# RUMINT of Canada wanting more C-17's



## The Bread Guy

According to this online defence publication article, anyway ....


> Australia has formally requested “up to four” more Boeing C-17A Globemaster III airlifters from the US government, a notification by the US Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) posted on 12 November shows.
> 
> (....)
> 
> With production of the C-17 due to end in 2015, Boeing has built about 10 ‘white tailed’ aircraft that are expected to be sold to new or existing customers of the aircraft. *There is believed to be interest for additional aircraft from India, Canada and the UK, and possibly new customers in the Middle East.*


 op:


----------



## a_majoor

One can dream....


----------



## MarkOttawa

At twitter:



> Gareth Jennings ‏@GarethJennings3 [Aviation Desk Editor at IHS Jane's]
> 
> @BoeingDefense has just 4 unaccounted 'white-tail' C-17s left after Australian approval for 4 more. Get in quick!
> https://twitter.com/GarethJennings3/status/532944532984573952



Full US government news release on RAAF:
http://www.dsca.mil/major-arms-sales/australia-c-17-globemaster-iii-aircraft-1

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## dimsum

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> At twitter:
> 
> Full US government news release on RAAF:
> http://www.dsca.mil/major-arms-sales/australia-c-17-globemaster-iii-aircraft-1
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



It would be interesting to see where they park them.  It's already getting pretty cramped on the tarmac in RAAF Base Amberley and they want to move more stuff there as well.

Aside from fighters and the King Air utility transports, the RAAF consolidates all of their types in one location (J-Hercs in RAAF Base Richmond, C-17s and KC-30 Tankers in Amberley, P-3s in RAAF Base Edinburgh, etc.)


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Is this done for strategic reasons?  Logistical/maint efficiency?


----------



## dimsum

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Is this done for strategic reasons?  Logistical/maint efficiency?



I'd guess all three.  No requirement to fly across the country for sims and heavy maintenance.  The P-3s do have a rotating detachment up in Darwin for northern patrols, but their Southern Ocean SAR requirements mean that Adelaide is a good-enough spot to base them.  Even the RAN  helicopters are based 2 hours south of Sydney.  I guess they fly/get transported to Perth to meet the west coast ships when they sail out.  

Of course there are good side effects too - those bases are located close enough to cities (Adelaide, Brisbane, Sydney) that partners/spouses don't have as many problems finding jobs.  In the case of P-3s, multiple squadrons and the school in one location means that unless being posted to a staff position in Canberra, many of them never leave Adelaide (for good or ill).

Of course, that plan wouldn't work seamlessly in Canada.  We have population centres strung out in a line across the country, while Australia's population is heavily concentrated on the SE coast down to the south (Brisbane, Sydney, Canberra, Melbourne, Adelaide) with random pockets in Perth and Darwin.  Also, historically their threat is from the north rather than both east and west.  That means that aside from some fighting units in the north, everything can be located in the SE and a bit in the west and defend the majority of the population.  Also note that aside from P-3s dropping SAR equipment, the RAAF doesn't have a SAR capability so that frees them from having to station units within a call-out time.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Major _Defense Industry Daily_ article:



> Heavy Lifting Down Under: Australia’s Growing C-17 Fleet
> http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/australia-to-spend-up-to-15-bn-on-4-c17s-updated-01971/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Spencer100

CTV is saying we are getting one more for 1.2 billion that sounds like the price for 3 to 4.  Could it be the lifecycle costs included?


----------



## PuckChaser

It's the new way media inflates the cost to sound like they're wasting money.


----------



## ringo

Hope CTV got there numbers wrong and it's 3 or 4 C-17.


----------



## MilEME09

The upside is that these planes are already built ready to be sold off so delivery will be quick, be it 1 or 4 aircraft I'm hoping it's more then 1. We will have to wait for the official announcement I bet


----------



## McG

There is not really a lot of information in the CTV report.



> Defence Department to purchase Boeing C-17 Globemaster III
> CTV News
> 11 Dec 2014
> 
> The Defence Department intends to purchase a Boeing C-17 Globemaster III, a large military transport plane that comes with a $1.7 billion price tag, CTV News has learned.
> 
> ...
> 
> Sources told CTV News the Defence Department is buying the C-17 aircraft with unused money in its budget that must be spent by the end of the fiscal year, otherwise the funds would go into general revenue.
> 
> Canada currently has four C-17s which are used by the military to transport military equipment or emergency supplies.


http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/defence-department-to-purchase-boeing-c-17-globemaster-iii-1.2144472


----------



## RyanHealy29

I sure hope somebody at CTV got a little mixed up on that price number.


----------



## ModlrMike

RyanHealy29 said:
			
		

> I sure hope somebody at CTV got a little mixed up on that price number.



They're quoting the full life-cycle costs including fuel, maintenance and salaries of the personnel who operate the aircraft. A good way to make the purchase seem more extravagant.


----------



## Edward Campbell

I'm a big fan of full life cycle costing ... IF it is done consistently and across all of government.

The Government of Canada and, especially, DND didn't (when I served) and probably still doesn't use and/or even understand "full life cycle costing."

It is possible to assign every single dollar in personnel, administrative, support, infrastructure and capital equipment costs to "projects," and then to collect all those life cycle costed projects into a single, coherent defence services programme. It would be a bit strange, at first, to see e.g. the CDS and the NDHQ pay clerks 'costed' as part of the _Defence Management_ project but we would/could get used to it. But it will only work properly when all the rest of government is forced to use the same techniques.

Until we can explain our own costs to ourselves, something we could not do - not, at least, at the VCDS/DCDS/ADM(Mat) level - when I served we will never explain them to a skeptical and, generally, innumerate media.


----------



## SupersonicMax

E.R. Campbell,

It is he ultimate and probably on way to compare project/program costs however, where do you make it stop?  How much of the CDS' time is accounted towards a given project?

I am personally a big fan of comparing everything non-personnel related (material, spares, POL, infrastructure) and leave salaries, TD, toilet paper out of the equation.  What we need is a standard of what to include and for how long.  Once a figure is obtained, it needs to be annualized so people (the media in particular) can compare apples to apples (ie: how much does an effect cost on a yearly basis)


----------



## McG

Wishing pay out of the equation does not get us the most mileage for our money.  Some solutions require more investment in materiel and facilities, other solutions need more investment in personnel.  If it takes twice as many pers and more expensive training to implement the least low cost materiel solution, that low cost material solution is likely the actual bigger consumer of department resources.


----------



## SupersonicMax

Personnel and PML should not change significantly for a given project.  For example, I doubt we would create extra positions if we were to buy those C-17. Nothing would change or positions from other organizations would be transferred but it would be a 0 sum game.  Only if positions have to be created (NOT transferred) should we count it.  Otherwise the real money cost is 0.


----------



## McG

How do you compare the cost of capability options if you do not reduce to a common denominator?  Cost to cost comparison is apples to apples; cost to PY is apples to doorknobs.

It also tells the truth to the public.  Canadian voters seem to get sticker shock fairly quick when it comes to capital equipment, but that could be tempered if they also were shown the lifecycle cost of the manpower intensive alternative.

... And let's not forget that not all PYs are equal when it comes to dollars.  An organization skewed toward spec pay and/or higher ranks will cost more.


----------



## SupersonicMax

MCG,

I understand your points, but we have no say in how many PY (at all ranks/levels) we have.

When 2 AEW was stood up, we had to go through the pain of finding lines to transfer to the Wing at 0 cost.  Same goes to the splitting of fighter squadrons.  We traded higher rank lines to get more lower rank lines.  

Since increasing our PY in lieu of getting equipment is not something that is feasible (especially not for capital projects), I still think it should be left out as there are far too many variables to include (what fraction of the CDS salary and expenses do we include?) and it would be difficult to come up with comparable figures.  It would also be far too complex for the general public to understand.


----------



## McG

PYs are fixed across the CAF, but we do have control over where they are located as well as the number that are paid as Cpl vs the number paid as Sgt or Capt.  No fraction of the CDS factors into the lifecycle cost of any capital project; it is not that complicated.

The public does not understand PYs.  They do understand $$.  Consider your discussions in he F35 thread - there are arguments to buy a cheap aircraft to get 2 to 2.5 times the number of airframes at the same lifecycle cost.  To a civi who will not understand discussion on technical capabilities, that sounds like a pretty good deal and they do not care that an additional 1.5 to 3 times the PY need to be harvested from other CAF functions to achieve this.  However, if you do factor the personnel cost, then all of a sudden the bigger fleet of cheaper platforms starts to look less fiscally responsible to that civi.

SWE is already in project costs.  Why not all pay?


----------



## Kirkhill

Mk IV tank had a crew of 8 PY.  Modern tanks have reduced that to 4 PY with 3 PY possible and 2 PY in sight.

The Lancaster had a crew of 7 PY. CF-188 has reduced that to 1 PY.

The Iroquois had a complement of 280 PY.  The replacement is likely to reduce that to something like 100 to 120 PY.

The PYs are part of the system and have to be priced into the solution.

My pet peeve is that too often the number of PYs assigned to a task seem to take on a semi-mythical value ..... 1000 PY Battalions, 200 PY Companies, 4 PY tanks, 3 PY LAVs - The ability of technology to amplify the capabilities of the available PYs, too often, in my opinion, is fully exploited for a variety of reasons.







