# C-17



## Globetrotter (26 Dec 2009)

Hello everyone, I am part of the maintenance organization on this A/C and I can tell you that it is very expensive to operate.   I am quite certain that it is not as expensive as leasing Russian aircraft.  The plane seems to go though the same amount of parts as older aircraft, mostly computers...due to the operating environments.  They still fly the crap out of them though...any questions, feel free to ask...


----------



## Franko (26 Dec 2009)

Globetrotter said:
			
		

> Hello everyone, I am part of the maintenance organization on this A/C and I can tell you that it is very expensive to operate.   I am quite certain that it is not as expensive as leasing Russian aircraft.  The plane seems to go though the same amount of parts as older aircraft, mostly computers...due to the operating environments.  They still fly the crap out of them though...any questions, feel free to ask...



Unless it gets into OPSEC....

*The Army.ca Staff*


----------



## Colin Parkinson (8 Jan 2010)

So are the toliets an improvement over the C-130? 

Hopefully that's not OPSEC!!!!  ;D


----------



## ringo (9 Jan 2010)

IMHO Canada should purchase 1 or 2 more before line closes down.
If Airbus cans the A400 how many more C-17 do you think european airforces will order?


----------



## aesop081 (9 Jan 2010)

ringo said:
			
		

> IMHO Canada should purchase 1 or 2 more before line closes down.



You let us know how you make out with finding money to pay for that.


----------



## dapaterson (9 Jan 2010)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> You let us know how you make out with finding money to pay for that.




Paying for the AC is the cheap part - paying for the ongoing operations is the hard part.


----------



## aesop081 (9 Jan 2010)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Paying for the AC is the cheap part - paying for the ongoing operations is the hard part.



As i am well aware.

That being said, the fly-away "sticker" price for a C-17 is hardly "cheap".


----------



## a_majoor (11 Jan 2010)

The calculus is even more involved, since there is the opportunity cost to be weighed (what else could we get with that money, what capabilities do we give up spending that money), as well as preparing to deal with "Known Unknowns" and "Unknown Unkowns".

Given transit _within_ Canada is pretty much strategic distances compared to most other nations in the world, and we are routinely sending forces and units halfway around the world, it would seem prudent to invest in a few more of these aircraft, especially given there won't be any more in the future, nor do there seem to be any comparable aircraft in the pipeline.

This might not be totally out of reach; since the A-400 is not meeting expectations and is massively overbudget, the Europeans might have to bite the bullet and order more (giving us an opportunity to get in on a production run and lower unit costs a bit). If someone were _really_ smart, they might consider purchasing a number of C-17s in the expectation the NATO nations will want to "rent them out", defraying some of the purchase price and ongoing operational expenses, while still being available for our own use.


----------



## aesop081 (11 Jan 2010)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> they might consider purchasing a number of C-17s in the expectation the NATO nations will want to "rent them out", defraying some of the purchase price and ongoing operational expenses, while still being available for our own use.



You are well behind the times.

http://www.nato.int/issues/strategic-lift-air-sac/index.html


----------



## dapaterson (11 Jan 2010)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> As i am well aware.
> 
> That being said, the fly-away "sticker" price for a C-17 is hardly "cheap".



"Cheap" is a relative term... I suppose we could go for an all Buffalo transport fleet, if we want a Canadian builder.

Though I suspect the Army would get cranky about how much disassembly would be required for vehicles prior to airlift, but they'll complain no matter what...


(Wikipedia: C-17: $218M USD.  Plus GST.)


----------



## Gramps (12 Jan 2010)

Let us get a couple of those AN-124s. Now that is an easy aircraft to load and can carry a lot more weight than the CC-177s, maintenance on it and operating costs would probably be through the roof though.


----------



## captloadie (12 Jan 2010)

Surprisingly, the operating costs are not that excessive, compared to other fleets. A lease price of 35k Cdn/hr or less gets you one, all expenses included. I deal with them every day, and there are also very few technical/mechanical problems that cause flight delays. Once they upgrade the avionics and engines on all of them, as they have begun to do now, they will be a very cost efficient, flexible fleet.

That being said, I think for strategic airlift, a combination of C-17s, chartered AN-124s, and a replacement for our A310s gives Canada the best all around package.


