# Will the C17s Make it to the Ramp?



## C1Dirty

Minority government is trailing in the polls and promises of an election in the near term from the opposition.  Will rubber make it to the ramp?  Anyone who was around during the EH101 cancellation care to comment?


----------



## SeaKingTacco

I'm not a "truckie", but I am in the Air Force.

From what I have been able to gather from some really good sources that I trust, the C-17 is a done deal.  In fact, it will likely beat the Cyclone to the flight line by well over a year (jealous...).

I'm not sure what has prompted this question.  Even if an election is forced this spring and the Conservatives lose, why would another Party cancel an aircraft that is set to arrive in only a few months?  Essentially, the money has been spent; the crew training is done; your new government now gets to reap the political rewards of sending a flashy new airplane all over Canada and the Globe doing newsworthy things, at no political cost (keeping in mind, purchasing transport aircraft is about the least politically risky thing a government can do in Canada, anyway)


----------



## rmacqueen

Normally I would agree with what you said SKT but we are talking about politicians, so common sense does necessarily come into play.  When you look at the EH101, it seemed like a done deal too until the media and the liberals suddenly made it an issue.  I don't count on new equipment I see it with a Canadian flag on it.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

While I agree that we can never actually count on an aircraft being purchased until the "rubber is on the ramp", I 'm pretty sure, no matter who forms the next government, that at least 4 C-17s will be owned and operated by the CF for the next few years.  I do not believe that the EH-101 paradigm exists, here.  The country is not running a deficit; there is actually cross-party support for increased defence spending. Heavy transports can do all sorts of handy things- not only can they fly tanks half way around the world, they can also fly aid supplies half way around the world.  There is something for every political stripe, here.


----------



## HDE

I think there's considerably more public awareness/support of the military these days so the downside to cancelling the recent equipment buys would likely have any new government concerned.  If the deals have been signed any attempt to bail would likely cost hundreds of millions in penalties, for nothing, so I'd imagine it'd be pretty hard to do these days.  The Libs have enough
scandals to atone for without anything new added.


----------



## rmacqueen

I hope you are right but, like I said, when politics is involved, logic goes out the window.  If they even smell the possibility of controversy over this I have no doubt the Liberals would run with it.  What did it cost to cancel the 101?  $700-800 million?  And the 101 was not even an issue until it looked like an election was coming.


----------



## C1Dirty

> I'm not sure what has prompted this question.



Standard election platform is to tear apart incumbent's policies.  C17's price tag makes it a big target.  



> the C-17 is a done deal.



Don't think so.  I think all that has happened so far is that the C17 has been identified as the a/c the gov intends to purchase.  I could very well be wrong, but I don't think a contract has been signed with Boeing.

I don't mean to sound like a naysayer, just that yesterday's leadership race and the latest polls got me thinking.  Hopefully SKT is right.


----------



## rmacqueen

C1Dirty said:
			
		

> Hopefully SKT is right.


+1


----------



## newfin

Had to weigh in on this one.  We are talking about the Liberal Party here.  I assume that we are making an assumption that there is a Spring election and the Liberals under Dion get into power.  this is a guy that was brought into politics by Chretien.  He is a Liberal.  He is a Qebecois.  His constitiuency is not the members of the CF and he knows that the public does not care at all about the CF (bitter medicine to swallow but true).  If he thinks he can score political points to gain extra support somewhere to cancel the deal then it will be cancelled.  There is no political reason not to?  Ask yourselves the question. "What _political_ damage could be the result of such a move?"  The Liberals looked at C-17's and decided against them.  Too much money.  The birds didn't get any cheaper so they will still be seen as too much money.  And besides what would stop them from cancelling the balance of the order?  We may end up with only one or two of them.  And then in a few years they could be sold off as an orphan fleet that is too expensive to operate.  This is all speculation but not entirely unimaginable under yet another Liberal government.  

..and besides he is probably the best person for the Conservatives to run against.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

C1dirty-
Why the particular fixation on the C-17 purchase?  Why not also include the JSS and the Chinook buy?  Or even the Cyclone- after all, it hasn't been delivered; it is worth about $4 billion and could be walked away from too, using your logic?

I am making an assumption, based on your forum name, that you have some connection to the C-130 world.  Instead of me trying answer your questions about rumours you have heard, why don't you tell us what you know.  I have a feeling that there is more to you than you have been willing to share, so far...

Am I getting warm?


----------



## peaches

I feel that if Dion gets in, bye bye C17s, C130Js, Chinooks, new ships & Gen Hillier.  Chertien commented a few years ago that "we do not need great big plane parking on airport". * They are gone!!!!!!!!   * New tanks, forget it, and I am willing to bet that when (not if) Dion pulls us out of A-Stan, he leaves the Loes there to rot....  With us outta A-Stan, he will tell Canadians we do not need these things, or any new defence spending.  Can even cut it futher, claiming that A-Stan was reason all this $$ went to military.........


----------



## Loachman

These are far closer to arriving than you would think, based upon past drawn-out purchases. People are already being trained on them in order that they can enter operational service immediately.

Should the Lieberals get in next spring, a reversal should be too late even for them unless they want to actually place ads in aviation magazines around the world for brand-new still-in-the-box aeroplanes.

There would be no political benefit for them to cancel this, as the Herc fleet will probably be smaller by a couple of airframes by that time and continuing to shrink (somewhere I have the retirement schedule but I don't think that that's intended for sharing anyway so I won't). Martin got criticized pretty heavily for the inability to deploy DART in a timely fashion following the tsunami a couple of years ago and I doubt that Dion would wish to risk a repeat.

As for the EH101 cost, it was $500M for contract cancellation penalties, and "$800M spent on the programme up to the point at which it was cancelled (the media seem to have forgotten the latter amount) for a total of $1.3B - the first of several "billion-dollar-boondoggles".


----------



## peaches

I still see Dion axing them, no doubt.  Revert back to using rented AN-24s when needed.  Axe all the new equip, divert the $$ somewhere else.  Even if they are delivered, sell them to UK, Aussie, or back to the USAF.  They will find a home.  What we fail to realize here is that libs think small.  They do not want us to have great equipment and capabilities because when folks came knocking and asking for help we would not have a ready made excuse (our military is not equipped to help you).

I HOPE I AM WRONG, I really do.  If the military does not get some new kit soon we will collapes.  Just think, we will need to replace F18`s soon, the LAV3s`with be old before we know it.  In a normal military, the project to replace the new Sea King replacment should have already started......


----------



## Allen

If the Liberals came into power, the C-17 purchase is the only big-ticket item I can realistically see them walking away from. But if the contract is signed before that, I think they would just go along with it. Spend no money to buy it, but quietly maintain the capability.

Continuing to short-term lease strategic airlifters, rather than buy, was the favoured option as stated by McCallum & Ujjal Dosanjh. So if a Liberal government cancelled a C-17 buy, they could at least say it was consistent with their policy. But the Liberals announced they would acquire JSS and a Sea King replacement in their 2004 budget. The 2005 budget funded a medium truck & medium helicopter. And Bill Graham announced the C-130 replacement just before the last election. So if they went back on any of these things, they would look more than a little foolish.

Plus, they wouldn't cancel JSS since it will be built in Canada and they want to create vote-getting jobs. Cyclone has been under contract for 2 years and is too far along to cancel. And you have to replace the C-130 & MLVW fleets since they are dying fast and everyone knows it. Delay them any longer and you soon won't be able to deploy anywhere - and everybody would know where to put the blame. Even Liberals don't want that kind of criticism - just like every other gov't, they want to show the flag at the next crisis or disaster, and get the pat on the back that goes along with it.


----------



## Allen

And also don't forget the requirement by the contractors to spend $1 in Canada for every $1 of these equipment purchases. To snatch that kind of business away from a region would give any politician pause for thought.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Ok- this is getting stupid.

Firstly- What election?

Secondly- You have a crystal ball which shows Dion and the Libs winning said still as yet mythical election, for sure, just because they now have a leader?

Thirdly- Rubber will be on the ramp in June 07.  The whole C-130 fleet house of cards is so precarious (as I understand it) that if we actually need C-17s to take enough pressure off of the C-130 guys long enough for them to recapitalize with C-130Js.  The Libs are going to wipe out Canada's airlift capability- lock, stock and barrel, not accept 4 aircraft from Boeing worth a billion bucks that will already be paid for, just to spite the Cons?  

Yeah, it could happen...  

IMHO, way too much fearmongering here today.


----------



## aesop081

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Ok- this is getting stupid.
> 
> Firstly- What election?
> 
> Secondly- You have a crystal ball which shows Dion and the Libs winning said still as yet mythical election, for sure, just because they now have a leader?
> 
> Thirdly- Rubber will be on the ramp in June 07.  The whole C-130 fleet house of cards is so precarious (as I understand it) that if we actually need C-17s to take enough pressure off of the C-130 guys long enough for them to recapitalize with C-130Js.  The Libs are going to wipe out Canada's airlift capability- lock, stock and barrel, not accept 4 aircraft from Boeing worth a billion bucks that will already be paid for, just to spite the Cons?
> 
> Yeah, it could happen...
> 
> IMHO, way too much fearmongering here today.



Right on all counts.

IMHO...the liberals, if there is to be an election.......IF, will be more concerned about taking the Conservatives to task on Kyoto, child care, gun control......then to bother with the CF.


----------



## GO!!!

cdnaviator said:
			
		

> Right on all counts.
> 
> IMHO...the liberals, if there is to be an election.......IF, will be more concerned about taking the Conservatives to task on Kyoto, child care, gun control......then to bother with the CF.



I see a "domino effect" here though. If the A'stan mission is cancelled/drawn down/re-focussed (pick your "pulling out" synonym), the Libs will without a doubt use the excuse of having no _current_ requirement for the kit as justification to cancel it's purchase.

With a minority conservative government, and the BQ, NDP and Grits all opposed to friendly relations with the US and the war in Afghanistan, I see it turning into an issue of cancelling purchases of US equipment used for Bush's wars :, than realising the utility of having them for a myriad of different uses. 

On a somewhat related issue, I remember hearing that the CF could actually turn a profit with the C-17 by using surplus time to move air freight - recouping some of the tremendous costs of the Globemaster - any truth to that?


----------



## peaches

I am a hardcore airman, but I do think if elected (the libs) before they (C17s) come he'd axe them.  Why, we are purchasing equipment based on the need to support operations oversea, not just A-Stan.  If we pulled out of A-Stan, no need for some of the newer kit would be their excuse.  Can rent AN-24s.  

As I said, I pray I am wrong, I want to be wrong here!!!  I am also thinking ahead to F18 replacment, the need for escort/attack helos, not going to happen under Dion.  But your right, no election has been called, and Dion has not won.  It is hard for me to trust libs after living through the CF of the 90's.  If it wasn't for the high caliber, dedicated people I have  worked with....... I am damm glad to be here now!!!!!!


----------



## armyvern

GO!!! said:
			
		

> I see a "domino effect" here though. If the A'stan mission is cancelled/drawn down/re-focussed (pick your "pulling out" synonym), the Libs will without a doubt use the excuse of having no _current_ requirement for the kit as justification to cancel it's purchase.



A good point. I watched M. Chretien's speech yesterday with some interest as to exactly what he would have to say on the matter. I have been unable to find a transcript on-line, but his comments went something like this:

"Mr. Steven Harper, mind if we call you Stevie like George W.?? .....The Liberal Party, we are the party of Kyoto (and a whole bunch more "we are's" were listed)..... You say that we can't break promises made by the government of Canada to others, yet you did that with Kyoto; so you now will have a hard time saying that Canadian Governement can not break promises in Afghanistan."

M. Chretien's remarks (and when I find them on-line I will post) gave the overall impression that Canada should get out of Afghanistan now, and that the mission is a Conservative venture quite seperate from the Liberals.

At the Afghanistan remark, M. Chretien received a huge and extended standing ovation, which really made me think about just how short the Liberal memory seems to be.

Hmmm, it would seem to me that M. Chretien just doesn't get it. It was the Liberals who made that committment and promises to Afghanistan, the Tories just extended that promise until 2009. The Liberals want to get elected and pull out, because "we can cancel government of Canada promises like the Conservatives did with Kyoto...." they'd be going back on their own Liberal Governments promise. How typical.


----------



## Kirkhill

It strikes me that some folks need to unwind a bit.  There are an awful lot of ifs, ands and buts in our future.  Not much sense worrying about them yet.

There is a current plan in place. It is being worked. New plans are being developed for whatever might come up.......

As to the Liberals "changing the channel".....Insh'Allah.  That's what people do when they have screwed up and want others to forget the past.  The other side gets a chance to remind folks of the past.  Then its up to the voter.  We then get to Observe the voter, Orient the information to the plan, Decide what to do then Act accordingly and Observe what happens.  Repeat ad nauseam.

If you have been with any organization for  a while you discover there are only two plans.  If plan a isn't working then the guy in charge gets fired and plan b is employed until it stops working and the guy in charge gets fired and you go back to plan a until....

Right now things aren't looking all that bad from the equipment stand point.  Just hope that stuff can end up in hangars before the next election.


----------



## karl28

I sure hope that the PC can win the next election when it is called .    The thought  of the CF not gettings this badly needed equipment  is just a bit on the scary side .


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Dion and his weasel Rock will be to busy banning firearms to go after this.


----------



## ringo

Vote Conservative the Liberals or NDP will screw the CAF's if given the chance.


----------



## a_majoor

ringo said:
			
		

> Vote Conservative the Liberals or NDP will screw the CAF's if given the chance.



If you live in a "safe" Liberal or NDP riding, start campaigning for the Greens and really throw them for a loop!


----------



## C1Dirty

> Why the particular fixation on the C-17 purchase?  Why not also include the JSS and the Chinook buy?



First of all, didn't intend to iritate, just thinking out loud so to speak.  From what I remember, the decision to acquire C17's was driven by the MND and was above and beyond CF expectation.  I think they represent a whole new capability, whereas the other airframes may fall under the category of necessity.  In all likelihood we'll see them with Canadian roundels sometime next year, which is a thousand times better than not expecting them at all.


----------



## Sub_Guy

"F" Kyoto - Seriously if I hear one more news story about how bad Canada is doing at meeting its commitments........  We can do all we want here in Canada, but that isn't going to stop the CRAP coming up from the OHIO VALLEY....... 

The C17's will make it, that is unless they come up with a solar powered aircraft to move our stuff around!!  BLIMPS!


----------



## SeaKingTacco

C1Dirty-

I wasn't getting irritated, particularly.  I was just curious why a C-17 question popped up out of nowhere.

Cheers!


----------



## ringo

Hopefully Canada will ordered a couple more C-17's before the line closes.
I find it hard to believe the USAF won't wake up and ordered more C-17's, there using flight hours up like crazy.


----------



## STONEY

Points to keep in mind.

1. Latest poll out yesterday shows if election were held today Liberals would win a majority gov.

2. Almost all of the new kit in pipeline with the exception of the C-17 was already planned for by the Liberal gov the Conseravatives
    only held dog and pony shows to make the announcements and claim the credit.

3. It was probably Gen. Hilliers new broom at DND (appointed by the Liberal Gov. Defence Minister)  who first started telling our political
   masters what exactly we needed and got things in motion and even he wasn't particularly enamoured  of the C-17 but went along with 
   the Air Forces dream.
4. Until recent times the Forces used to vote seperately in Federal elections and there votes were tallied seperately and added after the 
    rest of the country's results were in .  So if there were any really close rideings the Liberals would always heave a sigh of relief because
    Historically at that time the military vote was overwelmingly always Liberal.  It would seem times have changed.

Toodles.


----------



## ringo

IIRC the Liberals had a C-130 purchase in works, I do not recall the Liberals planning to buy C-17's.


----------



## mjohnston39

> IIRC the Liberals had a C-130 purchase in works, I do not recall the Liberals planning to buy C-17's.



The Liberals had planned (under Martin mind you) for JSS, C130 replacement, SAR replacement, medium lift helos, MGS, medium trucks and MMEV. 

http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/reports/dps/pdf/dps_e.pdf (see pg 20/21)

But, I wouldn't be surprised to see "Kyoto or aircraft-carriers" in the next election...

Mike.


----------



## Loachman

STONEY said:
			
		

> 2. Almost all of the new kit in pipeline with the exception of the C-17 was already planned for by the Liberal gov the Conseravatives
> only held dog and pony shows to make the announcements and claim the credit.



Except that it will actually appear because of a Conservative government, whereas the Lieberals would have kept putting it off indefinitely while continuing to announce their "plan" to acquire it. In every budget, all of the major expenses occurred at the end of the five-year period.



> 4. Historically at that time the military vote was overwelmingly always Liberal.  It would seem times have changed.



You must hang out with a much different crowd than me to give this skewed view.


----------



## SnakeTech

Here's my 2 cents. From my sources, C17's are a done deal. Tech training in the states starting in January, most Techs coming off the Hurc's in Trenton for the initial training but they are looking for Techs with Hurc, Buff or Dash 8 experience. First aircraft is to arrive in march with first aircraft operational by July. Aircraft to be based out of Trenton.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

SnakeTech said:
			
		

> Here's my 2 cents. From my sources, C17's are a done deal. Tech training in the states starting in January, most Techs coming off the Hurc's in Trenton for the initial training but they are looking for Techs with Hurc, Buff or Dash 8 experience. First aircraft is to arrive in march with first aircraft operational by July. Aircraft to be based out of Trenton.



That's a hell of a high-quality 3rd post!


Matthew.


----------



## acheo

Stop-Work Order for C-17 Aircraft Supply Items: http://feinstein.senate.gov/06releases/r-boeing818.htm

http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2006/q3/060818e_nr.html

Unless the situation has changed since August I doubt our C17 will make it before the Sikorski's.... if they ever make it....


----------



## George Wallace

acheo said:
			
		

> Stop-Work Order for C-17 Aircraft Supply Items: http://feinstein.senate.gov/06releases/r-boeing818.htm
> 
> http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2006/q3/060818e_nr.html
> 
> Unless the situation has changed since August I doubt our C17 will make it before the Sikorski's.... if they ever make it....



Perhaps you ought to read this dated article a little more closely.



> ....re-evaluating the financial impact should the U.S. government not order.......


----------



## MarkOttawa

But how will we get to Darfur?  

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Globesmasher

Howdy folks.

Thought I would jump in on this discussion as a first/inaugural post.  And, I'm a trash hauler, and I have been involved (a lot) on this project.

The C-17 program, or ACP-S, is about half way through negotiations and deals.

Yes, training is underway.  We have aircrew (pilots and loadmasters) currently training since August 2006 down at Altus AFB, and we have maintainers also conducting their initial cadre training.  The training LOA is something entirely different from the purchase LOA.  The training has been signed for, bought and pretty much paid for - and it costs quite a lot of money as well.

As far as the actual aircraft go - nothing has been signed as of today, either in terms of an LOA or a contract.  Things had proceeded extremely well up until the first week of December 2006.  Things were going very well indeed until Industry Canada decided that it didn't want to "play well with others".  Initially, the LOA was due to be signed on 1 Dec 06.  That didn't happen.

The contract is hung up on the Industrial Regional Benefits (IRB) clause ... and the whole issue now sits at a very high Ministerial level .. well beyond the DND and CF folks.

The aircraft delivery schedule was going to be tail P-174 in June 2007, P-180 in Oct 2007 and then the 3rd and 4th aircraft in March and April of 2008 respectively.

The contract signing delay may see all that pushed back towards the right by about another 4 or 5 months now due to the contract delays.

The project was slated for just over $3 billion ... and a large chunk has already been spent on training the initial cadres.  The remainder has yet to be spent ... no contract has been signed.  Out of interest, about $1.2 billion is how much the 4 tails will cost.  The rest of the cash goes towards all the other stuff associated with the project.

So - that being said - there is all kinds of speculation about spring elections and stuff ...... I'll steer clear of that - but this is where the project currently sits.

All our major capital expenditure projects are only one election away from cancellation, closure and failure.  That's life I guess - or is it just politics?


----------



## Globesmasher

Dec 15, 2006

This was the contract deadline.  It passed and no contract was signed.
The issue still lies at a political level and on political issues - the IRBs.

We're hoping for a Feb 07 signing.  The price will now go up, of course, since the original deal was based on an economy, an exchange rate and a price tag from Jan 2006.  We'll now have to re-submit for a Feb 2007 price tag.

The first scheduled tail, P-174 has now officially been lost to us.  The first one we can hope to get, if the contract gets signed in Feb 07, will be tail P-180 in October 2007.

It's all up to the politicians now - the Privy Counsel, the PM and the Ministers.

It's out of our hands.


----------



## C1Dirty

Globesmasher

Just curious as to whether or not the UK's plans will push our initial delivery further to the right (assuming a Feb signing) or did tail P-180 already take that into account?


----------



## geo

Considering that the Liberals & Mr Graham were working on the C17, the Chinooks and the 130Js before the Conservatives came to power, it doesn't make any sense that these same projects would go down the tubes on the next political go-round.

New MBTs are not on the table right now - not even worth discussing at this time.


----------



## C1Dirty

> Considering that the Liberals & Mr Graham were working on the C17



J's, Chinooks and FWSAR yes, but favoured leasing our strat lift based on fiscal restraints as I remember it.

In any event, hopefully things don't  get pushed back any further.


----------



## rmacqueen

geo said:
			
		

> Considering that the Liberals & Mr Graham were working on the C17, the Chinooks and the 130Js before the Conservatives came to power, it doesn't make any sense that these same projects would go down the tubes on the next political go-round.


Might not make sense but you can be guaranteed that if they believe than can make political points they would kill it in a second.


----------



## geo

yeah.... something like the Conservatives with Kyoto


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

geo said:
			
		

> yeah.... something like the Conservatives with Kyoto



Apples and Oranges....

The Conservative Party has been against the Kyoto Accord for years based on legitimate reasoning that they've presented ad nauseum.

The Liberal Party cancelling the C-17's would be based on scoring cheap points from ignorant left-leaning citizens and not based on legitimate reasoning of any sort.  


Matthew.


----------



## GO!!!

What we need to do in the CF is sell this stuff to the public properly via the PAffOs.

"the C17 will no longer be referred to as 'strategic lift', instead being permanently known as an HAT(A) - Humanitarian Aid Transport (Air) you will notice the paratroopers jumping out of the brand new HAT(A) - their heavy rucksacks laden with ...... aid!"


----------



## gaspasser

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> Apples and Oranges....
> 
> The Conservative Party has been against the Kyoto Accord for years based on legitimate reasoning that they've presented ad nauseum.
> 
> The Liberal Party cancelling the C-17's would be based on scoring cheap points from ignorant left-leaning citizens and not based on legitimate reasoning of any sort.
> 
> Matthew.



The EH101 was cancelled for same silly political claptrap reasons.  Maybe more _misplaced persons _ would be alive today if we had the Cormorant or EH101 or equivelant (and Aircrew / SAR Techs) back then.  







RIP 113315


----------



## Globesmasher

C1Dirty said:
			
		

> Just curious as to whether or not the UK's plans will push our initial delivery further to the right (assuming a Feb signing) or did tail P-180 already take that into account?



Nope.

Even after initial contract talks with Boeing and the US Govt back in Jan 2006, our aircraft (based on a June 07 delivery) slotted in well with the overall plan for the USA, UK and Australia.  This also included the proposed "NATO buy" as well - which only existed at that time as an etherial thought.  Strangely enough, our 4 aircraft actually bumped the USAF delivery plans back a little bit - we cut in front of some of the Dover, McGuire and Travis aircraft .... however we were bumped off the Northrup-Gruman LAIRCM "Nemesis" line - the USAF would not let us cut to the front on that one - but no big deal.

Let's all hope now for a Jan- Feb 2007 signing so that we can take delivery of our first tail in Oct 2007 (tail P-180) and get on with the job.

Here's hoping ......


----------



## Globesmasher

geo said:
			
		

> Considering that the Liberals & Mr Graham were working on the C17, the Chinooks and the 130Js before the Conservatives came to power, .....



Definitely NOT.

The Liberal Govt, under the former PM Paul Martin, only approved $4.6 billion funding from the Treasury Board for 17 tails of the C-130J.  This did not occur until Nov 2005 when a CF team was very quickly thrown together (to make up and ad-hoc DAR/PMO team) at short notice and told to _"... go buy 17 x J models .... NOW"._

The federal election results in Jan 2006 changed all that ............ the $4.6 billion was diverted to the ACP-T project which aimed at the Herc replacement and continued to focus on the 17 x C-130 J models from Lockheed ... and then ACP-S was stood up in Jan 06 and given $3 billion to begin looking at 4 tails of the Boeing C-17.

The C-17 was NEVER on the Liberal shopping list.  Probably safe to say that it still isn't.  The Lockheed C-130 J was in the works prior to the 2006 election and I am sure that ACP-T will remain safe in Liberal hands  :-\  .... but not the C-17 project.

I can't speak for the Chinook program - I know nothing about it.


----------



## Allen

The Liberal gov't didn't select the Chinook explicitly, but the requirement for the "medium-to-heavy lift helicopter" mentioned in the 2005 DPS and subsequent budget was supposedly crafted with the Chinnok in mind.


----------



## geo

globemashed....
Might have gotten it wrong.  Believe that MND Graham was pushing for the C17s.  Might not have been a budget item but something the MND agreed with CDS was something we required.


----------



## Globesmasher

geo said:
			
		

> Believe that MND Graham was pushing for the C17s.  Might not have been a budget item but something the MND agreed with CDS was something we required.



Nope.

Trust me on this one.  I was "summoned" to Ottawa one cold and grey, rainy day to stand tall in my "Sunday best" and address various Defence and Commons committees and "present" the C-17.  Someone else presented the C-130 J model.. Each of us was presenting based on our exchange experiences on the two aircraft.

Everybody agreed ..... towards the end of Nov 05 .... that the J model was the way to go and money was made immediately and readily available.  The C-17 and "strat lift" was dismissed by both the Minister, Deputy Minister and several Generals, both blue and green.

The C-17 did not gain foothold or traction until the election when it was pushed by the new Conservative Govt - and it was basically "thrust upon us" whether we liked it or not.  However, none of us were going to look a gift horse in the mouth ...... money was still going towards the Herc replacement and now we suddenly had funding for another capital project.

This is first hand info .... I have been way too involved in these two projects since summer/late fall 2005.  From McCallum through to Graham .... none of them and no Liberal wanted the C-17.  This project has been a real shock to one and all ..... A spring election will put this project on very thin ice.


