# Heavy lift conundrum



## Scoobie Newbie (13 Oct 2004)

Do we need to replace every C130 with an equivalent new plane or could we reduce the number of planes by getting larger planes ie the C-17?   Also how would this effect current taskings by have fewer yet larger planes?

http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=92

http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=86


----------



## Cloud Cover (13 Oct 2004)

CFL: whenever you post in the Navy/Airforce forum, it reminds me of the Marine Lieutenant in A Few Good Men: "I like you navy boys, you always give us a ride when we have to go fight somewhere."    

I think there is no question the C130 will not  be replaced on a 1 for 1 basis. The first step will probably entail acquiring the new SAR fixed wing aircraft and determining how many "excess" C130 are freed up, then delete the sum of those 2 numbers from the flight line (+/-). 

Or, take a look at how many Australia has and subtract about 25%, that seems to be our formula when we don't scrap a capability altogether.  

It seems to me the C130 fulfills a tactical role not easily replaced by another aircraft, [especially the tanker variant] so we'll pick up a few new or slightly used C130J along the way along with some used C17's or other airframe. I am wondering if the new SAR aircraft will be dedicated to SAR and MP, or will it have a secondary [non-domestic] tactical role assigned? 

The CASR site has a good write up on the issue, but I know there are lurkers out there who could add to the info on this site!!


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (13 Oct 2004)

whiskey is that a slam or a good thing?  I always liked Kiefer Sutherland.


----------



## Cloud Cover (13 Oct 2004)

It's a good thing in a non pusser sort of way .. Do the army types really care how they get in theatre, as long they get there safe and can be resupplied/reinforced on a routine basis?


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (13 Oct 2004)




----------



## Cloud Cover (13 Oct 2004)

LMFAO!!!!!! ;D


----------



## Cloud Cover (13 Oct 2004)

Frankly, if you want to deploy in fine style, here's the way:


----------



## DJL (13 Oct 2004)

Though I agree, that picture translates into DND's total budget for two plus years  :-

Seriously though, Sealift and Airlift shouldn't be an either/or ddecision.........Sealift trumps airlift in purchase price, capacity and eefficiency but airlift is light years ahead in terms of speed of delivery and global access.



And for those that like to think outside the box (or in this case bag):

http://www.atg-airships.com/


*Nicht Ihr GroÃƒÅ¸eltern Graf Zepplin!!!*


----------



## Cloud Cover (14 Oct 2004)

At least 5 years if you include all the accessories, like Harriers, choppers, aclc, etc. I believe this little fleet could accomodate our entire infantry corps and more! Just think, this is but a small expression of the power projection of the US. The surface escort for this TG numbers about 35 + support ships. In total, probably about 100 billion all in, not including GST and sponsorship skimming.


----------



## Zoomie (14 Oct 2004)

whiskey 601 said:
			
		

> I am wondering if the new SAR aircraft will be dedicated to SAR and MP, or will it have a secondary [non-domestic] tactical role assigned?



TAL - _Tactical Air Lift_ - is not a role that is practised by any of our FW SAR Squadrons.  Both aircraft (Herc and Buff) are built for taking battle damage and landing on mud strips, but we don't do that.  Our TAL Squadrons are based out of Trenton (429 and 436) and they do not have a dedicated SAR posture.  The new FWSAR replacement will hopefully be the C-27J Spartan (as it is the only contender) and will most likely be painted bright yellow with red stripes - not very tactical.

Ever since the C-17 idea was shelved by the higher-uppers, there hasn't been any other word of actively replacing the C-130's.  An alternate to replacing them would be exactly what Whiskey already mentioned - the reduction of SAR Hercs will relieve a considerable pressure on the Trenton fleet as all of the available birds will go there.  Most likely 435 (Winnipeg squadron) will lose its air-to-air tactical refueling and be strictly SAR with the new plane.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (14 Oct 2004)

All good points however I think even more pressure would be relieved by having an aircraft like the C 17 deliver goods to say Aviano Air Base in Italy and then by Herc to your tactical zone, esp if the runway won't accomidate a C-17.


----------



## Inch (14 Oct 2004)

I didn't want to weigh into this discussion since it's not my forte, but I do have opinions on it, so here they go.

CFL, you hit the nail on the head.  In today's budget crunch we're constantly looking at similar fleets to save money, in a perfect world the issue shouldn't be saving money at the expense of getting the right equipment for the job.  It's supposed to work just like you said, strategic airlift (C-17) to get the goods overseas, and TAL (C-130) to disperse them once they're over there. You're absolutely right, TAL should be able to operate from small unprepared airfields and be equipped with self defense suites (ie flares and chaff and even JATO if the situation dictates), strategic airlift doesn't necessarily need to be able to do that. 

In my humble opinion, strategic airlift is one of the most important capabilities that we're lacking. With the amount of deployments we have going on, we have absolutely no way to get our guys and their equipment to the hot spots. 

Cheers


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (14 Oct 2004)

Both have their place in warfare but the question is how do you see your expeditionary force deployed? Rapid..you want heavy airlift...the problems with air you have to use so many flights to keep your force stocked up in beans and bullets and you still have to keep up with it. With heavy sealift...you bet its slow but how much can you offload with the troops in one sitting....Many many planeloads of C17. You need a balance of both, its too bad the government cannot see that.


----------



## Cloud Cover (14 Oct 2004)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> You need a balance of both, its too bad the government cannot see that.



Well, here's an idea. Let's build a squadron of troop carrying aircraft carriers that are so huge we can fly the C17's and Herc's off the flight deck!!


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (14 Oct 2004)

Hey give me an Imperial Star Destroyer any day...firepower, trooplift, support and intimidation. Who needs more?


----------



## PPCLI Guy (14 Oct 2004)

Inch said:
			
		

> CFL, you hit the nail on the head.



He sure did - aircraft (like most things military) are generally optimised for one, and perhaps two roles.   When you try to go multi-role, you lose capability across the spectrum.



> In my humble opinion, strategic airlift is one of the most important capabilities that we're lacking. With the amount of deployments we have going on, we have absolutely no way to get our guys and their equipment to the hot spots.



I agree.   I still think that the "shared fleet" idea is a good one.


----------



## Cloud Cover (14 Oct 2004)

Ex-D: Who do we appoint as Darth Vader?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (14 Oct 2004)

The question is whats more important rapid deployment or heavy lift?

Darth Vader....hmmmm well Infanteer I am told has the Star Wars PJ set so I think he should be Vader. 

I wonder if we can convince Brin to wear the Princess Leah cinnamon rolls


----------



## Sam69 (14 Oct 2004)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> The question is whats more important rapid deployment or heavy lift?



Actually, the question is: what is the scenario? Because the type of strat lift required varies according to the scenario. For situations like NEO, DART, Humanitarian Relief, and  Contingency Ops speed matters most. However, if you are moving a battle group into theatre, then you are probably going to be more dependant on sea lift. From a recent historical perspective, about 90% of our deployable goods have gone by sea and 10% by air. The statistical outlier in that group (there is always one) is the OP ATHENA deployment.

