"O'Connor has $8B military 'wish list"
- Thread starter MarkOttawa
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
I just thought of something if we do buy C-17's: We can't refuel them in the air with our CC-150 Polaris tankers. C-17's use the boom and receptacle method of refueling, while the rest of the CF uses probe and drogue. Looks like we either have to stop somewhere for fuel for long distance flights or ask the Americans for a tanker, otherwise, we can also go back to EADS as they finished developing a boom system for the A310 MRTT and A330 MRTT.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
So does the RAF. The British don't seem to have any problem.
- Reaction score
- 8,279
- Points
- 1,160
Armymatters:
I can't help but wonder if you have bought shares in EADS yet.
The principle advantage in 4 C-17s, IMHO, is not their international deployment capabilities but their internal deployment capabilities. 4 C17s will not create much of a long range conveyor for supporting forces over international distances. On the other hand 4 C17s will allow one centrally located force deployed on Hercs, to bring along heavy equipment to any location in Canada. There are airfields and gas pumps at both ends of the trip and one jump will take you from Trenton to Resolute, Victoria or St. John's. They would also allow for a C17 to load up 2-4 Griffons and rapidly transport them into the North for assistance to a major disaster.
With one in the shop, one on stand by for domestic reaction and probably one doing training support that leaves one, maybe two to deploy overseas.
The primary advantage of the C17, again IMHO, is not that it is a strategic lifter (although it can be used that way) but that it is a operational lifter, flying a similar regime to the Hercs but carrying heavier, bulkier equipment. And that capability is needed here at home as much as it is needed overseas.
I can see them doing occasional flights over strategic distances, but I can't see that need being frequent enough to warrant a new fleet of strategic tankers to support them.
Cheers.
I can't help but wonder if you have bought shares in EADS yet.
The principle advantage in 4 C-17s, IMHO, is not their international deployment capabilities but their internal deployment capabilities. 4 C17s will not create much of a long range conveyor for supporting forces over international distances. On the other hand 4 C17s will allow one centrally located force deployed on Hercs, to bring along heavy equipment to any location in Canada. There are airfields and gas pumps at both ends of the trip and one jump will take you from Trenton to Resolute, Victoria or St. John's. They would also allow for a C17 to load up 2-4 Griffons and rapidly transport them into the North for assistance to a major disaster.
With one in the shop, one on stand by for domestic reaction and probably one doing training support that leaves one, maybe two to deploy overseas.
The primary advantage of the C17, again IMHO, is not that it is a strategic lifter (although it can be used that way) but that it is a operational lifter, flying a similar regime to the Hercs but carrying heavier, bulkier equipment. And that capability is needed here at home as much as it is needed overseas.
I can see them doing occasional flights over strategic distances, but I can't see that need being frequent enough to warrant a new fleet of strategic tankers to support them.
Cheers.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
The thing is that if you are able to refuel a transport while still in the air, you can technically carry more cargo than if you didn't as you come up against the maximum take off weight of the aircraft (airframe plus fuel and cargo), as the airplane has only enough fuel to get off the ground and rendezvous with the tanker to get a full tank of gas to go where it is needed. We see this problem all the time with airplanes; the more cargo you want to lift, the shorter the distance you can travel as you are forced to take less gas due to the fact that you have to remain under the maximum take off weight of the aircraft otherwise, one the following conditions could happen:
1. Airplane doesn't get off the ground period (airplane intact and crew is safe)
2. Airplane doesn't get off the ground period, and crashes into an obstacle at the end of the runway (airplane not intact and crew in danger)
3. Airplane does get off the ground but by chance, suffers an engine failure, and the airplane plummets back to terra firma as the airplane can no maintain V1 speed, which is the speed where an engine failure can occur, and you can still take off, and usually by the time you reach V1, you are already committed to taking off (airplane not intact and crew in danger)
We have already seen this happen in a crisis situation before: The Yom Kippur War in 1973. During the war, the Americans were flying C-5 Galaxy's to Israel with only a fraction of of their maximum payload on direct flights from the continental United States to Israel due to the fact that the C-5's were denied landing rights in Europe. The Americans, as a lesson, firstly trained their C-5 Galaxy crews in aerial-refueling, then after that, recognizing that a more capable tanker was needed, purchased the KC-10 Extender tanker.
