Will the C17s Make it to the Ramp?

[observor 69]

Another point is the 15 NATO countries sharing C-17s. 

It really needs to be noted that these countries combined possibly have a smaller footprint than Alberta, certainly most are postage stamp size.  They don't have the domestic need that we do for fast/heavy airlift ... say .. to move DART to BC when the big one happens.  Scheduled for April 08 now apparently.

I think that's an excellent point.  Political arguments aside, Liberal mouthpiece Coderre in particular, Canada has just acquired a significant airlift capacity in the C-17 for domestic or international need.

 

[Globesmasher]

And note the MND referred to the aircraft as  "Our new strategic lift aircraft ."

Ain't no tactical, scratch the paint flyin', bein' done with this  new aeroplane. 

Trust me ....... there will be plenty of "tactical" done with this.
It's been done, the aircraft is capable  .................. and it is going to be done.

Tactical ............ Strategic ............. it's just semantics right now.

............ 'nuf said.

 

[Globesmasher]

Is there any particular reason they bought only 4 of these things?  We are going to look awfully stupid if they take delivery of these and continue to use third parties for additional lift.  [and.. what if that lift is refused to us?]

4 is all we can afford.

There will continue to be "contracted commercial airlift" in support of current ops.
You will see both the C-17/CC-177 and the regular Illyshin/Antonov flights out of Trenton.

There is simply too much cargo for the C-17s to do it all themselves.
Sucks - but there we go.

We asked for 6 .....
4 is all we get from the Govt.

 

[GAP]

Any person with an ounce of common sense will realize that the C-17 will not solve all our problems, but it will allow us to address our priorities properly. $11million per month is actually fairly reasonable when we start looking at everything that is being moved. I don't see that going down so much as us not having to wait in line for contract units so often.

edited to add: Yes, 4 is all we could have afforded without the opposition using sticker shock against the Conservatives.

 

[Globesmasher]

From what I understand, we are not part of this "joint user group", a criticism of some of those in Ottawa.  These will be CF planes, for use by the CF.

Scharlachrot:

You are correct.  These will be Canadian Aircraft with Canadian markings owned and operated by Canadians for Canadian Interests.  If any other foreign entity wishes to use our fleet then they will be asking and paying ... and we'll be doing only if we have the time and resources.  Much like the USAF lifted our Leopards into Afghanistan for us.  They had the time and resources and we paid ........ a cool million per tank one way.

We will participate in many of the "joint user groups" in terms of how we are represented in the overall "virtual fleet".

That means we get to sit at the various boards and represent our concerns and what we feel are deficiencies in the airframe ... just as the UK and the Australians will also be participating.  Perhaps JUG is a poorly labelled term.  "Joint User Board" may be more apropos.  Granted we wont have quite as big a vote as the USAF will (they'll eventually have their 180 .... the RAAF will have 4 ..... we'll have 4 ..... and the RAF will have between 4 and 6).  But, at  least we get to participate.

We will have a CC-177 staff (The Weapon System Managers) embedded at Wright Patterson AFB so that we have face to face representation and various people will be attending the annual conferences and boards to discuss the aircraft upgrade process, priorities and to address safety deficiencies etc ...

But, NO, we will not be "Jointly Using" the aircraft with any other country - there will be no sharing or "peeing contests".

 

[Globesmasher]

edited to add: Yes, 4 is all we could have afforded without the opposition using sticker shock against the Conservatives.

Absolutely true.
Yes, and I for one am not about to complain and look a gift horse in the mouth.

4 is better than zero.

 

[Cloud Cover]

Well, if affordability is the reason being given, I really don't believe that holding out cost was the smartest move. After all, I suspect  that once a project cost goes over the 2-3 billion dollar mark, we are talking about such a staggering amount of money that it doesn't really register with the public. [a good example was the 23 billion dollar health care accord]

The real question asked by voters which would have to be answered would be "Do we really need these"  and if the answer is "yes, because we dont want to rely on the Americans for everything" then most Canadians would simply switch off and get back to doing their tax returns and buying RRSP's. They already believe the Libs and NDP have no credibility in defence matters, so it was a political mistake to pander to them.  If the cost would have 5-7 billion over 20 years for 8 of the aircraft, then they could have pulled it off just as easily.  I think 4 gives Canada some much needed airlift, but still leaves room to keep the pressure on.

Irony of irony- the Libs could actually use this to deliver a message about strat lift -  "You didn't get the job done Stephen. You went half way on airleft and now we will still need the damn yanks to help us when Vancouver sinks. You didn't get it done." 

 

[GAP]

Conversly, so did the Liberals from the EH-101 on.....

 

[Kirkhill]

How much of the purchase price of the 4 aircraft is a "one time investment" to support the aircraft vice the cost of adding additional aircraft?

