# Strategic Airlift - We need more than the Herc!



## a_majoor (20 Dec 2004)

Back on topic:

http://www.sfu.ca/casr/mp-airlift.htm

I especially like the business model proposed. Anyone care to chip in?


----------



## Kirkhill (20 Dec 2004)

I am a big fan of this type of solution.  For both air and sealift.

Have the government subsidize a private and/or Crown Corporation (probably Crown) to purchase 12 Airlifters (eg) and paint 4 of them Grey and have the others doing White livery work on the commercial market.  Crewed and maitained by a mix of regs, reservists and civvies.

Same scenario for sealift (as opposed to sea based sustainment and command although perhaps there could be some commonality in hulls and machinery).


----------



## canuck101 (3 Jan 2005)

What do you think of this option instead of trying to get C-17.  Getting four of these may help us.
http://www.sfu.ca/casr/mp-airlift-il76-2.htm


----------



## a_majoor (5 Jan 2005)

The lack of airlift is totally unacceptable, especially given the inability of the Government to "project" any sort of help to the Indian Ocean region, which undermines any pretensions of our being a "caring" nation or us having a "Responsibility to Protect".

Between all of us here, we should have the combined brainpower and financial smarts to get into the airfreight business, purchasing a few Il -76 "Candids" and upgrading them on the CASR model. We could give the Government a "first call" contractfor emergency services in exchange for the yearly insurance payments (for example). Reduced military contract rates for providing routine services such as supply runs to Alert, yearly rentals for the BTE and Reserve summer concentrations (shuttling equipment to and from, and providing one or two lifts for the jumpers) would be a "base" for the business, while we would make money flying heavy equipment for civvie companies doing work in Northern Alberta or the Arctic when not otherwise engaged. (Candids can also be used for fighting forest fires, among other things)

I realize this is a huge project (Just purchasing and upgrading the Candids would run into the $50 million dollars each range), but if we wait for Paul Martin and Co, we will *NEVER* achieve this ability.


----------



## Meridian (5 Jan 2005)

Ive got about 100$. But Im in.


----------



## a_majoor (5 Jan 2005)

Thanks for the cash offers (we should be able to install flight ready cup holders in our Candids now!).

I realize this is pretty startling , but if we start doing research, putting our heads together, brainstorming ideas, either here or via PM, this idea could fly (well, I couldn't resist   )

We all know something must be done, we are all aware of the Liberal's 30 + year record on Defense, so who else is going to pick up the load?

What is needed is some serious research into such things as:

The air freight market in Canada. How much need for heavy air freight is there? Will there be enough non government work available to make this a paying proposition? How much? How many aircraft would be needed to service this market?
Regulatory issues, especially involving the purchase, ownership and certification of aircraft (particularly modified ones)
Support issues: Who can do these sorts of conversions suggested by CASR?
Government relations issues. How do we convince the government to buy these services (saying we are the only game in town is a non answer. The EH 101 was the only game in town for a decade, but the government stalled until there was a semi-viable alternative (prototype) helicopter available just to "save face")

I'm sure there are lots of other issues I haven't even considered, so the business plan on the back of the napkin has lots of blank spaces.

Am I pissed? You bet. Am I talking through my hat? I don't know (yet). We are all in the military not just for the Dental plan, but because somewhere in our lives, we decided we were going to do something. Here is another opportunity. Lets see if _Transport.ca_  is a viable idea!


----------



## Kirkhill (6 Jan 2005)

Good enough for me Inch.  

Now back to the point at hand.  How do we get Kit to distant places fast?  And how can we get more of the Herc drivers into the air?


----------



## Jungle (6 Jan 2005)

I'm not sure we need to replace  the Herc, but we certainly need to supplement it. With something BIG !!!
We will always need the medium lift C-130s provide, and we have a number of them that are 20 years old or less, and that are still serviceable. Keep those and scrap the rest. We will certainly need to replace them eventually, but for now we should concentrate on acquiring a heavy lift capability.
Since I'm no expert in this field, I'll leave the type of aircraft and transaction details for others...


----------



## Infanteer (6 Jan 2005)

It seems that replacing the older C-130's with a new "J" model and getting a few C-17's would be the ideal strategy for supplementing our tactical and strategic airlift needs (it would be something I would vote for anyways).  I heard a rumor that the Government has 9 billion to spare....


----------



## Meridian (6 Jan 2005)

Not anymore, they already spent it on the debt.


----------



## Inch (6 Jan 2005)

I think you've got a pretty good idea Jungle. The latest happenings in the world would suggest that having 4-6 C17s loaded with the DART and a TacHel sqn complete with their aircraft would be a serious help. I'd prefer something other than the Griffon, but there isn't much else.

Zoomie suggested it in another thread, but I'll repost part of it here. C17s, Hercs and Spartans would give us an awesome airlift capability. I'm a firm believer in multiple platforms vice the "do everything ok but nothing particularly well" consolidation that we seem to have done in the past few years.

I know you guys have a real love on for the IL-76 but I'm not a big fan of this for the simple fact that it's Russian built. We have a hard enough time getting parts for our Italian made Cormorants let alone parts for a Russian strat airlifter. My pick and IMO, the only one avail at present is the C-17.

Cheers,

Infanteer, you posted while I was typing, we're on the same page on this one.


----------



## Fraz (6 Jan 2005)

If the Gov't were truly serious about maintaining a strategic airlift capability it is necessary to replace the older 'E' models of the Hercs as their airframes are damn near 40 years old and showing it.   In the early nineties we bought a couple of stretch 'H' models i believe from a middle eastern country but regardless we should replace all of the older 'E' models at the very least with the newer 'J' as well as make sure the current avionics upgrades coincide with the newer aircrafts. Additionally the Buffalo replacement programme seems to be gaining speed as well as support so an ideal aircraft would seem to be the C-27J made by lockheed and CASA. The avionics are identical to the C-130J and would therefore be easier on trg and maintainance for spare parts.   
As brought up by AMajoor on CASR/DND101 there are several minds of thought on how to aquire a heavy strategic lift capability which we DO need and need NOW.   
option a) initiate a Crown Corporation and aquire whatever aircraft: AN 124, or IL 76's or C-5's give          the CF priority, and make it a money making organization to operate independantly
option b) purchase newly made IL 76's (1/4 of the cost of a C-17 which we cannot alone afford) which now come available with western engines and avionics and either stand up a new Sqn of 8-10 aircraft? or just add to 437 in Trenton while the CC-150's remain as troop/vip/and air to air refuelers (upgrades for 2 ongoing in Germany) or...
option c) approach our allies in the UK and US about a lend lease agreement like the way NATO has with AWACS, all of the members share the costs for the aircraft, maintanance, flight and ground crews, this would increase operational ability as well as markedly decrease costs as well as eleviate redundancy. Such a measure would surely fit with regards to NATO rapid reaction forces as well as Northern Command plans...
Either way we can all understand that the current events in the Tsunami affected areas have shown that we desparately need our own strategic lift capability to rapidly deploy and react to situations within hours and not weeks after they happen. We can no longer afford to be at the whim of the private sector to deploy at their leisure and convenience.   The world is too small to be an introvert which our gov't has arguably been the last little while


----------



## Infanteer (6 Jan 2005)

As good as any piece of kit from Europe may be (cost, durability) the advantages of buying "continental" are big in terms of the ease of getting parts and service from either the US or Canada.

As well, I'm not really a fan of anything Soviet.   Having a used airframe built under communist inefficency doesn't seem to be a good fix, no matter how much modern gloss you paint over it with.   You see how wacky people get over second-hand British subs having problems, wait until junky Warsaw Pact garbage starts falling from the sky (full of Canadian troops and gear).


----------



## raider43 (6 Jan 2005)

I'm no expert either, but I sure think it is foolish that we have this DART group and don't have the capacity to deliver it on a timely basis.  Seems to me we need our own Canadian Heavy Lift aircraft, and just from my assessment (not professional), I believe we should have at least two C17 Globemasters  III.  Although I can't really judge whether this aircraft would liift the DART, I suspect it would, albeit perhaps with some other support, such as a second flight.  But this aircraft's ability to fly into remote (even unpaved) sites seems to me to be an ideal solution for Canada's proclaimed role as a peace keeper and for disaster response


----------



## Fraz (6 Jan 2005)

Yes I too am fairly skeptical of Soviet aircraft, and i do prefer western nay N. American kit. 
However, with the C-5's just as old as the Herc, we'd have to do some serious upgrades WRT avionics, and even airframes, and control surfaces and that would be costly. 
We could buy brand new C-17's but with the Liberals record i sincerely doubt that they'll doll out the needed $ for that. Re: my option C if we did in fact choose the C-17 and go in together with the Yanks and the Brits to share the operating costs. the Airbus 400M is also a new aircraft but the jobs to build it would predominantly be in two factories (one in France and one in Germany) 
The other albeit less popular options were to either aquire FORMER Soviet made aircraft although if you look into it the factories are now building aircraft to western standards with western equipment.
To throw something out there why not support Canadian industry by buying the licence to build Strategic heavy lift aircraft here, just like we should be building ships and more armoured vehicles


----------



## a_majoor (6 Jan 2005)

I too am sceptical about the idea of used ex-Soviet airlifters bought "as is", but there are several factors that make this the most practical of all the various ideas:

a. The planes exist already. New C-17s would have to be ordered,while Airbus A-400s don't even exist. The only other choice in that size range is the AN-70/77, which is not in series production. I believe the former USSR built over 500 Il-76 transports.

b. Candids are very cheap compared to C-17s, starting around $20 million per unit, while *one* C-17 costs $250 million. (The AN-70/77 is @ $40 million, while the A-400 is supposed to come in at $100 million).

c. All the various plans involve refurbishing the Candids before bringing them into service, including new engines, avionics and airframe overhaul. Purchase could be contingent on airframes passing inspection, so if they tried to pawn old "crap" off on us, we would just walk away.

d. The Candid is a much more versatile craft than most of us realize. It is designed for use on unimproved forward airstrips, it has on board cargo handling equipment and even an on board "tool kit" that allows the crew alone to do everything including changing an engine. If you are doing commercial work in Inuvik to pay the bills while waiting for the CF contract, this sort of capability is a big bonus. If you are doing CF contract work in Dafur, it is a *must*. The Candid also has the size and lift ability to carry at least two LAV IIIs, and continental range, unlike a Herc.

e. Fraz' idea of building under licence would only make sense if there was a big market for these planes. Would you think there are buyers for (say) 20-40 AN-70/77 type cargo planes in Canada? Any less then it would be much cheaper to buy from the factory. (Getting into the air transport industry on a shoe string to backfill the CF like I am suggesting would suggest "airlift.ca" would have a fleet of 2 to 5 aircraft).

Keep thinking about this, I am sure there are lots of factors yet to address before we can say if this is a reasonable idea or not. (The prospectus will be in the mail soon after).


----------



## Infanteer (6 Jan 2005)

Out of the box thinking for sure, and you are very wise to point out price in a "military-on-the-cheap".   However, are we requiring unimproved airstrip capability out of our _strategic_ airlift requirement?   I am of the same nature as Mr Inch, prefering a mixed bag of airframes for different tasks rather then trying to get a "system-of-systems" silver bullet approach.

PS...I am willing to bet I could take some "organizational scissors" and find you four C-17's real quick   ;D   The cost is a matter of how bad we want it.   If we want to stick to a bloated, Cold War organizational structure built around bureaucratic imperative and mobilizing for the Fulda Gap - then we can do so without modern strategic airlift.... :-\


----------



## Bograt (6 Jan 2005)

I've taken the initative, and put this together... entirely plagerized from various sources:

From a US Congressional Report on Strategic Airlift
http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=5938&sequence=0


> The need for strategic airlift, the planes that carry troops and equipment between continents, has lessened markedly in recent years. Current requirements for the first two weeks of a major regional conflict are 36 percent to 58 percent lower than those estimated during the Cold War for a confrontation with the Soviet Union. However, during the 1980s, the actual number of airlift aircraft was insufficient to handle the deliveries that the Department of Defense (DoD) estimated would be needed for a NATO/Warsaw Pact conflict. Current plans to maintain an airlift fleet with a theoretical capacity of 49 million to 52 million ton-miles per day come much closer to meeting delivery requirements that the Pentagon has set for itself. Yet critics might question why meeting DoD's airlift requirements is receiving relatively more emphasis today.
> 
> The defense bill for fiscal year 1996 will complete funding for 40 C-17 aircraft. Some military analysts would prefer to buy 80 to 100 additional C-17s to replace the Air Force's aging C-141 Starlifters. But a combination of C-17s and the Lockheed Martin C-5D or the C-33, a military version of Boeing's 747-400 freighter, might provide sufficient capability at lower cost.
> 
> ...



From a Defence Manufacturer (hows this for thinking out of the box?)
http://www.aerosml.com/pr04-26-04b.asp


> The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) has launched the WALRUS Program, which will study the feasibility of a new air vehicle capable of transporting 500-1,000 tons of military payload across 6,000 miles within 4 days.
> 
> 
> The Aeroscraft for WALRUS
> ...



Or this suggestion from Canadian American Strategic Review:
http://www.sfu.ca/casr/mp-airlift-il76-2.htm


----------



## a_majoor (7 Jan 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Out of the box thinking for sure, and you are very wise to point out price in a "military-on-the-cheap".  However, are we requiring unimproved airstrip capability out of our _strategic_ airlift requirement?



Actually, yes! Strategic airlift should not presuppose the existence of friendly or functioning airfields at the receiving end, and I would bet a lot of money a Candid could use many airports in the Tsunami zone which are not currently "functional" for one reason or the other.



> The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) has launched the WALRUS Program, which will study the feasibility of a new air vehicle capable of transporting 500-1,000 tons of military payload across 6,000 miles within 4 days.



Projects like this are useful (if ever carried to fruition), but are in the same category as the A-400, i.e. paper airplanes. In fact they are worse in one way, the A-400 is an extension of the plane maker's art and could be built "soon", while projects like the "Walrus", Boeing "Pelican" Wing In Ground (WIG) transport, Areon hybrid airships etc. are more theory than fact. The Areon corporation proposed an airship which was in the shape of a flying wing to generate extra lift during flight, and even built a very small scale prototype in the 1970s, but never demonstrated anything bigger than a Piper Cub. WIG aircraft have been around for a long time (Flying boat pilots pioneered the technique in the 1930s to extend their range), but there are still many unknowns in that flying regime. A German company also proposed the Cargolifter airship with a 160 tonne payload, and got as far as a scale prototype and building the hanger before they went bankrupt....

What I would like to focus on is the "here and now" needs of Canada. Since we know the Government is unwilling to make the investment for large strategic airlifters (much less tactical airlifters like the C-130J), then there is an opportunity for "us" to step in. 

The Candid exists, and is relatively inexpensive. It _may_ be possible to make a living doing non government air freight, while giving the government a "stand by" contract and capability of responding to a crisis in short order (i.e. any non tasked airplane goes to Trenton right away, while any plane on charter finishes that run and returns home to take up the follow on loads). There are also existing military needs such as ferrying equipment to Alert, setting up and taking down the BTE, and doing mass drops at the CPC to think an air charter company set up as suggested could be the preferred supplier of airlift to the CF on the basis of having the right equipment, familiarity with the CF and offering the "right" price, whatever that is. Like I said before, do you really want to read today's headlines in 2015 because no one would step up to the plate?


----------



## Wizard of OZ (7 Jan 2005)

casca said:
			
		

> I still think the C130J is the best for Canada, however if we could ever afford a plane like the C-17( about $170 mil US a piece) It would great too. The Brit's have just decided to buy the C-17's they leased and i think they are even buying a few more. The A-400 from Airbus is an unproven a/c so I would be hesitant to buy that one. As for Canada to buy an Antonov a/c, well ????? I just don't think so even if we now   use them for airlift.


     

The Problem is we have a tendency to buy unproven technology and that would be just the reason the governments needs to buy the new A-400.   Then again the Antonov's are going into production again backed by Western based airline companies and the Ukraine's themselves for more civilian purposes.   If they work and are cost effective why not get them as we don't seem to want to use American made goods.


----------



## Zoomie (7 Jan 2005)

I'm still not even close to being sold on this whole Il-76 CANDID idea.  My first reservation is the stigma that all Russian equipment has attached to it - my second being the plan on how to best utilize this strat lift.

Quite frankly I have seen the IL-76's that come into Trenton and conduct our lift missions - they are pieces of crap!  I don't think we could put enough riders on a contact to ensure that the planes we get are in good order.  As it is, our brand new Cormorants, produced by a western nation, are proving to be strife with design flaws.

Any future plans that involve contracting out the flying hours on any strat lift would be a bad idea.  From what I can tell about your plan, you are suggesting that we have civilian drivers for these birds - Civilians would be useless when it comes to the flying that the CF requires.  They would not be able to maintain the skills required for true strategic lift in the military sense of it.  I understand that it looks like a great idea and should work - but it can't!  Military pilots need to train and hone their proficiencies at every opportunity.  There would be scarcely a time when the planes would be available for other duties.  Also the military is not a cargo airline - if we get true strat lifters, they will be for purely governmental taskings - not for delivering toilet paper to the NWT.


----------



## a_majoor (7 Jan 2005)

I realize a lot of people will agree with Zoomie's assessment, but this is the "best of a bad situation" response. IF there were existing arframes other than the Candid, then I would be all for getting them, but what else is there? 