Colin Campbell's battalion was nothing like a Currie battalion or a 4 CMBG battalion.

The PYs, and the cost of the PYs have to be factored into the cost of providing solutions.


----------



## MilEME09

According to Canadian Defense review it is indeed life cycle costs, and we are getting the lone C-17 for just under 200 million.



> CTV News has reported  that The Defence Department intends to purchase a Boeing C-17 Globemaster III at a price tag of just under $200 million, but with a projected lifespan cost of $1.7 billion.
> 
> Sources told CTV News the Defence Department is buying the C-17 aircraft with unused money in its budget that must be spent by the end of the fiscal year, otherwise the funds would go into general revenue.
> 
> CTV also reports that the purchase comes as opposition MPs criticize the government for failing to spend adequate money on wounded veterans and soldiers battered by mental-health issues.  Last month, it was revealed that Veterans Affairs had, since 2006 when Conservatives came to power, returned $1.13 billion to the federal treasury in unspent funds to the government.
> 
> Canada’s four CC-177 Globemaster III strategic airlifters were delivered in 2007-2008. The CC-177 in Canada helps provide everything from the rapid delivery of troops and cargo transport to oversized combat equipment from coast to coast to coast and to anywhere else worldwide.



http://www.canadiandefencereview.com/news.php/news/1651


----------



## Colin Parkinson

and did they calculate the lifespan saving of having 5 airframes rather than 4to do the same work?


----------



## YZT580

If 5 is better than 4 than 6 is better than 5 etcetera.  Replacing the C130's for routine overseas missions and either a) stationing a couple at one of the NATO bases in Europe or b) confining their use to N America except when the type of mission dictates that a herc be used would reduce the total airframe use of the C130 fleet and extend their lifetime exponentially.  As well, crew time would be reduced.  Would seem to me that doubling the C17 fleet would end up as a cost saving action and improve the fleet usage efficiency a whole bunch.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Like anything the law of diminishing returns applies. Trying to forecast the future needs of such a mixed fleet will be tough as no one predicted a 10 year combat mission in Afghanistan. I think it's fair to say that we should predict on at least one more sustained combat mission on top of normal usage during the lifespan of these aircraft.


----------



## HB_Pencil

Colin P said:
			
		

> and did they calculate the lifespan saving of having 5 airframes rather than 4to do the same work?



From what I know (and admittedly, I'm not as familiar with their tempo as with other airforce assets), the tasking of our C-17 fleet is one that there is a near infinite amount of work that could be accomplished with them. Thus adding another aircraft might not decrease the amount of work, rather it would mean we would do more work instead. 

I always think back to what one ADM told me in 2005: if we ever got C-17s there would be no end in work for them... everybody will be calling us for help.


----------



## Edward Campbell

_I think_ that ADM was quite right ... but it's "good work," the kind that earns us favour with allies at very low cost to us. Ditto an "extra" AOR (or two), above our minimum operational requirement, to _serve_ and support allied navies ... it also earns important brownie points in the 'councils of the mighty.' (I'm not talking about formal groups like the NATO Defence Committee which are, largely, useless but harmless, but, rather, the informal gatherings of politicians and admirals and generals that happen, fairly often, in hallways ... that's where we want to be seen as being"reliable" and "punching above our weight," and as having a smallish but effective "vest pocket army," and so on.)


----------



## Retired AF Guy

MCG said:
			
		

> The public does not understand PYs.  They do understand $$.  Consider your discussions in he F35 thread - there are arguments to buy a cheap aircraft to get 2 to 2.5 times the number of airframes at the same lifecycle cost.  To a civi who will not understand discussion on technical capabilities, that sounds like a pretty good deal and they do not care that an additional 1.5 to 3 times the PY need to be harvested from other CAF functions to achieve this.  However, if you do factor the personnel cost, then all of a sudden the bigger fleet of cheaper platforms starts to look less fiscally responsible to that civi.



Not to mention you will need more equipment to support the extra cheap aircraft.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Colin P: Further to "no one predicted a 10 year combat mission in Afghanistan", 
http://milnet.ca/forums/threads/116924/post-1342534.html#msg1342534

one feels compelled to flog a meme that seemingly cannot be put to a decent rest:



> Afghanistan and Fact-Challenged Canadian Media
> https://cdfai3ds.wordpress.com/2014/03/24/mark-collins-afghanistan-and-fact-challenged-canadian-media/



Mark 
Ottawa


----------



## McG

Seems the PM has signed off on this.


> *Ottawa poised to buy additional C-17 cargo jet as Boeing closes assembly line*
> 'Unique, time sensitive opportunity': military briefing to government
> Murray Brewster
> CBC News
> 18 Dec 2014
> 
> The Harper government has signed off on a proposal to buy an additional C-17 Globemaster heavy-lift transport plane, bringing to five the number of the hulking airborne workhorses in the air force fleet.
> 
> Multiple defence sources say the decision to acquire the aircraft was made recently, but has not yet been announced as officials are still hammering out the contract details.
> 
> The Canadian air force has been pushing for the deal for over two years, telling senior officials that there is "a strong operational and business case" for a additional aircraft given how much use the fleet has gotten since it was introduced in 2007.
> 
> Earlier this year, The Canadian Press reported that National Defence believed it could afford the estimated US $169-million price tag because it had not spent all of the funds made available for the initial purchase of four C-17s.
> 
> Documents obtained under the Access to Information Act show the department had allocated $1.8 billion to complete the first purchase, but only $1.4 billion was spent.
> 
> There is urgency because Boeing stopped production on the workhorse aircraft last summer, and published reports in the U.S. indicate as many as 10 of the gigantic planes were up for sale.
> The U.S. government announced in 2006 that it would stop buying the aircraft.
> 
> The company has relied on foreign sales to keep the plant that produces the Globemaster operating in Long Beach, Calif.
> 
> Boeing refused comment on Wednesday.
> 
> Australia recently committed to buying two of the remaining aircraft, but diplomatic sources said this week Tony Abbott's government is expected to go even further next year and buy additional C-17s.
> In its briefings to government, the military described the chance to procure another one as a "unique, time-sensitive opportunity for DND."
> 
> The air force argued that adding another C-17 would expand its capability in disaster and humanitarian missions, while also easing the burden on the existing fleet.
> 
> "Canada's experience in Afghanistan and other theatres of operation has shown that fifth (C-17) aircraft would prove a highly beneficial asset to the Canadian Forces," said the briefing document, dated Feb. 14, 2012.
> 
> National Defence and Public Works and Government Services Canada have struggled to deliver a whole host of hardware, including ships, army trucks, helicopters and fixed-wing search-and-rescue planes.
> 
> Buying an additional C-17 would be comparatively easy, since it would likely involve a sole-source deal with the manufacturer, arranged through the U.S. government.
> 
> The Globemaster is an expensive aircraft to operate, according to U.S. Air Force comptroller and defence industry data. It is estimated to cost US $23,279 per flying hour, according to 2012 estimates.
> 
> The C-130J Hercules, the other military transport recently purchased by the air force, rings in at US $13,644 per flying hour.
> 
> The possible purchase of another C-17 was not listed in the government's defence acquisition guide, released last June.


http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ottawa-poised-to-buy-additional-c-17-cargo-jet-as-boeing-closes-assembly-line-1.2877413


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Well it's nice to have some good news on the procurement front.


----------



## YZT580

The Globemaster is an expensive aircraft to operate, according to U.S. Air Force comptroller and defence industry data. It is estimated to cost US $23,279 per flying hour, according to 2012 estimates.

The C-130J Hercules, the other military transport recently purchased by the air force, rings in at US $13,644 per flying hour.

Not much difference when you consider the far greater payload and the greater distance per hour flown.  In fact, the C17 would work out as a far cheaper a/c per tonne mile.  CBC does like to make the Harper govt. look bad don't they?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Every government for the next 20 years is going to quietly under their breath thank the Conservatives for this purchase.


----------



## Kirkhill

Aircraft	$/hr	      km/hr	 $/km		   kg	   $/tonne-km		m3	$/m3-km
C-17	      $23,279.00 	830	 $28.05 		72600	 $2.59 		638.8	 $0.04 
C-130     $13,644.00 	657	 $20.77 		21687	 $1.04 		170.52	 $0.12 

It appears that the Herc is the solution for lifting mass (a load of pallets of beans and bullets for example)  while the C-17 is the solution for lifting volume (vehicles).

Horses for courses?


----------



## The Bread Guy

Colin P said:
			
		

> Every government for the next 20 years is going to should quietly under their breath thank the Conservatives for this purchase.


FTFY

While I'm not wild about all the current government's defence moves, thumbs up for taking advantage of extra money to buy something on the fly (no pun intended) that's been useful before, and will likely be VERY useful down the road - if we don't have the troops or gear to help, we have the option (again) to give those countries who do a lift as needed.


