# Paul Jackson- The A 400 is a better plane



## Hawker

http://calsun.canoe.ca/News/Columnists/Jackson_Paul/2005/11/29/1328160.html

Jackson slags the idea of quickly procuring the C 130 as our new transport plane.
I'm apt to view with a jaundiced eye a lot of what Paul Jackson says, so I wanted to get the opinion of the collective intelligence of this forum.


----------



## KevinB

Okay so he was the Calgary Officers Mess - talking to
  Reserve Officers -- none of whom are pilots 

The A400 is not even BUILT YET - at least he could have looked at the C17 


  The who article is tripe -- The US is till buying C130J's and so are others  - it is a TACTICAL airlift platform not a strategic one.


 Sigh.

Another one who is simply attacking the issue of the Liberal buy rather than the fact it is the one item we need and now.

I dont like the Liberals at all but I refuse to put blinders on and see that just because it is supported by the MD and Cabinet it is a BAD idea.  Thinking like that is plain stupid.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin

A bunch of retired Reservists harrumphing away on current procurement plans is hardly indicative of the common view of current serving members.   Once again, as with other things, those who don't know should STFU.   The fact of the matter is, as explored in other threads, the C-130J is here now, is in service with allies (who haven't IIRC found too much wrong with it) and is available on a short timeline.   The A400 is still a drawing on a French designer's Strasbourg sketch pad.

I just love the attempt to stir the pot and link this purchase to some sort of scandal.   Ye Gods, I'm beginning to loathe the media!


----------



## Infanteer

Who is Paul Jackson?  :


----------



## Cloud Cover

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Who is Paul Jackson?   :



Sigh... he came back from the mighty missisip' with his bro'.


----------



## Hawker

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Who is Paul Jackson?   :


Jackson is the editor of the Calgary Sun.


----------



## KevinB

Right up there with Terrorism Expert Eric M -- is the Aviation Critic Paul J.


----------



## George Wallace

A case of my Ex-Military Vs your Ex-Military: 





> It just so happens Lockheed's plane is being pushed by CFN Consultants, a huge Ottawa lobbying firm made up of former senior defence officers  and other ex-bureaucrats.


----------



## Kirkhill

Oh dear - Why did it have to be the Calgary Mess?

As George says "my Generals vs your Generals" ...

And as to rolling out the back door into the fight - while that might appeal to some inf and armd types I can't think it would appeal to the Air Force types trying to maximize the life expectancy of their 16 to 20 aircraft.

Maybe we were better off when defence WASN'T an election issue  :


----------



## canuck101

I am no military person myself but i was able to research and find out that there is not even one A400 built yet.We would not be the first customer for it anyway and would have to wait a lot longer then three years to get one.Journalists due have to graduate from university right that means they know how to do research, I guess not in these case.There is only one choice and that is the c-130j


----------



## COBRA-6

An unproven, still in the design stage aircraft is better than an in-service aircraft with a 50+ year history, that our allies are currently *using in theatre*?? 

I'm no aviation expert, but how long does it take for a design to go from prototype, through certifications to production??


----------



## couchcommander

canuck101 said:
			
		

> I am no military person myself but i was able to research and find out that there is not even one A400 built yet.We would not be the first customer for it anyway and would have to wait a lot longer then three years to get one.Journalists due have to graduate from university right that means they know how to do research, I guess not in these case.There is only one choice and that is the c-130j



Heh, three words, "Sun Media Corp". And come on, research wouldn't necessarily lead to the required "Liberals eat babies" conclusion, so why do it? The National Post and all the Sun newspapers (Calgary included) seem to have gotten along just fine without it for years. No reason to start now.


----------



## George Wallace

We crrently are in need of "Tactical Lift".  Aircraft that can land on short and not so perfect Landing Strips.

The A 400 is "Strategic Lift" and requires longer, well maintained runways.  

These facts are more important than any of the other nonsense being spewed about carrying a fully kitted LAV.  One fully kitted LAV has as much chance as a partially kitted LAV landing in a hostile environment by its lonesome.  Let's get real.


----------



## Lance Wiebe

Actually, George, I think it can be safely argued that we need both.  But, as far as I can figure it, the A400 is more of a competitor for the C17 than the C130.  When (if) we decide to buy strategic, maybe then we can talk about which plane is better, and compare apples to apples.....


----------



## George Wallace

Lance

100% with you on that, but this article is coming off stating that we need one and not the other.   The ignorance of the writer is making a large issue out of a non-issue, in the attempt to cloud the subject in the eyes of those less in the know.  Would he have an agenda, or is he just playing an Anarchist game?


----------



## Kirkhill

Not to cloud the discussion any further, but before we go talking about comparing apples with apples the problem with comparing airlifters is that there are no apples to compare.

By that I mean that apples to apples suggests the situation where a specification has been written and there are two or more aircraft that have been built to fit that specification.  Once upon a time that may have been true but now it has been so long since such competitions have been held that the market place has weeded out competitors as specific jobs have resulted in specific aircraft being broadly selected by specific companies and air forces.

Now what we have is not a series of steps with three or four aircraft found on each step, what we have is long ramp of options that starts not with the C-17, or even the AN-124 or the C-5 but with the Boeing 747-400 ERF (recently supplanted by the 747-8F) and continues down through those other aircraft past the Il-76, the A400, C130J-30 and C130J to the C27J and the C295.

The 747 is put at the top of my list because it has the largest deck area capable of supporting vehicles and the new models have a nose door.  

Back on topic though...regardless of all other considerations the biggest problem for the A-400M, especially in light of all the available competition on the ramp, is that it isn't flying yet. All the other stuff is.


----------



## COBRA-6

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> The 747 is put at the top of my list because it has the largest deck area capable of supporting vehicles and the new models have a nose door.