----------



## MarkOttawa

MoD pins hopes on Boeing C17 amid Airbus doubts
_The Times_, Dec. 28
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,5-2520962,00.html



> The Ministry of Defence is facing a new procurement crisis as it tries to boost the strength of its heavy transport aircraft.
> 
> As fears grow that the delivery schedule for Airbus’s rival transport aircraft will slip further, The Times has learnt that the MoD is planning to buy three Boeing C17 Globemaster IIIs for about $660 million (£337 million). But its plans are threatened by the potential closure of the C17 production line in the United States...
> 
> ...Airbus was supposed to start to deliver the A400M this year, but the date slipped to 2008. Several analysts believe that 2009 or 2010 may be more likely. Airbus, which has been dogged by a two-year delay to its civil A380 project, denied that there would be further delays.



But note:

Boeing snags $2 billion contract for C-17s
_Seattle Times_, Dec. 19
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2003484254_bizbriefs19.html



> Boeing won a U.S. Air Force contract valued at as much as $2 billion to produce more C-17 transport aircraft.
> 
> The award will fund the purchase of 10 aircraft, the U.S. Defense Department said Monday.
> 
> The purchase adds to the 180 C-17 aircraft bought by the Air Force and extends production through October 2009, the Pentagon's statement said.
> 
> Boeing lobbied to sell as many as 40 more C-17s and had said its Long Beach, Calif., assembly plant might close after 2008 without additional orders.



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## GAP

Opposition MPs to examine aircraft selection process
DANIEL LEBLANC 
Article Link

OTTAWA -- Opposition parties will start probing $14-billion in "de facto sole-sourced" military contracts next month, arguing the interests of taxpayers are at risk as the Canadian Forces acquire new planes and helicopters with minimal competitions.

The defence committee of the House of Commons will start its examination in February, after it finishes a study into the current mission in Afghanistan. As part of that investigation, MPs are set to travel to the Canadian base in Kandahar.

Sources said the MPs are ready to leave in the near future, but they have been jokingly warned that they "will be shot" if they reveal details of their travel plans, because of security concerns.

The committee's decision to investigate procurement issues was prompted by Ottawa's decision to buy $11-billion worth of aircraft last year. In each of the cases then, only the winning bids were considered as they were the only products that met the specifications of the Canadian Forces.
More on link


----------



## Babbling Brooks

_HAT(A) - Humanitarian Aid Transport (Air)_

Loving that line.  I wonder if we could get away with rearranging it a bit, though: Aircraft - Humanitarian Aid Transport so the acronym would be A-HAT.  Just for those who believe the new spun title, of course.  

I'm with the skeptics here: it ain't done until it's done.  A press-conference isn't an aircraft on the ramp.  I sell stuff for a living these days, and I don't count the sale complete until I have money in my hands, and have successfully delivered the product to the customer.  Given the fact that the CF was able to cobble together rented strat-lift and overusing tac-lift for so many years to get the job done (no criticism of the CF there, just of the political masters who refused to buy them better tools), I think the C-17 purchase would be a very convenient one to axe if a new government was looking for money to spend elsewhere.  Especially since it seems to be considered a fourth priority among DND planners (after BHH, tac-lift, and FWSAR).


----------



## civmick

If the industrial benefits aren't agreed, is there provision for a new govt to pull the deal as incomplete, or do a deal with the UK and/or NATO for them to take the slot positions?


----------



## Badanai

I don't know how this threat is going but Here at CFB Trenton everything is going ahead for the arrival of the C-17's the original date was in march it is now moved to June. They is a lot of building construction set to start this year. Projects and proposal have already gone through the fire department for project review. CFB Trenton will be a different looking base than it is now that's for sure.


----------



## Globesmasher

civmick said:
			
		

> .... is there provision for a new govt to pull the deal as incomplete, or do a deal with the UK and/or NATO for them to take the slot positions?



Nope - not really required.  Due to the demands for the aircraft Boeing is not overly concerned whether or not we actually go ahead and buy the 4 tails we are hoping for ..... if the Govt cancels the deal with Boeing, then the other customers simply slide forward by 4 slots ..


----------



## Globesmasher

Cutter2001ca said:
			
		

> They is a lot of building construction set to start this year. Projects and proposal have already gone through the fire department for project review. CFB Trenton will be a different looking base than it is now that's for sure.



Yes, Trenton was appointed as the MOB for the C-17 in a CANAIRGEN back late last year, and the Site Activation Visit took place in late Nov 2006.  8 Wing did very well in general terms.  That being said there are some huge infrastructure modifications and improvements required in order for the Wing to be ready for the C-17, and then the C-130 J .... and then later on the FWSAR platform when it finally arrives.

Concrete should start being poured this Spring to get ready for a summer time delivery of the first C-17.

Huge changes to the firehall will also have to be made (it was a "stopping" issue).  The current fire trucks are too small for the C-17 category of aircraft, and the new trucks won't fit into the current firehall .... huge changes coming and you're absolutely right Cutter .... if the infrastructure overhaul plans go according to what the CF wants ... people won't recognize Trenton in about 5 or 10 years.


----------



## aesop081

Trenton has been a workhorse base for the CF....its nice to see some investment placed into it.


----------



## Badanai

There is a lot of plans for new buildings New Tower, New fire hall ( ground breaking around sept 2010) when Heavy euipment building and new EME building. just to name a few. The amount of money thats going to be poured into Trenton is going to be insane...


----------



## Globesmasher

C1Dirty said:
			
		

> Minority government is trailing in the polls and promises of an election in the near term from the opposition.  Will rubber make it to the ramp?



Latest polls show that we may not be facing a spring election ... despite the recent fears .. it appears to be bad timing for all parties concerned.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070116/sc_poll_070116/20070116?hub=TopStories

Hopefully we can get the final contracts signed in Jan/Feb as currently planned before this fear becomes a reality.


----------



## Astrodog

Globesmasher said:
			
		

> Hopefully we can get the final contracts signed in Jan/Feb as currently planned before this fear becomes a reality.



+1
That article brightened my day a bit!  ;D


----------



## Globesmasher

Astrodog said:
			
		

> That article brightened my day a bit!  ;D



Astrodog:
Glad to hear that cheered things up .... but as 20 Jan rolled by here is the bad news ... and where the projects currently sits at ...
Sorry to ruin your good mood.

 :'(

Quebec quarrel delays aircraft delivery, Boeing pressed to spend in province 

19 Jan 07
----------------------------------------------------------------

DANIEL LEBLANC, OTTAWA 

The delivery of Canada's first military cargo aircraft faces delays while Boeing is embroiled in a backroom battle with Public Works Minister Michael Fortier over Quebec's share of economic benefits flowing from the $3.4-billion purchase. 

The negotiations, which were scheduled to close last month, are running into overtime and jeopardizing the plan to deliver the first of four C-17 aircraft to the Canadian Forces in June. 

To obtain the contract, U.S.-based Boeing Co. has to pledge to buy supplies and services worth the exact value of the purchase in Canada. This package of regional benefits can be spent directly to build or maintain the Boeing C-17s, or any other current and future Boeing aircraft. 

With billions at stake, Boeing is facing political pressure to invest heavily in Quebec, where 55 per cent to 60 per cent of Canada's aerospace industry is located. 

But the company plans to spend only 30 per cent of the economic benefits in the politically sensitive province, while directing the rest to other provinces, industry and government sources said. 

One of the issues facing the company is that it has a number of competitors in Quebec, such as Bombardier Inc., and Boeing prefers to invest most of its money elsewhere. 

A number of Quebec businesses and politicians -- including Mr. Fortier -- are fighting to boost the province's share of the regional benefits. 

He hasn't publicly set out a target for Quebec's share of these economic benefits, but he is staunchly defending the industry that is mainly located in the Montreal area. Mr. Fortier, an unelected senator, will be running in Vaudreuil-Soulanges, just west of Montreal, in the next election. As Public Works Minister, he has the final responsibility for signing the contract. 

"Mr. Fortier wants the maximum for Quebec. He is the political minister responsible for the Montreal region," a federal official said. 

He is working alongside Industry Minister Maxime Bernier, responsible for regional benefits. Mr. Bernier, who represents Beauce riding in south-central Quebec, is more laissez-faire in his attitude to the distribution of benefits. 

Sources characterized it as Mr. Bernier acting as good cop to Mr. Fortier's bad cop in negotiations. 

"Mr. Fortier is acting as the minister for Quebec, while Mr. Bernier is acting as the minister for Canada," an industry official said, who added that Mr. Fortier's goals are "unrealistic." The most recent round of negotiations between government and Boeing officials occurred last week in California, where the C-17 is built. 

Boeing has warned that it can guarantee its current price only until the end of this month, saying the cost could go up after that. 

Sources said Mr. Fortier shot back by saying the government doesn't have to sign the deal if Boeing refuses to budge. 

Sue Dabrowski, general manager of the Quebec Aerospace Association, said her members have high expectations in terms of regional benefits. 

"In Quebec, we have 60 per cent of the market. We want 60 per cent of the economic benefits," she said. 

The Bloc Quebecois is also arguing that most of the money should flow into Quebec, stating that if this were an automobile purchase, the money would end up in Ontario. 

Under the current proposal, Ontario would get about one-third of the benefits, while the western provinces would share 20 per cent. The eastern provinces stand to get slightly less than 10 per cent, with the remaining portion still to be allocated. 

Ron Kane, vice-president of the Aerospace Industries Association of Canada, said the industrial-benefit package will likely fall short of fulfilling the expectations in Quebec. 

"Regional balance is always an issue," he said. "Quebec is a significant portion -- about 56 or 57 per cent -- of Canada's industry. But that in itself is not the guideline in terms of what that regional allocation or distribution of benefits should look like." Mr. Kane confirmed that not all of the players in the Quebec aerospace industry can expect to receive major contracts in that context. 

"There may be companies in Quebec that are natural fits. There may be companies in Quebec that are not natural fits, particularly where there could be a competitive situation," he said. 

The lobbying over regional benefits will not end with the C-17 negotiations. The government is planning to purchase $4.7-billion in Chinook helicopters from Boeing and $5-billion in Hercules C130J aircraft from Lockheed-Martin this year. 

In these two cases as well, the companies will have to plow the exact amount of the sale in direct and indirect benefits into the Canadian economy. 

Boeing refused to comment on the continuing C-17 negotiations.


----------



## rmacqueen

Globesmasher said:
			
		

> The Bloc Quebecois is also arguing that most of the money should flow into Quebec, stating that if this were an automobile purchase, the money would end up in Ontario.


Was it not Bombardier in _Quebec_ that built the Iltis and MLVW?


----------



## George Wallace

This pisses me off.  If this twit wants to delay the contract, so that Quebec gets a major share of the deal, and in the end the guaranteed purchase price is no longer valid and the price goes up, then Quebec should pay the difference.  It is time we got RESPONSIBLE Government.  Which brings up a good question, how is it that Mr. Fortier, as an unelected Senator, is also Public Works Minister, and why can he have the power to hold up a major equipment purchase?  If necessary, it is time to SUE Mr. Fortier, the unelected Senator from Quebec, for the costs of the delays.


----------



## GAP

I was just wondering the same thing. This partisan bull needs to stop.


----------



## geo

Heeeey,
Mr Fortier was appointed by Mr Harper.
Elected or not, Mr Fortier represents the Conservative values of Mr Harper - I guess......


----------



## Kirkhill

> "In Quebec, we have 60 per cent of the market. We want 60 per cent of the economic benefits," she said.



I guess she has a different definition of market than I do.  In my markets the people with the money own the market and the suppliers are trying to relieve them of the money by supplying goods and services they need/want.  If I have 60 per cent of the market then 60 per cent of all sales to that market are supplied by me.  If the market isn't buying my product then I have 0 per cent of the market.

The CF isn't buying what the Quebec companies are offering.  They have 0 per cent of the market.

Now Boeing might need to buy some of what Quebec companies make, but that is an entirely different matter.

As to Fortier - it has all been said.

One more "bright" note, according to my understanding of a French language report - the "Hammer" held by PWGSC is that if Boeing won't sell at the price at which PWGSC wants to buy then PWGSC will be forced to lease them.

I am not sure how strong a negotiating position that is.


----------



## George Wallace

Well of course she could be right.



> Sue Dabrowski, general manager of the Quebec Aerospace Association, said her members have high expectations in terms of regional benefits.
> 
> "In Quebec, we have 60 per cent of the market. We want 60 per cent of the economic benefits," she said.



As the Government falsely propped up Bombardier in the Aerospace Industry, we saw them buy out De Havilland and put the Dash Series and Turbo Prop development in the Trash, as well as the disappearance of A.V. Roe and other non-Quebec Aviation Companies, Quebec may just have that market share.

Our fine Aviation history is going down the tubes, every day the Government gives Bombardier money.  What have we got back in return?  Definitely nothing on any of the Loans they have received.  The death of many of our manufacturing plants outside of Quebec.  Crap in the way of Trucks, Rail Cars, and Aircraft......Seadoo and Skidoo are about it for their success.  

Good money after Bad.   :


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO

I don't think we'll see an election until the Fall at the earliest but then anything can happen...so hopefully this will be a done deal by then.
I was one who thought the EH101 would never be cancelled no matter how much rhetoric Jean the Cretin was throwing around. A lot of people in the PMO at the time said the same...never happen too expensive to cancel etc....guess what?? Never say never. :rage:


----------



## Globesmasher

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> ...... then PWGSC will be forced to lease them.



That would not be a good thing for us.

The RAF have learned a lot of lessons from the lease of their 4 aircraft.  The lease cost them more than an outright purchase did and came with way too many restrictions form Boeing.  However, that being said, they had only planned to lease the C-17 on an interim basis until the Airbus A400M came on line (which was planned to be in the 2008 timeframe).  Now that the A400M is delayed even more and after the success the C-17 has brought to the RAF, they plan to buy their 4 tails after the lease expires and add 1 or 2 more tails (outright purchase) to their Brize Norton fleet.

A "lease" for us would be better than nothing ... but not the desireable end-state.

I sure hope it doesn't come to that.  :-\


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

All I have to say is that if Harper has actually authorized this nonsense, I've immediately lost a lot of respect for the man.

I voted for him and support him because I believed he was a man of principle (as an example I was deadset against the GST cut, and would've preferred a conserted debt repayment program with some minor income tax cuts such as the "working income deduction").  

This sadly shows just the opposite and is pandering of the worst possible kind.

In short, "Steve, grow a pair and tell Quebec to pound salt...."

[Rant off]


Matthew.


----------



## George Wallace

Feel free to rant Matthew.  We all feel pretty much the same way.  None of us Taxpayers likes to see Government waste our Tax Dollars.  

It may be time for this Government to look into revamping the Procurement Processes that we currently have, and perhaps do away with some of the bureaucrats who act as 'middlemen' in the process.  Too many chefs in the kitchen.


----------



## Kirkhill

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Feel free to rant Matthew.



Amen


----------



## rmacqueen

Of course, it may all be showboating for the Quebec audience and a deal will be struck at the last minute after they "tried" to get more for Quebec.  Then it will be mean ol' boeings fault


----------



## Globesmasher

rmacqueen said:
			
		

> Of course, it may all be showboating for the Quebec audience ....



I sure hope this is the case.  It is disconcerting to have major National Interests held hostage by myopic, petty, regional concerns.


----------



## geo

Given the number of contracts in the works, there is no need to stand on formalities for the one contract.

Given the Conservative's penchant for unilateral action when things become stagnant, I doubt we'll dawdle too long.


----------



## JackD

So Bombardier is demanding a cut - but why didn't they agree long ago to do subcontract work for Boeing?  In a so-called capitalistic country isn't it the place of the company's sales reps to hustle out to find the work, and isn't the place of a federal government to benefit the nation as a whole? I guess Canadian politics will never change...


----------



## Globesmasher

And now everyone is jumping in on the issue of regional benefits .......
MacKay joins call for Boeing to spread benefits 
DANIEL LEBLANC 

>From Tuesday's Globe and Mail 

OTTAWA - Foreign Minister Peter MacKay has joined the intense lobbying to persuade Boeing Co. to spread out the economic benefits 
flowing from the military's planned $3.4-billion purchase of C-17 cargo aircraft. 

Industry and government sources said U.S.-based Boeing wants to direct about 30 per cent of the benefits to Ontario and 20 per cent to the 
West. Less than 10 per cent has been allocated to the Atlantic provinces so far. While some benefits have yet to be allocated, Quebec would likely be 
left with 30 per cent. 

Quebec politicians, including Public Works Minister Michael Fortier, have complained that Quebec's share is way too small, given the province's 55- to 60-per-cent share of Canada's aerospace industry. 

Last night, Radio-Canada reported that *Mr. Fortier wants Quebec to have more than 40 per cent of the benefits and that he has recently blocked the purchase of the four planes because Boeing refused to oblige.* To obtain the C-17 contract, Boeing has to pledge to buy supplies and services worth the exact value of the purchase in Canada. This package of regional benefits can be spent to build or maintain the Boeing C-17s, or any other current and future Boeing aircraft. 

Mr. MacKay, a Nova Scotia MP who is also the minister responsible for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, is pushing to increase the benefits directed to the Atlantic provinces. "It's not only Quebec ministers who are worried, it's also in the Atlantic," a senior federal official said. "Boeing has done very little in the Atlantic." An industry source added, "Mr. MacKay is doing just as much lobbying to ensure that Atlantic Canada get a fair chunk of the industry regional benefits." 

The industry source said it's unclear whether Atlantic Canada has the capacity to take in a large portion of the work. The federal government largely lost the power to steer contract work to specific parts of the country in 1994 when it signed the Agreement on Internal Trade with the provinces. *But Ottawa invoked a national security exemption in the C-17 purchase, which effectively removes the contract from the agreement's reach.* 

Mr. Fortier, who is also the political minister for Montreal, has warned he will not sign the contract if Quebec does not obtain the largest share of the benefits. Quebec's Economic Development Minister, Raymond Bachand, said the Canadian economy as a whole would benefit if his province obtained the 
lion's share of the benefits. 

"From a Canadian standpoint, the international economic battles are waged around industrial clusters. "That's how we can win. In the aerospace industry, it happens to be in Quebec," Mr. Bachand said in an interview. "If this were in the automotive sector, the industrial cluster would be 
in Ontario." Mr. Bachand urged the federal government to refuse a deal that does not acknowledge Quebec's share of the aerospace industry, saying the 
current proposal from Boeing is "unacceptable." 

Mr. Fortier is seen as the lead advocate for Quebec industries, although the regional-benefits file is technically in the hands of Industry Minister Maxime Bernier. If Mr. Bernier and Mr. Fortier cannot come to an agreement, Prime Minister Stephen Harper could be forced to choose between helping the 
Quebec industry and delaying the deal, or obtaining the aircraft from Boeing as quickly as possible. The matter is set to be discussed by a cabinet committee tomorrow afternoon. 

Boeing has told the government that it can guarantee its price only until the end of the month.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

I think this guy should be replaced....


----------



## geo

I think it's just about time for Mr Harper to put on his pants and wade out on this topic.


----------



## Long in the tooth

Actually, the minister from Montreal has stated that Quebec should get 60% of the spin offs since that province has 60% of the country's aerospace industry.

Never mind that it got that when Winnipeg got boned for the CF 18 project.  But hey, Go Jets, Go!


----------



## geo

(WOG - that's how they got to the 60% level)

PM - check please!


----------



## GAP

In addition to Manitoba's Prov. government raising concerns about this deal after being shafted on the F-18 deal, there's this from Andrew Coyne (who is not the concervatives favourite reporter)


Senator Porkier  
Article Link

I give up.[/url]
The delivery of Canada's first military cargo aircraft faces delays while Boeing is embroiled in a backroom battle with Public Works Minister Michael Fortier over Quebec's share of economic benefits flowing from the $3.4-billion purchase.

The negotiations, which were scheduled to close last month, are running into overtime and jeopardizing the plan to deliver the first of four C-17 aircraft to the Canadian Forces in June.

To obtain the contract, U.S.-based Boeing Co. has to pledge to buy supplies and services worth the exact value of the purchase in Canada. This package of regional benefits can be spent directly to build or maintain the Boeing C-17s, or any other current and future Boeing aircraft.

With billions at stake, Boeing is facing political pressure to invest heavily in Quebec, where 55 per cent to 60 per cent of Canada's aerospace industry is located.

But the company plans to spend only 30 per cent of the economic benefits in the politically sensitive province, while directing the rest to other provinces, industry and government sources said...

A number of Quebec businesses and politicians -- including Mr. Fortier -- are fighting to boost the province's share of the regional benefits.

He hasn't publicly set out a target for Quebec's share of these economic benefits, but he is staunchly defending the industry that is mainly located in the Montreal area. Mr. Fortier, an unelected senator, will be running in Vaudreuil-Soulanges, just west of Montreal, in the next election. As Public Works Minister, he has the final responsibility for signing the contract.
In the twenty-odd years since the CF-18 debacle, Conservatives have apparently learned nothing: about economics, about political morality, about playing fire with regional jealousies.
More on link


----------



## MarkOttawa

A post at _The Torch_ by Paul Synnott:

They just don't get it
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2007/01/they-just-dont-get-it.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Globesmasher

A few more political inputs in today's Globe and Mail
24 Jan 2007

Doer urges Harper not to let ‘pork-barrel politics' hijack Boeing contract
Canadian Press

WINNIPEG — Manitoba Premier Gary Doer is urging Prime Minister Stephen Harper not to let “pork-barrel politics” hijack a contract to build new military cargo planes.

Mr. Doer said Wednesday he's surprised and frustrated by a report published this week that says federal Public Works Minister Michel Fortier won't sign the contracts unless Quebec gets most of the benefits.

Mr. Doer says the situation seems like an unpleasant flashback to 1986, when the federal Conservative government chose a Quebec firm over a Manitoba company to maintain CF-18 fighter jets.

Canadair Ltd. of Montreal beat out Bristol Aerospace Ltd of Winnipeg even though Bristol's bid was lower and judged technically superior by a panel of civil servants.

Mr. Doer said the decision on where to build the new C-17s should be based only on who puts forward the best proposal.

“I actually believe Stephen Harper is not going to let the situation deteriorate to where pork-barrel politics takes over from defence-contract merit,” said Mr. Doer.

“It's good for Manitoba, it's good for Boeing and Quebec knows it can compete on the basis of merit.”

The new C-17s are supposed to be delivered by June 2008 but The Globe and Mail reported last week the delivery has been delayed because Boeing and the federal government can't agree on economic spinoffs from the $3.4-billion contract.

Mr. Fortier refused to comment, but in a letter sent to The Globe and Mail Wednesday the minister denied saying that Quebec must get a greater share of the contract's regional benefits.

“When billions of taxpayer dollars are given out to aerospace and defence suppliers, it is also the government's job to see that economic benefits are returned to Canadians and the Canadian aerospace and defence industry,” wrote Mr. Fortier.

“No deal is concluded until it is signed — that is until the government is satisfied that the purchase was done properly, that Canadians are getting the right benefits, and that the purchase will serve the interests of the country.”

The federal government is negotiating with Boeing to buy four C-17 cargo planes. The company's price guarantee expires at the end of the month, meaning Harper could soon be forced to step in and choose between delaying the deal to help the Quebec industry or securing the contract at the current price.

The Quebec government is urging Ottawa to remain strong at the table to get the maximum economic benefits from the contract.

The province is home to the majority of Canada's aerospace industry and the base of Bombardier Inc. (BBD.B), one of Boeing's competitors.

It is also considered a key battleground in the next federal election and the Conservatives want to shore up support there to bolster their 10 seats.

Boeing's only Canadian plant is in Winnipeg, making a variety of airplane components.

Mr. Doer says Manitoba and Quebec companies should be able to fairly compete with each other.

“We're not afraid of competition, why is Quebec?”


----------



## GO!!!

So Mr. Fortier, a civil servant who is supposed to act in the best interests of Canada and the Government of Canada has publicly stated that he will not sign an acquisition if his province of origin does'nt get the lions share of the work in this contract.

In the military we would call this "dereliction of duty".

How can one make such a statement and not be sacked?


----------



## geo

Mr Harper?

care to wade in on this subject?


----------



## FSTO

geo said:
			
		

> Mr Harper?
> 
> care to wade in on this subject?



According to the Globe and Mail, the cabinet called Mr Fornier on the carpet and told him that the market will decide where the spending goes and that the deal will be finalized by the end of the month.

Link:
http://www.rbcinvest.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/PEstory/LAC/20070127/BOEING27/national/national/national/2/2/18/


----------



## Exarecr

The number one purchase killer of the Canadian Forces has always been the self righteous Politician. From the Ross rifle to those cancelled helicopters so desperately needed our fine Political opportunists never let us down. I suppose that's to be expected from the dozens of of White paper studies the arm chair Generals and party hacks have conjured up over the decades. I just wish they would get it through their heads that a  "Flanking", is not Flemish for spanking, and a "Pincer Movement", is not a quite dead lobster. The shame.....oh the shame.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

FSTO said:
			
		

> According to the Globe and Mail, the cabinet called Mr Fornier on the carpet and told him that the market will decide where the spending goes and that the deal will be finalized by the end of the month.
> 
> Link:
> http://www.rbcinvest.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/PEstory/LAC/20070127/BOEING27/national/national/national/2/2/18/



Thank goodness....


Matthew.


----------



## bilton090

The proof is the proof, And the proof is in the proof, And that's the proof !


----------



## geo

what drives me crazy is that the politicians (Conservatives AND Liberals) let things come to a boil, wait for critical troubles to develop AND THEN they wade in to fix the problem that coulda been fixed quietly long before it became a problem in the 1st place.


----------



## Globesmasher

"It's been approved," a source said yesterday, adding that last-minute negotiations are under way to *finalize the deal by the end of the month*.

This is good news.
Including today, the 29th, that's only 3 working days left for the PMO to close this deal before Boeing hikes up the price.


----------



## JackD

It's the 31st.. is the deal done??


----------



## geo

We're down to the last quarter mile
... *"willy makeit" * is leading by a nose... followed by *"betty won`t"* & *"woopsie didn't"* is coming up on the outside......... 

(It's a horse race & anything is possible.)


----------



## JackD

and the winner: 'Bloody normal"


----------



## geo

photo finish
.... keep your wager stubs ladies & gents, it's a close one.  To close to call............


----------



## Globesmasher

JackD said:
			
		

> It's the 31st.. is the deal done??



