# Tactical Airlift - Replace the Herc!



## a_majoor (23 Nov 2004)

One of the common objections to the LAV, MGS and MMEV concepts is the fact they are at the very limits of C-130 Hercules capabilities. The common rant seems to be "redesign or get something smaller and just as capable", although in truth, there are probably not many choices to replace or suppliment the LAV.

On the other hand, the C-130 dates back to the 1950's, making it perhaps the most successful design of all time (after the DC-3). We need to go into the 21rst century with an airlift capability which has developed beyond 1950 era airframes, and in Canada, we need to replace our fleet of C-130's simply because they are 30-40 years old. Why not get a bigger and better plane which can lift the LAV family while we are at it? For consideration, I give you the Carter Heli-plane: http://www.cartercopters.com/heliplane_overview.htm

Feel free to offer your own suggestions.


----------



## XJimmy (23 Nov 2004)

I am far from having air force smarts, but what about a core fleet of smaller tactical transports backed up by some (plug-in your own numbers here) large strategic lifters that we could rent/lease back to the U.S. for instance as they need them?  Taxpayers would pay less overall and the forces would have better airlift capability.  I think Britain does something along these lines with C-17's.


----------



## X Royal (23 Nov 2004)

How long is it taking to get our few Sea Kings replaced. Now were talking replacing the Herc's fleet. I doubt anyone now currently serving will still be around to see it. I suspect more sub contracting of airlifts. Not a fan of sub contracting of airlift services or even service contracts for our military aircraft but I suspect it is what we'll see due to no up front large costs. (pay me now or pay me later) Pay a certain amount for a given flight. Also reduced manpower & training costs but a major loss of flexibility/capability. :rage: :skull:


----------



## Inch (23 Nov 2004)

Well Maj, I must say that from my perspective, I'd like to know just how they plan on going from 5000 shp engines to 30,000 shp without making them 8 ft in diameter and not sucking 1000+ lbs of fuel per hour. Granted it won't be hovering all the time, but look at the problems they're having with the Osprey. Not to mention that it will be quite limited in speed due to having a rotor, even if the rotor is not turning it's still quite a bit of profile drag just having the rotor system. The fastest helicopter out there goes about 180 kts, and that's balls out.   I'm all for radical designs to lead us into the future but I myself have too much of a self-preservation instinct to be hovering a 150,000lbs hybrid. Another problem with hovering a 155,000lbs machine, make sure it's not too close to your biv or anything else that's not tied down. That's a lot of downwash my friend, I'd assume it'd be confined to airports, in which case, why don't you just get a bunch of fixed wing airlifters?

Anyway, I don't profess to be an engineer but those are the things that jump out at this helo driver.

Cheers


----------



## a_majoor (24 Nov 2004)

XJimmy said:
			
		

> I am far from having air force smarts, but what about a core fleet of smaller tactical transports backed up by some (plug-in your own numbers here) large strategic lifters that we could rent/lease back to the U.S. for instance as they need them? Taxpayers would pay less overall and the forces would have better airlift capability. I think Britain does something along these lines with C-17s.



The C-130 is considered a tactical airlifter, so getting a smaller one, while maybe cheaper and more flexible in some senses, misses the point of not being able to lift the LAV. (We do need a new generation of smaller transports to replace the Twin Otters, Buffalo, Caribou and other assorted small transports in the fleet anyway).



			
				Inch said:
			
		

> Well Maj, I must say that from my perspective, I'd like to know just how they plan on going from 5000 shp engines to 30,000 shp without making them 8 ft in diameter and not sucking 1000+ lbs of fuel per hour. Granted it won't be hovering all the time, but look at the problems they're having with the Osprey. Not to mention that it will be quite limited in speed due to having a rotor, even if the rotor is not turning it's still quite a bit of profile drag just having the rotor system. The fastest helicopter out there goes about 180 kts, and that's balls out.  I'm all for radical designs to lead us into the future but I myself have too much of a self-preservation instinct to be hovering a 150,000lbs hybrid. Another problem with hovering a 155,000lbs machine, make sure it's not too close to your biv or anything else that's not tied down. That's a lot of downwash my friend, I'd assume it'd be confined to airports, in which case, why don't you just get a bunch of fixed wing airlifters?
> 
> Anyway, I don't profess to be an engineer but those are the things that jump out at this helo driver.
> 
> Cheers



I don't know how they plan to do this either, but they seem confident. (If I am reading their site correctly, the engines will be versions of the turbines used in Navy warships). I believe there is another design out there which mates a C-130 sized airframe to two sets of V-22 wings and engines (i.e. 4 tiltrotors), which seems to be a mechanical nightmare just waiting to happen. Perhaps we need the bigger fuselage of the Carter design mated to a modern high efficiency wing to make a C-130 fixed wing replacement?


----------



## Inch (24 Nov 2004)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> I don't know how they plan to do this either, but they seem confident. (If I am reading their site correctly, the engines will be versions of the turbines used in Navy warships). I believe there is another design out there which mates a C-130 sized airframe to two sets of V-22 wings and engines (i.e. 4 tiltrotors), which seems to be a mechanical nightmare just waiting to happen. Perhaps we need the bigger fuselage of the Carter design mated to a modern high efficiency wing to make a C-130 fixed wing replacement?



That could work. If you design the wing right you could get incredible STOL capabilities and with good anti-FOD systems, you could operate quite a large aircraft from small unprepared fields. I guess we'll just have to wait and see what the "grown ups" in NDHQ figure out.

Cheers

Oh yeah, we don't fly Caribou's anymore.


----------



## casca (25 Nov 2004)

That Carter heliplane is intresting. However to replace the older Hercs you should replace them with the new C130J's, they are an awesome a/c.


----------



## a_majoor (25 Nov 2004)

casca said:
			
		

> That Carter heliplane is intresting. However to replace the older Hercs you should replace them with the new C130J's, they are an awesome a/c.



No doubt the C-130J is an awesome aircraft, but the US Stryker program is running into difficulties because even their late model "J" isn't up to the task of carrying a Stryker. While I actually don't believe it is sensible or wise to pin all our hopes on airlifting a combat team into the AOR (which is estimated to take 25 C-17 chalks!), having a big, capable, tactical airlifter makes sense on a lot of other levels. A strategic carrier (even leasing a squadron's worth of C-17's) also makes a lot of sense, if only because we are a long way from where we have to go.


----------



## Infanteer (25 Nov 2004)

A Majoor,

As much as I'm loath to bring up the vaunted "paper airplane", do you think the Airbus C-400 (or whatever its called) will fit the bill?