As for pilot proficiency, once again, IF the government were to have an existing fleet of air transporters and the required pool of aircrew, then this discussion would not even be happening. Unless Bill Gates decides to sponsor this project, no one has the financial ability to buy new or used transport planes and park them, or lease them to the government as the sole customer. Flying bulk cargo to Inuvik, or Labrador or wherever at least covers the costs of getting and operating the planes, and the aircrews will be familier enough with the routine operation of the craft to do the routine military tasks I have suggested. Since this is a private venture and a civillian company, it would be unreasonable to expect the company or the crews to perform the really "hot" military tasks, such as overflying a defended airspace or making an assault landing at night. A really creative solution would be to make the "company" an air reserve unit with every employee also an air reservist, but why not just set up a real unit and purchase new transports in that case?

Even with those limitations, the CF would still have the ability to purchase "surge" airlift for domestic and international emergencies, and could reasonably expect to get bulk payloads right up to the edge of the theater, where military assets like the C-130 could take over for the final leg.


----------



## Infanteer (7 Jan 2005)

I'm of two minds with this debate:

I can see the value in Mr Majoor's argument.  Since we can't buy the Lincoln Navigator, we may as well buy the Lada Niva in the used-car garage, because even that beats sticking out our thumb and waiting for the American's to pick us up.  Strategic air transport should be a matter of national security, for our national interest demands the global projection of our forces.  If we are not able to independently deliver our military to where it is needed, then what is the point of sustaining a military force?

However, I'm inclined to agree with Zoomie - when we're playing around with big-ticket acquisition, I would want to stick to the maxim "If you're going to do something, do it right.  To me, it seems that the effort required to patch up some cheap old Soviet lifters and giving them to some private/public corporation to keep costs low would entail a good amount of effort.  With all the potential pitfalls in this proposal, I would rather like to see this same effort expenditure going into sorting a few departmental matters and developing a gradual acquisition of a couple of excellent strategic airlifters that are made and serviced from plants a few hours drive south.


----------



## aesop081 (7 Jan 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> I'm of two minds with this debate:
> 
> ....   Strategic air transport should be a matter of national security, for our national interest demands the global projection of our forces.   If we are not able to independently deliver our military to where it is needed, then what is the point of sustaining a military force?



Although i like my job and i would like to keep it, i couldn't agree more with infanteer on this.



> However, I'm inclined to agree with Zoomie - when we're playing around with big-ticket acquisition, I would want to stick to the maxim "If you're going to do something, do it right.   To me, it seems that the effort required to patch up some cheap old Soviet lifters and giving them to some private/public corporation to keep costs low would entail a good amount of effort.   With all the potential pitfalls in this proposal, I would rather like to see this same effort expenditure going into sorting a few departmental matters and developing a gradual acquisition of a couple of excellent strategic airlifters that are made and serviced from plants a few hours drive south.



Personaly, i like the IL-76 idea but i do have some reservations about it. Manufacturing standards, IMHO, remain below what we require. Also, i see the supply of spare parts as being a problem ( due to both the source and our "just in time" concept). Granted that it is not the "cadilac" of airlifters, i think that realisticly, the C-17 Globemaster III, will remain out of reach for the CF. The IL-76 is much larger than our current airlifters and would greatly increase our ability to project power.  This being said, realisticly, what choices do we have, bearing in mind that alot of our current systems are/will be in need of replacement and that there will always be only so much money.


----------



## George Wallace (8 Jan 2005)

8 Jan 2005    Ottawa Citizen article on Tory Plan for new CARGO JETS 
    

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.canada.com/ottawa/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=24c6de76-2754-4429-9e07-ee56071d7aa2



> Tory plan for new cargo jets a good idea, DND concludes
> A Conservative party proposal to acquire aircraft to quickly transport overseas Canadian Forces units like the Disaster Assistance Response Team is feasible and relatively inexpensive, says a newly released Defence Department analysis.




This article in the Saturday, 8 Jan 2005 edition of the Ottawa Citizen, goes on to state that the plan put forward in the last election, by the Conservatives and ridiculed by the Liberals, was studied by DND and found to be more cost effective than continually renting Soviet Transport Aircraft.   It concluded, that the purchase of four or six giant C-17 Transports would be cheaper and more reliable than constantly renting aircraft.   

This would be a great improvement and moral builder for the Air Force.  Would C-17 Transports be what we want though?  Would the older C-5 be a larger more versitile bird?  Would the new fly by wire A-400 be a contender?  Would we keep the Herc fleet for access to shorter fields?  

Biggest question.......will the Liberals listen?

GW


----------



## Inch (8 Jan 2005)

I think that C-17s are what we want, they're not as big as the C5s thus they're not restricted to large airfields. According the the USAF website, the C17 only requires 3000 ft, that's pretty short, especially for a strat airlifter that can do it with a 170,000 lb payload.

As for fly by wire, pretty much every aircraft is fly by wire, pulleys, push rods and bell cranks are pretty rare on modern aircraft, especially one that big. "The quadruple-redundant electronic flight control system also has a mechanically-actuated backup system", again as stated on USAF's website.

I think we'd still need the Herc since there'd be some jobs not big enough to require something the size of the C17.

How big is a jump company? About 100 troops? How would you like to be all dropped in one drop? That's right, C17 can do it.

I sure hope the Liberals listen, it really is a capability that would be invaluable to have.

Here's a pic for the local turretheads, oh my, what's that rolling off the plane? ;D


----------



## Slim (8 Jan 2005)

Wow...Ex Zipperhead wahts Canada to by the Globemaster!!

They won't of course as it makes too much sense. But there you are...


Slim


----------



## JBP (8 Jan 2005)

Now that is impressive, that's a damn heavy tank! 170,000lbs is about what? 2-3, maybe even 4 tanks!?!?! That would be fantastic to have!!!

As for this:


> As for fly by wire, pretty much every aircraft is fly by wire, pulleys, push rods and bell cranks are pretty rare on modern aircraft, especially one that big.



My airforce friend, the F-16 was the first true "fly-by-wire" aircraft in the world, using "off the shelf" fly-by-wire components from the Space Shuttles. Example: F-14Athru-D Tomcats are HYDRAULIC controlled. Hence not fly-by-wire. Last time I think an aircraft was produced to fly with push-rods and pulleys etc was the poor old Avro Arrow!  ;D

Most modern aircraft are fly by wire. Even our CF-18's are hydraulic... The new F-22A Raptor of the US Airforce will eventually be upgraded to fiber-optic controls... Now that would be incredibly responsive!!! Instant response to the control stick, also with no lag or ability to "over control" the plane and cause a potential crash... 

Anyway, just a brand-new grunts who loves aircraft's input...


----------



## a_majoor (8 Jan 2005)

aesop081 said:
			
		

> Personaly, i like the IL-76 idea but i do have some reservations about it. Manufacturing standards, IMHO, remain below what we require. Also, i see the supply of spare parts as being a problem ( due to both the source and our "just in time" concept). Granted that it is not the "cadilac" of airlifters, i think that realisticly, the C-17 Globemaster III, will remain out of reach for the CF. The IL-76 is much larger than our current airlifters and would greatly increase our ability to project power. This being said, realisticly, what choices do we have, bearing in mind that alot of our current systems are/will be in need of replacement and that there will always be only so much money.



Exactly so. For the spare part issue, in the short term, a few "extra" airframes could be held for cannibalization, and the company is still manufacturing a varient (IL-76 MF) today. If there is a Canadian aerospace company with the werewithal to remanufacture the Candids for this scheme, then they should also be able to either source spare parts for the western upgrades or make some of the parts themselves.

Remember, this is an emergency, short to medium term response to allow the government the ability to discharge its duties in regard to defense and emergency response. Even if airlift.ca was in existence on Dec 24 2004, the planes don't "have" to be used by the government, the Canadian Red Cross would probably rent them right away if the CF or government does not invoke the "first use" clause in the contract. We may all hope that after the next election, or in a few years, some Canadian government decides to go shopping and buy the proper kit, A-400, or Walrus or whatever the state of the art happens to be.


----------



## George Wallace (8 Jan 2005)

Nope....they'll only carry one......the C-5 will carry two.  They are both large planes, but there is the load factor.  Not being a TN guy, I can't accurately explain the load restrictions and tiedown requirements of aircraft.  I recall seeing a load layout for a C-5 once and I am sure it was two M1 and two five Ton SMP that it could carry maximum.  The nice thing about the C-5 is that it is drive on/drive off, where the C-17 is back on/drive off.

Gw


----------



## KevinB (8 Jan 2005)

But we can jump from a C17...

 C5 has nothing for us, unless we get motivated and get into the MBT arena again...


----------



## aesop081 (8 Jan 2005)

KevinB said:
			
		

> But we can jump from a C17...
> 
> C5 has nothing for us, unless we get motivated and get into the MBT arena again...



Kevin B,

I know you are famous now and all but radical ideas like that.......


----------



## George Wallace (8 Jan 2005)

Kev....You can still do Ramp Jumps.......or......We still have the Airbus... 

GW


----------



## Inch (9 Jan 2005)

Pte (R) Joe said:
			
		

> Now that is impressive, that's a damn heavy tank! 170,000lbs is about what? 2-3, maybe even 4 tanks!?!?! That would be fantastic to have!!!


Actually, the M1 weighs in at around 70 tons or 140,000 lbs, so.....one tank. I don't recall off hand how much the Leos weigh, but 40 tons seems to ring a bell. You can load 3 Bradleys on there, so probably 3 or so LAVs.



> My airforce friend, the F-16 was the first true "fly-by-wire" aircraft in the world, using "off the shelf" fly-by-wire components from the Space Shuttles. Example: F-14Athru-D Tomcats are HYDRAULIC controlled. Hence not fly-by-wire. Last time I think an aircraft was produced to fly with push-rods and pulleys etc was the poor old Avro Arrow!   ;D
> 
> Most modern aircraft are fly by wire. Even our CF-18's are hydraulic... The new F-22A Raptor of the US Airforce will eventually be upgraded to fiber-optic controls... Now that would be incredibly responsive!!! Instant response to the control stick, also with no lag or ability to "over control" the plane and cause a potential crash...



Yes you are correct, not too sure why you brought it up since I didn't really mention anything about the history of fly-by-wire. Anyway, the F-16 was designed in the 1970's, the C-17 is 10 years newer in design and also has a fly-by-wire system. In any case, the control surfaces are moved with hydraulics since that's really the only thing powerful enough to move that kind of loading and the hydraulics are actuated by either electrical (fly-by-wire) or mechanical (as in your CF18/F-14 example) inputs from the cockpit. Believe it or not, the Arrow actually had a primitive fly-by-wire flight control system. I used the pulleys and push rods comment more in jest but I guess something was lost in the translation.

As for instant response, sounds like G-LOC city to me. I'm sure it'll happen more than a few times until the guys get used to it.


----------



## AftOf245 (12 Jan 2005)

I would like to comment to all those who think that Canada should get its own heavy lift aircraft.   What aircraft should the CF buy?   Most people would say the C17.   The problem with the C17 is its performance, it does not have the legs to get across the Atlantic with anything close to a full load.   The second problem is, the Americans have restrictions on where we would be able to operate the aircraft, beacause the aircraft is export restricted (top secret stuff) .

I do not believe for a moment that we had difficulty obtaining charter aircraft.


----------



## Sam69 (12 Jan 2005)

AftOf245 said:
			
		

> I would like to comment to all those who think that Canada should get its own heavy lift aircraft.  What aircraft should the CF buy?  Most people would say the C17.  The problem with the C17 is its performance, it does not have the legs to get across the Atlantic with anything close to a full load.  The second problem is, the Americans have restrictions on where we would be able to operate the aircraft, beacause the aircraft is export restricted (top secret stuff) .



WHOOP! WHOOP! - Warning, Warning - BS Alert

You've made three assertions (llimited payload, limited operating area, and easy accessibility to charter lift), care to back any of them up with facts?

Sam


----------



## Zoomie (12 Jan 2005)

AftOf245 said:
			
		

> The problem with the C17 is its performance, it does not have the legs to get across the Atlantic with anything close to a full load.



Hrmmm, if that is even true - I would say that inflight refuelling would negate this problem.

 The second problem is, the Americans have restrictions on where we would be able to operate the aircraft, beacause the aircraft is export restricted (top secret stuff) 
This would have to be the most ludricrous comment that I have ever seen before.  Are you telling me that the C-17 has more secret stuff than our american bought CF-188s??  Export restrictions are not in place against Canada by the US.  They won't sell them to North Korea, but I think Canada is OK!

Let's move on...


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (12 Jan 2005)

I'd like to propose an alternative.

Why not purchase the upgraded C-141B's being retired by US Air Mobility Command in 2006?

The B version is already significantly more advanced than our C-130's and we could probably pick them up for a song as the USA would love us to have the capability.

Link to FAS Page:   http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/c-141.htm


Matthew.     

Key Excerpts:

"The C-141B is a stretched C-141A with in-flight refueling capability. Stretching of the Starlifter consisted of lengthening the plane 23 feet, 4 inches (53.3 centimeters), which increased cargo capacity by about one-third - 2,171 extra cubic feet (65.13 extra cubic meters). Lengthening of the aircraft had the same effect as increasing the number of aircraft by 30 percent.

A universal air refueling receptacle on the C-141B transfers 23,592 gallons (89,649.6 liters) of fuel in about 26 minutes, allowing longer non-stop flights and fewer fuel stops during worldwide airlift missions.

The Starlifter, operated by the Air Mobility Command, can airlift combat forces, equipment and supplies, and deliver them on the ground or by airdrop, using paratroop doors on each side and a rear loading ramp. It can be used for low-altitude delivery of paratroops and equipment, and high-altitude delivery of paratroops. It can also airdrop equipment and supplies using the container delivery system. It is the first aircraft designed to be compatible with the 463L Material Handling System, which permits off-loading 68,000 pounds (30,600 kilograms) of cargo, refueling and reloading a full load, all in less than an hour. 

The C-141 has an all-weather landing system, pressurized cabin and crew station. Its cargo compartment can easily be modified to perform around 30 different missions. About 200 troops or 155 fully equipped paratroops can sit in canvas side-facing seats, or 166 troops in rear-facing airline seats. Rollers in the aircraft floor allow quick and easy cargo pallet loading. A palletized lavatory and galley can be installed quickly to accommodate passengers, and when palletized cargo is not being carried, the rollers can be turned over to leave a smooth, flat surface for loading vehicles. 

Several C-141s have been modified to carry the Minuteman intercontinental ballistic missile in its special container, up to a total weight of 92,000 pounds (41,400 kilograms). Some C-141s have been equipped with intraformation positioning sets that enable a flight of two to 36 aircraft to maintain formation regardless of visibility.

The first C-141B was received by the Air Force in December 1979. Conversion of 270 C-141s from A to B models was completed in 1982. C-141 modifications aim to preserve the remaining force by reliability and maintainability improvements and capability improvements necessary for effective use through 2006. Thirteen aircraft will receive additional SOLL II upgrades under the Special Operations Forces Improvement program. Sixty-three aircraft in the current C-141 fleet will undergo major modification. Each will receive the All Weather Flight Control System (AWFCS) consisting of a digital autopilot, advanced avionics display, and Ground Collision Avoidance System (GCAS). Other major improvements include a Defensive Systems (DS), Fuel Quantity Indicating System, and GPS modifications. As a general rule, these 63 aircraft are the "youngest" (fewest equivalent damage hours) in the fleet and will carry the weapon system through programmed retirement in 2006. 


All Weather Flight Control System (AWFCS) The AWFCS modification is necessitated to alleviate reliability and maintainability problems presently being experienced due to the aging (or rather aged) avionics systems on the C-141. The system's functionality includes: autopilot, autothrottle, yaw damping, ground collision warning, primary flight instrument display, and warning display. LRUs installed by this modification (4 6x8" AMLCD Display Units (DUs), 2 Automatic Flight Control Processors (AFCPs), 2 Display Processor Units (DPUs), and 2 Display Avionics Management Units) replace approximately 19 antiquated LRUs, Indicators, and Controls. Additionally, a new Ground Collision Avoidance System (GCAS) and Multi-function Standby Airspeed/Attitude/Altitude Indicator (w/independant airdata source) are installed during this modification. 
GPS Enhanced Navigation System (GPSENS) GPSENS integrates into the AWFCS aircraft to provide GPS based navigation and centralized and consolodated control of the majority of aircraft communication and navigation equipment via 3 Multifunction Control Display Units and 2 Navigational Processors. The Fuel Saving Advisory System (FSAS) LRUs are removed and their functionality is rehosted within the Nav. Processors. 
Digital Fuel Quantity Indication System (FQIS) The new digital FQIS provides a display of fuel quantity in the same manner as the old analog system - one indicator for each tank and a totalizer to sum each individual tank reading (except in a digital format vs the analog dail). All components and wiring of the old system are replaced when the new system is installed. A complete aircraft kit consists of 11 Digital Fuel Qauntity Indicators (one part number which is interchangeable for all tank indicator positions and totalizer), 68 Full Height Compensated (FHC) Fuel Probes, and associated wiring. BIT capabilities facilitate ease of maintenance and trouble shooting. 
Airlift Defensive System (ADS) ADS provides C-141 aircraft with a common self-protection capability against shoulder fired man portable Surface-to-Air Missile threat. 
L-Band Satcom System Operating on the Inmarsat and GPS satellites with interconnection to international telex, fax and switched data networks, the L-Band Satcom system provides automatic (and manual) data reporting and message transfer of position reports, performance data and operational messages on a 24 hour global basis. Coverage is provided from sea level to 55,000 feet from 70 degrees north to 70 degrees south. 
Interim GPS Provisions The C-141 aircraft is equipped with provisions to allow the use of hand-held GPS equipment. Power and antenna access plugs are located at the aft end of the center pedestal. Hand-held GPS units in use consist of the Precise Lightweight GPS Receiver (PLGR) and the Bendix-King KLX-100 (Comm functions not allowed for on-aircraft use). 
Traffic Collision Aviodance System (TCAS) Current plans include the installation of a TCAS on the C-141 aircraft. 