Hard to say right now - much like the race commentary above it is still too close to call.  ;D

Word from the DAR Office is that the Cdn Govt has requested an extension for a couple days to finalize a few things, and word from the PMO is that it is just about a done deal ... the ink should be drying soon.  The team is down in Long Beach right now with Boeing so it should be happening soon.


----------



## JackD

nice to hear - so what is Bombardier going to get in return for permitting this to happen?


----------



## Globesmasher

JackD said:
			
		

> nice to hear - so what is Bombardier going to get in return for permitting this to happen?



Hopefully nothing ... they can just muddle ahead and blunder around in the capitalist marketplace that they are already in.  If they don't like the fact that they lost out to another company they can always pack their bags and take their ball with them and go to some place like "The People's Democratic republic of Asscrackistan" where Govt interference will keep their incompetent little compnay afloat through National interference and pork barrel politics.

On the plus side .. news from 30 Jan .... 

*Harper rebuffs protests from Duceppe that province should get larger share *  

DANIEL LEBLANC 

OTTAWA -- Prime Minister Stephen Harper slapped down complaints from the Bloc Québécois yesterday that Quebec's share of the economic benefits flowing from a forthcoming military purchase is too low. 

"I can say with certainty that Quebec and other regions will get benefits. However, if the Bloc achieves its goal of separation, I can assure [Bloc Leader Gilles Duceppe] that the benefits in Quebec will be nil," Mr. Harper said during Question Period. 

Quebec accounts for 55 to 60 per cent of the country's aerospace industry, but it is to receive only about 30 per cent of the Canadian benefits to come as part of a $3.4-billion contract for four Boeing C-17 military cargo planes. 

Mr. Duceppe complained that the government should have fought harder for Quebec's aerospace industry -- a theme he is expected to use in coming weeks to attack the Harper government as out of touch with Quebec's interests. "How can the government award an untendered contract [to Boeing], 
worth billions of dollars, without first ensuring that Quebec gets 60 per cent of the benefits, as it deserves?" Mr. Duceppe said in the House. 

Public Works Minister Michael Fortier, who is also the minister responsible for Montreal, had been fighting behind the scenes to obtain the "maximum for Quebec," a government source said. But Mr. Fortier failed to secure benefits in the 40-per-cent range for Quebec as he had hoped, and the government is now publicly thwarting any effort to increase benefits in favour of a specific region. Mr. Fortier, who sits in the Senate, could not be reached yesterday. 

Mr. Harper was joined by his ministers of Defence and Industry in defending the current deal, which a cabinet committee approved last week. "When I hear the Bloc Québécois asking this government to interfere in a private contract in order to dictate to Boeing which firms it should work with, it's disrespectful, irresponsible, and the government won't do it," Industry Minister Maxime Bernier told reporters. 

The issue has created touchy relations between Mr. Fortier and the Department of National Defence, which wants the planes as soon as possible and feels that his demands for benefits in Quebec are unrealistic.  

Hopefully something really positive is about to happen ..... but then again ....


----------



## JackD

and the winner is - the Canadian Armed Forces or??


----------



## GAP

Lets just hope there is enough maturity there for the future contract awarding processes on the other equipment not become a pissing match between a thwarted Public Works Minister Michael Fortier and O'Connor. Fortier needs and wants a seat in the next election, and he's going to try and pump up his image in Quebec as much as possible in the meantime.


----------



## geo

Off subject (sort of) for a moment BUT.... WTF!  Why did the PM have to bring up the subject of Seperation of Quebec?.... at any time?



> "When I hear the Bloc Québécois asking this government to interfere in a private contract in order to dictate to Boeing which firms it should work with, it's disrespectful, irresponsible, and the government won't do it," Industry Minister Maxime Bernier told reporters.



.... single source contracting could be termed interference - no matter that, other than Antonov, there are no other Mfgs... no matter that it is expedient and there is a need for the equipment right this very minute.


----------



## JackD

Why Quebec and separation... I guess...  normal Canadian politics. i smell an election coming up... So, was the agreement signed???


----------



## FormerHorseGuard

Gov't inks $3.4B deal to buy Boeing jets : CTV

Updated Thu. Feb. 1 2007 11:37 AM ET

David Akin, CTV News

OTTAWA -- The government of Canada has finally inked a $3.4-billion deal with Boeing Co. to buy four C-17 Globemasters -- giant jets the Canadian Air Force will use to transport tanks and other large pieces of military equipment all over the world.

CTV News has learned that government officials will announce details of the contract on Friday.

The government had earlier announced that it wanted to buy these jets from Boeing and was negotiating with the Chicago-based company on the terms of the deal.

But those negotiations got tripped up by demands from Sen. Michael Fortier, the public works minister who is the Conservative political minister for Montreal, that Boeing should spend a significant portion of the contract buying goods and services from Quebec-based aerospace companies.

Under the terms of most military contracts, the Canadian government requires a vendor who wins a deal to supply Canada with military equipment to spend $1 buying goods and services from Canadian suppliers for every dollar it receives from the Canadian taxpayer. These are known in procurement circles as industrial regional benefits or IRBs.

Because the Quebec aerospace industry accounts for about 55 or 60 per cent of Canada's overall aerospace sector, Fortier had asked that Quebec firms get at least 40 per cent of the IRBs.

But CTV News has learned that Fortier's pleas for Quebec to receive as much a $1.4 billion in industrial benefits from Boeing have not been convincing and that Quebec will receive only about $850 million or 25 per cent of the IRBs.

Ontario aerospace firms and suppliers with links to Boeing can also expect about 25 per cent.

Western Canadian provinces, particularly Manitoba, can expect about 20 per cent of the IRB pie and Atlantic Canada can expect between five and 10 per cent.

Vic Toews, the Treasury Board President and political minister for Manitoba and Peter MacKay, the foreign affairs minister and political minister for the Atlantic region, had also lobbied hard to make sure their regions benefited from the contract, one of the largest the Canadian government has ever signed.

Canada could take delivery of its first C-17 as early as this summer. The others will be delivered over the next few years.

The Air Force has decided that it will station the C-17s at CFB Trenton, in southern Ontario.


----------



## karl28

Great news for the Airforce should be interesting to see this big birds fly out of Trenton in Canadian Airforce colors


----------



## JackD

Great news! Finally common sense ove politics - how unusual....


----------



## ringo

Hope they were smart enough to take options for a couple additional airframes.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Standing ovation.....



Matthew.


----------



## Globesmasher

geo said:
			
		

> Off subject (sort of) for a moment BUT.... WTF!  Why did the PM have to bring up the subject of Separation of Quebec?.... at any time?



Because the separatists need to understand the simple fact that they cannot pursue their agenda to separate from Canada and yet at the same time reap the economic rewards as if they were still a part of Canada.  They cannot have their cake and eat it too.  You're either part of Canada and celebrate the economic benefits that comes with that membership, or you're not and you don't get to participate.  Duceppe and the Bloc need to get this basic fundamental idea into their heads.



			
				geo said:
			
		

> .... single source contracting could be termed interference - no matter that, other than Antonov, there are no other Mfgs... no matter that it is expedient and there is a need for the equipment right this very minute.



Very true - in fact we needed this equipment about 2 years ago .... 2005 as was initially planned in the FSA project.
However,
It wasn't single source.
It did go out to competitive tender on MERX.
Once again the press is reporting it incorrectly and the politicians have jumped all over that lead.

Antonov lost because the couldn't satisfy certain requirements.
Illyshin lost for the same reason.
Airbus lost because they couldn't deliver on time and meet the delivery schedule we stipulated in the SOR etc ..
A private company's bid lost because it was basically ridiculous (not for this thread).
Boeing won.

Simple.  Period.  Dot.

Delivery schedule as follows:

1 - P-177 Aug 2007
2 - P-180 Oct 2007
3 - Mar 2008
4 - April 2008


----------



## Kirkhill

I can only think of one thing to say at this time:

Allah be praised.


----------



## Mortar guy

Don't do that Kirkhill! He might want a slice of the regional benefits too! I can just see the headline now:

Boeing Forced to Give 80% of Regional Economic Benefits to Paradise After Allah Secures Contract for CF

MG


----------



## Kirkhill

>


----------



## observor 69

Absolutely  unbelievable ;D ;D

Hallelujah !!


----------



## observor 69

Any shortage of volunteers to fly them??


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO

Globesmasher said:
			
		

> Delivery schedule as follows:
> 
> 1 - P-177 Aug 2007
> 2 - P-180 Oct 2007
> 3 - Mar 2008
> 4 - April 2008



GLOBE...


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO

IN HOC SIGNO said:
			
		

> GLOBE...



Sorry my computer crashed mid-reply

Globe what is meant by the P-177 and P180 numbers? Are those going to be the numbers of the airframes? How come the last two aren't numbered yet?


----------



## Astrodog

My guess would be because they aren't on the line yet


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

I seem to recall the C17  production line being in jeopardy, is this still the case?


----------



## Good2Golf

IN HOC SIGNO said:
			
		

> Sorry my computer crashed mid-reply
> 
> Globe what is meant by the P-177 and P180 numbers? Are those going to be the numbers of the airframes? How come the last two aren't numbered yet?



P means production and # is the sequence number on the manufacturing line.  I would think that there's some discussion about the final jockying of CAN, AUS and USAF tailnumbers, hence the longer-term tailnumbers likely aren't finalized.

G2G


----------



## midget-boyd91

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> I seem to recall the C17  production line being in jeopardy, is this still the case?



I remember reading that the C17 was finishing production altogether in a short time because of the costs accompanied with it. If I am remembering correctly, this is one of the reasons that the DND/Government was trying to fast track the ones coming into the CF because after those had been delivered, the Globemaster was going to shut down production (possibly after another delivery to another military, but I'm not sure which one)


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO

midget-boyd91 said:
			
		

> I remember reading that the C17 was finishing production altogether in a short time because of the costs accompanied with it. If I am remembering correctly, this is one of the reasons that the DND/Government was trying to fast track the ones coming into the CF because after those had been delivered, the Globemaster was going to shut down production (possibly after another delivery to another military, but I'm not sure which one)



This was discussed before. The production line is in Long Beach Ca.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2006/08/c17-production-line-out-of-time/index.php


----------



## geo

I believe the 1st two were part of the Aussie order that Mr Harper & Mr Howard agreed to swop.... thus, 177 & 180 have been in the works longer than our contract proposal... no order, no spot on the production line.


----------



## kingfisher

Let's just hope and pray that there won't be an election before the aircraft arrive lest we get a Chretien style chop job!


----------



## Globesmasher

Yes "P" is the production number.



			
				geo said:
			
		

> I believe the 1st two were part of the Aussie order that Mr Harper & Mr Howard agreed to swop.... thus, 177 & 180 have been in the works longer than our contract proposal... no order, no spot on the production line.



Yup - correct.  Our first aircraft was supposed to be delivered in Mar/Apr 2007, but after negotiations last summer we slipped them back to June 2007.  There is a delay for the LAIRCM fitting from Northrup Grumman.  Our first tail was for P-174 in June 2007.  Of course we lost that when negotiations fell through in Dec 06 and then just recently throughout Jan 07.  Someone else will get that aircraft.

The earliest tail that we can now expect ... in between the RAAF and the USAF deliveries ... is now P-177 in August.  We will then step back onto our original delivery schedule with P-180 in October 07 as the second aircraft.

Strangely enough we had originally been allowed to cut in-front of the USAF for P-174 ... they have been very gracious and accommodating towards us.


----------



## GO!!!

Can anyone confirm if the four new C-17s are configured for static line parachuting - or have the capability?

I know the US ones are used for jumping....


----------



## eurowing

It's gonna be brand new GO!  No need to leap out of a perfectly good aircraft. ;D


----------



## geo

GO... don't think there is much of a demand for jumpers on Stratigic lifts... which is what these babies will be tasked to do - freeing up the Hercs for Tactical lifts (incl Para drops - if the need arises)

Hmmm.... wonder if anyone will ever try to do a low level extraction using a C17?
Imagine: Plane flies low, as if to land, ramp down, out comes shutes & out comes a Leo1.... strapped down tight on a pallet   ..... wonder if it's gonna do cartwheels


----------



## Globesmasher

GO!!! said:
			
		

> Can anyone confirm if the four new C-17s are configured for static line parachuting - or have the capability?
> 
> I know the US ones are used for jumping....



In short ........ YES.

It will take us a while, both for the aircrew and also for the infrastructure, to adjust to the airdrop role.  Right now the Division is not looking at beginning airdrop until late in 2008 or early 2009 [at the very ealriest] and that is only if things are going well with bedding down the aircraft, getting them settled in and coming to grips with the operation.  Airdrop, right now, is not the C-17 priority (in its list of many priorities).  If it has to airdrop will slide to the right as required until other objectives are consolidated first.

The aircraft is a very good airdropper.  That being said it flies a slightly different profile than does the venerable C-130.  It can do personnel static line out of the troops doors - 50 per side in a single pass (no ramp drops).  CFLAWC will have to look at changing their training as well, since they will most likely need a C-17 mock-up as well as their current C-130 mockup for inflight drills (although they would be identical drills).  The static lines will have to be changed - the C-17 requires a 20' instead of a 16' static line - the USA has changed theirs to a blue static line  while retaining their unmodified chutes on the yellow static line for those who will be jumping from the C-130.

CDS drops remain the same, but we will face an infrastructure change when it comes to HE.  The USAF (both C-130 and C-17) use the EFTC (Extraction Force Transfer Coupling) pallet for their HE ... not that archaic, 1960s, old school, spider web version of the rigging we currently do in the back of our CC-130s.  Big change required for that one.

High altitude airdrops are also performed using the aircraft.  I've dropped US SOF from 25,000' over Afghan so that they could go "do their thing" and we also did the high altitude HUMRO airdrops over Afghanistan in late 2001 and early 2002 from 25,000.

LAPES - the aircraft can do LAPES and is capable of it, but nobody does it anymore.  Not the C-17 nor the C-130s, USAF or CF.  Nobody.  It has proven too expensive and too dangerous, so sorry, you won't get to see your cartwheeling LAPES'ed Leopard ... although that would hold some entertainment value!   ;D

We won't be doing LAPES.

While people keep thinking of this aircraft as "strategic", the label is really a misnomer and is indicative of the fact that it will bring a whole new paradigm and capability to the CF - something we have never had before.  Sure it will fly "strategic" missions that go transatlantic or transpacific to get men and equipment (and women, sorry about that) to where they need to go.  That being said, it can also be flown tactically.

At very significant weights it can also be slowed down to approach and land at the same speeds as the C-130 onto forward operating locations and austere airfields.  There have been many times where I have landed at 460,000 lbs AUW onto 3,500' (only 90' wide) marked only with 5 IR chem sticks strapped to sandbags to mark out the LZ.  It can be totally blacked out for night NVG operations, it has a robust defensive system (MWS, LWS, CMDS and LAIRCM), it has fuel tank fire suppression systems, it has armour plating for the crew and it has multiple redundant systems so that is can survive direct hits from SA, AAA and also IR SAMs.

December 2003 saw the #2 engine of a C-17 hit by a MANPAD SAM out of Bahgdad.  The #2 began to come apart, as turbine blades shed and damaged the #1 and also the fuselage and wing, leading edge slat etc ... but the aircraft was able to return to land at a fairly heavy weight on 2.5 engines.  They replaced the engine, fixed the #1 engine and flew it out a few days later.

I've operated the aircraft from 2001 - 2004 on dirt strips (FOB Rhino) and also shattered slab concrete runways (Kandanhar, Bagram, Masar-i-Sharif) in Afghanistan, and all of the northern FOBs in Iraq.  I also flew in the Bashur airdrop of the 173rd in OIF (#9 in a formation of 15).  1000 men dropped from 10 aircraft in formation, blacked out on NVGs and 5 aircraft in the lead dropping HE in formation.  1000 men in a single pass over the DZ - 100 per aircraft, 50 per side double door over a 60 sec "lime on" DZ marked only with an IR chem stick and a small radar beacon.  It is a very capable "tactical" aircraft.

The aircraft also flies well at about 300' AGL flying at about 300-340 Kts ground speed ... once again it is best if blacked out on NVGs.  The HUD and the flight path vector make low level flight very easy in this machine.

The plan is to use the aircraft in the same way .... strategic legs to get the equipment to where we need it followed by a tactical insertion and departure.

For those who do not think that this aircraft has a tactical capability ......... well, I suggest you ask someone who has flown it and operated it.  I don't know "thing 1" about the LAV lll or the LEO 1, but I know about this aircraft and about tactical trash hauling.

This thing is not another Airbus.


----------



## Retired AF Guy

Globesmasher

Interesting writeup. However, in your article you use a couple of abbreviations and phrases that I'm not familiar with, e.g. "CDS drop," "HE," and "HUMRO airdrops." You also mention "LIRCM;" IRCM I'm guessing means Infrared Countermeasures, but what does the "L" stand for? Laser?  ???

You have to pardon my ignorance as my background is in the fighter world.  

Sorry, a quick edit as I got your handle wrong. My apologies.


----------



## kingfisher

Globe Wow!  That's quite a resume!

I bet it really must burn your A@#$ to read the ignorant and uninformed "journalism," and subsequent comments written by know-nothing bleeding hearts regarding the C-17.  (Did I say Dawn Black or only think it?)  I read one post in the Globe where some airhead claimed that most countries didn't have the infrastructure to accomodate such a large A/C, something like the A380.  There is so much misinformation, I wish that journalists really did their job properly and covered the stories comprehensively and accurately, giving the public, dare I say it...the truth!

Ciao.
Kingfisher


----------



## SupersonicMax

Globemasher:  Do you know when the infrastructure (ie: hangars) will be up and running in Trenton?  In the mean time, where will the C-17s be parked?

Max


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Did everyone see Dennis Coderre has already confirmed if they become the next government, they will cancel the program.

He apparently said so in an interview yesterday....

Good Lord I hate the Liberal Party.


Matthew.   :threat:


----------



## COBRA-6

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Globemasher:  Do you know when the infrastructure (ie: hangars) will be up and running in Trenton?  In the mean time, where will the C-17s be parked?
> 
> Max



Well my lane is more foxholes than flightlines, but I recall someone with a wedge cap saying that hangars are for maint and aprons are for parking...

Globesmasher, excellent write up, that should be published in every newpaper in Canada.


----------



## tomahawk6

Saw this article today.The C-17 will be a great asset for Canada and will provide badly needed strategic airlift.As Globemaster can attest there are already a number of CAF pilots that are qualified to fly the C-17 which will be another advantage as well.As part of the exchange program have ground crew personnel been trained to maintain the C-17 ?

http://www.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=1da3b434-7325-4c80-a5f4-e0b44118c00d


Deal to buy U.S. planes clinched
Controversial $3.4B purchase announced today 
Mike Blanchfield And Jack Aubry
CanWest News Service


Friday, February 02, 2007


OTTAWA - After months of criticism that it was spending too much money without proper competition, and intense lobbying for a share of the spoils, the Conservative government will announce today a $3.4-billion contract to buy four massive military transport planes from the U.S. firm Boeing Co.

While such a large outlay would normally have resulted in a competitive bidding process among large aerospace consortiums, the Department of Public Works and the Defence Department decided that only one plane -- Boeing's C-17 Globemaster --could meet its requirements.

The government last summer issued a rarely used Advance Contract Award Notice stating its intention to buy directly from Boeing, a move that infuriated competitors, especially Europe's Airbus Military consortium, which has complained that its A400 transport was unfairly excluded.

The controversial purchase is being made without military officials asking for a test flight.

"No test flight was requested to demonstrate the ACAN high level performance requirement," said Public Works documents filed in Parliament yesterday. However, the same documents say the military has "asked the United States army for the opportunity to conduct a test flight of the CH-47 Chinook helicopter to support Canada's airworthiness requirements as part of the contracting process."

Canada is also considering the purchase of the helicopter.

The purchase also ignited a fierce battle in Cabinet over which regions -- particularly Quebec, Atlantic Canada and Manitoba -- would benefit from lucrative industrial spinoffs, as well as concerns that Canadian jobs will migrate south of the border because some dual nationality Canadians will be barred access to sensitive U.S. military specifications.

Senator Michael Fortier, Minister of Public Works, continued to come under fire over suggestions he was lobbying for Quebec to get at least 40% of the spinoffs, known as industrial regional benefits, to more fairly represent the province's 55% stake in Canada's aerospace industry. Bloc Quebecois leader Gilles Duceppe has been demanding 60%.

Reports indicate Quebec will wind up with about 25%-30% of the benefits, well off demands.

Mr. Fortier was appointed to Cabinet by Prime Minister Stephen Harper to shore up representation in Montreal and has promised to resign and run for an elected seat in the House of Commons in the next election. As a result, Mr. Fortier has not had to endure the daily barrage of the Commons Question Period that Bloc Quebecois and Liberal MPs have directed at his Cabinet colleague Industry Minister Maxime Bernier.

That changed yesterday when Mr. Fortier faced questions in the Senate about the contract and defended the process used to choose Boeing.

"We said this summer when we announced the contracts to equip our Armed Forces that we were insisting that for every dollar that is given to a non-Canadian vendor, we would insist that this vendor reinvest that dollar in Canada," said Mr. Fortier in response to Senate Liberal leader Celine Hervieux-Payette.

Under the terms of most military contracts, the government requires foreign companies to spend $1 in Canada for every dollar it receives from the federal treasury.

Mr. Fortier also made a point of clarifying his participation in the bidding process.

"As Minister of Public Works, I refused to meet the equipment suppliers and the lobbyists. It is my job and I would never accept -- and maybe that's what the Liberals did. We won't do it. A system is in place, and clients all over the Hill indicate their needs to us. Those needs are brought to public works and government services which is responsible for procurement."

He also said the regional distribution of the work falls to Mr. Bernier, and that the government was going to insist that Canada's aerospace industry continue to flourish under the contract.

Mr. Fortier also assured the Senate that restrictions under the U.S. International Traffic in Arms Regulations that exclude dual-nationality Canadians from countries such as Cuba, Libya, Iran and nearly two dozen others from seeing sensitive U.S. military specifications would not play a role in the contract.

In the Commons, Mr. Harper said the government's efforts to rebuild the military would benefit all of the regions.
© National Post 2007


----------



## Babbling Brooks

I'm guessing these aircraft will be getting their own squadron, and if the Air Force sticks with tradition, I suspect they'll be pulling an old set of squadron colours out from under glass and standing an old unit back up.

Any idea which one?

Btw, the press conference with the official announcement is at 1400 EST.


----------



## SupersonicMax

COBRA-6 said:
			
		

> Well my lane is more foxholes than flightlines, but I recall someone with a wedge cap saying that hangars are for maint and aprons are for parking...
> 
> Globesmasher, excellent write up, that should be published in every newpaper in Canada.



Well, you need to protect them from nature...  We park our airplanes in the Hangar every night (anyways, in every unit I've been so far).  So, you would need hangar space for them all!

Max


----------



## tomahawk6

I saw that 429 Squadron merged with 436 Squadron so perhaps the powers that be will bring back 429 ?


----------



## eurowing

Hangar space is not really a huge issue for now.  The Herc fleet is not fully hangared nor was the Boeing.  Not being in Trenton right now, I'll even hazard a guess that the Airbus would only have one hangar spot.  Hangars are for maintenance, but yes it nice to put ac to bed warm and dry.


----------



## Haletown

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> Globesmasher
> 
> Interesting writeup. However, in your article you use a couple of abbreviations and phrases that I'm not familiar with, e.g. "CDS drop," "HE," and "HUMRO airdrops." You also mention "LIRCM;" IRCM I'm guessing means Infrared Countermeasures, but what does the "L" stand for? Laser?  ???
> 
> You have to pardon my ignorance as my background is in the fighter world.
> 
> Sorry, a quick edit as I got your handle wrong. My apologies.



HUMRO  = Humanitarian Relief Operations 

LIRCM   =  Large aircraft Infrared Countermeasures

IRCM =  Infrared Countermeasures

CDS  =  Container Delivery System (?)

HE = Heavy Equipment (?)


----------



## kj_gully

Ohhhh. i for one thought the DZ was covered in bomb craters (High Explosives) Not nearly as hard core now!

 :warstory:


----------



## observor 69

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> Did everyone see Dennis Coderre has already confirmed if they become the next government, they will cancel the program.
> 
> He apparently said so in an interview yesterday....
> 
> Good Lord I hate the Liberal Party.
> 
> 
> Matthew.   :threat:



What he said was it was the wrong decision. Single sourcing, could have leased, blah blah blah. Supposedly he is saying this to win points in Quebec which is angry that they didn't get 60% of the matching dollars.


----------



## Haletown

kj_gully said:
			
		

> Ohhhh. i for one thought the DZ was covered in bomb craters (High Explosives) Not nearly as hard core now!
> 
> :warstory:



which makes me wonder if a C17 could deliver a couple of MOAB's ??

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/moab.htm

The bomb craters wouldn't be numerous, but they would be big


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I believe the MOAB was first designed to "create" drop zones by exploding close to the ground and leveling obstructions, so the craters would not be that big.


----------



## GAP

Colin P said:
			
		

> I believe the MOAB was first designed to "create" drop zones by exploding close to the ground and leveling obstructions, so the craters would not be that big.



Called a daisy cutter....above ground explosion that did a beautiful job of clearing a space for an LZ...from the air, it looked like a daisy.


----------



## Haletown

Colin P said:
			
		

> I believe the MOAB was first designed to "create" drop zones by exploding close to the ground and leveling obstructions, so the craters would not be that big.



scroll to the bottom of that  link http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/moab.htm


. . .  genesis was the Vietnam era daisy cutter, but MOAB is a different dog.  Barnes Wallis would be a happy Grandfather if he was still with us.


----------



## maniac779

Mortar guy said:
			
		

> Boeing Forced to Give 80% of Regional Economic Benefits to Paradise After Allah Secures Contract for CF




HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. That is awesome.


----------



## JackD

By the way, can the C-17 - (i wonder what the Cdn identity will be?) be used for the box-top runs for Alert? it surely would eliminate alot of flights....


----------



## Globesmasher

JackD said:
			
		

> By the way, ......the C-17 - (i wonder what the Cdn identity will be?)



The CAS and DAR have decided that it will be called:
CC-177
Globemaster lll [No French equivalent has been provided]
Tail numbers will be:  701, 702, 703 and 704



			
				JackD said:
			
		

> .... can the C-17 be used for the box-top runs for Alert? it surely would eliminate alot of flights....



I have been asked to staff this several times.

The C-17 CAN operate onto the 5000' x 150' packed gravel and snow runway.  It CAN fly in True, Mag or Grid and it can fly the NDB or the TACAN approach to get into Alert.  The REAL question remains, and this is still yet to be answered by the logistics and engineering community .....