The question becomes more difficult when you also add the dimension of ownership: owned assets? leased assets? shared assets? guaranteed access deals? or open market bidding? 

To my mind, the strat air lift question is a slam dunk. We don't currently have any strat air lifter. We need one. The C-17 is the only logical choice currently available.

But the question is not an "either or" type of question. We also need a certain amount of strat sea lift which we will be getting in the post-2010 timeframe when the first JSS comes online.

And, for the record, the C-17 purchase was not shelved by the military. It was killed by a certain former PM on a whim.

Sam


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (14 Oct 2004)

The planes are built, designed and proven.  The ships are not.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (14 Oct 2004)

Yes but don't forget the ships will also be used for at sea replenishment as well not just sea lift.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (15 Oct 2004)

Well that sounds good but aren't the ships at least 10 years off (3 or 4 govt's worth)?  All I'm saying is there is an option available now to reduce the stress and over tasking of the Hercs.


----------



## canuck101 (15 Oct 2004)

If the Royal Air force can lease to own c-17 i think we could do the same. The Americans would be happy to sell us some but i doubt that the liberals would spend the money to get them.


----------



## DJL (15 Oct 2004)

The United Kingdom's defence budget is about four times larger than ours........


----------



## R031button (15 Oct 2004)

canuck101 said:
			
		

> If the Royal Air force can lease to own c-17 i think we could do the same. The Americans would be happy to sell us some but i doubt that the liberals would spend the money to get them.



Some how I don't think the Liberals are going to try and buy any more used British kit.


----------



## Sheerin (15 Oct 2004)

R031button said:
			
		

> Some how I don't think the Liberals are going to try and buy any more used British kit.



we wouldn't be buying C-17s from the British, and even if we were C-17s are made by Boeing (McDonnell Douglas).
http://www.sfu.ca/casr/101-fsa1.htm


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (15 Oct 2004)

I think he was refering to the whole sub thing.


----------



## Zoomie (15 Oct 2004)

canuck101 said:
			
		

> If the Royal Air force can lease to own c-17 i think we could do the same.



The Brits are regretting that decision...  Since they don't own the planes, they are limited to what they can do with them.  Under no circumstances are they permitted to fly these aircraft anywhere where the "possibility" of being attacked is present.  Unlike the USAF which flies them directly into Baghdad international, the Brits are relegated to flying some friendly ally country and using other means from there.

The CF will need a substantial boost of cash ($8 billion surplus anyone?) in order for a C-17 to materialize at Trenton.  At close to $300 million (USD) a pop, they aren't cheap.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/c-17.htm


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (15 Oct 2004)

What if we leased them from the USAF?


----------



## Slim (15 Oct 2004)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Hey give me an Imperial Star Destroyer any day...firepower, trooplift, support and intimidation. Who needs more?



Even Luxury!

Seriously though...From where I sit our C130's do seem to get an awful lot of work for unrequired aircraft. Is there anything out there that can match it?

Also we do need both the rough-field capability and the large (strategic lift) C-17 type transport capability in the CF...As well as the JSS, which will mean bigger tac helos...Where do you draw the line?

Slim


----------



## Garry (15 Oct 2004)

Forget heavy, think strategic vice tactical airlift.

Strategic lifts big loads long distances. tactical lifts smaller loads shorter distances. Strategic tends to avoid bad guys. tactical may well see a few.

Our Airbus is a strategic carrier, our Hercs are a tactical carrier.  

We do what what we can with what we've got.

Cheers-Garry


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (16 Oct 2004)

Frankly, I could never figure out why the C-130J is still considered as the primary replacement for our current herc fleet.

If we have a LAV-based army, it makes inherent sense to me that I'd want to be able to deploy those vehicles by air to a place like Afghanistan.

With that in mind, I think you have to have C-17's at the top of your list, C-27J's for your lower weight stuff and backfill the best-conditioned existing C-130's for the middleweight roles until you have funds to replace them too....



Matthew.


----------



## canuck101 (16 Oct 2004)

one word and that is "Price"

$236.7 million (FY98 constant dollars) that is American not Canadian and it probably costs more now so getting 4 to six c-17 would cost about 2 billion to get them and that may not include spare parts.  With money like that you should be able to get more then 4 to 6 c130 probably more than 20 if you searched for low milage slightly used c130js with spare parts to. Don't get me wrong i think the cf should have 4 to six c-17's lets see if the gov will pony up the money first.


----------



## Slim (16 Oct 2004)

With the govt. whining about how much everythng costs...And the Liberals getting ready to take money away from the service again, now that the election is over?!

I don't think so.

I bet they'll even take the subs away to save money, claiming that they're not required or safe or some other rubbish.

 I guess we can all hope though...

Slim


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (16 Oct 2004)

canuck101 said:
			
		

> one word and that is "Price"
> 
> $236.7 million (FY98 constant dollars) that is American not Canadian and it probably costs more now so getting 4 to six c-17 would cost about 2 billion to get them and that may not include spare parts.   With money like that you should be able to get more then 4 to 6 c130 probably more than 20 if you searched for low milage slightly used c130js with spare parts to. Don't get me wrong i think the cf should have 4 to six c-17's lets see if the gov will pony up the money first.



The argument for C-130's is dumb.  It's like saying "I'm going to buy a bunch of cheaper jeans because they're well priced even though I can't fit my ass into them."  Bottom Line:  You need airlift than can carry LAV's.



Matthew.  ;D


----------



## Kirkhill (16 Oct 2004)

> one word and that is "Price"
> 
> $236.7 million (FY98 constant dollars) that is American not Canadian and it probably costs more now so getting 4 to six c-17 would cost about 2 billion to get them and that may not include spare parts.   With money like that you should be able to get more then 4 to 6 c130 probably more than 20 if you searched for low milage slightly used c130js with spare parts to. Don't get me wrong i think the cf should have 4 to six c-17's lets see if the gov will pony up the money first.



As I and others have noted, this is a prime opportunity for P3 thinking.   Set up a private company in association with Air Canada and/or Westjet and/or Jetsgo and/ Purolator........ Have them buy the C17s (subsidized as required) and have them operate them commercially.   They would be required to make so many hours available each year for "routine" or "pre-planned" activities and they could sell the rest of the hours on the open market, either to private needs or the UN or to other militaries.   If flights to hot zones were required then use CF (Reg or Res) crews and indemnify the company against losses.

It ain't that difficult and it is already being done with the shipping industry.   Chartering logistic and transport support has a long and honourable tradition.   It's what got the Duke of Marlborough to Blenheim in good time in 1704.   (In fact just discovered in Blenheim: Battle for Europe by Charles Spencer (Diana's Brother) that they Artillery of the day was also a P3 operation).

Now C130s, they are a different matter.   They are more likely to be used rough and in hot zones.   P3 wouldn't work there I don't think.   But it would also work with sealift, air to air refuelling, Airbus replacements and VIP flights.


----------



## Kirkhill (16 Oct 2004)

OK.

After having the little discussion with Ex-Dragoon and Infanteer et all over at the thread on Small Carriers,  and having accepted your positions guys, I thought some more about what I was saying on this thread.

