# Blue sky thoughts for Polaris replacements



## a_majoor (3 Oct 2008)

Probably some weird after effect of watching the leader's debate, but these thought occurred to me:

Replace the Polaris with Boeing 787 "Dreamliners". These are long range passenger/transport jets with huge improvements in fuel economy. Since their systems are far more modern, I suspect they will be much cheaper to operate and maintain as well.

As well, it seems there are lots of occasions we need to transport outsized equipment in a non tactical environment. Deploying DART comes to mind, but even staging flights of heavy equipment or large loads to just outside theaters of operation could probably be considered as well. The Polaris combi can only hold the same sorts of cargo as any other civil transporter, and a 787 combi or transport has the same considerations. Perhaps the CF can consider something along the lines of the "Beluga" transports that Airbus uses to ship airplane components to the central assembly facility in France. While I recognize that "Belugas" (or 747 air freighters for that matter) need special ground handling equipment to load/offload cargo, this is still cheaper and more available than more C-17's

Blue sky thinking


----------



## SeaKingTacco (3 Oct 2008)

I would rather we not go thru the nightmare of the being the first country to pay for the engineering to figure out how to cut a cargo door into the side of the aircraft and then plumb it for air-to-air refueling, like we did with the Airbus.

My vote- let's see which way the USAF tanker replacement programme goes (eventually, companies will stop suing and a new tanker from either Boeing or Airbus will replace the 707 fleet) and hop on that for 5-7 aircraft.

Edit=spelling


----------



## a_majoor (5 Oct 2008)

The only difficulty with the USAF tanker competition is Boeing is offering a 767 derivative; nice aircraft, but almost out of production and nowhere near the fuel economy and maintainability of the 787. The Airbus A330 has the same drawbacks as the 767; an older design (although still in production) with higher operating costs.

A look at the Boeing website does not make any specific reference to cargo or combi versions of the 787 (although they imply a Dreamliner has more cargo capacity than any similar sized aircraft), so I agree about cutting monster cargo hatches etc.


----------



## thunderchild (9 Dec 2008)

The 787 is a great  aircraft but I haven't seen anything on the Boeing web site about a freighter conversion.  I'd say that we replace the 3 CC-150's with 787-9 aircraft. The remaining 3 CC-150's I'd convert to a tanker configuration.  IF required I'd buy 2 777F freighters.

While I have the professionals here, Has anybody read anything on the C-17B?  I have heard only that it is suppose to be cheaper and more capable than the C-17A.  If it is a real program it may be a better choice instead of the 777F and possably replacing the remainder of our C-130H aircraft. Just my thoughts.

Best to you on the holidays.


----------



## Zoomie (11 Dec 2008)

thunderchild said:
			
		

> The 787 is a great  aircraft but I haven't seen anything on the Boeing web site about a freighter conversion.



That's probably because the 787 hasn't entered full-scale production and is coming close to a year behind schedule.

We won't be seeing the retirement of our Polaris aircraft any time soon - unless one of the National airlines need a cash influx and have a few mothballed aircraft for sale.


----------



## MAJONES (11 Dec 2008)

> We won't be seeing the retirement of our Polaris aircraft any time soon - unless one of the National airlines need a cash influx and have a few mothballed aircraft for sale.


The way the economy is going the airlines just might need that influx.....to bad military (esp new military aircraft) spending is one of the first thing the government cuts when things get tight.


----------



## TCBF (11 Dec 2008)

MAJONES said:
			
		

> The way the economy is going the airlines just might need that influx.....to bad military (esp new military aircraft) spending is one of the first thing the government cuts when things get tight.



- Depends.  Some 'economic stimulus' just might end up being for military products.  Or programs: remember YTEP from 83-84, and SSEP/SYEP from the 70s?


----------



## thunderchild (16 Dec 2008)

It's just an idea that got tossed out during a family conversation but why not use the new 'C' series being built by Bombardier.  I believe it comes in a 220 pax configuration.  It was also suggested that it be used as a tanker aircraft but I don't think it would be able to carry the equipment and fuel.


----------



## hauger (17 Dec 2008)

Why all this mucking about with Airplanes and Fuel and pilots and whatnot.  Why not just engineer us up some transporters ala Star Trek.  Easier, faster, burns less gas, more flexible, way cooler.  