----------



## CougarKing

Even though one of the articles above said as many as 10 C17s were unsold, this source below says Boeing is sitting on 8 unsold aircraft:

Flight Global



> *Boeing sitting on eight unsold C-17s, with more orders pending*
> By: DAN PARSONSWASHINGTON DC Source: Flightglobal.com 20:58 16 Dec 2014
> Boeing has sold two more C-17 transports to an undisclosed customer, but it will likely end the year with eight unsold white tails.
> 
> There are 10 Boeing C-17 airlifters in various stages of assembly at the company’s Long Beach, California, production facility.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Aircraft	$/hr	      km/hr	 $/km		   kg	   $/tonne-km		m3	$/m3-km
> C-17	      $23,279.00 	830	 $28.05 		72600	 $2.59 		638.8	 $0.04
> C-130     $13,644.00 	657	 $20.77 		21687	 $1.04 		170.52	 $0.12
> 
> It appears that the Herc is the solution for lifting mass (a load of pallets of beans and bullets for example)  while the C-17 is the solution for lifting volume (vehicles).
> 
> Horses for courses?



I don't understand your calcs, Kirkhill.

If you want to calculate $/tonnes-Km, you have to divide the hourly cost by the number of Km's in an hour and then divide by the number of tonnes on the plane (i will use metric tonnes, since you put the cargo capacity in Kgs - which is 1,000 kg to a tonne)

This means that:

C-17: $23,279 / 830 / 72.6 = $0.39 $/tonnes-Km.

C-130: $13,644 / 657 / 21.7 = $0.96/tonnes-Km.

The C-17 wins again, even for weight.


----------



## Bearpaw

I agree with OBGD on this---i looked up the relevant data from wikpedia and calculated:

Efficiency of C-130J-30 vs C-17-ER

Max Payload at criusing speed for max range efficiency using 

1) US $13,644 per flying hour for C-130J-30 with max range  5,250 km with max load 19,958 kg

2) US $23,279 per flying hour for  C-17-ER with max range 4,482 km with max load 77,519 kg
(I used the max range for the C-17 as using the centre-line tank increases range at cost of 
reduced payload for the C-17-ER)

Time of flight for

1) C-130J-30 is 5,250 km/643 km/h = 8.17 hr

2) C-17-ER is 4,482 km/830 km/h = 5.4 hr

Cost of flight

1) 8.17 * US$13,644 = US$111471

2) 5.4 * US$23,279 = US$125706 

Payload delivery is

1) 5250 * 19958 = 104779500 kg*km

2) 4482 * 77519 = 347440158 kg*km

Cost efficiency is

1) 104779500 kg*km/US$111471 = 940 kg*km/US$

2) 347440158 kg*km/US$125706 = 2764 kg*km/US$

From this it is clear that the C-17-ER is about 3 times as efficient as the C-130J-30.

Payload volume space is

1) 104 m^3

2) 553 m^3.

I would like to see the RCAF buy C-17-ERs to total 8 or 9 aircraft while they are still available.  


Bearpaw


----------



## dimsum

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> FTFY
> 
> While I'm not wild about all the current government's defence moves, thumbs up for taking advantage of extra money to buy something on the fly (no pun intended) that's been useful before, and will likely be VERY useful down the road - if we don't have the troops or gear to help, we have the option (again) to give those countries who do a lift as needed.



Exactly.  Without knowing the specifics (money, ramp space, manning), I'm surprised that we only bought one.


----------



## bradley247

I wonder what this is going to be about... 

http://news.gc.ca/web/article-en.do?nid=915869&tp=3


----------



## Kirkhill

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> I don't understand your calcs, Kirkhill.
> 
> If you want to calculate $/tonnes-Km, you have to divide the hourly cost by the number of Km's in an hour and then divide by the number of tonnes on the plane (i will use metric tonnes, since you put the cargo capacity in Kgs - which is 1,000 kg to a tonne)
> 
> This means that:
> 
> C-17: $23,279 / 830 / 72.6 = $0.39 $/tonnes-Km.
> 
> C-130: $13,644 / 657 / 21.7 = $0.96/tonnes-Km.
> 
> The C-17 wins again, even for weight.



You're right.  I was wrong.  Trying to be too clever by half.  :-[


----------



## dapaterson

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> You're right.  I was wrong.  Trying to be too clever by half.  :-[



No, by 40.625%


----------



## McG

With all the public criticism of stealth budget cuts, I wonder if this decision was in anyway influenced as government damage control over year-end money returns.


----------



## McG

The announcement is made:


> Ottawa to buy 5th C-17 aircraft
> CTV News
> 19 Dec 2014
> 
> Ottawa has procured another C-17 military transport aircraft, bringing the total number of C-17s in the Royal Canadian Air Force's fleet to five.
> 
> Defence Minister Rob Nicholson announced the purchase of the Boeing-made plane on Friday at Canadian Forces Base Trenton
> 
> He said the additional C-17 will ease the burden on the current fleet, and will extend the life expectancy of all five planes by about seven-and-a-half years.
> 
> "Having a fifth C-17 will significantly augment the flexibility of the Canadian Armed Forces strategic airlift," Nicholson said.
> 
> The C-17 Globemaster III – which in Canada is designated as the CC-177 Globemaster III -- is a four-engine long-haul aircraft that can transport large equipment, supplies and troops directly to small airfields anywhere in the world, according to Boeing.
> 
> It has a carrying capacity of nearly 75,000 kilograms and has been used in cargo deliveries since the 1990s.
> 
> Gen. Tom Lawson, chief of the defence staff, said in a statement that the massive planes allow the military to remain flexible, as they can perform several different operations on short notice.
> 
> The Department of Defence said the acquisition project cost (meaning the cost of the plane during its entire lifespan) is estimated at $415 million, with an additional $30 million for 12 years of in-service support.
> 
> With the purchase of the additional plane, it is estimated that the RCAF will have at least three C-17s available more than 90 per cent of the time to respond to any type of international or domestic crises, Nicholson said in a statement.
> 
> Currently, Canada's C-17s are being used to ferry supplies to Canadian Forces in Kuwait who are participating in Operation Impact. They have also been used to deliver supplies to Canada's CF-18s, which are stationed in Lithuania and taking part in Operation Reassurance in response to the crisis in Ukraine.
> 
> The planes have also been used in humanitarian operations, such as in 2013, when they were used to support French troops fighting in Mali.
> 
> In addition to Canada, the plane is currently used by the U.S., U.K., Kuwait, Australia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates.


http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/ottawa-to-buy-5th-c-17-aircraft-1.2155642


----------



## Edward Campbell

Good decision ... let's hope there's room for a 6th C-17 in FY 15/16, and that there's still a "white tail" left.


----------



## Bearpaw

From the announcement of the decision to buy a fifth C-17, it was noted that this would extend the fleet life by 7.5 years.  A little math will show  that this implies an expected life of 37.5 years per aircraft(in a fleet of 5 assuming constant utilization rate). A sixth aircraft would extend this to 45 years per aircraft(using constant utilization rate)----this is much more in line with how the CAF/RCAF
has used its initial Hercules fleet.   For an expected readiness  of at least 90% for 5 aircraft,  a seventh aircraft would be  highly recommended.

Bearpaw


----------



## bradley247

Bearpaw said:
			
		

> From the announcement of the decision to buy a fifth C-17, it was noted that this would extend the fleet life by 7.5 years.  A little math will show  that this implies an expected life of 37.5 years per aircraft(in a fleet of 5 assuming constant utilization rate). A sixth aircraft would extend this to 45 years per aircraft(using constant utilization rate)----this is much more in line with how the CAF/RCAF
> has used its initial Hercules fleet.   For an expected readiness  of at least 90% for 5 aircraft,  a seventh aircraft would be  highly recommended.
> 
> Bearpaw



Like you say though, the 7.5 year extension is based on maintaining our current usage, a plan which surely wouldn't stand if we were to buy a 6th jet (and I'm doubtful will even stand for this one). There will never be a shortage of work for the C-17s.


----------



## Bearpaw

I agree with you completely----if you also consider that the initial 4 aircraft  have about 6 years on the clock, we should buy the 8 or 9 aircraft I mentioned in my first post. This may be a bit more than our current needs but in 2035-2045 we might well be looking for more aircraft.
I think the US is making a mistake in allowing the C-17 production line to cease---some type of low-rate terminal production plan would be much smarter.  There will be a demand for these aircraft and parts for the next 50+ years.

Bearpaw


----------



## Zoomie

The USAF is capitalizing on the C-5M upgrade project.  The C-17 is a fuel hog - the updated motors on the C-5M is more fuel efficient.


----------



## Cloud Cover

How is it that Australia can buy 4 C17 with full life cycle cost of 1.6billion AD and we can buy 1 for 1.5Billion CAD?


----------



## dapaterson

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> How is it that Australia can but 4 C17 with full life cycle cost of 1.6billion AD and we can buy 1 for 1.5Billion CAD?


Different accounting standards.


----------



## dimsum

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Good decision ... let's hope there's room for a 6th C-17 in FY 15/16, and that there's still a "white tail" left.



Last numbers I saw were that there were 2 left, assuming Australia takes its 9th and 10th planes.  RAAF Base Amberley's parking is pretty limited already, so it'll be interesting to see where they slot them in.


----------



## bradley247

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> How is it that Australia can but 4 C17 with full life cycle cost of 1.6billion AD and we can buy 1 for 1.5Billion CAD?



