# Looking Through the Brit Bargain Bin Again[and now Lockheed's]



## crazyleggs (16 Mar 2005)

http://dgpa-dgap.mil.ca/DGPA/ntl/050316/f00004ab.htm

First hit - Premier mot clé PUBLICATION:   The <Ottawa> Citizen 
DATE:   2005.03.16 
EDITION:   Final 
SECTION:   News 
PAGE:   A1 / Front 
BYLINE:   a journalist 
SOURCE:   The <Ottawa> Citizen 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Britain offers to lease <Canada> 10 used airplanes: Proposed deal echoes purchase of trouble-plagued second-hand subs

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The British government is offering to lease <Canada> a fleet of used Hercules aircraft in a proposal reminiscent of the second-hand submarine deal the Liberal government signed in the late 1990s, the Citizen has learned. 

The proposal has received initial interest from Defence Minister Bill Graham's office, but sources in Britain say the Hercules the British are offering are a poor fit for the <Canadian> military's airlift needs. 

The 10 planes in question are a newer model Hercules, known as C-130J "short" aircraft and are suitable for search-and-rescue missions, pilot training, and limited transportation of gear and soldiers. But a number of militaries, including Britain's, have concentrated on using Lockheed Martin's C-130J "stretch" aircraft to fill their air transport needs. Those planes are five metres longer than the Lockheed C-130J and can carry a large amount of equipment and troops. 

The British want to get rid of their 10 C-130J "short" aircraft because they are limited in what they can carry. The money they would receive from <Canada> would help fund the purchase of new, larger transport planes known as C-17s. 

In making its proposal, British officials bypassed <Canadian> military officers, who are reportedly not keen on the plan, and went directly to Mr. Graham's office. An official with Mr. Graham's office said yesterday he did not have any information available on the proposal. 

Defence industry officials in <Canada> and Britain noted the used planes would not be covered by a full warranty or support from the manufacturer, as would be the case if they were bought new. 

They said it made more sense to buy or lease new planes, in the process getting spare parts and engineering support from the original manufacturer. 

One industry official likened the deal to a replay of the purchase of used submarines from Britain. The <Canadian> government originally announced in 1998 it would enter into a barter arrangement for four second-hand submarines from Britain. Instead of <Canada> paying cash for the boats, the British military would train for free at <Canadian> bases. 

However, that arrangement never took place and the <Canadian> government paid cash to buy the subs. But over the last several years, the $750 million submarine program has been dogged with problems. A fire on <HMCS> <Chicoutimi> last fall -- which killed one <sailor> -- as well as a long list of technical glitches on the other subs, has prompted critics to label the boats as lemons. Opposition MPs have demanded answers about whether the British government saddled the <Canadian> taxpayer with defective second-hand military gear. 

<Canada> is in desperate need of a replacement for its aging fleet of Hercules aircraft, the military's workhorse transport plane. Plans call for those aircraft to start being replaced at the end of the decade, but senior military officials have made no secret of their desire to move faster on the Hercules replacement. 

Prime Minister Paul Martin also announced last year it is a priority for his government to replace the military's fleet of Buffalo search-and-rescue planes. Those smaller aircraft are based in Comox, B.C. and other key locations throughout the country. Mr. Martin's government announced it was fast-tracking that $1.3-billion purchase with the aim to get the new planes delivered in 18 months. However, since the original announcement, that replacement program has proceeded at glacial pace. 

<Canada> operates 32 Hercules, but many of those aircraft have the distinction of having the highest flying hours of any military Hercules in the world. Some are more than 35 years old. 

The aging Hercules were highlighted in a Queen's University report released last year about the decrepit state of the <Canadian> Forces. That study warned that if the aircraft are not replaced soon, the military will lose much of its ability to transport troops and equipment. 

In addition, a report prepared in 2003 for the Defence Department noted that fewer Hercules are available for flights on a daily basis because the aging planes have had more structural problems, such as cracks in their wings. That has meant more inspection and repairs, forcing the military to keep the planes on the ground more often. First hit - Premier mot clé


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (16 Mar 2005)

If we use them to replace the 10 E's, I'm fine with it, but the fact the British are buying C-17's pretty much sums up our true need.