If the AF won't fly the Airbus into theatre, what makes you think they'd fly in a 747??  ;D


----------



## Infanteer

It lilypads - instead of having your C-130J's and C-17's do long-hauls from Montreal or Edmonton, why not have them move stuff from Diego Garcia or Mirage that is lifted en masse by something like the 747 ERF (which is very impressive in what it can move).


----------



## Hawker

http://server09.densan.ca/archivenews/051129/cal/051129as.htm

I guess it's not just the Sun...maybe it's both papers here in Calgary.   This writer is with the U of C.  He actually had me listening to him untill he referneced buying socks from Britain in 1922.  What?!?


----------



## Infanteer

It's too bad Mr University of Calgary research associate didn't research this:



			
				JasonH said:
			
		

> New Herc plane passes pilot's test
> By STEPHANIE RUBEC, PARLIAMENTARY BUREAU
> 
> A veteran Canadian Forces pilot flying for the U.S. Marine Corps on an exchange program yesterday mounted a heated defence of the newly designed Hercules transport plane on the Defence Department's wish list.
> 
> Capt. Steve Lamarche slammed defence industry insiders who've labelled the Hercules C-130J a lemon and he dismissed two Pentagon reports that have labelled it "unfit" for service.
> 
> Lamarche has spent 500 hours flying the new C-130Js with the Marine Corps in North Carolina.
> 
> VETERAN FLYER
> 
> He's clocked another 4,500 hours flying Canada's older Hercules models during his 16 years in the Canadian Forces, first as a navigator and since 1998 as a pilot.
> 
> 
> "I truly enjoy the new aircraft for its reliability and technological advantages over the older aircraft I used to fly back home," said Lamarche. "The aircraft has performed extremely well in all conditions."
> 
> Today, the Canadian military will ask ministers who sit on a special cabinet committee to approve the purchase of $12.2 billion in aircraft, including a new search and rescue fixed-wing plane, troop-transport helicopters and replacements for Canada's 32 Hercules.
> 
> Military brass and defence industry insiders think only the new C-130J will meet the requirements of a new transport plane fleet because of budget constraints.
> 
> A Pentagon report published last year found the aircraft was "unfit for duty" -- unable to drop heavy equipment, operate well in cold weather or perform combat search-and-rescue missions.
> 
> Lamarche said the C-130J did perform those kinds of missions.


----------



## KevinB

We already "Lillypad" with the CC150 - CC130 -but we are stuck to conventional bagged containers with the CC150

 However unless we get something larger than a C130J we will still be limited in what we can "puddle jump" from the Lilypad.   For the J or smaller Herc's are not doing any LAVIII's in the amounts that we would require.


So we will end up needing three airlift platfroms   - if we wish to go that route
Long Range Strategic C5A, A400, 747ERF
Tactical    C17      (pers, kit and vehicles)
Tactical    C130   (pers, kit and SMALL vehicles)


----------



## Infanteer

In discussion with Kirkhill about airlift, I conceptualized the idea in the following manner.   I think we have a continuum that goes like this:

Strategic Lift: 747
Strategic/Operational Lift: C-17
Operational/Tactical Lift: C-130J
Tactical Lift: C-27
The two aircraft in the middle represent a "dual-purpose" aircraft that can perform either function, thus enhancing their utility.  The Airbus should fit in between those two (making it a pure operational lifter?) but the thing doesn't friggen exist yet.  If anything, the two in the middle should be acquired.   The bottom and the top can help by reducing the load on the middle two.   The C-27 would be a great in-theatre transport, while the 747 could correspond with a "Lillypad" Strategy.   Get the big stuff to the lillypad via 747 (with help from a C-17); get it in theatre by the middle two; get it around theatre by the C-27 (with help from the Herc).   More to chew on, I guess.


----------



## Brad Sallows

You'd think we could at least come to a concensus about not doing our procurement on the bleeding edge.  We don't have the deep pockets necessary to be early adopters.


----------



## Kirkhill

'Bout right Infanteer.  Thanks for the hat tip.

My own view is that the Civvy world can handle things like the 747 and the government should be encouraging the purchase of those types of aircraft (tax breaks etc) by civvy operators.  They, along with Strategic Sealift can get troops and materiel into the general vicinity, landing on one of your lilypads.

Then as both you and Kevin have identified there is a need to "jump the puddle" and that needs an ability to lift large chunks - and that demands something bigger than a C130, people and small mixed loads of supplies (rats, ammo, POL, spares, canvas, ATVs etc) to a variety of locations.  To that end, if the budget demanded only two aircraft, both currently available, and the bosses have already decided to buy 16 to 20 C130s and 15 to 20 C27s, I would take the same funds and buy 4 C17s (equal dollars to 16 C130Js) and 20 C27Js for FWSAR with an additional 8 C27Js in place of the extra 4 C130Js.  (1 C130J equal dollars with 2 C27Js).  You might even be able to buy another 3 or 4 C27s due to reduced maintenance on engines.

Current proposal calls for 64 to 80 C130 engines (16 to 20 times 4) and 30 to 40 C27 engines (same ones as the C130 I believe) for a total of 94 to 120 engines.  The 4xC17/28xC27 solution would result in 16 C17 engines and 56 C27J engines (2x28) for a total of 72 engines and a similar capital cost.

If the money exists then what they are proposing PLUS the 3 or 4 C17s would be the best fit.

The A400 would be a good mid-ground if it was flying.

Cheers all.


----------



## Cloud Cover

I would just like to add that if pigs could fly, that would be our strategic airlifter.  Until such time, our airlift will continue to be air"left"- i.e. something borrowed, something blue, something promised, nothing true.


----------



## Britney Spears

I am saddened to see that my CL-130 Seaplane fleet/global fleet of seaplane tender ships/Airborne Marine Armoured regiment proposal have not even warranted a single column in the mainstream media.


----------



## Cloud Cover

Britney Spears said:
			
		

> I am saddened to see that my CL-130 Seaplane fleet/global fleet of seaplane tender ships/Airborne Marine Armoured regiment proposal have not even warranted a single column in the mainstream media.



