# Canada puts rush order on Hercules aircraft



## formerarmybrat23 (11 Jun 2007)

Canadian Press 
Published Monday June 11th, 2007 
Appeared on page A1
http://www.canadaeast.com/ce2/docroot/article.php?articleID=9657


National Defence wants to jump the queue once again to get faster delivery of new Hercules tactical-lift aircraft and has formally asked the Pentagon if it can butt into line ahead of the U.S. military.

Canada is hoping to start receiving the new model of the venerable C-130 by 2009, a full year ahead of the previously established schedule, according to a senior Defence official.

The Pentagon is "favourable to the idea," said Dan Ross, the U.S. department's assistant deputy minister of material.

An official decision by the Americans has yet to be made because Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Conservative government is still negotiating a final contract with U.S. defence giant Lockheed Martin for the $4.9 billion purchase 17 C-130J Hercules. "We're hoping we'll be able to get the opportunity to start training new crews and technicians on the 130J before 2010," Ross said in an interview with The Canadian Press.

He said the Americans see it as being in their interest to help Canada get the aircraft as quickly as possible.

"I mean, we work together around the world and (we're) obviously co-operating very, very closely in Afghanistan," said Ross. "So they need Canada to be as militarily self-sufficient as possible."

One of the biggest problems facing NATO countries in Afghanistan is a shortage of air transport, including tactical-lift and helicopters.

Ottawa's intention to buy new tactical-lift aircraft was first announced last summer, but opposition and industry critics stepped up their attacks in November when the Conservatives acknowledged they were negotiating exclusively with Lockheed Martin.

On Friday, the U.S. aerospace firm's main competitor -- Airbus Military -- tried to do an end-run around the Defence Department. It dropped an unsolicited proposal on the desks of members of the House of Commons defence committee and called for the C-130J purchase to be scrapped.

At present, the Canadian air force employs a small group of Hercules transports in Afghanistan. Flying out a base in the Middle East, the aircraft are used for supply drops to NATO troops at far-flung desert bases.

But the bulk of Canada's fleet of 32 C-130E and C-130H cargo planes, purchased between 1960 and 1997, is reaching the end of its life.

Last fall, National Defence made a similar queue-jumping request for early delivery of four C-17 Globemaster heavy-lift cargo aircraft and 16 CH-47 Chinook helicopters from U.S.-based Boeing Aircraft Corp.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (11 Jun 2007)

MGen (Ret'd) Dan Ross is the Canadian ADM(Mat)...

Sheesh


----------



## armyvern (11 Jun 2007)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> MGen (Ret'd) Dan Ross is the Canadian ADM(Mat)...
> 
> Sheesh



Yep, that's a pretty big error in this story. I wonder if he took out dual citizenship (or knows he's working for the Americans yet)???


----------



## GAP (11 Jun 2007)

Maybe that's why they are allowing us to push the orders ahead early.....  ;D  (We have an insider!!)


----------



## armyvern (11 Jun 2007)

GAP said:
			
		

> Maybe that's why they are allowing us to push the orders ahead early.....  ;D  (We have an insider!!)



A triple-dipper??


----------



## MarkOttawa (11 Jun 2007)

Sorry to spoil the fun, but somebody must have inserted the "U.S." in the story--the version I found reads:
http://www.recorder.ca/cp/National/070610/n061034A.html



> Canada is hoping to start receiving the new model of the venerable C-130 by 2009, a full year ahead of the previously established schedule, according to a senior Defence official.
> 
> The Pentagon is "favourable to the idea," said Dan Ross, the department's assistant deputy minister of material.


  

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## armyvern (11 Jun 2007)

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Sorry to spoil the fun, but somebody must have inserted the "U.S." in the story--the version I found reads:
> http://www.recorder.ca/cp/National/070610/n061034A.html
> 
> 
> ...



It's OK. I imagine with the 16 "guests" who were viewing this thread earlier...some coming out of MSM IPs...the correction was made rather quickly.