Question.

If there is no budget, and no real political base (ie nobody really wants to be a truck driver for the army) is it time to form Canada Logistics Corporation?

Canada Logistics Corporation is a crown corporation.  Its  Primary Mandate is to move Canadian Military Materiel over Strategic Distances.

It is equipped with 12-24 767 size passenger aircraft with Air-Air refuelling capability.  It is also equipped with 12-24 C-17s, and 4-6 LSD(A)s.  

It is manned by civilians that are also members of the Air Force and Navy Reserves.  

Surplus capacity, and there will be a lot can be sold/donated to our Allies, NATO, UN or Foreign Affairs.  Any additional underutilized capacity could be utilized on the commercial market to defray costs.

In time of crisis DND could take-over vessels and aircraft as needed.

Most activities would be in benign or relatively benign environments (no bullets).  Personnel get paid like civilian pilots.

If moving into areas that are risky, but under Canadian auspices they become members of the CF.

If moving into areas that are risky but not under Canadian auspices they become volunteers drawing high wages (think Blackwater type employees).

Our allies all appear to be short of lift.  Maybe this is a way to get that lift for them and for us.  We handle the financial costs.  They pay for the services on a pay as you go basis.

The Air Force can then concentrate on tactical transport with the Hercs and the Navy can continue with the JSS vessels but eliminate all of vehicular transport and most of the troop transport.  Make the hospital, command, logistic and maintenance facilities permanent.  Increase the helicopter capability to handle half a dozen Griffons and 4 Cyclones and leave room for a company of troops.

Infanteer asked where I got my Admiral's boards.... well I just promoted myself to Prime Minister

Thoughts? 

Cheers.


----------



## Cloud Cover (16 Oct 2004)

Kirkhill ... I like the thrust of this line of thinking but from the maritime point of view I would take the US Military Sealift Command Naval Fleet Auxiliary Force Program as a best practice upon which to build. In other words, put the LSD's in the navy, and the tanker/AOR role in civvie hands. 

Setting it up as a Crown corporation might also be cumbersome and prove to be inflexible, it must have directors and officers, file business plans, establish huge operating lines of credit and raise capital to finance acquisitions. All of these things diffuse central control over the organization, so it might be better to set it up as an in house "shop": part of supply and services/ public works. 

Cheers!!


----------



## Kirkhill (16 Oct 2004)

No intended slam against unions here Whiskey wouldn't such an arrangement as you suggest be subject to union rules and strictures.  Or could the government hire personnel outside of both the CF and the Public Service?  That's why I was suggesting a more arms length arrangement.

However, if it could be done under the auspices of PWGSC I don't have any philosophical problems.

And as to your point on the Tanker vs  LSD division,  it seems like a good idea to me.  The Royal Fleet Auxilliary works the same way I believe, although they also operate the LSD(A)s - which are essentially transport vessels but not the LPDs which are Command and Assault vessels.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (17 Oct 2004)

The problem with your Corporation is how often would it be utilized.



> It is equipped with 12-24 767 size passenger aircraft with Air-Air refuelling capability.  It is also equipped with 12-24 C-17s, and 4-6 LSD(A)s.



Thats a significant expenditure right there and while I am an advocate for air and sea lift capabilities I think a Corporation set up for said purpose would turn into another gun registry fiasco but at a much grander scale.


----------



## Brock (17 Oct 2004)

I find this argument quite humours, as to how many posters have suggested that the C-130 and C-17 are the only options.   Canada does have a strategic airlifter in the form of 4 A310 multirole transport (MRT), aka: the CC-150 Polaris with 2 of the 4 being converted to multirole tanker transport standard (MRTT); a fifth is a dedicated MRT-VIP variant with limited stategic capability. The CC-150 MRT/MRTT are great for airline style strategic airlfit.   However, the CF's Future Strategic Airlift (FSA) project is designed to acquire a roll-on/roll-off airlfiter for "out-sized" loads, ie. light armoured vehicles, large wheeled support vehicles (HLVW), bulky cargo, helicopters, and the like.   The C-130J/J-30 is not a strategic airlifter.   The C-130J/J-30 has only been inlcuded as a competitor b/c Lockheed Martin is a very powerful defence manufacturer; indeed if you read the reports over the last few years the C-130 was openly excluded by CAF officers in the FSA project office in interviews.   The only options presented were and are the C-17, improved variants of the Il-76 (a Ukrainian, not Russian aircraft), the A400M, and lease arrangements of civillian owned strategic airlfiters.   In reality, the only legitimate options are the A400M and the C-17.

I believe the procurement, operating, and support costs of the C-17 are too prohibitive for the CF.   The CF could procure only small numbers of the C-17 a maximum of 8, if the CF went head over heels for the C-17.   The procurement of even 4 C-17 would be extremely draining on the CF's capital procurement budge.   4 X C-17 @ $300 million would cost $1.2 billion, but only be useful for strategic airlift, because they are not designed for anything else other than heavy tactical airlfit.   Even the Americans who operate over 100 and are building 220 of the C-17 use the C-17 primarly as a strategic airlifter, b/c they are such a precious resource.   Don't get me wrong, the C-17 is an incredible aircraft, but will come at the cost of reduced numbers of Hercules, if that aircraft is retained.   If a decision was made to procure substantial numbers of C-17 it would come in the form of at most 12 C-17, and no more Hercs, which would amount to $3.6 billion, but a large number of dedicated SAR and light transport aircraft would be needed as the C-17 can not be used affordably in the SAR and in the light transport role.   More importantly, small numbers of C-17 would be less flexible in terms of availability and the loss of just 1 C-17 due to accident or an operational destruction would see a huge loss in airlfit capability.   Furthermore, the C-17 can not be used as a tactical air-to-air refueller as the CC-130H (T) is used today.   Could the C-17 be used in the operational and training tactical airlift role, probably not; I do not believe the CAF would risk flying a $300 million dollar aircraft at low level, an inherently dangerous type of flying.   Is there a better strategic airlfit alternative?