Well at least I was trying to be serious.


----------



## RCPalmer

So embarrassed that my mess was implicated in this, well "mess".  Hopefully Mr. Jackson just took a comment out of context to confirm his pre-existing opinion, but who knows.


----------



## Michael Dorosh

RCPalmer said:
			
		

> So embarrassed that my mess was implicated in this, well "mess".  Hopefully Mr. Jackson just took a comment out of context to confirm his pre-existing opinion, but who knows.



Not to worry, Sir - read the article again and you find that in sentence one, Jackson admits he was talking to "former officers" in the Mess.  I am quite sure the sensible thing to do for serving members would be to shun the little gentleman.


----------



## Mountie

The A400 is a C130 replacement for many Air Forces, but it is also a strategic airlifter.  Basically a dual tactical-strategic aircraft.  It probably would be a better option for the Canadian Forces but I don't think they can wait that long.  The first A400 hasn't even been built yet.


----------



## Kirkhill

With a nod to Britney for her inspired comments on seaplanes       I will studiously ignore the humour and prognosticate further.

When and if the A400 gets off the ground it may indeed be a better bet for Canada than the C130 but as Mountie and others (including yours truly) have pointed out, the CF can't wait that long.

Plan Z, or maybe its Plan AA.1

Purchase immediately C27s (24 to 30 of them) to cover the FWSAR and Tactical Ops.   LEASE immediately 3 or 4 C27s for 7 years.   Refurbish C130Hs and limit their use to critical missions.   Monitor A400 progress and review progress annually to see if it is going the right direction or if the C130J-30 is still the right answer.

Cheers.

Note: as W601 points out the second group of C27s were supposed to be C17s


----------



## Blue Max

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Purchase immediately C27s (24 to 30 of them) to cover the FWSAR and Tactical Ops.   LEASE immediately 3 or 4 C27s for 7 years.   Refurbish C130Hs and limit their use to critical missions.   Monitor A400 progress and review progress annually to see if it is going the right direction or if the C130J-30 is still the right answer.



Kirkhill, though that sounds like a very feasible plan do you not think the need for strategic airlift is greater? After all why rush the purchase of a tactical lift aircraft that we already posses and does not cater to all our needs, when we can be at the front of the line for strategic airlift and perhaps negotiate for a better price (seeing as not a lot of strategic airlift is being bought/ordered globally).

IMHO, I believe that strategic airlift should be the nu# 1 purchase if all other CF requirments must wait for expediency (money/politics).


----------



## Kirkhill

Blue Max:

It depends what you are envisaging the aircraft doing.  I am not really convinced that we need a large "Strategic" airlift capacity.  As George and many others have pointed out we are not going to be rushing Brigades around the globe a 24 hours notice.  Even the Yanks can't do that with their available lift.  Strategically I am much more comfortable with the notion of investing the price of 2 C17s in a Very Large Ship for use as a mobile warehouse (One C17 will buy you 45,000 sq meters of garage space on a RoRo and leave you spare change.  2 would allow you to invest in survivability technology for the ship and maybe some other goodies).

We do need "Strategic" lift to move spare parts, replacement vehicles and personnel, ammo and rations into theater and wrecked vehicles and kit, wounded and rotating personnel out of theater but that doesn't require surge lift so much as a regularly scheduled conveyor.   Much of that movement can be done in "safe skies" using civilian lifters to cover the long "strategic" distances.

Once you get within a thousand kilometers or so of the fighting you are now down to tactical/operational distances.  In those circumstances where you are now within 2 or 3 flying hours of the troops you still don't need large numbers of large aircraft, especially for Canadian deployments.  You do need a few large aircraft that can ferry things like the LAV in and out.  For these aircraft the dominant requirement is not for tonnage or volume so much as floor area and height.  You also need aircraft that can lift small packages to varied destinations.  For these aircraft tonnage and volume become the dominant drivers.

Look at it this way - one tonne of ammo boxes, about a pallet, can be broken down and stuffed into odd corners of something as constrained as an Otter.  A LAV can't be broken down.

Either way its looked at I see Canada needing not so much aircraft with the ability to fly 'strategic distances' so much as shuttle aircraft.  A small number need to be available to handle shipments like the LAVs, HLVWs and Helicopters -  they can be used both domestically and internationally to shuttle kit forward - making up in frequency of sorties what they lack in numbers.  A larger number of smaller tactical lifters capable of air drops and rough strip landing to keep dispersed small units supported, or which can be formed up into packets to deliver an airborne force, again over relatively short distances.

Domestically it is possible to get almost anywhere from anywhere in Canada in 4 to 8 hours.  An Air delivered and supported force is a relatively cost effective way of ensuring that troops can be rapidly on scene to react to any situation - including a MAJAID deployment in the High Arctic.

The C27J is not a bad size to handle the frequent shuttles and small unit deployments as well as the FWSAR program.  To be fair the C295 could probably also work - although some feel that it wouldn't do as well.

Shuttling large vehicles needs a large aircraft and in that regard we are down to the C130, A400 and the C17 (for those of us that wish to stick to "allied" suppliers - another story).  Our C130s can handle much of our kit but it seems to be a squeeze and they are long in the tooth.  Replacing them with the C130J would still leave the squeeze factor and would also limit the equipment that we could deploy.

Acquiring the C17 would remove the limits and allow for any vehicle or helo to be deployed but at a very high price.

The A400 would expand the limits so that we could lift anything we have in the current and anticipated inventory with the exception of helos like the CH147/CH148/CH149  and MBTs at a considerably better price.

Eliminating the "squeeze factor" because it means less time and effort on the ground (both for air and ground personnel) prepping, loading and unloading kit.  It would also likely reduce the risk of damage to the aircraft and the kit.

All of the aircraft could self-deploy over strategic distances.

