# Second CC-177 operational



## MarkOttawa (23 Oct 2007)

This is quick, after delivery (usual copyright disclaimer):
http://www.cbc.ca/cp/Atlantic/071023/t102311A.html



> FREDERICTON - One of Canada's new heavy-lift aircraft for the Canadian Forces is making quick work of transporting equipment from Canadian Forces Base Gagetown in New Brunswick to a training exercise in Alberta.
> 
> The new CC-177 Globemaster is an imposing site at the Fredericton airport where two air defence anti-tank systems have been loaded for the flight to Cold Lake, Alta.
> 
> ...



*Update:* Delivery news release, Oct. 19:
http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/8wing/news/releases_e.asp?cat=99&id=4597

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## forcerecon85 (23 Oct 2007)

Is it just me, or did that seem pretty quick compared to receiving the first CC-177? Regardless, it's still a beauty!


----------



## geo (23 Oct 2007)

It only seems that way.  All the inuendo and speculation prior to ordering / receiving the 1st unit just made the clock run slow.


----------



## tomahawk6 (23 Oct 2007)

Definitely quicker than getting an A400M ;D


----------



## Haletown (23 Jan 2008)

an imposing and beautiful site  

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/wp/images/AIR_CC-177_Inuvik_Airport_lg.jpg


----------



## karl28 (23 Jan 2008)

Great pics thanks for sharing it .


----------



## geo (23 Jan 2008)

Nice wintery Canadian Pic..... Very nice!

Thanks Haletown


----------



## tomahawk6 (23 Jan 2008)

Beautiful pic !!


----------



## belka (25 Jan 2008)

That was possibly the nicest ride out of that crap hole they call Inuvik.


----------



## JBoyd (25 Jan 2008)

Forgive my ignorance, but is the CC-177 the same as the C-17 in the US?


----------



## Canadian Mind (25 Jan 2008)

Yes, they are the same type of aircraft. Whether or not we gave it some additional features I don't know. But as usual we have to give it a Canadian designation, just as I believe our F-18's are officially known as the CF-188.

Also, I'm just throwing this question out there: Did we purchase enough? I never stop hearing people from other branches of the Air Force complain about either a lack of aircraft or a lack of spare parts, and I never stop reading it in the media. Have we really purchased enough, or is it the absolute bare minimum to meet our needs? 

As a taxpayer I don't want to see news stories 5-10 years down the road of us having to lease more Antonovs or hitchhike on other NATO transports because we didn't buy enough of them in the first place.

As a military buff and recruit waiting for acceptance I also look forward to acquiring the best kit possible, and as much of it as possible.

Edit - Just looked at the picture. What a beautiful bird, set her up as my desktop. Would have thought our paint scheme would be a darker grey and much darker lettering. Maybe it's just the light playing with it.


----------



## dapaterson (25 Jan 2008)

We're part of the C-17 global sustainment partnership, so we'll be keeping from overly "Canadianizing" outr fleet (unlike the P3s Auroras that we've thoroughly bastardizedCanadianized).  That should handle spares etc - indeed, the support contract specifies readiness levels.

As I recall, the Brits are getting half a dozen aircraft; the Aussies 4, and NATO has acquired 4.  Check out the Defence Industry Daily site; they've got a good summary of the C-17.


----------



## Haletown (25 Jan 2008)

start here

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/canada-joining-the-anglosphere-c17-club-02388/#more

good Herc/Jerc summary there also . . scroll down


----------



## retiredgrunt45 (28 Jan 2008)

That's a very nice pic. She looks so smooth, curvy, plump and voluptuous, just as I like my women.  ;D

The smaller planes in the pic, look so "small" compared to that big sexy beast.


----------



## Pencil Tech (28 Jan 2008)

Thanks for the great pic, it's on my desktop now.


----------



## Mud (28 Jan 2008)

Great pic!  I've been kicking myself since August for missing a free ride on the first one on it's mercy flight to Jamaica! (It was a media photo-op and I picked a great time to be on holidays!)  Maybe next time....


