# Air Force Cuts?



## Spencer100 (9 Aug 2007)

Air Force looking of cuts to pay for C-17?

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2007/08/09/4405692-cp.html

Fair dealing and all........

Canada's Air Force considers budget cuts 

CF18s, Hercules, Aurora, Sea Kings potential targets

By MURRAY BREWSTER
    


   


OTTAWA (CP) - Canada's air force is looking at cutting the operating and maintenance budgets of some of its frontline aircraft next year in a fiscal pinch that defence insiders blame on new heavy-lift C-17 transport aircraft and the war in Afghanistan. 

Senior planners at the 1st Canadian Air Division are studying a proposed a 32-per-cent reduction in money used for fuel and spare parts for the CF-18s, the C-130 Hercules, C-140 Auroras and the Sea Kings, defence sources told The Canadian Press. 

"That's a damn significant hit," said one source, who spoke on condition of anonymity. 

"The staff in Winnipeg, the air force staff, are currently doing the staff checks to find out what the impact will be of those cuts." 

The reductions, which are being considered for the next budget year, would vary depending upon the fleet, but another defence insider said: "You're basically looking at a one-third cut in operating budget." 

An official at National Defence headquarters confirmed the study is underway, but described it as a paper exercise, meant to give commanders a better sense of what is possible. 

Jeremy Sales said no final decision has been made, and would not comment on numbers. 

"This exercise in no way foreshadows or pre-judges any decision on fleet funding and, in fact, no decision on this will be taken until the fall," he said Thursday. 

"Every year this planning is conducted for all of the aircraft fleets in order to provide operational commanders and senior management information about the potential effects of budget restraints due to evolving circumstances. The important thing to note here is that the safety of the aircraft and crew are never compromised." 

A spokeswoman for Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor emphasized the study is not finished and dismissed the notion of cuts as speculation. 

"Ultimately it's the Minister of National Defence that makes the decision and Minister O'Connor does not plan on cutting the air force budget for CF18s, Hercules, Aurora, and Sea Kings," Isabelle Bouchard said in an e-mail. 

It remains to be seen whether the former brigadier general will be around in the fall to make that decision. Speculation around the anticipated cabinet has often been built on O'Connor being moved to another portfolio. 

A few months ago, O'Connor was forced to patch up a shortfall in the navy's operating budget when it faced a similar budget woes. 

The number-crunching may go on every year, but it is the size of the proposed cut that has air force insiders worried. 

"We've been cutting back our national procurement funding for years," said an air force source. "The military is supposed to be about readiness. When you're cutting back your spares, you're cutting back your readiness, your ability to respond." 

The Hercules fleet may get away relatively unscathed because it contributes a handful of the hardy medium-sized transports to operations in Afghanistan, including dangerous supply-drop exercises at far-flung desert outposts. If cuts are to be made, the sources said, it would involve C-130s based in Canada. 

This comes at time when the overall cost of Canada's involvement in the war is rising. Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor revealed in May the estimated bill for the country's military mission is expected to top $4.3 billion by the time it is scheduled to end in February 2009 - increase of $400 million over previous forecasts. 

When it comes to the overall operating and maintenance budget, the Conservative government has pumped more money into the air force. But the fight over how that cash is divided among the various fleets will intensify with the arrival of four C-17 Globemaster heavy-lift transports over the next 12 months. 

The Boeing-built aircraft, capable of carrying 77,000 kilograms of cargo, has a wing span of 51.7 metres and a fuel capacity of 134,000 litres. The first transport will arrive in Abbotsford, B.C., on Saturday before making a cross-country trek to its new home at Canadian Forces Base Trenton, Ont. 

"This thing burns a hell of a lot of gas," said the air force source. "Well, where do you get the gas? You take it away from the other fleets because you only have so much money." 

Trimming the operating budget for the Sea Kings is not considered a deal within the air force because the aging chopper is expected to be replaced next year by the new Sikorsky-built CH-148 Cyclones. 