For those of you who don't know the A400M is a strategic-tactical airlfiter a third more expensive than the C-130J/J-30, but half the cost of a C-17 with twice the payload of the C-130J-30; for more detailed performance info check out www.airbusmilitary.com .The A400M is entering production with orders for Great Britain (25), Belgium (7), France (50), Germany (60), Spain (27), Luxembourg (1), and Turkery (10); these are all NATO countries.   The A400M was specifically designed to overcome the strategic shortcomings of the C-130 sized aircraft while simultaneously maintaining equal or reduced operating costs.   The CAF could acquire 24 A400M for the same cost of 32 C-130J-30, but would acquire the lifting capability equivalent 48 C-130J-30.   I would suggest complementing the A400M with a buy of roughly 24 C-27J for SAR and light transport duties within Canada, with some capable of overseas deployment when a light tactical airlifter is preferrential.   The cost of a fleet of 24 A400M and 24 C-27J would amount to $3.6 billion and $1.2 billion respectively for the actual procurement and a comprehensive initial support training package.   The latter amounts to $150 million and $50 million for the A400M and C-27J each respectively.   It is important to note that this cost would not come in one year, but would be most likely spread out over decade--as most projects costs are--and the cost would come from within the yearly defence budget rather than as an additional defence cost as most Canadians believe.   This is the biggest problem with defence procurements as I see it, the media, likely some politicians, and most Canadians ignorantly believe, big defence projects are additional costs, but they are always from within the planned defence budgets.   A procurement of A400M and C-27J is the best option to replace the CC-115, CC-130E/H/H (T)/H-30 fleet while simultanously dramatically improving strategic airlift capability.   The one downside to the A400M is that the first aircraft will only begin to come off the production line in 2007 and we need to begin replacing the 19 C-130E and 6 CC-115 as soon as possible.   The easy solution is to bulk buy the C-27J between 2007 and 2010 or as quickly as possiblel to take the light transport and SAR burden off the C-130 fleet and begin procuring the A400M around 2010 at a rate of 3-6 per year of 4 to 8 years.   This would be a cost and military effective way of replacing existing capabilites while simultaneously enhancing strategic airlift.

On an important note, strategic airlift is one component of strategic transport.   Strategic transport is not an effective manner of providing   large scal strategic transport (above army battle group level or equivalent).   Sealift must be incorporated as the primary manner of strategic transport.   Personally, I believe and I would argue know that the Joint Support Ship (JSS) is not a good idea, but that is another subject altogether.


----------



## DJL (17 Oct 2004)

What is the service record of the A400M like, when compared to the C-17?

How many Canadians work for Airbus (or any subsidiaries of the A400M program)? Is it a larger number then those Canadians that work for Boeing, or even Lockheed for that mater?

Though they have a few dozen A400Ms on order, why did the RAF purchase C-130Js and lease C-17s? Also, in light of their plans for the A400Ms, why is the RAF going to purchase the C-17s at the end of the lease, plus increase the size of their C-17 fleet?

Also, due to the European orders, what makes you think that Canada could jump ahead in line and start receiving our orders in the 2010 timeframe?


----------



## canuck101 (17 Oct 2004)

I think with the C27j spartan hopefully being purchased will lessen the load for the c130's. I don't think we will be getting 24 of them either.  we should be able to pick up some new or slightly used c130j giving us some time if we are really interested in purchasing the A400m in the near future.


----------



## Big Bad John (17 Oct 2004)

The A400M is as yet not in production.


----------



## Big Bad John (17 Oct 2004)

I have posted photos of the aircraft discussed here to the phot gallery.  The following graphic is from the manufacturer.


----------



## DJL (17 Oct 2004)

> The A400M is as yet not in production.



I know.......Call me a skeptic though, but the A400M has been on the drawing board since the early 90s, and still has not made it's maiden flight.......Should the CF invest in a project that might be a success or might flop or a proven aircraft?


----------



## Infanteer (17 Oct 2004)

Also, I am suspicious of an airplane that exists only on paper and is being billed as an Aircraft that can do both the strategic and the tactical airlift game.  As we are learning with the LAV, military platforms designed to be "multi-purpose, system of systems", swiss-army knife wonder purchases usually end up doing none of the tasks as well as a dedicated platform does.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (17 Oct 2004)

I'm with DJL....I don't like the A400M option for a few reasons.

1)   It hasn't yet flown
2)   The European partners keep cutting their orders which to me puts the project in doubt
3)   Even if it made it through everything and became available by 2012 (after existing orders are filled), I have an ethical issue with sending money to the French/Germans who in my opinion through their foreign policy make this world a less-safe place to be, as opposed to the Americans who frankly cover our ass.

JMHO,



Matthew.


----------



## Sam69 (17 Oct 2004)

Big Bad John said:
			
		

> The A400M is as yet not in production.



I'll say... it does not even exist yet! There are still quite a few significant technical hurdles left to clear before it even makes it into a prototype stage. Based on the work to be done, I would call their timelines "ambitious." With many of our Hercs already past 40 years of age, I'm afraid that we simply cannot wait to see if the A400 meets its promises. 

I stand by my earlier assertion that the C-17 is the only logical choice for Canada's strat airlift requirements.

Sam


----------



## Zoomie (17 Oct 2004)

canuck101 said:
			
		

> I think with the C27j spartan hopefully being purchased will lessen the load for the c130's. I don't think we will be getting 24 of them either.



The "official" word is 15 aircraft for FWSAR - keep in mind that these planes will most likely be painted SAR yellow and thus restricted to SAR duties with very light airlift duties inter-spread throughout (ie Skyhawks, Op Hurricane, etc).

Unlike the strategic airlift connundrum - the FW SAR replacement program is a go - expect to see it hit the news in the next couple of months.

I agree with Sam and the lot - the C-17 is the only true option when it comes to Strat-Lift.  Trenton had the architectural drawings all ready for the new C-17 hangar before the last government turned down the ambitious plan.


----------



## canuck101 (17 Oct 2004)

How many of the c-17 were they thinking of back then.


----------



## DJL (17 Oct 2004)

Zoomie, I seem to recall Pratt, and then Graham not ruling out Strat lifters, but both cited the much talked about "defence review" and what results were found from it before deciding on Strategic Airlifters. Even if we do go with a small purchase of C-17s (and the 15 C-27Js), will we still be looking at purchase of new tactical transports? IOW, what are the chances of a mixed fleet of C-27J/C-130Js/
C-17s for the Airforce?


----------



## canuck101 (17 Oct 2004)

Just a question could it be possible to get two or three more A300s for transport.  I was thinking of the problem we had delivering supplies and equipment to Haiti in the summer.  They do have a airport that would support cargo planes you would not have to use c130's for that if you have another plan live our cc150 Polaris.


----------



## Zoomie (17 Oct 2004)

DJL, the official answer to your question about the J model Herc is "not likely" - unofficially it's anybody's guess.

The big problem with our Hercules fleet is the constant strain being placed on them - we can't keep up with maintaining them.  We have older E models that just have to go.  Replacing all of the Hercules aircraft in Greenwood and Winnipeg will take off alot of this imposed strain.  If we relegate the Herc to only 3 squadrons in Trenton (436, 429 and 426) vice the 6 squadrons that presently use them - we will be in a much better situation.  The way that the whole FW SAR replacement project is being swung is that we can reduce the C-130 fleet by a considerable amount - thus increasing the number of spare parts and decreasing the load on the C-130 maintenance community.  No longer would the Hercs be used for SAR and Strat Lift - they could focus 100% on TAL.

Assuming that FW SAR is a go and Strat Lift is the next big ticket item, this is how I see the air mobility community looking in the future.