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".


----------



## a_majoor (12 Jan 2005)

Since the Candid is a rough copy of the Starlifter (although with better rough field performance), then this is certainly the way to go if the USAF is really retiring them in 2006 (might have to hang on due to a series of unfortunate events in the Middle East), and, big IF, our government is willing to pony up the ongoing cost of O&M.

I wonder if the US has restrictions on selling used Starlifters to a private consortium?


----------



## Gunnerlove (13 Jan 2005)

> My airforce friend, the F-16 was the first true "fly-by-wire" aircraft in the world, using "off the shelf" fly-by-wire components from the Space Shuttles. Example: F-14Athru-D Tomcats are HYDRAULIC controlled. Hence not fly-by-wire. Last time I think an aircraft was produced to fly with push-rods and pulleys etc was the poor old Avro Arrow!




Umm, you are wrong.  The Arrow was the first fly by wire aircraft to employ a gyro stabilized fly by wire control system. The interesting thing is that it used a non moveable "stick" that converted pressure into a control input (kind of like the initial F-16s) through the use of pressure capsules. Almost all of the Arrows control system was servo controlled hydraulics. The cable system was mostly used to control the aircraft trim (This is the system that required the adaptation of automatic tensioners which would maintain constant tension despite the drastic thermal expansion of the aircraft). Hydraulic force is how the "fly by wire" computer actuates the control surfaces.


----------



## Infanteer (13 Jan 2005)

Gunnerlove said:
			
		

> Umm, you are wrong. The Arrow was the first fly by wire aircraft to employ a gyro stabilized fly by wire control system. The interesting thing is that it used a non moveable "stick" that converted pressure into a control input (kind of like the initial F-16s) through the use of pressure capsules. Almost all of the Arrows control system was servo controlled hydraulics. The cable system was mostly used to control the aircraft trim (This is the system that required the adaptation of automatic tensioners which would maintain constant tension despite the drastic thermal expansion of the aircraft). Hydraulic force is how the "fly by wire" computer actuates the control surfaces.



...Inch already pointed that out.



			
				Inch said:
			
		

> Believe it or not, the Arrow actually had a primitive fly-by-wire flight control system. I used the pulleys and push rods comment more in jest but I guess something was lost in the translation.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (13 Jan 2005)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> Since the Candid is a rough copy of the Starlifter (although with better rough field performance), then this is certainly the way to go if the USAF is really retiring them in 2006 (might have to hang on due to a series of unfortunate events in the Middle East), and, big IF, our government is willing to pony up the ongoing cost of O&M.
> 
> I wonder if the US has restrictions on selling used Starlifters to a private consortium?



My take:   If you can get used C-141B's with a minimal upfront cost, I would suggest ditching the Crown Corporation structure and use them to upgrade your Canadian Forces airlift capability.   

Current Airlift:
32 CC-130's in various states of falling apart.

Proposed Airlift (2008):
12 CC-141C (refit communications gear, etc, as necessary)
16 CC-130 (select best airframes and upgrade engines/avionics as necessary)


The Crown Corporation's structure would be more hassle than it's worth and I would only consider if you had to go with a "new purchase" solution in order to offset the high acquisition costs.   That being said, I think we have all come to the conclusion that since the only real "new purchase" alternative is the C-17 due to our abject fears about the construction and reliability of Ukranian design and workmanship, you still don't have a solution because the C-17 doesn't have the huge internal capacity of the big Antonov-124 which based on my observations is required for the business model in question.

Take it for what it's worth....

Cheers,



Matthew.


----------



## McG (13 Jan 2005)

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> Why not purchase the upgraded C-141B's being retired by US Air Mobility Command in 2006?



That is a pretty old airframe though.  The first C-141A was delivered in October 1964 and began operations in April 1965 and the fleet was then upgraded to C-141B between 1979 and 1982.


----------



## Garbageman (13 Jan 2005)

MCG said:
			
		

> That is a pretty old airframe though.   The first C-141A was delivered in October 1964 and began operations in April 1965 and the fleet was then upgraded to C-141B between 1979 and 1982.



True, but it could be used as a short-term fix while we wait and see what the A400 will look like.  This may be politically difficult though, as it would look like we're asking for new kit yet again 5-10 years down the road.


----------



## 1feral1 (13 Jan 2005)

We use the new C130J's and manage quite well, but in a pinch, I am sure Uncle Sam would come to the party   ;D

I can't see the CF ever buying a Com-Bloc aircraft.

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (13 Jan 2005)

MCG said:
			
		

> That is a pretty old airframe though.   The first C-141A was delivered in October 1964 and began operations in April 1965 and the fleet was then upgraded to C-141B between 1979 and 1982.



Some additional information....

The last C-141B was originally intended to be retired from service in February of 2004.
There are 20 additional C-141C's that were refit with new avionics starting in 1997 and completed in 2001. 
They are currently in active reserve at Wright-Patterson Air Base, Ohio and March Air Reserve Base, California.
Based on cargo capacities they should just be able to carry two combat-loaded LAV-III's each although range would be limited unless we could provide adequate in air refueling.
Unfortunately my recollection is that model uses a different in-air refueling method than our other aircraft (boom versus drogue) which means we'd need to double check our new airbuses have that capability as well, or refit either the airbuses or C-141's to ensure compatibility.




Matthew.


----------



## aesop081 (13 Jan 2005)

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> Some additional information....
> 
> The last C-141B was originally intended to be retired from service in February of 2004.
> There are 20 additional C-141C's that were refit with new avionics starting in 1997 and completed in 2001.
> ...



I have pictires of the modified C-141s you mention and they were modified for support to special ops. As fo the refueling in flight, not much of a technical challenge to modify the starlifters, just modify it with a probe, would be cheaper that re-modifying our airbus tankers.


----------



## Bomber (13 Jan 2005)

Convert an airbus a380.  Make a clamshell door on it, order 4 of them straight form the factory with no seats, carpet, or even floors, and you have a plane that takes outsize cargo, like 6 LAV's if you wanted.  They carry 150 000kg, and can fly 555 passengers across the pacific in one shot.  Deliveries start in 2006.  Does anyone know how difficult it was to turn the current airbus into a modular cargo plane?  Could we do it again?


----------



## Infanteer (13 Jan 2005)

Bomber said:
			
		

> Convert an airbus a380.   Make a clamshell door on it, order 4 of them straight form the factory with no seats, carpet, or even floors, and you have a plane that takes outsize cargo, like 6 LAV's if you wanted.   They carry 150 000kg, and can fly 555 passengers across the pacific in one shot.   Deliveries start in 2006.   Does anyone know how difficult it was to turn the current airbus into a modular cargo plane?   Could we do it again?



Are you sure you would want to do that...look at our history of Civy-pattern vehicles being used for military kit <cough-Griffon-cough>.  May as well by a purpose built tool to do the job right.


----------



## AftOf245 (13 Jan 2005)

Sam69,

MTOW of the C-17 is 585,000 lbs
The EOW is 276,000 lbs
Max Fuel 180,000 lbs
Fuel Burn 22,800 lbs/h

That would give us a max payload of 57 Tonnes to get across the Atlantic.  Max Payload is 76 Tonnes (25% penalty)  Yes AR is an option, but very expensive.

As for the restrictions, The British were unable to operate a flight to Libya using the Aircraft because of restrictions.  I suggest you contact Boeing to confirm this.  This is the same restriction that virtually killed the MD-17 project.

And your 3rd question.  Volga Dnepr and Antonov Design Bureau (ADB) both had availability of aircraft.  ECA's aircraft has just gone in for inspection but will be in the marketplace in 30 days or so.  That aircraft is brand new and has approx 600 hrs TT.  I know some people will point out that ADB are unable to operate into North America at the moment because of the TMR lawsuit, however the Canadian courts upheld the argument by ADB that if the aircraft are on military work the courts cannot sieze the aircraft.

And believe me at US$880,000 per trip, aircraft would be available.


----------



## Zoomie (13 Jan 2005)

AftOf245 said:
			
		

> As for the restrictions, The British were unable to operate a flight to Libya using the Aircraft because of restrictions.



The RAF leased these aircraft from Boeing - and as such were not permitted to fly them in any theatre in which they might be shot down.  They (the Brits) are regretting this particular agreement and I do not see us making the same mistake.


----------



## Sheerin (13 Jan 2005)

If we get C-17s, firstly would we be able to buy them outright?  Or if we lease them is there any way we can get around the 'danger clause'?


----------



## Cloud Cover (13 Jan 2005)

Zoomie said:
			
		

> The RAF leased these aircraft from Boeing - and as such were not permitted to fly them in any theatre in which they might be shot down.   They (the Brits) are regretting this particular agreement and I do not see us making the same mistake.



Not poking you with a stick, but how do you know what the terms of the leasing agreement are? I do not see this as a loss of aircraft concern, perhaps it is more of a concern about technology falling into enemy hands from the debris.   Cheers.


----------



## Cloud Cover (13 Jan 2005)

This link is interesting with the UK C-17 project: 
 

Look at the source, and pay particular attention to comments accessed by the minutes of evidence button. 


And, here is some evidence in the UK Parliament of costs, flying hours etc of the RAF C-17. [scroll to the bottom of the page] Was this a good deal for the Brits? 
[url=http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmhansrd/cm040916/text/40916w29.htm] http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmhansrd/cm040916/text/40916w29.htm


----------



## Zoomie (14 Jan 2005)

whiskey 601 said:
			
		

> ... I do not see this as a loss of aircraft concern, perhaps it is more of a concern about technology falling into enemy hands from the debris.



Why would that be an issue? USAF C-17's were flying over Iraq during the war and were not subjected to any such restrictions, they are the same piece of kit as the RAF ones.


----------



## AftOf245 (14 Jan 2005)

From what the peolple at Boeing said, it was a Technology issue.


----------



## Sam69 (14 Jan 2005)

AftOf245 said:
			
		

> Sam69,
> 
> MTOW of the C-17 is 585,000 lbs
> The EOW is 276,000 lbs
> ...




From Boeing's C-17 page:

"With a payload of 160,000 pounds, the C-17 can take off from a 7,600-foot airfield, fly 2,400 nautical miles, and land on a small, austere airfield in 3,000 feet or less."

see: http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/c17/c17_back.htm

Since the distance from St Johns (YYT) to London Heathrow (LHR) is approximately 2310 NM, it would seem that Boeing disagrees with your original assertion that the C-17 cannot carry a full load transoceanic. (In case you are wondering, rwy 11/29 at YYT is 8,500 feet long) So for fun, let's say that it's about 4.3hrs at 0.8 IMN, which will take 91,200 lbs plus let's add another hour for reserve, so 114,000 lbs of juice. That leaves room for about 195,000 lbs of lift, with a max payload of approx 160,000 lbs that leaves 35,000lbs for crew â Å“baggage.â ?

And even carrying 75% of its payload with 100% fuel is darn impressive in the first place. Any Herc bubbas want to offer what the max load for a Herc is under similar conditions? (I guess if you are really "aft of 245" you will probably know the answer)

A bit more from Boeing:

" C-17s have set 33 world records â â€œ more than any other airlifter in history â â€œ including payload to altitude, time-to-climb, and short-takeoff-and-landing marks in which the C-17 took off in less than 1,400 feet, carried a payload of 44,000 pounds to altitude, and landed in less than 1,400 feet. These records were set during flight-testing at Edwards Air Force Base, Calif."

Finally, as Zoomie has clearly pointed out, you cannot logically take the restrictions that were placed on the leased UK C-17s as indicative of any such limitations that would be placed on the aircraft if we bought them. Did McD place limits on the CF-188 when we bought them? Are we limited on where we can fly with any number of weapons that we have bought from the US? The only normal restrictions in such cases are export limits in the event of a re-sale.

Anything else to add?

Sam


----------



## aesop081 (14 Jan 2005)

Sam,

as usual you make a good point  ;D

I'm sure that this is all a case of someone with a blank profile knowing more than everyone else !  Of course, with a rebutal like this one :



			
				AftOf245 said:
			
		

> From what the peolple at Boeing said, it was a Technology issue.



...its hard to not be convinced.  :


----------



## AftOf245 (15 Jan 2005)

Sam,

Don't get me wrong, I like the C-17 as an aircraft.  My opinion is that the C-17 has limitations as a Strategic Airlifter.  There is nothing strategic about stopping every 2,300 miles.  Commercially, the AN 124 has its limitations as well.  The lobby from Dequettville is strong and all those in the military want a new toy to play with.  I believe that there are people within the system misdirecting the media with  accusations towards the commercial operators inability to perform.  

Also, my analysis was based out of Trenton, seeing as that is where the DART was originating. But using your numbers, lets say we have to fly across the Pacific, what routing would we take then? (YTR - ANC - SYA/UHPP) If stopping is not a problem (as you suggest, the old Herc can take a full load across the Atlantic.

As the F-18's are not used for humanitarian operations and tend to operate from military instalations, I don't think there is any similarity between the 2.  Lets talk apples to apples.  Also Boeing has talked to Canada about the lease option, so should we not be aware of the restrictions as we progress with the dialogue???

C-130 across the pond (YYT-LHR) approx 10Tonnes, dependant upon winds and aircraft.


----------



## Gobsmacked (16 Jan 2005)

canuck101 said:
			
		

> What do you think of this option instead of trying to get C-17.  Getting four of these may help us.
> http://www.sfu.ca/casr/mp-airlift-il76-2.htm



As DAVID RUDD notes today in the Winnipeg Free Press, and acknowleged in DND documents,
_"it would be impractical to consider the acquisition of Russian-built cargo aircraft, as some have suggested. Transport Canada requires Canadian owners-operators to certify every nut and bolt, tracing them back to their original suppliers. The process is so costly and complex that no allied nation has considered it to be a serious option. And securing a reliable supply of spare parts is a crap-shoot, as India discovered after buying Sukhoi fighter aircraft from Moscow."_
This process would be even more convoluted with the substitution of Western avionics and engines as a full regeime of flight trials would have to be completed - ie. basically a Never Flown aircraft configuration.

Additionally, the New-build IL-76MF using their high-bypass Perm PS-90A turbofan engines barely meet Stage 3 Noise Certification requirements, let alone the more stringent Stage 4 requirements that will be in place sometime after 2006.
Meanwhile, older IL-76s do Not meet Stage 3 requirements and are actually banned in Europe proper, they are only allowed into NorthAmerica on a Temporary Certificate basis - as is An-124-100M - due to lack of Civilian NorthAmerican built HeavyLift aircraft.
Once a NorthAmerican-built Civilian Outsize airlifter was in existence (naescent BC-17X), the IL-76 would never be able to obtain Temp Certs, while An-124-100M would only be able to obtain in instances where BC-17X was too small to carry the Outsize item in question.


----------



## Gobsmacked (16 Jan 2005)

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> Some additional information....
> 
> The last C-141B was originally intended to be retired from service in February of 2004.
> There are 20 additional C-141C's that were refit with new avionics starting in 1997 and completed in 2001.
> ...



Although, at first glance, not a bad idea, the USAF will be retiring these remaining upgraded C-141Cs sometime in 2006 - check AIRFORCE magazine for exact dates - and replacing with C-17s.
As previously pointed out, they are as old as our CC-130Es and, with retirement and scrapping of most C-141As & Bs, the USAF has deemed they are unsupportable after 2006 - why would we want another unsupportable aircraft with an almost life-expired airframe - bad enough Herc fleet is only averaging 48-55% availability (currently varying from low of 12 to high of some 16) from 32 airframes.

And as Garbageman noted, "True, but it could be used as a short-term fix while we wait and see what the A400 will look like.  This may be politically difficult though, as it would look like we're asking for new kit yet again 5-10 years down the road."
And we all know how difficult it is to get the Gov't to pony up any equipment acquisition funds in the first place. :


----------



## Gobsmacked (16 Jan 2005)

Fraz said:
			
		

> Yes I too am fairly skeptical of Soviet aircraft, and i do prefer western nay N. American kit.
> However, with the C-5's just as old as the Herc, we'd have to do some serious upgrades WRT avionics, and even airframes, and control surfaces and that would be costly.
> We could buy brand new C-17's but with the Liberals record i sincerely doubt that they'll doll out the needed $ for that. the Airbus 400M is also a new aircraft but the jobs to build it would predominantly be in two factories (one in France and one in Germany)



Retired USAF C-5As are also a non-starter.  If you check through the 2004 issues of AIR FORCE Magazine on the web you will find they currently have the same availability rate as our Hercs - a mere 55%.
Even with the proposed expensive Avionics upgrades and the RERP reengining, a USAF viability board found this would only increase availability to 70% by something like 2012 onwards.
The C-5 is also restricted, as is the An-124-100M, to about 1/3 the airfields that a C-17 could land in, plus takes up the ramp space that about 3 C-17s (which can back up on their own) would require.

As to the C-17 it is doubtfull whether Gov't would provide the massive funds required for purchase.
As per recent USAF contracts and AIR FORCE Magazine, a fully equipped C-17 costs some US$205M, while if you factor in the required support equipment and 3rd line support contracts the cost is actually nearer to US$250M.  At standard DND exchange value of 1.5 this translates into Cdn$307.5-375M each.
As DND noted in 2001, a fleet of 6 C-17 would have cost _"Cdn$2.321 Billion"_ (or US$1.547B) in 2001 - now add inflation.  
This did not account for 3rd line support contracts.