----------



## Gramps (12 Jan 2010)

Of all the aircraft we deal with the An 124 is by far my favorite one, it is the easiets to load plan, the easiest to load and can take anything we have. I prefer the Antonov to the C-17 any day of the week.


----------



## a_majoor (12 Jan 2010)

If Canada, with a relatively tiny military needs a minimum of six C-17's, I cannot imagine how the NATO consortium plans to get around with only three (especially since most individual nations in NATO field much larger forces than ours). Watching them try to manage a surge will be very...interesting.

Thinking further afield, if we want to get a production run with economies of scale, Australia has a similar strategic environment to Canada (long distances to travel both internally and operationally), or maybe India could be persuaded to buy in (although a much longer shot). If the UK pulls out of the A-400 program in the near future, there is another opportunity to find a partner to team up with, and Boeing will not say no to adding an extra three to six planes on a production run, since economies of scale work in their favour as well.


----------



## GAP (12 Jan 2010)

C-17s for India?
10-Jan-2010
Article Link

In November 2009, reports surfaced that India was negotiating to buy 10 C-17A Globemaster III heavy transports for its air force. A Defense News article added that:

“The C-17’s advantages include its easier handling (compared with the IL-76) and ability to operate from short and rough airstrips, added the sources…. The Indian military needs to do three things: augment its ability to quickly lift larger numbers of troops as it views possible threats on its border with China; strengthen its presence on the Pakistani border; and fight terrorism and low-intensity warfare, said a senior Defence Ministry official. India needs to triple its lift capacity, said the official.”

India’s serious. They’ve now sent an official letter of request for a buy that would give them the world’s 2nd largest C-17 fleet, after the USA…

Contracts and Key Events

Jan 7/10: Boeing announces that the U.S. government has received a Letter of Request from India’s Ministry of Defence (MOD) and the Indian Air Force regarding the potential acquisition of 10 C-17 Globemaster IIIs. The C-17 has been to India, and conducted demonstration flights in February 2009 at Aero India in Bangalore.

If the buy proceeds as a Foreign Military Sale, the next step is a US State Department approval and announcement of the sale via the DSCA, complete with estimated costs. Some countries, like Qatar and Canada, have chosen to buy their C-17s as a less public, and less restrictive, Direct Commercial Sale instead, reserving the FMS request and DSCA announcements for the aircraft’s defensive systems and Global Sustainment Partnership support arrangements.
More on link


----------



## Edward Campbell (12 Jan 2010)

Janes reports (2010-01-07):

*UAE signs agreement to acquire C-17s* 

The United Arab Emirates (UAE) has signed an agreement to acquire six Boeing C-17 Globemaster III strategic transport aircraft, the company announced on 6 January. Under the agreement, the UAE will take delivery of four aircraft in 2011 and two in 2012 

Maybe they are going to go into the rental business, competing with Antonov Airlines, etc.


----------



## cbredfred (19 Aug 2010)

Hello,

I'm a former AVS Tech that is in the process of trying to re-enroll and had a couple of questions about the life of an AVS Tech working on the C-17.
I gather they are a high tech aircraft and that AVS Techs are kept busy, is this true?
Do the Techs work directly for 429Sqn or are they part of an AMS?
I have seen on the Air Force website that there is an "Avionics Technical Crewman" position. Is this a permanent position or is it given to AVS Techs as and when required?
I'm sure this varies a bit but, do they keep these aircraft so busy on multiple day missions that you could show up to work and find only an empty hanger that you now have to spend 8 hours trying to look busy sweeping?
This aircraft and it's role have really caught my imagination but I don't think imagination is the only thing to use when it comes to figuring out my posting preferences, so any opinions/facts that you would like to offer would be greatly appreciated.


----------



## SeanNewman (20 Aug 2010)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> (Wikipedia: C-17: $218M USD.  Plus GST.)



HST now in most places, grrrr.  Plus, $160/ year just to keep plates on the thing in NB.


----------



## dapaterson (21 Aug 2010)

Petamocto said:
			
		

> HST now in most places, grrrr.  Plus, $160/ year just to keep plates on the thing in NB.



That's why they fly out of Trenton.  To save the $160x4 aircraft = $640.


----------