The announced price is $415 million including life cycle costs. That's about on par with what the Austrlaians paid.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/ottawa-to-buy-5th-c-17-aircraft-1.2155642


----------



## HB_Pencil

Bearpaw said:
			
		

> From the announcement of the decision to buy a fifth C-17, it was noted that this would extend the fleet life by 7.5 years.  A little math will show  that this implies an expected life of 37.5 years per aircraft(in a fleet of 5 assuming constant utilization rate). A sixth aircraft would extend this to 45 years per aircraft(using constant utilization rate)----this is much more in line with how the CAF/RCAF
> has used its initial Hercules fleet.   For an expected readiness  of at least 90% for 5 aircraft,  a seventh aircraft would be  highly recommended.
> 
> Bearpaw



It probably won't add that much life at all. As I mentioned earlier, the demand far outstrips airlift capacity: there just is too many demands on the fleet for even five aircraft to meet: only at six might the load start to slacken for the fleet. This typical breakdown for the fleet state at any one time: 

one for heavy maintenence
one for training
one in "reserve" 
one on operations. 

So Canada only has one aircraft available to do actual operations. The reserve aircraft is for emergencies and backup for the operational aircraft. A fifth and sixth aircraft really adds greater capacity upfront to the fleet because they will immediately go to operations.


----------



## SupersonicMax

It's actually 3 since you can pull the "reserve" aircraft and the "training" aircraft into operation


----------



## bradley247

HB_Pencil said:
			
		

> This typical breakdown for the fleet state at any one time:
> 
> one for heavy maintenence
> one for training
> one in "reserve"
> one on operations.
> So Canada only has one aircraft available to do actual operations.



Not quite...Without getting too much into specifics, there is no such aircraft allocation, and it's not uncommon for the majority of the fleet to be operationally employed on any given day (YFR permitting).


----------



## SupersonicMax

I don't think HB_Pencil says there are actual "training" and "reserve" assignment, but rather saying that in general, this is the breakdown of missions for the aircraft at any given time.  Obviously subject to change with the operationnal tempo...


----------



## bradley247

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> I don't think HB_Pencil says there are actual "training" and "reserve" assignment, but rather saying that in general, this is the breakdown of missions for the aircraft at any given time.  Obviously subject to change with the operationnal tempo...



Yes, what you are talking about is called 'lines of tasking', and without posting specifics, more than one is dedicated to operational missions.


----------



## dapaterson

bradley247 said:
			
		

> Not quite...Without getting too much into specifics, there is no such aircraft allocation, and it's not uncommon for the majority of the fleet to be operationally employed on any given day *(YFR permitting)*.



With nothing mentioned in the press about increases to YFR, adding a fifth tail with no increase in YFR will make them all last longer.

(Besides, significant increases to YFR would probably require increases to the number of crews, and I've seen nothing to suggest that)


----------



## Colin Parkinson

it is done http://www.rcaf-arc.forces.gc.ca/en/news-template-standard.page?doc=canada-s-fifth-cc-177-globemaster-iii-touches-down-at-8-wing-trenton%2Fi7kv5fuv


Site menu

    About the RCAF (open the submenu with the enter key and close with the escape key)
    Aircraft
    Operations & Training (open the submenu with the enter key and close with the escape key)
    News & Publications (open the submenu with the enter key and close with the escape key)
    Multi-Media (open the submenu with the enter key and close with the escape key)
    Events (open the submenu with the enter key and close with the escape key)
    History and Heritage

Breadcrumb trail

    Air Force
    News and Publications
    News

    Navy
    Army
    Air Force
    Defence Home

Canada’s fifth CC-177 Globemaster III touches down at 8 Wing Trenton
Image Gallery

    Defence Minister Jason Kenney (second from left) joined Lieutenant-General Yvan Blondin, commander of the Royal Canadian Air Force, to witness the inaugural landing of the RCAF’s fifth CC-177 Globemaster III in Canada.

Related Links

    CC-177 Globemaster III
    Operation Impact
    Operation Reassurance
    8 Wing Trenton
    429 Transport Squadron

News Article / March 30, 2015

From the Department of National Defence

Government welcomes increased air power for the Royal Canadian Air Force.

The Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) today accepted delivery of its fifth CC-177 Globemaster III aircraft, increasing its flexibility to respond to both domestic and international emergencies and support a variety of missions, including humanitarian assistance, peace support and combat.

Defence Minister Jason Kenney joined Lieutenant-General Yvan Blondin, commander of the RCAF, to witness the aircraft’s inaugural landing in Canada. The aircraft, tail number 705, augments the current fleet of four CC-177 Globemaster IIIs operated by 429 Transport Squadron at 8 Wing Trenton, Ontario.

"Our five CC-177 Globemasters give Canada a huge advantage in projecting our presence around the world,” said Defence Minister Kenney. “In the past, Canada was completely dependent on other countries for strategic airlift capability. Now we can move personnel and equipment around the globe in short order. This is essential for our ability to respond quickly to urgent military and humanitarian missions.”

The additional Globemaster will extend the life expectancy of the entire fleet by about seven and a half years. Moreover, with the purchase of an additional aircraft, the RCAF is projected to have at least three Globemasters available more than 90 per cent of the time to respond to concurrent international or domestic crises. This represents an increase of approximately 25 per cent.

The current Globemaster fleet has been playing an integral role in ferrying supplies and troops to establish and resupply the Canadian camp in Kuwait during Operation Impact. It has also delivered essential materiel to CF-188 Hornet crews deployed in support of NATO as part of Operation Reassurance and the international response to the Putin regime’s aggression against Ukraine.

The Globemasters are also used to support domestic operations, including more than 75 missions to Canada’s North to deliver 1.5 million litres of fuel, seven million pounds of equipment and 3,120 personnel to locations such as Alert, Iqaluit and Resolute Bay in Nunavut.

“We’ve chalked up enormous successes with our first four Globemasters,” said Lieutenant-General Blondin. “With the arrival of our new Globemaster, we will be more agile, more flexible, and better able to respond when the Government of Canada calls on the RCAF.”

Using resources the Government had previously set aside for National Defence to implement the Canada First Defence Strategy, the acquisition project cost is estimated at $415 million, including the cost to purchase the aircraft, spare engine, ancillary equipment, specialized systems, project costs and contingency for exchange rate fluctuation. The cost for 12 years of integrated in-service support for the additional aircraft is estimated at $30 million.


Meanwhile back in France (aren't you glad we aren't in that mess!) http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/feature/5/161581/partner-nations-may-apply-penalty-clauses-to-a400m-program.html


----------



## Edward Campbell

And here it is ...







... tail no. 177705.

(I would be very glad to see 177706, 707 and 708, too, bit I don't know how many _whitetails_ might be left.)


----------



## PuckChaser

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> (I would be very glad to see 177706, 707 and 708, too, bit I don't know how many _whitetails_ might be left.)



They had 15 when the line closed according to Janes. http://www.janes.com/article/36491/boeing-brings-forward-c-17-line-closure


----------



## dimsum

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> They had 15 when the line closed according to Janes. http://www.janes.com/article/36491/boeing-brings-forward-c-17-line-closure



How many of those are slated for Australia though?  RUMINT is that they're looking for 2, possibly 4 more to bring total to 10.


----------



## PuckChaser

Its an older article from last year, but that would add up to about 10 airframes left if none were spoken for by anyone else. I don't think 177706 would be hard to obtain, we just need to find the funds to get it.


----------



## dapaterson

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Its an older article from last year, but that would add up to about 10 airframes left if none were spoken for by anyone else. I don't think 177706 would be hard to obtain, we just need to find the funds to get it.



And crews to man it. And funds to pay for increased YFR, and related increased maintenance.

Last I heard there were significantly less than 10 tails unclaimed; from what I recall a few months ago, you could count them on one hand (with fingers left over).


----------



## a_majoor

Given that the first batch needs to be turned in for contract maintenance every five years or so (putting most of the fleet out of action at once), buying a few extra ones and putting them in long term storage *might* be an option. Everytime one of the C-17's has to go in for maintenance, pull the tarp off one of the ones ion storage and carry on....


----------



## dapaterson

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Given that the first batch needs to be turned in for contract maintenance every five years or so (putting most of the fleet out of action at once), buying a few extra ones and putting them in long term storage *might* be an option. Everytime one of the C-17's has to go in for maintenance, pull the tarp off one of the ones ion storage and carry on....



The RCAF is better at fleet management than that.


----------



## bradley247

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Given that the first batch needs to be turned in for contract maintenance every five years or so (putting most of the fleet out of action at once), buying a few extra ones and putting them in long term storage *might* be an option. Everytime one of the C-17's has to go in for maintenance, pull the tarp off one of the ones ion storage and carry on....



So park a few +$200 million assets because we can't figure out how to stagger a couple months long maintenance check? (Which is staggered anyways since we didn't get all 4 at once). Even the RCAF isn't that incompetent...

The remaining white tails are being snatched up pretty quickly (and not very publicly), it's bascally now or never.


----------



## a_majoor

> So park a few +$200 million assets because we can't figure out how to stagger a couple months long maintenance check? (Which is staggered anyways since we didn't get all 4 at once). Even the RCAF isn't that incompetent...



I'm trying to find the link, but that is _precisely_ the reason that was cited for buying more C-17s for the RCAF


----------



## Colin Parkinson

buying an extra one and placing it in long term storage down in Nevada might be a wise idea, allows you to pull it fly it as one goes down or heaven forbid one crashes. Which leads me to another question, since this is a military, do they actually plan a loss percentage into their buys from enemy action, accidents and still be able to operate?