*Can Alert handle the C-17?*

By this I mean, is the runway strong enough to support 477,000 lbs landing on it and then taxiing and turning around?

I've been told repeatedly ...... "It's built on bedrock and frozen solid" ..... but that is not a good answer.  However, if you're willing to sign your name to the bottom of that "qualitative" and "subjective" engineering disposition .... and take responsibility and accept liability in case the aircraft sinks ... then I will happily fly into Alert.  Once someone tells me how strong the runway is (how much weight it can bear) I can then calculate how heavy I can land, how much cargo I can bring in and how much fuel I can offload.

In a C-130 at 130,000 lbs (in the late '90s) I sunk once in Alert in the summer in the turn around area, and I sunk once in Eureka in the winter about a third of the way down the runway and tore the right main landing gear door off.  Try to explain the "I thought it was supposed to be frozen .." to the boss.

Also, is there enough MHE (Material Handling Equipment) to off-load 18 pallets and other cargo in a reasonable time?  Right now there are no K-loaders in Alert - just a small fork lift that would not really be adequate.


----------



## Globesmasher

Haletown said:
			
		

> which makes me wonder if a C17 could deliver a couple of MOAB's ??



Yes it can.

The C-17 (and the C-130s) can both drop the MOAB (GBU-43) and also the Daisy Cutter (BLU-82).  The Daisy Cutter is smaller than the MOAB and weighs in at only about 15,000 lbs of high explosive.

They are both rigged to HE xetraction platforms and are dropped using the HE airdrop checklists ... pretty easy really.

The USAF kept an airdrop aircrew on alert all the time back in 2002 so that they could go out and drop any of these as required.  I never got called but I sat for days in the "alert posture" and hoped I would be able to drop one on the Whaleback to support the guys on the ground ... never happened though.


----------



## Globesmasher

Babbling Brooks said:
			
		

> I'm guessing these aircraft will be getting their own squadron, and if the Air Force sticks with tradition, I suspect they'll be pulling an old set of squadron colours out from under glass and standing an old unit back up.
> 
> Any idea which one?



The unit will be stood up eventually as a separate Squadron although nobody knows which one yet.  Right now, as an interim measure, the C-17 unit will be part of a "flight" of 437 Sqn in Trenton.  The creation of the crews to bring the C-17 on-line has been dictated to us as a PY-neutral project - meaning that no new positions or line numbers can be created ... so as guys get posted from their old unit, they bring their line/position number with them to the gaining unit and there is no backfill or replacement for them at their old, losing unit.  As such, there is no Sqn Commander "position" yet (no CWO SWO position either) and no warm body available.

I do not know how long the "interim 437 solution" will last for - nobody has told me.  And I am not sure what the new Sqn will be ... although everybody is talking about standing up 429 Sqn again .... we'll see.


----------



## Globesmasher

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> "CDS drop," "HE," and "HUMRO airdrops." You also mention "LIRCM;" IRCM I'm guessing means Infrared Countermeasures, but what does the "L" stand for? Laser?  ???



Haletown nailed it.  Good response.

Unclassified, open source material follows ......

The LAIRCM is really cool .... Large Aircraft Infra Red Counter Measures.  But you were close with the L - it is infact a laser.  The "Nemesis" LAIRCM system as produced by Northrup Grumman, comes with a series of detectors and 3 slewable turrets on the aircraft.  When the kit detects an incoming missile it uses jam codes stored in its system and uses the laser to jam and burn the heck out of the seeker head.   It is a very interesting system and is the sort of thing that civilian airlines are thinking about employing .... it is "pilot proof" ... switch on and forget about it.

Normally the kit is called DIRCM for Directed IRCM .... the L is simply for large.

When we combine this IRCM with a Missile Approach Warning System (MWS) and a Counter Measures Dispensing System (CMDS) capable of deploying IR counter measures (flares) then we have a very robust defensive system with layers for redundancy.


----------



## Nfld Sapper

MODS move if needed.

from cbc.ca

Cargo plane deal 'a new era' for military: O'Connor
Last Updated: Friday, February 2, 2007 | 2:23 PM ET 
CBC News 
The federal government announced a $3.4-billion deal with Boeing on Friday to buy four heavy-lift military cargo planes.

In June, the government set aside the funds for Boeing's C-17 Globemaster III transport planes, which can lift 76 tonnes and are capable of carrying any piece of equipment in Canada's military inventory, including tanks and armoured vehicles.

The C-17 Globemaster III transport plane can carry any piece of equipment in Canada's military inventory, including tanks and armoured vehicles. 
(CBC) Gen. Rick Hillier, Canada's chief of defence staff, joined Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor, Industry Minister Maxime Bernier and Public Works Minister Michael Fortier for the announcement at National Defence headquarters.

"This marks a beginning of a new era for Canada's Armed Forces," O'Connor said, citing the planes' flexibility for a range of missions.

"We will be faster and better in reaching out" to communities in need of emergency aid, as well as replenishing soldiers in the field, he added.

While the planes will be built in the U.S., the federal deal hinges on Boeing pledging to spend an amount equal to the purchase price on projects in Canada. The arrangement pitted Manitoba and Quebec against each other to obtain a large share of the benefits.

The first of the four planes will be delivered by the end of August, O'Connor said.

The deal was rumoured to have been delayed by almost two months over disputes involving the spinoff subcontracts, known as industrial regional benefits or IRBs.

Quebec lobbied fiercely to get a majority of the industrial benefits the province argued it deserved, but is expected to get only about 30 per cent of the value of the contract in spinoffs.

The Conservatives promised in the last election campaign that they would buy the unique aircraft for the Canadian military so it could transport its own heavy equipment around the world.

The Liberals said the decision to buy the planes was made without a full tendering process, and Canada's Armed Forces could continue to lease or borrow transport planes from allies such as the United States or other NATO countries.


----------



## Globesmasher

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Globemasher:  Do you know when the infrastructure (ie: hangars) will be up and running in Trenton?  In the mean time, where will the C-17s be parked?
> 
> Max



Max:

8 Wing will be hard pressed to be ready for August and October, although the engineers are working really hard to make it happen.  Concrete will be poured as soon as the weather warms up.  In the mean time the aircraft will be parked over by the east end of the ramp near the AMU, round near the A and B taxiways.  The long term plan is to have the heavy transports (C-17 and Airbus) on the east side and the C-130s and the SAR guys on the central and west side.

The infrastructure bill to accommodate the C-17, the C-130J when it arrives and FWSAR will be huge ... and coupled with the fact that JTF is also planning to move to YTR as well ..... the long term plan is quite enormous and the "blue print" for the plan is very aggressive.  It will take time ... years in fact.

For August the Wing will focus on the firehall and fire response, fuel, cargo handlinginfrastructure and also ramp parking space (east side) as the priorities.

Should be very interesting.


----------



## Globesmasher

Sorry for all the posts and responses.

I'm just trying to answer all the questions ......


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO

Globesmasher said:
			
		

> Sorry for all the posts and responses.
> 
> I'm just trying to answer all the questions ......



I'm enjoying your knowledgable posts...don't apologise...thanks you are a wealth of info to this old Navy Padre.  ;D


----------



## Nfld Sapper

Hey np Globe you seem to be the SME on the C-17.  :cheers:


----------



## COBRA-6

Globe, will the CDN C-17 be modified to use our probe and drogue style AAR?


----------



## warspite

Looks like the first plane is to arrive in august....
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/02/02/military-planes.html


> Cargo plane deal 'a new era' for military: O'Connor
> Last Updated: Friday, February 2, 2007 | 2:23 PM ET
> CBC News
> The federal government announced a $3.4-billion deal with Boeing on Friday to buy four heavy-lift military cargo planes.
> 
> In June, the government set aside the funds for Boeing's C-17 Globemaster III transport planes, which can lift 76 tonnes and are capable of carrying any piece of equipment in Canada's military inventory, including tanks and armoured vehicles.
> 
> The C-17 Globemaster III transport plane can carry any piece of equipment in Canada's military inventory, including tanks and armoured vehicles.
> (CBC) Gen. Rick Hillier, Canada's chief of defence staff, joined Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor, Industry Minister Maxime Bernier and Public Works Minister Michael Fortier for the announcement at National Defence headquarters.
> 
> "This marks a beginning of a new era for Canada's Armed Forces," O'Connor said, citing the planes' flexibility for a range of missions.
> 
> "We will be faster and better in reaching out" to communities in need of emergency aid, as well as replenishing soldiers in the field, he added.
> 
> While the planes will be built in the U.S., the federal deal hinges on Boeing pledging to spend an amount equal to the purchase price on projects in Canada. The arrangement pitted Manitoba and Quebec against each other to obtain a large share of the benefits.
> 
> Continue Article
> 
> The first of the four planes will be delivered by the end of August, O'Connor said.
> 
> The deal was rumoured to have been delayed by almost two months over disputes involving the spinoff subcontracts, known as industrial regional benefits or IRBs.
> 
> Quebec lobbied fiercely to get a majority of the industrial benefits the province argued it deserved, but is expected to get only about 30 per cent of the value of the contract in spinoffs.
> 
> The Conservatives promised in the last election campaign that they would buy the unique aircraft for the Canadian military so it could transport its own heavy equipment around the world.
> 
> The Liberals said the decision to buy the planes was made without a full tendering process, and Canada's Armed Forces could continue to lease or borrow transport planes from allies such as the United States or other NATO


Looks like a good start to the government rebuilding the forces...


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Haletown said:
			
		

> which makes me wonder if a C17 could deliver a couple of MOAB's ??



Thinking about Gatineau?


Matthew.   ;D


----------



## CBH99

Wow.

Everybody is throwing up their arms in a hissy fit before the speakers have even walked off the stage.  Disgraceful.  (Mostly directed at you, Quebec).

I for one am incredibly happy about the announcement.  The Canadian Forces, with its own strategic airlift platforms.  A couple of years ago, who would have guessed this would have even gotten off the drawing board?  Fantastic news - great to see a political party actually do what it says its gonna do!

For all of those who are whining about the industrial benefits...could you give it a day or so?  The speaker has barely walked off the stage, and already your getting your panties in a not.  (Not meant to be offensive to any female members, or females at all in that sense.  Just an expression.)  There will be indistrial benefits to all regions of Canada.  Each region of Canada has much to offer in terms of support and services, and those skills will be put to good use.  Whining for your fair share of the industrial benefits is fruitless;  Boeing has a complex in Winnipeg, so obviously Winnipeg and Manitoba in general are going to get their fair share.  Atlantic Canada has many trades to offer, and Quebec has a large stake in the country's aerospace industry.  Any which way the pie flies, there will be benefits.  Wait and see what announcements are made in context to that, before making a big deal out of potentially nothing.

And the Liberals, saying we don't need planes and should continue to rely on other countries....ugh....enough said.  There is reason they are no longer in power, and short-changing the country is a big one.  Don't even need to go there.


----------



## Haletown

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> Thinking about Gatineau?
> 
> 
> Matthew.   ;D



is that where Denny Coderre has his office ??    8)


----------



## Retired AF Guy

Haletown said:
			
		

> HUMRO  = Humanitarian Relief Operations
> 
> LIRCM   =  Large aircraft Infrared Countermeasures
> 
> IRCM =  Infrared Countermeasures
> 
> CDS  =  Container Delivery System (?)
> 
> HE = Heavy Equipment (?)



Thanks for the info.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Nothing like a stated of policy of "Oh, we'll just borrow other peoples' stuff when we need it."


M.   :


----------



## The Bread Guy

A bit more from Canadian Press, shared with the usual disclaimer....

*Government buying four huge transport planes; won't discuss regional spinoffs  * 
Canadian Press, 2 Feb 07

OTTAWA (CP) - The $3.4-billion purchase of four huge Boeing C-17 military transport planes will scatter spinoff benefits across the country, *but the Conservative government wouldn't say Friday which regions of Canada will get the biggest slice*. 

Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor, Public Works Minister Michel Fortier and Industry Minister Maxime Bernier, said the regional industrial benefits from the contract will bolster aerospace firms across the country. 

Bernier said Boeing will announce specific contracts at a later date, which will help clarify where some $577 million in spinoffs will land. 

*Earlier reports suggest Quebec companies are expected to see about 40 per cent of the money, but the government would not touch the subject Friday. * 

The first of the aircraft is expected to be delivered in the "August-September" period, said O'Connor, with a second before the end of this year and two more in 2008. 

"Gone are the days when we had to rely solely on our allies or commercial companies for airlift to respond to crisis situations," said O'Connor. 

"Gone are the days when the Canadian Forces had to wait for years to get equipment they need for their jobs today." 

The first aircraft to be delivered is currently being built as part of a U.S. Air Force contract, but the American military has agreed to permit Canada to "step into the assembly line," said O'Connor, in order to get the plane more quickly. 

The purchase of the strategic airlifters fulfils a promise the Conservatives made in the last election campaign. 

Prime Minister Stephen Harper promised the planes in December 2005, saying they would give the Canadian Forces the ability to haul heavy loads, including the disaster assistance relief team, to distant locations without having to lease aircraft or beg a ride with allies. 

"To be truly sovereign, we must be able to deploy our forces and equipment where they are needed, when they are needed," Harper said at the time. 

"To put it bluntly, hitchhikers may get to their destination, but they don't get to pick the route or the timing." 

Opposition politicians complained that the purchase was made without the usual tendering process, but the government countered by saying the plane is unique and no other aircraft can duplicate it. 

The C-17, which first flew in 1991, is widely used by the United States air force. Britain's Royal Air Force has four and plans to buy another and Australia took delivery of the first of four planes last December. 

The planes are big - 53 metres long with a 52-metre wingspan - and can haul as much as 76 tonnes. They can be refueled in flight, giving them virtually unlimited range. 

Despite their size, they can operate from runways as short as 1,100 metres. 

The Conservatives are also in the process of seeking replacements for the aging fleet of C-130 Hercules transport planes, which have been the workhorse of the air force for decades, but which are rapidly coming to the end of the service lives.


----------



## GO!!!

Globesmasher said:
			
		

> Sorry for all the posts and responses.
> 
> I'm just trying to answer all the questions ......



It is extremely refreshing to have a poster of recent experience and knowledge on the board - I for one thank you for these informative posts. (even if you are a pilot  )


----------



## observor 69

Haletown said:
			
		

> is that where Denny Coderre has his office ??    8)



Sweet!!  ;D


----------



## Babbling Brooks

> everybody is talking about standing up 429 Sqn again



That's what I was hoping, Globesmasher.  It was a sad day when those colours got put away (http://babblingbrooks.blogspot.com/2005/07/nothing-to-chance.html).


----------



## JackD

Hi! thanks for the information in regard to the "boxtop" runs in Alert - which is exactly what i was interested in - as I'd been there in 1976 building the second barrack block and also worked on airfield repair for one or two weeks. I assume the best approach for "boxtop" would be C177 to Greenland, then C130j shuttle runs to Alert or Eureka, except for the odd special flights for oversize items. I'm still surprised at what was in Alert and what could be crammed into a Herc (some disassembly no doubt was required). Maybe when (if?) Afghanistan winds down, thanks to having this immense asset, the Armed Forces will begin to take the lead in Northern development again.


----------



## CFR FCS

C-17's are a done deal. Check out Boeing web page and they claim "a signed dealwith Canada  for 4 C-17's"  First delivery fall 2007. They are a world player in the military game and I doubt if they left the government (no matter who is in charge of the Parliament on any given day)  any way to wiggle out of this contract without it costing more than it's worth.  Our reputation with defence companies isn't that good, some actually won't bid on the small contracts Canada puts out due to the amount of effort on their part to comply with so many bureaucratic hoops to jump through. Ever wonder why there were no other bidders for the LUVW SMO (G'wagen) contract. They have a tendency to make their contracts pretty air tight.


----------



## Haletown

I'm working from very old memories here, circa early 70's when i was doing DEW Line work ( I surveyed and did engineering assessments on every DEW runway, hardstand, apron & fuel storage area)  but I seem to recall that Arctic re-supply used sealift to Thule and then airlift into everywhere else.  The airstrips can likely handle the 17's - its not the total weight of the plane, its the load distribution across the wheels

So I could see a single C17 doing what the usual four Boxtop Hercs would do - they carry almost four times as much but are faster.   So theoretically instead of 160-170 Herc Boxtop Chalks there would about 45-50 C17 chalks, with corresponding fewer crew hrs, engine maintenance time etc.

Don't know if there is bulk fuel system for the 17, so one Herc might just be need to do the wet lift

In all the MSM gnashing of teeth about the C17 being not needed, the dumb-dumbs that call themselves journalists conveniently overlook the fact that  4 x $250m C 17's replaces at least 16, maybe 20 x $90m Hercs/Jercs

Cancel the contract Mr. Coderre but then buy the additional Hercs to replace the lost lift.


----------



## observor 69

So far every word out of Mr.Coderre 's mouth is pure political garbage. No wonder the military was starved under the Liberals.


----------



## geo

Baden,
The CF didn't fare any better under the previous Conservative gov't.
It's a case of tradeoffs - some good AND some bad...


----------



## Meridian

Well the other question is - how would they be able to get out of the contract?

Reasonable expectations state that it is a) too late for a Spring election now  and b) Summer elections are supremely rare  and c) a Fall election is usually September/November.
Also, MSM media and many analysts have reported that most parties do not want an election now, as noone seems to be ready for a majority and the NDP will probably get a lot of attention from the Cons regarding green enticements.


All this to say, the earliest I could see (course you never know) a new government would be in September, probably November.   By that time, according to this delivery schedule, we'd already have two planes.   So at most, they could try and cancel the last two... which would be dumb but I suppose possible even if it costs us more (EH101s did too, no?) than the actual aircraft.  And then what, try and sell the other two?


----------



## observor 69

geo said:
			
		

> Baden,
> The CF didn't fare any better under the previous Conservative gov't.
> It's a case of tradeoffs - some good AND some bad...



This is relevant, the majority of Quebecois have an anti-military outlook:

http://206.75.155.198/pwgsc/dtsearch.asp?Lang=E&cmd=getdoc&maxSize=200000&DocId=555418&Index=d%3a%5cdtsearch%5cUserData%5cfullfeed&HitCount=4&hits=3a5+3a7+3a8+3a9+&hc=16&req=%28+Publication+contains%28+Sun+OR+star%2A+OR+Calgary+OR+bnw+OR+cbc+OR+Charlottetown+OR+CTV+OR+Journal+OR+%2Apost%2A+OR+Daily+OR+Globe+OR+Spectator+OR+ISDN+OR+Standard+OR+Record+OR+Herald+OR+press+OR+Maclean%2A+OR+Times%2A+or+Gazette+OR+citizen+OR+Telegram+OR+standard+OR+Vancouver+OR+Winnipeg+OR+Victoria+OR+cpw+OR+CTV+OR+bnw+OR+StarPhoenix+%29%29+AND+%28+author+contains%28+J%2EL%2E+GRANATSTEIN++%29%29+AND+xfilter%28date+%22M01%2FD26%2FY2007%7E%7EM02%2FD02%2FY2007%22%29


----------



## geo

Uhhh.... relevant to what?
Majority?.... and you believe the press?.... written by Mr Granatstein for the National Post? Mr Boisclair has his party up in arms (over his inept delivery of party platform). 

As many good soldiers come out of Quebec as they come out of the other provinces...

The Quebec population's stand on the CF?..... People of all political stripe that I know give me no grief on what the CF is doing.

Mr Granatstein... I don't agree with ya! (again)


----------



## Globesmasher

COBRA-6 said:
			
		

> Globe, will the CDN C-17 be modified to use our probe and drogue style AAR?



Cobra:

No, we're not going to bother - for a couple of reasons.

1 - We will be getting the ER (Extended Range) aircraft.  These aircraft (post block 12 aircraft mod) have the centre wing boxes modified into 4 internal centre wing fuel tanks which ups the total fuel capacity from 185,000 lbs to 245,000 lbs.  Burning fuel at just under 20,000 lbs/hr we would have just over 10 hours of fuel burn on-board the new aircraft .... and currently we do not have crew duty days long enough to accommodate anything longer than that.  10 hours of flying (God forbid) would translate into a 15 or 16 hour crew duty day.  The USAF fly with "augmented crews" meaning that they can increase the crew duty days to 24 and 26 hours.  We will not be doing that - it is just too dangerous.  The CF will remain with the basic crew (Pilot, copilot and loadmaster) and remain with the basic crew duty day as defined in the 1 Cdn Air Div Orders (14, 16 or 18 hours) .... so right now we don't have enough crew day to require air refuelling.

2 - No we can't modify the aircraft for probe and drogue.  In fact, we have opted into the GSP - The Global Support Program - and in doing so we will NOT be making any modifications to the aircraft whatsoever.  In fact, the RAAF have also done the same thing so that we can all belong to the "Virtual fleet".  The RAF have not been allowed to make any modifications because they were confined/restricted by lease.  We have "chosen/opted" not to make any mods at all.

In doing this we can participate in the JUG (Joint Users Group), and the CORT/SORT (Crew Operational Review Team) and also the GSP.  This is a good thing for a couple of reasons.  So, if I happen to be flying into Brize Norton and I toast an engine ... when I land I simply let Trenton know what the problem is ... and then I phone the UK Boeing reps and tell them to come and replace/repair the engine.  I simply walk away from the aircraft and leave it to Boeing.  While it has limited uses, the GSP will have some great benefits with it.  However, in order to have these guys work on our aircraft they have to be configured identically to the USAF - RAF - RAAF.  Everyone will be the same in the virtual fleet.

So, essentially every C-17 will be identical except for the paint scheme and the flag on the tail.

Furthermore, participation in the JUG and CORT will allow the aircraft to remain within the continual cyclic block upgrade program.  We'll be getting block 17 aircraft, then when Boeing comes out with the block 18 and 19 software and hardware upgrades, we will also get our aircraft done in sequence as we cycle them back through Long Beach (Boeing) for major periodic inspections and overhauls.  In this way we get to participate in the continual upgrade program.

Also, for the AR .... as you know, we don't have any KC-135s or KC-10s with the boom ..... so it would be a nightmare trying to coordinate periodic re-currency training for our C-17 crews to refuel off USAF tankers.  As such we have opted out of the AR capability of the aircraft since it isn't really required for us .... trust me, you don't want to be a passenger in the back when the pilot is at the 26th hour of a crew duty day ..... and trying to approach and land at a major airport. It's not pretty ...  :blotto:


----------



## Globesmasher

Babbling Brooks said:
			
		

> It was a sad day when those colours got put away (http://babblingbrooks.blogspot.com/2005/07/nothing-to-chance.html).



Yes, that was a sad day.  I flew Hercs for 5 great years with 429 Sqn ('96 - '01) and got to see the world ..... nothing would bring a bigger smile to my face than to see 429 Sqn stood up again as the C-17 squadron.


----------



## Globesmasher

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> ...... there are already a number of CAF pilots that are qualified to fly the C-17 which will be another advantage as well.As part of the exchange program have ground crew personnel been trained to maintain the C-17 ?



Yeah, there are currently 2 pilots who were part of the original C-17 exchange program from 2001 - 2004.  We're both now be worked like dogs trying to get this program up and running.  During the exchange there were no actual maintenance folks trained, but there was one MX officer.

We had one loadmaster, who was recently released due to a bad back injury.  It was really too bad to see him go.  We also had a logistics Capt who worked in the McChord Aerial Port, but he has since moved on to other things.  The Maintenance Major has also returned to Canada (when the FSA program was cancelled by the Liberals in 2004) but is now working with the CP-140s out on the East coast.  So, all we have left over from the exchange program is the 2 pilots.

We have already begun pushing our initial cadre through training with Boeing and the USAF.  We have our first 6 pilots and our first 6 LMs who have completed initial qualification training in Altus, Oklahoma.  They will now move onto another USAF base to begin 4 months of "imbedded" training with the USAF.  The 2 former exchange pilots (me and the other guy) are currently undergoing our "re-qual" training in Oklahoma and we'll join our initial cadre folks in April.

The initial cadre will stay in the USA until end of July when we'll bring them home and have them ready for the first delivery in August 07.

The second phase of the initial cadre begins training in March - 8 more pilots and 8 more LMs.  After their training in Altus, they will be imbedded for 4 months with the USAF and we'll bring them home in time for the second delivery in October 07.

The maintainers (the technicians) have already begun their initial qualification training in Charleston (about 50 of them) and they too will be "imbedded" with the USAF until July 07.

And, speaking of exchanges, we will also have a USAF pilot and LM on exchange with us up in Trenton, and a couple more from the USAF who will be with us temporarily for about 6 months or so.

From 2008 and onwards we simply plan on cycling our folks through the normal training program in Altus and then bringing them straight home to continue their training back in Canada.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO

Love your posts. Was that you on the TV the other night? or was that the other guy?  ;D


----------



## tomahawk6

Very interesting thanks. By the way I ran across this nice C-17 pic.


----------



## fireman1867

Hi there first post ever, someone asked for info on infrastructure changes at Trenton, I have heard some interesting rumours lat night at a mess dinner,

1.  The apron cannot support a fuly fueled C-17 for more than 24 hours, it wil cuase cracking after this period

2. It is inpractical to fuel this aircraft by bowser(not sure on the hard numbers but someone can do the math) meaning apron hydrant fueling(not sure of the technical term) is a must, so combined with point 1 we can assume a magor ramp upgrade will be in the works

3. The hight of the wing means that the crash trucks need to be upgraded, but they now do not fit into their buidling, so that needs to change.

4. The runway which is now at 10000 ft needs at least an extra 2000 ft for warm weather take off, (she can land short but needs at least 8000 in cooler temps)

Interesting stuff to say the least, I am sure the hangar space is an issue but I have no info on that.

I would be interested in info about the squadron assignment, interesting point about 437, I am sure someone has more info about this but I dont think its chance that the 707 was cc-137 husky and assigned to 437 huskies? I dont think we have an inactive 477 squadron to match designation of cc-177? Just some toughts.

cheers,


Mark


----------



## Good2Golf

Globesmasher said:
			
		

> ...So, essentially every C-17 will be identical except for the paint scheme and the flag on the tail...



That is the best news I've heard in a very long time.  Folks wouldn't believe the elimination of headaches we'll achieve with a standard configuration.  Good job on the requirements staff for that!

G2G


----------



## peaches

Will we be training all Canadian C17 crew (air & ground) at Altus????


