767/777/etc... all great for things that can be containerized.  C17/An124/Il76/A400M strategically move outsized cargo and load/unload without a throng of civy cargo-MSE painted green. 

The point of my post was to point out that tac lift is in a hurt-locker and we need that now.

Cheers,
Duey

 

[Journeyman]

For a C-17 overview/update, The Federation of American Scientists has posted a new Library of Congress/Congressional Research Service report, "The  Military Airlift: C-17 Aircraft Program," dated 30 May 2006.

 

[Kirkhill]

Re Tac Lift Duey,

Given that the current fleet is apparently running out of time fast, and that C-130J-30s are apparently not due until 2010 (unless some horse-trading is done with customers that already on the production spots), and also given that the A400M is not likely to be in series production until at least that time what woud be a good bridge?

Regardless of who supplies them, are there enough -Hs with frames in better conditions than ours to make them a useful bridge (I understand the Americans are currently retiring Hs and replacing them with Js - are any of them less clapped out than ours?).

Alternatively the RAF has decided it doesn't want its J's it only wants J-30s and 17s until it sees if the 400s come along.

Both options have been discussed in the past.  Is either a viable option?  Better than the current situation? Any other options around beyond buying second hand Russian stuff?

Cheers.

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

For a C-17 overview/update, The Federation of American Scientists has posted a new Library of Congress/Congressional Research Service report, "The  Military Airlift: C-17 Aircraft Program," dated 30 May 2006.

Interesting the mention of the C-17 being used successfully as intra-theatre transport as well....

Can anyone speak of the thresholds at which C-130's can utilise fields that C-17's cannot (and additionally, at what points C-130's in turn are no longer capable of operation)?


Matthew.