As to waiting for A400M, while RAF expects IOC in 2011, for export 2012 onwards is more realistic, and thats assuming it does not suffer similar delays to redesigned C-130J - some 3 years delay into operational service (with the 55 USAF C-130Js just cleared this past November for operational service overseas).
The mid-December SAAF contract for export A400Ms states that _"The cost of 8 aircraft would be Euros 837 Million."_  (And thats before adding any optional equipment such as AAR capability or a defensive suite.)  This equates to some Euro 104.625M per A400M, or US$137.122M (or Cdn$205.683M).
A 'C-17 equivalent' fleet of 12 A400M to replace remaining Hercs would cost some US$1.646 Billlion (or Cdn$2.468B).  
And this does not even count the additional Minimum +30% cost for spares, optional equipment and contingency, thus 12 A400M would cost minimum US$2.14B (Cdn$3.21B).

With only 1/4 the cargo capacity of a C-17 or 1/2 that of an A400M the stretched CC-130J (with No Outsize capability) is a bit cheaper.  A recent mid-December USAF contract funded two CC-130J for US$133M or US$66.5M each (or Cdn$99.75M).  
Replacing the 9 CC-130E and 13 various CC-130H/H(T)/H-30 with just 20 CC130J (2 less Js due to efficiency of new airframe compared to Es and Hs) - assuming C-27J purchased for SAR to maintain commonality benefits - would cost a prohibitive US$1.33 Billion (Cdn$1.995B).  
And this does not even count the additional Minimum +25% (5% less than non-Herc options due to some C-130 compatibility) cost for spares, optional equipment or contingency, thus 20 (Non-Outsize capable) CC-130J would cost minimum US$1.663B (Cdn$2.5B).

While seemingly expensive, on overall cost the C-17 was actually the cheaper option back in 2001, but likely equivalent to current cost of CC-130J.
(All information publicly available if you look for it.)


----------



## Kirkhill (16 Jan 2005)

http://www.mytelus.com/news/article.do?pageID=canada_home&articleID=1819004



> Tsunami reaction forces rethink of Canada's foreign, defence policy



I don't know if striking the iron now is going to make any difference, nor is it necessarily going to make the difference we want but I doubt if it is going to get any hotter.

If the gov't doesn't spring for strategic lift now, in the form of C17s, then it is unlikely it is ever going to do so.

I am allowing myself to be slightly optimistice because of Martin's comeback line to Harper during the debates.   "We don't need aircraft carriers.   That is Cold War thinking.   We need Aircraft...."

I paraphrase but that was the sense of the point.

Martin may lack conviction but he knows, or at least his "policy advisers" know, a parade when they see one.

And Gobsmacked, what I take from your post is that all options are "prohibitively expensive" but the A-400 is also less capable and a long way out, while the C130Js are not just expensive but inadequate.

I agree with your 2.321 BCAD valuation, but if you are looking at life cycle costing and we can get as much use out of them as we have had out of the CC130Es (2004-1968? = 36 years?) then the cost amortized over the life of the AC is about 64 million per year or a little more than 10 million per AC.   Also, assuming that they will NOT be used as much or as strenuously as the CC130s - for a variety of reasons I would expect life expectancy could rival that of the B-52s that the USAF operates (>50 years old) which would reduce the annual cost of ownership if not the cost of operation.

A RAF-type lease solution I believe could be made to work.   

Especially if the Boss-man wants   a fancy card to flash around at the next election to trump the Conservatives.

Cheers.


----------



## AftOf245 (16 Jan 2005)

Gobsmacked,

Where do you get your info on temp certificates for IL76 & AN124??  There is no such thing as a temp certificate.  These aircraft are operating on international routes.  They regularly compete with DC-8 / B747 / L100 aircraft based in North America.  There is actually an Uzbeki company that operates AN-12 / AN26 aircraft based in Opa Locka, Florida.  They are based in the US and given the freedom to sell charters to a third country from the US (7th Freedom).  The An-12 is not certified in the western world.

Please provide a link or some fact that would point to a temporary permit?  IL76 or AN124's will not gain the authority to operate domestically within North America, unless given 8th Freedom rights, but they will not be restricted from operating charters, no matter what the competion offers.


----------



## Gobsmacked (16 Jan 2005)

AftOf245 said:
			
		

> Gobsmacked,
> 
> Where do you get your info on temp certificates for IL76 & AN124??  There is no such thing as a temp certificate.  These aircraft are operating on international routes.  They regularly compete with DC-8 / B747 / L100 aircraft based in North America.  There is actually an Uzbeki company that operates AN-12 / AN26 aircraft based in Opa Locka, Florida.  They are based in the US and given the freedom to sell charters to a third country from the US (7th Freedom).  The An-12 is not certified in the western world.
> 
> Please provide a link or some fact that would point to a temporary permit?  IL76 or AN124's will not gain the authority to operate domestically within North America, unless given 8th Freedom rights, but they will not be restricted from operating charters, no matter what the competion offers.



From both the FAA (although I lost the link when my browser crashed a while back) - do a search on Federal Aviation Administration Flight Standards.
Plus the CAMAA Market Analysis CD, 1-2 February 2001, available through the CAMAA Business Office upon request and upon USAF approval.
CAMAA Appendix Y - *'Government Policy and Regulation Impacts On Future AN-124 Operations'*
Excerpt - _"Although the AN-124 is not certified to operate in the U.S., it currently carries cargo on flights within the borders of the U.S as well as into and out of the U.S. to foreign destinations.  These operations, known as 'cabotage' are exceptional and are through a waiver from the U.S. Department of Transportation [DOT], because the AN-124 is the only type of aircraft commercially available to perform the mission.  No U.S. carrier operates this type of aircraft.
Should the BC-17X/C-17 option become available, it would automatically have sole access to all traffic that would fly on the AN-124 *within and to and from the U.S.*  The only exceptions would be cargo that could not fit in the BC-17X/C-17 but can fit in the AN-124."_  As of 21 July 2000 only 14 An-124-100 (6 - ADB, 6 - VD, 2 - Polet) had Stage III FAA Authority to Operate in the United States, although it is now likely all An-124-100M have Authority.  (Balance of CAMAA report is sensitive info and cannot be redistributed without US Gov't approval.)  
It is likely a similar 'sole access' situation would apply in Canada as Transport Canada regulations are somewhat similar to FAA regs.

Kirkhill,  Congrats on your 1,000th post!

[Modified *BOLD* in response to following post 18/1/05 - fairly clear english]


----------



## AftOf245 (16 Jan 2005)

What they are talking about here is the 8th Freedom (Cabotage) flights that the AN124 operates within the US.  This is specific to flights from one point within the US to another point within the US.  This does not cover 5th Freedom flights, which are flights from a 2nd country to points within a 3rd country.


----------



## Gobsmacked (17 Jan 2005)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> http://www.sfu.ca/casr/mp-airlift.htm
> I especially like the business model proposed. Anyone care to chip in?



As noted on CASR, _"a radical method of providing an Alternative Service Delivery â â€œ form a Canadian  'Airlift-for-Hire'  Crown Corporation.  If  Government were to put out the initial capital to create such a Crown Corporation, this 'airline' could provide strategic airlift to 'friendly' countries and to the CF. By working independently of DND's budget, the Crown Corporation might actually be a profit maker.  Moving the equipment outlay for this strategic airlifter from DND to a Crown Corporation may seem rather like robbing Peter to pay Paul. The key advantage is that, as a non-military entity,  this corporation is free to sell its services for profit when the aircraft are not required for use by the Canadian Forces or other government departments.  Costs [for setting up and initial running of the corporation] could be shared by government departments."_
See also http://www.sfu.ca/casr/mp-airlift-il76-1.htm



			
				Kirkhill said:
			
		

> I am a big fan of this type of solution.  For both air and sealift.
> Have the government subsidize a private and/or Crown Corporation (probably Crown) to purchase 12 Airlifters (eg) and paint 4 of them Grey and have the others doing White livery work on the commercial market.  Crewed and maitained by a mix of regs, reservists and civvies.



Although well intentioned, the idea of a Crown Corporation for strategic airlift was previously identified in a suggestion for C-17 operation (during a DND commissioned Options Analysis by BMCI).
It was also categorically rejected in a formal unsolicited BC-17X proposal Bid submitted in August 2003, and followed up during February 2004.  Based on the following, it would not be recommended to pursue the 'Crown Corporation' line of thought.

A released Excerpt obtained from that proposal makes the following points:
Justifiable Peacetime FSA Requirements
    As the 'FSA Study' notes, _"*if an aircraft fleet is established to accomodate surge deployments, there will likely be excess capability during normal peacetime operations.*  As the focus of the 'FSA [Study]' was surge capability . . . the 'FSA [Study]' relied primarily on a study conducted by _(DND's resident airlift analyst)_ Mr. Pierre Fournier . . . for an indicative analysis of potential peacetime utilization.  Mr Fournier examined the use of the C-17 to support the normal peacetime operations of the CF"_.  From actual usage and Monthly Airlift Plan data _"potential C-17 missions were identified and translation from CC-130 and CC-150 to C-17 mission parameters was accomplished. *The 'C-17 utilization study' analysis indicated that current peacetime operations could support a minimum of two C-17 tasking lines [operational availability necessitating a fleet size of three aircraft] with an estimated average YFR of 1900 hours*_* (not taking into account pilot YFR requirements). . . . (As) model limitations that suggest that the C-17 usage identified in the study likely represents the lower limit of utilization" it can realistically be assumed that peacetime airlift requirements could utilize up to 4 C-17s (or 4 BC-17Xs) to support 3 lines of tasking. 'Annex A' *- prepared by HLB Decision Economics -* to BMCI's 'OA'* (Options Analysis)* report confirms "the (C-17) peacetime requirement equates to 2 lines of tasking, with the occasional 3rd line as an overtask. (This is broken down into) a total of approximately 3,000 hours per year dedicated to CF airlift, and an allowance for 200 hours of non-collateral pilot proficiency training."*

Realistic FSA capacity
    The FSA _'OA'_ extrapolates that *the "basic annual airlift requirement that could reasonably be assigned to the aircraft" is 3,108 hours - 3,200 per 'OA Annex A', split among the 4 FSA that CF could reasonably employ during peacetime, giving a notional fleet YFR of 3,500 hours or 875 hours per CF 'militarized' BC-17X FSA.* This is derived from eight crew requiring a proficiency YFR of 3,072 hours, rounded up for unforeseen surge airlift requirements (which allows for a ninth crew) and weighted 73% against UK's C-17 use - which with a much larger military has respectively greater outsize airlift requirements for it's larger military commitments. Additionally, this frees up CF aircrews and maintenance personnel to help alleviate critical personnel shortages elsewhere as recently noted by the Senate Defence Committee. Considering DND's 'fiscally constrained' operational posture which has resulted in numerous reductions in aircraft fleet YFR's, to provide funds required for upgrades and operations, 3,500 hours would seem a reasonable YFR. Any supplemental surge capability - in addition to the *4 CF FSA BC-17X required for basic annual airlift requirements* - would be provided by Commercial BC-17Xs chartered from start-up outsize/oversize Air Cargo Canadian Commercial Consortium BC-17X only when required. This realizes DND a *minimum potential savings of over C$700M in Capital Procurement acquisition costs vs the cancelled FSA projects previously planned 6 C-17s.*

FSA SOA marketing
    *The FSA 'OA' noted that 6 C-17 are required to meet the SOR surge deployment requirement* while _"the number of aircraft further dictate the number of aircrews that must be kept proficient and available at two crews per aircraft. To maintain proficiency each crew must fly a minimum of 32 hours per month . . . _(resulting)_ in a *required annual flying rate (YFR) of 4,608 hours for the (6) C-17.* The analysis has also demonstrated that *these numbers exceed the basic annual airlift requirement that could reasonably be assigned to the aircraft by approximately 1,500 hours*"_ for a realistic YFR of 3,108 hours. *The December 2001 ADM(Mat) Briefing Note lists a "YFR 1000 hours per aircraft" for 6,000 hours total, which exceeds the basic annual airlift requirement by some 2,892 hours.* 

The FSA _'OA'_ spuriously concludes the YFR for 6 C-17 _"results in a surplus capacity that could be marketed, through a _(Governmental)_ Special Operating Agency [SOA]__, to outside government agencies and commercial enterprise without competing with . . . Canadian business."_  In Reality, however, this flawed SOA would compete directly with existing (and future potential) Canadian business such as: 'Skylink aviation'; 'Ridgeway North America'; 'C2 Logistics Incorporated'; and 'BAX Global' which are excellent examples of existing Canadian businesses that contract for outsize/oversize airlift charter within the Canadian marketplace.

    The FSA _'OA'_ notes "_there would be minimal operating costs against this revenue, since the hours must be flown for crew proficiency anyway."_
BMCI's flawed premise of a SOA did not account for crew costs, which new or existing Canadian business's - including those that charter airlift from an outside CIS 3rd party - must account for in their pricing, and would result in a subsidized government air cargo SOA that has an unfair advantage on the open market. Canadian SOA's are normally set up to assist Canadian business, with . . . an excellent SOA example, not to compete with or inhibit Canadian business. *Government should never be in open competition, on a subsidized basis, against established or potential business as this goes against the whole premise of a free market economy and could have resulted in potential lawsuits and legal challenges from numerous venues*, potentially including the EHLG (European Heavy Lift Group) and WTO (World Trade Organization), plus the above noted 3rd party Canadian charterers, due to unfair business practices.

BMCI's idea of the SOA was based on four flawed premises noted in the OA under Revenue Generation:

1. - Only two charter carriers in oversize airlift business.
[Besides Ukraine's 'Antonov Airlines' (8 An-124-100M Ruslan & 1 An-225 Miya, plus 1 An-22 turboprop) marketed through UK's AirFoyle/Heavylift joint venture and Russia's 'Volga-Dnepr Airlines' (9 An-124-100M plus 1 An-124-100M construction on-hold & 1 An-124 Condor plus 2 An-124 in storage), additionally: 'AirFoyle/Heavylift' (1 An-124-100M previously owned by Volga-Dnepr) and long-established 'Polet Airlines' (1 An-124-100M plus 1 An-124-100M building & 3 An-124 plus 3 An-124 in storage - incl. 1/1 An-124 leased to Russian Defence Ministry) in Russia - all heavily utilized for OP ATHENA. Also, 'Libyan Arab Air Cargo' (1 An-124-100M recently entered service plus 2nd completed on hold at factory) and 'Iran Air Tours' (2 An-124-100M under construction), plus an unnamed UAE airline with An-124-100M (formerly for Russia's 'Atlant-Souz' from late-2003 (who may still receive up-to 5 ex-Russian AF unmodernized An-124 being loaned 'gratis') until purchase funding fell through).
Total in service: 1 An-225, 21 An-124-100M (plus 5 on-hold or building) & 4 An-124.]

2. - Unlikely additional commercial carriers will emerge in the foreseeable future.
[Besides recently established 'Iran Air Tours' and 'Libyan Air Cargo', additional emergent potential outsize/oversize carriers: BMCI completely misses well-known fact that CAMAA may provide 10-14 BC-17X operated by one or more US air cargo companies from 2008, or later, as part of the CRAF.  France's . . .  - who specialize in facilitation of French military deployments through 3rd party charter - have expressed interest in the BC-17X (5 or more) due to unsuitability of An-124, AirFoyle/Heavylift has also expressed BC-17X interest, while Volga Dnepr's VP Konstantine Vekchine affirms _"we think there is room for both"_ BC-17X and An-225, plus start-up outsize/oversize Air Cargo Canadian Commercial Consortium w\4 BC-17X. A new commercial player from 2004, UAE airline w\An-124-100M (last Ruslan left on assembly line to be assembled from Ukranian Aviant factory).]

3. - "Number of organizations that are potential targets for marketing a (SOA outsize) service without interfering with Canadian commercial business enterprises. Including the United Nations, humanitarian relief organizations, arctic development organizations, and commercial enterprises such as the oil and gas industry, mining, etc."
[These are some of the exact organizations that the start-up outsize/oversize Air Cargo Canadian Commercial Consortium is targeting (not to mention BC-17X CAMAA operators and existing An-124/-225 operators), besides international corporations, proposed EU & NATO Rapid Reaction Forces, other militaries, etc. The only Canadian or international outsize/oversize business the CF can justifiably target with any surplus capacity, *on either a free 'humanitarian assistance' or purely 'cost-recovery' basis only!*, is other Canadian Government Departments and agencies; foreign militaries and international governmental organizations like the UN.]

4. - Providing competitive service on the 'spot market'.
[As previously stated, *Government should never be in open competition, on a subsidized basis, against established or potential business as this goes against the whole premise of a free market economy and could result in potential lawsuits and legal challenges from numerous venues*, as noted above, due to unfair business practices.]

The Consortium has absolutely no problem with the GoC buying 6 or even 12 C-17s (or 12 to 24 A400Ms) if it so desires and wishes to spend the massive $Billions that would entail, as that is GoC's perrogative as a sovereign nation.  What the Consortium takes issue with is potentially buying Surplus capacity with the 'intent of selling that Surplus capacity' on the Commercial market in competition with Canadian business.
Excerpt Ends.


----------



## Kirkhill (17 Jan 2005)

Great submission Gobsmacked.  It clarifies a lot.  It would be great though if the notions discussed, 4 CF C17s (maybe 6) and a National Outsize Carrier could be removed from the abstract world of plans to a firm reality.  From your earlier post it seems you don't have much hope on the CF C17s.  Do you think there is more chance of the Civvy carrier coming on line anytime soon?