----------



## captloadie

We don't have war stock on aircraft. I don't believe we ever have. So many parts Tx after a fairly short timeframe it doesn't make any sense to put them in longterm storage, like trucks, tanks, and APCs. It would take almost as long to bring up an aircraft from storage as it would for a maintenance check on the one its supposed to replace.


----------



## ringo

Would like to see 1 or 2 more C17's for CAF.


----------



## PuckChaser

Not sure how long it takes to do big maintenance on a CC-177, but it took the USAF 70 days to resurrect a B-52 that was in storage at the Boneyard. They're also pros at doing this type of work, where we'd be very new.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/21/us/arizona-b-52-restored/


----------



## bradley247

It's every five years and lasts a few months. It would be absolutely ludicrous to buy and then mothball a perfectly good jet, only to spend potentially tens of millions to bring it back into service to prevent a slight decrease in capability a small fraction of the time...I can't stress how idiotic it would be for Canada to even consider doing it. 

More airframes would allow the heavy workload to be spread among a larger fleet, extending the life of the aircraft.


----------



## MilEME09

captloadie said:
			
		

> We don't have war stock on aircraft. I don't believe we ever have. So many parts Tx after a fairly short timeframe it doesn't make any sense to put them in longterm storage, like trucks, tanks, and APCs. It would take almost as long to bring up an aircraft from storage as it would for a maintenance check on the one its supposed to replace.



Actually we do, according to my AF buddies we have a storage facility south of Trenton where a war stocks like collection of aircraft is. Majority of it is the spare airframes for maintenance, but there are also a a handful of CF-116's in storage there.


----------



## dapaterson

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CFD_Mountain_View


----------



## George Wallace

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Actually we do, according to my AF buddies we have a storage facility south of Trenton where a war stocks like collection of aircraft is. Majority of it is the spare airframes for maintenance, but there are also a a handful of CF-116's in storage there.



Not really sure if you would call Mountain View a "storage facility".  Likely more of a "disposal facility".  Airframes deemed ready to dispose of or send off to become monuments or museum pieces.


----------



## bradley247

I think a distinction needs to be made between what the CF has and a boneyard type facility. Most aircraft sent to the boneyard are stored in a way that they can be reactivated if required. What we have in Mountain View is just a storage facility for old, high time airframes that will stay there until they are either stripped of parts, sold or scrapped. Canada doesn't have a war stock of aircraft that can be reactivated, the CF-18s there are there for a reason, and will never fly again.


----------



## MAJONES

Some of the T-33s that were there were flown out, (to the states), when they were sold off.  The Tutors that are there are rotated in and out of the Snowbirds.


----------



## a_majoor

Looks like the last C-17's have been spoken for:

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htairmo/articles/20150404.aspx



> *Air Transportation: The Last C-17 Is Arabian*
> 
> April 4, 2015: The UAE (United Arab Emirates) is buying another two American C-17 air transports for $310 million each. The 290 ton C-17 is an intercontinental transport that the UAE uses to move commercial as well as military cargo. The UAE already has six and ordered the first four in 2009. These latest C-17s for the UAE may be the last ones ordered, with total production ending at 279.
> 
> The C-17 first flew in 1991, entered service in 1995 and there are now 255 in service. C-17s have spent over 2.5 million hours in the air, which equals nearly 2.5 billion kilometers travelled. The C-17 fleet passed a million flight hours in 2004, when there were 152 in service. Despite the heavy use, the C-17 has been very reliable, with a current readiness rate of 85 percent. The 290 ton C-17 can carry up to 100 tons (including one M-1 tank) anywhere in the world because of in-air refueling. The C-17 alone costs about $250 million each but with spares, technical assistance and other services that can go another 20 percent of so. Britain is the largest foreign user of the C-17. Australia and Canada each got four. The U.S. Air Force operates 173.
> 
> Despite the high reliability C-17s are being worked very hard since September 11, 2001.  The problem is that the C-17 was more in demand during the war on terror than air force combat aircraft. At the peak of the fighting only the two dozen AC-130 gunships, and a hundred or so A-10 ground attack aircraft and F-16 fighter-bombers plus a few dozen heavy bombers were getting steady work. But their workload is nothing compared to the C-17s, which were in constant demand to deliver personnel and material to American troops in Iraq, Afghanistan, and many other places where the war on terror is being fought. Right behind the C-17s in the workload was the aging fleet of K-135 aerial refueling aircraft and a few dozen intelligence collecting aircraft.
> 
> After the C-17 entered service in 1995 those first few aircraft quickly compiled 3,000 flight hours supporting peacekeeping operations in Bosnia. Each C-17 has a useful life of 30,000 flight hours, but the current force is flying such long, and hard (landing on rough fields) flights that many of the early model C-17s are already wearing out. This attrition is accelerated by the fact that the early model C-17s are structurally different, and weaker, than the later model C-17s. The basic problem was that wing box in the center of the fuselage was insufficiently strong for the loads placed on it. This was corrected later in the production run, but those early planes are wearing out faster than later model planes of the same flight hours.  The air force has flown a lot of C-17s into northern Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and a bunch of other stans with rough/short strips in 2001 and 2003. The C-17 was built for this sort of thing, but lots of these landing come at the price of shorter useful life.
> 
> Despite all this demand and popularity with users it's always been an uphill fight getting new air transports built. There were so many delays in the C-17 program that, when the 1991 Gulf War came along, the C-17 was not available and the C-141 transports, that was supposed to keep flying until 2010, were basically worn out and had to be retired early. Now the C-17s are doing more work to make up for the missing C-141s. Originally there were to be 120 C-17s (at $135 million each) with production ending in 2004. After September 11, 2001, it was realized that more air transports would be needed and the production run of the C-17 was increased to 180. But logistics planners insisted that 300 were needed if wartime needs were to be met. Moreover the rapid deterioration of the early model C-17s means that eventually 350 or more would have to be built to maintain a fleet of 300 transports. That never happened.
> 
> The major problem is that the air force is run by combat pilots. Although they recognize the importance of the C-17, they tend to focus on getting warplanes built. Additional C-17 construction comes at the expense of building new combat aircraft, and that's a hard sell inside the air force. Usually, it's lobbying by the army, and other branches of the government, that compels Congress to strong arm the air force generals to build the needed C-17s. It's an ugly, messy and time consuming way to get aircraft built, but it works.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Unless they reopen the production line, there might be enough demand to run another 15-20 aircraft


----------



## FSTO

Since the Air Force Generals seem to hate helicopters, CAS and Transport aircraft maybe they should give all a/c and money to the Army who seem to really care and need these assets.


----------



## dapaterson

Colin P said:
			
		

> Unless they reopen the production line, there might be enough demand to run another 15-20 aircraft



Long lead items are no longer in production. Cost to ramp up again would be prohibitive.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

seems this has been kicked around

Barring unforeseen changes to the C-17A program, production will end in 2014 or 2015. Once
C-17A production in Long Beach ceases, any resumption of production would incur sizable
costs. Even Table S.1’s most optimistic C-17A restart case would have at least $2.1 billion in
nonrecurring costs. The magnitude of the cost of restarting C-17A production or starting up
production of a variant gives pause with respect to tooling retention. One could interpret these
sizable cost estimates to suggest the probability of a future production restart is quite small.
Without some probability of eventual C-17 restart, there would be no value in retaining C-17
production-only tools.

http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/technical_reports/2012/RAND_TR1143.pdf


----------



## Kirkhill

Colin P said:
			
		

> seems this has been kicked around
> there would be no value in retaining C-17
> production-only tools.



And here I disagree - 

Warehousing may be expensive - and it may not be in Boeing's economic interest to be able to restart a defunct line on short notice - but it is in the strategic interest of the US and partner nations.  

At very least the tooling should be bound over in proper storage for a defined period of time (10 to 15 years perhaps - the time necessary to design a new solution and get it into production).

The US Government maintains massive depositories for the storage of all sorts of things of strategic value.  This tooling would, IMO, qualify as a strategic asset.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Not my words, frankly I think they were to quick to shut this down, I think they anticipated a market crowded with Airbus and Ukrainian aircraft. In reality they and the C130J pretty much own the market in the west.


----------



## Kirkhill

Colin P said:
			
		

> Not my words, frankly I think they were to quick to shut this down, I think they anticipated a market crowded with Airbus and Ukrainian aircraft. In reality they and the C130J pretty much own the market in the west.



Seen Colin.  I understood you were only quoting Rand.

Cheers.


----------



## SupersonicMax

FSTO said:
			
		

> Since the Air Force Generals seem to hate helicopters, CAS and Transport aircraft maybe they should give all a/c and money to the Army who seem to really care and need these assets.



Pretty broad statement with no justification...


----------



## FSTO

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Pretty broad statement with no justification...


Just an observation and my opinion.

Maybe you should get some thicker skin. ;D


----------



## SupersonicMax

Doesn't bother me, just pointing out the last of substance to the claim!


----------



## Eye In The Sky

FSTO said:
			
		

> Since the Air Force Generals seem to hate helicopters, CAS and Transport aircraft maybe they should give all a/c and money to the Army who seem to really care and need these assets.



