# Canada's first CC177 "joined"



## Globesmasher (12 Apr 2007)

The 4 major pieces of our first aircraft were put together down in Long Beach California.

Article here:  http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/newsroom/news_e.asp?cat=114&id=2921

We are still set for an August 2007 delivery of this first tail.


----------



## skinnadoor (17 Apr 2007)

So nice to have some new equipment.... been waiting a long time for some new airframes....  ;D


----------



## Retired AF Guy (18 May 2007)

Here is a link to DND news release on the C-17 purchase:

http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/newsroom/view_news_e.asp?id=2288


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (18 May 2007)

I'm curious if anyone else thinks that initial C-17 successes could end up modifying the planned procurement mix of C-130's and C-17's?

Specifically, with Canada being such a large country and our recent redevotion to heavy kit (tanks), it would seem that even doubling the C-17 purchase to eight aircraft with offsetting reductions in the C-130J purchase may be worthwhile.

Anyone?


Matthew.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (18 May 2007)

You have to think though what would see more use by the military tactical or strategic airlift assets.


----------



## Globesmasher (21 May 2007)

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> I'm curious if anyone else thinks that initial C-17 successes could end up modifying the planned procurement mix of C-130's and C-17's?
> 
> Specifically, with Canada being such a large country and our recent redevotion to heavy kit (tanks), it would seem that even doubling the C-17 purchase to eight aircraft with offsetting reductions in the C-130J purchase may be worthwhile.
> 
> ...



So far there are no plans for changes to the two projects.
ACP-S has one pot of money for the C-17.
ACP-T has another pot of money for the C-130J.
Both projects have different staffs within DAR and also different teams at PMO.

So far the numbers of aircraft are set.
4 x C-17
17 x C-130J

I doubt the plans will change.
Furthermore, all capital acquisition projects are under a great deal of fiscal stress.  I don't think there are benefits or offsets to be made as the infrastructure bill climbs each day.


----------



## Globesmasher (21 May 2007)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> You have to think though what would see more use by the military tactical or strategic airlift assets.



Tough to say which we would "use" more.
We desperately need both.
Augmenting one at the expense of the other would really be a "robbing from Peter to pay Paul" scenario.

The CC-130E/H fleet has basically all but "imploded" now.  Current Ops are draining what little useful airframe hours are left in this fleet.
We need the C-130J to replace and modernize the decaying C-130E/H tactical fleet.
We need the CC177 to replace the contracted civilian airlift before they damage any more Trenton infrastructure.
As an added benefit, the CC177 also brings a tactical as well as a strategic capability to the table.


----------



## observor 69 (23 May 2007)

This 1/9th scale radio-controlled C-17 model was built in the United Kingdom.

http://www.military.cz/usa/air/in_service/aircraft/c17/c17_en.htm


----------