Cheers, 

Oh, and thanks for noticing my posts - all it proves is that I have too much time on my hands and difficulty keeping my mouth shut.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (17 Jan 2005)

http://www.sfu.ca/casr/bg-airlift.htm

The article talks about the Antonov 124 and puts forth the suggestion of the CF using  (old passenger converted to airlifters) Boeing 747s. I would be hesistant and I hope the CF is as well about getting second hand gear from hear on out.


----------



## Zoomie (17 Jan 2005)

CASR really likes posting things are full of holes and make zero sense.  They have a real hard-on for ex-Soviet Block equipment and feel that we should replace all of our aircraft with Ukrainian made Antonovs or fighter trainers.

Their idea about converting old 747s doesn't help in our Strat Lift department - we need an aircraft that has STOL capability and can still load/unload a LAV-3 or Coyote without problem.

I don't know if that website is a SFU professor's hobby or not, but everything posted there should be taken with a grain of salt.  Don't get me going about their FWSAR page!


----------



## Sam69 (17 Jan 2005)

I'm at a loss why the issue of excess capacity during normal  peacetime ops is such a big deal in the strat airlift discussion. Virtually every military capability has a great deal of excess capacity during peacetime. That's because militaries are not primarily structured for efficiency during peacetime (and nor should they).  

I recognize that the decision to buy every additional aircraft comes at an opportunity cost but that is the root of a more sophisticated discussion than simply discussing how many ton-miles per day we need on average sunny afternoon. In my opinion, the number of aircraft required should be determined using the capability-based planning framework and scenario driven. Oh wait, it already has been... and the answer was 4-6.  :


 ;D
Sam


----------



## Kirkhill (18 Jan 2005)

Sam 

You are making a radical suggestion.  According to your logic we should have a fire engine in the station house standing waiting doing nothing in case there is a fire.  When actually everybody knows it should be out on the street conducting goodwill missions or home inspections or tied up on a training exercise or possibly in the shop undergoing maintenance.

Respectfully, give your head a shake man.

Cheers ;D


----------



## Gobsmacked (18 Jan 2005)

Sam69 said:
			
		

> I'm at a loss why the issue of excess capacity during normal  peacetime ops is such a big deal in the strat airlift discussion. Virtually every military capability has a great deal of excess capacity during peacetime. That's because militaries are not primarily structured for efficiency during peacetime (and nor should they).
> I recognize that the decision to buy every additional aircraft comes at an opportunity cost but that is the root of a more sophisticated discussion than simply discussing how many ton-miles per day we need on average sunny afternoon. In my opinion, the number of aircraft required should be determined using the capability-based planning framework and scenario driven. Oh wait, it already has been... and the answer was 4-6.
> Sam



October 2003 correspondence from DGSP confirms _"*Hercules Replacement numbers* . . . In an ideal world, we would drive the aircraft quantities from a logistic calculation in terms of ton miles of outsized cargo per day."_
Opportunity cost for additional strategic lift aircraft comes at a Premium price of US$137M to US$250M - thats a lot of Taxpayer dollars for extra aircraft not regularly required.

Please note that the BC-17X proposal handily addressed the 'Surge Capability' issue.
DND deemed, through it's stillborn FSA project, that '6 C-17 equivalents' was an 'Affordable Surge Capability'.  The BC-17X proposal provided the equivalent of 8 C-17s (4 CF 'militarized' CF BC-17X and 4 Canadian Commercial BC-17X to handle Surge requirements), whilst addressing DNDs calculation of Surge ton-miles requirements for cargo airlift - all for some 70% of cost of the 6 C-17 option.
As proposed these Canadian Commercial BC-17Xs would be 100% guaranteed available to DND for 30 yrs at guananteed prices (not subject to Massive market driven price hikes like An-124-100M), at DND's FSA SOR timelines.
SURE SOUNDS LIKE A NO-BRAINER DECISION.  8)
Any Liberal's paying attention to this??  :

As the proposed BC-17X configuration is 90% common with C-17, without any of the Restricted Classified equipment that makes Canadian Certification problematic due to ITARs issues (anyone remember the equipment that had to be removed from Cormorant and replaced with Civil Equivalent as our regulators could not inspect Classified equipment to Certify it).  AAR (via probe) is not required, as Brits have demonstrated, as extended-range fuel tank enhances range, while a side benefit to removing the AAR piping (something our MRTTs cannot do for C-17s due to Drogue-only capability) is that the BC-17X Cargo capacity is actually increased by 1,000s of lbs due to lighter aircraft.
Meanwhile, the 'militarized' BC-17X configuration is even more common with C-17 as it retains Military standard cargo floor and Kevlar armour that C-17 is designed with, and potentially the Military engines - undetermined at this point.

As both yourself and Kirkhill have previously pointed out: _"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."_ 
Anyone remember the Embarassment of having to 'borrow' (rent) USAF C-17s during Winnipeg Floods and Ice Storm to move heavy equipment we couldn't airlift ourselves.  :-[



   As explained by a former NORAD Deputy Commander, LGen (Ret'd) David Adamson CD, in a 2001 DANN article - _'Canada needs Strategic Air Transport'_, _"*Mobility implies the ability to move the full range of DND equipment over intercontinental distances in severely constrained periods of time.  It is apparent that the quality and capability of our airlift resources is insufficient to meet those criteria.*

   A second mobility requirement is to maintain national control over the resources we utilize to deploy our personnel and equipment.  *The spectre of chartering *_*(foreign owned) heavy lift aircraft*_ . . . which may be operated and maintained at levels that do not necessarily meet our standards,* is a derogation of our responsibilities to our personnel.  Moreover, it compromises our sovereign right to act independently in accordance with national policies and leaves our intentions dependent on outside agencies and/or governments, *_*(whether they be Ukranian, Russian or U.S.).*_

    *A further consideration in mobility operations is interoperability - that is the ability to enjoy a common support of our equipment with like-minded allies.  In Canada's case that suggests NATO aircraft, particularly those of the United States.  From an airlift point of view, the Boeing / MDC-17 *_*(before rename to BC-17X*  http://www.boeing.com/commercial/pd/bc17x/index.html  )_* is the type that could redress the shortfall in our airlift force.  Doing so would provide an opportunity to rationalize the size of the C-130 Hercules fleet while offering the possibility of personnel savings, *_*(just as proposed in the Consortium's BC-17X 'Canadian CAMAA' FSA proposal).*_  The MDC-17 has the full range of capabilities needed to lift personnel, . . . _(LAV III)_ personnel carriers, _(Coyote)_ reconnaissance vehicles, _(Griffon)_ helicopters, etc., into austere destinations.  A rule of thumb is that, on a ton/mile basis, one MDC-17 has the deployment capability of seven or eight C-130 Hercules, and it could move the full range of DND equipment."_


----------



## Gobsmacked (18 Jan 2005)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Great submission Gobsmacked.  It clarifies a lot.  It would be great though if the notions discussed, 4 CF C17s (maybe 6) and a National Outsize Carrier could be removed from the abstract world of plans to a firm reality.  From your earlier post it seems you don't have much hope on the CF C17s.  Do you think there is more chance of the Civvy carrier coming on line anytime soon?
> Cheers,



I'm not so much worried about a purchase as the option DND is currently pushing of a C-17 Lease.
According to internal DND SCIP correspondence, obtained through ATI, _"CAS gave me a cost for Hercs [early buy] (of 13 Hercs) as Cdn$2.6B.  *CAS has worked a lease-to-buy option that comes in at Cdn$4.1B.*  Problem: Early buy should be cheaper than later buy, and both should be cheaper than lease.  If the monies needed for a buy are indeed in the Cdn$3B range, *Cdn$1.5B in interest [over 15 years] is not out of line if there is no paydown on the principle.*"_
This has implications for the proposed C-17 lease as interest pymts would likely be similar (but likely higher) for 6 C-17s - somewhere along lines of 750M Pounds for 7 yr lease of 4 RAF C-17s.
[Certainly, this additional *Cdn$1.5B* would be more effectively spent buying badly needed equipment, rather than padding the pockets of Lockheed Martin or Boeing.]


----------



## a_majoor (18 Jan 2005)

What a can of worms. You or I, as rational (I hope) soldiers see this in pretty simple terms: our missions for the past decade involve supporting a deployed battlegroup. What are the Logistics requirments to do so by air?

The answer seems to be between 4-6 C-17 sized aircraft, with some wiggle room for spares, training, surge capacity and so on. Purchase price and O&M costs would be quite hard to swallow, so this is not a realistic option. Buying fewer than 4 C-17s is false economy, since that puts us below any rational threashold of lift capability and availability.

Very few people seem to be fans of Russian aircraft, either IL-76 or AN-7x, mostly due to "quality control". IF we could somehow get around this issue, the planes are available and inexpensive. American Starlifters and C-5s are very old, so we would not get much life out of them.

Converting Boeing 747 or 767 freighters is a non starter, since they cannot load and unload the large military equipment we need to carry.

A-400s and other advanced concepts do not exist as real hardware, so any plans made around them involve waiting for years.

Since the Tsunami didn't apparently make a dent in the thinking of our "big heads" in Ottawa (I was going to say "wash away obsolete ideas, but that was too easy), then the answer really seems to boil down to DIY, or nothing.

DIY is the inverse of the calculations offered several posts back, with a private airlift company purchasing some sort of ex military airlifter and offering a "first call" contract to the Government or DND, while making the payments by flying groceries to Inuvik or whatever. The Candid is the "best" candidate only because the Russians built about 500 of the planes (and still are building IL-76MF versions), so there are lots of available airframes. If there were 500 A-400s in service, I would be all over that, but face it, there are not, so we have to go with what is available. At @ $20 million a pop, you could buy 10 for the cost of ONE C-17. Even accounting for a total refurbishing, installing new engines and electronics, you could still double the cost and have the required airlift capability (5 X Il 76) for the expenditure of one C-17. 

We need to accept there is no realistic prospect of the Government purchasing C-17s, A-400s, Zeppelins or anything else, and either shrug our shoulders, or think our way outr of this box


----------



## Gobsmacked (18 Jan 2005)

I'm actually amazed there was no related comment on the related post I made in the related 'Heavy lift conundrum' thread months ago - main ptn reattached.



			
				Gobsmacked said:
			
		

> Just to add some more 'food for thought',
> an Excellent Op-Ed that was released at CANSEC 2004 in April,
> OP-ED: STRATEGIC AIRLIFT  by Mark Romanow
> *Canada's Waning Role of Pride and Influence*
> ...


END

As to converted B747 (c33) this was rejected by USAF as not flexible enough, airfield limited, etc.
I fully agree with AMajor that C33 is a non-starter as, like CC-150 Polaris, it requires specialized AF handling equipment and still cannot carry some of the heavier Outsize equipment in CF inventory.

Although, on issue of An-124 or IL-76, don't forget their Abysmal accident record.
At least 4 Major An-124 Crashes with 50 Fatalities, plus numerous IL-76 Crashes/Incidents (remember a few years ago the IL-76 over Africa which suddenly opened rear ramp and depressurised - losing half it's passengers/cargo in the process) or the Antonov-22? incident where all those unfortunate Spanish soldiers died 2-3 yrs ago.  Again, a non-starter, Transport Canada would be very leery of expending resources on Certification.


Also note a 'Political Level' Press Release sent just before the last election, and amazingly not picked up be any copied Media.  :

PRESS RELEASE               PRESS RELEASE                  PRESS RELEASE

file # PR01,  27/06/04

ATTN: Rt. Hon Anne McLellan, P.C., M.P., Deputy Prime Minister

Dear Mrs McLellan,

    The start-up outsize/oversize air cargo Consortium would like to thank you for your correspondence dated xx May 2004 in regards to our xx February 2004 request to Rt. Hon Prime Minister to advance procurement of Hercules Replacement competition (de facto former Future Strategic Airlift [FSA] programme) from FY 08/09-onwards to 2004/05 timeframe, and provide supplemental funding to the Department of National Defence [DND] to advance this urgent requirement on it's Strategic Capability Investment Plan (SCIP) that was only publicly released late-May.  Especially when considering that the  _'Canadian CAMAA'_ (Commercial Application of Military C-17 Airlift Aircraft - with classifed systems replaced by commercial off-the-shelf systems) BC-17X proposal represents less-than 45% of the _"C$4.117,906B"_ identified in 15 year window of the SCIP equipment annex for Hercules Replacement/Modernization (structural repair liability for E & H-73 models).

    We find it extremely unfortunate that your response completely ignored our request to advance FSA procurement and re-propose our BC-17X bid, especially considering the potential Feb 06 C-17 massive cost hikes, and only shuffled us back to DND as the Assistant Deputy Minister(Material) had only been able to confirm late-March 2004 that _"as we develop a way ahead for our military capability over the coming months, the subject of deployability will be one of the continuing themes."_  Especially as the Chief of the Air Staff, LGen K.R. Pennie, officially acknowledged xx December 2003 that the start-up outsize/oversize air cargo Consortium's BC-17X joint venture R&D Purchase/Charter _"solution you are proposing may be a candidate to meet our future airlift needs.  Nevertheless, any aircraft replacement or contracted airlift capability acquisition would be conducted through an open competitive process.  In accordance with government acquisition procedures, your proposal would be considered during a competition, should you elect to submit a formal bid."_  While the Director Aerospace Equipment Program Management, and Chief of Staff DGAEPM, Col Douglas B. Baker, had previously noted that the Consortium's BC-17X _"proposal certainly attempts to . . . provide the Canadian Forces with the sort of airlift capability that meets our country's needs and within our budget allocations."_

Please reference General Handy's recent March 04 testimony to the Senate Armed Service Subcommittee (as previously provided), in reference to airlift - provided by Pentagon-based SAF\AQX CAMAA manager - whereby USAF may not have long-lead funding in place for FY06.  Gen Handy is the Commander of U.S. Transportation Command (TRANSCOM) and Air Mobility Command (AMC).

    The 'low-cost' Canadian CAMAA BC-17X proposal would significantly reduce the amount of USAF long-lead C-17 funding required (for FY 08) in the FY 06 budget, by extending the current production run until almost FY09 (Oct 08 onwards) with the insertion of minimum 8 BC-17X, as  monthly production averages 1-2-1 or 2-1-2 during June-July-August, and therefore increase the successfull likelihood of adequate FY 06 long-lead C-17 funding in USAF budget request - especially in view of U.S. budgetary deficits in the US$500 Billion range.  Should FY 06 long-lead USAF C-17 funding not be forthcoming it is unlikely the Consortium would be able to continue offering (past 2005) a 'low-cost' BC-17X solution to Canada's strategic airlift requirements.  The demonstrated willingness to quickly spend C$101M on VIP luxury jets from Bombardier (Challenger CL-604s), not required by DND, but a reluctance to expedite replacement of aging 40 year old Hercules that only fly half the time, should infuriate Canadian voters infuriated by the Federal Sponsorship Scandal.

    We are extremely disapointed that Liberal government remains uninterested in revisiting the urgent requirement for Future Strategic Airlift considering recent Liberal pronouncements.  In mid-April the PM affirmed _"we must be prepared to do more far from home . . . we can no longer view our security through distinct, domestic, conticental and international lenses.  There is no longer a major problem in the world that does not affect us.  Our approach to Canada's national security must reflect this altered reality.  Canada's presence in Afghanistan has all the hallmarks of the new type of operation that the Canadian Forces will be expected to lead."_  As of 15 Dec 03 our continuting Afghanistan commitment alone has required over US$58.341 for strategic airlift charter, with return lift costs by this fall expected to add a minimum US$28M extra.  In early-April the MND made specific observations on _"the future of the Canadian Forces.  First: capability.  We know the Canadian Forces must have the capabilities to fulfill a wide range of missions anywhere in the world - from combat operations, to security and stability missions to nation-building.  Second: deployability.  The government must be able to send our people and equipment where they're needed quickly, whether that means across the country or around the world."_ 

    As the BC-17X retains 90% commonality with the C-17 it will remain highly interoperable with USAF/UK C-17 assets, whilst maintaining the ability to rapidly deploy any equipment/units from the NATO Rapid Reaction Force, besides any CF heavy equipment.  As noted recently by DND _"Outsized cargo is defined as cargo that, because of length, width, height and/or weight, cannot fit into a Hercules-sized aircraft.  Such cargo includes equipment such as the HLVW used by the Disaster Assistance Response Team [DART]; the Beaver Tail Trailer; 6K and 5K forklifts; and the 6x4 Dump Truck.  Other equipment, such as the Army's LAV-III must be disassembled to enable transport by Hercules.  Three Hercules flights are required to transport two LAV-III vehicles."_  *As compared to three LAV-III or six LAV-II Bison/Coyote vehicles per BC-17X flight.*  As Corrie Adolph,President of Canadians for Military Preparedness, notes about strategic airlift, _"If there were an earth quake on the West Coast, and thousands of people were trapped and dying â â€œ we would not being able to get our military there quick enough to help save many of those lives!  The person hearing that is thinking...my God - my mother (brother, friend, cousin) lives in Victoria!â ?_.  Hopefully it does not take such a disaster, and the inevitable wait for rented or begged (from the US) strategic airlift, for the government to wake up to the urgent need for DND to have an integral outsize strategic airlift capability.

PRESS RELEASE               PRESS RELEASE                  PRESS RELEASE

Hopefully the recent DART airlift issue spurs them to revisit the issue? :-\


----------



## SeaKingTacco (18 Jan 2005)

Gobsmacked- Excellent work!   This has been a truly eye-opening set of posts.   I've enjoyed them greatly...