----------



## Globesmasher (28 Jan 2008)

Canadian Mind said:
			
		

> Also, I'm just throwing this question out there: Did we purchase enough? I never stop hearing people from other branches of the Air Force complain about either a lack of aircraft or a lack of spare parts, and I never stop reading it in the media. Have we really purchased enough, or is it the absolute bare minimum to meet our needs?
> 
> As a taxpayer I don't want to see news stories 5-10 years down the road of us having to lease more Antonovs or hitchhike on other NATO transports because we didn't buy enough of them in the first place.



No we didn't.  However, all we could do is take the chunk of money that was given to us by the Govt for the "project" and spend it as wisely as we could.  4 jets plus the spares, training and 20 of service support was all we could afford with the money we were given.

It's a very good question and one project managers have to deal with regardless of branch of service.

With only 4 C-17s (CC177s) you will ALWAYS see an Antonov or an Illushyn parked in Trenton hauling cargo for us - we'll never be able to do it all ourselves with only:
5 Airbus
4 C-17s
17 C-130J

Such is life.

4 is much better than 0.

For all those others out there - get ready for delivery of #3 and #4 in April.
Delivery has been delayed by a few weeks as we have managed to wriggle our way into the LAIRCM line - so we'll get our aircraft modded a little quicker than we initially expected, but the final delivery dates will be pushed back a couple weeks - small price to pay in the long run.


----------



## Mud (29 Jan 2008)

Are the stretched Hercs still operational?  And since they are, as I understand it, newer airframes, will they be around after the earlier models are replaced?


----------



## tomahawk6 (2 Mar 2008)

I remember someone stating that the CC-177 did not have IR capability or it wasnt necessary to CF requirements. If that is the case what is the rationale ? Thx


----------



## Globesmasher (2 Mar 2008)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> .......... the CC-177 did not have IR capability .................



TH6 - I don't understand your question.
What are you asking?
What do you mean "... IR capability....."?


----------



## tomahawk6 (2 Mar 2008)

Sorry inflight refueling.


----------



## Good2Golf (2 Mar 2008)

And more importantly, check our the good looking dude they have flying #2! CC-177 #2 (scroll down)  :-*

G2G


----------



## tomahawk6 (2 Mar 2008)

I didnt recognize him without a mustache.


----------



## Globesmasher (3 Mar 2008)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Sorry inflight refueling.



Ah ha!

Inflight refueling = "AR", Air Refueling.
IR = Infra Red.  Something very different.
Confused the heck out of me - I'm gettng old.

We will not be doing any AR.

G2G:
If only I could be as good loooking as that C-17 pilot.
Alas, there but for the grace of God ..................


----------



## Good2Golf (4 Mar 2008)

Globesmasher, I wouldn't even know where to begin if I looked as good as you do!  ;D

G2G


----------



## geo (4 Mar 2008)

Careful G2G.... after all that praise, he won't be able to get his flight helmet back on >


----------



## ArcticObserver (4 Mar 2008)

forcerecon85 said:
			
		

> Is it just me, or did that seem pretty quick compared to receiving the first CC-177? Regardless, it's still a beauty!



It was even quicker than you think.  The haul from Frederickton was already its second operational mission, the first having been run earlier in the week.  Some info (and nice photos) here:
http://www.spottersblog.com/yev/1613/Large+and+In+Charge.html

AO


----------



## Good2Golf (4 Mar 2008)

geo said:
			
		

> Careful G2G.... after all that praise, he won't be able to get his flight helmet back on >



Geo, he's too cool for a helmet...David Clarks and cool shades!  8)


----------



## geo (4 Mar 2008)

Doh!
Then I guess I should strap on my own... :warstory:


----------



## Globesmasher (5 Mar 2008)

ArcticObserver said:
			
		

> It was even quicker than you think.  The haul from Frederickton was already its second operational mission, the first having been run earlier in the week.  Some info (and nice photos) here:
> http://www.spottersblog.com/yev/1613/Large+and+In+Charge.html
> 
> AO



Interesting site - thanks for the post - some very nice photos there.

It was very quick getting 702 into service.
We picked it up on 18 Oct and flew it out of Long Beach, California to Trenton.
On the 21 Oct we flew to Cold Lake to pick up the first load of cargo.
Landed in Inuvik on 22 Oct.