Matthew.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (16 Mar 2005)

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> If we use them to replace the 10 E's, I'm fine with it, but the fact the British are buying C-17's pretty much sums up our true need.



Doesn't Britain have an armed forces exponentially larger than ours?  I don't see your point.


----------



## George Wallace (16 Mar 2005)

Then again Michael, it only takes a couple of hours to drive across the UK as opposed to days in Canada.  Size of the Armed Forces doesn't necessarily have to be the main criteria.  We have to cover great distances within our own country, without even thinking of overseas deployments.  We, although we have a smaller Force, require more transport abilities.  

Even if we purchased them as replacements or spare parts for our current fleet, it may be a good idea as an interim solution, until we can afford or even decide on what requirements we need in the future.

GW


----------



## CBH99 (16 Mar 2005)

I would think its a good idea, depending on what their asking for the planes.  Having 10 "newer" Hercs to replace 10 of our oldest, at bargain prices, could be ideal to solving some of the immediate problems in terms of aircraft availability.

On the one hand, lets not forget the submarine fiasco - that still, btw, isn't completely solved.

However, depending on the circumstances of this deal, perhaps its something we should take a closer look at?  Not only would replacing 10 of our oldest models with newer Hercs put more aircraft on the flightline at any given time, would it not also enhance on the job pilot training, and keep the larger Hercs available for long haul flights?  Any thoughts?


----------



## Sam69 (16 Mar 2005)

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> If we use them to replace the 10 E's, I'm fine with it, but the fact the British are buying C-17's pretty much sums up our true need.



I'm almost certain that we have more than 10 Es; I think it is more like 19 Es and 13 Hs.

I think the compelling question to ask is why are the Brits *really *getting rid of their Js? Why is the USAF slashing their order of Js? Why is the US OAG so negative about the J? Why is LM so desperate to find more customers for the J?

Sam


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (16 Mar 2005)

Sam69 said:
			
		

> I'm almost certain that we have more than 10 Es; I think it is more like 19 Es and 13 Hs.
> 
> I think the compelling question to ask is why are the Brits *really *getting rid of their Js? Why is the USAF slashing their order of Js? Why is the US OAG so negative about the J? Why is LM so desperate to find more customers for the J?
> 
> Sam



My bad....I misread the following from the Air Force website....

*http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/equip/cc-130/future_e.asp*

Future Plans:
As part of the Air Force's Air Mobility Framework initiative, a capability study in now under way to develop recommendations for the composition of Canada's airlift fleet of the future. This will be based in large part on joint assessments with the Army and Navy regarding their future air-mobility requirements.

A separate but related development is the Fixed-Wing Search and Rescue Project, which is investigating the acquisition of a fleet of new twin-engined SAR aircraft that would then allow retirement of the ten most elderly CC-130Es as well as all six CC-115 Buffalo aircraft in the CF fleet, all of which are currently assigned to SAR duties.



M.


----------



## Cloud Cover (16 Mar 2005)

Sam69 said:
			
		

> I think the compelling question to ask is why are the Brits *really *getting rid of their Js? Why is the USAF slashing their order of Js? Why is the US OAG so negative about the J? Why is LM so desperate to find more customers for the J?



Quite cunningly, this "deal" has been pitched directly to the Minister, and it appears from the media reports [ :] that no military pers were consulted or informed of the pitch. As has been stated elsewhere, one of the most outstanding charactersitics of Canadian procurement is "surprise." Brace yourself.

Cheers.


----------



## Bomber (17 Mar 2005)

I think that LM is so desperate to sell the J's because they are involved in the world of business.  And selling product generates revenue that is used to make profit.  These planes seem decent, they are the current model, maybe these area stepping stone into the J stretch models, if all the controls and engines and jazz like that is common, we should be happy to get this before someone else jumps on it.  All else fails, maybe we can buy the C-141 when it comes out fo US service,


----------



## crazyleggs (17 Mar 2005)

http://pogoblog.typepad.com/pogo/2005/01/question_when_i.html

Biggest issues for us would be the prop delamination problem and crew manning.  Both of which can be resolved.