But the reduction of fuel and spares for the Hornets, Hercules and Auroras could impact training time and patrols. 

Purchasing the C-17s was a promise made by the Conservatives in the last election campaign and was justified by citing the need to move Canadian troops and equipment around the world to trouble spots without having to rely on allies or rented transports. 

Aside from the $3.4-billlion price tag for the heavy-lift planes, the air force has found it was been saddled with a number of other expenses - some of them of unexpected. 

New extra-large hangars will be constructed at Trenton and special-cargo handling equipment needed to be purchased. Officials also discovered they required a bigger firetruck to accommodate the 16-metre-high plane. That has led to the expansion of the fire hall because the new truck is too big.


----------



## geo (9 Aug 2007)

CC130 carrying capacity:  45000 lbs / 20 T
C17 carrying capacity:  +/- 77 T

With the addition of the C17 to our inventory, we'll be able to carry more on fewer flights..... that should save a few $$$
WRT the construction costs & aircraft acquisition cost, that'll be capitalized over umpteen years and should not be included in the argument.


----------



## aesop081 (9 Aug 2007)

Spencer100 said:
			
		

> Air Force looking of cuts to pay for C-17?



That shouldnt be a surprise to anyone in the CF......even more so in the AF, we all saw the writing on the wall



> CF-18s, the C-130 Hercules, CP-140 Auroras and the Sea Kings, defence sources told The Canadian Press.



The 140 already took its hit with a huge YFR reduction and personel reduction


----------



## Allen (9 Aug 2007)

Plus, won't the arrival of the C-17s allow the retirement of at least the same # of C-130's, if not more? Thus, you would expect to reduce O&M costs for the Herc Fleet anyway.


----------



## RetiredRoyal (10 Aug 2007)

At least a cut in fuel budget means less flying hours so the cuts on maintenance won't hurt as much as it's logical that less hours flown = less maintenance. Add the murphy factor and somebody is gonna be whispering in your ear to not toss those used o-rings out anymore...


----------



## aesop081 (10 Aug 2007)

RetiredRoyal said:
			
		

> less flying hours so the cuts on maintenance won't hurt as much as it's logical that less hours flown = less maintenance.



You would think so but.....

In my experience on both the CT-142 and the CP-140, the more they fly, the less maintenance they require.  The more they sit on the ground, the more things need work when you try to fly them again.


----------



## George Wallace (10 Aug 2007)

Funny thing that.  The more a fleet, of any kind, sits idle, the more maint is required.  The Army found that out back when they Grounded the whole MLVW fleet for a year.


----------



## cp140tech (10 Aug 2007)

The engines and  props on the Aurora are definitely happier when they're spinning and burning.  Who knows with AVS gear, that stuff is all magic, smoke, and mirrors anyhow.  ???


----------



## RetiredRoyal (10 Aug 2007)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> The more they sit on the ground, the more things need work when you try to fly them again.


Truer words have not been spoken...guess they'll budget the 'get them back into the air' money from another fiscal year.


----------



## 3rd Herd (11 Aug 2007)

Did we not also shell out for the fighter program too ? Placing tin foil hat on to protect head from death rays from Mars ;D

Edit to add:
The Usual Disclaimer:
Cuts not needed to pay for C-17s: O'Connor
Updated Sat. Aug. 11 2007 6:58 PM ET

Canadian Press

ABBOTSFORD, B.C. -- The turbulence surrounding the acquisition of Canada's newest military aircraft gave way on Saturday to clear skies for the official landing of the massive cargo plane on Canadian soil for the first time.

The first of four Boeing C-17s that will eventually be delivered to the Canadian military soared past a mountain backdrop to land at the Abbotsford, B.C. airport as the star attraction of the annual airshow.

The arrival of Canada One, as it is being called, will allow the military to abandon its need to beg, borrow or lease heavy-lift carriers from other armies or private contractors when responding to domestic or international crises.