3 days from delivery to first operational mission.

Beat that timetable Chinook program ....................... HA!!!!!   >

[I'll stand by for incoming on that now ..................  :warstory: .........]

I was wondering why my helmet didn't fit anymore.
I figured I was just putting on more weight.
So, G2G, I'll just hold my nogs up in "opera glass" fashion now!!   ;D


----------



## observor 69 (5 Mar 2008)

Nice

http://www.spottersblog.com/albums/ve8ev/&task=view&up_id=5387


----------



## Good2Golf (5 Mar 2008)

GS, DOH! My bad....forgot about those pesky nogs....    Hey, do you have a stylist to look after your coiffe after you ditch the bone dome?  ;D

Cheers,
G2G


----------



## Haletown (4 Apr 2008)

incoming very soon . . number 4 looks real pretty all painted up & flying   . . .  

http://tinyurl.com/5yz8r5


----------



## Haletown (4 Apr 2008)

another nice picture from Boeing

http://tinyurl.com/3msg2p


----------



## Globesmasher (5 Apr 2008)

The last two - 703 and 704 should be with us very soon.

We took official delivery of 703 from Boeing in Long Beach on 7th March and we just took delivery of 704 from Boeing the other day - 3rd April.  So, in a sense we now legally own and have accepted all 4 C-17 aircraft for our Canadian fleet inventory.

However, that being said, 703 and 704 have been immediately rolled into post-production modification lines for upgraded electronic defensive suites the day after they have come off the line.  We should see both aircraft coming to Trenton in the late April and early May timeframe.

Get your cameras ready.


----------



## geo (6 Apr 2008)

Globesmasher, does that mean that the first two airframes from our Canadian order have been surrendered to the Australian - in order to return the two we got from theirs?


----------



## Globesmasher (6 Apr 2008)

WHAT?????  

No, absolutely not - let me kill that rumour right here and now.
Those are our aircraft - bought and paid for.
We got/received NOTHING from the Australians.

701 and 702 will cycle down to the USA this spring to also be retrofit for a defensive systems upgrade just like 703 and 704.
In this way all 4 aircraft will be configured identically.

Those 4 aircraft are ours, we owe nobody nothing.  

Come late May - early July all 4 should be back from their various upgrades, retrofits and post production modifications.


----------



## Haletown (6 Apr 2008)

The Aussies have all of theirs as well - just recently they had a ceremony to accept their last one.

I think the confusion might be because Boeing, with agreement from the parties involved, moved around production numbers on the line so that various nations got their orders in segments rather than sequence.


----------



## geo (6 Apr 2008)

Sounds about right Haletown...


----------



## ProPatria031 (6 Apr 2008)

I wonder, would it be possible to do airborn Ops with it? if so we could load a whole jump coy in the back of that beast.  ;D


----------



## geo (6 Apr 2008)

Yes, C17s have been used for Airborne ops....
but, our C117s are presently being used for strategic lift.. not tactical... those are left to the CC130s
At present, we aren't applying doctrine where we would deploy paras in Afghanistan.... Heliborne - yes, para - no.


----------



## Haletown (6 Apr 2008)

March 10th for the Aussies . .  .  article says they are working up to air drops of troops & supplies . . .   Tac Air.

There is a video around somewhere of US deploying from a 3 ship flight  . . .   lotsa chutes in a really short time.  

http://www.air-attack.com/news/news_article/3072/4th-Boeing-C-17-Globemaster-III-Delivered-to-the-RAAF.html



4th Boeing C-17 Globemaster III Delivered to the RAAF
Posted on: Mar. 10th, 2008 || Source: Royal Australian Air Force | E-mail Article | Print Article

4th Boeing C-17 Globemaster III Delivered to the RAAF
The fourth Boeing C-17A Globemaster III has been delivered to the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF), completing Australia’s fleet.

The aircraft touched down at RAAF Amberley near Ipswich yesterday evening, and will be operated by No. 36 Squadron.

“Australia’s four C-17s have been delivered on time and on budget. This success highlights the excellent cooperation between the Royal Australian Air Force, Defence Materiel Organisation, the Boeing Company and US Air Force,” Chief of Air Force, Air Marshal Geoff Shepherd said.