As well, seeing as the Stryker-LAV is intended as an interim vehicle (for the US, maybe not for us  :-\), perhaps we're being a little hasty on seeking to design a tactical airlifter based around moving it.  Perhaps that requirement might be gone in the near future.


----------



## Kirkhill (25 Nov 2004)

It does seem that the current state of the armoured art is that a vehicle of about 30 tonnes is what is needed to beat most man-portable threats (RPGs and lesser) on the battlefield.  That is the rough weight range of everything from the up-armoured Warriors and Bradleys to the CV-90s, Pumas and Dardos as well as the Boxer Wheeled APC.

If we really want to fly these things around the world then that seems to be the minimum load requirement.  In that case we are stuck looking at the A-400 and the C-17.  

Of course I still think that most vehicles, most of the time, will cover most distance by sea. But the ability to cover the last leg by air is certainly a desirable option.

On the other hand the Royal Marines are accepting higher risks in the name of greater deployability by restricting themselves to the 10 tonne Viking armoured version of the Bv206 which is armoured against anti-personnel threats (7.62mm, air bursts and 0.5 kg mines -  note however it has very low ground pressure).


----------



## a_majoor (25 Nov 2004)

From what I have been able to see, the Airbus is "supposed" to be a strategic airlifter along the lines of the C-17 or Antonov. Once again, a squadron for our strategic needs might be worth considering.

Although you are right about letting the cart drive the horse, a bigger and better tac airlifter is still worth considering, since lots of outsized kit exists today that didn't in the 1950's, and a larger cargo bay lends itself to secondary uses like disaster relief (imagine a portable operating room or similar set-up in the cargo bay), as well as lending itself to modifications to act as AWAC/JSTARS/air to air tanker or airborne laser platform (among other possibilities). If the Herc is going to undergo a C-130K or above mod, this should be considered as well.


----------



## casca (1 Dec 2004)

I still think the C130J is the best for Canada, however if we could ever afford a plane like the C-17( about $170 mil US a piece) It would great too. The Brit's have just decided to buy the C-17's they leased and i think they are even buying a few more. The A-400 from Airbus is an unproven a/c so I would be hesitant to buy that one. As for Canada to buy an Antonov a/c, well ????? I just don't think so even if we now  use them for airlift.


----------



## Big Foot (2 Dec 2004)

Well, theres one thing i'm sure we can all agree on, we need something newer than the Hercs


----------



## Kirkhill (15 Dec 2004)

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?session=dae.4308111.1089903978.QPadasOa9dUAAESlMZk&modele=jdc_34

Royal New Zealand Air Force upgrading its C130s at Spar in Edmonton.

Spar did some work on ours IIRC.  Is there any life at all left in our H's, even with an upgrade or do we have to go with that ridiculous wing and fuselage exchange?

Inch and Zoomie, you have any insights?


----------



## RCD (16 Dec 2004)

Replace them with the new current C-130J models.
Buy 2 x a month for 24 months will all most bring us to current levels.
 Get about 4 x C17 for the heavy lift


----------



## Kirkhill (16 Dec 2004)

I get your drift ReconMan.

At your rate of acquisition it would only take about 16 months to replace the entire current C130 fleet of 32 frames - (not aircraft, aircraft can fly and apparently a good chunk of our current fleet can't)

Actually I agree with you.  As do most folks here and a number of other folks like Barney Danson.

My question was prompted by the Article and a continuing search to find the "What if" answer, as in "What if the government doesn't come up with the money for a new air transport fleet?"

Cheers.


----------



## Bograt (16 Dec 2004)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> My question was prompted by the Article and a continuing search to find the "What if" answer, as in "What if the government doesn't come up with the money for a new air transport fleet?"


The most important thing to remember when it comes to lift capabilities is to lift with you knees, not you back. That's what will happen if we do not replace the Hercs.


----------



## McG (9 Jan 2005)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> In that case we are stuck looking at the A-400 and the C-17.


In coming to this conclusion, you have focused on the strategic airlift uses that we have often us the C130 to fill.  I think it is important that we not loose its tactical range of capabilities (parachute operations, SAR, in theater airlift, etc).  I think a mix of C-130J and C-130J-30 would meet our tactical airlift needs well.

The C-5, C-17, or Il-76 could be looked at for a separate but complementary strategic airlift fleet.


----------



## Cloud Cover (9 Jan 2005)

And maybe GDSL will build  a LAV with a rotor head. I think most of the Herc fleet will dissappear with the new FW SAR, perhaps the 5 tanker models and maybe a dosen new c130j will form the basis of tactical airlift. There just isn't any likelihood of money actually going on the table for anything else right now or in the future.


----------



## aesop081 (9 Jan 2005)

whiskey 601 said:
			
		

> .......I think most of the Herc fleet will dissappear with the new FW SAR



The point of FW SAR replacement i beleive is to replace the Buffs and the E-model CC-130s currently employed in the SAR role. The H-models are old as well but have more airframe-hours left on them compared to the E-models. C-130Js would make a good replacement for our fleet of H-models in the tac airlift role. I can see the hercs losing the AAR role as the tanker-modified CC-150s enter service.


----------



## Cloud Cover (9 Jan 2005)

So if the Sparton is selected, and a dozen or so J Hercs are on the tarmac in Trenton, things will basically wash out even?


----------



## aesop081 (9 Jan 2005)

Pretty much as the E-models are used pretty much exclusively as fixed-wing SAR platforms anyways. So, IMO, you would see J-models apear in trenton, Spartan ( or whatever) make their way to 442 sqn in Comox ( to replace the buffs) and to Greenwood ( to replace the E-models).  435 sqn here in winnipeg would get J-models.

This is pure speculation of course. Based on a dream i just had   ;D


----------



## mo-litia (9 Jan 2005)

aseop - See, I can even agree with you on occassion! 

I agree with you that our TacAir needs a massive overhaul; I only hope that the bean counters recognize this as well.


----------



## aesop081 (9 Jan 2005)

mo-litia said:
			
		

> aseop - See, I can even agree with you on occassion!
> 
> I agree with you that our TacAir needs a massive overhaul; I only hope that the bean counters recognize this as well.



No worries, i try not to let past differences clout my judgement ( doesn't always happen though).