''With this aircraft, our Canadian Forces will be able to move critical capabilities to the places they are needed at the time they are needed,'' said Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor in welcoming the plane to Canada.

O'Connor chafed at opposition criticism the planes aren't neccessary and the $3.4 billion being spent to buy and maintain them should have been used instead to purchase tactical aircraft that are desperately needed on the battlefields in Afghanistan.

''The opposition always opposes,'' O'Connor told reporters as he was dwarfed by the 16-metre high plane on the tarmac.

''If I gave out gold bars, they'd say it wouldn't be enough. This aircraft is absolutely needed by the air force.''

The four-engine planes can lift 77,500 kilograms of equipment, including battle tanks, and have room for about 100 soldiers.

The second plane is anticipated to arrive in November, and the final two should join the air force this spring.

Lt.-Gen. Angus Watt, Chief of the Air Staff, said the plane will help Canada assert its military and political sovreignty.

''This gives us two things. It gives us outsize capacity, the ability to carry really big things and independence of action,'' he said.

''We get to make the choices of where and when to carry the stuff. It is a very important step for us.''

Both Watt and O'Connor rebuffed a report earlier this week that the high-cost of the C-17s would require budget cuts for fuel supplies and maintenance for other aircraft.

''That is not true,'' O'Connor told reporters at an ad-hoc scrum before being hustled off to tour the aircraft.

''The national procurement budget is going up, not down.''

The purchase of the strategic airlift was announced last February as one of O'Connor's first moves as defence minister; their arrival may be his last with rumours widely circulating in Ottawa that he'll be shuffled out of his post by Prime Minister Stephen Harper on Monday.

New plane smell intoxicated dozens of pilots and aircraft enthusiasts at the airfield on Saturday.

Maj. Jeremy Reynolds, who flew ''Canada One,'' as it is now known, on its inaugural flight from the factory in California to Abbotsford, said it was a dream to fly.

''It's the most modern technology you can think of,'' he said. 

The Defence Department reinstated a squadron at 8 Wing/Canadian Forces Base Trenton to fly and do the at-home maintenance for the planes.

Thirty-two pilots, 24 loadmasters, 10 maintenance management staff and 96 technicians were selected.

Among the soldiers who will most feel the effects of having the new planes are members of Canada's Disaster Assistance Response Team. Loads that took 24 flights in a Hercules to deploy to the tsunami disaster zone in southeast Asia in 2004 will now take just one trip.

''It's going to be very fast and very efficient,'' said Leading Seaman Jean-Francois Grenier, who travelled with DART three years ago.

Controversy had erupted when the contract for the planes was awarded to Boeing because the deal was fast-tracked through the normal compeditive bidding process.

Small contractors also said the government's decision not to buy the rights associated with maintaining the aircraft would damage Canadian industry.

The cost of acquiring the planes has also found the military burdened by unexpected expenses.

New extra-large hangars will be constructed at Trenton and special-cargo handling equipment needed to be purchased.

Officials also discovered they required a bigger firetruck to access the high plane. That has led to the expansion of the fire hall because the new truck is too big.

The deal was part of a larger $13 billion announcement by the Conservatives to add dozens of aircraft to the military, including medium-lift C-130Js, known as Hercules, and CH-47 Chinook battlefield transport helicopters.

Boeing will also be supplying the Chinooks and Lockheed Martin will supply the Hercules.

  The military has been agitating for years for the government to start replacing and adding to Canada's military fleet, saying the current group of aircraft are rapidly aging.

The growing threat posed by improvised explosive devices planted along road supply routes has also prompted calls for Canada to switch to air-drop resupply missions, but the military lacks the equipment to do so.

Watt said though the C-17s have short-haul tactical capability, they won't be used in that capacity in Afghanistan.