“The first Globemaster entered RAAF service in December 2006, and these aircraft have already made a positive impact in supporting Australian Defence Force operations.”

Globemasters have supported Operation Catalyst (Iraq), Operation PNG Assist, Operation Astute (Timor-Leste), Exercise Red Flag 2007, Exercise Bersama Shield 2007 and Exercise Talisman Saber 2007.

Air Force accepted the fourth aircraft in January this year at the Boeing facility at Long Beach California. The aircraft has since been fitted with aircraft self protection equipment.

No. 36 Squadron achieved an Initial Operational Capability with the C-17A in September 2007, and is working towards more complex roles including the airdrop of personnel and cargo and high dependency aero-medical evacuation. Full Operational Capability is scheduled for end of 2011, with the completion of in-country training systems and permanent facilities for No. 36 Squadron at RAAF Amberley.


----------



## Globesmasher (6 Apr 2008)

ProPatria031 said:
			
		

> I wonder, would it be possible to do airborn Ops with it? if so we could load a whole jump coy in the back of that beast.  ;D



Yes.

We will get there one day.
One step at a time.

Our long term goal/plan/doctrine is to perform airdrop with the C-17 aircraft as well as with the C-130J.
Currently we simply don't have the crews trained yet to even perform the shear volume of airland taskings that are being piled onto the plate of 429 Sqn.  We are trying hard to meet operational requirements as well as force generate qualified aircrew and technicians as quickly and as safely as possible.  Performing airdrop operations simply isn't feasible or safe right now given the current tempo of operations.


The one difference that the RAAF has over the Canadian Air Force is that the Australians have one year (from delivery of their first aircraft) to train their crews before being mandated for operations.  The Commander 1 Cdn Air Div gave us 5 days, yes days, count them ...................... 5 days.

So the few instructors that we have ... we can barely count them on one hand ... are trying to train the new crewmembers and to also fulfill the lines of required taskings for CANOSCOM and CEFCOM and all the other COMs that are now banging on the Air Div's door demanding that they use the new aircraft.  We're being pulled in way too many different directions right now, and we have barely taken delivery of the entire fleet, and we have barely declared IOC let alone FOC.

We'll get around to airdrop one day ... soon hopefully.
The C-17 is very good at dropping Heavy Equipment, CDS and also Personnel, low level static line, or personnel high altitude HAHO/HALO for standoff insertion.
It also does JPADS and PGADS very accurately as well from high altitudes.

Furthermore, the rest of the CF must also adjust to meet the infrastructure change associated with airdrop - it is not as simple as sticking a bunch of stuff in the back and then shoving it out the door in flight.

CFLAWC, the TAMS & MAMS folks and the riggers will have to shift gear as we transition away from the archaic method of rigging HE in the back of the legacy C-130s (nobody else in the world does it this way anymore so I don't know why we still do - a refusal to change I suppose).  The C-17 and the C-130J now do HE airdorp using the EFTC HE pallets - something Canada does not possess.  So now, we have to get rid of all those old pallets, buy the new ones and then train a whole host of folks in blue and green on how to rig this new stuff.  The good news is - it'll now only take 30 minutes to rig the back of the aircraft for HE instead of 6 hours.

There's also a new training bill for the folks who wish to jump out of the aircraft - the drill is slightly different as there is now an amber light that comes on between the red and the lime light.  Go figure - the static line is also longer as well.  So now CFLAWC has to develop a way of keeping the C-130J static line chutes separate from the C-17 static line chutes.  The Americans use the standard yellow for the 16' static lines for the C-130s and blue for the new 20' C-17 static lines.

There is a much bigger infrastructure cost to airdrop - and we have to get a whole lot of the CF "on-line" with airdrop before we start - it's not just a matter of telling a bunch of blue Air Force types in Trenton to "Get with it, come on lets go".  A lot of purple and green will have to adapt and change as well.  Its a whole new paradigm out there.

Right now the CF is having a tough time adjusting to simple use of the C-17 in the strategic airland role - it'll be a big change for airdrop.

One step at a time.
We need to walk first and then we will try running.