15 x C-27J Spartan -SAR role with light strat lift
10-15 x C-130H Hercules - Tactical Airlift with light strat lift & tactical air-to-air refuelling (CF-18's)
4 x C-17 III Globemaster - Strategic Airlift
3 x CC-138 Twin Otter - Northern Canada SAR and resupply
4 x CC-115 Challenger - VIP transport
5 x CC-150 Polaris - Strat Lift, Troop transport, strategic air-to-air refuelling, VIP transport


----------



## PPCLI Guy (17 Oct 2004)

Zoomie said:
			
		

> 15 x C-27J Spartan -SAR role with light strat lift
> 10-15 x C-130H Hercules - Tactical Airlift with light strat lift & tactical air-to-air refuelling (CF-18's)
> 4 x C-17 III Globemaster - Strategic Airlift
> 3 x CC-138 Twin Otter - Northern Canada SAR and resupply
> ...



Of course, with a 1$3B budget, you won't have any troops or eqpt to move once we fork out the bucks for that wish list...


----------



## DJL (17 Oct 2004)

Thanks Zommie.



> 15 x C-27J Spartan -SAR role with light strat lift
> 10-15 x C-130H Hercules - Tactical Airlift with light strat lift & tactical air-to-air refuelling (CF-18's)
> 4 x C-17 III Globemaster - Strategic Airlift
> 3 x CC-138 Twin Otter - Northern Canada SAR and resupply
> ...



Why's that? As Zoomie just said, the FWSAR replacement is all but a go, so the only aircraft on that "roster" of Zoomie's that we don't have as of yet are the four C-17s.......


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (18 Oct 2004)

Hey Zoomie, 

When is the first MRTT due to become operational?



Matthew  ???


----------



## Kirkhill (18 Oct 2004)

> The problem with your Corporation is how often would it be utilized.
> 
> 
> Quote
> ...



Fair comment Ex-Dragoon.  What I was trying to suggest is that such an organization, with a brief for supplying a service for not just DND or even the Canadian Government but other governments and institutions as well as securing private sector business could support a larger fleet than is needed for just our purposes.  Basically horn in on some of the Ukrainian business that is out there flying Antonovs and sailing vessels like the Katie.  I seem to have seen some reports that there is an expected increase in demand for those type of services.

Of course the operation could start on a smaller scale and work up as business improved.  I was kind of hoping WestJet management might get behind the deal.  They seem to have a clue on both how to operate aircraft profitably and grow a business.

Cheers, Chris.


----------



## ghazise (19 Oct 2004)

A speaker at the U of M's Transformation of Warfare seminar stated "Do we buy the equipment to go into the planes or to we buy the planes to transport the equipment"  I apoligize to the speaker for paraphrasing.  

The main argument I remember from government against Strategic lift was that no other nation with a military proportional to ours has Strategic Lift,,, so we don't need it,,,  but unlike many other nations, Canada is geographically isolated from potential hot spots in the world, a balance is needed between, airlift for rapid deployable forces and sealift for heavy follow on forces,
So far the CF has been able to deploy to hotspots (Haiti and the Stan) so how high of a priority is Strategic Airlift?


----------



## Kirkhill (19 Oct 2004)

> Canada is geographically isolated from potential hot spots in the world



Heck 2FtOnion Canada is geographically isolated from itself.  If we want to get blankets and emergency generators fom Vancouver to Ottawa the next time the lights go out do they really want us having to go the Washington State Air National Guard to borrow/buy some airlift time again, or even the Ukrainians?

As to your comment on Haiti, is it possible/likely that one of the reasons that we didn't deploy DART after the hurricane is that we didn't have the lift and this time the Americans couldn't/wouldn't supply the lift?

I don't know.  Just rumour-mongering. ;D

Anyway, I agree with your point though.

Cheers.


----------



## Sam69 (19 Oct 2004)

2FtOnion said:
			
		

> A speaker at the U of M's Transformation of Warfare seminar stated "Do we buy the equipment to go into the planes or to we buy the planes to transport the equipment"  I apoligize to the speaker for paraphrasing.
> 
> The main argument I remember from government against Strategic lift was that no other nation with a military proportional to ours has Strategic Lift,,, so we don't need it,,,  but unlike many other nations, Canada is geographically isolated from potential hot spots in the world, a balance is needed between, airlift for rapid deployable forces and sealift for heavy follow on forces,
> So far the CF has been able to deploy to hotspots (Haiti and the Stan) so how high of a priority is Strategic Airlift?



First point, the U of M speaker is guilty of an egregious logical fallacy: that of the false dillema. There is no evidence that this is an "either or" discussion. One could also say that the things that go into the planes are of little value if they lack the ability to go anywhere within a strategically relevant timeframe.

Second, as Kirkhill has so properly mentioned already: moving within Canada itself often engenders crossing what are widely considered to be strategic distances anywhere else. 

One of the most powerful arguments for owning Strat Air Lift is the need for assured and timely access. Should the "big one" hit the West Coast, we simply cannot wait for days or weeks to get a contract in place for an Antonov. The oft quoted argument that they have always been there when we needed them is specious, to say the least. They have always been there because we have always adjusted our deployment plans to meet their availability.

If I could buy just one capability for the CF, it would be a Sqn of C-17s to provide the missing strat lift capability that we have been identifying as a top Departmental shortfall for years now (see, for example: "Capability Outlook 2002-2012")/

Sam


----------



## Gobsmacked (20 Oct 2004)

Just to add some more 'food for thought',
an Excellent Op-Ed that was released at CANSEC 2004 in April, 
from  http://www.frontline-canada.com/content/AprMay.html


 OP-ED: STRATEGIC AIRLIFT  by Mark Romanow
*Canada's Waning Role of Pride and Influence*

True to tradition, Budget 2004 has yet-again ignored DND's desire for an integral
Strategic Airlift capability. With this in mind, you may recall some recent government
comments:
"¢ Prime Minister (PM) Paul Martin affirmed _"I believe that we should increase defence
spending... we have to invest in both military personnel and also equipment -
no doubt about that. That also is going to require further military spending.â ?_
"¢ The 2004 Speech from the Throne stated: _"We want for Canada a role of
pride and influence in the world... it is time to... meet our responsibilities, carry
our weight. Our foreign policy objec-tives require a meaningful capacity to
contribute militarily in support of collective efforts to safeguard international
peace and security. Some things how-ever, need not wait for the_ (defence)
_review - because they are urgently needed, or because the right course of
action is already clear. To this end, the Government will make immediate
investments in key capital equipment, such as... replacements for the _(40 year
old) _Sea King helicopters.â ?_
"¢ The Honourable David Pratt, Minister of National Defence, while SCONDVA*
Chairman, recommended that the government _"increase the annual base budget
for DND to between 1.5% to 1.6% of GDP [over] three years.â ?_ He also recommended
that DND acquire _"heavy lift transport aircraft and replace older
models to ensure the strategic... capacity required to rapidly and effectively
deploy the personnel and equipment required for overseas operations... [plus]
meet the domestic needs of Canada.â ?_
The Minister advised a minimum infusion of C$1.5 billion yearly, although
private sector institutes and the Liberal Senate Defence Committee advise
greater increases.
"¢ February 2004: At a CDIA Seminar, Minister Pratt confirmed the defence
review will look at deployability. _"The government must be able to swiftly
send our personnel and equipment where they're needed, whether it's
across the country or around the world.â ?_
"¢ The PM's post-Budget affirmation - _"We must focus on national security and our
armed forces. The demands on our mili-tary are not only increasing in number,
they are changing in nature. We must adapt and we must be ready.â ?_

These reaffirm well-documented National Defence (DND) urgent requirements for an
integral outsize/oversize Future Strategic Airlift capability of six C-17 equivalent
strategic airlifters for _"C$2,320.639M"_ required to replace 40-year-old CC-130Es,
plus an immediate substantial infusion to DNDs base budget to reduce the rust-out
of ageing equipment and prevent rising maintenance costs from squeezing the
procurement budget. 