A_majoor- I know you are a big fan of the Russian stuff, but you talk about refitting engines and avionics as if it was a just another epsiode of "Overhauln".   It's not.   I've seen simple mods to the Sea King drag on for years and still have unintended consequences that were not discovered until after it was released to service.   IMHO, the design phase, test bench work, actual modifications, test flights and then operational airworthiness/acceptance testing   and certification would take YEARS.   And involve great risk of not actually panning out.   That said, I think that you contributed alot to this debate by forcing me to re-examine my preconceived notions and think hard. Thanks!

We could go C-17s/BC-X17s and most likely be on the production line for 2008-09.   Yeah, a couple of billion is a bunch a money, but I think that we are a rich country and that the overall risk is lower.


----------



## a_majoor (18 Jan 2005)

Like I said, we need to go with what's available. The "Airlift Consortium's" proposal is the same thing using civilianized C-17s. The big difference is the start up cost is immense, and the airplanes are not built yet. Since the government has shown no interest whatever, the Airlift Consortium is unlikely to purchase any C-17s, since there is little hope they could recover the cost through civvie charters.


----------



## Kirkhill (18 Jan 2005)

a_majoor: Which AC would you honestly prefer to fly in?  For me the answer is clearly the C17 variant.

Given that a week is a long time in politics and this Tsunami response has been a very long three weeks for the Government I think it may be too early to give up hope that Hillier/Graham/Goodale might not come up with something at budget time.  No idea what but I continue to live in hope.

Gobsmacked:  sorry I missed your earlier posts,  don't know what happened there.

One question that keeps coming up when considering a civilian carrier in this role is the impact on hostile activity on flight operations.  What kinds of limitations on AC usage is your company proposing in the event, for example, that CF kit and personnel need to be extracted from a contracting perimeter?

As to the question about flight hours.  While the study focused on CF flight requirements and thus we were going to have to fly empty AC in order to keep enough crew current to handle surge capacity, what happens if we consider having the Government "donate" those flying hours to Foreign Affairs to support International Aid activities?  Finance the flight hours through the Foreign Affairs budget.


----------



## Wizard of OZ (18 Jan 2005)

C-17 Globemaster III 
The C-17 is the newest airlift aircraft to enter the Air Force's inventory. The C-17 is capable of rapid strategic delivery of troops and all types of cargo to main operating bases or directly to forward bases in the deployment area. The aircraft is also able to perform theater airlift missions when required. 

The C-17's system specifications impose a demanding set of reliability and maintainability requirements. These requirements include an aircraft mission completion success probability of 93 percent, only 18.6 aircraft maintenance manhours per flying hour, and full and partial mission capable rates of 74.7 and 82.5 percent respectively for a mature fleet with 100,000 flying hours. 

The C-17 measures approximately 174 feet long with a 170-foot wingspan. The aircraft is powered by four fully reversible Pratt & Whitney F117-PW-100 engines (the commercial version is currently used on the Boeing 757). Each engine is rated at 40,900 pounds of thrust. The thrust reversers direct the flow of air upward and forward to avoid ingestion of dust and debris. 

The aircraft is operated by a crew of three (pilot, copilot and loadmaster). Cargo is loaded onto the C-17 through a large aft door that accommodates military vehicles and palletized cargo. The C-17 can carry virtually all of the Army's air-transportable, outsized combat equipment. The C-17 is also able to airdrop paratroopers and cargo. 

Maximum payload capacity of the C-17 is 170,900 pounds, and its maximum gross takeoff weight is 585,000 pounds. With a payload of 130,000 pounds and an initial cruise altitude of 28,000 feet, the C-17 has an unrefueled range of approximately 5,200 nautical miles. Its cruise speed is approximately 450 knots (.77 Mach). 

The design of this aircraft lets it operate on small, austere airfields. The C-17 can take off and land on runways as short as 3,000 feet and as narrow as 90 feet wide. Even on such narrow runways, the C-17 can turn around by using its backing capability while performing a three-point star turn. Maximum use has been made of off-the-shelf and commercial equipment, including Air Force standardized avionics. 

The C-17 made its maiden flight on Sept. 15, 1991. The aircraft is operated by the Air Mobility Command with initial operations at Charleston AFB, S.C., with the 437th Airlift Wing and the 315th Airlift Wing (Air Force Reserve). The C-17 program is managed by the Aeronautical Systems Center, Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio. 


Service Life
Based on a buy of 120 aircraft, the last C-17 delivery will be in November, 2004. The original specification from McDonnell Douglas defined a service life of 30,000 hours. Modification programs will keep the aircraft in line with current and future requirements for threat avoidance, navigation, communications, and enhanced capabilities. These modifications should include global air traffic management (GATM) and automatic dependent surveillance to meet anticipated navigation requirements. Commercially available avionics and mission computer upgrades are being investigated to reduce life-cycle costs and improve performance. Also, upgraded communication systems to enhance worldwide voice and data (including secure) transmission will support command and control. 

Specifications 
Primary Function  Cargo and troop transport  
Prime Contractor  Boeing [McDonnell Douglas Corp.]  
Power Plant Manufacturer Four Pratt & Whitney F117-PW- 100 turbofan engines  
Thrust (each engine)  40,900 pounds  
Wingspan  170 feet 9 inches (to winglet tips) (51.81 meters)  
Length 173 feet 11 inches (53.04 meters)  
Height  55 feet 1 inch (16.79 meters)  
Cargo Compartment Length - 85 feet 2 inches (26 meters);
width - 18 feet (5.48 meters);
height - 12 feet 4 inches (3.76 meters) forward of the wing
and 13 feet 6 inches (4.11 meters) aft of the wing  
Speed  500 mph (Mach .77)  
Service Ceiling 45,000 feet at cruising speed (13,716 meters)  
Range  Unlimited with in-flight refueling  
Crew  Three (two pilots and one loadmaster)  
Maximum Peacetime Takeoff Weight  585,000 pounds (265,306 kilos)  
Load  102 troops/paratroops;
48 litter and 54 ambulatory patients and attendants;
170,900 pounds (76,644 kilos) of cargo (18 pallet positions)  
Date Deployed  June 1993  


What better aircraft is out there that our allies are using???? ummm none that comes to mind.  I bet we could get a lend lease  deal out of the americans for the new anti missle bases they need to build in our country for a couple of these bad boys.  Say about 10 maybe 15.  (on the wishfull side, i know but it is my post)


----------



## a_majoor (18 Jan 2005)

Kirkhill, the question really isn't what I want to fly (First class in a 767 with champagne and caviar), but if I want to fly at all.

Although Canada is a wealthy nation, the voters have constantly expressed a wish to spend that wealth on healthcare, and are willing to overlook the constant parade of scandals and misspending to get it. We in the CF are in the situation of a family on a tight budget: although the 2005 Freestar with GPS and DVD is just what we need; the green 95 Caravan in the back of the lot is what our budget can afford.

As for the issue of civvie contractors flying into a conflict zone, there are some work around solutions. The first is to fly to an airhead at the edge of the conflict zone. The CF still has a fleet of C-130 tactical transports, so the zoomies can "bulk break" the cargo and do the last leg in and out of theater. Another work around would be to demand a big bonus payment for crossing into the danger zone. A third way would be to write the "first use" contract in such a way that the contingency payments cover the cost of insurance coverage.

Private airlift would also have a certain amount of flexibility for the government. In the Tsunami disaster scenario, if the CF declines the first use option, then the service can be offered to other government agencies, then to the Red Cross or other humanitarian agencies. The IL 76 can also be used as a water bomber, unlikely as it sounds, so the service can be offered to the Provinces if things get out of hand during fire season.

Like all business plan proposals, this has to be affordable (start up), have low enough costs that they can be covered by ongoing revenues, and be flexible enough to take advantage of unexpected opportunities. As good as the C-17 is, or the A-400 sounds, the start up cost is so huge only governments (which do not have the profit motive) can afford to buy and operate fleets of these aircraft. Other aircraft in service are either very old, not yet in production, or unsuitable for one reason or another. For all its real and preceived faults, the IL 76 Candid IS available and IS affordable. Given the limited set of options, what other solutions are there?


----------



## Wizard of OZ (18 Jan 2005)

a_majoor

There is always an option the questions becomes what are we willing to settle for.  The Forces will push for the C17 or the A400 and the feds may push for the lease of aircraft.  The Solution well we have to wait and see what they settle on.  Maybe it will be the Airships they were taking about buying three years ago.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (18 Jan 2005)

I think both sealift and airlift have been intentionally omitted from budgets as it gives the Liberals an excuse to say "Oh gee, we'd love to help but we can't get there."

In essence by denying a capability, it allows them an out.




Matthew.   :blotto:


----------



## Wizard of OZ (18 Jan 2005)

You are starting to sound like a politican.  On this form that can be dangerous. :dontpanic:

But how true how true paint a back door out of the situation before it comes up.


----------



## AftOf245 (18 Jan 2005)

It seems that the "Airlift Consortium" is a bunch of political insiders that want the government to finance a startup airline for them, and give them a guaranteed customer.   Has the government approached existing airlines to see what the interest is.

The only way a commercial operator would be able to operate a BC-17X, would be for the government to purchase the aircraft and sell hours back to the operator for an agreed upon hourly rate, with no fixed guarantees.   This would also relieve the pressure on the war risk insurance to cover the value of the Hull as the government would self insure, as they own the asset.


----------



## JasonH (18 Jan 2005)

The Antonov An-225 Mriya?

I know... it's huge and just going through the specs made me go  .  Just curious how much the price tag on these things are worth?  I know I'm out of my mind but hey, gotta throw idea's around right?


----------



## Inch (18 Jan 2005)

http://army.ca/forums/threads/25207.0.html

6 pages of discussion on that very subject.


----------



## aesop081 (18 Jan 2005)

Jay Hunter said:
			
		

> The Antonov An-225 Mriya?
> 
> I know... it's huge and just going through the specs made me go   .   Just curious how much the price tag on these things are worth?   I know I'm out of my mind but hey, gotta throw idea's around right?



Not to take away from th lengty thread abotu this stuff already but the an-225 isnt what we need as it is, well....too big.  Not to mention that there is only one in the world.


----------



## aesop081 (18 Jan 2005)

Inch said:
			
		

> Such as?
> 
> Just like your post in the "UP FROM THE RANKS" thread, this post adds nothing at all to the discussion. Thanks for coming out though.



Ok well. to keep myself out of hot water i will explain my thinking about the AN-225.  I have seen this thing in person. It is huge with a capital H.  It cannot land at too many airfields like the C-17 can.  They only ever built one.  It sat rotting at the antonov plant for years.  When they finaly saw the comercial potential of the aircraft, following the success of the AN-124, it took over a year to resurect it.  From the pamphlets i have from the antonov stand, they have no plans of manufacturing anymore of them.


----------



## Inch (18 Jan 2005)

That wasn't for you aesop. That was in response to sharp shooter's post which seems to have disappeared. I'm picking up what you're laying down.


----------



## aesop081 (18 Jan 2005)

Inch said:
			
		

> That wasn't for you aesop. That was in response to sharp shooter's post which seems to have disappeared. I'm picking up what you're laying down.



I was just being sarcastic.  I figured you would agree with me that the AN-225 isn't a solution.  Great comnercial potential but not what we need.


----------



## Infanteer (18 Jan 2005)

Inch said:
			
		

> That wasn't for you aesop. That was in response to sharp shooter's post which seems to have disappeared. I'm picking up what you're laying down.



Sorry, that was my fault - just getting rid of the extraneous stuff....


----------



## Gobsmacked (19 Jan 2005)

AftOf245 said:
			
		

> It seems that the "Airlift Consortium" is a bunch of political insiders that want the government to finance a startup airline for them, and give them a guaranteed customer.  Has the government approached existing airlines to see what the interest is.
> 
> The only way a commercial operator would be able to operate a BC-17X, would be for the government to purchase the aircraft and sell hours back to the operator for an agreed upon hourly rate, with no fixed guarantees.  This would also relieve the pressure on the war risk insurance to cover the value of the Hull as the government would self insure, as they own the asset.



Jezz, whats with these north of 75* comments from an Ottawa insider?

Seems to me that "an Alberta consortium's" (as per the OpEd) is as far as is politically possible (deep in Conservative territory and in Ottawa terms - out in the boonies), in these days of forever ongoing Liberal misgovernance, from being a bunch of 'political insiders'.

As to 'wanting the government to finance a startup airline for them' - this seems highly unlikely.  :
While the Consortium will not release proprietary figures, they acknowleged the cost of a BC-17X falls somewhere just below midrange of the A400M-C17 differential.
A fair *majority* of the CF's incurred FSA project cost would be allocated towards Boeing for the 4 'militarized' BC-17Xs, plus any project costs, hanger modifications, Contingency [always factored into DND projects], etc.
The only DND dregs going directly to the Consortium would be a WTO approved 1/3 R&D fee (potentially repayable), and a '30 year guaranteed availability' fee (with penalties for non-availability).  And unlike the NATO airlift pool, there is no preset yearly hourly limit (minimum or maximum) for the provision of charter airlift support.
(Basically, whatever DND throws their way, if and when required, they will take [incl. being available within FSA SOR timelines, unlike foreign An-124s] - but they consider the market viable without minimum guaranteed GoC airlift.)

Just to be clear here, what I am trying to say is that the CF can acquire the *'C-17 equivalent' of 4 + 4* (with $Billions in additional LCC savings over 30 years) *for the price of 5 aircraft*, VS 6 Leased C-17s - for 15 years - at an overall cost of 10 C-17s (the CF's preference with minimal additional funding forthcoming as purchase is deferred down the road) with no paydown of value during lease term - even though their previous documents argued against this very route.  
Not only is the Lease-to-Purchase  Route Very PRICY (as the Brits have discovered - at end of Lease term they are not extending but paying-out plus Purchasing 1 additional C-17), it is VERY RISKY indeed as it assumes the GoC will actually pony up the C$2.B+ down the road to pay-out the Lease or that the GoC will be in a fiscal position (ie. not heavily in Deficit) to follow-through with a purchase. 
[added 20-1-05]

Besides covering the cost of financing their own BC-17Xs, the Consortium is even willing to pony up a fair chunck of the US$ hundreds of millions in R&D costs - well over a Billion$ in Consortium funds overall (Financial Institution/Investor funded as per any airline). 
The only 'government supplied financing', not directly applicable to DND, are standard repayable assistance loans available to any existing Cdn company - but unfortunately none of the 'free grants' which seem to flow to a certain Liberal friendly Quebec aerospace company.  


The main reason the Consortium requires DND onside is that without DND approaching US DoS ODTC for a 'modified Advisory Opinion' allowing BC-17X operations in Canada - its a no-go (ie. ITARs restrictions).


----------



## Gobsmacked (19 Jan 2005)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> One question that keeps coming up when considering a civilian carrier in this role is the impact on hostile activity on flight operations.  What kinds of limitations on AC usage is your company proposing in the event, for example, that CF kit and personnel need to be extracted from a contracting perimeter?



The Consortium advises that operations in Medium-High risk destinations would be dependant on provision of a LAIRCM capability for the BC-17X - especially considering the potential MANPADS threat.  This has the side-benefit of reducing any War-Risk insurance rates.

For operations in a 'contracting perimeter' (I take it bullets/shells and what not wizzing around), as AMajor noted, an airhead at the edge of the conflict zone would be the probable route.  CF Hercs and/or 'militarized' CF BC-17Xs would handle the actual evac.
This also answers the question of a Civil Carrier and Tactical requirements - intercontinental transshipment by Civie carrier to airhead and cargo forwarding to 'hot' or 'restricted' zone by CF airlift with crews that have maintained Tactical capabilities.


----------



## Sam69 (19 Jan 2005)

Gobsmacked said:
			
		

> The Consortium advises that operations in Medium-High risk destinations would be dependant on provision of a LAIRCM capability for the BC-17X - especially considering the potential MANPADS threat.  This has the side-benefit of reducing any War-Risk insurance rates.



I'm curious, Gobsmacked, what your relationship to "The Consortium" is? I apologize if you have already mentioned it but I have not come across it.

Sam


----------



## AftOf245 (19 Jan 2005)

*The only DND dregs going directly to the Consortium would be a WTO approved 1/3 R&D fee (potentially repayable), and a '30 year guaranteed availability' fee (with penalties for non-availability). And unlike the NATO airlift pool, there is no preset yearly hourly limit (minimum or maximum) for the provision of charter airlift support.*

A 30 year guaranteed availability fee???   I presume that this fee would offset the cost of the fixed assett.   Like I said, you want the Canadian Government to finance your airline.

Sorry, you are not political insiders.   It sounds like the Consortium is made up of retired CF brass looking to win the lottery.


----------



## Wizard of OZ (19 Jan 2005)

AftOf245 said:
			
		

> *The only DND dregs going directly to the Consortium would be a WTO approved 1/3 R&D fee (potentially repayable), and a '30 year guaranteed availability' fee (with penalties for non-availability). And unlike the NATO airlift pool, there is no preset yearly hourly limit (minimum or maximum) for the provision of charter airlift support.*
> 
> A 30 year guaranteed availability fee???   I presume that this fee would offset the cost of the fixed assett.   Like I said, you want the Canadian Government to finance your airline.
> 
> Sorry, you are not political insiders.   It sounds like the Consortium is made up of retired CF brass looking to win the lottery.



Isn't that how most bull*h*t projects get selected, padding someones retirement package?