The Herc is a fantastic tac airlifter, the problem is that we have had to use as a defacto strategic airlifter.  We will, in the long run, not have improved the situation if a CC-130 replacement is not immediately followed by the arrival in service of a well-and-true strategic airlifter. I would also like to see the CC-130 replacemt hav an AAR refueling probe so that they can AAR from our CC-150 tankers. This would increase the rapidity of deployements by eliminitaing the need for several stops on the way to far-flung locales.


----------



## Kirkhill (9 Jan 2005)

Aesop

If you get the SAR-FW replacement, and the Gods smiled and also bought or leased a 6-pack of C-17s how many years/hours might you get out of the remaining H models?  (Assume that they were restricted to intra-theatre support flights - lets say 3 in the mid-east and 12-15 back here in Canada for domestic and training duties).

Could we get enough years out of them (5, 10?) that we could get the C-17s on line before swapping the Hs for Js?


----------



## aesop081 (9 Jan 2005)

Well, i'm no expert on aircraft life expectancy but the H-models are long in the tooth as it is so a decision on all this has to be made soon. I can't honestly see them last more than 10 years the way we use them. Like i have said before the E-models should have become pop cans long ago and the H-models are not far behind. If we were to go for C-17s we could concevably have them in-service but since the J-model is already in production , we could have both ( granted that there is only limited funds).

this is what happens when you neglect something for years.


----------



## Kirkhill (9 Jan 2005)

> this is what happens when you neglect something for years.



And the choir said Amen...


----------



## mo-litia (9 Jan 2005)

I wish we could get C-17's . . . maybe we can take up a collection. How much can they cost, anyway? ;D


----------



## aesop081 (9 Jan 2005)

What we should have done years ago to the H-models was to stretch them like the RAF did. and invested in a strategic airlifter.   This would have vastly expanded our deployement capabilities. I remember trying to fit 2 LSVW's into the back of a CC-130H and i had to take the back step of the ambulance one to have enough room.

I personaly would see the current tac airlift sqns re-equip to the C-130J and stand-up 2 sqns of C-17s (both in Trenton). Passenger and cargo lift could remain with the CC-150, but i would like to see all the polaris being modified for AAR. For that matter, we should also get more of them, capable of AAR, to go with our shiny new airlift fleet. Makes sense to me anyways. The CC-150s are pretty versatile aircrafts so me should make maximum use of them to save some hours on the tac and strategic airlifters.

C-17s are about 225 million dollars each !!


----------



## Scoobs (12 Jan 2005)

Gentlemen,

the a/c indicated by the Majoor is a concept a/c.  It is very dangerous to even consider this, although I suspect that it may have been done lighthearted.
A/C are designed from the beginning with specific missions in mind.  Hercs are not strategic airlift.  They are tactical and the CF has used them to do strategic out of necessity.  It is time for the Hercs to be replaced.  I agree with the coming decision to replace the SAR Hercs with the Spartan.  Do you really need an a/c the size of a Herc to do SAR?  No.
I agree that we should maintain a fleet of Hercs, most likely the J model, since we have extensive experience in flying and maintaining them.  Thus parts and training would already exist, but would have to be supplemented with upgrading due to the new J model.  Extending the fuselage of the Herc will only help with long cargo, not with items that require larger volume, i.e. height restrictions.  The E and H models are old and have extensive airframe hours.  Lockheed Martin is actually very interested in us since no one else operates older ones.  There are certain components that are lifed items, i.e. hours flown, that need to be replaced after certain hours.  Just like an engine or tranny in a helo, airframes also reach time limits due to cracks, corrosion, etc.
My understanding is that the Hercs are having their wing boxes replaced at third line at SPAR.  This is expensive and time consuming, restricting the availability of the a/c for ops.  My recommendation:  retire the E's, replace with the Spartan, retire about 10 Hercs immediately, and then phase in the J models for the remaining older Herc models.
Strategic airlift is needed.  Look at DART as an example.  Look at the LAV or the proposed stryker.  I work with Griffons and we have to take the main and tail rotors off, head and mast off, use gross weight tow kit, and then it can barely fit into the Herc.  The process of loading a CH146 into a Herc can take the better part of a day.  Then it must be unloaded at the destination.  With a C17 or Antonov (of which there are dwindling numbers), you can simply fold the blades (using a premium blade fold kit) and roll the helo onto the C17 and then off at the destination.  Unfold the blades, do the paperwork, preflight, and you're off.  Which one to buy?  No brainer, the C17.  We have or just had pilots in the States doing trg with them at US units.  It is a proven a/c that is built in our backyard.  Remember, whenever the Government buys items such as a/c, there must be regional benifits throughout Canada (Treasury Board policy).  Boeing, the maker of the C17, has three plants in Canada, Winnipeg, Arnprior (Ont), and another which I cannot remember at this point.  Plus, the embarrassment that the government has recently endured due to renting Antonovs only helps.  I can dream....

Remember, an a/c is designed for specific missions from the start.  Hercs are designed to be tac lift, and C17s are designed for the strategic airlift.  I learnt this day one of Aerospace Engineering in university.

Just my two cents if anyone is listening...


----------



## Kirkhill (21 Jan 2005)

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?session=dae.4308111.1089903978.QPadasOa9dUAAESlMZk&modele=jdc_34

Update on the C130J in USAF service.  2 Js = 3 E/Hs.


----------



## COBRA-6 (25 Jan 2005)

Have any of you air-force types done the math to figure out how many aircraft we'd need? Assuming the Spartan was bought for the SAR role, how many C-130J-30's would we need to flush out the tac-airlift role?

I agree that a modest amount (4?) of C-17's should be aquired for our strategic needs... and with the airlines in the state they are, couldn't we pick up some surplus A310's or A330's cheap to beef up our AAR/airlift need? Maybe 3 more, brings us up to 8 of them, with all but the VIP one modified for AAR... That seems like a modest but capable and flexible force... nevermind that the Aussies are going ahead with AWACS, AAR, and all sorts of other projects, with a population of 2/3rds of ours... anyone know if they hire Canadian Officers?? LOL


----------



## SeaKingTacco (25 Jan 2005)

> anyone know if they hire Canadian Officers?? LOL



In increasingly large numbers...


----------



## COBRA-6 (25 Jan 2005)

Oh really... where do I sign up? lol


----------



## SeaKingTacco (26 Jan 2005)

Contact the nearest Australian High Commision for details.

Also, you can go to their Army/Navy/Air Force (depends what interests you) website and get some info, too.

I know several guys who are serving there now- not that I am encouraging anyone to join a foreign military...


----------



## Good2Golf (28 Jan 2005)

Spartans to replace Buffs and SAR E-models seems reasonable.

J's to replace some of the remaining H's seems reasonable.