----------



## a_majoor (12 Jun 2007)

I always wonder about the undercurrent of this and related stories. Military equipment is pretty much hand crafted compared to more mundane things like cars or washing machines, so it isn't like we can (or should) go to "Honest Vladimir's Pre Owned Milspec Emporium" and gather up what we want at knock down prices unless there is absolutly no alternative.

Since the MSM fails to point out the A-400 does not even exist at this time, readers get the impressinon we are passing up a great deal. I would be concerned if DND didn't take a look at the A-400 in 2010 or 2015 when it will finally be available and we need to replace the rest of the C-130 fleet, but don't expect that kind of analysis from the MSM.......


----------



## MarkOttawa (12 Jun 2007)

a_majoor: A post at _The Torch_:

Let's hope this doesn't fly
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2007/06/lets-hope-this-doesnt-fly.html

Meanwhile a certain reporter continues hard at it:

Opposition calls for end to hefty defence deals
Sole-source contracts draw fire from critics
http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=48fd3157-ea89-4d8a-8311-60c453e5d675



> Last year, the Conservative government announced $17 billion in new military-equipment projects, including the acquisition of transport aircraft, trucks, helicopters and ships. Only one of those deals has been signed and *there have been ongoing claims by opposition MPs and some in the defence industry that the process to select the transport aircraft and helicopters was not fair* [emphasis added].
> 
> NDP defence critic Dawn Black and Liberal defence critic Denis Coderre say the procurements should be put on hold until the government receives a report from the auditor general. The report is expected by the end of the year, around the same time that the Commons Defence committee will issue its own report on military procurement.
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (12 Jun 2007)

A further post at _The Torch_:

Defence sole-sourcing
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2007/06/defence-sole-sourcing.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## RetiredRoyal (24 Jun 2007)

does the 130J have the flip over rail system? We should get the airbus just for that fact...i hated putting in and removing the dang rails on the hercs.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (24 Jun 2007)

Are you referring to the plane that hasn't even been made, flown or tested yet?


----------



## RetiredRoyal (24 Jun 2007)

ya that one...the advertising for it says it will have flip to stow rollers....we should get some. Heck, i've gotten married based on a couple nice pictures and a few performance promises...


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (24 Jun 2007)

I'm not sure if your being sarcastic but the CF needs the planes now, not after years of putting one in the ski, testing it etc.


----------



## Good2Golf (24 Jun 2007)

RR, I didn't play that close attention to the J-30 I flew around the ATO on, but it had what appeared to be an integrated roller system on it.

G2G


----------



## Haletown (24 Jun 2007)

130J's have a flip-over roller system.  I have pictures somewhere from the USAF Jercules that was at Abbotsford Air Show last summer.  

And as to the the yet to be built A400M . . .  they announced another delay last week because of re-work needed in the engine design.  It is a program in trouble.  Scope > Resources + Time + Budget = the old six pounds of dog doo-doo and a three pound bag problem.

They should have awarded the engine contract to the best bidder, not cave to European political pressure  and placed the work in home countries.  P&WC got screwed on that one.


----------



## RetiredRoyal (24 Jun 2007)

Lone Wolf Quagmire said:
			
		

> I'm not sure if your being sarcastic



Sarcasm...just another service I have to offer...


----------



## cameron (24 Jun 2007)

I am just happy that Canada finally has a government that sees giving its troops much needed equipment as an urgent priority rather than something to drag its feet on.  Now if we can expedite some attack helicopters i'd be even happier.


----------



## 1feral1 (24 Jun 2007)

I first flew in a J in 2001. Longer, and faster, and with other updates. Sure looks wierd with 6 props on each engine too.

We had a J take us in and out of Iraq for the four times I flew. 

At Ali Al Salem, Baghdad and Talil, I had observed Japanese SDF Hercs, US and others, and these were all the older types. I only saw a few USAF J's overall.

I think the J for Canada is a good choice, and long overdue

My 2 cents.