Integral strategic airlift for the Canadian Forces (CF) could be a source of
pride for all Canadians, especially if Canadian troops and equipment were seen
arriving on Canadian airlifters instead of chartered Russian/Ukranian transports
(with first year of Op Athena requiring a minimum US$65M chartered airlift), and a
way to serve both our own national interest in this dangerous world, such as rapid
deployment airlift for JTF2 and DART that is currently lacking, instead of the embarrasement
of a Hercules fleet that flies less-than half the time.   

Yet Budget 2004 provided a mere C$245M in supplemental top-up funding
in FY04-05 to cover ongoing mission costs, plus C$30M annual 'tax-relief' for personnel
overseas - a clever 'Bait and Switch' tactic to appease overstretched personnel and
disguise the fact that there was no 'base' FY04-05 increase. The only positive was
yearly C$300M in accelerated capital spending from FY05-06 onwards to cover
accelerated procurement of FWSAR aircraft - but no Strategic Airlift mention.

Astonishingly, an Alberta consortium's innovative BC-17X Canadian CAMAA
(Commercial Application of Military C-17 Airlift Aircraft) joint venture bid, submitted
with tacit pentagon-level USAF support, was seemingly ignored - even with potential
massive C-17 cost increases after February 2006.  DND acknowledges the
_"proposal certainly attempts to... provide the CF with the sort of airlift capability that
meets our country's needs and within our budget allocations,â ?_ while in December
2003, the Chief of the Air Staff advised the consortium that the Canadian CAMAA
solution _"may be a candidate to meet our future airlift needs,â ?_ with the Director Air
Requirements confirming _"that a project to procure airlift capability is under develop-ment
and, in due course, a competition is anticipated.â ?_

The Canadian CAMAA solution would allow DND to acquire the C-17 equivalent
guaranteed capability of eight BC-17X (134% capacity of six C-17s), for some
70% of the six C-17 option cost - just C$400M more than maintenance of present
inadequate Hercules fleet until 2038. Canadian CAMAA provides significant
30-year life cycle cost savings exceeding C$14B, allowing DND to recapitalize its
ageing Air Mobility fleet by 2009, while rectifying severe personnel shortages
identified under Project Transform.

The Canadian CAMAA proposal - best value at lowest cost - should grasp the
attention of a Liberal government whose leader affirms _"a dollar misspent is a dollar
unavailable for health care or education.â ?_

The poor optics of procrastination, potentially spending additional billions for
Strategic Arilift down-the-road, should Canadian CAMAAs window disappear by
early-2005, in conjunction with a reluctance to expedite replacement of ageing
Hercules (labelled the new Sea Kings by Global News), should read very poorly to a
voting Canadian public.   :-[

Mark Romanow is a defence analyst, and can be reached at defencegeopol@shaw.ca
*SCONDVA: Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs.
FL   I FrontLine Magazine I   May 2004


Of Note: even though they are needed for airlift missions (ie. not enough operational Hercs to go around) - the VCDS decided that alongside the Comox based Buffalos, 10x CC-130Es would be given up to acquire 15x FWSAR.

Some NOTABLE Strat Air comments that appeared in an associated FL Arcturus SAR article:


An internal business case analysis of DND's operational basis for Air Mobility
Fleet recapitalization, finalized one day before the unexpected April 2003 shut-down
of the FSA project, affirmed _"the 23 CC-130E and H73 aircraft will be retired
during the 2005-2012 period. To avoid any significant refurbishment costs to the
CC-130E/H73s, it's assumed that the FSA will achieve full operational capability
[FOC] between 2005 and 2009, and that the FWSAR will achieve FOC between
2009 and 2012."_ However, the budget announcement of "acceleratedâ ? FWSAR
acquisition from 2005 seemingly ignores DND's timelines and intends to save the
upgrade costs apportioned to 10 CC-130Es of _"about C$300M, all of which could be
avoided if the aircraft are retired at ELEâ ?_ of 2010. 

This also contradicts the 2002 DND DAR2 document _"AIR MOBILITY CONCEPT the
Futureâ ?_ which stressed that _"due to a *significant shortfall in strategic lift capacity*, the
FSA acquisition must precede the new FWSAR acquisition. No CC-130 aircraft
can be retired from service until an FSA solution is delivered. This, in fact, under-scores
the importance of proceeding immediately with the FSA acquisition,â ?_ as
CC-130E cost avoidance savings from FWSAR replacement are only realistic if an integral
FSA capability is concurrently introduced.

End Excerpt


Basically, once both FWSAR and Herc Replacement (the retitled FSA acquisition) were complete,
DND was aiming to focus on the following Air Mobility Fleet:

15 x C-27J Spartan or C-295 -SAR role with light Utility tactical lift (within Canada/USA only);
9 x C-130H Hercules (2 x C-130H-30, 2 x C-130H84) - Tactical Airlift with light strat lift & (5 x C-130H90T) tactical air-to-air refuelling (CF-18's);
6 x C-17 III Globemaster - Strategic/Tactical Airlift - No specialized airport facilities required as with CC-150;
3 x CC-138 Twin Otter - Northern Canada SAR and resupply;
6 x CC-115 Challenger - VIP transport & general utility transport;
5 x CC-150 Polaris - (2 x MRT) Strat Cargo Lift, Troop transport, (2 x MRTT) strategic air-to-air refuelling - Note: No capability to refuel JSF, which requires boom, as probe & drogue equipped only, (1 x 001) VIP/troop transport.


----------



## DJL (20 Oct 2004)

> Note: No capability to refuel JSF, which requires boom, as probe & drogue equipped only



That depends on the version.....the B and C both have probes.


----------



## Brock (20 Oct 2004)

The FSA was looking at procuring 4-6 C-17 before the Governent refused to push forward with the project.  For those of you who think we can get "barely used" C-130J/J-30, I say bollocks.  First of all there are barely any in service anywhere.  Only the Australia Air Force, USAF & USMC, the Danish Air Force, and Italian Air Force actually operate the C/KC-130J/J-30.  There will not be any "spare" ones available anytime soon.  The C-130 can not conduct strategic transport of the LAV series of vehicles, the LAV weighs roughly the max payload of the C-130J series and puts extreme limits on the C-130J series flight performance.  In addition, the LAV barely physically fits on the C-130; there are literally ijust inches to spare on either side of the cargo hold of the C-130J/J-30 when it is loaded on the aircraft.