----------



## Zoomie (6 Apr 2008)

You do realize that as soon as the CC-177 is approved for para - the boys in Orange will be getting it tasked to support their jump camps.  

If it flies, they try and jump out of it.


----------



## prom (6 Apr 2008)

Globesmasher, LOTS of information there. Thanks as always. 

I think I asked you this before, but from what I read it seems that we require more then the 4 tails that we have received. Is this the case?


----------



## geo (7 Apr 2008)

From a point of curiosity... if a 16ft static line is good for CC130 jumps and 20ft lines is good for a C117 jump.....
wouldn't a 20ft line work on the CC130s?... or is the additional 4 ft essential for canopy deployment / safety margin for reserve shutes, etc...


----------



## Globesmasher (7 Apr 2008)

geo said:
			
		

> From a point of curiosity... if a 16ft static line is good for CC130 jumps and 20ft lines is good for a C117 jump.....
> wouldn't a 20ft line work on the CC130s?... or is the additional 4 ft essential for canopy deployment / safety margin for reserve shutes, etc...



The Maple Leaf on my jump wings are only red - I'll let a guy with the white Maple Leaf answer that one.
I simply don't know the answer to that one.


----------



## Haletown (7 Apr 2008)

If I was guessing,  the longer lines would handle the need to fall further from the aircraft before parachute deployment due to:

 increased speed of a C17 over a Herc so they want the parachutists to drop further due to closeness of the deployment door to the tail control surfaces,
 need to get further out the C17 slipstream

but I'm guessing  . . . .


----------



## geo (7 Apr 2008)

heh... I figured that out for myself.  I was just wondering if the additional 4 ft of static line would make a lot of difference if used on a Herc.  Considering the rate of fall, I wouldn't think that the fraction of a second it takes to fall 4 ft would make a big differnce ...but - I'm not the one wearing the parachute.


----------



## Globesmasher (7 Apr 2008)

Haletown said:
			
		

> increased speed of a C17 over a Herc so they want the parachutists to drop further due to closeness of the deployment door to the tail control surfaces,



Nope - same speeds for the C-130 and the C-17 during the drop phase.

For the C-17 ...... jumpers will be forced, by the slipstream, into and slightly under the aircraft - hence the requirement for the extra 4' of static line - it is just to ensure that they really are absolutely clear of the aircraft before deployment begins.  However, that being said, I do not know why the longer static line cannot be used on the C-130 ... not a bad suggestion by Geo, but I simply don't have the answer to that one.


----------



## Old Sweat (7 Apr 2008)

Geo,

I'm not sure about the extra four feet of tangled lines and deployment bags trailing behind a Herc and whether they could foul a control surface. There also may be safety considerations for a hungup jumper, but again that is a guess. Hopefully an expert (I last jumped in July 1977, so I am waaay out of date.) will join the discussion soon.


----------



## Zoomie (8 Apr 2008)

What's the ramp speed for the CC-177?  When it gets tasked for CFSSAR's jump phase, the boys will be cannon-balling off the back the fastest they can get.


----------



## Globesmasher (9 Apr 2008)

Zoomie said:
			
		

> What's the ramp speed for the CC-177?  When it gets tasked for CFSSAR's jump phase, the boys will be cannon-balling off the back the fastest they can get.



250 KCAS.

I don't think anybody wants to be hitting the slipstream at that speed though ... yikes.


----------



## vonGarvin (9 Apr 2008)

Globesmasher said:
			
		

> *The Maple Leaf on my jump wings are only red * - I'll let a guy with the white Maple Leaf answer that one.
> I simply don't know the answer to that one.


Wait a minute.  You're a pilot, with jump wings?  Does this mean you don't trust pilots either?   >


----------



## Jammer (9 Apr 2008)

Tsk tsk...ALWAYS trust your equipment...but having a way helps too.


----------



## geo (9 Apr 2008)

Umm.... Always have a "Plan B" in your back pocket >


----------



## GAP (9 Apr 2008)

geo said:
			
		

> Umm.... Always have a "Plan B" in your back pocket >



reason for "reserve" chute....


----------



## Globesmasher (9 Apr 2008)

Mortarman Rockpainter said:
			
		

> Wait a minute.  You're a pilot, with jump wings?  Does this mean you don't trust pilots either?   >



LOL!