But I don't think we'll see those Brit Hercs anyways.  We'll continue using those "on demand" AN-124s till something bad happens.


----------



## Kirkhill (17 Mar 2005)

Sam69

Did the Brits ever get the J's qualified for paratroops? IIRC there was a lot of concern expressed about the turbulence from those 6-blade "mix-master" props.


----------



## The Brit (17 Mar 2005)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Sam69
> 
> Did the Brits ever get the J's qualified for paratroops? IIRC there was a lot of concern expressed about the turbulence from those 6-blade "mix-master" props.



The Para trials went fine.  The J has become our main para aircraft, from both low to high level.


----------



## Kirkhill (17 Mar 2005)

Many thanks Brit, ancient or otherwise.


----------



## The Brit (18 Mar 2005)

No probs,

So would you like our Mk5 (Short Js) then?  Bit of a sports car to fly, nice kit & only a few hours on the clock.  We can provide them either painted grey or, as a special offer, in the new green.  Not too much choice in interiors though....


----------



## Kirkhill (18 Mar 2005)

Brit, when you stretched your H's (?) and turned them into K's (?) by adding that fuselage plug, any idea how much that cost per?


----------



## PPCLI Guy (18 Mar 2005)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Then again Michael, it only takes a couple of hours to drive across the UK as opposed to days in Canada.   Size of the Armed Forces doesn't necessarily have to be the main criteria.   We have to cover great distances within our own country, without even thinking of overseas deployments.   We, although we have a smaller Force, require more transport abilities.



Hmmm - a bit of red herring.  Tpt in Canada should be by train for trg (ie plan ahead), and we have positioned forces across the country to provide some sort of dom footprint.


----------



## George Wallace (18 Mar 2005)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Hmmm - a bit of red herring. Tpt in Canada should be by train for trg (ie plan ahead), and we have positioned forces across the country to provide some sort of dom footprint.



You could apply the same to the UK or any other nation.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (18 Mar 2005)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> You could apply the same to the UK or any other nation.



Exactly.  The rationale for strategic lift is based on the requirement to project forces extra-nationally.


----------



## George Wallace (18 Mar 2005)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Hmmm - a bit of red herring. Tpt in Canada should be by train for trg (ie plan ahead), and we have positioned forces across the country to provide some sort of dom footprint.



Following up on that; we don't have much in the way of Rail transport to our Northern areas.  No Rail to Alert.  No Rail to do SAR taskings.  Even with deploying troops on major exercises to sites like Wainwright, we still use a lot of Air Transport Command assets as well as 'rented' Commercial Air.  We are a nation that has vast distances that have to be covered, and ground transport is not necessarily timely.  These aircraft may be necessary to lighten the load put on our current fleet as we plan for upgrades or replacements.


----------



## The Brit (18 Mar 2005)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Brit, when you stretched your H's (?) and turned them into K's (?) by adding that fuselage plug, any idea how much that cost per?



Our Ks are really 1967 Super Es in drag (some H bits, mainly E bits and -15 engines).  The plugs were pushed into half the fleet decades ago, so not too sure if the price would have much relevance.  Marshall Aerospace are more than happy to cut and shut any Hercules you like.  The K-model designation was just for UK bound aircraft, with subtle differences of some UK avionics.  The long Ks have an inccreased max TOW (to 160,000) although some of that is taken up by the weight of the plugs.  As we tend to bulk out rather than weight out the long aircraft do have advantages.  But the strip t/o is more limiting, due to reduced pitch angle, and you have to be a little more carefull when landing.  Although Marshall Aero have become quite good at filling in the missing bits when we scrape a tail.

We did ask LM to quote how much it would cost to plug a Mk5 to turn it into a Mk4 long aircraft.  Not sure we ever got an answer...


----------



## 404SqnAVSTeach (24 Mar 2005)

Canada is examining a proposal from Britain to lease 10 Royal Air Force Hercules C-130J transport aircraft.

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=725752&C=airwar


----------



## HollywoodHitman (24 Mar 2005)

Can you guys imagine the ramifications of having short aircraft?