----------



## Kirkhill (19 Jan 2005)

Does it occur to any here that in the absence of Government Policy that some Canadians might be thinking about supplying a need that most on this board feel is missing and is critical.  And that as a_majoor amongst others, including myself, has suggested that some consideration be given to some sort of public/private/partnership to be able to supply the service at a reduced cost to the taxpayer.

It would not surprise me if some, or even all, the members of "The Consortium" were ex-CFers, as most people on this board regularly complain, these issues just don't turn up on many Civvy radars.

I most definitely am not a member of "The Consortium", and I am as bothered by Patronage and Feather-bedding as anybody, and rigorous questioning of any proposals is warranted but to go from those positions to a position of "a pox on all their houses" seems to me to be uncalled for.

Imagination is called for when you run into a brick wall.  And we definitely seem to have hit a brick wall in the past on trying to get strategic lift for the CF out of the Government.

Cheers.


----------



## karl28 (19 Jan 2005)

I think that we should perhaps look into buying 2 of the new A380 each one has capacity to move 800 people that would solve the troop moving question .  Than for cargo we could buy 4-6 C-17 just my two cents I know its wishfull thinking but one could hope .


----------



## aesop081 (19 Jan 2005)

karl28 said:
			
		

> I think that we should perhaps look into buying 2 of the new A380 each one has capacity to move 800 people that would solve the troop moving question .   Than for cargo we could buy 4-6 C-17 just my two cents I know its wishfull thinking but one could hope .



Obviously you are not aware that very few airports in the world can acomodate the A380 at this time and that it will take millions of dollars for airports to be able to do that.  So that kind of limits the usefulness of the A/C.  We have airplanes to move troops, they just can't move them close to the battlefield....the A380 can't help us with that.


----------



## karl28 (19 Jan 2005)

Hi there Aesop081   I guess that I didn't take the part in turn about the runway space for the A380 sorry about that . I guess are only option is the C-17 but the Gov been taking a long time on that issue well here's hoping that it comes soon .

     Karl28


----------



## Wizard of OZ (20 Jan 2005)

What about the A400 supposedly does not need as much room as the A380.  But i know it is yet untested in the field but that seems to be our pattern.


----------



## Inch (20 Jan 2005)

Wizard of OZ said:
			
		

> What about the A400 supposedly does not need as much room as the A380.   But i know it is yet untested in the field but that seems to be our pattern.



Not only is the A400 not tested in the field, but it doesn't even exist in prototype form. If you're referring to the Cyclones being "our pattern", then I must reply that the civilian version of it has been flying for years, so it's hardly untested. It was fully certified by the FAA in Dec 2002, which of course followed numerous test flights.


----------



## Wizard of OZ (20 Jan 2005)

Understand that it is only a wet spot on a designer's page but i was referring more to the MGS then to the Cyclone, but that to has not been tested for frigate use yet.  Has it?  not being sarcastic a serious question.


----------



## Inch (20 Jan 2005)

No, it hasn't, but neither was the Sea King when we bought it and it worked out quite well. The H92 was designed as a naval helicopter so it really shouldn't be a problem.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (20 Jan 2005)

If a Seahawk has no problems landing on the flight deck the Cyclone won't either. Its not the aircraft its the pilot flying it.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (20 Jan 2005)

> If a Seahawk has no problems landing on the flight deck the Cyclone won't either. Its not the aircraft its the pilot flying it.



To a point.   If the helo has a really high C of G, it might not make a great naval helo.   If it has skids, it is also not ideal.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (20 Jan 2005)

Ah....gotcha and thanks


----------



## aesop081 (6 Feb 2005)

How about building the IL-76 under liscence here in Canada ? We could be the manufacturer of our own spares then ? Just an idea for discussion....

EDIT : I know there alot of issues with this idea due to the number we would require and manufacturing costs but bear with me !


----------



## McG (6 Feb 2005)

> *U.S. wants Canada to create strike force*
> Force would need own aircraft, ambassador adds
> ROBERT FIFE and ANNE DAWSON
> CanWest News Service
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (7 Feb 2005)

aesop081 said:
			
		

> How about building the IL-76 under liscence here in Canada ? We could be the manufacturer of our own spares then ? Just an idea for discussion....
> 
> EDIT : I know there alot of issues with this idea due to the number we would require and manufacturing costs but bear with me !



Given the tiny number the CF "needs" (I suppose you can make a case for 100s, but in real terms I could see a squadron of 6), licenced production of _any_ sort of aircraft is unrealistic, unless it is somehow combined with other orders. At a guess, at least 50 planes would have to roll off the assembly line before the investment pays off. The licencer would probably have a *few* reservations to all of this.

In more practical terms, should the IL-76 option or something similar be chosen, the company which inspects, modifies and essentially remanufactures the planes for our use would or should be able to produce the spare parts as well.


----------



## aesop081 (7 Feb 2005)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> Given the tiny number the CF "needs" (I suppose you can make a case for 100s, but in real terms I could see a squadron of 6), licenced production of _any_ sort of aircraft is unrealistic, unless it is somehow combined with other orders. At a guess, at least 50 planes would have to roll off the assembly line before the investment pays off. The licencer would probably have a *few* reservations to all of this.
> 
> In more practical terms, should the IL-76 option or something similar be chosen, the company which inspects, modifies and essentially remanufactures the planes for our use would or should be able to produce the spare parts as well.



I was well aware of the productio number limitations you speak of........but for argument's sake, what if a revamped IL-76 ( modern avionics, western standard......), built in Canada could be exported under liscence, like we did with the F-5 ?  I was fully aware of the implications of what i was suggesting before ( i.e. my edit note) by was just currious on the "what if" factor........trying to think "outside the canadian box".......


----------



## Slim (7 Feb 2005)

> trying to think "outside the canadian box".......



So you don't think that it should be made in Quebec, built to work rather than grease a politician's pockets in kickbacks, actually function the way its supposed to and make enough to do us some good instead of just a token number to allow the Fiberals to say that they're supporting the military without actually doing something!?

Sounds great, when do we start? ;D

Slim


----------



## aesop081 (7 Feb 2005)

Slim said:
			
		

> So you don't think that it should be made in Quebec, built to work rather than grease a politician's pockets in kickbacks, actually function the way its supposed to and make enough to do us some good instead of just a token number to allow the Fiberals to say that they're supporting the military without actually doing something!?
> 
> Sounds great, when do we start? ;D
> 
> Slim



Hummmm...thanks for the funny right before work ! We did build the F-5 under liscence, kept a limited numver for ourselves and exported.........should we at least look into the posibilities of doing the same in this case ?


----------



## 404SqnAVSTeach (7 Feb 2005)

I think Canada is gonna go for the A-400.  Good in between the C-130J and the C-17.  The problem is that its not flying yet.


----------



## canuck101 (7 Feb 2005)

Do you think they would buy maybe 10 c-130J to retire some of the old E models first till the are making the A400


----------



## Zoomie (7 Feb 2005)

E model hercs are due for retirement once the FWSAR aircraft come on line.

A-400 is a nice idea - we'll see how it flies once they actually build one.


----------



## Jungle (7 Feb 2005)

Zoomie said:
			
		

> E model hercs are due for retirement once the FWSAR aircraft come on line.
> A-400 is a nice idea - we'll see how it flies once they actually build one.


Yes, it does look like a nice idea. But with first delivery scheduled for 2009 (if nothing goes wrong  :) and orders for 180 airframes, it will likely be 10 to 15 years before we see any of them available for the CF. We need something that is available now.


----------



## Sam69 (7 Feb 2005)

Zoomie said:
			
		

> E model hercs are due for retirement once the FWSAR aircraft come on line.



Z,

It was my understanding that the FW SAR will not result in the retirement of all the Es... just those currently dedicated to SAR. Am I mis-informed? (sure wouldn't be the first time)

Cheers,
Sam


----------



## Zoomie (8 Feb 2005)

Jungle said:
			
		

> ... it will likely be 10 to 15 years before we see any of them available for the CF. We need something that is available now....



Preaching to the choir my friend.


----------



## Zoomie (8 Feb 2005)

Sam69 said:
			
		

> It was my understanding that the FW SAR will not result in the retirement of all the Es... just those currently dedicated to SAR...



Sounds logical Sam - I know that Greenwood's fleet of CC-130's are pretty much all E models.  The AAR model hercs in Winnipeg will most likely move to Trenton - thus freeing up some more of 8 Wing's E-models for retirement.  How many of these geriatric models we still have - that would be a good question for my Herc driver brethren - I only know Wet Coast stats.


----------



## Hawker (8 Feb 2005)

Zoomie said:
			
		

> Sounds logical Sam - I know that Greenwood's fleet of CC-130's are pretty much all E models.   The AAR model hercs in Winnipeg will most likely move to Trenton - thus freeing up some more of 8 Wing's E-models for retirement.   How many of these geriatric models we still have - that would be a good question for my Herc driver brethren - I only know Wet Coast stats.



According to Forces.ca, there are still 19 E models (out of 24 bought starting in 1964) still operating.  I bow to the collective intel of the people on the board as to where they are all stationed.


----------



## big bad john (21 Feb 2005)

Making a case for some C-17s
Why not rent them out to NATO allies during down time?
  
Matthew Fisher 
CanWest News Service 


Monday, February 21, 2005

  
The Martin government has made much lately of its firm commitment to prepare the Canadian Armed Forces for the 21st century. It gets a chance to put its money where its mouth is with Wednesday's budget.

Given how much recent Canadian governments have given the Canadian Forces to do, and how little money they have given these forces to do it with, expectations are naturally very low.

It has been known for some time that after cutting the Armed Forces' fighting capability to the bone for decades, Ottawa intends to increase the number of combat troops by about 5,000 to 16,000 or 17,000. However, details about exactly how this is to be done have been hazy and long in coming.

Will Canada's three remaining infantry regiments -- the Vandoos, the Royal Canadians and the Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry -- each gain a new battalion? Or will an entirely new brigade be built around a new regiment?

Will some of the new combat troops join a reconstituted Canadian Airborne Regiment? Or will many of the new soldiers be part of the inelegantly named Joint Task Force, or JTF, whose many heroic combat missions in Afghanistan have been kept secret from Parliament and the public?

Whatever is decided, it will cost a small fortune to house, train and equip these new troops so that they and the rest of the army can operate efficiently alongside U.S. or NATO forces on today's high-tech battlefield.

Yet all the money Ottawa intends to spend on new combat troops will be wasted unless Canada solves its most urgent military problem, which is how to get soldiers and their kit half-way across the planet in a timely fashion. As was once again revealed during the Asian tsunami disaster, the second-largest country in the world has no strategic airlift capability and its tactical airlift capability depends entirely on the ability of overworked ground crews to coax 40-year-old CC-130 Hercules transports to keep flying.

The Armed Forces have been pleading with Ottawa for new airlift assets for years. Canada's ability to intervene in Rwanda after the genocide was seriously compromised by its inability to get troops and equipment there in a hurry. Although only a couple of hundred Canadian infantrymen were sent to Timor, the Air Force's ancient CC-130s had great difficulty supporting them. To get the Canadian army up and running in Afghanistan in 2002, Canada had to depend on the caprices of Russian and Ukrainian commercial outfits and the Pentagon for almost all of its airlift.

Getting Ottawa to understand the gravity of this situation has not been easy. When the Air Force sent a senior officer to make the case to the outgoing Chretien government that Canada desperately needed to improve its airlift capability, he was shouted at and told to never come back.

What was proposed was that Canada buy Lockheed C-17 transport aircraft or lease them as the Royal Air Force recently did. Canada's embarrassing airlift shortcomings would disappear for a generation if the acquisition of three or four C-17s was combined with the purchase of 10 or 15 new J-series C-130 Hercules or a slightly smaller number of Airbus' new A400M transports.

The argument against buying such large transports as the C-17 is that Canada does not need them very often, so it is better to rent them when required.

Alas, the moment that Canada badly needs such aircraft is also, inevitably, exactly the same time other countries have the same pressing requirements.

Recent events in the Middle East and Asia suggest Canada needs such aircraft more often than it used to.

As Canada is twice as far away from these hot spots as Europe is, and therefore needs such an airlift capability more than most of NATO's European members, it makes sense to buy or lease a few C-17s. A novel way to help pay for them would be to rent these aircraft out, crews and all, to its NATO allies when Canada does not need them. This would guarantee that Canada could always dispatch its troops where it wanted when it wanted while quieting NATO anger over Ottawa's niggardly defence spending. It would also fit with the growing alliance requirement that every nation bring specific military capabilities to the table.

Such an arrangement would demonstrate the Martin government's firm commitment to support its 5,000 new combat troops, too.

© National Post 2005


----------



## McG (28 Mar 2005)

> Canada's war on terror depended on despot's planes
> (Edmonton Journal, 18 Mar 05)
> Ottawa Citizen
> OTTAWA
> ...


----------



## Infanteer (28 Mar 2005)

Wow, you know there is a problem with sovereignty when the ability of Canada to commit its Force to carry out the policies of the government depends on Turkmenistan....


----------



## aesop081 (28 Mar 2005)

He's banned ballet and classical music............the horror of it  ;D

Why isnt the oposition crying up and down commons about this ?


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (28 Mar 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Wow, you know there is a problem with sovereignty when the ability of Canada to commit its Force to carry out the policies of the government depends on Turkmenistan....



Yes, but Turkmenistan can afford strategic airlift because it doesn't have a health care crisis.




M.   :blotto:


----------



## X-Rigger (1 Apr 2005)

Fraz said:
			
		

> To throw something out there why not support Canadian industry by buying the licence to build Strategic heavy lift aircraft here, just like we should be building ships and more armoured vehicles



You read my mind.  We built many of our now-retired US-desgined fighters (F-86's, CF-104's, CF-5's) and even current aircraft (CH-124) under license in Canada.  I think it's still the way to go.  I believe we could do this for strategic sealift as well, rather than waiting 20 more years for a pure Cdn design.  And we're actually puting people to work in meaningful jobs...what a concept.


----------



## a_majoor (2 Apr 2005)

The main reason this is not a good idea is the production run would be so small. The price of each C-xx would have to include the licence fee, plus the cost of the factory and all the special tooling needed to make these things. 

If we were buying the licence for something like the AN-77, then we would also have a huge R&D bill to bring the design up to western standards and modify everything for western avionics, engines etc.

Alternative plans like buying existing airframes such as the Starlifter or IL-76 Candid and rebuilding them (since they are used aircraft with many hours on them) would be cheaper, since you also have the option of picking up extra aircraft as ground training articles and spares.

The only way I can think of to get new designs built here would be to gather up *all* the potential users (airlines, air freight companies, other government agencies, other branches of the Armed Forces [i.e bring the Navy on board with this airframe as the Aroura replacement]) and get them to commit (with cash) for a combined production run of at least 15-20 airplanes.


----------



## Inch (3 Apr 2005)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> The only way I can think of to get new designs built here would be to gather up *all* the potential users (airlines, air freight companies, other government agencies, other branches of the Armed Forces [i.e bring the Navy on board with this airframe as the Aroura replacement]) and get them to commit (with cash) for a combined production run of at least 15-20 airplanes.



The Navy doesn't own the Auroras. All aircraft except the TUAV's are Air Force assets.


----------



## aesop081 (3 Apr 2005)

Inch said:
			
		

> The Navy doesn't own the Auroras. All aircraft except the TUAV's are Air Force assets.



Thats right....i ain't no sailor  ;D


----------



## a_majoor (3 Apr 2005)

> The Navy doesn't own the Auroras. All aircraft except the TUAV's are Air Force assets.



True enough, but they probably supply the requirment to have such platforms, and don't they pay for their operation? If that is the case, then their cash and "political" support for the project is vital. (BTW, even though a heavy transport is not the "best" platform for naval surveillance, it is better than no platform at all).


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (3 Apr 2005)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> True enough, but they probably supply the requirment to have such platforms, and don't they pay for their operation? If that is the case, then their cash and "political" support for the project is vital. (BTW, even though a heavy transport is not the "best" platform for naval surveillance, it is better than no platform at all).



Nope...its still comes out of the Air Force budget vice the Navy budget.



> (BTW, even though a heavy transport is not the "best" platform for naval surveillance, it is better than no platform at all).



Playing devils advocate here but  could that statement not be used in support of the MGS? After all its better to have a vehicle with a big gun on it then none at all?


----------



## Jungle (3 Apr 2005)

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> Yes, but Turkmenistan can afford strategic airlift because it doesn't have a health care crisis.


The so-called health care crisis here is artificial. Kick people with a simple cold, a diarrhea or doing a pregnancy test out of the emergency room and the crisis will be over in a matter of weeks.
There's no 2 ways about it, we need to replace our older model C-130s with a few C-17s now. When the rest of the C-130s are retired, replace them with whatever is available "off the shelf" at the time, likely the C-130J.
I don't think eastern European flying coffins are the way to go, as I don't think it would be practical to westernize them.


----------



## Inch (3 Apr 2005)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> True enough, but they probably supply the requirment to have such platforms, and don't they pay for their operation? If that is the case, then their cash and "political" support for the project is vital.



Their budget comes from the Air Force, just like ours does. Believe me, we're closer to the navy than anyone and our budget comes from Air Command. The same for TacHel, their budget is also Air Force even though they spend the majority of the time supporting the Army.



> (BTW, even though a heavy transport is not the "best" platform for naval surveillance, it is better than no platform at all).



I suppose, but after you're done modifying it for torpedo and sonobuoy launchers as well as all the required sensors and computers, it'd probably be cheaper to just get a proper MPA instead of turning a transport aircraft into some mutant that doesn't do maritime patrol all that good and is no longer useful as a transport aircraft either.