Peaches


----------



## observor 69

geo said:
			
		

> Uhhh.... relevant to what?
> Majority?.... and you believe the press?.... written by Mr Granatstein for the National Post? Mr Boisclair has his party up in arms (over his inept delivery of party platform).



The article is an extract from his book not an article written for the National Post.



> As many good soldiers come out of Quebec as they come out of the other provinces...



Absolutely and I never inferred otherwise. But it is a fact that there is a strong anti-military sentiment in Quebec.



> The Quebec population's stand on the CF?..... People of all political stripe that I know give me no grief on what the CF is doing.
> 
> Mr Granatstein... I don't agree with ya! (again)



You might not agree with him Geo but he is one of the top Canadian military historians, and deservedly so.


----------



## tomahawk6

So will there be a requirement for a C-17 simulator or will pilots go to Altus for quarterly simulator training ?

http://public.dover.amc.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123031775

http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Gallery/Photo/Simulator/Medium/EC04-0288-4.jpg

http://starbulletin.com/2005/09/25/news/index13.html


----------



## observor 69

Globesmasher


> Furthermore, participation in the JUG and CORT will allow the aircraft to remain within the continual cyclic block upgrade program.  We'll be getting block 17 aircraft, then when Boeing comes out with the block 18 and 19 software and hardware upgrades, we will also get our aircraft done in sequence as we cycle them back through Long Beach (Boeing) for major periodic inspections and overhauls.  In this way we get to participate in the continual upgrade program.



This overall way of operating and maintaining  what you meant by the old way versus the new way?   and thank God for that.


----------



## 28402 engineers

wait a second....we've bought something incredibly useful, which comes with a comprehensive upgrade package, and we bought even when Quebec said "NON!"? God is weeping tears of joy my friends. it's a beautiful thing.


----------



## peaches

http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2007/q1/070202d_nr.html

Here's a link to Boeing with "Canadian" C17 pic......


----------



## Meridian

Stridsvagn_122 said:
			
		

> wait a second....we've bought something incredibly useful, which comes with a comprehensive upgrade package, and we bought even when Quebec said "NON!"? God is weeping tears of joy my friends. it's a beautiful thing.



Shush, the aircraft isn't on the ramp yet. You'll jinx it.


----------



## Globesmasher

IN HOC SIGNO said:
			
		

> Was that you on the TV the other night? or was that the other guy?  ;D



 ;D  No that was the other guy.

Most people who know me, know that I hate the press and the media. I am sick and tired of being quoted out of context.  Each time they call me for an interview I always say that I am unavailable and then I give them Johny's contact info ....  ;D  I lose count on the number of times I have stabbed him in the back with the media interviews ... I'm an asshole   ;D


----------



## observor 69

Altus Air Force Base photos and more. Enjoy  .. Yipppeeeee we're getting new planes  ;D  ;D


http://www.altus.af.mil/photos/index.asp?page=2


----------



## 28402 engineers

Meridian said:
			
		

> Shush, the aircraft isn't on the ramp yet. You'll jinx it.




Oh spit, you're right !   sorry!


----------



## peaches

It's kind of like Xmas!!!

We should start a campaign to name each one.....  "Harpers Hauler", "Rickie's Rocket"......


----------



## Globesmasher

fireman1867 said:
			
		

> 1.  The apron cannot support a fuly fueled C-17 for more than 24 hours, it wil cuase cracking after this period



This may very well be true.  The ramp/apron will have to be upgraded.  Typically the aircraft is fuelled with about 130,000 lbs or more of fuel on any given day.  With the basic empty weight of the aircraft weighing in at 283,000 lbs .... add the fuel and suddenly you have just over 200 tonnes parked in one spot.  Now start adding 70 odd tonnes of cargo to that as well.  We'll be OK for short periods of time, but not long ones.  The ramp at YTR will have to go through major overhauls for many other reasons as well.



			
				fireman1867 said:
			
		

> 2. It is inpractical to fuel this aircraft by bowser(not sure on the hard numbers but someone can do the math) meaning apron hydrant fueling(not sure of the technical term) is a must, so combined with point 1 we can assume a magor ramp upgrade will be in the works



Correct - typical fuel uploads will be in the order of 180,000 lbs at a time just to launch out for Brize Norton (as an example).  So fuelling from a 20,000lb bowser is not the way to go.  The Site Activation Visit (Nov 06) highlighted the fuelling shortfall as a possible show stopper.  The issue is being worked by Wing Ops and the infrastructure team.  You are right - it is called hydrant refuelling .... same as what is done at major international airports.  The individual parking spots have in-ground refuelling points associated with them.  A pumper truck parks by the spot, connects to the aircraft and to the hydrant and simply acts as a pump to move the fuel into the aircraft.  This too will be done, and as ramp upgrades begin in Spring 07, hydrant refuelling will be part of the upgrade as concrete gets poured.



			
				fireman1867 said:
			
		

> 3. The height of the wing means that the crash trucks need to be upgraded, but they now do not fit into their buidling, so that needs to change.



Yup - not just the height of the wings, but the mere size and quantity of fuel require a higher category of CFR (Crash Fire Response).  Bigger fire trucks are required, but the big ones won't fit into the old firehall - so a new firehall is also required.  This issue was highlighted as a definite showstopper.



			
				fireman1867 said:
			
		

> 4. The runway which is now at 10000 ft needs at least an extra 2000 ft for warm weather take off, (she can land short but needs at least 8000 in cooler temps)



No, the runway length if just fine.  In winter we can perform 585,000lb AUW takeoffs without issue, and the summer will see us restricted to about 560,000 lbs.  Length is just fine.



			
				fireman1867 said:
			
		

> Interesting stuff to say the least, I am sure the hangar space is an issue but I have no info on that.



Yes, hangars for maintenance will be an issue - yet to be resolved.


----------



## Globesmasher

peaches said:
			
		

> Will we be training all Canadian C17 crew (air & ground) at Altus????



Yes - well at various locations around the USA.  The aircrew training will remain at the C-17 school house in Altus, Oklahoma.  Since we only have 4 aircraft it is not worth the infrastructure costs to set up our own school house and staff it.  Simply not possible.  So we'll just send out aircrew down to Altus for the initial courses and also for the airdrop courses when we finally get around to that as well.


----------



## Globesmasher

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> So will there be a requirement for a C-17 simulator or will pilots go to Altus for quarterly simulator training ?



Quarterly phase sim training will be conducted at various locations throughout the USA, Dover, McGuire, Charleston, McChord etc ... Probably not Altus since their sims are fully booked doing syllabus courses.

We cannot buy our own sim right now since the WST, the full motion Weapon Systems Trainer runs at about > $24 million +.  We then need to build a building to put it in and then pay Boeing to staff it.  The WST then needs to be maintained just like a "5th tail" since it too has to go through all the block upgrade programs as well.

We did a business case analysis for buying our own sim and right now it is just not feasible - but hopefully sometime in the future.   Me, I like the idea of going down to Charleston for 2 days every 3 months for a sim session - what a great town.


----------



## Globesmasher

Baden  Guy said:
			
		

> ....... what you meant by the old way versus the new way?   and thank God for that.



With the old ways flying the CC-130, if we lose an engine of a vital part at some remote location ... we need to phone home to Trenton.  They then scramble trying to find a spare part and an MRT (Maintenance Repair Team).  Then they have to scramble to find a serviceable aircraft and an available crew at no notice.  Then they have to get it all together and fly that lot out to the "broken down" location.

As an example ... back in '98 I lost an engine coming out of Bangui, Central African Repbulic.  I cruised back to Abidjan, Ivory Coast.  I then spent 17 days on the ground in Abidjan while this whole MRT process took place.  It takes a couple of days for home base to react, then a few days to get out to where we are, a few days to repair the broken aircraft, and then a few more days to fly home.  Too long and expensive despite the very best efforts of the maintainers to get us up and running again.

Those old days and old ways will now be few and far between.


----------



## Globesmasher

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> By the way I ran across this nice C-17 pic.



Ohh that's an awful photo!!!   
That's one of the new block 17s that Hickam just got last year.

Shows you what can go wrong when a TR (thrust reverser) mafunctions ... !!!  yikes.
Sometimes brand new doesn't mean it's perfect!! Yikes.


----------



## Astrodog

Is that a compressor stall?


----------



## eurowing

It's just a wee compressor stall.  Don't be a baby.   ;D

I am quite curious about the maintenence that CF maintainers will get to do on the CC-177.  I envision techs being limited to generic servicing tasks.... everything else out the door to specialists and eventually we will be called crew chiefs...  nice title for a servicing tech.  I hope this won't be the case.


----------



## Globesmasher

For those who doubt the "tactical capabilities" of the aircraft ... here's a link of a couple of articles that The Maple Leaf asked of me back in 2003/2004:

While I hate the media, The Maple Leaf didn't quote me out of context nor does it have a hidden socialist agenda .... 

http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/news/2003/10/01b_e.asp
http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/news/2003/10/01_e.asp


----------



## Globesmasher

eurowing said:
			
		

> It's just a wee compressor stall.  Don't be a baby.   ;D
> 
> I am quite curious about the maintenence that CF maintainers will get to do on the CC-177.  I envision techs being limited to generic servicing tasks.... everything else out the door to specialists and eventually we will be called crew chiefs...  nice title for a servicing tech.  I hope this won't be the case.



Our techs will only do first line maintenance on the aircraft.  Second and third line will go back down to the "vendor", Boeing as is part of the contract stipulation.


----------



## observor 69

Globesmasher

From this retired Avionics tech many thanks for taking the time to provide the info and comments on this exciting new aircraft.

 I thoroughly enjoyed it.

Per ardua ad astra


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO

peaches said:
			
		

> http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2007/q1/070202d_nr.html
> 
> Here's a link to Boeing with "Canadian" C17 pic......



Wow nice pic...and the Parliament bldgs right below...I'm feeling very patriotic.


----------



## Rigger

Looks like a nice aircraft, to bad there is no job for a FE on her (Maybe in the future...). Just wait for A4 Maint to get there fingers in the pie, with there P "0" series CFTOs. Maintenance is going to come to grinding halt/slow down with all the hoops that the techs have to jump through to get qualified. We'll have to buy another aircraft just for tech training.


----------



## eurowing

Rigger, if the techs are trained the American way, not to worry.  It will only be servicing level duties as their idea of first level maint is quite different from ours.  The most complex job might be a tire change. So indepth knowledge needed would be minimal.   I hope I am wrong though.


----------



## Meridian

Goes to show you the size of the US military.. ACcording to Boeing, they operate 160 C-17s right now, to Australias, RAFs and Canadas 4 each otal requirement!


> In addition to the 160 C-17s now in service with the U.S. Air Force, the United Kingdom's Royal Air Force operates four C-17s, and the Royal Australian Air Force in late 2006 took delivery of its first of four C-17s.


----------



## GAP

Canada jumps U.S. queue to acquire military jets
Updated Sat. Feb. 3 2007 2:41 PM ET Canadian Press
Article Link

OTTAWA -- The American air force is letting Canada jump the assembly-line queue to acquire four giant Boeing transport planes within about 18 months. 

"The United States air force, which has a fairly large order in train at the moment, has allowed us to step into the assembly line so we will get the aircraft quickly," Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor said Friday. 

The first Canadian C-17 is expected to arrive by the end of August, with a second by the end of the year and the last two coming in the middle of next year. Under normal conditions, it would take years to build the Canadian order. 

The $3.4 billion contract - $1.8 billion for the planes and $1.6 billion for 20 years of spares and maintenance - will be a windfall for Canadian industry, said Public Works Minister Michael Fortier and Industry Minister Maxime Bernier . 

They said Boeing and Pratt and Whitney, maker of the plane's engines, have agreed to invest the face value of the contract in Canada and the benefits will boost defence and aerospace firms across the country. 

Neither minister would offer any regional breakdown of the benefits, saying Boeing will be announcing a number of deals in the coming weeks. 
More on link


----------



## Astrodog

Don't know if this has been asked, but how many pilots will be needed for 4 airframes? Looks like I'm missing the big influx by a few years  :crybaby:


----------



## Globesmasher

Astrodog said:
			
		

> Don't know if this has been asked, but how many pilots will be needed for 4 airframes? Looks like I'm missing the big influx by a few years  :crybaby:



16 crews = 32 pilots and about 24 loadmasters.


----------



## Astrodog

Gollee that was a quick reply! Thanks globe... I still can't believe these things are actually coming online, and so fast! Great recruiting tool for guys like me.. nothing like a new piece of kit to help motivate!


----------



## geo

tough thing will be to keep pilots trained on the big birds in uniform............

After getting qualified on these multi engined behemoths, major airlienes will be knocking on doors.


----------



## Globesmasher

RiggerFE said:
			
		

> Looks like a nice aircraft, to bad there is no job for a FE on her (Maybe in the future...). Just wait for A4 Maint to get there fingers in the pie, with there P "0" series CFTOs. Maintenance is going to come to grinding halt/slow down with all the hoops that the techs have to jump through to get qualified. We'll have to buy another aircraft just for tech training.



There will be NO Flight Engineer on-board the C-17 / CC-177, just as there is no FE on-board the Airbus A310.  This is not meant as any sort of professional "slight" or "slam", but merely a statement of fact.  In addition, the position of the FE on-board the CC-130J (ACP-T) is also up for debate, but I would not put any money on there being an FE on-board the J either.

We will not be using any "CFTO" in the classic sense.  As part of the JUG and the GSP we will be adopting the Boeing Tech Orders as they are, no changes and no adaptations or anything.  Unlike the CC-130 world, we will not be taking "Lockheed manuals" and turning them into CFTOs.  There is no point re-inventing the wheel.  We will simply have to learn how to adapt to using a new type of wheel.

There will be no tech training done on any static aircraft.  All their training is accomplished in the USA and they return to Canada fully qualified.  With only four aircraft we will not be able to have a perfectly serviceable aircraft parked on the ramp for tech training.  Again, this is not meant to spark heated debate - just a mere statement of fact.  In much the same way the aircrew (pilots) will NOT be using the aircraft to do routine quarterly basic flying training - they'll be doing that in the simulator.

This aircraft marks a whole new paradigm shift in terms of how we use aircraft and how we train our aircrew and maintenance technicians.

The old days are gone - not saying these new days are going to be any better or not - they're just going to be different.


----------



## Globesmasher

geo said:
			
		

> tough thing will be to keep pilots trained on the big birds in uniform............
> 
> After getting qualified on these multi engined behemoths, major airlienes will be knocking on doors.



Granted - it will be a very marketable asset on a resume for the airlines, but the ongoing hiring boom has (currently and historically) taken pilots from all disciplines ... transport, the Maritime Patrol world and also the fighter community.  A great deal hinges on the "interview" and the personality of the individual being hired, but "heavy, multi-engine, glass cockpit" time sure looks good on a resume there is no debating that.


----------



## Astrodog

Globesmasher,

 Could you elaborate on what quarterly basic flight training consists of? Is sim time loggable? Just trying to get an idea of how many hours will be spent in the sims as compared to actual seat time..


----------



## Globesmasher

Meridian said:
			
		

> Goes to show you the size of the US military.. ...... they operate 160 C-17s right now,



Their final order will put their fleet at 180 in total.  USAF AMC wanted 220 in their original order, but Congress reduced the order (yes, they too are under going cutbacks and reductions) to 180.

That was actually good news for us since Boeing then went on a marketing spree and offered a price reduction in order to get other people (Australia and Canada) to purchase.  The USAF is still trying to get their order increased back to the original 220 and is lobbying hard .... but these are expensive aircraft.

Another indicator of the size of the USAF is the fact that they operate in excess of 500 C-130s as compared to our 32 .... now 28 since we have mothballed 4.


----------



## Globesmasher

Astrodog said:
			
		

> Could you elaborate on what quarterly basic flight training consists of? Is sim time loggable? Just trying to get an idea of how many hours will be spent in the sims as compared to actual seat time..



We envision the guys spending one session per quarter in the simulator.  Each session lasts 3 hours, one session per day for two consecutive days for a total of 6 hours per quarter.  They may log more.  Sim time is sim time ... the last column in the log book.  Many of the items performed in the sim will count towards quarterly currency requirements.

We expect guys to be logging in the realm of 400 hrs/year in the seat engaged in actual Force Employment missions.  About 20% of that will be currency requirement training.

We won't be doing basic touch and goes and flying ILS approaches in the Trenton traffic pattern with this aircraft - that can be done in a very good, high level sim.  The "currency training" in the actual seat will be totally engaged in Tactical Proficiency training ... tactical arrivals, departures, assault landings and NVG flights - the sort of thing that actually can't be accomplished very well in the sim.


----------



## Astrodog

Thanks again for the reply



			
				Globesmasher said:
			
		

> We expect guys to be logging in the realm of 400 hrs/year in the seat engaged in actual Force Employment missions.  About 20% of that will be currency requirement training.



  Now I'm just drooling!  
edit: hehe had to remove the kiss emoticon which, in my defense, thought was licking lips!


----------



## aesop081

Hey...i got 587 hours last year !!!

Globemasher,

With only having 4 aircraft in the fleet, how many aircraft can we expect to have available on any given day when taking into account periodic inspections and the likes ?

What has been the USAF experience with snags for the C-17 ?


----------



## Retired AF Guy

Globesmasher said:
			
		

> Their final order will put their fleet at 180 in total.  USAF AMC wanted 220 in their original order, but Congress reduced the order (yes, they too are under going cutbacks and reductions) to 180.



This may be slightly off-topic, but I seem to remember that Boeing had at one time entertained the idea of producing a civilian version of the C-17. Since I have not heard anything recently about this and I'm assuming that it has died a quiet death. Personally, I would think it would be a good idea, after all those An-124s could use a little competition.


----------



## Astrodog

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



> In the mid-1990s, McDonnell Douglas began to market the C-17 to commercial civilian operators, under the name MD-17.[1]. Due to its high projected fuel, maintanence and depreciation cost for a low-cycle military design in commercial service, as well as a limited market dominated by the An-124 and A300-600ST, very little interest was expressed. After McDonnell Douglas merged with Boeing, the program was renamed BC-17.[2] However, the aircraft has had no takers.


----------



## Rigger

I wonder where Boeing is going to find there work force for the 2nd line maintenance. Does anybody know where you can get a group of experienced aircraft technicians in the Trenton area? I hope that the techs coming back from the States, don't jump ship and go to work for Boeing.


----------



## observor 69

eurowing said:
			
		

> Rigger, if the techs are trained the American way, not to worry.  It will only be servicing level duties as their idea of first level maint is quite different from ours.  The most complex job might be a tire change. So indepth knowledge needed would be minimal.   I hope I am wrong though.



Which got me to wondering?? What happens if the aircraft sitting on the ramp at Trenton goes down for a broken engine? How about if it has a broken engine in Thunder Bay, etc? In other words, how are we going to handle major snags repair, radar, radio, electrical etc?


----------



## tomahawk6

Not to take things off topic I have been a big fan of Boeings Pelican.

http://foxxaero.homestead.com/indrad_043.html


----------



## eurowing

Baden  Guy said:
			
		

> Which got me to wondering?? What happens if the aircraft sitting on the ramp at Trenton goes down for a broken engine? How about if it has a broken engine in Thunder Bay, etc? In other words, how are we going to handle major snags repair, radar, radio, electrical etc?



That is the $55 question.  It all boils down to "what is considered 1st line maint?"  
I am very curious as to how this will play out.  An engine change is usually considered a 1st line job by us, but will it be with the CC-177? 

I don't believe the 2nd line will be huge issue.  We do less and less second line now anyway.  We send most parts away because of lack of manpower and erosion of expertise from the trade amalgamation.  So an engine change might be a fly in team from Boeing and we probably won't do off ac repair on the engine either.

No CFTO's?  Not bilingual?  I willing to bet there won't be a francophone TO for quite some time.

Will the CC-177 get a pass from the P series? Can't see that given the monumental efforts to make it work.  

Will the AF9K cell in the new unit be busy... you betcha!

Anyhow, those are rambling thoughts and again... watch, wait and see.

A point here I should make.  My experience with USAF was 4 years ago and it was while attached to the NATO AWACS over a 4 year period.  What I experienced was not the most current USAF practices and my USAF friends said that they were trained better on their own ac, but not to the levels we were on our Canadian ac.  

Tomahawk.... now that is cool!


----------



## vonGarvin

T-6: that looks like something right out of Captain Scarlet or UFO!  Awesome
Here's a trivial question: what will we call our CC-177?  Keep in mind that the "Orion" became the "Aurora", so if other than GLOBEMASTER, what could we call it?  The HILLIER?  The BIG HONKING PLANE?  STEVE?


----------



## aesop081

Hauptmann Scharlachrot said:
			
		

> T-6: that looks like something right out of Captain Scarlet or UFO!  Awesome
> Here's a trivial question: what will we call our CC-177?  Keep in mind that *the "Orion" became the "Aurora", * so if other than GLOBEMASTER, what could we call it?  The HILLIER?  The BIG HONKING PLANE?  STEVE?



Thats Because the Orion and Aurora are 2 very different aircraft.

CC-177 name....humm.....yeah that could be interesting


----------



## geo

My vote is for "STEVE"


----------



## Good2Golf

Baden  Guy said:
			
		

> Which got me to wondering?? What happens if the aircraft sitting on the ramp at Trenton goes down for a broken engine? How about if it has a broken engine in Thunder Bay, etc? In other words, how are we going to handle major snags repair, radar, radio, electrical etc?



MRP, as with any other CF aircraft breaking down away from home base.

G2G


----------



## aesop081

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> MRP, as with any other CF aircraft breaking down away from home base.
> 
> G2G



I love those.....perticularly when they involve the phrase " theres an Aurora broken in Hawaii, wanna go on the MRP ?"


----------



## observor 69

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> MRP, as with any other CF aircraft breaking down away from home base.
> 
> G2G



Ya but ......that's the point of my question, our MRP or Boeing's?  As was mentioned what will be 2nd line and what's 1st ?


----------



## Globesmasher

Hauptmann Scharlachrot said:
			
		

> Here's a trivial question: what will we call our CC-177?  Keep in mind that the "Orion" became the "Aurora", so if other than GLOBEMASTER, what could we call it?  The HILLIER?  The BIG HONKING PLANE?  STEVE?



Nomenclature comes from CAS and DAR.

It will be the:

CC-177
Globemaster lll (No French quivalent)
Tail numbers are 701, 702, 703 and 704.


----------



## Astrodog

geo said:
			
		

> My vote is for "STEVE"



CC-177 Steve.. that has me in stitches for some reason!  ;D


----------



## geo

Globesmasher said:
			
		

> CC-177
> Globemaster lll (No French quivalent)



....."mais oui"  ,  Globemaster will be said in an outrageously french accent


----------



## observor 69

I thought this was cute!  
http://www.defence.gov.au/news/raafnews/editions/4823/topstories/story01.htm

The master has arrived 
Christmas comes early for Air Force with the arrival of first Globemaster 

Volume 48, No. 23, December 14, 2006 



IT'S THIS BIG: 36SQN co-pilot FLTLT Scott Hyland welcomes the new C-17 to RAAF Base Amberley with open arms.
Photo by WO Steve Dent

  

36SQN CO WGCDR Linda Corbould carries the big cermeonial commissioning key from the C-17 at the arrival ceremony in Canberra. 
Photo by WO Steve Dent

  

BIG NEWS: AIRCDRE Glen Steed talks to local media after the arrival of the C-17 at RAAF Base Amberley.
Photo by AC Aaron Curran 
By SQNLDR Phil Smith

UNTIL now, Air Force hasn’t had an aircraft to make the C-130 Hercules look small, but its first C-17 Globemaster III did just that as it sat beside its Air Lift partner on the hard stand at Fairbairn.

Two official welcomes awaited the 36SQN crew delivering the first of their four new heavy lifters after its Trans-Pacific flight on December 4.

In Canberra, the aircraft was welcomed by a galaxy of VIPs, including Prime Minister John Howard, Defence Minister Brendan Nelson, CDF ACM Angus Houston and CAF AIRMSHL Geoff Shepherd. CO 36SQN, WGCDR Linda Corbould gave them a close look at the Globemaster with a low pass before stopping in front of them. 

Carrying the huge ceremonial commissioning key, WGCDR Corbould and her crew were welcomed home.

The aircraft has been delivered within an extraordinary ten months of the government ordering them. CAF thanked everyone in Australia, the US and UK who made that possible.


----------



## tomahawk6

Too bad I would have favored "The Big Dipper". ;D


----------



## observor 69

And some more stuff that might be of interest.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CFB_Trenton

On June 22, 2006 the Treasury Board of Canada approved the purchase of four aircraft to address Canada's strategic airlift capability shortfall. The aircraft chosen to meet the needs of the Canadian Forces is Boeing's C-17 Globemaster III. (Canada will use the identifier CC177). The main base of operations has been announced by a recent CANAIRGEN to be CFB Trenton. With this announcement Trenton remains the centre of heavy lift transport.

The first of four CC177's are scheduled to arrive in Trenton, summer 2007. However this requires several infrastructure projects, which may require the new aircraft to operate from a temporary location till the facilities are built.

The base is also slated to become the new home of Joint Task Force 2, Canada's elite commando unit. The move from the unit's current Dwyer Hill facility to CFB Trenton will be complete by 2010.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Oh dear.  David Akin of CTV posts this at his blog:

"The CC-177 -- Canada's newest (and biggest) military toy"
http://davidakin.blogware.com/blog/_archives/2007/2/5/2711609.html

-10.

And the Navy's ships are bigger.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## vonGarvin

Perhaps Mr Akins is inferring that as the Senior Service, the Navy would NEVER treat HMC Ships as toys


----------



## DavidAkin

I am pleased to promptly respond when I write something that is less than clear ...  

And so:
The CC-177 -- Canada's newest big military toy
http://davidakin.blogware.com/blog/_archives/2007/2/5/2711609.html

And while I'm  here -- let me add my thanks to Globesmasher for all the helpful info about this program ...

Late last year, I interviewed Maj. Jean Maisonneuve about the C-17 acquisition.  Those here who know him know he has flown more than 100 combat missions with the USAF in their C-17s. I got the impression from him that these planes are indeed something else ...


----------



## MarkOttawa

Mr Akin,

Your post was not lacking in clarity.  It was wrong.  And it is snide, typical of our journalists when they write on the military.  One hoped to expect better of you.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## vonGarvin

Mark
I didn't find Mr. Akin's article snide, rude or typical in any way.  Use of colloquialism?  Perhaps.  Would I call it a "toy"?  Jokingly, perhaps.  