1. Airplane doesn't get off the ground period (airplane intact and crew is safe)
2. Airplane doesn't get off the ground period, and crashes into an obstacle at the end of the runway (airplane not intact and crew in danger)
3. Airplane does get off the ground but by chance, suffers an engine failure, and the airplane plummets back to terra firma as the airplane can no maintain V1 speed, which is the speed where an engine failure can occur, and you can still take off, and usually by the time you reach V1, you are already committed to taking off (airplane not intact and crew in danger)
We have already seen this happen in a crisis situation before: The Yom Kippur War in 1973. During the war, the Americans were flying C-5 Galaxy's to Israel with only a fraction of of their maximum payload on direct flights from the continental United States to Israel due to the fact that the C-5's were denied landing rights in Europe. The Americans, as a lesson, firstly trained their C-5 Galaxy crews in aerial-refueling, then after that, recognizing that a more capable tanker was needed, purchased the KC-10 Extender tanker.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
JackD said:
C-17 wasn't designed for probe and drogue. I heard that early on, when the C-17 was being developed, an offer was made to the Brits in form of a C-17K, where a probe would be installed from the get go, and the engines would be swapped for the equivalant Rolls Royce engines (obviously, that proposal never got accepted). It would be difficult, as there hasn't been a probe system developed for the C-17 (we would have the develop, test, and install it ourselves), compared to the C-130, which a probe system was developed already, and all the RAF had to do was to install it. It would be cheaper and IMHO easier to install a boom on our two CC-150 Polaris tankers (someone else already developed, tested and installed one on a Airbus A310, meaning all we have to do is buy and install it), than to develop and install probes on 4-5 C-17's.
- Reaction score
- 2,827
- Points
- 940
Armymatters said:
Armymatters said:
Just to confirm that I'm following your logic......C-17 probe refuelling would be too difficult/costly because it has not yet been developed, tested, and produced....yet, buying into an entire aircraft fleet that has not yet been developed, tested, and produced is OK.
???
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 260
Just think of how shinny those new aircraft will be. jeez and then we get to break them in and find out all the fresh bugs in the system and have to take them out of service when we need them most. That sounds so CF.
One can only hope that we do go with tested and proven equipment. As was said earlier it is easier to find some gas then it is to find a ride that comes with your own gas. Hell I bet that If we procured our own strategic lift the Americans would let us fuel up for free as it opens more of their lifters for their own problems. Its not as if we operate in areas without the Americans. The C-17 they have (check) the A-400M let me see nope not in their inventory (yet).
Would make sense to buy what is being used (as long as it works) by our partners then try and hold out on planes that should have been retired or should be in the process of retirement till an airframe that is not even tested in an operational environment.
MOO
One can only hope that we do go with tested and proven equipment. As was said earlier it is easier to find some gas then it is to find a ride that comes with your own gas. Hell I bet that If we procured our own strategic lift the Americans would let us fuel up for free as it opens more of their lifters for their own problems. Its not as if we operate in areas without the Americans. The C-17 they have (check) the A-400M let me see nope not in their inventory (yet).
Would make sense to buy what is being used (as long as it works) by our partners then try and hold out on planes that should have been retired or should be in the process of retirement till an airframe that is not even tested in an operational environment.
MOO
EADS has already developed the boom technology for its MRTT aircraft. If I remember correctly, the RAAF has purchased 5 airbus 330 MRTT's with both the hose and drogue and refueling boom. So the technology to refit the Polaris MRTT's does already exist. However, having said that, I have no clue as to whether or not it would be cheaper to retrofit the Polaris aircraft with refueling booms or modify the C-17's to accept the hose and drogue system. It's too bad really that we didn't get the boom system for our Airbuses as well since it would have made this issue a non-starter and it would have allowed us more options concerning the refuelling of allied aircraft. The cost must have been prohibitive though for a nice-to-have feature that isn't needed for Canadian operations.