Blue sky thinking.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (17 Dec 2008)

hauger said:
			
		

> Why all this mucking about with Airplanes and Fuel and pilots and whatnot.  Why not just engineer us up some transporters ala Star Trek.  Easier, faster, burns less gas, more flexible, way cooler.
> 
> Blue sky thinking.



 :


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (17 Dec 2008)

hauger said:
			
		

> Why all this mucking about with Airplanes and Fuel and pilots and whatnot.  Why not just engineer us up some transporters ala Star Trek.  Easier, faster, burns less gas, more flexible, way cooler.
> 
> Blue sky thinking.



If you don't have anything relevant to add then don't add at all.

Milnet.Ca Staff


----------



## hauger (17 Dec 2008)

Oh come on....I had something very useful to add.....Humour, something that's really missing around here.  Chill out and take a tongue in cheek remark for what it is.

Okay though, you want serious, here you go.

To whoever said they'd wait for the US to figure out what they're doing, bravo.  "Made in Canada" solutions are extremely expensive and provide small benefit.  Waiting for the US to fund the engineering and testing truly is the way to go.

Another point to keep in mind is there is absolutely zero chance the CC150 will be replaced anytime soon.  I'd wager a kid in Grade 5 right now has a good chance of flying one of these things 15 years down the road when he's old enough.  With the FWSAR program back burnered (and being bandaided by the "acquisition" of the H model CC130's) and the Buffalo limping on to it's never arriving retirement date, the chance that the government choosing to replace the A310's is zero.  Especially after the powers that be just finished pealing off a couple C-notes to have one plumbed for strategic AAR.

A good answer to the question would be: By the time the CC150 is replaced, the airplane world will have changed so much that there's no way to predict what we'll buy (assuming there isn't Star Trek transporters by then).

Oh, whoever said a derivative C17...sort of okay thinking, but the C17 is a highly inefficient people mover.  It can move "stuff" very well, but it's not the best way to move lots of people.

Hope that met with the "serious enough" criteria needed to post.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (17 Dec 2008)

Keep it up....that was your freebie.


----------



## hauger (17 Dec 2008)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Keep it up....that was your freebie.



That's okay, you can have your free one.  I'm done with these forums anyways.  Sure, I have a lot to offer, but it's just way too serious and way too "FEAR THE MODERATORS" in here for me.  You want to get bent out of shape over tongue in cheek humour and wave your hammer around to show how powerful you are, fill your boots, just don't do it on my time.

As a parting gift, give the classic "Lighten Up Francis" quote a watch.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrllCZw8jiM&feature=related


----------



## SupersonicMax (17 Dec 2008)

Why do people always have to think of modifying a civilian airplane into a military role when there are and there will be off the shelf solutions out there that are way cheaper and much more suited for the job?

While we're at it, maybe we should replace our fighter force with Challengers that we will modify to add wing pylons, add firing capabilities and modify the engines so they would be afterburning.  There would also have a requirement to have at least 50% of the modifications built in Quebec.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (17 Dec 2008)

hauger said:
			
		

> That's okay, you can have your free one.  I'm done with these forums anyways.  Sure, I have a lot to offer, but it's just way too serious and way too "FEAR THE MODERATORS" in here for me.  You want to get bent out of shape over tongue in cheek humour and wave your hammer around to show how powerful you are, fill your boots, just don't do it on my time.
> 
> As a parting gift, give the classic "Lighten Up Francis" quote a watch.
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrllCZw8jiM&feature=related



Don't let the door hit you on the way out.



> Why do people always have to think of modifying a civilian airplane into a military role when there are and there will be off the shelf solutions out there that are way cheaper and much more suited for the job?
> 
> While we're at it, maybe we should replace our fighter force with Challengers that we will modify to add wing pylons, add firing capabilities and modify the engines so they would be afterburning.  There would also have a requirement to have at least 50% of the modifications built in Quebec.



i liken it to those that think we can build major surface combatants to mercantile standards to save money.


----------



## aesop081 (17 Dec 2008)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Why do people always have to think of modifying a civilian airplane into a military role when there are and there will be off the shelf solutions out there that are way cheaper and much more suited for the job?



Most taker aircrafts in the world are in fact modified civilian airliners.


----------



## Zoomie (18 Dec 2008)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Most taker aircrafts in the world are in fact modified civilian airliners.