The 16 new Chinooks could address that weakness, but it's now anticipated they won't be ready until 2012 due to a titanium shortage and an assembly line backlog.
Canada's official military commitment to the NATO mission in Afghanistan ends in 2009.

The C-17 spent about seven hours at the air show before beginning its maiden Canadian voyage to CFB Trenton in eastern Ontario.


----------



## C1302C17 TECH (12 Aug 2007)

Allen said:
			
		

> Plus, won't the arrival of the C-17s allow the retirement of at least the same # of C-130's, if not more? Thus, you would expect to reduce O&M costs for the Herc Fleet anyway.



The herc fleet already has a few aircraft either retired, or earmarked for retiremet.  The airframes are just running out of hours, thus why they are purchashing the C-130J to replace them.  Sure the new HERC fleet will have fewer in numbers, but the GOVT is looking at a FWSAR so the HERCS won't be used in that capacity anymore, as well the CC-150 will be coming online as AAR for the CF-18s

What the CC-177 fleet allows is less reliance on the IL-76 and AN-124 as well as taking some of the work load off of the CC-150 during her flights accross the pond, or during ROTO turnovers.


----------



## Bandit1 (13 Aug 2007)

C1302C17 TECH said:
			
		

> Sure the new HERC fleet will have fewer in numbers, but the GOVT is looking at a FWSAR so the HERCS won't be used in that capacity anymore, as well the CC-150 will be coming online as AAR for the CF-18s.



They won't be used in SAR anymore?  To me, that's a little surprising.  If we're dealing with emergencies in the North where our *new* bases are going to be, won't we need something that will be suited to the environment, something that the Hercs already are?  If I'm outta line asking, sorry.

Also, do we have a timeline on when the Polaris' will be coming online, provided it isn't breaking any OPSEC rules?


----------



## C1302C17 TECH (13 Aug 2007)

Bandit1 said:
			
		

> They won't be used in SAR anymore?  To me, that's a little surprising.  If we're dealing with emergencies in the North where our *new* bases are going to be, won't we need something that will be suited to the environment, something that the Hercs already are?  If I'm outta line asking, sorry.
> 
> Also, do we have a timeline on when the Polaris' will be coming online, provided it isn't breaking any OPSEC rules?



Well in the news and rumours the C-27 has been looked at for FWSAR - Practically a miniature J Model HERC.  I agree though the future is both hazy and bright for the airforce.  We will have to wait and see what happens in the future as it pertains with SAR.  As for the Polaris'  I don't think anything is OPSEC as per its AAR mission, but nothing heard - I guess keep your ear to the ground, and to these sites for the best information.


----------



## aesop081 (14 Aug 2007)

Bandit1 said:
			
		

> Also, do we have a timeline on when the Polaris' will be coming online, provided it isn't breaking any OPSEC rules?



Nothing about it is OPSEC, there were pictures of it going through manufacturer's trials in Gemnay in the last few issues of Air forces Monthly and Combat Aircraft.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (14 Aug 2007)

Bandit1 said:
			
		

> Also, do we have a timeline on when the Polaris' will be coming online, provided it isn't breaking any OPSEC rules?



One of them was on static display at Abbotsford ... fresh from Germany.


----------



## Bandit1 (14 Aug 2007)

I_am_John_Galt said:
			
		

> One of them was on static display at Abbotsford ... fresh from Germany.



I've seen them here at Trenton, but I haven't heard about them being operational as yet....


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (14 Aug 2007)

C1302C17 TECH said:
			
		

> Well in the news and rumours the C-27 has been looked at for FWSAR - Practically a miniature J Model HERC.  I agree though the future is both hazy and bright for the airforce.  We will have to wait and see what happens in the future as it pertains with SAR.  As for the Polaris'  I don't think anything is OPSEC as per its AAR mission, but nothing heard - I guess keep your ear to the ground, and to these sites for the best information.