Not only could we not haul anything in them (there's a reason the Brits dont want or use 'em), but the fun that would be had at the expense of the Canadians who'd fly and maintain them, but also the Section of Infantry they'd carry around.........

GI 1 "Hey look, it's the Very Special Canadian Forces!!!"
GI 2 "How can you tell it's the Canadians?"
GI 1 "Well, just look! They've got to be the Very Special Forces because they're being dropped off by the Short Bus!"

It would be relentless. And we're a sensitive, touchy feely bunch now aren't we? Imagine the complaints of PTSD which would come out of being teasted by other nations troops because of our Short Buses. I mean we'd have the transport plane equivalent of the Griffon.....Looks cool, but useless. There's a backlog of guys with legit complaints, all we need is someone complaining they need counselling and a med pension 'cause the Brits or Americans made fun of them.....

Sorry for the sassy nature of my post, but I'm going to be SO disappointed if this 'lease' program gets inked. :evil:


----------



## Inch (24 Mar 2005)

HH, the "short" J is actually the same length as the E's and H's. The difference in payload between the standard J model and the stretched one is only 2000lbs, that's really peanuts when you're talking about an aircraft with a max takeoff weight of over 150,000 lbs. Now considering the Stretched J, aka the C-130J-30, has a 9,000lb higher max takeoff weight in exchange for a 2000lb increase of payload, I don't think it's that big of an advantage. That means that the aircraft itself weighs 7,000lbs more, not to mention the fact that the J-30 flys 6 knots slower, 2000ft lower and at normal payload it flys 100 nm less than the standard or "short" J's.

I'll be honest, I don't know a whole lot about the transport community, but from just looking at the numbers, I say giddyup.

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


----------



## HollywoodHitman (24 Mar 2005)

I'm no expert, I'm even pushing the layman category on this one, I'm just really uncomfortable with the notion that we'd take the used equipt. route again. Subs sink, planes crash, either way. Instead of short term satisfaction, I think we need to look at that heavy lift capability versus equipment we'll likely not need in low intensity conflicts.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (24 Mar 2005)

The big difference between the subs and these J's are that the subs were not used nor maintained adequately for 10 or so years, so how do you figure they will be crashing?


----------



## HollywoodHitman (24 Mar 2005)

Ex-D,

I'm essentially being a smartass on the crashing part. We as a military should ask ourselves why they Brits are willing to bargain basement price out their equipment. Why are they no longer using it? How are their needs different from ours except in terms of numbers, if we're indeed a combat capable force here.....

The subs were inadequately maintained for sure, and who's to say the planes are the same. You're right. However, that doesnt diminish the fact that the Brits want to get rid of them for a reason. Am I the only one who sees the little red flags on this one? 

I know the brit higher ups to be bloody ruthless when it comes to their national self interest.....even with ally countries. It's like fishing for Canadians. Hopefully we're turning into the wise old fish in the lake, that's too smart to bite the shiny thing with the hidden hook.


----------



## Kirkhill (24 Mar 2005)

Hitman there's a simple answer:

Same as the Canadian one.  

The Brit bureaucrats screwed up.  More jobs to do than money to do them so they have to get rid of gear because it costs a lot to keep gear in storage.  Some other examples? Gasoline powered ATVs and motorcycles bought just before Iraq at exorbitant prices.  Never used.  Immediately sold at discount rates.  No gasoline in the system to run them because everything is now diesel.

Armoured Landrovers needed in Iraq.  Can't find them.  MOD selling off the ones that were being used in Northern Ireland but are now considered surplus to requirements.

Mambas purchased for the Balkans.  Great running condition complete with air-conditioning.  Being sold off.

And so it goes.....

Cheers.


----------



## Allen (25 Mar 2005)

The "short" Herc is actually the regular-sized plane which is the predominant type in service around the world today. Almost all of our current E's and H's are "short". So if we're riding the "short bus", so is every other country!

Here is an interesting web page giving some pro's & con's of "short" vs. "long" J-models:

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

I personally think if we can establish that these planes are in good condition, we should go for it. They would be in service right away, and are better than anything we currently have. Yes, we need strategic airlift, but we need tactical as well. A reasonable financing option may allow us to afford both.