While everybody would love the C-17 and guys mention the Anotonov about every other post, perhaps we forgot about another maker?   Ilushin...      Anybody thought of wet-leasing IL-76's from the Ukraine to trial for a couple of years?

p.s. Don't laugh...the RAF is wet-leasing Mil-17 Hips and flying them with RAF aircrew in Iraq as we speak.


----------



## Inch (28 Jan 2005)

DPT, there's a whole discussion on that very subject here. I don't think there's a whole lot of fans of that idea, me included, but you may be able to sway some hearts if you're smooth enough  ;D

Welcome to the boards, rotorheads are taking over this place!


----------



## Zoomie (28 Jan 2005)

Sigh....

Now Duey has to weigh in and revitalize that darned IL-76 talk.  I tell you, this forum will soon be over-run by rotorheads and us seized wing folk will have to scurry back to cfpilots.ca and talk shop with our own kind.

Welcome to the "other side" Duey, where discussion don't always involve the blue boys...

Z-head


----------



## Good2Golf (28 Jan 2005)

Zoomie said:
			
		

> Sigh....
> 
> Now Duey has to weigh in and revitalize that darned IL-76 talk.   I tell you, this forum will soon be over-run by rotorheads and us seized wing folk will have to scurry back to cfpilots.ca and talk shop with our own kind.
> 
> ...



Z, the guys in the office were giving me too much heat for "staying in my own little realm (the Lounge)" they physically made me register here.  While I would occasionally surf on the old DAD Forums, those closed down recently...so it wasn't until the "relish pile-on the pilot in Rm 207 in the Bradstreet Block in Fort Frontenac happened" that I've returned to my roots!  ;D

I plan on spending more time in the other forums here though...pretty much get my fill of light blue in the lounge.  

Cheers!


----------



## 404SqnAVSTeach (3 Feb 2005)

I think that Canada is waiting to be done with the F18 and Auroras upgrades.  Afterward they will have money to look at the C130J, A72 and A400.  Don't think the C17 in the running.  They would rather rent a big russian transport plane.


----------



## Good2Golf (4 Feb 2005)

Personally and professionally, I would like to see C-17s of our own, even if just 2 or 3.  I mentioned the Il-76 because that may be a way the Canadian Government can "get it's feet wet" withough incurring huge cost.  If the concept of us having our own dedicated machines is seen positively, then the case is made for the utility of our own heavy lifters. Had we had our own heavy strat lift, the DART certainly could have gotten into theatre faster.  Our own machines would also make sustainment of our other current ops run a bit more smootly, perhaps.  Some of us have buds who were actually flying C-17's into theatres around Bagram, Kandahar and other places, and they're quite a viable piece of kit.

Who knows, we may see some short term "creativity" in the rotary side as well, before we see any long term action on rotary med/heavy lift.  The RAF ran into extreme shortages of rotary med/hvy lift in theatre (Iraq), thus the leasing of Mi-17's to fill the gap.  Although Canada doesn't quite seem to have the Brit's spirit of "innovative trial", we might look at lift options for activities coming up later this summer as a short-term solution before a longer term solution comes along...but that's just conjecture at this point. 

In the end, the Herc still represents a good, solid workhorse in the "T"actical environment, and if kept up to date on a regular basis (like updgrading our H82s and H90s, and whatever the two L30's are called? and maybe getting some J's as the E's are all decommissioned) would I'm sure, continue to serve us well.

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 Feb 2005)

Please see the item below from today's _Ottawa Citizen_.

The _*Ottawa insiders*_ are 'guesstimating' that there is one, not too large, pot of money for strategic airlift and that either Boeing or Lockheed Martin will get it all.

Leaving aside a VIP/passenger fleet, it seems to me that a revitalized CF, which will have and use (moderately) rapidly deployable _light_ expeditionary joint task forces, needs three fixed wing transport fleets:

1. A relatively small, high endurance aircraft which will meet SAR and many domestic utility/transport needs â â€œ _something like_ the Lockheed Martin C-27J _Spartan_;

2. A medium tactical transport â â€œ _something like_ the Lockheed Martin C-130J _Hercules_; and

3. A strategic heavy lifter â â€œ _something like_ the being C-17 _Globemaster III_.

The question is: how to afford more than one?

Maybe we can follow the British lead and lease the aircraft *and* lease maintenance and support from a mix of Boeing and the USAF.  (See: http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2001/q2/news_release_010523n.htm and http://www.raf.mod.uk/equipment/c-17.html )  Maybe we could further lower the costs by leasing the aircraft and then basing them, with their Canadian crews, at a convenient US base (McGuire AFB in New Jersey or McChord AFB in Washington).

Maybe, also, if we have enough (and if four is enough for the UK (although they plan to get four more, I understand)) strategic heavy lifters then we can 'make do' with a smaller number of up-to-date tactical transporters â â€œ especially if their domestic chores are handled by a smaller, cheaper aircraft.

In my view we must have a _mixed fleet_ solution and I disagree with Sen. Kenny that a C-17/ C-27J _Spartan_ type mix will do the job.  I also believe that *all* major combat systems must be 100% supportable _on-shore_, from Canada and the USA, so I would not buy a European aircraft â â€œ not the CN-235 and not the A400M, either.


----------



## a_majoor (6 Feb 2005)

One argument for an "all C-17" fleet is the fact that even trips across Canada are at ranges most other airforces consider srtategic rather than tactical. While this is interesting, I still don't buy into the idea of the C-17, simply because of the gigantic costs involved. If the government goes that route, I can see the false economies of them buying just 3, completely forgetting about such issues as downtime for maintainence etc. etc.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (6 Feb 2005)

> I still don't buy into the idea of the C-17, simply because of the gigantic costs involved



What about the the costs that would be incurred for converting the IL76s to NATO and Canadian standards? IIRC you and others are  major supporters for the CF to get the IL76. At least this way we would not have to rely on Russia or the Ukraine for spare parts.


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 Feb 2005)

We need to consider, especially with aircraft, the *complete system life cycle* costs*, over the complete service life â â€œ which for _some_ aircraft (some CC-129 _Dakotas_ and some C-130 _Hercules_) stretch to the half century mark.