- Reaction score
- 8,279
- Points
- 1,160
I believe that at least part of the issue is the volume of fuel that has to be tranferred and the speed at which it needs to be transferred. The longer transfer takes the more likely that bad things are going to happen.
To get transfer rates up you can either use a large diameter pipe/hose or a high pressure pipe/hose. Pipes handle pressure better than hoses allowing for smaller diameters. Hoses would likely need to be of larger diameter to match the transfer rate of a pipe, making it heavier, harder to roll up and deploy and harder to stow as it would take up more space.
The KC10 system ultimately was designed for big aircraft like the C17 and the B52. The KC130/KC135/A310 system seems to have been acceptable for refuelling fighters which have much smaller tanks and rates of fuel consumption.
Just some random thoughts....
Cheers.
To get transfer rates up you can either use a large diameter pipe/hose or a high pressure pipe/hose. Pipes handle pressure better than hoses allowing for smaller diameters. Hoses would likely need to be of larger diameter to match the transfer rate of a pipe, making it heavier, harder to roll up and deploy and harder to stow as it would take up more space.
The KC10 system ultimately was designed for big aircraft like the C17 and the B52. The KC130/KC135/A310 system seems to have been acceptable for refuelling fighters which have much smaller tanks and rates of fuel consumption.
Just some random thoughts....
Cheers.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
monkey416 said:
Most boom systems have the ability to refuel a probed aircraft. It also makes our tankers more useful to the Americans, as the USAF primarily uses boom refueling.
It is more expensive for us to develop, build, and install a boom system for the C-17, as we are the only ones who are installing it, and are installing it on a handful of aircraft (you are spending lots of money on a system that will be fielded in minute quantities and also a system that no one else will use except for us). With A400M, the costs for R&D are already covered by the Europeans, and the costs for us is just the purchasing cost and maintenance. The Europeans have already spread the costs for R&D on their aircraft. A400M is technically the more capable aircraft even if it does not meet promises exactly. It will fly higher and faster than the Herc meaning it firstly can fly at more economical altitutes, can get to the destination faster, and can refuel fighters properly instead of forcing the fighters to fly at near stall speeds (A400M is also equipped with optional refueling drogues for refueling fighters). Remember: Airbus did offer refurbished C-130H's until they can get A400M's into our hands, meaning that we will be able to use an airplane we are already familar with, and have it in case there are bugs to be sorted out with the Airbus aircraft. Lockheed has said that they can't deliever until 2010, as they have no production slots for us until then, and has not offered interm aircraft.
- Reaction score
- 8,279
- Points
- 1,160
And in 2010 the A400M will be delivering its first deliveries trying to stand up its first operational squadron for one of its customers. How have the timelines for the Tiger, the NH90, the WAH-64, the Chinook C3 proceeded? IMHO it will be at least 2015 before they are likely to have worked out operational kinks, modified design and procedures and demontrated a track record for reliability.
Let the Germans or the French put the first 12 aircraft in service. They have orders for 60 and 50 aircraft respectively. 12 duds in their fleets will not cripple them.
If, however, we only buy 12, and they all end up as duds then we are worse off than we were because the money has been spent.
Cheers.
Let the Germans or the French put the first 12 aircraft in service. They have orders for 60 and 50 aircraft respectively. 12 duds in their fleets will not cripple them.
If, however, we only buy 12, and they all end up as duds then we are worse off than we were because the money has been spent.
Cheers.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
I guess the fiberals are smelling an opportunity to score some political points with the (uninformed) masses.
A Liberal Party of Canada press release from yesterday
http://www.liberal.ca/news_e.aspx?id=11658
I hope this is okay here
A Liberal Party of Canada press release from yesterday
http://www.liberal.ca/news_e.aspx?id=11658
I hope this is okay here
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
what oportunity?Jantor said:
the CDS is on record as signalling that he was interested in Hercs & Chinooks before any interest in C17s.
with respect to the handing out of service contracts - shouldn't we at least think about this VS signing away the farm before even giving it a look see (if there is anyone competent to carry out the work?)
You're claiming they have an ulterior puprose.... Duh! - they're the opposition and are expected to talk that kind of talk.
Question is - do you have any ulterior motive?
Similar threads