Chinooks, Globemasters, and CF18s bombing in Iraq and  Syria.  Not sure exactly what else can be said.

 :2c:


----------



## FSTO

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Chinooks, Globemasters, and CF18s bombing in Iraq and  Syria.  Not sure exactly what else can be said.
> 
> :2c:



I was commenting on the article that was talking about the US Air Force, not ours.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

My bad!   :facepalm:


----------



## a_majoor

The C-17 problem is two fold, really.

The unit cost is so high that air forces balked at purchasing the numbers needed.

The demand for C-17s seems not to have been anticipated by the users.

In the article it suggests that over 300 C-17's _should_ have been built, but the actual production run has been about half of that figure. If Boeing had pressed ahead or the governments had bit the bullet there may have been an opportunity to gain economies of scale by rolling out the full 300-350 rather than stop now. Restarting the production line and building the next 150 C-17s is an option who's window is rapidly closing, and the real issue now is that while the current fleet of C-17s will probably wear out more quickly than anticipated, there is no program in place to design and build the next generation of transport aircraft for the West.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Unless they start to build a C17C (B being the tactical airlifter version) The C would incorporate recommended changes from the A


----------



## daftandbarmy

Thucydides said:
			
		

> The C-17 problem is two fold, really.
> 
> The unit cost is so high that air forces balked at purchasing the numbers needed.
> 
> The demand for C-17s seems not to have been anticipated by the users.
> 
> In the article it suggests that over 300 C-17's _should_ have been built, but the actual production run has been about half of that figure. If Boeing had pressed ahead or the governments had bit the bullet there may have been an opportunity to gain economies of scale by rolling out the full 300-350 rather than stop now. Restarting the production line and building the next 150 C-17s is an option who's window is rapidly closing, and the real issue now is that while *the current fleet of C-17s will probably wear out more quickly than anticipated, there is no program in place to design and build the next generation of transport aircraft for the West.
> *



The C130 entered service in the 1950s, according to Wikipedia anyways.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_C-130_Hercules

Could we not extend the useful life of the C17 in a similar fashion?


----------



## McG

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> The C130 entered service in the 1950s, according to Wikipedia anyways.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_C-130_Hercules
> 
> Could we not extend the useful life of the C17 in a similar fashion?


C130 production lines stayed open.  New planes replaced old.
With the C17 production lines closed, this is not an option.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

what does "closed" mean in this particular case, is the line being re-purposed for another airframe? 

It would seem the factory is not yet fully closed, although some production areas have shut down  http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Boeing-C17-Production-Ends-Long-Beach.html


----------



## MilEME09

Colin P said:
			
		

> what does "closed" mean in this particular case, is the line being re-purposed for another airframe?
> 
> It would seem the factory is yet fully closed, although some production areas have shut down  http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Boeing-C17-Production-Ends-Long-Beach.html



Essentially it means with no new orders, the production line is beginning a slow shut down from the start of the line until the last one leaves the line and they shut her down.


----------



## dapaterson

I seem to recall that Boeing tried to drum up interest in a civilianized version, with no takers.  Ultimately, Boeing wants to operate at a profit; if there are no buyers, then they will not build the product.  Capitalism 101.


----------



## YZT580

I seem to recall that the C5 has a lot to do with the shortened production run of the C17.  The generals justify running the re-build of the C5 AND buying more C17 so they cut the later.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

likely, from Wiki

The U.S. Air Force has 71 C-5s in service as of February 2014 and plans to reduce the fleet to 52 "M" models by 2017 

As it is appears Airbus will have the remaining market to itself, with just the C130J nibbling at it's heels


----------



## Spencer100

Don't forget the new Embraer KC-390.  Much smaller but interesting Aircraft.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embraer_KC-390


----------



## Spencer100

The Ozzies are getting two more.  Bring their total to 8.

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/release/162623/australia-to-buy-two-more-c_17a-transports.html


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Spencer100 said:
			
		

> Don't forget the new Embraer KC-390.  Much smaller but interesting Aircraft.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embraer_KC-390


and the C-127 etc, the field of similar and smaller than C-130 is quite well served it seems. But only the A400 appears to be the only remaining possibility for bigger than a C130J. The question for many that might like further C-17's is the A400 big enough to make it worth having a mixed fleet. One option is for one country to sell it's C-17 to other countries and re-equip completely with A400's 

NATO heavy lift squadron and Quatar might be potentials for such a swap


----------



## Kirkhill

> C-17 White Tails Down to Five
> (Source: Forecast International; posted April 15, 2015)
> The number of white tail C-17 aircraft being built by Boeing before closure of the production line later this year is now down to five. The Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) has decided to acquire two C-17s in a move that will bring the service’s C-17 fleet to eight aircraft.



http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/162858/five-c_17-white-tails-left-after-production-closes.html

Personal Opinon - Canada should buy three of these to bring the fleet up to 8.  There is work for these aircraft and they are significant strategic assets diplomatically, militarily and domestically.  They are bargains.


----------



## dapaterson

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/162858/five-c_17-white-tails-left-after-production-closes.html
> 
> Personal Opinon - Canada should buy three of these to bring the fleet up to 8.  There is work for these aircraft and they are significant strategic assets diplomatically, militarily and domestically.  They are bargains.



Where are the crews coming from?  Where is the funding for R&O?  Where is the funding for fuel?


----------



## Spencer100

I would doubt we get anymore...also we would have to get a move on.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11433122

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/australia-to-spend-up-to-15-bn-on-4-c17s-updated-01971/

Plus others.


----------



## Kirkhill

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Where are the crews coming from?  Where is the funding for R&O?  Where is the funding for fuel?



From anywhere that isn't working for a living.....


----------



## Loachman

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> From anywhere that isn't working for a living.....



To put people towards this, we would have to take people from somewhere else.

What would we give up in return?

Yes, I know, but those organizations will always protect themselves at the cost of operational effectiveness.


----------



## Kirkhill

Loachman said:
			
		

> To put people towards this, we would have to take people from somewhere else.
> 
> What would we give up in return?
> 
> Yes, I know, but those organizations will always protect themselves at the cost of operational effectiveness.



I believe this is the logic to which you refer.....


----------



## ringo

Cancel FWSAR use funds to buy more C17's cascade C130J to SAR role.


----------



## bradley247

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Where are the crews coming from?



It would take a few years, but it's doable. After all we are managing to man 15 new Chinooks somehow without breaking the RCAF. Plus maybe it would finally justify getting a simulator in Trenton and maybe even starting up our own OTU.

>





			
				dapaterson said:
			
		

> Where is the funding for R&O?  Where is the funding for fuel?



Just like they said when the C-17s ran out of YFR the first and second time last year "Just keep flying, we'll find the money".


----------



## dapaterson

There are already plans for a sim in Trenton, and they have been under development for quite some time.

The Chinook positions are being taken from within the RCAF and from the Army; so where are the additional positions going to come from for more CC177 crews?

And the cost of YFR and maintenance and overhaul are significant.  The grownups in DND and outside the department ask the exact same questions, and refuse to permit acquisitions when the answer is "we'll figure it out later".


----------



## Kirkhill

Flaming Nora.  The "Grown Ups".

The ones that haven't bought an FWSAR craft, that haven't bought a CCV, that haven't bought a  3 tonne truck, or a 10 tonne truck, or a wrecker, that haven't bought an AOPS or a BHS and are on the verge of reversing the TAPV acquisition.

DAP - I get that there are costs involved but time, effort, PYs and money are and have been wasted generating absolutely zero capability.  You have troops in the combat arms leaving because you can't keep them engaged with enough stimulating training.  In the meantime you have an asset that is in constant demand that would still be working every day if you had three times as many of them.  

And on the costs side, as you note yourself with the simulator, a lot of the costs of standing up the initial capability are now sunk costs and will support additional numbers, even if it means the support base is a bit skinnier.


----------



## bradley247

The plans for a sim have been under development for a long, long time. It being on the government's procurement "wish list" doesn't mean we will be getting it anytime soon. Infrastructure projects like that are the first things to be put on hold when the cuts start, absolute best case scenario it's 5-10 years away right now, not to mention the technical issues (someone had another "great" idea regarding building the sim...won't go into details here).



			
				dapaterson said:
			
		

> The Chinook positions are being taken from within the RCAF and from the Army; so where are the additional positions going to come from for more CC177 crews?



The RCAF already trains more pilots each year than we can employ, plus the many ex-C-17 guys flying desks right now who no doubt would love to come back. The only real LIMFAC would be how many training slots the USAF would sell us (part of the reason we need a sim now). 



			
				dapaterson said:
			
		

> The grownups in DND and outside the department ask the exact same questions, and refuse to permit acquisitions when the answer is "we'll figure it out later".



Funny, because that's how DND runs it's day to day operations. Plus it's not exactly a difficult problem to solve; you need some pilots, loadmasters and techs over the span of a few years, you just need to commit some resources to it and plan early.

Honestly, based on how we use the resources right now, the most efficient plan would be to paint half the J-models yellow and get a couple more C-17s.


----------



## dapaterson

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Flaming Nora.  The "Grown Ups".
> 
> The ones that haven't bought an FWSAR craft, that haven't bought a CCV, that haven't bought a  3 tonne truck, or a 10 tonne truck, or a wrecker, that haven't bought an AOPS or a BHS and are on the verge of reversing the TAPV acquisition.