The A400M while not flying will fly in 2007; a contract is signed for 180 aircraft.  The A400M has been in development for a decade and it is highly unlikely that there will be any other major delays.  Furthermore, the A400M program delays were mostly the result of internal German government politics, but the government resolved the issue over a year ago.  Program delays due to technology are unlikely as the A400M is not using untested and untried equipment with the exception of the engine--which has resolved all technical issues as per the contract.  Airbus Military would not agree to the contract without ensuring technical issues were resolved by contract signature.

The only criticism of the aircraft that I find valid is that of entry into operational service.  To those of you seem to belived this a German and French aircraft...what are you taling about, are you kindergarten?  Airbus Military is a transnational defence company, not owned by the German or French governments, but by aerospace manufacturers based out of the member countries of Great Britain, France, Spain, Germany, Turkey, Belgium, and Luxembourg.

More specifically:

"Airbus Military was established in January 1999 to manage the European A400M military transport aircraft project. The company was re-structured under its current name, Airbus Military SL (Sociedad Limitada) prior to the contract signature in May 2003. Its shareholders comprise AIRBUS (representing EADS & BAE SYSTEMS), EADS-CASA of Spain, TAI of Turkey and FLABEL of Belgium." (Airbus Military)

I personally would like to see Canada procure 8 X C-17, 16 X C-130J-30, and 16 C-27J to replace and enhance the capabilities provided by the CC-130 and CC-115 series of aircraft, but unfortunately the cost would be unaffordable and leave Canada with too few aircraft for day to day operations.  The cost would be too great at 8 X $300 + 16 X $100 + 16 X $50 =$4 billion dollars.  The high cost isn't in the actual procurement cost, but in the operating, training and support costs or through-life support costs.  The CF will not get good value out of the C-17 except in emergency situations which are far and few between...if we had a great budget and great public/gov't support for the military it would great.  That scenario would leave Canada short of medium transport aircraft with too much strategic airlift capacity.  The beauty of the A400M design is that it is designed to effectively operate in both roles, it is basically the 21st century Hercules, it is an affordable and capable do everything aircraft.

In regard to delivery timelines, immediatly procuring the C-27J will take an enormous amount of stress off the existing Hercules aircraft lengthening their service life and thus ensuring the A400M can be delivered soon enought to replace the Hercs.


----------



## canuck101 (20 Oct 2004)

Does anyone know what the unit price of a a400m is going to be.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (20 Oct 2004)

canuck101 said:
			
		

> Does anyone know what the unit price of a a400m is going to be.



From earlier in the thread:



> The cost of a fleet of 24 A400M and 24 C-27J would amount to $3.6 billion and $1.2 billion respectively for the actual procurement and a comprehensive initial support training package.  The latter amounts to $150 million and $50 million for the A400M and C-27J each respectively.



Of course, you could always try Google...


----------



## DJL (20 Oct 2004)

> The CF will not get good value out of the C-17 except in emergency situations which are far and few between...if we had a great budget and great public/gov't support for the military it would great.  That scenario would leave Canada short of medium transport aircraft with too much strategic airlift capacity



Care to elaborate?



> The beauty of the A400M design is that it is designed to effectively operate in both roles, it is basically the 21st century Hercules, it is an affordable and capable do everything aircraft.



Read designed. Also, how can it be the "21st century Hercules", when it hasn't been proven(unlike the Herc) yet?


You say affordable, but _what if_ we purchase it, then major design flaws are later found and we are stuck with it? I'd think it to be more prudent to purchase an aircraft(s) that we know the concrete performance of, rather then an unproven design.


----------



## ghazise (21 Oct 2004)

For capital aquistions,  How high of a priority is Strategic Lift?


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (21 Oct 2004)

Could you not use the C17 for things like jump courses if they weren't being used for national emergencies or taking kit oversea's?


----------



## canuck101 (21 Oct 2004)

For capital aquistions,  How high of a priority is Strategic Lift?

it should be very high.


----------



## ghazise (25 Oct 2004)

Airlift, Sealift, in what ever form it takes shape in the CF, will be an enabling factor,  allow the CF equipment (old or new) to be transport to the Area of Operations,

Equipment a dependent factor, no matter how state of the art, is not effective if you can't get it to the AO,

I believe Canada needs it's own Strategic Lift Capability because if CDN government see's a priority that the US and our NATO allies do not agree with or want to participate with, we need to be able to have the capability in taking the lead role in that operation,,,  I think it was in Liberia last year a CDN Member of Parliament, determined that their was a need to deploy to the Liberia on Humanitarian Basis and he cited the shortfall of strategic lift,  if anyone know the name of the MP please add a post


----------



## canuck101 (26 Oct 2004)

The only way we are going to get any new equipment is telling the Canadian Public want we need and what it will do for us.  We will have to go out and sell them on it. Tell them that we need new Strategic Lift Capability.  Show them that the planes that we have now are 40 years old and need replacement's. 

 Open up information Booth's in ever large mall in Canada promoting the Canadian armed forces and the equipment we have and what we are getting.  If a citizen is interested in joining setup an appointment at the nearest recruiting office.  We have to be aggressive in our search for more personnel.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (27 Oct 2004)

Or perhaps a lobby group.?


----------



## Kirkhill (6 Nov 2004)

Here's Liberal Senator Colin Kenney passing the word to the Canadian public.

$340,000,000 (Canadian) per year to rent-to-own 10 C17s immediately.  800 hours and operational support.

That and 3 ATS/LSD(A) ships and we would be good to go.



> Canada is stuck on the ground
> 
> Colin Kenny
> National Post
> ...


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (6 Nov 2004)

$340 million per annum for 10 C-17's including all maintenance sounds like an outstanding deal to me.

Quick sign the deal!!!!



Matthew.     ;D


----------



## Kirkhill (6 Nov 2004)

Only problem Matthew is that I think 340 Million per year is roughly equivalent to the Air Force's entire capital budget.

Mo' Money, Mo' Money, Mo' Money...... 

By the way I agree with you.


----------



## Long in the tooth (6 Nov 2004)

Yesterday I had the opportunity to listen to one of the Generals of the Air Staff speak.  The CAS has stated that there's "no new funding, no new personnel, no reduction in tempo and no reduction in infrastructure".  Increased military funding is nowhere on this minority government's radar (surprise!), so don't expect any new kit soon.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (6 Nov 2004)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Only problem Matthew is that I think 340 Million per year is roughly equivalent to the Air Force's entire capital budget.
> 
> Mo' Money, Mo' Money, Mo' Money......
> 
> By the way I agree with you.



But that's part of the point isn't it.   The $340 million includes both capital + maintenance.   What are we forking out now to maintain the Herc's that are only airworthy about 50% of the time and have perhaps 15%-20% of the capability of the C-17's?

Kirkhill, it's sad that you and I don't get to sign the cheques....



Matthew.    ;D


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (6 Nov 2004)

Worn Out Grunt said:
			
		

> Yesterday I had the opportunity to listen to one of the Generals of the Air Staff speak.   The CAS has stated that there's "no new funding, no new personnel, no reduction in tempo and no reduction in infrastructure".   Increased military funding is nowhere on this minority government's radar (surprise!), so don't expect any new kit soon.