I don't really see the need for a Strategic Airlift Fleet as a need for a Tactical/Operational shuttle fleet that can lift outsize cargo as well as service dispersed small units.  

It seems more effective to maintain a fleet of small aircraft that can be used on a daily basis  and brigaded for large ops than a fleet of large aircraft that will either sit idle, fly mostly empty or else have to fly more infrequently thus reducing the timeliness of the support available.


----------



## Cloud Cover

Kirkhill: why would you purchase and lease C27's. Or was that meant to say purcahse C27's and lease C-17's? 

Also, are there not some refurbished C-141's coming available?


----------



## Kirkhill

My error Whiskey - I did mean C17s not C27s on the leased aircraft.

Typing faster than thinking again.

I didn't know about the C141s.  Do you have any news or links on them?


----------



## KevinB

The C141B Starlifter
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/c-141.htm

The USAF was to retire them from service in 2006 -- Not sure if the GWOT has overtaken that intent


----------



## Kirkhill

Thanks Kevin.  From that article it sounds as if the fleet is in kind of rough shape.


----------



## KevinB

Well no doubt some are -- I am sure a lot are in better shape than our Hercs though -- but I smell a potentialBritish Sub fiasco if the CF went that route.

  It may be practical to get some from the USAF as a transition piece for the C17?  But I am not airforce guru so I dont knwo if that would help or hinder -- and given we dont seem to be getting C17's anytime soon...


----------



## geo

WRT the C141s....
Recently, the C-141 went through a series of major repairs. Wing Station 405, windshield post crack repairs and center wing box repair/replacement are complete. As the aircraft continues to age, it is quite possible new structural problems may limit the readiness of the force. To slow aircraft aging of the active duty fleet, 56 PAI aircraft have been transferred to the UE Guard and Reserve as of FY95. Additionally, the process of retiring high flight hour equivalent aircraft will culminate with the retirement of the entire AMC active duty fleet by FY03. 
Given the war effort the US has been fighting over the last 4 years I would venture to think that these aircraft have probably deteriorated a lot faster than was 1st planned. Don't think we have the luxury of borrowing / training our pilots on these big birds.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin

I became very familiar with the 141 on ops a couple of years ago.  They're on their last legs - engines that gulp fuel, skin wrinkling, etc..  Remember - they're older (in some cases) than our old CC-130Es...  Not worth the hassle (nor are the ancient C-5s still aloft, although these have had the benefit of significant rebuilds).


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Had the pleasure of jumping out of them in Fort Bragg years ago, sure were fun for that......no need to worry about squaring in the door..........WHOOOSH!


----------



## GK .Dundas

KevinB said:
			
		

> Well no doubt some are -- I am sure a lot are in better shape than our Hercs though -- but I smell a potentialBritish Sub fiasco if the CF went that route.
> 
> It may be practical to get some from the USAF as a transition piece for the C17?   But I am not airforce guru so I dont knwo if that would help or hinder -- and given we dont seem to be getting C17's anytime soon...


Heard a storey a some time back .Might be true ,might not roughly 8 or so years ago there was a joint Canada/US airpower conferences I understand it  they offered us 18-24 C141B s the offer was turned down on the grounds that the 141's were rather  old on the tooth( mind you the141's offered up had about half the hours our C130 E's had at the time.)


----------



## geo

GK - would imagine that the 141s have put in a lot more time onto their clocks since 9/11


----------



## Matt_Fisher

Ugh...C-141.  Bad memories of flying from NY to the Ukraine in one of those back in July 2001 with 180 other Marines (plus kit) crammed in like sardines to the point that we were staggered seating with our knees interlinked into the other guy's crotch who was opposite you.  Making a head call underway was kind of like crowd surfing in that you literally had to walk over other Marines to make it to the crapper.  Not a fun way to spend 14 hours.


----------



## Kirkhill

Back to the A-400M....

Came across this article.  The Malays are buying 4 A400s to replace/supplement their C130s.

Cost - about 185 MUSD a copy - presumably including spares, support and training (simulators maybe?)

Delivery - 2013-2014

Fascinating that:

A) They can tolerate the long lead time

B) They can plan far enough ahead that they can tolerate the long lead time



> A400M Aircraft to Boost Armed Forces Capability, Says Najib
> 
> 
> (Source: Bernama news agency; published Dec. 8, 2005)
> 
> (Copyright Bernama news agency; reproduced by permission)
> 
> 
> LANGKAW, Malaysia --- Malaysia Thursday signed an agreement with Airbus Military to procure four A400M aircraft worth RM2.8 billion in efforts to beef up the defence forces' capabilities.
> 
> Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak said the new aircraft would replace in stages the ageing fleet of its C130 transport aircraft currently in service.
> 
> He told this to reporters after witnessing the signing ceremony at the Mahsuri International Exhibition and Convention Centre (MIEC) in conjunction with the Langkawi International Maritime and Aerospace Exhibition (LIMA) 2005 here. He said two of the aircraft would be delivered on 2013 while the rest on 2014.
> 
> "The government decided to purchase the aircraft as we need aircraft with the latest technology and with high capability to replace the C130," he said. Najib, who is also the Defence Minister said, the C130 would continue its role until it is no longer economical to operate the aircraft.
> 
> Through the purchase of A400M, Malaysia is to benefit from the aircraft development whereby a Malaysian firm, Composites Technology Research Malaysia Sdn Bhd (CTRM), would undertake two development programmes worth RM907 in manufacturing composite components.
> 
> He said, Malaysia would also receive additional programmes worth RM800 million if there is more orders for the aircraft from all over the world.
> 
> "Based on additional orders for 196 aircraft of that type from all over the world, we are expected to receive additional work worth RM800 million," he said.
> 
> CTRM was established in November 1990 by Minister of Finance Malaysia Inc in line with the government's aspiration to start manufacturing composite parts for the aerospace industry.
> 
> After looking at the advantages and the opportunity to expand the nation's "aerospace" industry, the government made the decision to buy the four aircraft, said Najib.
> 
> "The procurement must be seen as a package, not only to fulfill the armed forces' needs but also as an effort to expand the nation's aerospace industry," he said.
> 
> Najib also witnessed the signing of several more contracts for the supply and delivery of military equipment between Malaysia and the respective suppliers, among others Selex Sistemi Integrati, Sapura Thales Electronics and Sapura Defense Sdn Bhd.
> 
> Apart from that, Najib also witnessed the delivery of an Agusta A109 Light Observation Helicopter by AgustaWestland for the army at the MIEC ground. (ends)



http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?session=dae.16882086.1133972074.Q5cKasOa9dUAAFC2ZcA&modele=jdc_34