While the military enjoys playing the "woe is me" game, there is more than adequate blame to go to the military and not to PWGSC, Treasury Board, or anyone else. Inevitably, trying to game the system results in delays.  Then the APS rolls around, new people come in with new ideas on how to game the system, further delays are realized... and the grownups (inside and outside DND) have even less trust in the products rolled out.



> DAP - I get that there are costs involved but time, effort, PYs and money are and have been wasted generating absolutely zero capability.  You have troops in the combat arms leaving because you can't keep them engaged with enough stimulating training.  In the meantime you have an asset that is in constant demand that would still be working every day if you had three times as many of them.



Again, it requires a continued commitment of resources to do so.  Don't say "we can stop things", say precisely what you will stop.  Notice that with the purchase of tail #5 there was no mention of an increase in YFR for the fleet; that's why the lifecycle costs are so low.  Much of the extra flyign being done this year is in support of operations, and therefore that YFR, and related increase in maintenance costs, is funded separately.  There is no more money in the baseline to bring on more CC177s and fly them.



> And on the costs side, as you note yourself with the simulator, a lot of the costs of standing up the initial capability are now sunk costs and will support additional numbers, even if it means the support base is a bit skinnier.


Variable costs include the number of flight crews, training for that number of crews on a replacement basis, O&M to support those additional personnel, fuel, maintenance and overhaul for the fleets... again, what are you going to stop doing to fund this.  And don't engage in the perpetual armchair quarterback of "we'll find it somewhere" - I want you to say precisely what you will stop doing to fund this.  Of course, to do so you need to do a detailed assessment of what you want to do - how many flight hours you're planning etc.  That is, come up with a real plan.  Which, again, is what the grownups insist upon - not a whining five year old's plea of "But it's shiny and I want it!"


----------



## dapaterson

bradley247 said:
			
		

> The plans for a sim have been under development for a long, long time. It being on the government's procurement "wish list" doesn't mean we will be getting it anytime soon. Infrastructure projects like that are the first things to be put on hold when the cuts start, absolute best case scenario it's 5-10 years away right now, not to mention the technical issues (someone had another "great" idea regarding building the sim...won't go into details here).



There is pretty good traction for the sim right now (together with Cormorant and Polaris sims as well - it was in the news this week)



> The RCAF already trains more pilots each year than we can employ, plus the many ex-C-17 guys flying desks right now who no doubt would love to come back. The only real LIMFAC would be how many training slots the USAF would sell us (part of the reason we need a sim now).



Oddly enough, the RCAF claims to be short pilots. Plus, it's not a question of "Bob wants to fly again", it's rather a question of "We need more positions in the Sqns."  And with a hard cap on the size of the Reg F, if we expand the flying sqns, we need to take positions from somewhere else.



> Funny, because that's how DND runs it's day to day operations. Plus it's not exactly a difficult problem to solve; you need some pilots, loadmasters and techs over the span of a few years, you just need to commit some resources to it and plan early.



Buying aircraft when we currently lack sufficient NP to support current fleets and are unwilling to divest to get to that level means we are eroding current and future readiness.  Unless we can commit more money to NP, we're just going to wind up with more hanger queens, or ships at sea with key systems down, or Army vehicles grounded waiting parts.  We're already in a hole, so we should probably stop digging.



> Honestly, based on how we use the resources right now, the most efficient plan would be to paint half the J-models yellow and get a couple more C-17s.



That might be a viable COA, as it would let us retire the H-models and reinvest those positions and funding.  That assumes, of course, that the remaining tails aren't already spoken for.  (I've also heard LockMart may try to sell us more J-models for SAR - not quite the same solution, but close).


----------



## bradley247

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Oddly enough, the RCAF claims to be short pilots. Plus, it's not a question of "Bob wants to fly again", it's rather a question of "We need more positions in the Sqns."  And with a hard cap on the size of the Reg F, if we expand the flying sqns, we need to take positions from somewhere else.



We are short of experienced pilots, we are absolutely swimming with new ones. We are hiring a huge number of pilots each year and the training system is finally working properly, but the squadrons can't absorb them as fast as they are trained. Waiting 12+ months for an OTU is common these days. Plus the pilot trade is still technically undermanned, so finding around 20-30 more people/positions isn't going to break the RCAF.


----------



## SupersonicMax

DAP: take the ressources from 2 Wing?


----------



## Kirkhill

DAP - please don't take my exasperation with "the system" as anything personal.  Far from it.



			
				dapaterson said:
			
		

> While the military enjoys playing the "woe is me" game, there is more than adequate blame to go to the military and not to PWGSC, Treasury Board, or anyone else. Inevitably, trying to game the system results in delays.  Then the APS rolls around, new people come in with new ideas on how to game the system, further delays are realized... and the grownups (inside and outside DND) have even less trust in the products rolled out.



When I heard you reference "the grown ups" I "heard" everybody involved in the decision making chain.  I too believe/understand that there is much blame to be spread around and everybody deserves a fair share.  

Actually, I think, you have put your finger on the nub of the problem: "new people come in with new ideas".  That applies to all levels of the decision making chain.  And it starts with the politicians and the lack of a proper, serious, all-party defence committee in parliament that is willing to promulgate, or at least sign off, on a defence plan that reflects a "national consensus".  The Aussies and the Brits manage it and while there is some partisan sniping round the edges there seems to be a general agreement on the centre of mass.

That results in the uniformed personnel having more confidence in long term planning and more confidence that they will likely be employed in manners in keeping with their capabilities.  It also means a more utilitarian force for the government which results in more real world employment time for the personnel, engaged in ops, and less time conducting thought experiments for scenarios that will never happen.  That in turn impacts decisions on what equipment is necessary vice what equipment is desired.



			
				dapaterson said:
			
		

> Again, it requires a continued commitment of resources to do so.  Don't say "we can stop things", say precisely what you will stop.  Notice that with the purchase of tail #5 there was no mention of an increase in YFR for the fleet; that's why the lifecycle costs are so low.  Much of the extra flyign being done this year is in support of operations, and therefore that YFR, and related increase in maintenance costs, is funded separately.  There is no more money in the baseline to bring on more CC177s and fly them.



Point taken on the need for resources.  Agreed entirely.

I would buy tails 6, 7 and 8 and rent them out. Just like any other airline.  First priority customer - DND.  Second priority customer - DFAIT.  Third priority customer - NATO Corporate.  4th priority customer - NATO nations.  Etc.

The tails would sit on the runway unless funded.  They would each get some of the available YFRs alloted for O&M and Training to keep them checked out and warm.  In the meantime the fleet life expectancy is increased.

As for pilots - add in "retired" Reserve pilots to the mix with an allotment of annual hours to those that bradley247 is suggesting.



			
				dapaterson said:
			
		

> Variable costs include the number of flight crews, training for that number of crews on a replacement basis, O&M to support those additional personnel, fuel, maintenance and overhaul for the fleets... again, what are you going to stop doing to fund this.  And don't engage in the perpetual armchair quarterback of "we'll find it somewhere" - I want you to say precisely what you will stop doing to fund this.  Of course, to do so you need to do a detailed assessment of what you want to do - how many flight hours you're planning etc.  That is, come up with a real plan.  Which, again, is what the grownups insist upon - not a whining five year old's plea of "But it's shiny and I want it!"



With respect to the specific issues of this fleet I hope to have addressed them above.

I do want to take issue with the constant rejoinder I sense when anything other than "the plan" is proposed of "where are you going to find the money and what are you going to give up".  To be honest I am starting to resent it as I find it an excuse to dodge free and open debate about capabilities and requirements and how business might be done.  To my mind it puts the cart firmly before the horse and is declarative of the mire in which the CAF finds itself.  Internal politics and budget drive the structure and capabilities of an organization that has little clue as to what its purpose is.  And that is more true of the RCN than the RCAF, more true of the CA than the RCN and even more true of the Militia (Army Reserves) than the Army.  To be clear, the RCAF and the RCN operate every day.  Most of the Army, apparently, doesn't.

I also want to note that, prior to 2007 and the engagement in Afghanistan, this site was a lot more open and engaged than it has been since then.  There was much more free exchange of ideas then than there has been recently.  In the Afghanistan the cry was "Opsec and Persec" to shut off debate.  And I understood that.  I thought it was often overblown given what was freely available from other forces and the open press but I accepted it.  

But that was then and now that you are not engaged I would expect the flow of ideas to be freer.

Having said that, with respect to the general case of the budget, I'm afraid that my personal preferences are more likely to develop into a flamewar than being productive but I will dip my toe.

I am a utilitarian and a pragmatist.  With that I would spend my money where it benefits me most immediately and directly.  As a government looking out at its inventory of tools I would be asking which tools to I use every day and which have the least utility.  Based on those criteria I suggest these would be my priority funding requirements.

Domestic ISR - Satellites, Listening Stations, Floating OPs
Domestic Response - To Find, Fix, Determine COA and Assist, Arrest or Destroy.
International Presence - To build stature, to keep an eye on events, to be able to influence events, to be preserve a stable international environment, to protect Canadians and Canadian interests.