I don't know how long C-17s might last but I am not afraid of the costs if, Big *IF* they are expressed in life cycle terms. â â€œ this is very, very hard for politicians but _some_ military officers but many senior bureaucrats are very keen on the idea if, another Big *IF* are items in a class (fixed wing aircraft, for example) are dealt with on a life cycle cost basis.   This is a very hard concept for many politicians and senior military officers and some civil servants because it means long range planning, programming and budgeting.   This flies in the face of a Canadian (Westminster) political _maxim_ which says that a government cannot (not may not, *can*not) bind its successors â â€œ that's one of the reasons Jean Chrétien could, cavalierly, cancel the EH-101 project ... the other reason was that he campaigned on a promise to do so and he destroyed the Progressive Conservative Party in the election.

The way we plan and programme in Canada gives _Project Plowshares_ and the Soviet daycare lobby an absolute advantage ... they can use capital costs as a weapon, saying, _â ?Look, here, Canadians!   They  want this many billions for airplanes!   We *need* those billions for free daycare.â ?_   If we used, consistently, a life cycle cost analysis system the overall system costs would be huge ... so big, in some cases, that they defy discussion, but the 'answer' is, always, _â Å“It's not those billions, it is just this many paltry millions per year ...â ?_

I you 'programme' most major (expensive) _combat systems_ over reasonable life cycles â â€œ meaning that there is less distinction between capital, personnel and O&M budgets, which means that there is more room, for a while, anyway, for bureaucratic screw-ups of monumental proportions and less for political _gain_ â â€œ then the government *and* the military would be forced to plan, something both groups hate, and explain their plans to Canadians who might, at long last, be able to 'see' the plan, in broad outline ... frightening concept, isn't it?

----------

* Gross oversimplification but accurate enough for the internet, I think. Tutorial at: http://www.barringer1.com/pdf/lcctutorial.pdf


----------



## Good2Golf (6 Feb 2005)

Rusty Old Joint said:
			
		

> We need to consider, especially with aircraft, the *complete system life cycle* costs*, over the complete service life â â€œ which for _some_ aircraft (some CC-129 _Dakotas_ and some C-130 _Hercules_) stretch to the half century mark.
> 
> I don't know how long C-17s might last but I am not afraid of the costs if, Big *IF* they are expressed in life cycle terms. â â€œ this is very, very hard for politicians but _some_ military officers but many senior bureaucrats are very keen on the idea if, another Big *IF* are items in a class (fixed wing aircraft, for example) are dealt with on a life cycle cost basis.   This is a very hard concept for many politicians and senior military officers and some civil servants because it means long range planning, programming and budgeting.   This flies in the face of a Canadian (Westminster) political _maxim_ which says that a government cannot (not may not, *can*not) bind its successors â â€œ that's one of the reasons Jean Chrétien could, cavalierly, cancel the EH-101 project ... the other reason was that he campaigned on a promise to do so and he destroyed the Progressive Conservative Party in the election.
> 
> ...



ROJ, you are absolutely right about life cycle costs!  Unfortunately, there are also precedents at many levels of cost where government has taken the cheaper route to begin with that has cost far greater in the long run...SK replacement but one example.  It's sad to say, but many in the money-dispensing arms of governmnet see DND as one of the last bastions of large chunks of money that can be distributed regionally without nearly as much microscoping by TB as all the other departments.  Sadly, many of us cynics who have worked within of nearby DSP activities see the frustrating side of folks ignoring the life-cycle cost purity...

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## a_majoor (6 Feb 2005)

I will still get up on my hind legs for the IL-76 solution as a last ditch response to the lack of strategic airlift in the CF. Lifecycle or just direct purchase cost wise, it is hard to argue that an airplane which may cost $50 million/unit after refit isn't a more paletable pill to swallow than an aircraft which costs $250 million/unit. You could buy a six IL-76 squadron for a bit more than the cost of one of the C-17s, and the life cycle costs would be proportionatly less.

If there were more choices I would be all over them, but there is one AN-70, and lots of computer generated graphics of the A400, so our ability to choose is a tad constrained, to say the least.


----------



## honestyrules (6 Feb 2005)

reference you last, with that chechnya thing going on in former u.s.s.r, i don't thing the canadian gov would purchase stuff from them. (PR wise). Plus, i'm not aware of any military supplies or kit from the russians being purchase by a north american army. Ok, they rent the Antonov though.
My 2 cents...


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 Feb 2005)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> ...   it is hard to argue that an airplane which may cost $50 million/unit after refit isn't a more paletable pill to swallow than an aircraft which costs $250 million/unit. You could buy a six IL-76 squadron for a bit more than the cost of one of the C-17s, and the life cycle costs would be proportionatly less ...



That's not necessarily true ... one of the reasons so many people hate life cycle costing is the detailed RAM (*R*eliability *A*vailability *M*aintainability â â€œ I think) analyses which must be done ... including historical analyses of similar systems.   Sometimes (often, actually) there is a good reason for higher capital costs: much lower RAM costs, which, when factored over the life cycle mean that sometimes (often) the higher initial costs item is the cheapest.   One of the factors which must be included is the cost of catastrophes â â€œ crashes for airplanes.

Life cycle costs can, also, be dynamic; they can change with experience â â€œ rising ort falling.   This is a legitimate complaint about them which I failed to mention up above.   There is a certain _pig-in-a-poke_ aspect to the whole thing ... but I figure that's infinitely superior to Jean Chrétien's _Cadillac_ judgement ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 Feb 2005)

One thing I forgot to mention re: life cycle costing (and, indeed, life cycle management/support of weapon systems) is that you need to factor in *all directly associated* casts including e.g:

"¢	Project/acquisition management;

"¢	Basing (new construction, simulators, lengthened/strengthened airfields etc);

"¢	Personnel/training costs (but *not*, necessarily, the salaries of crews/maintainers ... although some purists insist they should be included.   I disagree because, in order to 'save' one might cut people or reduce flying hours or days at sea, etc, and, consequently, 'mothball' systems or, in other ways, reduce use - such changes are 'imposed' and should not, in my view, by 'borne' by the system's life cycle);

"¢	System upgrades, refits and life extensions.   These should be planned and programmed at the start.   Many (most) major systems ought to have two major 'refits' - now called half life and, then, life extension; and

"¢	Disposal costs - and they do exist and can be significant.

Thus, leasing aircraft (maybe purchasing them, later, as the RAF is doing) and even basing them in the USA might both lower life cycle costs, especially if systems, like aircraft, are _*[configuration controlled*_ so that they remain, 100%, within the US logistics system, which significantly lowers costs.

I know this is just about as exciting and _operational_ as accounting can ever get; sorry ...


----------



## Good2Golf (7 Feb 2005)

Rusty Old Joint said:
			
		

> ...I know this is just about as exciting and _operational_ as accounting can ever get; sorry ...