----------



## jmacleod (3 Apr 2005)

We are consultants in the technology and aerospace sector, with nearly 30 years of activity
(seems longer). We have been focused on heavy lift air for CF for several years, and often
communicate with Stephen Priestly of CASR DND 101 ( one of the best sites of it's type
in the world). Have looked at the IL-76 "Candid" at some length, as well as Boeing BC-17X
it was like the C-17 an McDonnell-Douglas design from their Long Beach CA plant, well known
to us. There are a lot of good ideas expressed on this particular site, and a lot of knowledge
imparted - I would suggest however, that people familier with the Lockheed-Martin C-130
series go to Air Safety Week 21 Feb 2005, for a review of structural problems with the C-130
main plane. These problems can be traced back to the Lockheed "Electra", which had major
mainplane/engine mount problems, caused by high speed flutter. The mainplane designs by
Lockheed of the "Electra" period have essentially carried on into the life of the C-130. As we
see it, the big problem is convincing the present government that DND CF need much better
and effective heavy airlift capacity. MacLeod


----------



## a_majoor (3 Apr 2005)

Inch said:
			
		

> I suppose, but after you're done modifying it for torpedo and sonobuoy launchers as well as all the required sensors and computers, it'd probably be cheaper to just get a proper MPA instead of turning a transport aircraft into some mutant that doesn't do maritime patrol all that good and is no longer useful as a transport aircraft either.



Just some "out of the box" thinking here, but could not much of that equipment be modularized and pallatized?. The main change would then be a new rear ramp which would have "torpedo tubes" to allow  weapons and sensors to be ejected from from the pallets, and perhaps a different nose cone mounting a sensor turret..


----------



## aesop081 (3 Apr 2005)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> Just some "out of the box" thinking here, but could not much of that equipment be modularized and pallatized?. The main change would then be a new rear ramp which would have "torpedo tubes" to allow   weapons and sensors to be ejected from from the pallets, and perhaps a different nose cone mounting a sensor turret..



Take a tour of a CP-140 aurora ........try and palletise that !


----------



## Inch (3 Apr 2005)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> Just some "out of the box" thinking here, but could not much of that equipment be modularized and pallatized?. The main change would then be a new rear ramp which would have "torpedo tubes" to allow   weapons and sensors to be ejected from from the pallets, and perhaps a different nose cone mounting a sensor turret..



Palletizing the radar? That would be pretty difficult if you ask me. MPA's fly at 200ft over the ocean, they get bumped all over the place and anything that is not hardmounted to the aircraft would run the risk of getting disconnected or damaged. Not to mention that putting all your stores at the back of the aircraft would give you a huge pitch up moment (aft Centre of Gravity, Mk 46 torpedoes weigh in the neighbourhood of 525lbs, there's a reason they're in the centre of the fuselage on both the Sea King and the Aurora and will be on the Cyclones). I suppose you could put external hardpoints on the airframe for the torps, but internal is much better for aerodynamics.

As aesop said, I'd suggest you hop into an Aurora and have a look for yourself. That equipment is used for surveillance and to prosecute submarines, very sophisticated and accurate. I can't help but think you'd have some degradation of the accuracy if it's quick connect plugs and roll on equipment.

With all this talk of modularized equipment on aircraft (we already went through this with the Cyclone), I'd suggest you have a good read of some aerodynamics books and accident reports and then tell me how good an idea it is to be screwing around with your centre of gravity and weight on a continuous basis.


----------



## Sam69 (3 Apr 2005)

My $0.02 on the palletised approach.

IMO, having lived through years of this debate within the MH world, the only people afraid of the palletised approach are members of the back-end union. While taking an entire MPA capability and moving it to a Herc has significant challenges and is of dubious value, having a plug-and-play mission suite only makes a world of sense for a Maritime Helicopter. The reality is that the entire processing power of a CP-140 is easily exceeded by a single modern PC. If we were ever to move our intellectual capacity beyond seeing a mission suite as a set of black boxes strung together and looked instead at the overall processing requirements, we could easily move to a PC-like solution where components are simply hot-plugged into a databus.

Sam


----------



## aesop081 (3 Apr 2005)

Sam69 said:
			
		

> My $0.02 on the palletised approach.
> 
> The reality is that the entire processing power of a CP-140 is easily exceeded by a single modern PC.



My watch has more memory than FRED does ! But AIMP will take care of that  :


----------



## Inch (3 Apr 2005)

Good points Sam, my big beef with this roll on roll off mission kit is weight and balance problems. The aircraft gets a new weight and balance done on it when it's painted, how is moving over a thousand pounds of equipment around going to affect the CofG? I have read all kinds of accident reports of aircraft taking off with the CofG out of limits or the aircraft overloaded. I'm not saying I'm too lazy to do a weight and balance calculation before every flight, but it's a whole lot easier with less variables. 

Beyond what it does to the flight characteristics, as a front ender I think we could care less what's behind us as long as the aircraft responds to control inputs in a normal manner.


----------



## aesop081 (3 Apr 2005)

I have nothing against the palletized/modularized conceot per say, i have seen it for ABCC and AEW uses but to make an airplane cargo/MPA, to me would make an aircraft that can do 2 jobs but neither of them very well.   from what i can see so far in the MPA world, it has unique challenges and eqpt/mission requirements that would be difficult to intergrate and remove/reinstal...... For example....the MAD system to be compensated depends on what eqpt is currently running on the A/C, the ESM system requires several antenas that a   transpost A/C doesnt need, would constantly instal/ remove these to save weight for TAL missions ? I'm not saying it can't be done, just questioning its effectiveness. Even with more modern computer systems and avionics......


----------



## Sam69 (3 Apr 2005)

I should clarify my earlier statements.

First, when I alluded to the "back-end union" I want to be clear that I recognize that not all Navs and AESOPs are members of the union; just like I recognize that not all pilots are members of the "pilot's union." I hope I didn't offend any warriors out there with my broad brush comment.

Second, I think that the idea of turning a Herc into a MPA is fundamentally unsound. Sure it could be done, but it would result in an aircraft that would be slower, more costly, and come at the expense of losing a mobility asset at a time when we simply do not have enough mobility assets. As well, since certain parts of the mission system would have to be fixed to the airframe (RADAR, MAD, and EO for example) you have also added unneccesary weight to your mobility platform. And, of course, the added fitted equipment only complicates your maintenance problem, risking lower availability. Obviously, this is also ignoring the added training, currency, and proficiency requirements for your pilots who now have to be combat ready on two widely divergent mission sets.

Third, with palletised mission systems I think you would see two or three standard configs and the CofG would be pre-calculated for each of these configs thereby saving Inch from any onerous calculations  : (just giving you a hard time Inch - use Excel like the rest of us).


----------



## Inch (3 Apr 2005)

Sam69 said:
			
		

> Third, with palletised mission systems I think you would see two or three standard configs and the CofG would be pre-calculated for each of these configs thereby saving Inch from any onerous calculations   : (just giving you a hard time Inch - use Excel like the rest of us).



That's what I want to hear! 

I figured as much, but I wanted to throw that out there for the non-pilot types that may not understand the significance of messing around with weight and balance.

Excel is great, I use it for every flight, it sure does save a lot of time when you're adding and removing GIBs and hoisting dummies.  ;D


----------



## aesop081 (3 Apr 2005)

Inch said:
			
		

> That's what I want to hear!
> 
> I figured as much, but I wanted to throw that out there for the non-pilot types that may not understand the significance of messing around with weight and balance.
> 
> Excel is great, I use it for every flight, it sure does save a lot of time when you're adding and removing GIBs and hoisting dummies.   ;D



 ;D


----------



## SeaKingTacco (3 Apr 2005)

My 2 cents on the whole "just use off-the-shelf laptops" to run your mission systems on a "plug-and-play aircraft".

Speaking with the instructors at CFANS, they have had nothing but trouble with the computers on the CT-142 Gonzo since they went to COTS.  It would seem that the commercial circuit boards are not up the constant vibration and often just quit working, thus causing a DNCO and a lost trip.  AESOP081 can confirm whether or not the problem has been fixed, but it seems to me that in certain areas, we need to buy MILSPEC...

As for "plug and play sensors"- Sam, when was the last time that you did a full functional after the sonar was removed and reinstalled in a Sea King? 
How well did that work out for you? 
In my experience, it has never been less than a 2-3 day job of getting the sonar to run properly after sitting in a crate in the hangar for a few months.  Maybe I have just been unlucky... 

Cheers!


----------



## aesop081 (3 Apr 2005)

i can confirm that the CT-142's back end training system, although a good idea, is tempermental at best.   The system keeps crapping out for both hardware problems and more often for software problems.   Thats what happens when you put a microsoft-based product into an airplane   ;D

And don't get me started about the 99-channel in the aurora !

Edited for spelling......damned INCOS screws up my typing at home   ;D


----------



## Zoomie (4 Apr 2005)

Inch said:
			
		

> Excel is great, I use it for every flight, it sure does save a lot of time when you're adding and removing GIBs and hoisting dummies.   ;D



If in Excel you mean Flight Engineer, then I agree whole-heartedly Inch...     We plank drivers just spin the props and turn gas into noise...


----------



## a_majoor (4 Apr 2005)

I didn't realize this woudl get so involved. My idea was more to the effect that if the Airforce was to need "x" transports, "y" AWACS/JSTARS/Refuelers and "z" surveillance planes, then instead of buying 3 separate airframes, buy a common airframe (the transport) to purchase enough airframes and lower the unit cost, with the added advantage(?) of having a large internal area in the cargo bay for all the kit needed for the other jobs.

I suppose this would mean that the airframes for surveillance could have some fairly drastic mods, but I'm thinking this might be limited to a different nose cone mounting the radar or sensor turret, and the racks and pallets would be hard mounted inside the airplane 90% of the time. I don't know what to suggest about the weapons and sensors, hard points under the wings would give you a very limited load, but cutting a hole in the botton would present a few problems as well.....


----------



## aesop081 (4 Apr 2005)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> .... but I'm thinking this might be limited to a different nose cone mounting the radar or sensor turret, and the racks and pallets would be hard mounted inside the airplane 90% of the time.



Don't take this in a bad way but may i suggest that you take a long hard look at the aurora/orion/atlantique 2 and maybe you would rethink that statement !!


----------



## aesop081 (4 Apr 2005)

let me put it to you this way:

Do you think that we could make the MLVW into an EFFECTIVE surveillance platform if we palletized the coyote's recce suite ? Would it do either job well ?


----------



## Zoomie (5 Apr 2005)

aesop081 said:
			
		

> Do you think that we could make the MLVW into an EFFECTIVE surveillance platform if we palletized the coyote's recce suite ?



Excellent comparison my friend...

Quite frankly any transport option out there would be too slow and cumbersome in the MPA community.  Yanking and banking at 300' AWL requires some finesse and an airframe up to the task.  If you take a transport behemoth down there you get a repeat of the Nimrod's performance at the CNE many many moons ago.


----------



## 404SqnAVSTeach (6 Apr 2005)

Regarding the C-130J...

The Pentagon's inspector general in a 34-page report blamed the manufacturer, Lockheed Martin, for 33 deficiencies in the planes.  They are especially concerned about problems in the aircraft's computers and missile defense systems. There were even reports of propellers breaking down and cracking in bad weather.

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=260411&page=1


----------



## 404SqnAVSTeach (6 Apr 2005)

Canadian options

The company is also in discussions with the Canadian Department of National Defence regarding the lease of C-130Js, said Lockheed spokesman Peter Simmons. They have "had several meetings over the last couple of years" on various options of replacing Canada's current CC-130 fleet with new C-130s. "Leasing is one of the many options that we've offered them [but] the substantive detail of a lease offer is recent" with the first meetings at the end of 2004 and "then it kind of gained momentum at the beginning of this year", he said.

A lease arrangement would be structured to meet Canada's requirements. The details of the number of aircraft, the timeframe of delivery, and type of lease "is entirely at their discretion", said Simmons. The C-130Js on offer would be new production stretch version combat delivery aircraft. "We've given them a whole range of schedules in terms of aircraft delivery and numbers and length and terms of the lease, etcetera, so that they can look at that and make it fit with their own budget."

Canada has a fleet of 32 CC-130 aircraft, but according to Simmons the number one priority is to replace the 19 CC-130E aircraft, which have been in service for 40 years, have over 40,000 hours on them, and are becoming increasingly difficult and expensive to maintain. He argued that rather than spend scarce resources on maintaining the old fleet, it is more cost effective to put the money into leasing new aircraft.

The Canadian Air Force is being tight-lipped about the discussions. Spokesperson Major Lynne Chaloux said: "It would be premature to speculate whether this is a viable option for the Canadian Forces." Maj Chaloux noted that the air force is "in the process of determining its holistic air mobility requirements [tactical and strategic airlift], and expects them to be finalised sometime after the new defence statement is issued". She added that "the C-130J will be considered as one of a range of options".


----------



## Sam69 (6 Apr 2005)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Speaking with the instructors at CFANS, they have had nothing but trouble with the computers on the CT-142 Gonzo since they went to COTS.  It would seem that the commercial circuit boards are not up the constant vibration and often just quit working, thus causing a DNCO and a lost trip.  AESOP081 can confirm whether or not the problem has been fixed, but it seems to me that in certain areas, we need to buy MILSPEC...
> 
> As for "plug and play sensors"- Sam, when was the last time that you did a full functional after the sonar was removed and reinstalled in a Sea King?
> How well did that work out for you?
> In my experience, it has never been less than a 2-3 day job of getting the sonar to run properly after sitting in a crate in the hangar for a few months.  Maybe I have just been unlucky...



I can't speak directly on the Gonzo implementation because I have no experience with that aircraft. However, I think we are deluding ourselves if we think the current systems are bulletproof. I've seen the 123 dump its load on many occasions. I mean, really, just about everything in the SK is milspec and what kind of MTBF do we see on systems like GHARS? Sonar? Radar? I've heard nightmare stories about the current CP-140 back-end as well. The reality is that you can have good or bad implementations of either COTS or MilStd equipment. I know, for example, that the Panasonic Toughbooks have endured a great deal of abuse and seem to keep on working. 

As for the SK sonar, we both know that it was never designed to be a PnP system. And yet, we often seem to try to use it like one, which suggests that it would be in our best interests to spec that capability in our future aircraft.

Sam


----------



## Sam69 (6 Apr 2005)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> I didn't realize this woudl get so involved. My idea was more to the effect that if the Airforce was to need "x" transports, "y" AWACS/JSTARS/Refuelers and "z" surveillance planes, then instead of buying 3 separate airframes, buy a common airframe (the transport) to purchase enough airframes and lower the unit cost, with the added advantage(?) of having a large internal area in the cargo bay for all the kit needed for the other jobs



I take your point a_m and salute your intentions  

But, I believe that the Herc is reall best suited to the transport role and would it involve too many compromises to seriously consider it as a MPA. 

Sam


----------



## SeaKingTacco (6 Apr 2005)

> I can't speak directly on the Gonzo implementation because I have no experience with that aircraft. However, I think we are deluding ourselves if we think the current systems are bulletproof. I've seen the 123 dump its load on many occasions. I mean, really, just about everything in the SK is milspec and what kind of MTBF do we see on systems like GHARS? Sonar? Radar? I've heard nightmare stories about the current CP-140 back-end as well. The reality is that you can have good or bad implementations of either COTS or MilStd equipment. I know, for example, that the Panasonic Toughbooks have endured a great deal of abuse and seem to keep on working.
> 
> As for the SK sonar, we both know that it was never designed to be a PnP system. And yet, we often seem to try to use it like one, which suggests that it would be in our best interests to spec that capability in our future aircraft.



Agreed.  Bad implementation of a piece of equipment, either MILSPEC or civvy spec is the same.

123 load dumps are generally heat related.  Fix the heat and you fix the problem, in my experience.  Or maybe I have just been lucky and not lost alot of ASN-123s.  While not a complete fan of the 123 and some of it's really clunky user-interface, I have found it pretty robust and better than nothing at all.

Were the GHARS, sonar and radar always unreliable, or just lately as they got rather "senior"?  I have only been around Sea Kings since 1999.  I have noticed GHARS going u/s at a faster rate, but radars and sonars seem about the same to me.  Could this just be an age issue?

Sam, even with PNP written into the contract, I have got feeling that most complex sensors don't like being taken out of boxes and strapped onto airplanes and vice-versa.  I have a feeling that we will end up with some sort of calibration or test-flight issue each time we add a sensor.  Finally, I guess if you have too many PnP systems, how do you stay current or trained on all of them?  How do you configuration manage aircraft on a Sqn?

Always a pleasure reading your work, Sam!

Cheers!


----------



## Sam69 (7 Apr 2005)

I agree with your analysis SKT. 

But, call me a pie-eyed dreamer, why can I take a portable HD, spinning at thousands of RPM with tolerances measured in microns, that has a static tolerance of 320+Gz and hot plug it into a USB 2.0 or 1394 bus with not even the smallest burp. Time and time again. But we can't take a piece of equipment like  a sonar, which really isn't that tight on its tolerances and even get it to work after days of intensive maintenance work by highly skilled techs. It leaves me believing that we have the wrong model on how to do things.

Sam


----------



## Kirkhill (14 Nov 2005)

Sorry to interrupt Gobsmacked and Aesop.

Here's a prospect - US Senate has apparently financed 6 more C-17s that are "surplus to requirements" - Wonder if there is a deal possible there? 



> Pork-barrel for Boeing: Senate Amendment to Keep C-17 Cargo Jet Production Line Open
> 
> 
> (Source: Project On Government Oversight; issued Nov. 10, 2005)
> ...


----------