----------



## Sam69 (25 Mar 2005)

Allen said:
			
		

> They would be in service right away, and are better than anything we currently have.



See: http://aimpoints.hq.af.mil/display.cfm?id=2130

"The *C-130J has so many flaws that it cannot fly its intended combat missions*. It is unable to drop heavy equipment, operate well in cold weather or perform combat search-and-rescue missions. Paratroopers cannot jump out of it without risk of banging up against the fuselage."

"The planes are the latest version of the celebrated C-130 Hercules E and H models, now in Iraq and Afghanistan, and previously used in Kosovo and Somalia. Yet, the J model of the C-130 Hercules, which shares fewer than 30 percent of the parts of the earlier workhorse models, is *a pale version of its predecessors*, according to Pentagon reports."

"The inspector general's report, issued last July, found deficiencies in the aircraft that, if left uncorrected, could "cause death, severe injury or illness, major loss of equipment or systems." The report concluded that "*Lockheed Martin has been unable to design, develop or produce a C-130J aircraft that meets contract specifications in the eight years since production began.*"


----------



## Allen (26 Mar 2005)

Well, Sam69, assuming all of that is true, what's the alternative? Continue to fly increasingly unreliable E's & H's? Ask Lockheed to reopen the H-model production line? Buy relatively newer used H's? Wait for A-400M (or perhaps AN-70) to become available? Eliminate tactical airlift altogether?

None of these options seem very palatable. Also, I find it surprising that all of these problems are coming out of the US just now. The J must have been flying for almost a decade, why didn't anyone note these problems before? AFAIK, none of the foreign users of C-130J have been this dissatisfied with their purchases. Does this mean the US AIr Force has higher standards?


----------



## Sam69 (26 Mar 2005)

Allen said:
			
		

> Well, Sam69, assuming all of that is true, what's the alternative?



Here is one option: push ahead with FW SAR replacement as planned (and approved) and buy 6 C-17s (as has been widely recommended). This will allow you to retire all of the 19 E models (the oldest of the bunch). The remaining Hs (13) are retained to provide the tactical lift (intra-theatre) and the 17s provide the strategic lift (inter-theatre).

I think it is a mistake to consider the J a simple form, fit, function replacement for the existing C-130s. As was stated, part commonality is about 30% between it and the existing 130s. And, as the Marines found out, it really amounts to introducing a whole new aircraft into the inventory (along with the associated issues). Most importantly, at the end of the day it does nothing to solve the recognized deficiency that the CF has with strat air lift. The CF is then left to try to buy, borrow, or steal strat lift from a dwindling commercial fleet that is becoming increasingly more expensive and less reliable as it the average age of the fleet increases.

Sam


----------



## Allen (26 Mar 2005)

Well, your suggestion seems reasonable enough, assuming there is something decent available to replace the H's when the time comes.

As much as I would like to see the C-17 in CF service, everyone seems to think it is beyond our price range. Plus the CDS seems averse to buying outright.


----------



## Sam69 (27 Mar 2005)

Allen said:
			
		

> As much as I would like to see the C-17 in CF service, everyone seems to think it is beyond our price range. Plus the CDS seems averse to buying outright.



I agree that both of your points are probably reasonably indicative of current perceptions. However, I also believe that a detailed analysis of the total cost of ownership of a fleet of 6 C-17s compared to perhaps buying and operating 19 replacement C-130s would show that the C-17 is actually less expensive and offers a great deal more capability. 

Sam


----------



## civvy3840 (27 Mar 2005)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> Doesn't Britain have an armed forces exponentially larger than ours?   I don't see your point.



I don't think so I read that theirs is around 100 thousand our is like 84 thousand. Please correct me if I'm wrong.


----------



## Sam69 (27 Mar 2005)

civvy3840 said:
			
		

> I don't think so I read that theirs is around 100 thousand our is like 84 thousand. Please correct me if I'm wrong.