ROJ, I use my copy of the DMS Manual to help me fall asleep at night!  ;D


----------



## Cloud Cover (11 Feb 2005)

From Defence Aerospace.com, this is not a good sign for us buying the c130J:
 http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?session=dae.4308111.1089903978.QPadasOa9dUAAESlMZk&modele=jdc_34  
  
*C-130J Flunks Testing*
  
  
 The C-130J cargo aircraft essentially flunked its initial evaluation by the Pentagon's top independent tester, Tom Christie, Director of Operational Test and Evaluation.  

Christie's new report dubs the C-130J as â Å“neither operationally effective nor operationally suitable,â ? and notes that the Air Force intends to deploy the aircraft despite â Å“limited capabilitiesâ ? to the Central Command early this year, before it completes the second phase of operational testing.  

Christie's report was released just after the Pentagon leaked a proposal that it intends to terminate the C-130J cargo aircraft program. The C-130 Hercules has become a legend in military transport. However, the program to develop the C-130J, an aircraft that is â Å“70 percentâ ? different than previous models, has been characterized by inefficiency, waste, and a misguided acquisition strategy that doubled its original cost. In fact, none of the 50 or so aircraft already acquired by the Air Force had been certified as combat ready, according to a highly critical audit last summer by the Department of Defense Inspector General.  

Though the cost-cutting measure is a good idea, in upcoming months, the Secretary of Defense appears headed for a dogfight with several members of Congress who are acting on behalf of defense contractors and in their own political self interest, rather than looking out for the taxpayers and the nation's fighting men and women. Earlier this month, 24 U.S. Senators sent a letter to President Bush asking that he not allow the C-130J program to be eliminated.  

The Senators' letter disingenuously touts the merits of the original legendary C-130, not the â Å“Jâ ? model. But Christie's report said the C-130J â Å“has more than 70 percent new equipment, relative to previous C-130 models,â ? and some have even said the C-130J should even have a new name of its own because it is so different than the original C-130.  

Among the criticisms contained in Christie's report:  

-- Problems confronting the C-130J include â Å“funding of logistics support and training systems; hardware, software and technical order deficiencies; manufacturing quality; subsystem reliability; failure to meet required measures of system effectiveness; and resolution of documented deficiencies."  

-- Major aircrew workload issues remaining include cargo loading and constraint requirements.  

-- The aircraft's defensive systems have yet to demonstrate that they will work properly and the aircraft's airdrop mission has yet to be evaluated by Christie's office.  

-- Issues still confronting the weather reconnaissance version of the aircraft include radar performance in hurricane reconnaissance missions, propeller anti-ice protective cover peeling, and excessive vibration.  

The Project On Government Oversight investigates, exposes, and seeks to remedy systemic abuses of power, mismanagement, and subservience by the federal government to powerful special interests. Founded in 1981, POGO is a politically-independent, nonprofit watchdog that strives to promote a government that is accountable to the citizenry. (ends)  


Click here for a copy of the Senators' Jan. 13, 2005 letter to President Bush  


-ends-  

If you go to the website, the Senator's letter references something we can relate to: $800 million in liability costs for terminating the program plus billions more to keep the E and H models flying.


----------



## Kirkhill (11 Feb 2005)

Probably doesn't do much for the C27J either given the high degree of commonality.

On the other hand what are the alternatives?  The paper A-400M?  The Casa beast might handle SAR and MP work but couldn't replace the Herc.  Russian/Ukrainian beasts? Are their support costs going to be any less?

Short answer: I don't think the Americans have got any alternative but to make them work.  The Brits have them operationally, as do the Aussies and the USAF in Iraq.  A US squadron commander over there has stated that he was satisfied with them as compared to the earlier models.  A number of Air Forces are operating the C27J with the same engines and similar avionics and airframe components.

At what point do paper standards drift from field applications?

Is this one of those cases?


----------



## Storm (14 Feb 2005)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Probably doesn't do much for the C27J either given the high degree of commonality.
> 
> On the other hand what are the alternatives?   The paper A-400M?   The Casa beast might handle SAR and MP work but couldn't replace the Herc.   Russian/Ukrainian beasts? Are their support costs going to be any less?
> 
> ...



The Americans may not have much of a choice, but for us it certainly is something to think about.

From same site:


> First Production Item for A400M Airframe
> 
> 
> (Source: Airbus Military; issued, Jan. 26, 2005)
> ...



Does anyone think that, even if leadership stated flat out tomorrow morning that we will be getting C-130J's ASAFP, we would have them any sooner than the 2009 A400M timeframe above? I have my doubts. I honestly wonder if the A400M is really all that impractical by comparison wrt delivery time for Canada's situation. 

The way I imagine things playing out - irrespective of what is used to replace the hercs - is that the new SAR birds will be used to take as much pressure as possible off of the current hercs (i.e. no more SAR role for hercs), with a herc replacement coming in sometime around 2010+. 

Assuming A400M's as replacements for a second, if there's enough pressure, maybe we would lease a couple strategic aircraft for a few years to fill the gap. With our movement towards LAV-based Forces I can't think of any equipment that couldn't be hauled by an A400M, so once the A400M's entered service, the leased strategic lift could be dumped with the A400M's taking it.

Then again, that's just my imagination...

On a more factual note, does anybody know when the Airlift Capability Project is supposed to say what our airlift capability should be?


----------



## STONEY (14 Feb 2005)

Hmmm so to sum all this up.

IL-76 can be purchased new at 50 mil a copy with western P&W engines & western avionics.

The Brits bought C-130J's but only as an interim measure until A400M becomes available because their Hercs were almost as clapped out as ours and they couldn't wait, while it seems we can. While the C130J has been around for awhile and sold to several countrys & showing promise has so far been a sort of flop and still not combat qualified so it can only fly into airports used by civilan aircraft off load onto old Hercs who fly into war zones. 

The C-17 is an excellent a/c but expensive and Canada being destitute cannot afford them.

We shouldent buy A european a/c but The C-27J is to the Italian G-22 as the C130J is to the C-130 & can lift an Iltis.


The A400M is just a paper a/c but is  being procured by 7 of our NATO allies & can lift anything in Canadian inventory, has strategic range, almost as fast as C-17 , can land anywhere a Herc can , cheaper than a C-17 .   

Its no wonder the Government can't make up its mind it seems no-one here can either, do i see a typical Canadian compromise in our future.