At the link there is an attached article talking about the industrial offsets secured and EADS global expansion.

It also states that it will be 2 years before the A400s "Maiden Flight".   How much slack in that? How long to debug?

Better make that a 10-12 year lease on the C-17s ......


----------



## Good2Golf

GK .Dundas said:
			
		

> Heard a storey a some time back .Might be true ,might not roughly 8 or so years ago there was a joint Canada/US airpower conferences I understand it  they offered us 18-24 C141B s the offer was turned down on the grounds that the 141's were rather  old on the tooth( mind you the141's offered up had about half the hours our C130 E's had at the time.)



True...late 80's.  Also, with Salt II and other conv arms reductions, in 1984 the US offered CAF (then) a whackload of AH-1S...the US figured it was physically cheaper to give them to Canada free, than to even ship back Stateside to "remove said weapon systems for inventory in Germany".  This was, of course, while the CFLH (CF Light Helicopter, known as CFNSLH - CF not-so-light helicopter, just before the programme's closure) was in full swing...Canuck pride wouldn't let us avoid looking the gifthorswe in the mouth and just take the freebie Cobras...they had just got the -S mod, too!  :

I figure we have to do a mission analysis to determine just what it is we can realistically require of the transport fleet.  As much as lots of strat lift would be timely, the pragmatic (and equally cheap Scot inside of me) figures that the greatest specialized lift capability bang for buck is the tactical, short-range intra and intertheatre lift from the strat airhead for replenishment purposes, thus not sure that lifting LAVs in would be a driving factor (AN225 Mryia is not a bad option for dumping Mech into theatre).  I don't think the B747-CBF is such a bad idea to get stuff to the theatre airhead (lily padding?), given our limited funds.  My discussion with many TAL buds is either buy more H models from around the world or get the J's and figure out something about the props...apparently the composite props of the 130J and 130J-30 are prone to nicking/abrasion that quickly takes the props near tolerances...can't verify that but there must be a shred of truth to it asI've heard some TAL guys say buy -J's and put -H props on them.  FWIW, I'm not sure that the C27J is best bang for the buck...I've been in the back of one and it is SMALL...think of the hercs going into theatre now, and put the ramp at where the current rag-and-tube seating stops...hmmmm.  Not just because I'd kill to fly one, but MH-47Gs are in-flight refuelable, only fly 70-80 kts slower than a C27J and can still carry a similary payload (albeit admittedly over shorter distances.)

So, that's what I'd do...

Strat: B747-freighters (lots of -200s and -300s in addition to the -8 and -CBFs more avail as A380 converts staqrt hucking more 747s), 
Op/Tac: C130J's with H-model metal props or get and refurb more H's and put a common avionics suite in them.  
Short tac: ...have a hard time saying C-27J, wanna say -47G or F, but will wimp out as say nothing less/smaller than Herc for intra-theatre cargo.

FWIW, 2 more  ¢...

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## KevinB

Duey thanks for the insight.

I like the hook idea for short tac -- due to the capability to sit down and pick up casualties from complete terrain -- something the others cannot.


----------



## Good2Golf

Kev, the only other thing I think would work out is the MV-22...which, of course, I'd gladly fly! ;D


----------



## Kirkhill

Duey - How fast can those new -Gs fly?  70 to 80 knots difference?  Info I have from Flug Revue suggests 325 ktas cruise for the C27 and 140 ktas cruise for the -SD and most other models.  

Also how fast do they go with 10 tonnes hanging from their belly or flying at 30,000 ft? 

Being cheeky.

If-I-were-king-of-the-world you'd still get your 'Hooks, and the J-30s  probably are "the answer" but I still think that the C27 would fit nicely into the mix.

Cheers


----------



## Good2Golf

Kirkhill, I must have transposed my info for the 27J...I was thinking 235-255 kts for the Spartan.  A Chinook's Vne is in the 160's or 170's...our CH147 Vne was 173kts.  I flew up to 169 on a test flight once in a CH147 and we would normally cruise at at least 140, sometimes 150 if we were lightly loaded.  Looks like my math doesn't quite work out then...I'd still fly the 47G! Or....like I mentioned to Kevin, an MV-22! 

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## Kirkhill

Duey, that's the C27 Spartan's competition, the Casa 295, that only does 256.  And while the 27 has a 2.25 m high cabin the 295 only has a 1.9 m cabin - watch that helmet.

Cheers


----------



## RCD

The problem is we need those planes yesterday.


----------



## geo

Ayup!

CDS is a forward looking type of guy but, unfortunately, we're so far behind the 8 ball that it will be some time before we have the luxury of being able to get delivery of what we need when we need it.


----------



## Kirkhill

One of the problems we are likely to encounter is getting ANY aircraft in a timely fashion.

C130s and C141s are using up their remaining hours fast.  The C5 I don't know about but can't think it is in any better shape.

And according to the article below the C-17s are rapidly eating up the airframe hours (especially for the first 50 to 70 or so) due to heavy loads and short, rough strips.  10 year old aircraft worth 135 MUSD apiece due to be clapped out in 5 years.