The world still turns, and in my opinion, Mr. Akin's articles, even if you consider it snide, is nothing compared to this:

http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/47489/


Enjoy


----------



## hotelquebec9er

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Mr Akin,
> 
> Your post was not lacking in clarity.  It was wrong.  And it is snide, typical of our journalists when they write on the military.  One hoped to expect better of you.
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



...and we wonder why the military regularly doesn't get a heck of a lot of respect from journalists...


----------



## Kirkhill

Mark, was there something else to David's post other than that which is currently on his blog?

Because I don't see anything untoward there.

Cheers.


----------



## aesop081

MOD WARNING

Personal attacks, against anyone wont fly....keep it civil or it will be gone......

First and only warning

army.ca staff


----------



## Inch

Globesmasher said:
			
		

> Nomenclature comes from CAS and DAR.
> 
> It will be the:
> 
> CC-177
> Globemaster lll (No French quivalent)
> Tail numbers are 701, 702, 703 and 704.



Is it going to be a 6 digit tail number or a 5 digit number? ie 177701 or 17701?


----------



## greentoblue

Mr Adkin, I have registered for this forum specifically to reply to you:  as a serving air force officer I take great offence at the description of the CC177/C17 as a "toy".  The tone you use suggests that the acquistion of this aircraft is superflous to Canadian needs - in the same vein as overpriced European sports cars, luxury SUVS and yachts for Bay Street stockbrokers.  Nothing can be further from the truth.

The air force has been scrambling to keep the air bridge of troops, equipment and ammunition amongst other supplies flowing to Kandahar.  Critical to these efforts were the use of US Air Force C17s that flew out of our bases, carrying supplies for use of OUR troops.  The C17s flew directly from Canada into Kandahar which saved time and additional effort as we did not have to impose a logistical stopgap of unloading from one aircraft into another as we have to do with the Airbus/C130 combination.  (I will not post dates or locations due to security reasons.)  Unfortunately, we were not able to continue using C17s on a regular basis due to operational commitments from their own country.  Suffice to say, if (and soon when) we had our own C17s there would be no lack of missions to keep them occuppied - benefiting Canadians, and more importantly, Canadian soldiers.

MOD: This is nothing personal about Mr Adkin - it is about the tone he used.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Hauptmann Scharlachrot, Kirkhill: I should have been more clear.  The original title (not the post) was both snide and wrong.  As for "toy" (still in the title) the current Liberal finance critic--when MND--used the phrase in the original title which simply mocks the needs of the CF.  And female members.
http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=535265&Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=37&Ses=2#SOB-311770

I await a journalist, when writing of medical equipment needed for diagnosis or surgery, referring to "toys for the boys".

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## DavidAkin

greentoblue said:
			
		

> Mr Adkin, I have registered for this forum specifically to reply to you:  as a serving air force officer I take great offence at the description of the CC177/C17 as a "toy".  The tone you use suggests that the acquistion of this aircraft is superflous to Canadian needs - in the same vein as overpriced European sports cars, luxury SUVS and yachts for Bay Street stockbrokers.  Nothing can be further from the truth.
> ....
> MOD: This is nothing personal about Mr Adkin - it is about the tone he used.



No offence taken at this end (though it would be nice if people spelled AKIN the way I spell it, but perhaps I'm being picky).

I realize that I'm going to be a bit of a lightning rod for the sin of every journalist to ever cover a military matter. As for characterizing the C-17s as a toy -- well, I suppose you see something in the use of the language that I don't see nor intended. Fair enough, you've let me know about it.

Now, as for the argument as to whether the C-17s are an urgently needed piece of kit -- well, on that point, I hope you'll concede that that debate is not nearly so cut-and-dried. I hold no position in that debate but I am interested in describing the debate. 

We do have the currenct CDS on record saying that had it been a choice between tactical and strategic, he would have found a way to make do with renting/leasing strategic because he believed tactical airlift was an absolute must-have. Mind you, he said when the Liberals were in power. It's difficult to get him to be so equivocal now that the government has changed.

Among the political overseers of the the military's budget, there are some very big fans of the need to buy strategic, notably, Edmonton MP Laurie Hawn. Hawn is a former CF18 pilot and member of the Commons Defence Committee and has often made many of the same arguments you just made.

As a reporter, I would be very interested to learn of situations where operational efficiency or effectiveness was put at risk because Canada failed to secure strategic airlift in a timely manner. Though I've asked several times,  compelling examples have yet to be provided. Please let me know -- on or off this board ... These sorts of examples would be precisely the sort of thing that the public ought to know about it.

Those interested in this issue will want to know that the CDS and the MND will testify tomorrow at a meeting of the Commons Committee on National Defence [http://tinyurl.com/2lbjo3] and I know that some opposition members of that committee will be asking Hillier and O'Connor about DND's procurement priorities.  This committee will be televised. I'm not sure what, if any, broadcaster is carrying it live (CPAC perhaps?) but it will be likely available online through the Parliamentary Webcast service.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

David,
I can see how one not associated with the 'job' could use that word, just remember those pieces of equipment are our 'raison d'etre".

Knowing the way you write I'm sure you meant no harm whatsoever.
Thanks again for being one of the few that will come explain things from your world.


----------



## Meridian

Question to those who can clear up (or confirm) Boeing's spin, but they state:



> As the only *tactical *airlifter with strategic *range*, the C-17 has become the world's airlifter of choice.


http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2007/q1/070202d_nr.html

This implies to me that at least Boeing considers this aircraft to actually be (albeit perhaps oversized) tactical lift, with strategic abilities, rather than a strategic lift airframe, with tactical capabilities.   Which is it, or is it all just semantics?  Globesmasher had wrote earlier that it was indeed very useful tactically...

I raise this only because Mr Akin (Spelled right, hopefully) and the MSM have often quoted this "strategic vs tactical" argument.


----------



## tomahawk6

DavidAkin said:
			
		

> No offence taken at this end (though it would be nice if people spelled AKIN the way I spell it, but perhaps I'm being picky).
> 
> I realize that I'm going to be a bit of a lightning rod for the sin of every journalist to ever cover a military matter. As for characterizing the C-17s as a toy -- well, I suppose you see something in the use of the language that I don't see nor intended. Fair enough, you've let me know about it.
> 
> Now, as for the argument as to whether the C-17s are an urgently needed piece of kit -- well, on that point, I hope you'll concede that that debate is not nearly so cut-and-dried. I hold no position in that debate but I am interested in describing the debate.
> 
> We do have the currenct CDS on record saying that had it been a choice between tactical and strategic, he would have found a way to make do with renting/leasing strategic because he believed tactical airlift was an absolute must-have. Mind you, he said when the Liberals were in power. It's difficult to get him to be so equivocal now that the government has changed.
> 
> Among the political overseers of the the military's budget, there are some very big fans of the need to buy strategic, notably, Edmonton MP Laurie Hawn. Hawn is a former CF18 pilot and member of the Commons Defence Committee and has often made many of the same arguments you just made.
> 
> As a reporter, I would be very interested to learn of situations where operational efficiency or effectiveness was put at risk because Canada failed to secure strategic airlift in a timely manner. Though I've asked several times,  compelling examples have yet to be provided. Please let me know -- on or off this board ... These sorts of examples would be precisely the sort of thing that the public ought to know about it.
> 
> Those interested in this issue will want to know that the CDS and the MND will testify tomorrow at a meeting of the Commons Committee on National Defence [http://tinyurl.com/2lbjo3] and I know that some opposition members of that committee will be asking Hillier and O'Connor about DND's procurement priorities.  This committee will be televised. I'm not sure what, if any, broadcaster is carrying it live (CPAC perhaps?) but it will be likely available online through the Parliamentary Webcast service.



Globesmasher pointed out in a post that it took DART weeks to be deployed instead of days with the C-17.
You mentioned leasing aircraft. The USAF thought leasing was the way to go to fund the next generation of tankers.The problem is that leasing is not ownership and leasing costs can be more expensive than an outright purchase. If you can afford it buying is better than leasing.

The C-17 is a very capable aircraft that unless you buy a Russian built aircraft, has no counterpart in the west. Canada and Australia are able to acquire aircraft at a competitive price with delivery inside of 18 months which simply cannot be matched. As Globesmasher pointed out all C-17's have a built in lifetime upgrade package that no other aircraft can match. Frankly with Canada's requirements 4 aircraft is the bare minimum for Canada's current and future commitments. I think a total of 6 C-17's would be more in line, but 4 is a great start. The left in Canada has starved the CF for funds for decades and only now under a government that understands that to be a player on the global stage one needs the chips play with. The left feel that spending on the military is a waste of money but having a strong modern military goes part and parcel with being a player on the world stage. Long range lift and medium lift helicopters make your military mobile and flexible because these assets can be used to support humanitarian missions. When Pakistan was devestated by earthquakes US Army Chinooks flew from Afghanistan into "indian territory"
to provide humanitarian aid that made us many friends in a region that had a rather hostile view of the US.

The bottom line is that much of the MSM is hostile to the military as well as the conservative government. The parties can disagree but having a strong national defense should have bipartisan support instead of being a political football for the advantage of one side or the other.


----------



## h3tacco

The deployment DART at the end 2004 (Tsunami)  was delayed for a number weeks precisely because we were not able secure strategic lift. Edit - Oops looks like I missed the punch line.


----------



## MarkOttawa

DavidAkin:



> We do have the current CDS on record saying that had it been a choice between tactical and strategic, he would have found a way to make do with renting/leasing strategic because he believed tactical airlift was an absolute must-have. Mind you, he said when the Liberals were in power. It's difficult to get him to be so equivocal now that the government has changed.



Indeed.  This was the situation with the Liberals in government (though I find this "David" much more difficult as a reporter I am sure the facts are basically right and could, with time, find other references):
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=2527983&C=america



> In 2000, the Canadian Air Force determined that the C-17 best met its strategic airlift needs, and planners started laying the groundwork for buying six of the aircraft. It went as far as having pilots go to the United States to train on the C-17.
> 
> But in 2003, the Liberal government derailed plans to purchase strategic transport aircraft, noting it would be cheaper to rent such planes when needed for overseas operations.



When the CF absolutely must have tactical lift (Hercs) because many of the current planes are on their last legs, and when the Liberal government has made it clear they will not buy C-17s, then _faute de mieux_ one will opt for a Herc replacement since that is the *only* option that government will accept.
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2007/01/liberals-and-c-130j.html

I see no equivocation, then or now.  There was no question of "had it been a choice" as the Liberal government had ruled out C-17s.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Globesmasher

Inch said:
			
		

> Is it going to be a 6 digit tail number or a 5 digit number? ie 177701 or 17701?



Inch:

I think we're going for the 5 digit version just like the Airbus ..... but I haven't actually see the authorized and apporved paint scheme yet.  But people tell me it's going to be 5 digits.


----------



## Globesmasher

h3tacco said:
			
		

> The deployment DART at the end 2004 (Tsunami)  was delayed for a number weeks precisely because we were not able secure strategic lift.



And our only available "tactical airlift" assets were busy doing SAR and Afghanistan ... there was nothing servicable left to fly the DART anywhere.


----------



## Globesmasher

Meridian said:
			
		

> Question to those who can clear up (or confirm) Boeing's spin, but they state:
> ......
> This implies to me that at least Boeing considers this aircraft to actually be (albeit perhaps oversized) tactical lift, with strategic abilities, rather than a strategic lift airframe, with tactical capabilities.   Which is it, or is it all just semantics?  Globesmasher had wrote earlier that it was indeed very useful tactically...
> 
> I raise this only because Mr Akin (Spelled right, hopefully) and the MSM have often quoted this "strategic vs tactical" argument.



The strategic versus tactical discussion/debate is one that has crossed into new water here as new technology has come on line and made readily available to Air Forces.

Traditionally “strategic airlift” was viewed as the “inter-theatre airlift”; The transport of men and materiel from home base to a safe intermediate staging base (ISB) located close to but away from the combat area.  The strategic airlifters were thought of as the C-5 Galaxy, the C-141 Starlifter and our very own A310 Airbus.  They can carry vast amounts of personnel and/or cargo and can transit the globe fairly quickly at high altitudes, but they cannot operate any deeper into the AOR than the ISB.

Tactical airlift was then referred to as the “intra-theatre airlift” which was the transport of the same men and materiel from the safe ISB to the forward operating locations (FOLs) and austere combat LZes.  The traditional tactical airlifters were the C-160 Transal and the C-130 Hercules to name but a few.  They are much smaller than the strat airlifters, but more capable of operating on dirt strips with combat redundant systems that would allow them to survive in the hostile, non-permissive AOR.

Recently it has been found that the cross loading operations at the ISB was far too slow, cumbersome and costly.  It slowed down the speed at which materiel was reaching the front and soon became unacceptable.  Furthermore, modern army equipment such as the LAV lll no longer fit into existing airframes.

It is now that technology such as the Boeing Globemaster lll C-17A and the soon to be born Airbus A400M (~2012) that the delineation between strategic and tactical are now blurred and no longer really relevant in the new paradigm.  These two new aircraft can now carry out-sized cargo loads that were traditionally carried on the strategic airlifters and they can carry them over strategic distances, inter-theatre so to speak.  Then, they can skip the cross loading required and the ISB and continue directly into the combat zone.  These new aircraft have been built with the requisite combat redundant systems and capability that allows them to operate in hostile, non permissive environments and to land on dirt strips in austere FOLs.

So Boeing now has the right to advertise its C-17 Globemaster as the new “strategic aircraft with tactical capabilities” or as the new “tactical aircraft with strategic legs”.  It’s all the same and just perhaps a matter of semantics.  The line between the two doctrinal concepts have now been blurred.  The airlifters prefer to call it the C-17 mission the “Direct Delivery Sortie”.  The C-17 can carry large outsized cargo directly from home base to the FOL without any crossloading or switching of cargo.  Or it can airdrop it into the forward DZ.

The times … they are ‘a changin’.


----------



## Globesmasher

Quite a few people have PM'ed me asking about the proposed paint scheme for the CC 177.
While I am not a member of the PMO team, I believe that the artist's conception is shown below of what our aircraft are going to look like.
Apparently that is actually Ottawa below the aircraft ... gotta' love photoshop eh?


----------



## aesop081

That picture brings a tear to my eye Globemasher......

it is a thing of beauty


----------



## Globesmasher

DavidAkin said:
			
		

> I am pleased to promptly respond when I write something that is less than clear ...
> 
> And so:
> The CC-177 -- Canada's newest big military toy
> http://davidakin.blogware.com/blog/_archives/2007/2/5/2711609.html
> 
> And while I'm  here -- let me add my thanks to Globesmasher for all the helpful info about this program ...
> 
> Late last year, I interviewed Maj. Jean Maisonneuve about the C-17 acquisition.  Those here who know him know he has flown more than 100 combat missions with the USAF in their C-17s. I got the impression from him that these planes are indeed something else ...



They truly are.

One thing for us to bear in mind is the fact that this site ...
http://davidakin.blogware.com/blog/_archives/2007/2/5/2711609.html

... is Mr Akin's personal blog ... so he can pretty much say what he wishes.
Much like we do here (within bounds of reason of course).
I can't say that I find his coverage derogatory at all.


----------



## vonGarvin

Given the the C-17 flies missions of a strategic nature (eg: taking stuff from 'here' and flying it 'there'), I would call it strat lift with a tactical landing capability.  But, Globesmasher is right: the lines are blurring.  Semantics aside, just call it a Big Honking Plane (or Steve) and realise that when they come online, the Air Force will be able to do stuff it hadn't been able to do before.


----------



## greentoblue

Mr Akin:

To start with, the reason why the term “toy” is upsetting to myself and others in my unit that saw your blog, is that for so long the concerns of the military with aging equipment and replacement has been dismissed by many in power or authority.  Successive governments, aided by so-called “think-tanks”, academics, politicians, lobbyists and sun-dry other agenda setters, have belittled the concerns of the armed forces by characterizing them as “toys for boys.”  You, with your headline, have perpetuated this condescending, patronizing stereotype.  

The military does not advocate buying a piece of equipment because we own stock in the company (although that seems to be an angle being played out by the aforementioned agenda setters).  It is because there is an identified need for that piece of equipment to fill.  And this is regardless of country of origin:  the original Maritime Helicopter replacement ordered by the Conservatives, the EH101, was an Anglo-Italian product; the helicopter eventually – after 11 years – ordered by the Liberals, the S92/CH148 Cyclone, is an American product.

I, along with many others on this board, have been witness to the results of this complaisant attitude to military procurement on countless occasions.  For example, the replacement of the Iltis jeep was approved by Treasury Board in 1998 but nothing was done until two soldiers were killed in a mine blast in Afghanistan.  Only then, after the public and media attention, did the government finally order a replacement vehicle.  Other examples off the top of my head – not enough kelvar jackets and helmets to go around in the former Yugoslavia; sending soldiers in temperate forest uniforms to a desert country; the number of broken trucks cannibalized for spare parts to keep others going at the BC forest fires; watching the Dutch ride around Afghanistan in our old Chinook helicopters and having a Dutch pilot thank me for Canada selling them to his country (much gnashing of teeth),etc.

Regarding the effectiveness issue, in addition to comments about the delay in sending the DART unit to Indonesia and Pakistan, in 1999 the air force sent a C130 to assist in the UN operation in East Timor.  This particular C130 took four tries to get out of Vancouver due to successive mechanical breakdowns.  It took three weeks to get to Australia.

As for the comments by the CDS, they speak for themselves: given a choice, he chose.  That’s as far as I am going in parsing the CDS – I may be dumb but I ain’t stupid.

Apologies for misspelling your name.


----------



## Meridian

Appreciate the clarification, Globesmasher! (& Hauptmann Scharlachrot)


----------



## HDE

I'd love for the media, or some of them, to actually focus on why the military is forever having to decide which piece of clearly necessary equipment will be acquired and which won't.  Is the military budget adequate?  Are our allies in the same position?  How does military spending in Canada compare?  Here in Canada the military actually receiving new stuff appears to be headline news.  Why is that?


----------



## George Wallace

MODERATORS NOTE:

The Poster was not BANNED for his posts in this forum, but for creating Multiple Accounts, and not replying to inquiries as to why he had done so.


----------



## Haletown

Globesmasher said:
			
		

> So Boeing now has the right to advertise its C-17 Globemaster as the new “strategic aircraft with tactical capabilities” or as the new “tactical aircraft with strategic legs”.  It’s all the same and just perhaps a matter of semantics.  The line between the two doctrinal concepts have now been blurred.  The airlifters prefer to call it the C-17 mission the “Direct Delivery Sortie”.  The C-17 can carry large outsized cargo directly from home base to the FOL without any crossloading or switching of cargo.  Or it can airdrop it into the forward DZ.
> 
> The times … they are ‘a changin’.




Agreed . . .  and  since we have "inter-theatre" distances within our own borders, having fast, big lift is going to a critical to having an Arctic presence, civilian and military. Especially if you are a Believer and expect the Arctic Ocean's ice pack to thaw out and Canada really needs a face presence in the real Great White North.


And calling these "toys" is at best cute, at worst pejorative, but either way a poor choice of an adjective.


----------



## Meridian

HDE said:
			
		

> I'd love for the media, or some of them, to actually focus on why the military is forever having to decide which piece of clearly necessary equipment will be acquired and which won't.  Is the military budget adequate?  Are our allies in the same position?  How does military spending in Canada compare?  Here in Canada the military actually receiving new stuff appears to be headline news.  Why is that?



Well, it is in part due to the fact that, for quite a while now, Canadians have not been placing Defence (or terror/security, et al) at the top of their priorities lists.  Healthcare has been numero 1 for quite a while, being replaced by environment only recently after this spat of wacko weather the world saw in Nov-Dec-Jan. Its still quite high.

Proportionate spending of government funds equates to the equivalent proportions of the most politically expedient spending, and generally falls along poll lines.  Until someone takes a leadership stance and starts convincing Canadians that Defence is a necessity,  we will not join the rest of G8 nations in proportionate spending.

Anecdotally, in speaking with a lot of new Canadians at my last job (call centre manager), a lot of them individually came up to me and stated that one of the things they loved about Canada was that they did not feel like so much of their government was about all things military.  It made them feel safer, in perhaps a way we may not all agree with.


----------



## George Wallace

Globesmasher said:
			
		

> Apparently that is actually Ottawa below the aircraft ... gotta' love photoshop eh?



Yup!  Can see my office from there.... ;D


----------



## Bert

Globesmasher said:
			
		

> Tactical airlift was then referred to as the “intra-theatre airlift” which was the transport of the same men and materiel from the safe ISB to the forward operating locations (FOLs) and austere combat LZes.  The traditional tactical airlifters were the C-160 Transal and the C-130 Hercules to name but a few.  They are much smaller than the strat airlifters, but more capable of operating on dirt strips with combat redundant systems that would allow them to survive in the hostile, non-permissive AOR....
> ...  Then, they can skip the cross loading required and the ISB and continue directly into the combat zone.  These new aircraft have been built with the requisite combat redundant systems and capability that allows them to operate in hostile, non permissive environments and to land on dirt strips in austere FOLs.



Globesmaster, though you state some interesting generalizations, they may overgeneralize.  The 
specs of the tradational tactical lifters and the C-17 are different in key areas.  There are operations, 
airfields, and situations where C-17 and the type are not required or cannot land without higher or 
unnecessary risk.  The C-130 is a more appropriate airframe in some circumstances the CF finds itself in.  
The tactical and the strategic capability as it relates to airframe still has relevance.  Some older threads 
in the forum from the past year have various perspectives regarding tactical and strategic.


----------



## HDE

I agree that politics drive most spending, however there's no reason why it shouldn't be pointed out that Canada is hardly aspiring to be a military hyperpower, rather we can quite reasonably commit resources along the lines of several of our NATO allies without worrying about how excessive it is.  Just once I'd love to see an honest debate about
how our spending actually does compare.  Given how much we do spend it seems reasonable to hope someone in the media would show a little interest in doing a bit of research.  I suppose the issue isn't sexy enough.


----------



## Kirkhill

Respectfully Bert, 

Having followed Globesmashers postings on the matter, including the information he posted on his place within the organization, then I think he might be better positioned than most of us who were commenting on the tactical/strategic debate.  

Cheers, Chris.


----------



## DavidAkin

*Do we know for a fact that the DART deployment was delayed because Canada could not secure strategic airlift?* I was not in Ottawa when the DART was deployed to Sri Lanka after the Asian tsunami but my colleagues believe that the delay in deploying the DART was the inability of political overseers to make a decision about the deployment of the DART. In other words, the three-week delay may not have been a problem of procuring a ride for the DART but may have been due to the time it took the Paul Martin cabinet to make a decision.
In other words, even if Canada at that time owned it owns strategic airlift capability, it may still have taken three weeks for DART to deploy.

Consider this story, written by the Star's Bruce Campion Smith, that appeared in the paper on TUESDAY JAN 4 2005:

-----------------------------
*DART flying to heart of disaster; Team heading for Sri Lanka's coast Will deliver medical aid, clean water *  

OTTAWA -- Canada's disaster relief team - now packing to head to Sri Lanka to dispense medical care, clean water and help with reconstruction - will remain in the stricken country "for as long as it takes," Defence Minister Bill Graham pledged yesterday. 
....
After a week of internal debate, Prime Minister Paul Martin yesterday gave the green light to deploy the military's Disaster Assistance Response Team (DART) to the Ampara region on Sri Lanka's east coast. 
....
Two commercially chartered Russian Antonov transport jets will depart Canadian Forces Base in Trenton Thursday night, carrying the first load of equipment and personnel halfway around the globe to the hard-hit island nation. 

----------------
So my read of Bruce's story is that on Monday, the Prime Minister told the DART to go and by Thursday it was loading into a leased Antonov. That seems to be a pretty quick turnaround.

I had been transferred to Ottawa by the time the DART was deployed to Pakistan for earthquake assistance and, in fact, stood beside then Foreign Affairs Minister Pierre Pettigrew at CFB Trenton as we watched the (unbelievably huge) Antonov land and the DART equipment load. Pettigrew, CFB PA officers, and others said at the time that the Antonov had been 'ordered' within two or three days of its appearance at Trenton and that obtaining the services of the Antonov in a timely fashion had never been an issue.


----------



## FSTO

DavidAkin said:
			
		

> *Do we know for a fact that the DART deployment was delayed because Canada could not secure strategic airlift?* I was not in Ottawa when the DART was deployed to Sri Lanka after the Asian tsunami but my colleagues believe that the delay in deploying the DART was the inability of political overseers to make a decision about the deployment of the DART. In other words, the three-week delay may not have been a problem of procuring a ride for the DART but may have been due to the time it took the Paul Martin cabinet to make a decision.
> In other words, even if Canada at that time owned it owns strategic airlift capability, it may still have taken three weeks for DART to deploy.
> 
> Consider this story, written by the Star's Bruce Campion Smith, that appeared in the paper on TUESDAY JAN 4 2005:
> 
> -----------------------------
> *DART flying to heart of disaster; Team heading for Sri Lanka's coast Will deliver medical aid, clean water *
> 
> OTTAWA -- Canada's disaster relief team - now packing to head to Sri Lanka to dispense medical care, clean water and help with reconstruction - will remain in the stricken country "for as long as it takes," Defence Minister Bill Graham pledged yesterday.
> ....
> After a week of internal debate, Prime Minister Paul Martin yesterday gave the green light to deploy the military's Disaster Assistance Response Team (DART) to the Ampara region on Sri Lanka's east coast.
> ....
> Two commercially chartered Russian Antonov transport jets will depart Canadian Forces Base in Trenton Thursday night, carrying the first load of equipment and personnel halfway around the globe to the hard-hit island nation.
> 
> ----------------
> So my read of Bruce's story is that on Monday, the Prime Minister told the DART to go and by Thursday it was loading into a leased Antonov. That seems to be a pretty quick turnaround.
> 
> I had been transferred to Ottawa by the time the DART was deployed to Pakistan for earthquake assistance and, in fact, stood beside then Foreign Affairs Minister Pierre Pettigrew at CFB Trenton as we watched the (unbelievably huge) Antonov land and the DART equipment load. Pettigrew, CFB PA officers, and others said at the time that the Antonov had been 'ordered' within two or three days of its appearance at Trenton and that obtaining the services of the Antonov in a timely fashion had never been an issue.



Another issue with the Anatov's is that they are getting old and there servicability may become a concern, (other Air Force folks should be able to give more details). Finally has anyone done the cost analysis of leasing vs owning? I know of many folks who have been burnt badly leasing cars, (a poor example but an example nontheless). 
Have a good day Mr. Akin, you are a journalist that does his homework.

cheers


----------



## geo

Antonov tipe of leasing in our case has been more like renting a car for the weekend from Antonov rent-a-plane.  Not the same thing.