Cheers


----------



## Kirkhill (14 Feb 2005)

> Does anyone think that, even if leadership stated flat out tomorrow morning that we will be getting C-130J's ASAFP, we would have them any sooner than the 2009 A400M timeframe above? I have my doubts. I honestly wonder if the A400M is really all that impractical by comparison wrt delivery time for Canada's situation.



Fair comment.



> The A400M is just a paper a/c but is  being procured by 7 of our NATO allies & can lift anything in Canadian inventory, has strategic range, almost as fast as C-17 , can land anywhere a Herc can , cheaper than a C-17 .



Actually, now that Gen Hillier has put his cards on the table relative to the Airlift/Sealift debate - maybe the A-400M might not be a bad bet?

http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/fla/

On the domestic front could the A-400 be used to deploy the Griffons to the Arctic for Arctic Rescue missions?


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (14 Feb 2005)

I wonder if we could get the Aussies interested in a shared fleet of C-17's....2 each would not be a huge financial burden but would provide a significant surge capacity if necessary.

In fact, it would be interesting to consider a standardization of our airlift assets as a whole so that we flew common models making upgrade and procurement decisions more streamlined.

Each Country:
2 C-17's
Mixed C-130's (eventually moving to common standards)
XXX C-27

In why not go all out.   Most of their forces and roles are very similar to ours.   Whether it's land, sea or air forces there must be commonality that we can take advantage in procurement, training or joint doctrine development.


F-18 upgrades
Coastwatch Program 
Patrol Aircraft Upgrades (I think they use Orions)
LAV's
New Tactical Helicopter
Amphibious Assault Ship
Joint Naval Resupply Vessels 
Frigate Upgrades
UAV procurement
Hooking into their M1 purchase....   ;D


Matthew.


----------



## a_majoor (14 Feb 2005)

Let's share the Austrailian Defense minister as well!  ;D


----------



## Lethbridge U (27 Feb 2005)

While the recent budget allocates an additional 12.7 billion extra dollars over the next five years seems good, I'm not sure how much of that could be used towards tactical airlift.  It seems that the federal government will only spend $2.7 billion of that money between 2007 and 2010 to be used on helicopters, trucks, aircraft and a training facility for JTF2. Each of these activities must have a very expensive price tag, so there is only a small piece of the pie (perhaps at most 500 million) that could be used in this endevour.  Given the pricing that has been outlined in CASR what do you think the Canadian Forces is going to choose? C130J, C-17, Antonov An 70?


----------



## Kirkhill (28 Feb 2005)

Lethbridge:

IIRC there was 2.7BCAD of promised funding for the material you listed but there was also - very unusually - a 3.2 BCAD of promised funding "to be determined".   Kind of a blank promisory note to be filled in after the defence review is released.  So who knows what kind of magic stuff is under consideration just now.

From the thread on Budget it seems that the same A/C under consideration for the FWSAR may also be used to replace Otters and a good chunk of the Hercs dedicated to tactical lift.  

Even if it is only an intellectual exercise, this defence review is likely to be pretty interesting reading.


----------



## Kirkhill (2 Mar 2005)

I found this humorous and had to post it.  Although it is about the Predator I think it also speaks to some of the current fuss over the C-130Js.  The  Predator has been a media and military darling for over a decade now.  The same bodies  that are complaining about the C-130J not meeting specifications have JUST now decided that the Predator is suitable for limited deployments but under strict scrutiny.

At the same time the USAF is struggling to find enough functioning C-130s of any generation to keep up with demand seeing as how some of their earlier models are developing cracks and are on flight restrictions.
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?session=dae.4308111.1089903978.QPadasOa9dUAAESlMZk&modele=jdc_34

I believe there are currently something like 150 to 200 C-130 Js in service.




> Predator Reaches Initial Operating Capacity
> 
> 
> (Source: US Air Force; issued March 1, 2005)
> ...



http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?session=dae.4308111.1089903978.QPadasOa9dUAAESlMZk&modele=jdc_34


----------



## Kirkhill (8 Mar 2005)

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?session=dae.4308111.1089903978.QPadasOa9dUAAESlMZk&modele=jdc_34

An update on the state of play re C130Es and Js in USAF service.

Also a note regarding two Air Force studies re Mobility generally and Intra-Theatre lift in particular.  They are apparently to be released shortly.  No doubt they will play into Canada's decision-making if they haven't already.


----------



## STONEY (13 Mar 2005)

There are a couple of points i thought i'd throw in not that i'm advocating either of them.

1. Why was the A400 designed in the first place. It seems European countries couldn't afford the C17 which they all wanted. The C130J couldn't lift enough, far enough or fast enough to meet their requirements. Voila the A400 which is being designed by Airbus which is hardly a fly by night outfit, and which if you havn't noticed has overtaken Boeing as the largest aircraft maker in the world . They supply a/c to just about every country in the world including Canada so servicing or spares should'nt be an issue.

2. The Casa 135 is being purchased by the US Coast Guard as their new SAR a/c , seems they are happy with its capabilitys.  Alenia maker of C27J is dropping Lockheed as its North American partner and joining with L-3 communications.

Cheers


----------



## Good2Golf (13 Mar 2005)

Stoney...interesting questions.   My take (FWIW):


A400 - originally borne of "let's get together and beat the US at their own game-itis."   That said, however, the C-17 may have turned out to be so expensive that the A400 will really get going and may turn out to be a viable machine...shades of the A380 v. 7E7 / 787 / whatever is Boeing's flavour this week.   I think the Europeans learned a lot after the EFA / Eurofighter / Eurofighter 2000 / Eurofighter When-we-finally-agree-on-things-and-get-it-built...   Looking at the A400 specs...as it moves from "paper/electrons"-mode to rubber on the ramp mode, it could very well be an option.


Folks...you might think about getting stock in L-3 Comm...seriously!   While Boeing and Lockheed seem to have been a bit complacent in keeping an eye on the baby barracuda that was swimming around their feet, L-3 has been snapping up every little bit of stuff around the edges of the "Big 2"...WESCAM, Litton and Northrop Grumman Cda are but a few of the examples of recent acquisitions in Canada alone.   What does this mean?   Well, Alenia dropping Lockheed and going with L-3 (which had many of its subsidiaries sub-contracting to Lockheed on the C27J anyway) may actually makethe Spartan an even stronger contender for FWSAR.   Myself...I'm personally mixed on the CASA / Spartan thing...I don't have a strong feeling on them, one way or the other...must be the seized-rotor thing affecting my level of interest...   ;D

2 more  ¢

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## air533 (19 Mar 2005)

.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (28 Mar 2005)

I personally like the idea of leasing for the simple reason that if we wait to accumulate the cash to go with our standard front-loaded contract, we won't get replacement aircraft until 2015.