Logistics wants to increase build from current 180 a/c to 300-350 a/c.  Air Force apparently wants to build other a/c instead.

It sounds to me as if the US is going to be looking for any open production lines that can supply air transport for some time.  C-17, C-130J and C-27J may all end up being put into production out of necessity and then, unless we can organize something like the M777s for the arty, we could be looking at very long delivery times in any event.

Idle speculation on my part.  Anybody got any hard facts?

Cheers.




> April 17, 2005: The U.S. Air Force is desperately scrambling to get money to build its new F-22 and F-35 fighters. But in the meantime, an even more essential aircraft, the new C-17 transport, is being worked to death. The problem is that the C-17 is more in demand during the war on terror than are air force combat aircraft. Only the two dozen AC-130 gunships, and a hundred or so A-10 ground attack aircraft and F-16 fighter-bombers are getting steady work these days. But their workload is nothing compared to the C-17s, which are in constant demand to deliver personnel and material to American troops in Iraq, Afghanistan, and many other places where the war on terror is being fought.
> 
> The C-17 entered service ten years ago, and those first few aircraft quickly compiled 3,000 flight hours supporting peacekeeping operations in Bosnia. Each C-17 has a useful life of 30,000 flight hours, but the current force is flying such long, and hard (landing on rough fields) flights that many of the early model C-17s will be worn out within five or so years. This attrition is accelerated by the fact that the early model C-17s are structurally different, and weaker, than the later model C-17s. The wing box in the center of the fuselage was insufficiently strong  for the loads placed on it. This was corrected later in the production run, but those early planes are going to wear out faster than later model planes of the same flight hours. Adding to this problem is the fact that many C-17s are landing on rough fields with heavy loads and are taking life time shortening structural damage. We have flown a lot of C-17s into northern Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and a bunch of other 'stans with rough/short strips in 2001 and 2003. The C-17 was built for this sort of thing, but lots of these landing come at the price of shorter useful life.
> 
> It's always been an uphill fight getting new air transports built. There were so many delays in the C-17 program that, when the 1991 Gulf War came along, the C-17 was not available and the the C-141 transports, that was supposed to keep flying until 2010, were basically worn out and had to be retired early. Now the C-17s are doing more work, to make up for the missing C-141s. Originally, there were to be 120 C-17s (at $135 million each), with production ending in 2004. After September 11, 2001, it was realized that more air transports would be needed, and the production run of the C-17 was increased to 180. It is now proposed to  increase it again to  222 aircraft. But logistics planners insist that 300 will be needed, if wartime needs are to be met. Moreover, the rapid deterioration of the early model C-17s means that eventually 350, or more, will have to be built to maintain a fleet of 300 transports.
> 
> The major problem is that the air force is run by combat pilots. Although they recognize the importance of the C-17, they tend to focus on getting warplanes built. Additional C-17 construction comes at the expense of building new combat aircraft, and that's a hard sell inside the air force. Usually, it lobbying by the army, and other branches of the government, that compels Congress to strong arm the air force generals to build the needed C-17s. It's an ugly, messy and time consuming way to get aircraft built, but it works.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> C130s and C141s are using up their remaining hours fast.   The C5 I don't know about but can't think it is in any better shape.



The C-5 is just as bad, if not worse.  In 2002, when I worked with them, the aircraft in service spent most of their time on the ramp, puking oil and there were other problems as well - that I forget at the moment.  Serviceability was brutal and TRANSCOM could hardly keep to a published schedule because of it.


----------



## Rescue Randy

There seems to be a lot of discussion about acquiring the C27J Spartan for either Tactical Airlift or Fixed Wing SAR.  What does not seem to be taken into consideration is that there has been a grand total of two Spartans delivered to any military in the world.  The only country that has them is Greece, and of the two that has been delivered, only one has been accepted.  The delivery schedule is well behind.
When Lockheed bid for the US Coast Guard C130 replacement, it rejected the Spartan as a platform, and instead used the CASA 235 for its (winning) bid.  Interesting, considering that Lockheed was originally a supporter of the aircraft.
The other thing that should be considered is that the manufacturer, Alenia, has a very poor record of supporting aircraft.  The USAF bought ten C27A aircraft in the early 90s, and parked them after five years due to parts and maintenance problems.  
All this to say that you really have to be careful what you ask for, someone might give it to you.....


----------



## Pikache

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20051220.wxmilitary1220/BNStory/National/