Leasing a C17 from Boeing would signify that you would pay a bundle up front, face all sorts of restrictions (it's not your plane) and be faced with all sorts of conditions at lease renewal time.  The RAF started off their C17 ownership with leases - they are now going to buy outright.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Just to reinforce my point, an excerpt from a column by Chantal Hébert in the _Toronto Star_, Feb. 5:
http://www.thestar.com/opinion/article/177724



> The Liberal take on the Boeing contract is that it amounts to extravagant toy-buying.



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Globesmasher

Bert said:
			
		

> Globesmaster, though you state some interesting generalizations, they may overgeneralize.  The
> specs of the tradational tactical lifters and the C-17 are different in key areas.  There are operations,
> airfields, and situations where C-17 and the type are not required or cannot land without higher or
> unnecessary risk.  The C-130 is a more appropriate airframe in some circumstances the CF finds itself in.
> The tactical and the strategic capability as it relates to airframe still has relevance.  Some older threads
> in the forum from the past year have various perspectives regarding tactical and strategic.



I appreciate the discussion ...

You are correct to a point Bert, and my submission about strategic vs tactical airlift may at first appear to be an over-generalization.  It is difficult to relate to such a subject and keep it small and interesting for the reader on the forum.  :boring:  The subject is in fact huge and beyond the scope of the thread or the forum.

Since its inception, and since we have a manpower shortage in the pilot trade, I have been helping CF AWC (on and off) at 8 Wing Trenton address and rewrite our old and outdated Airlift Doctrine.  Believe it or not, this issue has not been revisited since 1990.  That is the latest copy or rendition of anything that resembles "TAL doctrine".  We've never actually had any "Strat doctrine" but we have always been collectively quoting from the American "Strategic vs Tactical Airlift" / "Inter versus Intra theatre Airlift" paradigm.

Establishments such as CF AWC are long overdue ... hopefully we'll have some decent doctrine to go from in the not too distant future.  This will be a first for us ..... shocking as that may seem.

You are correct in that the employment and use of either a C-130 or a C-17 into a certain combat FOL is very much determined based on the actual situation, threat assessment and airfield conditions.  This is why each TALCE has a planning staff and someone who makes the determination.  But now, Self Protection Suite (SPS) technology has meant that the threat situation and assessment really have very little to do with which aircraft to employ.  They are both equally well equipped to defend themselves in the SA, AAA & EW spectrum.  It really boils down to what kind (size) of FOL are we dealing with.

Whilst I have been astounded at the eye-watering performance of the C-17 and it's ability to land (being 3.5 times larger than the C-130) fully loaded on austere runways 3500' x 90', I must also remember that the C-130 can operate on 3000' x 60' under the same circumstances.  The C-130 will always be "THE quintessential tactical airlifter" in my mind.  But it will never be, and can never be, a strategic airlifter by any definition.  And now the C-17 is encroaching on the realm of operations that have been heretofore "Hercules only".

Exposure to risk ... good argument.  What if we had 18 pallets of vitally needed ammunition to deliver to a forward LZ that was 3500' x 90'.  Do you, as the TALCE Commander, want to expose 1 x C-17 once to the risk to deliver that entire load .... or do you want to expose 1 x C-130 4 times (or 4 Hercs once each) to the same risk as it tries to deliver the same quantity of load?  If the LZ is smaller than those dimensions, then the debate is moot and there is really only one aircraft that can do the job (although it will take 4 sorties).

The one issue that is now completely derailing the discussion on "strat vs tact" is the new, modern equipment that the army is using.  Let's look at the LAV lll for example.  To me, this appears to be the backbone of mounted infantry operations and the requirement for this robust AFV will always in predominant in current and near-future operations.  Years from now I see the "LAV lV" (or whatever the next generation AFV is) as being even bigger, even heavier as it develops and employs technological counter measures against whatever weapon has been designed to deafeat it.  Bearing that in mind, the C-130 cannot currently carry a fully configured LAV lll (ready to drive off and fight), and it never will even if it stays the same size as the AFV eveloves and develop es .... and future AFVs will not fit either.  So now it is "equipment" that is driving what type of airlift we employ to get "the kit to the fight" for the army.  It is not longer the nature of the operation or the risk assessment.  The C-17 is as robust (in fact more so) than the C-130 E/H and is equally as well defended as the C-130J with it defensive suite.  The threat is no longer really the driving issue when it comes to airlift aircraft employment in a given circumstance.

The one thing to bear in mind with the C-130J - it is only the cockpit, avionics and engines that have been redesigned.  The cargo compartment, while it has an upgraded cargo handling system, is the same size as the venerable E and the H, be it a stubby or a stretch J.  The Lav lll does not fit in the C-130 E or H and it will not fit in the C-130 J, or the K or the L or the M, N, O , P .... (you get the picture) or whatever model they come up with until Lockheed enlarges the cargo compartment.  By then, it will no longer be called the C-130 anymore but something else ...... they are already designing the future "AMC-X" for the 2020 timeframe.  The fact that Airbus has the A400M is also indicative of the "new airlift paradigm".

So now, decisions on which aircraft a TALCE Commander is to employ in a certain situation is longer driven by the threat scenario, but more by which aircraft can actually take the required cargo into the target objective.

New technology, both equipment required by the army in modern conflicts, and new aircraft to carry that new equipment, have now made the "strat vs tact" discussion almost moot.


----------



## Globesmasher

DavidAkin said:
			
		

> *Do we know for a fact that the DART deployment was delayed because Canada could not secure strategic airlift?* I was not in Ottawa when the DART was deployed to Sri Lanka after the Asian tsunami but my colleagues believe that the delay in deploying the DART was the inability of political overseers to make a decision about the deployment of the DART. In other words, the three-week delay may not have been a problem of procuring a ride for the DART but may have been due to the time it took the Paul Martin cabinet to make a decision.
> In other words, even if Canada at that time owned it owns strategic airlift capability, it may still have taken three weeks for DART to deploy.
> 
> Consider this story, written by the Star's Bruce Campion Smith, that appeared in the paper on TUESDAY JAN 4 2005:
> 
> -----------------------------
> *DART flying to heart of disaster; Team heading for Sri Lanka's coast Will deliver medical aid, clean water *
> 
> OTTAWA -- Canada's disaster relief team - now packing to head to Sri Lanka to dispense medical care, clean water and help with reconstruction - will remain in the stricken country "for as long as it takes," Defence Minister Bill Graham pledged yesterday.
> ....
> After a week of internal debate, Prime Minister Paul Martin yesterday gave the green light to deploy the military's Disaster Assistance Response Team (DART) to the Ampara region on Sri Lanka's east coast.
> ....
> Two commercially chartered Russian Antonov transport jets will depart Canadian Forces Base in Trenton Thursday night, carrying the first load of equipment and personnel halfway around the globe to the hard-hit island nation.
> 
> ----------------
> So my read of Bruce's story is that on Monday, the Prime Minister told the DART to go and by Thursday it was loading into a leased Antonov. That seems to be a pretty quick turnaround.
> 
> I had been transferred to Ottawa by the time the DART was deployed to Pakistan for earthquake assistance and, in fact, stood beside then Foreign Affairs Minister Pierre Pettigrew at CFB Trenton as we watched the (unbelievably huge) Antonov land and the DART equipment load. Pettigrew, CFB PA officers, and others said at the time that the Antonov had been 'ordered' within two or three days of its appearance at Trenton and that obtaining the services of the Antonov in a timely fashion had never been an issue.



Perhaps this topic is best kept for another thread ...... it is a "little" off the topic of the current thread, although somewhat related.
It is a very good, healthy debate though ... and one I would love to wade in on, but not in this thread.


----------



## Kirkhill

DavidAkin said:
			
		

> *Do we know for a fact that the DART deployment was delayed because Canada could not secure strategic airlift?* I was not in Ottawa when the DART was deployed to Sri Lanka after the Asian tsunami but my colleagues believe that the delay in deploying the DART was the inability of political overseers to make a decision about the deployment of the DART. In other words, the three-week delay may not have been a problem of procuring a ride for the DART but may have been due to the time it took the Paul Martin cabinet to make a decision.
> In other words, even if Canada at that time owned it owns strategic airlift capability, it may still have taken three weeks for DART to deploy.
> 
> Consider this story, written by the Star's Bruce Campion Smith, that appeared in the paper on TUESDAY JAN 4 2005:
> 
> -----------------------------
> *DART flying to heart of disaster; Team heading for Sri Lanka's coast Will deliver medical aid, clean water *
> 
> OTTAWA -- Canada's disaster relief team - now packing to head to Sri Lanka to dispense medical care, clean water and help with reconstruction - will remain in the stricken country "for as long as it takes," Defence Minister Bill Graham pledged yesterday.
> ....
> After a week of internal debate, Prime Minister Paul Martin yesterday gave the green light to deploy the military's Disaster Assistance Response Team (DART) to the Ampara region on Sri Lanka's east coast.
> ....
> Two commercially chartered Russian Antonov transport jets will depart Canadian Forces Base in Trenton Thursday night, carrying the first load of equipment and personnel halfway around the globe to the hard-hit island nation.
> 
> ----------------
> So my read of Bruce's story is that on Monday, the Prime Minister told the DART to go and by Thursday it was loading into a leased Antonov. That seems to be a pretty quick turnaround.
> 
> I had been transferred to Ottawa by the time the DART was deployed to Pakistan for earthquake assistance and, in fact, stood beside then Foreign Affairs Minister Pierre Pettigrew at CFB Trenton as we watched the (unbelievably huge) Antonov land and the DART equipment load. Pettigrew, CFB PA officers, and others said at the time that the Antonov had been 'ordered' within two or three days of its appearance at Trenton and that obtaining the services of the Antonov in a timely fashion had never been an issue.



Like Globesmasher, I too think this could be usefully discussed in another thread.  

In some senses it speaks to the question of why some individuals might prefer that there be no assets "Ready, Aye, Ready".  If you have planes, ships and trucks fuelled and ready to go at hours-to-move warning it doesn't leave you much time to conduct an opinion poll, focus group or just call the boss for instructions.  You might actually be called to make a timely decision and live with consequences.

But as noted, this should be another thread - perhaps on the political board.


----------



## Haletown

Mr. Globesmasher   . . . . . just out of curiosity . .  from your previous scenario:

What if we had 18 pallets of vitally needed ammunition to deliver to a forward LZ that was 3500' x 90'.  Do you, as the TALCE Commander, want to expose 1 x C-17 once to the risk to deliver that entire load .... 

What if you opted for  2 x C17 chalks ?/  Can a 17 with 9 pallets from your scenario be handled by 3500' x 90' ??

Not trying to be picky, but I am curios as to the flexibility the new aircraft provides


----------



## geo

haletown,

The point would be moot cause, as globesmasher said, the C17 can handle all 18 on a 3500 strip. so yes, the 17 can handle 2 loads of 9 on the 3500 strip.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

DavidAkin said:
			
		

> *Do we know for a fact that the DART deployment was delayed because Canada could not secure strategic airlift?* I was not in Ottawa when the DART was deployed to Sri Lanka after the Asian tsunami but my colleagues believe that the delay in deploying the DART was the inability of political overseers to make a decision about the deployment of the DART. In other words, the three-week delay may not have been a problem of procuring a ride for the DART but may have been due to the time it took the Paul Martin cabinet to make a decision.
> In other words, even if Canada at that time owned it owns strategic airlift capability, it may still have taken three weeks for DART to deploy.
> 
> Consider this story, written by the Star's Bruce Campion Smith, that appeared in the paper on TUESDAY JAN 4 2005:
> 
> -----------------------------
> *DART flying to heart of disaster; Team heading for Sri Lanka's coast Will deliver medical aid, clean water *
> 
> OTTAWA -- Canada's disaster relief team - now packing to head to Sri Lanka to dispense medical care, clean water and help with reconstruction - will remain in the stricken country "for as long as it takes," Defence Minister Bill Graham pledged yesterday.
> ....
> After a week of internal debate, Prime Minister Paul Martin yesterday gave the green light to deploy the military's Disaster Assistance Response Team (DART) to the Ampara region on Sri Lanka's east coast.
> ....
> Two commercially chartered Russian Antonov transport jets will depart Canadian Forces Base in Trenton Thursday night, carrying the first load of equipment and personnel halfway around the globe to the hard-hit island nation.
> 
> ----------------
> So my read of Bruce's story is that on Monday, the Prime Minister told the DART to go and by Thursday it was loading into a leased Antonov. That seems to be a pretty quick turnaround.
> 
> I had been transferred to Ottawa by the time the DART was deployed to Pakistan for earthquake assistance and, in fact, stood beside then Foreign Affairs Minister Pierre Pettigrew at CFB Trenton as we watched the (unbelievably huge) Antonov land and the DART equipment load. Pettigrew, CFB PA officers, and others said at the time that the Antonov had been 'ordered' within two or three days of its appearance at Trenton and that obtaining the services of the Antonov in a timely fashion had never been an issue.



Let's put this into a really simple smaller context....

Do we want the police to save money by renting cabs when they have to respond to a 9-1-1 call?

Then why the hell would ask soldiers to call an Antonov (a very large, very old flying taxi) in time of emergency?

The answer is that you give the police the tools they need to do the job on a moment's notice because in their role:
1)  Response time is often critical
2)  They serve in a job that they are willing to make the ultimate sacrifice for the good of others and the least the taxpayer can do is outfit them so they aren't killed by defective equipment.

I should add, I find the term 'toy' to be offensive as well.  Whenever I hear that term I visualize a group of academics/artists/socialites looking down their noses at serving men & women as unworthy of respect, and that truly sophisticated people can solve all problems with high-brow dialogue.  In short, it's a term I associates with extreme arrogance and I hope you choose to reconsider its use in future.


Matthew.


----------



## observor 69

Haletown said:
			
		

> Mr. Globesmasher   . . . . . just out of curiosity . .  from your previous scenario:
> 
> What if we had 18 pallets of vitally needed ammunition to deliver to a forward LZ that was 3500' x 90'.  Do you, as the TALCE Commander, want to expose 1 x C-17 once to the risk to deliver that entire load ....
> 
> What if you opted for  2 x C17 chalks ?/  Can a 17 with 9 pallets from your scenario be handled by 3500' x 90' ??
> 
> Not trying to be picky, but I am curios as to the flexibility the new aircraft provides



How much risk will you accept to exercise tactical flexibility with 4 C-17's , costing approx.$180 billion each and reperesenting a large part of the defence budget ?
Me thinks landing at Kandahar International is just about the limit!


----------



## geo

... also, if you have a limited 4 airframes of one type .... and many more of the other..... do you risk the far bigger, fewer numbered frames or stick with the tried and true?


----------



## aesop081

The decison to use the C-17 or the C-130 will depend on the situation at the time and may differ on every occasion.  Saying that KAF is the limit is not realistic in any way shape or form ,IMHO


----------



## Colin Parkinson

geo said:
			
		

> ... also, if you have a limited 4 airframes of one type .... and many more of the other..... do you risk the far bigger, fewer numbered frames or stick with the tried and true?




You mean the "tired and few" we presently have?


----------



## Astrodog

http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/newsroom/news_e.asp?cat=114&id=2426

Nice mug of none other than globesmasher!


----------



## Inch

Baden  Guy said:
			
		

> How much risk will you accept to exercise tactical flexibility with 4 C-17's , costing approx.$180 billion each and reperesenting a large part of the defence budget ?
> Me thinks landing at Kandahar International is just about the limit!



I think you're a couple three zeros the wrong way. The total contract was for $3 billion.


----------



## observor 69

Inch said:
			
		

> I think you're a couple three zeros the wrong way. The total contract was for $3 billion.



Would'ya beleive $180 million each ?   :-[

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

The government had earlier said that it had set aside a budget of $3.4-billion for the project. Out of that budget, it has to pay for the planes themselves -- estimated to be about $1-billion -- and then a host of other equipment, facility upgrades and a 20-year support contract, all of which is needed to train aircrews and maintain the planes.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070201/military_planes_070201?s_name=&no_ads=


----------



## rmacqueen

Hauptmann Scharlachrot said:
			
		

> The world still turns, and in my opinion, Mr. Akin's articles, even if you consider it snide, is nothing compared to this:
> 
> http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/47489/



Sheesh, I can't believe that they are still trotting out that old Unocal idea as proof of the Afghanistan being connected to oil.  That idea was shot down as unworkable 10 years ago.


----------



## MarkOttawa

On the oil pipeline conspiracy theory:

Pipe Dreams: The origin of the "bombing-Afghanistan-for-oil-pipelines" theory
http://www.slate.com/?id=2059487

There is no need for an oil pipeline through Afstan now that the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline is open:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan_pipeline



> The government of Kazakhstan announced that it would seek to build a trans-Caspian oil pipeline from the Kazakhstani port of Aktau to Baku in Azerbaijan, connecting with the BTC pipeline, to transport oil from the major Kazakhstani oilfield at Kashagan as well as points further afield in central Asia.



The Great Energy Game
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/biztech/articles/060903/11game_2.htm



> ...the $4 billion Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline, which opened with much fanfare in July and links Azerbaijan, Georgia, and Turkey. At the ribbon-cutting, the 1,109-mile pipeline was hailed as "the Silk Road of the 21st century," bypassing Russia to bring oil from the world's third-largest reserves in the Caspian to a Turkish port on the Mediterranean, where it can be loaded onto tankers to supply global markets.
> 
> Kazakhstan, the largest country in central Asia, has three of the world's richest hydrocarbon fields. One of them, Kashagan, was discovered in the Caspian five years ago. It is believed to rank among the five largest fields on Earth and is expected to start producing in the next few years. Kazakhstan produced 1.2 million barrels a day last year, but it is expected to pump 3 million barrels a day by 2015-almost as much as Iran. Chevron is spending over $5 billion to expand production there, its largest project anywhere. "There are very few places in the world that have still untapped reserves and the openness in the business environment," says Roman Vassilenko, a Kazakh government spokesman. He says 70 percent of Kazakh oil production is owned by foreign companies...
> 
> But still, as more oil is pumped out, Kazakhstan must choose between exporting it north through Russia, east through China, or west through an expanded BTC pipeline. The United States is gearing up to make its pitch. Later this month, Nazarbayev will come to the United States for the first time since 2001, visiting the White House and the Bush family compound in Maine. Energy, obviously, will top the agenda...



There is however a long-standing plan for a natural gas pipeline from Turkmenistan through Afstan to Pakistan and (maybe) India.  But that is hardly a vital US national security or capitalist interest.

Turkmenistan: A Pipeline Long In The Pipeline
http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2006/02/b8cadc86-b102-44ea-bce5-6d68c87b6ec9.html

And not likely to be built for a while.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## aesop081

This thread isnt about pipelines IIRC

army.ca staff


----------



## Globesmasher

Baden  Guy said:
			
		

> The government had earlier said that it had set aside a budget of $3.4-billion for the project. Out of that budget, it has to pay for the planes themselves -- estimated to be about $1-billion --



$1.2 billion went towards the purchase of the 4 tails.  The rest went into the project.


----------



## Globesmasher

geo said:
			
		

> ... also, if you have a limited 4 airframes of one type .... and many more of the other..... do you risk the far bigger, fewer numbered frames or stick with the tried and true?






			
				Baden  Guy said:
			
		

> How much risk will you accept to exercise tactical flexibility with 4 C-17's , costing approx.$180 billion each and reperesenting a large part of the defence budget ?



That's not for me to say.

The TALCE ops staff and SMEs can only advise the chain of command on the risks and capabilities of the aircraft pursuant to the particular mission.  Whether or not the Operational Commander wishes to place an aircraft in harm's way or not for a mission rests with him based on advice and input from his/her staff.

As to whether or not a Canadian CC 177 (of only 4) is flown into austere, FOLs in a combat AOR rests with people who wear 4 rings or some maple leaves on their shoulders.  Not with me.  I don't decide that.

My only decision,as the aircraft commander, rests with whether the aircraft can "physically" operate into and out of the FOL that I have been ordered to fly into.

That's all I can say on the matter of "risk associated with our CC 177s" and how they will be employed in the CF.

edit ... spelling


----------



## Dale Denton

The four tails? So the planes tail has to be bought separately? I dont understand


----------



## aesop081

LoboCanada said:
			
		

> The four tails? So the planes tail has to be bought separately? I dont understand



Its an expression....read "4 aircraft"


----------



## eurowing

LoboCanada said:
			
		

> The four tails? So the planes tail has to be bought separately? I dont understand



A tail is short form for the aircraft...  as in tail number.  So it cost 1,2 billion just for the aircraft.  The rest is training, spares, engineering support etc.

Edit.... cdnaviator beat me by a minute.....wow


----------



## Command-Sense-Act 105

So guys, I have heard that "tail" is short form for aircraft, which are usually referred to as "tail number".  Is this right? >

Maybe we could go back to talking about the Mortar Blast Attenuation Device again... ;D


----------



## vonGarvin

Command-Sense-Act 105 said:
			
		

> So guys, I have heard that "tail" is short form for aircraft, which are usually referred to as "tail number".  Is this right? >
> 
> Maybe we could go back to talking about the Mortar Blast Attenuation Device again... ;D


Don't get me started!   >


----------



## Inch

Command-Sense-Act 105 said:
			
		

> So guys, I have heard that "tail" is short form for aircraft, which are usually referred to as "tail number".  Is this right? >
> 
> Maybe we could go back to talking about the Mortar Blast Attenuation Device again... ;D



Tail is _slang_ for aircraft. Just like when you're talking about a guy that's a good stick. It doesn't mean he's made of wood, but that he's a good pilot.


----------



## mover1

A pilot turns from a good stick to an idiot if he wears his flightsuit down town at the bar


Seriously my boss is leaving for the states in a month or so for training on the C-17 our only question on them is...will we see them come in here (YZX) or will they use Halifax like the current US airforce does.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Why CC-177? No "nyets"
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2007/02/why-cc-177-no-nyets.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa

Nasty piece in Halifax _Chronicle Herald_:

Purchase of Boeings raises share of questions
http://thechronicleherald.ca/Opinion/558388.html



> IN JUNE 2006, just before the government issued a tender for four strategic aircraft to carry military gear to far-off airports, the Canadian Forces changed the size of its payload requirement to 37 tonnes from 19.5 tonnes.
> 
> Only one aircraft in the world — the Boeing C-17 Globemaster — met the new requirement. Boeing’s biggest competitor in the class, the Airbus A400, can carry only 37 tonnes.
> 
> In July, the government issued an advance contract award notice, a document asking any (mythical) competitor to step forward with another offer before Ottawa bought four Boeings...
> 
> Defence Department internal e-mails about the purchase unearthed by the Ottawa Citizen suggest DND made the change to eliminate Airbus as a competitor...
> 
> This procurement raises several other, tougher questions [actually two only]:
> 
> Do we need these airplanes?..
> 
> Instead of buying them, we could have joined 15 NATO countries that are negotiating to buy several C-17s to share or signed a contract with a commercial provider guaranteeing us access whenever we want it...
> 
> At the same time that the military is buying these Boeings, it is looking at retiring two supply ships and a destroyer. It also plans to replace long-distance maritime surveillance aircraft with drones.
> 
> Retired naval officers are screaming blue murder about these cuts to the navy, a sure sign that their colleagues still in the service are muttering darkly into their rum...
> 
> Is this the best way to buy an airplane?..
> 
> By changing the payload requirement, DND appears to have manipulated the procurement process to steer the work to Boeing.
> 
> "Sure, this is an open competition, but we’ll only accept companies whose names start with a ‘Boe’ and end with an ‘ing,’ " *says Steve Staples, a defence analyst with the left-leaning Rideau Institute* [emphasis added--at least "left-leaning" is noted]...
> 
> Of the $3.4 billion DND will spend on these Boeings, about $1.9 billion will be spent in Canada.
> 
> The contracts haven’t been announced, but some are worried that Canadian firms may not get as much high-end work as we would like. Without intellectual property rights to aerospace technology, Canadian firms can’t use their know-how to win other work...
> 
> And buying so many aircraft from one supplier looks bad.
> 
> *Mr. O’Connor is a former defence lobbyist* [emphasis added--why not mention that he, er, lobbyied for Boeing competitor Airbus?--talk about innuendo], one of the guys who used to make his living by helping defence contractors land contracts.
> 
> Under his watch, the government is steering $13 billion to Boeing, without competition...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO

Yeah I read that this morning over my Wheaties and was totally unimpressed :rage: This is a Liberal rag anyway so I wouldn't take too much notice of it. The Editorial cartoon speaks volumes of their bias...guy sitting reading a newspaper with the headline "Harper's first anniversary" and a thought balloon from him saying "Can I get a divorce?" :clown:


----------



## gaspasser

mover1 said:
			
		

> A pilot turns from a good stick to an idiot if he wears his flightsuit down town at the bar
> 
> 
> Seriously my boss is leaving for the states in a month or so for training on the C-17 our only question on them is...will we see them come in here (YZX) or will they use Halifax like the current US airforce does.


Probably will see them the odd time in ZX on thier way thru.  Can't see ZX putting one or two on the ramp.  Not much space, one will take up the entire east of 11, north and south of 10.  I think they're going to improve what is here in TR to accommadate the behemeths.  
Cheers.


----------



## Globesmasher

> "Sure, this is an open competition, but we’ll only accept companies whose names start with a ‘Boe’ and end with an ‘ing,’ " says Steve Staples, a defence analyst with the left-leaning Rideau Institute




Yes, and when that "Boe" ...... "ing" company does win the deal, they can only divide up the IRBs with Canadian Aviation Companies starting with "Bom" and ending with "Bardier" ......  : ....  :


----------



## Globesmasher

mover1 said:
			
		

> ...will we see them come in here (YZX) or will they use Halifax like the current US airforce does.



It all depends on the weather and the fuel requirements that we need for an Atlantic crossing ... either westbound or eastbound.  It all depends on how far south the jet stream is, where the winds are, how heavy we are, ..... where the NAT tracks are ..... etc.

It all depends ....it changes from day to day.

In the C-130 I've used Greenwood, Halifax, St Johns, Gander, Goose Bay, St Anthony's, ... even Iqaluit from time to time when we cross way North ..... it all depends on the route of flight and winds etc ...


----------



## Globesmasher

Here is something from the MND ....... 
May as well hear another side of the story instead of just the looney left.