I would also consider going that route for COTS Ro-Ro's too....



Matthew.


----------



## Vigilant (16 Jul 2005)

Perhaps we could lease enough C-130J's to replace the C-130E's, and then order the replacement A400M. That way we can get rid of our most maintenance intensive planes while keeping costs down.

With South Africa and the European nations ordering so many, it may not be until 2015 or later that we get first deliveries of the A400M.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (17 Jul 2005)

Vigilant said:
			
		

> Perhaps we could lease enough C-130J's to replace the C-130E's, and then order the replacement A400M. That way we can get rid of our most maintenance intensive planes while keeping costs down.
> 
> With South Africa and the European nations ordering so many, it may not be until 2015 or later that we get first deliveries of the A400M.



Also with the Euro plummeting like a stone, it will make the A400M (as well as a lot of other European kit) much more affordable than it was previously.

Other interesting European Kit that jumps to mind based on needs:
Schelde Enforcer Class LPD's
De Zeven Provincien Air Defence Frigates
EH-101 Medium Lift Helicopters
BILL 2 ATGM
Oksoy-class Mine Hunters



M.


----------



## Vigilant (18 Jul 2005)

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> Also with the Euro plummeting like a stone, it will make the A400M (as well as a lot of other European kit) much more affordable than it was previously.



That's a good point. Perhaps we could lease the UK 130J's for a good price that way as well before going for the A400M.

Although with a lease it wouldn't be as much of an advantage due to exchange rate risk.


----------



## KevinB (19 Jul 2005)

Keep in mind we work about 80% of our operations with the US...
  Using style kit makes it a hell of a lot easier to get parts in theatre.


----------



## McG (21 Aug 2005)

> *Forces should replace aging Herc fleet, study says*
> Better to buy new aircraft than lease, Fraser Institute urges
> _Kate Gauntlett
> Calgary Herald
> ...



Possible political reasons not to lease: Canadian jobs lost.


> *Hercules loss would batter Spar*
> Specialist in huge military transport fears layoffs if servicing contract awarded elsewhere
> _Jason Markusoff
> The Edmonton Journal
> ...


----------



## Infanteer (21 Aug 2005)

That Fraser Institute article is being discussed here:

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/33215.0.html


----------



## Kirkhill (14 Sep 2005)

Anybody care to comment on the claim that in Afghanistan at 125F older model C-130's (E/H) can only lift 2,000 lbs, not 17,000 lbs?  And that the improved J series is still limited to 300% more or 8,000 lbs?

C-130J Super Hercules Demonstrates Transformational Performance and Capability in Southwest Asia 
  
  
(Source: Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company; issued Sept. 14, 2005)
  
  
 WASHINGTON --- Lockheed Martin officials told reporters today at the Air Force Association's 2005 Air & Space Conference and Technology Exposition that the C-130J Super Hercules is outperforming legacy air transport aircraft in combat operations by at least a two-to-one margin and the reliability is the highest of any aircraft in theater.  

"Recent information pertaining to the C-130J's performance in Southwest Asia reveals that two Js are routinely moving the same amount of troops and equipment as three of the older E or H models," said Rob Weiss, Lockheed Martin Aeronautics vice president for Business Development. "This provides the combatant commander with additional resources to employ on other missions and most importantly, reduces risk exposure time for both crews and aircraft."  

According to senior Air Force officials, the C-130J's additional power advantage has become more obvious, especially operating during the hot season in Southwest Asia. With temperatures regularly exceeding 120 degrees Fahrenheit, the older C-130s can be limited to as little as 2,000 pounds of cargo. Operating under the same conditions, Js are sometimes exceeding that load factor by more than 300%.  

"The performance of the C-130J isn't the only advantage over earlier models," said Weiss. "The J's reliability far exceeds not only that of older C-130s, but also of other platforms in theater. Mission capable rates above 92% are the norm for the C-130J, and in some months the rate has even been 100%."  

In addition, some operators are seeing less than two maintenance hours per flight hour, according to reports coming out of the theater. Legacy C-130s typically average around 20 maintenance hours per flight hour. One USAF C-130J flew 21 straight days of delivery operations, returning Code One every day, until being stood down for a routine maintenance check.  

Ground operations are also more efficient in the dusty operations. "Crews can load and unload the C-130J while the engines are still running because the propellers produce no backwash at certain settings," said Weiss. "This feature also contributes to reduced sortie time and risk exposure."  

Many countries are seeing the benefits that the aircraft brings. The Royal Air Force is conducting airdrop missions that were never possible with its older aircraft, Italy is constructing a forward C-130J deployment base in western Afghanistan, and Denmark has just completed its 100th C-130J landing at Kabul.  

"Crews operating the C-130Js in theater are realizing very quickly that the aircraft can transform tactical airlift operations," Weiss concluded.  


Headquartered in Bethesda, Md., Lockheed Martin employs about 130,000 people worldwide and is principally engaged in the research, design, development, manufacture and integration of advanced technology systems, products and services. The corporation reported 2004 sales of $35.5 billion.  

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?session=dae.4308111.1089903978.QPadasOa9dUAAESlMZk&modele=jdc_34


----------



## mover1 (14 Sep 2005)

Look at your souce that the news is coming off of. Its like having the actors from the movie Stealth whoop it up about how good it is. 

2000 lbs. of freight? Depends on the config, passengers, weather and fuel required.


----------



## Kirkhill (14 Sep 2005)

Source understood mover1. 

Cheers.


----------



## McG (22 Nov 2005)

It's official: $4.6-billion to buy new tactical airlift.



> *Liberals defend $4.6-billion aircraft purchase*
> By ALLISON DUNFIELD
> Tuesday, November 22, 2005 Posted at 2:46 PM EST
> Globe and Mail Update
> ...


Vist the Globe & Mail to leave your comments: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20051122.wmilit1122/BNStory/National/


----------



## Good2Golf (23 Nov 2005)

Good on the TAL boys...the E's are getting ridiculously old.  As much as I'd like to se CH-47s first down the chute, I'd also like to have my but flop around a fresh airframe dropping in and out of theatre!

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## Kirkhill (23 Nov 2005)

> The Canadian aerospace industry fears that the government's single page of performance-based requirements favours Lockheed Martin's C-130J airplane and eliminates other key competitors.



Imagine that.  Buying equipment based on what it can do.  Whodathunkit.


----------