As are all MPA that fly in the world today.  We take old designs and then use them 20 years after everyone else has mothballed them in the desert.


----------



## thunderchild (18 Dec 2008)

So lets take this like this, The new MPA,CC-150,KC-130H will be replaced with a common airframe based on the 'C' series jet.  The FWSAR will be a 'Q-200' based aircraft with some new build Twin Otters. Build more Griffon's but with an Armed Enforcement package "Gunship version". Dust off the CF-116 blueprints and solve the replacement fighter problem. Keep it all Built in Canada only if we first get seats in Quebec that are not Block and Ontario stops voting for Liberals who keep trying to over through the government.LOL Take it easy I'm in no way serious about any of this.


----------



## SteveB (18 Dec 2008)

Why waste bandwidth and time on a post that is either not serious or, asinine?   ???

Why the discussion of a CC150 replacement?  As far as I know, no request has been put forward by the CF for a new airliner.  The A310 purchase was politically driven and though the 707s that they replaced were less capable airframes.  The A310 has lots of life left in it, though it is not the most efficient plane in the skies today, they are still in viable commercial passenger and cargo service.  They are still supported by the original manufacturer and a host of sub-component companies.  Other than AAR, there is little that the CC150 provides that couldn't be economically contracted to civilian cargo carriers.  

When the time comes for a new strategic AAR platform, it would be foolish not to adopt whatever new platform the USAF choose.  All this talk of 787s on a forum that derided the A400 because it hadn't flown bewilders me.  Yes the 767 is an older platform, though substantially made over for the tanker competition.  The A330 is still considered advanced and would be a fine airplane.  The suggestion of 777Fs isn't as crazy as it sounds, there's some possibility of a future AAR version of this as a KC10 replacement, don't forget that the current USAF tanker competition is only to replace about a third of the tanker force.  There will be a future purchase.  One point I might raise would be that of cost.  Some members have posted that these large aircraft would be cheaper than C17s.  If so, only on the operating cost.  A new 777 is in the same ballpark as a C17.  Don't forget that the sums associated with the Globemaster include 20 years of support.

Finally, all talk of a Bombardier replacement should be curtailed as it is very possible that their Cseries will go no further than a plastic mock up.  The CF transportation element should concentrate their all to scarce manpower on the things you can't ask civilians to do, well at least no Canadian civilians ;D.  Things like operating under the threat of attack.  Operating into unimproved forward airstrips.  Dropping paratroops.  Shuttling cargo and people from one large airport to another is what we have airlines for.


----------



## thunderchild (19 Dec 2008)

I agree with the 777 being a posibility, and its price is actually listed as US $231million ea Fly away cost.  Before Canada 3000 shut down we we negotiating the purcase of 2 aircraft for out YYZ-MAN run.  That deal died with the airline but service per flight hour was better than for the 5 757 fleet we were operating proportionally speaking.  We were making the same revenue per Pax air mile with 2 aircraft than with the 3 aircraft.


----------



## aesop081 (19 Dec 2008)

thunderchild said:
			
		

> I agree with the 777 being a posibility, and its price is actually listed as US $231million ea Fly away cost.  Before Canada 3000 shut down we we negotiating the purcase of 2 aircraft for out YYZ-MAN run.  That deal died with the airline but service per flight hour was better than for the 5 757 fleet we were operating proportionally speaking.  We were making the same revenue per Pax air mile with 2 aircraft than with the 3 aircraft.



You are still missing the point. Glad to see it.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (19 Dec 2008)

thunderchild said:
			
		

> I agree with the 777 being a posibility, and its price is actually listed as US $231million ea Fly away cost.  Before Canada 3000 shut down we we negotiating the purcase of 2 aircraft for out YYZ-MAN run.  *That deal died with the airline but service per flight hour was better than for the 5 757 fleet we were operating proportionally speaking. *  We were making the same revenue per Pax air mile with 2 aircraft than with the 3 aircraft.



 ???


----------



## Globesmasher (20 Dec 2008)

thunderchild said:
			
		

> While I have the professionals here, Has anybody read anything on the C-17B?  I have heard only that it is suppose to be cheaper and more capable than the C-17A.



C-17B is "concept" only.
It'll be a long, long, long, long, long time before it moves any further forward than "concept".


----------