> 2010 too late for new planes
> 
> By MICHAEL DEN TANDT
> 
> Tuesday, December 20, 2005 Posted at 4:05 AM EST
> 
> From Tuesday's Globe and Mail
> 
> Ottawa â â€ The first of 16 new military transport planes is not scheduled for delivery until 2010, two years after the Department of National Defence says its aging Hercules fleet will be inoperable, an internal government document obtained by The Globe and Mail shows.
> 
> The document, which the Defence Department submitted to the Treasury Board last month, raises fresh questions about the federal government's approval in the last days of its mandate of the $4.6-billion aircraft purchase.
> 
> DND officials for weeks have insisted that the procurement had to be completed urgently because the Hercules fleet must be replaced in about 36 months, or the lives of pilots and crew will be at undue risk.
> 
> "We know that three years and a little bit more than that, the fleet starts to become almost completely inoperational," General Rick Hillier, Chief of Defence Staff, said last month.
> 
> He added that Canadian troops need new planes "not another 15 years from now, not 10 years from now and actually not even five years from now."
> 
> Gen. Hillier reiterated the statement in a private briefing several weeks ago with the Bloc Québécois and New Democratic Party defence critics.
> 
> "They're trying to explain to us that if nothing is done today, the whole fleet will fall apart in three years," Bloc MP Claude Bachand said at the time.
> 
> The Treasury Board document thus raises new questions about DND's bidding process, which until now has effectively shut out competitors other than Lockheed Martin.
> 
> Asked about the document, the Defence Department said it has no comment. Defence Minister Bill Graham also declined to comment.
> 
> The accelerated process and in particular the contract specifications have been widely understood in the defence industry to favour Lockheed Martin over other potential contenders such as Airbus and Boeing.
> 
> Gen. Hillier and Mr. Graham have insisted that DND's conditions for the contract do not make the process uncompetitive, because the necessity for speedy delivery is incontrovertible.
> 
> They say any company is free to satisfy those conditions, if it can.
> 
> But according to a secret DND timetable and cost projection to the Treasury Board, dated Nov. 21 and signed by Mr. Graham, the timing of the delivery of the first aircraft is not three years out, but nearly five, in May, 2010. A copy of the document was obtained by The Globe and Mail.
> 
> A detailed table in the document sets out a schedule that would deliver four aircraft a year in each of 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013, for a total of 16.
> 
> A table, entitled Project Milestones, says that, given "preliminary project approval" in November of this year, the contract will be awarded in May, 2007.
> 
> The apparent two-year delay is significant. The Defence Department has been told by Airbus that the company can deliver two A400M transports by 2010, and the balance by 2014, as well as provide refurbished Hercules transports in the interim, should that be necessary.
> 
> "That is guaranteed," said Martin Sefzig, director of programs at EADS-Casa, Airbus's major shareholder.
> 
> "The production line has been designed to accommodate extra orders."
> 
> Although it remains unclear which aircraft bests suits DND's needs, this casts into doubt the most compelling argument against the Airbus craft, which is that it could not be available in time to meet DND's schedule.
> 
> Last month, after a plan to buy $12.2-billion worth of 50 military aircraft was criticized by industry insiders and opposition politicians for perceived unfairness of the bidding process, the Defence Minister announced an abridged plan, for transport planes only. Of the total $4.6-billion cost, $3-billion is directly related to procuring the aircraft, with $1.6-billion for servicing costs over 20 years.
> 
> At a news conference on Nov. 22, Mr. Graham and Gen. Hillier dismissed allegations that contract requirements were tailored so that only one plane, Lockheed Martin's Hercules C-130J, could fulfill them.
> 
> "The procurement process will be competitive, fair and transparent," Mr. Graham said. A spokesman for Mr. Graham reiterated this recently.


----------



## a_majoor

With time-lines getting so short, we risk being boxed into a bad contract before our aircraft fall out of the sky.

There was a long running thread in the Air Force section which examined the feasibility of purchasing Russian IL-76 transports as a field expedient solution to our problems. Bad as it may sound (and we would have to buy 2-3 IL-76 and do total cannibalization and rebuilds for each one we actually want to fly), they have the indisputable virtue of being available RIGHT NOW. The former Soviet Union built over 500 of the beasts and I think they are still in production. We could get planes for a fairly modest price ($50 million each seems to ring a bell), and bulk discounts are always available. Even with the overage and rebuild costs we could have six or more flying for the cost of two C-17s.

The long lead times for C-17s, C-130J, and the fact the A-400 dosn't even exist (and the AN-70 is in permanent prototype status) really dosn't provide many alternatives.


----------



## Kirkhill

As bad as all the other options are cobbled together Il-76s are likely to be worse.

It would quickly become a plumber's nightmare of worn-out cannibalized parts, long lead Russian parts of unknown quality and domestically reverse engineered parts.  If the aerotechs are having fits with the CP-140 they would love the IL-76.

The C-17 should not be hard to come by as the line was only being held open by dint of Congress forcing the purchase of 6 aircraft the Airforce said it didn't want, or didn't need, or couldn't afford (pick one).  Securing 2-6 of those should not be that hard.  That would take some of the strain off the existing fleet of Hercs so that they can husband their available hours.

If a fleet of small aircraft (either C-27s or C-295s) were bought as well that would take some of the rest of the strain.

There are advantages to a mixed fleet of small and very large aircraft that a mid-sized fleet can't deliver.  Especially if small forces are being deployed.

A Mid-Size plane still has to haul a lot of metal and gas into the air even if its only carrying a small load.  If it has to do that frequently it costs a lot of money both to operate and maintain.  At the same time it is too small to carry many outsize pieces of cargo.

An aircraft with a 10 tonne capacity (like the C-27/C-295) operating from airheads 1000 to 1500 km from deployed troops, capable of airdrops and rough strip landing would meet a large amount of the needs currently.  As I understand it the C-130s we have currently often fly at less than their maximum load of 17 tonnes.  

Vehicles and surge cargo could be carried by the C-17s.

Perhaps a Hi-Lo strategy rather than in between would fit our needs better.


----------



## aesop081

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> It would quickly become a plumber's nightmare of worn-out cannibalized parts, long lead Russian parts of unknown quality and domestically reverse engineered parts.   *If the aerotechs are having fits with the CP-140 they would love the IL-76.*



Apples to oranges........Your point being ?


----------



## Kirkhill

The point being, as I understand it, that the CP-140s have had a number of systems grafted onto them over the years so that it has become difficult for the technicians to work on them efficiently.  

If the IL-76 were acquired would they have Russian engines or would they be re-engined?  In either case maintaining them would be no picnic.  Would they soldier on with the Russian controls and comms or would they need to be refitted for Western Avionics?  Would the new wiring fit in the existing runs?  Would hydraulic valves and solenoids be available?  If not do you have to fit something else into the space designed for a very different original component?

Those are the apples that I was comparing - not the aircraft, not even the nature of the problems, just the fact that the work load of the guys maintaining the aircraft would be a right mess.  How would you train them? Are there manuals available? Simulators?  How easy is it for someone who has "grown up" working on Western kit to learn to work with foreign kit?