I note that when USAF or even the RAF is looking for additional aircraft they are only talking about the additional cost of a new "tail" - if I understand the lingo to mean that a "tail" has everything else needed to keep it in the air attached.

 

[rmacqueen]

I have a question about the capabilities of this plane.  What kind of landing strip does it need?  For instance, could it land on a snow covered runway or is it more like commercial aircraft in its needs?

 

[aesop081]

I have a question about the capabilities of this plane.  What kind of landing strip does it need?  For instance, could it land on a snow covered runway or is it more like commercial aircraft in its needs?

read all the posts made in this thread by Globemasher...pretty much answers your question

 

[geo]

I have a question about the capabilities of this plane.  What kind of landing strip does it need?  For instance, could it land on a snow covered runway or is it more like commercial aircraft in its needs?

try a search.... already been discussed - pert darn near as much as the Herc.  The weight is the big problem once the plance comes to a stop

 

[MarkOttawa]

An historical precedent?
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_kmnew/is_200403/ai_kepm382226

' Genuine alarm was excited throughout the country by what was for the first time widely recognized as a German menace. In the end a curious and characteristic compromise was reached. The Admiralty had demanded six ships [dreadnoughts]: the economists offered four: and we finally compromised on eight.

--Winston Churchill, "The World Crisis: 1911-1918"'

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Globesmasher]

Is it going to be a 6 digit tail number or a 5 digit number? ie 177701 or 17701?

Inch

Sorry - I stand corrected. 
I told you 5 earlier on (based on the Airbus correcting theirs back from 6 to 5 digits .... I thought the trend would continue).
Apparently (or so I have now been told) we are going with the 6 digit tail number as follows:
From CAS DAR:

Type = CC-177
English name = Globemaster Three

Airframe P-177 (Aug 07) = tail number 177701
Airframe P-180 (Oct 07) = tail number 177702
Airframe P-186 (~Mar 08) = tail number 177703
Airframe P-187 (~Apr 08) = tail number 177704

Sorry about that .....

edit - spelling

 

[Globesmasher]

I have a question about the capabilities of this plane.  What kind of landing strip does it need?  For instance, could it land on a snow covered runway or is it more like commercial aircraft in its needs?

try a search.... already been discussed - pert darn near as much as the Herc.  The weight is the big problem once the plance comes to a stop

Yup - just head back to the beginning of this thread.
Also checkout ......

http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/c17/index.htm

... for a quick synopsis.

 

[Inch]

Inch

Sorry - I stand corrected. 
I told you 5 earlier on (based on the Airbus correcting theirs back from 6 to 5 digits .... I thought the trend would continue).
Apparently (or so I have now been told) we are going with the 6 digit tail number as follows:
From CAS DAR:

Type = CC-177
English name = Globemaster Three

Airframe P-177 (Aug 07) = tail number 177701
Airframe P-180 (Oct 07) = tail number 177702
Airframe P-186 (~Mar 08) = tail number 177703
Airframe P-187 (~Apr 08) = tail number 177704

Sorry about that .....

edit - spelling

Right on, I think the Cyclone is going to be 6 digits as well vs the 5 digits of the Sea Kings. I haven't really seen anything on that fact other than the artist concept pics showing 501 on the front of the helos. So that would be 148501 through 148528, but I can't say for sure.

 

[Globesmasher]

How much of the purchase price of the 4 aircraft is a "one time investment" to support the aircraft vice the cost of adding additional aircraft?

I note that when USAF or even the RAF is looking for additional aircraft they are only talking about the additional cost of a new "tail" - if I understand the lingo to mean that a "tail" has everything else needed to keep it in the air attached.

Kirk:

The initial outlay for the cost of the 4 aircraft is $1.2 billion.
The remaining $2.2 billion (from the total project cost of $3.4 billion) goes into everything else:
.. training
.. infrastructure
.. maintenance
.. you name it.

And the 2nd and 3rd line maintenance contract, along with the block upgrades program, stretch on for 20 years.

I believe that if we were to buy an extra (5th) tail, then we'd be looking at the $1/4 billion just for the actual aircraft ... and then some extra to keep it going in the maintenance program.  I doubt the support for the extra aircraft would come without charge.

 

[Kirkhill]

Thanks for that Smasher.

 

[C1302C17 TECH]

Inch

Airframe P-177 (Aug 07) = tail number 177701
Airframe P-180 (Oct 07) = tail number 177702
Airframe P-186 (~Mar 08) = tail number 177703
Airframe P-187 (~Apr 08) = tail number 177704

Intresting to see that they would use the numbers in the 700 series - I figured to see the 5 digit tails as well to compare with the CC150's - 01 through 04, however 701 through 704 is a nice change. 

 

[eurowing]

C1302C17, if you are on course now would you have details of the depth of training you will be getting on the C17.  I am quite curious about the levels of 1st line maintenance you will be doing.  For example....  engine change?