Royal Navy: 37,590
Royal Marines: 4,800
Royal Auxilirary: 2,300 (civilian)
Army: 111,780
Royal Air Force: 52,804

Canadian Forces: ~62,000 (all three environments)

HTH,
Sam


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (28 Mar 2005)

..and now the Americans are offering, well Lockheed anyway,
http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=4c3af4c9-d5b9-401d-afad-56ffa1bfcc74&rfp=dta&page=1


Canada offered deal on planes
Military can lease new Hercules for cost of maintaining old ones
  
a journalist 
CanWest News Service 

Monday, March 28, 2005

OTTAWA - A U.S. aerospace giant says it can give Canada a deal on new transport planes, delivering the newest model C-130 Hercules to the air force for about what it costs to keep its older Hercules fleet flying.

If the Canadian Forces were to redirect the money now spent to maintain and operate its E-model Hercules fleet -- some of which are 40 years old -- it could finance the leasing of Hercules C-130Js, the latest generation of the aircraft, officials with Lockheed Martin proposed in a recent pitch to the federal government.
The Lockheed plan is the latest spin in an ongoing debate within military and industry circles over updating Canada's air transport fleet.
Over the years, the air force has made little headway in replacing its ageing Hercules, the backbone of the Canadian military's transport fleet. The Liberal government has been reluctant to pay for new planes, which could cost as much as $2-billion.

A proposal to buy new Boeing C-17 Globemaster transport jets was shot down by then-defence minister John McCallum in 2002 because of the cost of the huge aircraft, estimated at more than $200-million apiece.
But Boeing has now proposed a lease arrangement similar to its deal with Britain's Royal Air Force, which the company says would cost Canada nothing after taking into account the savings in scrapping the expensive-to-operate older Hercules.
Lockheed Martin also argues that leasing brand new C-130Js would mean no large up-front bill for the Canadian government. "How the lease is structured is entirely up to Canada," said Peter Simmons, a Lockheed Martin spokesman. "But it's a very cost-effective way of getting a very efficient fleet very quickly."
Similar arrangements, using money spent on maintaining older planes, could be used to purchase new Hercules aircraft outright, Mr. Simmons added.

However, critics say the C-130J is unreliable and not capable of doing the job -- a claim disputed by Lockheed Martin.
Mr. Simmons said his company's presentations on leasing or buying new C-130Js have been greeted favourably by the Canadian government and military. He noted there is a high level of concern about replacing the Hercules fleet. One study done by defence analysts warned that by 2008 the military could be without a means of transporting its troops and equipment if it does not begin replacing the Hercules soon.
"Canada has done yeoman's work in maintaining that fleet," Mr. Simmons said. "But ultimately, just pure, simple reality sets in and the aircraft will start grounding."

Canada operates 32 Hercules aircraft. Many have the distinction of recording the highest number of flying hours of any military Hercules in the world.
The Canadian Forces spends about $75-million a year on repairs, maintenance and the purchase of spare parts for its Hercules fleet. Another $25-million is spent on upgrades for the planes on items such as electrical and engine systems. The figures provided by the military are for the entire Hercules fleet and did not break out the costs to maintain the older aircraft, which have been plagued with cracks in their wings and other problems.


The C-130J has been the subject of several U.S. government reports that have questioned the plane's reliability. One report issued last year determined the aircraft is not capable of performing many of its planned missions.
Critics have also cited problems with the plane's engines, and there has been a move by the U.S. Congress to shut down the C-130J production line, but that is being reconsidered by the Bush administration.

Mr. Simmons said the reports questioning the C-130J's reliability were based on outdated information and that the airplanes used by the United States and Britain have been performing beyond expectations in Iraq and other overseas missions.
Other C-130Js are flying with the Australian and Italian air forces.
"The absolute proof is the reality, and the reality is that the aircraft is operating incredibly efficiently in theatre," Mr. Simmons said. "Now we're demonstrating its capability and what it can do, and it's speaking for itself."


----------



## civvy3840 (28 Mar 2005)

Sam69 said:
			
		

> Royal Navy: 37,590
> Royal Marines: 4,800
> Royal Auxilirary: 2,300 (civilian)
> Army: 111,780
> ...



I was wrong...


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (28 Mar 2005)

Well that is a start but we need larger tpt planes then the Herc.


----------



## Da_man (28 Mar 2005)

Interesting... sounds like the M1 tanks and HMMVs for a dollar deal we had a while ago


----------