You know for years, while flying the Herc, I've always wanted to jump out (as the actual aircrew) midway through flight to scare the hell out of the jumpers in the back.
For all the times that I have supported CPC either during CON PARA or during J stage of BPARA I have always thought to myself .....

"Hhmmm, OK, these guys see me standing in the back doing the crew brief with the LMs and the JMs.  They're then going to see me walk up front and into the flight deck, then we're going to go flying, so they're going to assume I'm the one driving since they've seen me do the brief and I'm the one wearing the poorly fitting zoom bag, and they haven't seen any other pilots.  But, once we're over the DZ and stable in drop config, I would just love to have some other crew actually fly the aircraft, and then just haul ass out back  ..... run down the length of the cargo compartment with a paniced look on my face and jab off the back of the ramp on my own .......... just to see what everyone else thinks/does".

Is that an obscure thought?

OK, that was a bad thread hijack ................ back on topic.


----------



## geo (9 Apr 2008)

One hijack is as good/bad as any other.

You Globesmasher have certainly earned this little bit of sillyness...
(would be even sillyer if the plane did an initial flyby the DZ - you'd walk up to the front door, pop it open and jump while everyone is looking - preparing to jump from the rear  )


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (10 Apr 2008)

Globesmasher said:
			
		

> LOL!
> 
> You know for years, while flying the Herc, I've always wanted to jump out (as the actual aircrew) midway through flight to scare the hell out of the jumpers in the back.
> For all the times that I have supported CPC either during CON PARA or during J stage of BPARA I have always thought to myself .....
> ...



Sounds like a good way to start your retirement a couple of days early.....


----------



## Strike (10 Apr 2008)

Globesmasher,

That would be hilarious!  I can just imagine the LM and JM trying to keep a straight face during the whole affair.

(Good thing I put my water bottle down while reading that post.  ;D)


----------



## geo (10 Apr 2008)

Strike said:
			
		

> Globesmasher,
> That would be hilarious!  I can just imagine the LM and JM trying to keep a straight face during the whole affair.
> (Good thing I put my water bottle down while reading that post.  ;D)


Am certain that the LM & JMs face would be different... before and after they checked the cockpit to make sure there was still someone at the helm


----------



## Haletown (10 Apr 2008)

"Canada's air force boosts its heavy lift capacity into Afghanistan
Matthew Fisher, Canwest News Service
Published: Wednesday, April 09, 2008

ABOARD CANFORCE 99 - The lights of a lonely village twinkled below as Maj. Tim Burke manoeuvred the giant, camouflaged C-17 Globemaster into position for a spine-tingling, rapid descent into Kandahar Airfield with a 43,000-kilogram load of ammo, mail, medical supplies, computers and paper cups for Canadian troops fighting the Taliban in southern Afghanistan."

rtr @ http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=54698bc5-5d3b-46c1-9e4a-c5a312a0bffb&k=65017

Hat tip to The Torch


----------



## mover1 (10 Apr 2008)

Quick note on the Aussies. 
I am in Altus right now and the Aussies are here doing their air drop course. 


(I hate Scooters)


----------



## Haletown (24 Apr 2008)

Had the tube on early today and saw a C17 show on the History Channel.   Taped in 1997 but still great

"FLIGHTPATH II | Sky Giant
Jini Carrol, a Washington journalist, has been tracking the C-17 since its inception in 1992. In its short history the C-17 has flown troops and supplies in support of missions around the world. Its greatest work to date has been supporting peacekeeping missions in Bosnia where it was the only air lifter capable of carrying oversized equipment like jeeps, tanks, and helicopters, as well as passengers and cargo, into Tuzla. "

check your local times

http://www.history.ca/ontv/titledetails.aspx?titleid=105147


Lots of interesting tidbits  . .  I didn't know the  nickname is "Moose" or it had a system to do auto formation flying.


----------



## Haletown (12 Sep 2013)

Heavy lift airplane porn.

Elephant walks are usually for zoomies,  but this one was for the big boys.

That would have been awesome to see live :nod:


Can't find any video yet  . . .  


http://www.349amw.afrc.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123308219


----------