I'm confused....the CC150 Polaris is the Air Bus which has been on line since the mid ninties....what are you talking about exactly?

http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/site/equip/cc150/default_e.asp


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (14 Aug 2007)

IN HOC SIGNO said:
			
		

> I'm confurse....the CC150 Polaris is the Air Bus which has been on line since the mid ninties....what are you talking about exactly?
> 
> http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/site/equip/cc150/default_e.asp



Them being converted to tankers: http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/site/newsroom/news_e.asp?id=2940


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (14 Aug 2007)

I_am_John_Galt said:
			
		

> Them being converted to tankers: http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/site/newsroom/news_e.asp?id=2940



Wow this has been a long time coming. I remember them talking about doing this in the mid-nineties. this is a good thing for the Fast Air community me thinks...there's been no coverage of this at all in the media.


----------



## geo (15 Aug 2007)

:-X Shhhh.... It's a secret!     :-X


----------



## GK .Dundas (15 Aug 2007)

geo said:
			
		

> :-X Shhhh.... It's a secret!     :-X


 No it's just not important, at least according to our media elites.Which I think speaks volumes about their ability to or perhaps their inability to cover just about anything. 
 If a media editor  has a choice between either running a story concerning yet another Jessica Simpson misadventure  and  Man's first contact with an extraterrestrial intelligence.Doe anyone here want to guess not only which story would take precedence and how long it took them to make that decision ?


----------



## Bandit1 (15 Aug 2007)

In journalism class, I'm told that news was supposed to be SIN:

Significant
Interesting
New

Base your opinions on that...


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (15 Aug 2007)

Bandit1 said:
			
		

> In journalism class, I'm told that news was supposed to be SIN:
> 
> Significant
> Interesting
> ...


  


They always report on what the police are doing and encountering....because it's easier to get that information The fact is that it's not that it's more interesting...they are lazy and the use of a scanner or hanging around police HQ is easier than actually digging for stories that are really interesting...like increasing the Air Force's abilities to deploy and sustain fast air assets.


----------



## Globesmasher (15 Aug 2007)

Bandit1 said:
			
		

> Also, do we have a timeline on when the Polaris' will be coming online, provided it isn't breaking any OPSEC rules?



Should be passing gas by the end of the year.
Trials (OT&E) are on-going.


----------



## Bandit1 (15 Aug 2007)

Globesmasher said:
			
		

> Should be passing gas by the end of the year.
> Trials (OT&E) are on-going.



Thank you Sir - appreciated.


----------



## tomahawk6 (16 Aug 2007)

If there were to be cuts, I would bet the savings could be had by personnel cuts.Cutting maintenance and the operating budget is counterproductive. Remember the CF is also buying the C-130J to replace the aging C-130 fleet. Both the C-17 and C-130J will be cheaper to operate and maintain which should allow for alot of savings.


----------



## Bandit1 (16 Aug 2007)

What about attrition?  There are always people each year who leave for whatever reason....could the number account for a certain percentage and thus the cuts wouldn't have to be as deep?


----------



## tomahawk6 (16 Aug 2007)

I agree that attrition is one way to reduce manpower costs. The trick in force reductions is to cut the fat and subpar individuals without losing the people you want to keep. Both the USAF and USN are selectively reducing their manning levels to pay for aicraft such as the F-22 and various ship building projects. The USN eliminated their signalmen for example and are reducing crew size. The reality in the US military is that only a small percentage of the overall force serve til retirement. The use of civilian contractors to fill the jobs once done by uniformed personnel is another means to the same end.


----------



## Knuckles (13 Sep 2007)

I'm guessing the recruitment of new aerospace engineers would be affected by this as well?


----------



## dapaterson (13 Sep 2007)

I think the recruiting of AERE officers continues unabated.  In fact, there are more AERE officers than airframes in the CF... an interesting conundrum.  I suspect there could be considerable savings found if that trade's PML were reviewed by an objective eye...


----------



## Knuckles (14 Sep 2007)

That's funny, thanks for the info.


----------