So what you're saying is that Paul Martin lied to the Canadian Public during the election and people were stupid enough to buy it again?



Matthew.   :blotto:


----------



## Kirkhill (6 Nov 2004)

And there's a surprise.............

Shock, horror and dismay  :


----------



## canuck101 (7 Nov 2004)

Everone that post here knows by now that the government says one thing to the citizens of Canada and another to the CAF.  The CAF has  run a billion dollar deficit for the last couple of years in funding and each year they are told to find extra money in the system if they want to get new kit.  I will not be to soon when the bill for new equipment is going to be so huge it will make the past bills look small.  There is a disconnect between the citizens that say that they want the CAF to be involved in the world and the government doing the right thing and funding the right thing. 8)


----------



## Long in the tooth (7 Nov 2004)

Matthew - exactly, the PMO may say how important the CF is but still not spend any money on it.  

A further point is the Air Force will not be able to obtain any efficiencies by amalgamating bases such as Winnipeg, Borden, Portage and Moose Jaw.  There would be too much political cost in such an action even though much infrastruction need to be rebuilt and now would be the ideal time to move.

It was interesting to note that the Air Force views Borden as an 'Army' base, even though it's named 16 Wing and really belongs to CFRETS.  I've heard from several sources (from Borden as well) that the whole south side would close and be sold off.  Right now the flight line is often rented out to Honda for up to $30,000 as a parking lot....


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (7 Nov 2004)

This could be a topic in itself but what does the army prefer air or sea lift if we were concentrating on just one?


----------



## Kirkhill (15 Dec 2004)

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?session=dae.4308111.1089903978.QPadasOa9dUAAESlMZk&modele=jdc_34

Royal New Zealand Air Force upgrading its C130s at Spar in Edmonton.

Spar did some work on ours IIRC.  Is there any life at all left in our H's, even with an upgrade or do we have to go with that ridiculous wing and fuselage exchange?

Inch and Zoomie, you have any insights?


----------



## Inch (15 Dec 2004)

Sorry Kirkhill, those wings move far too slow for my liking!

Seriously, I couldn't tell you anything about that, I haven't seen a Herc nor have I heard anything about Hercs in quite some time. 

Ceased wing is more Zoomie's forte.


----------



## Zoomie (17 Dec 2004)

All of our E and H model Hercs have been through SPAR in Edmonton at some point in their lives.  It isn't our H models that we are presently concerned about - our E models are in dire need of becoming Pop cans.  The Fixed Wing SAR replacement project should adequately address this issue and help lessen the load on the remaining H models.  Once we remove the Herc from its SAR role and let it concentrate back on being a tactical lifter, I believe that serviceability in the C-130 world will increase.


----------



## aesop081 (17 Dec 2004)

The E model should have been turned into pop cans years ago........i've been on a few of them and they don't just look tired.........


----------



## Kirkhill (17 Dec 2004)

Thanks Zoomie.

Any late word on the SAR replacement?

Edit: Never Mind.... I see Aesop opened up new SAR thread.

Cheers.


----------



## GaiusMarius (28 Dec 2004)

Muahahahahahahahaha!  whiskey 601 !!!   i'll call that a checkmate!


Gaius Marius


----------



## Jungle (28 Dec 2004)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> This could be a topic in itself but what does the army prefer air or sea lift if we were concentrating on just one?


Good question, but I think Air is preferable (if we need to choose only one). We could have a dozen transport ships, we still couldn't go to Afghanistan, or other landlocked places.
Of course, if we could have a couple of Carriers with Harriers and heavy lift helos...    ;D  ;D


----------



## Slim (29 Dec 2004)

> if we could have a couple of Carriers with Harriers and heavy lift helos...



As per Jungle I too am very interested in how feasible a capability like one of the helicopter carriers would be for us...It would seem that with the sorts of taskings that we are doing in the world today this sort of platform would be ideal for a great many of the things we need...Like a floating C&C station, special ops rapid deployment platform, evacuation platform, heavy equipment deployment platform or perhaps even a floating MASH unit.

 With a few of the "new" helicopter assetts which could be re-tasked, or new ones bought to operate off of the thing it would /could be the perfect fit for a great many missions.

What do the navy and air guys think about this?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (29 Dec 2004)

Nice to have but could we work on improving what we have first please.


----------



## Navalsnpr (29 Dec 2004)

Here are some pages on the CASR site regarding this project that some may find interesting:

http://www.sfu.ca/casr/101-navalsc.htm
http://www.sfu.ca/casr/mp-navalsc2.htm
http://www.sfu.ca/casr/mp-navalsc3.htm
http://www.sfu.ca/casr/mp-navalsc4.htm
http://www.sfu.ca/casr/mp-alsckaiser.htm

Some nice ideas there.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (29 Dec 2004)

Yup...its an interesting topic and a lot has been posted before.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (29 Dec 2004)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Nice to have but could we work on improving what we have first please.



You and your destroyers.   Blue water navy.   Blah, blah, blah....




Matthew.     ;D


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (29 Dec 2004)

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> You and your destroyers.   Blue water navy.   Blah, blah, blah....
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Not just destroyers....frigates, submarines and AORs. As much as I would like to add capabilities we have to have a firm grasp on what we have now and not let those slip any farther.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (29 Dec 2004)

I know, I'm just giving you a hard time.




Matthew.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (29 Dec 2004)

Glad you don't take the navy seriously Blackshirt....I so happened to as its my way of life. Maybe one day when(and if) you join up, you will take the military as seriously as I do.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (29 Dec 2004)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Glad you don't take the navy seriously Blackshirt....I so happened to as its my way of life. Maybe one day when(and if) you join up, you will take the military as seriously as I do.



Ex-Dragoon, my apologies....

The first comment was meant in jest to put a smile on your face because you and I have had that discussion so many times before.   The second was the same.   I'm not making light of the navy or its needs.   I'm making fun of the debate.

If you can't laugh at yourself, what's the point?




Matthew.      ;D


----------



## air533 (19 Mar 2005)

.


----------



## aesop081 (20 Mar 2005)

air533 said:
			
		

> Sure, we need airlift (a replacement for the herc, newer one's maybe, as well as the AN-124 or IL-76's, I just can't see Canada buying a half-dozen C-17's, not at the price they're asking) and sealift (I think some new AOR's and dedicated Ro-Ro's is better than the JSS concept though).
> 
> What worries me about all this is the more we can get troops and equipment to trouble spots and the faster we can do it, the faster we are going to see casualties.
> I think our peacekeepers do a good job, but as a Canadian I'm not exactly keen on the idea of Canadian Forces personnel being involved in every military operation that the UN thinks is needed halfway across the globe.
> I can understand the need for us to be in Afghanistan (sort of), but seriously, if we don't get strategic airlift or sealift, or any MBTs to replace the leo, I hope it at least keeps some of our soldiers out of harms way.



What the heck are you talking about ?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (20 Mar 2005)

> I think our peacekeepers do a good job,



D'oh! Man I hate how politicians and the media have summed the CF into the role of _peacekeeper_. Now its part of the Canadian lexicon .


----------