Wes


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (24 Jun 2007)

Yeah....new kit...gotta love it....I think we need more than the 17 we're getting though. Hopefully we'll get more as we go along. Wouldn't it be nice if we kept replacing kit over the years rather than waitin for 30+ years and the stuff is nearly beat into the ground?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (24 Jun 2007)

cameron said:
			
		

> I am just happy that Canada finally has a government that sees giving its troops much needed equipment as an urgent priority rather than something to drag its feet on.  Now if we can expedite some attack helicopters i'd be even happier.



those and other pieces of kit....


----------



## Mike Baker (24 Jun 2007)

IN HOC SIGNO said:
			
		

> Yeah....new kit...gotta love it....I think we need more than the 17 we're getting though. Hopefully we'll get more as we go along. Wouldn't it be nice if we kept replacing kit over the years rather than waitin for 30+ years and the stuff is nearly beat into the ground?


That would be a dream come true, and I hope it do come true too


----------



## RetiredRoyal (24 Jun 2007)

I just wish they'd stop buying airplanes with no FE slots....seeing that is the trade I'm headed back into...fingers croxxed.


----------



## Good2Golf (24 Jun 2007)

RetiredRoyal said:
			
		

> I just wish they'd stop buying airplanes with no FE slots....seeing that is the trade I'm headed back into...fingers croxxed.



Griffon, Cyclone, Cormorant, Aurora...pick one, they'll be the only ones with FEs.  (Not totally sure about the KC130s and KC150s)

G2G


----------



## aesop081 (25 Jun 2007)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Griffon, Cyclone, Cormorant, Aurora...pick one, they'll be the only ones with FEs.  (Not totally sure about the KC130s and KC150s)
> 
> G2G



No FE on the CH-148


----------



## Good2Golf (25 Jun 2007)

Rog, CA, I stand corrected.  I though a few would make the leap from CH124 to the 148.  FE's will be a rarer breed in the future...

G2G


----------



## aesop081 (25 Jun 2007)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Rog, CA, I stand corrected.  I though a few would make the leap from CH124 to the 148.  FE's will be a rarer breed in the future...
> 
> G2G



No FEs on the 124 either......that stopped years ago ( even then they were only there for ferry flights cross-country)


----------



## Good2Golf (25 Jun 2007)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> No FEs on the 124 either......that stopped years ago ( even then they were only there for ferry flights cross-country)



I'll just stop while I'm behind, then...shall I?

G2G


----------



## Globesmasher (27 Jun 2007)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Griffon, Cyclone, Cormorant, Aurora...pick one, they'll be the only ones with FEs.  (Not totally sure about the KC130s and KC150s)
> 
> G2G



No FEs on the KC150 either.
There will continue to be a civilian AME onboard as always, but no FE.

Still one on the KC130 - but lord only knows how long that capability will be around!!
No FE on the C-130J - and none on the CC177 - or the Challenger.

The dwindling C130E/H and the CP140 may well be it for the fixed wing fleet for FEs.


----------



## Jack O. (27 Jun 2007)

My apologies for my ignorance, but what's the FE acronym for exactly?  :-[

Danke


----------



## aesop081 (27 Jun 2007)

Jack Galaxy said:
			
		

> My apologies for my ignorance, but what's the FE acronym for exactly?  :-[
> 
> Danke



Flight Engineer


----------



## Jack O. (27 Jun 2007)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Flight Engineer



Thanks, no doubt it's the increased automation factor that causes the decision to not assign flight engineers, (Unless I'm mistaken) but it would appear that the benefits of having such a person outweigh the automation factor. Interesting tidbits of information.


----------



## Zoomie (27 Jun 2007)

Globesmasher said:
			
		

> The dwindling C130E/H and the CP140 may well be it for the fixed wing fleet for FEs.



Tsk tsk....  Buffalo and Twotters....


----------



## Globesmasher (27 Jun 2007)

D'Oh ... that's right!!  I forgot about those yellow things!  ;D
Good pick up - my bad.


----------