Personal experience:  Working with processing equipment in the 80s and 90s.  I learned on American PLCs - logic was ladder logic, left to right, left side hot.  Europeans were supplying kit that was either using boolean algebra or else Reverse Polish Notation.  No fun at all trying to work with north American trades trying to figure out how these black boxes were wired in and how they were to work with locally acquired components because the components supplied from Europe were not readily available and cost 5 times what the local variant cost.

I can't begin to imagine being responsible for keeping that type of fleet in the air.


----------



## aesop081

Kirkhill,

I agree with you on the difficulties of the IL-76 idea. I dont mean to digress on the topic of this thread but before you drag the CP-140 into this you should make sure it is relevant. 

Yes the aurora has had new systems grafted onto it over the last few years.But the newer systems dont require the reverse-engineering of parts and components. The only difficulty encountered is the lack of familiariry with maintaining the new systems. Its no different than us operators having to learn a new system when we were proficient with the older ones. The older systems are the problem, the FLIR met is demise as the parts are no longer manufactured and the KA-107A camera will eventualy suffer the same fate as parts are no longer manufactured.

Maybe you should come and fly with us to get a better understanding of the aurora fleet ......would beat misguided comments based on nil experience.

Cheers


----------



## Kirkhill

Aesop: 

Point taken - bad analogy.

Extracting foot.

Cheers.


----------



## a_majoor

While everyone is very quick to poo the IL-76, remember it is like going to honest Ed's aircraft emporium. You might like the models with the shiney brochures and flashy computer animations, but the only thing sitting on the showroom floor is the IL 76.

Even buying six to eight flying examples gives us a bit of breathing room until either the Americans can slot us into their production runs, or the A-400 becomes actual hardwear. The IL-76 was designed for rough field use and care and maintainence by a mostly conscript ground crew, so it seems rugged enough for what we need, and if a bunch of conscripts with a very low "give a f**k" factor can keep these things going, then our own professional ground crews should certainly be able to as well.

As to re engining, re wiring etc., someone needs to sit down and do the cost/benefit analysis of which route to take.


----------



## aesop081

Russian air forces ground technicians are not conscripts.  they work in auxiliary positions supporting the work of pilots and technicians. The are generaly employed in maintaing vehicules and equipment, fueling duties and rudementary tasks assisting technicians.  few of them actualy get to touch the airplanes themselves.

A better example might be the sweedish air force ?


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Re: the IL-76.

I remember the trouble VIH had in getting airworthiness certification for the Helix helicopters they imported in the 90s.  It took YEARS to obtain and caused VIH to have to redesign and re-build several key systems to the satisfaction of Transport Canada.  It worked out for them in the end, but it wasn't easy or quick.

My point is:  Like it or not, all of us in Canada (including the Military) must conform to and abide by the Aeronautics Act wrt airworthiness.  I admit to having no direct experience with the IL-76, but I rather doubt that a Russian transport, designed in the 60s and built in the 70s-90s would easily meet the tests of the Act in 2005.  I have watched relatively straight-forward airworthiness issues on the Sea King get bogged down for years. The Il-76 would not be simple, especially if you started to muck with engines and avionics. I doubt we could get the IL-76 in service in Canada in less than half a decade, even with half the AERE officer's in Canada working full time on it.

Cheers.


----------



## Kirkhill

Here's another thought -  groans heard in the distance.

Availability of C-17 seems reasonably high.  Lease in the short term. (Old idea - not mine)
C130/A400 debate is a valid one - especially if C130 lead times are long and A400 is desparate enough to give us early production spots.  The A400 could be good.  Dunno.
C27/C295 - both of these aircraft are flying - both are available - both lines are likely to be busy - both are relatively cheap at about 25 MUSD.  Why not lease or buy  2 or 3 of each and try them out for a year then buy more of the best option.   I know about training and maintaining - but would it be any worse than the prospect of running out of air lift?

As noted earlier - if the C130Hs (12 to 13 of them?) were relieved of some duties by the C-17 and of others by the C27/C295 then perhaps they could be spun out to hold on for another 2 or 3 years, long enough for the A400/C130J competition to occur?


----------



## Rescue Randy

The idea of using smaller airlifters to guard Herc hours has a lot of merit, although the choice of available mid-size tactical airlifters will be somewhat limited - you could probably get CASA 235 or 295 on short notice (relatively speaking, ie, within a year) but the C27J is backed up significantly on its production line - besides the factory demo model, there have only been two delivered world-wide and the assembly line is running behind.  The Hellenic Air Force is not getting theirs in the time promised, and there does not seem to be an ability at Alenia to get through the hurdles of certification anywhere except in Italy and Greece.  This could be a major issue for us, as certification can drag for years.  That said, most other militaries do use a smaller aircraft for tactical airlift, even the US is currently engaged in a competition for just such an aircraft.  Something like a CASA 295 could be the answer to the tactical airlift problems currently facing the CF, and if it were to potentially lead to sales of the A400, EADS would probably be very cooperative.


----------



## MdB

Kirkhill,

Here's a Wikipedia article on the C-17 casting a light on the issue comparable to your commment:



			
				http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C-17_Globemaster_III said:
			
		

> The 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and resultant tsunamis placed a strain on the global strategic airlifter pool. The impressive performance of the C-17 in USAF and RAF service have persuaded Germany to consider acquiring 2-4 C-17s for the Luftwaffe in a dry lease arrangement, at least until the A400M is available in 2009. German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer stated in the German news magazine Der Spiegel that the government needed its own organic strategic transport capability to be able to respond to disasters in a better manner than it was able to for this incident. During the tsunami relief effort, Germany tried to acquire transport through its usual method of wet leasing Antonov airlifters via private companies, but found to its dismay that there were no available aircraft. While the stated goal of a C-17 lease would be to last until the A400M's arrival, it is always possible that the Luftwaffe may undergo an experience similar to that of the RAF, and elect to retain them.



It seems Canada would do good by looking what others do. And it seems Canada has been lucky too. Note that Minister Joschka Fischer is from the Green Party, not really a right-winger.


----------