PUBLICATION:    National Post 
DATE:   2007.02.09 
BYLINE:         GORDON O'CONNOR 

The government of Canada recently announced the purchase of four 
Boeing C-17 strategic lift aircraft, with deliveries beginning this 
summer. This capability marks a new era for Canada and for the 
Canadian Forces. This strategic lift capability will be a "Canada 
First" asset -- to be used on our own terms and at times of our own 
choosing. No longer will we have to join the international queue, 
negotiating against other countries for scarce commercial strategic- 
lift options. Canada will be better able to protect Canadians from 
coast to coast, including those in the Arctic, and provide rapid 
assistance when domestic emergencies arise. 


Strategic lift is a needed and necessary requirement for the Canadian 
Forces. We live in the second largest country in the world. We have a 
land-mass of over nine million square kilometres. Air travel is a fact 
of life for all of us. It is how we go from Victoria to Halifax to 
Iqualuit to Toronto. Ours is a country of close neighbours separated 
by significant distances but intimately interconnected. When disasters 
strike -- whether they be floods in Quebec or forest fires in British 
Columbia -- that connection becomes all the more real. And the desire 
to help our neighbours out becomes overwhelming. 


The Canadian Forces, with a footprint as big as the country itself, is 
the embodiment of that desire. Whether here in Canada or in crises 
around the globe, ours is a caring nation. We want to help. Our 
Disaster Assistance Response Team (DART) has for years represented 
Canada with great distinction around the globe. And, without putting 
too fine a point on it, a strategic airlift capability will enable us 
to assist those in need more quickly, more effectively and more 
reliably than ever before. 


A C-17 strategic lift aircraft would be capable of transporting our 
entire DART team virtually anywhere in the world in the event of a 
natural disaster. We will be able to fly heavy equipment such as 
generators that can power entire cities, water purification equipment, 
hospital units or the equivalent of an entire grocery store worth of 
food supplies to areas that desperately need our support. 


Our new strategic lift aircraft will provide a rapid, reliable and 
flexible capability to move heavy equipment quickly over long 
distances in response to domestic emergencies and international 
crises. This includes ensuring that the Canadian Forces in Afghanistan 
receive the supplies and equipment they need to get the job done. 


Not only will this increase our capacity, strategic lift is the best 
and most efficient way to cover vast distances as it reduces the 
number of crews and stopovers required. In fact, the average monthly 
cost to charter aircraft to support Canadian Forces operations in 
Afghanistan alone is about $11- million dollars. Having our own 
strategic lift capability will greatly reduce that cost. It will also 
reduce the workload for our tactical Hercules fleet. 


The procurement process has been thorough. We have engaged industry to 
identify solutions that meet our high-level performance requirements. 
We have taken literally years off the process, saving taxpayers 
millions of dollars, by using a pragmatic and efficient process that 
was nevertheless fair and open. We have protected members of the 
Canadian Forces and taxpayers by requesting proven, "off the shelf " 
aircraft, thus avoiding the high risk and potential delays that often 
accompany developmental technologies. The speed at which government 
departments have been able to work together to get the Canadian Forces 
the equipment they need is admirable. And most importantly, we have 
ensured that the Canadian Forces receive the equipment they need to do 
a demanding and necessary job. 


I am proud of the work done by our Canadian Forces. I am proud of 
their sacrifice and courage. And I am proud that this government is 
delivering on its promises including strengthening Canada's 
independent capacity. This is a new era for the Canadian Forces -- one 
of support from their government and equipment that will allow them to 
be self-sufficient.


----------



## geo

well, well, well... from the horse's mouth itself 

Having the aircraft will make the actual move to do something in a far off place a lot faster..... once the gov't has decided to move forward..... till then, the aircraft will be nailed to the ground.


----------



## observor 69

And note the MND referred to the aircraft as  "Our new strategic lift aircraft ." 

Ain't no tactical, scratch the paint flyin', bein' done with this  new aeroplane.


----------



## Cloud Cover

Is there any particular reason they bought only 4 of these things?  We are going to look awfully stupid if they take delivery of these and continue to use third parties for additional lift.  [and.. what if that lift is refused to us?]


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> Is there any particular reason they bought only 4 of these things?  We are going to look awfully stupid if they take delivery of these and continue to use third parties for additional lift.  [and.. what if that lift is refused to us?]



Way out of my lane but isn't this because we will be part of a Joint User Group? We will have resources to bring to the table to help our Allies so they in turn will help us?


----------



## vonGarvin

From what I understand, we are not part of this "joint user group", a criticism of some of those in Ottawa.  These will be CF planes, for use by the CF.

Some of our allies are pitching in on some time sharing aircraft.  Honestly, I don't see how that would work, with various peeing matches over stuff like "We want to use them" and "You can fix them".


----------



## geo

given that we have made do without and only resorted to contracting out our lifts on a once in a while basis, I would venture to say that the 4 should suffice for us to cut our teeth on..... once we are in the strategic lift business, we can then determine if there is a need for more..... more planes, tanks, LAVs, troops, etc....


----------



## Flip

I think Australia bought four as well.
I would like us to buy 8 - but times are still tight military budget wise.

Mind you, 4 of these is a lot of plane.
I call it a good  excellant start.

I like Gordon O'Conner for the job he seems to be doing behind closed doors.
But I think maybe Harpers team should do what the wiley liberals
did and let General Hillier speak for MDM.

The C17 is common to our closest allies and this purchase is about as "off the shelf"
as it gets.  This is a major paradigm shift for MDM.  It's pragmatic.......It's elegant...... 
....It's beautiful.


----------



## C1Dirty

> In fact, the average monthly
> cost to charter aircraft to support Canadian Forces operations in
> Afghanistan alone is about $11- million dollars. Having our own
> strategic lift capability will greatly reduce that cost.



By the sounds of this quote we'll still be chartering some of our airlift requirements.  Not so sure about the greatly reduced costs part. 

The C17 is an awesome addition to our capabilities but I don't think it's going to save us any money.  Even the purchase price alone spread over  30 years would equate to 3.6 million/month (1.3B/360months).  Never mind the fuel (burn 20000lbs/hr?), labour costs, and required infrastructure changes.  The C17 will reduce the cost of _chartering_, but I don't think it will reduce the cost of actually moving our kit from pt A to pt B. 

Having said that, I'm stoked that we're adding the C-17 to our inventory.  Hard to put a price on flexibilty.


----------



## eurowing

Another point is the 15 NATO countries sharing C-17s.  

It really needs to be noted that these countries combined possibly have a smaller footprint than Alberta, certainly most are postage stamp size.  They don't have the domestic need that we do for fast/heavy airlift ... say .. to move DART to BC when the big one happens.  Scheduled for April 08 now apparently.


----------



## observor 69

eurowing said:
			
		

> Another point is the 15 NATO countries sharing C-17s.
> 
> It really needs to be noted that these countries combined possibly have a smaller footprint than Alberta, certainly most are postage stamp size.  They don't have the domestic need that we do for fast/heavy airlift ... say .. to move DART to BC when the big one happens.  Scheduled for April 08 now apparently.



I think that's an excellent point.  Political arguments aside, Liberal mouthpiece Coderre in particular, Canada has just acquired a significant airlift capacity in the C-17 for domestic or international need.


----------



## Globesmasher

Baden  Guy said:
			
		

> And note the MND referred to the aircraft as  "Our new strategic lift aircraft ."
> 
> Ain't no tactical, scratch the paint flyin', bein' done with this  new aeroplane.



Trust me ....... there will be plenty of "tactical" done with this.
It's been done, the aircraft is capable  .................. and it is going to be done.

Tactical ............ Strategic ............. it's just semantics right now.

............ 'nuf said.


----------



## Globesmasher

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> Is there any particular reason they bought only 4 of these things?  We are going to look awfully stupid if they take delivery of these and continue to use third parties for additional lift.  [and.. what if that lift is refused to us?]



4 is all we can afford.

There will continue to be "contracted commercial airlift" in support of current ops.
You will see both the C-17/CC-177 and the regular Illyshin/Antonov flights out of Trenton.

There is simply too much cargo for the C-17s to do it all themselves.
Sucks - but there we go.

We asked for 6 .....
4 is all we get from the Govt.


----------



## GAP

Any person with an ounce of common sense will realize that the C-17 will not solve all our problems, but it will allow us to address our priorities properly. $11million per month is actually fairly reasonable when we start looking at everything that is being moved. I don't see that going down so much as us not having to wait in line for contract units so often.

edited to add: Yes, 4 is all we could have afforded without the opposition using sticker shock against the Conservatives.


----------



## Globesmasher

Hauptmann Scharlachrot said:
			
		

> From what I understand, we are not part of this "joint user group", a criticism of some of those in Ottawa.  These will be CF planes, for use by the CF.



Scharlachrot:

You are correct.  These will be Canadian Aircraft with Canadian markings owned and operated by Canadians for Canadian Interests.  If any other foreign entity wishes to use our fleet then they will be asking and paying ... and we'll be doing only if we have the time and resources.  Much like the USAF lifted our Leopards into Afghanistan for us.  They had the time and resources and we paid ........ a cool million per tank one way.

We will participate in many of the "joint user groups" in terms of how we are represented in the overall "virtual fleet".

That means we get to sit at the various boards and represent our concerns and what we feel are deficiencies in the airframe ... just as the UK and the Australians will also be participating.  Perhaps JUG is a poorly labelled term.  "Joint User Board" may be more apropos.  Granted we wont have quite as big a vote as the USAF will (they'll eventually have their 180 .... the RAAF will have 4 ..... we'll have 4 ..... and the RAF will have between 4 and 6).  But, at  least we get to participate.

We will have a CC-177 staff (The Weapon System Managers) embedded at Wright Patterson AFB so that we have face to face representation and various people will be attending the annual conferences and boards to discuss the aircraft upgrade process, priorities and to address safety deficiencies etc ...

But, NO, we will not be "Jointly Using" the aircraft with any other country - there will be no sharing or "peeing contests".


----------



## Globesmasher

GAP said:
			
		

> edited to add: Yes, 4 is all we could have afforded without the opposition using sticker shock against the Conservatives.



Absolutely true.
Yes, and I for one am not about to complain and look a gift horse in the mouth.

4 is better than zero.


----------



## Cloud Cover

Well, if affordability is the reason being given, I really don't believe that holding out cost was the smartest move. After all, I suspect  that once a project cost goes over the 2-3 billion dollar mark, we are talking about such a staggering amount of money that it doesn't really register with the public. [a good example was the 23 billion dollar health care accord] 

The real question asked by voters which would have to be answered would be "Do we really need these"  and if the answer is "yes, because we dont want to rely on the Americans for everything" then most Canadians would simply switch off and get back to doing their tax returns and buying RRSP's. They already believe the Libs and NDP have no credibility in defence matters, so it was a political mistake to pander to them.  If the cost would have 5-7 billion over 20 years for 8 of the aircraft, then they could have pulled it off just as easily.  I think 4 gives Canada some much needed airlift, but still leaves room to keep the pressure on. 

Irony of irony- the Libs could actually use this to deliver a message about strat lift -  "You didn't get the job done Stephen. You went half way on airleft and now we will still need the damn yanks to help us when Vancouver sinks. You didn't get it done."


----------



## GAP

Conversly, so did the Liberals from the EH-101 on.....


----------



## Kirkhill

How much of the purchase price of the 4 aircraft is a "one time investment" to support the aircraft vice the cost of adding additional aircraft? 

I note that when USAF or even the RAF is looking for additional aircraft they are only talking about the additional cost of a new "tail" - if I understand the lingo to mean that a "tail" has everything else needed to keep it in the air attached.


----------



## rmacqueen

I have a question about the capabilities of this plane.  What kind of landing strip does it need?  For instance, could it land on a snow covered runway or is it more like commercial aircraft in its needs?


----------



## aesop081

rmacqueen said:
			
		

> I have a question about the capabilities of this plane.  What kind of landing strip does it need?  For instance, could it land on a snow covered runway or is it more like commercial aircraft in its needs?



read all the posts made in this thread by Globemasher...pretty much answers your question


----------



## geo

rmacqueen said:
			
		

> I have a question about the capabilities of this plane.  What kind of landing strip does it need?  For instance, could it land on a snow covered runway or is it more like commercial aircraft in its needs?



try a search.... already been discussed - pert darn near as much as the Herc.  The weight is the big problem once the plance comes to a stop


----------



## MarkOttawa

An historical precedent?
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_kmnew/is_200403/ai_kepm382226

' Genuine alarm was excited throughout the country by what was for the first time widely recognized as a German menace. In the end a curious and characteristic compromise was reached. The Admiralty had demanded six ships [dreadnoughts]: the economists offered four: and we finally compromised on eight.

--Winston Churchill, "The World Crisis: 1911-1918"' 

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Globesmasher

Inch said:
			
		

> Is it going to be a 6 digit tail number or a 5 digit number? ie 177701 or 17701?



Inch

Sorry - I stand corrected.  
I told you 5 earlier on (based on the Airbus correcting theirs back from 6 to 5 digits .... I thought the trend would continue).
Apparently (or so I have now been told) we are going with the 6 digit tail number as follows:
From CAS DAR:

Type = CC-177
English name = Globemaster Three

Airframe P-177 (Aug 07) = tail number 177701
Airframe P-180 (Oct 07) = tail number 177702
Airframe P-186 (~Mar 08) = tail number 177703
Airframe P-187 (~Apr 08) = tail number 177704

Sorry about that ..... 

edit - spelling


----------



## Globesmasher

rmacqueen said:
			
		

> I have a question about the capabilities of this plane.  What kind of landing strip does it need?  For instance, could it land on a snow covered runway or is it more like commercial aircraft in its needs?






			
				geo said:
			
		

> try a search.... already been discussed - pert darn near as much as the Herc.  The weight is the big problem once the plance comes to a stop



Yup - just head back to the beginning of this thread.
Also checkout ......

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

... for a quick synopsis.


----------



## Inch

Globesmasher said:
			
		

> Inch
> 
> Sorry - I stand corrected.
> I told you 5 earlier on (based on the Airbus correcting theirs back from 6 to 5 digits .... I thought the trend would continue).
> Apparently (or so I have now been told) we are going with the 6 digit tail number as follows:
> From CAS DAR:
> 
> Type = CC-177
> English name = Globemaster Three
> 
> Airframe P-177 (Aug 07) = tail number 177701
> Airframe P-180 (Oct 07) = tail number 177702
> Airframe P-186 (~Mar 08) = tail number 177703
> Airframe P-187 (~Apr 08) = tail number 177704
> 
> Sorry about that .....
> 
> edit - spelling



Right on, I think the Cyclone is going to be 6 digits as well vs the 5 digits of the Sea Kings. I haven't really seen anything on that fact other than the artist concept pics showing 501 on the front of the helos. So that would be 148501 through 148528, but I can't say for sure.


----------



## Globesmasher

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> How much of the purchase price of the 4 aircraft is a "one time investment" to support the aircraft vice the cost of adding additional aircraft?
> 
> I note that when USAF or even the RAF is looking for additional aircraft they are only talking about the additional cost of a new "tail" - if I understand the lingo to mean that a "tail" has everything else needed to keep it in the air attached.



Kirk:

The initial outlay for the cost of the 4 aircraft is $1.2 billion.
The remaining $2.2 billion (from the total project cost of $3.4 billion) goes into everything else:
.. training
.. infrastructure
.. maintenance
.. you name it.

And the 2nd and 3rd line maintenance contract, along with the block upgrades program, stretch on for 20 years.

I believe that if we were to buy an extra (5th) tail, then we'd be looking at the $1/4 billion just for the actual aircraft ... and then some extra to keep it going in the maintenance program.  I doubt the support for the extra aircraft would come without charge.


----------



## Kirkhill

Thanks for that Smasher.


----------



## C1302C17 TECH

Globesmasher said:
			
		

> Inch
> 
> Airframe P-177 (Aug 07) = tail number 177701
> Airframe P-180 (Oct 07) = tail number 177702
> Airframe P-186 (~Mar 08) = tail number 177703
> Airframe P-187 (~Apr 08) = tail number 177704



Intresting to see that they would use the numbers in the 700 series - I figured to see the 5 digit tails as well to compare with the CC150's - 01 through 04, however 701 through 704 is a nice change.


----------



## eurowing

C1302C17, if you are on course now would you have details of the depth of training you will be getting on the C17.  I am quite curious about the levels of 1st line maintenance you will be doing.  For example....  engine change?


----------



## observor 69

eurowing said:
			
		

> C1302C17, if you are on course now would you have details of the depth of training you will be getting on the C17.  I am quite curious about the levels of 1st line maintenance you will be doing.  For example....  engine change?



Good question eurowing, who ya gonna call when your down for engines away from home?


----------



## C1302C17 TECH

eurowing said:
			
		

> C1302C17, if you are on course now would you have details of the depth of training you will be getting on the C17.  I am quite curious about the levels of 1st line maintenance you will be doing.  For example....  engine change?



I wish I was currently on course  ;D I could escape this weather..  However I have been slated to be on the second cadre that begins in July.  Perhapes there is someone whom is on this first course that can pipe in.  I would love to hear answers to this question.


----------



## C1302C17 TECH

Baden  Guy said:
			
		

> Good question eurowing, who ya gonna call when your down for engines away from home?



From talking with people who attended the pre-course briefings certain TECHS will be ear marked to attend engine change courses and other special courses (engine run up, LOX system & countermeasures)

My understanding is that when the C17's are bounding across the pond they will use exsiting C17 bases for their transit.  Thus allowing access to C17 parts and special AMSE equipment.  From what I have heard in briefings the supply system is without borders, and any C17 operating country can get parts from the supply system without worrying about "borrowing" thanks to the in service support from Boeing.


----------



## observor 69

C1302C17 TECH said:
			
		

> From talking with people who attended the pre-course briefings certain TECHS will be ear marked to attend engine change courses and other special courses (engine run up, LOX system & countermeasures)
> 
> My understanding is that when the C17's are bounding across the pond they will use exsiting C17 bases for their transit.  Thus allowing access to C17 parts and special AMSE equipment.  From what I have heard in briefings the supply system is without borders, and any C17 operating country can get parts from the supply system without worrying about "borrowing" thanks to the in service support from Boeing.



Ya I get it ref common parts. But I can see this could lead to some real strange possibilities ref farming out maintenance.
The old story "hell why don't we just rent  lease out the US military gear?" and maintenance?


----------



## C1302C17 TECH

Baden  Guy said:
			
		

> Ya I get it ref common parts. But I can see this could lead to some real strange possibilities ref farming out maintenance.
> The old story "hell why don't we just rent  lease out the US military gear?" and maintenance?



Currently when the C130 breaks down we send an MRP team out to go fix them, this requires us to fly aboard another aircraft with parts in tow from Trenton.  The nice thing with the C17 is that we will no longer be required to bring our own parts, nor will the USAF be required to have spares in Trenton when they land.  All parts will be owned by the US supply system with the Aussies, and Brits along with ourselves being "customers" to it.

MRP's will become easier as we will be able to even fly our techs aboard the Challangers, and the Yanks will supply the space, AMSE equipment and parts that we require, as it will be offered by us.  It is part of the entire contract - The GLOBAL MAINT. NETWORK or something along that line..


----------



## geo

C1302C17 TECH said:
			
		

> Currently when the C130 breaks down we send an MRP team out to go fix them, this requires us to fly aboard another aircraft with parts in tow from Trenton.  The nice thing with the C17 is that we will no longer be required to bring our own parts, nor will the USAF be required to have spares in Trenton when they land.  All parts will be owned by the US supply system with the Aussies, and Brits along with ourselves being "customers" to it.
> 
> MRP's will become easier as we will be able to even fly our techs aboard the Challangers, and the Yanks will supply the space, AMSE equipment and parts that we require, as it will be offered by us.  It is part of the entire contract - The GLOBAL MAINT. NETWORK or something along that line..



Sooooo..... do you think that this is what is going to happen for the CC130Js, the CH47s, the C27Js and pert much all of the Airforce's rolling inventory?  

You do that and you certainly can't "canadianize" anything other than your cup holder and the woodland pine tree thingie hanging from your rearview miror.


----------



## Globesmasher

geo said:
			
		

> Sooooo..... do you think that this is what is going to happen for the CC130Js, the CH47s, the C27Js and pert much all of the Airforce's rolling inventory?
> 
> You do that and you certainly can't "canadianize" anything other than your cup holder and the woodland pine tree thingie hanging from your rearview miror.



What the C-17/CC 177 will be participating in is called the GSP, The Globemaster Support Program.  It is a worldwide "virtual" fleet that will provide us with the parts and MX support that C1302C17 TECH has mentioned.  The system will not be the panacea or the magic bullet but it will be a giant step away from the old paradigm of using a large aircraft to ferry spare parts and techs on the MRP out to the required location.  There may still be some locations that require the old school MRP with spare parts etc ... or just a small MRP team that can travel on board a more comfortable and faster aircraft such as the Challenger as C1302C17 TECH alluded to.

However, that being said, should a Canadian C-17 breakdown in a C-17 supported location (for example:  Brize Norton or Ramstien, Incirlik .... to name a few) not only will our aircraft be supported by the GSP for the spare parts, but they will also be supported by USAF and/or Boeing support techs for the repair.  The program costs money, but there is a saving in the reduction of the number of required MRPs.

Whether or not we do this with the ACP-T (J model) or any other aircraft purchase is tough to say - I don't work on those projects.

The one "hitch" or catch to participation in the GSP and the virtual fleet is that we can do NO Canadian mods to the aircraft whatsoever.  The aircraft must be identical to the standard issue C-17.  We also are not permitted to change or adjust or modify the technical orders, job guides or the fligth manuals.  Basically the only thing that separates the aircraft between the USAF, RAF, RAAF, the CF and then the new NATO program will be the exterior paint job.  Once you step inside the aircraft it will look identical to every other tail.

So, I know we plan on Canadianizing the J model in terms of the self defense suite ... so I do not know what we are doing in terms of "virtual fleet" participation for those other airframes.  The GSP is just the way we have chosen to proceed with the C-17.


----------



## geo

One thing though.... virtual fleet suggests that the days of buying something and not keeping up with the upgrades will be a thing of the past as in "no longer be an option".


----------



## Edward Campbell

geo said:
			
		

> One thing though.... virtual fleet suggests that the days of buying something and not keeping up with the upgrades will be a thing of the past as in "no longer be an option".



I hope so.

Configuration management - the *decision* to modify, or not, in order to keep a system or fleet 'up to spec' - should be a key component of life cycle management, especially for complex, expensive systems and fleets.

Sometimes we have choices re: which 'standard' to maintain.  That was the case with, for example, the M113 family of vehicles - there were several 'standards' (US and others) which allowed Canadian managers to pick and choose amongst the ones most likely to meet our needs and pocketbooks.  With the C-17 one expects there will be a single 'standard' and we either stick with it or risk having an orphan fleet.


----------



## Haletown

Just out of curiosity, does anyone know if a Global Support System, like the Boeing model, was offered by EADS as part of their A400M paper airplane offer ??


----------



## geo

Haletown said:
			
		

> Just out of curiosity, does anyone know if a Global Support System, like the Boeing model, was offered by EADS as part of their A400M paper airplane offer ??


Considering the A400M is not flying yet, would be real hard to start a similar virtual fleet program.  As the production numbers start to stretch out & the airframes start multiplying it starts to work but.... in it's infancy... not likely.


----------



## C1Dirty

> The one "hitch" or catch to participation in the GSP and the virtual fleet is that we can do NO Canadian mods to the aircraft whatsoever.  The aircraft must be identical to the standard issue C-17.  We also are not permitted to change or adjust or modify the technical orders, job guides or the fligth manuals.



With all due respect to the inventor of the Golden Wedge and the dude who decided to paint a fake bubble on the bottom of the F18 I think this (limiting Cdn input) is like barring a degenerate gambler from the casino...an excellent idea, especially the part about the flight manual.


----------



## geo

C1Dirty said:
			
		

> With all due respect to the inventor of the Golden Wedge and the dude who decided to paint a fake bubble on the bottom of the F18 I think this (limiting Cdn input) is like barring a degenerate gambler from the casino...an excellent idea, especially the part about the flight manual.


Some aspects of flying that we deal with, other users might not have to deal with.... this, some user notes are necessary.


----------



## C1302C17 TECH

What really needs to be done to the aircraft to make it a Canadian aircraft?  The Globemaster will be painted with our proud markings, and perhapes a larger cup holder for the XL Double Doubles - but like any other NATO country flying these they way they come will provide all we need, or should need.  What makes a A/C Canadian?  Sure we have modded the C130 to the point of making it truly a Canadian C130, but that's what happens after 40+ years of service, and making an older A/C suitable for our purposes.  I am sure the great folks at Boeing have now engineered an aircraft that will meet all needs that we require without the modding.  Unless they want to paint bubbles on the belly of the C17  ;D  I am looking forward to being part of this new venture, a new airframe and most importantly a new unit.  It will be great to be a TECH with a flying squadron.  No matter how I see it, right out of the box - Once we see the   on the tail, it's Canadian....


----------



## Globesmasher

C1302C17 TECH said:
			
		

> It will be great to be a TECH with a flying squadron.



Yes - this is one of the best things to happen to us.

Finally - back to Squadron maintenance.  This has been long overdue.
I can hardly wait either to have the maintainers part of the same unit/sqadron wearing the same crest.
Wing maintenance failed miserably ..... squadron maintenance is the way it should have stayed all along.


----------



## peaches

It's Canadian.... ;D ;D ;D

It can land on ice.........


----------



## vonGarvin

Sure...it can land on ice...that's not the important question.  Can it take off from ice AFTER landing on ice?   >


----------



## daftandbarmy

Forget all that 'landing' talk, what about parachuting? I assume that we will set them up for jumping  and air delivery too?


----------



## aesop081

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Forget all that 'landing' talk, what about parachuting? I assume that we will set them up for jumping  and air delivery too?



Globemasher adressed that very point in one of his many very detailed posts...in this thread !!


----------



## Haletown

Anything and everything you wanted to know about the C 17, including jumping

http://www.theaviationzone.com/factsheets/c17.asp

many, many pictures . .  see "Image Gallery" near the top right side.  Lotsa shots of air drops - pg 2, 3, 4 maybe more.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Good stuff, thanks

As always, Youtube has video footage of anything you want, including the 82 Abn Div being dispatched from C17s. Looks like a Rolls Royce jump, but where do they keep the barf bags?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ir59yOHCUpA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVZSy22rwUU&mode=related&search=


----------