In all of those activities I find great utility for civilian agencies like MDA and the Canadian Space Agency.  I find utility for CCSE and for any HUMINT agencies.  There is utility in anything that floats and anything that flies.  Anything that floats couples enduring presence with the flexible ability to relocate where and as needed, both domestically and internationally.  Likewise anything that flies has utility in that it too is flexible and while it may not be able to stay airborne very long it can remain in reach, on the ground, indefinitely and react very quickly.  I also find utility in small bodies of disciplined people willing to go in harms way, people like JTF2 and CSOR.

And then there is the Army, and the Militia......casting around for a purpose.

To be quite honest I find Twin Otters and Globemasters, and even CF188s and 35s more utilitarian than tanks and artillery.  Likewise for the navy's ships and submarines.  Tanks and artillery were awfully quiet from 1952 to 2006.  

Perhaps that is why many nations prefer to hold their heavy gear in "Reserve".

If I were to usurp Thucydides claim to Emperor Pro Tem I would redefine the Canadian Army (Regular Force) as an air transportable force of marine light infantry equipped with such support gear as could be lifted by medium (5 tonne) helicopters.

The Medium/Heavy Force I would lump together with the Reserves and the CADTC.  The primary role of the CADTC would be to train the Reserves as a uniformed disciplined force, equipped with small arms, cell phones, pick up trucks and transportation gear like Bv206s, RHIBs and Mexeflottes/Pontoons that could be called out on short notice for domestic response when their local community was at risk and daily life was interrupted.  They would also train to work with the light forces of the Regular Force in those types of situations.

The third role of the Reserves would be to man the machines of the heavy force in conjunction with the strong cadre of Regular Force personnel available to supply small detachments of Heavy Equipment to support the deployed Light Forces.  The Reserves would supply the mass of personnel available for long term commitments.  And for mass mobilization.

I trust that sets my priorities and answers your question as to where I, personally, would find the funds for the capabilities. I also would suggest it is one heck of a diversion from the discussion point of this thread, the prospect of acquiring additional C17s.

Cheers, and yours aye, Chris.


----------



## ringo

Boeing has 5 unsold C-17, will Oz take 2 more, 2 for RNZAF ?, IMHO Canada should buy all 5 but I would be happy with just 1 more aircraft.


----------



## CougarKing

ringo said:
			
		

> Boeing has 5 unsold C-17, will Oz take 2 more, 2 for RNZAF ?, IMHO Canada should buy all 5 but I would be happy with just 1 more aircraft.



More to back up what was said above and earlier:

Defense News



> *Boeing: Five C-17As Still for Sale*
> 
> MELBOURNE, Australia — Boeing said it still had five C-17A Globemaster transports for sale *following confirmation that the Royal Australian Air Force would take another two.*
> 
> Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott announced April 10 the purchase of the two strategic airlifters at RAAF Base Amberley, southwest of Brisbane. The two aircraft will bring the total number of C-17s in Australian ownership to eight.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## Loachman

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> The Aussies and the Brits manage it and while there is some partisan sniping round the edges there seems to be a general agreement on the centre of mass.
> 
> That results in the uniformed personnel having more confidence in long term planning and more confidence that they will likely be employed in manners in keeping with their capabilities.



Green Grass Syndrome. I seriously doubt that either of them - or most others - would see their governments as any better than ours, or have any more confidence in them. The British Armed Forces are certainly suffering from ever-reducing capabilities with no fewer expectations placed upon them.



			
				Kirkhill said:
			
		

> As for pilots - add in "retired" Reserve pilots to the mix with an allotment of annual hours to those that bradley247 is suggesting.



From where do these Reserve Pilots come, and where do they live and work? Trenton is a long commute from where most Reserve-eligible Pilots live. That was a major factor in the decline in the number of Reserve Pilots at 400 Squadron when we moved from Downsview to Borden, and it affected the techs and other support pers as well. 438 Squadron went through the other two transformations that occurred simultaneously (loss of Kiowa and infliction of Griffon and a restructure from a Wing with an HQ, two flying and one support Squadrons) but did not move from St-Hubert. The distance between Toronto and Borden is a lot less than the distance between Toronto and Trenton, or Montreal and Trenton. I presume that you have simply forgotten to factor Reservists into the tech and other support function requirements, but the same principles apply: Reserve units without sufficient suitable populations are doomed to failure.



			
				Kirkhill said:
			
		

> I do want to take issue with the constant rejoinder I sense when anything other than "the plan" is proposed of "where are you going to find the money and what are you going to give up".  To be honest I am starting to resent it as I find it an excuse to dodge free and open debate about capabilities and requirements and how business might be done.



Resent away. It is annoying to all, but, unfortunately, it is reality.

A large number of the PYs that were reassigned to 450 Squadron came out of other parts of 1 Wing, and another large number came from the Army and elsewhere. Until a government decides to expand the CF, and is willing to put the required resources into that expansion, we are stuck with the numbers and budgets that we have.



			
				Kirkhill said:
			
		

> To be clear, the RCAF and the RCN operate every day.  Most of the Army, apparently, doesn't.



More of that Green Grass.

I view the R**F as the most dysfunctional of the lot. Others' perspectives may differ widely.

In truth, I suspect that if such dysfunctionality was an olympic event, the three levels of the podium would all be the same.



			
				Kirkhill said:
			
		

> I also want to note that, prior to 2007 and the engagement in Afghanistan, this site was a lot more open and engaged than it has been since then.



Morale was generally higher then, and people more enthusiastic. Real things were happening, new kit was appearing, money was available, and there was purpose. Then DODII happened, just like DODI after the Cold War evaporated. We're back to no-after-market kit regardless of empty shelves at Base Supply and toque police again.



			
				Kirkhill said:
			
		

> With that I would spend my money where it benefits me most immediately and directly.  As a government looking out at its inventory of tools I would be asking which tools to I use every day and which have the least utility.  Based on those criteria I suggest these would be my priority funding requirements.



If I did that, I'd have no fire extinguishers or smoke and carbon monoxide detectors in my house, and I could save a bundle on insurance premia.

The CF does not exist to provide a stable function from day-to-day. It exists to deter and/or handle major violent outbursts, with a secondary role of dealing with unintentional disasters. Failure to man, equip, and train for those is about as complete a failure as one can imagine.



			
				Kirkhill said:
			
		

> To be quite honest I find Twin Otters and Globemasters, and even CF188s and 35s more utilitarian than tanks and artillery.  Likewise for the navy's ships and submarines.  Tanks and artillery were awfully quiet from 1952 to 2006.



You never went to Germany, then.

That was the focus of our military efforts for over four decades.

See "deter and/or handle major violent outbursts" again.

And we had three Squadrons of CF18s there during the last few years of that, and twelve Squadrons of Sabres/CF100s/CF104s before that.



			
				Kirkhill said:
			
		

> I would redefine the Canadian Army (Regular Force) as an air transportable force of marine light infantry equipped with such support gear as could be lifted by medium (5 tonne) helicopters.



Of what utility is "marine light infantry", air transportable or not (any light infantry would be air transportable)? Massive beach assaults are rather passe these days. What would distinguish "marine light infantry" from any other variety of light infantry"?



			
				Kirkhill said:
			
		

> The Medium/Heavy Force I would lump together with the Reserves and the CADTC.  The primary role of the CADTC would be to train the Reserves as a uniformed disciplined force



CA Doctrine and Training Centre. Why? That is more the role for Combat Training Centre. And to what degree would whatever organization carry this out?



			
				Kirkhill said:
			
		

> equipped with small arms, cell phones, pick up trucks and transportation gear like Bv206s, RHIBs and Mexeflottes/Pontoons that could be called out on short notice for domestic response when their local community was at risk and daily life was interrupted.  They would also train to work with the light forces of the Regular Force in those types of situations.



Cellphones are hardly a suitable means of mass tactical communication. One-to-one, yes, maybe, but trying to run a large and dispersed group dealing with an adverse situation? And what if the cellphone infrastructure has been inundated or damaged by whatever triggered the response?

This is the role of the Provinces and Territories anyway. Combat-equipped and combat-trained forces, Regular and Reserve, can always augment Provincial capabilities, but will rightfully remain a last resort. Organizations structured, equipped, and trained for domestic relief can do nothing else. Military forces exist for worst-case situations.



			
				Kirkhill said:
			
		

> The third role of the Reserves would be to man the machines of the heavy force in conjunction with the strong cadre of Regular Force personnel available to supply small detachments of Heavy Equipment to support the deployed Light Forces.  The Reserves would supply the mass of personnel available for long term commitments.  And for mass mobilization.



The ability to do that requires much more of an investment from government and Reservists than either are willing or able to commit. You could do this with a small number of people - this works reasonably well for the Air Militia - but "mass", "long term", "commitment", and technically-complex equipment or roles are incompatible with the concept of part-time service, and it costs more than one might think.


----------



## Kirkhill

Loachman said:
			
		

> Green Grass Syndrome. I seriously doubt that either of them - or most others - would see their governments as any better than ours, or have any more confidence in them. The British Armed Forces are certainly suffering from ever-reducing capabilities with no fewer expectations placed upon them.



Fair point - and my comments are coloured by more than a little frustration - but having followed ABCA defence policies (as an amateur) for more than 35 years my sense is that others have made better, and more consistent, decisions more frequently than our Canadian politicians and defence establishment have managed.



			
				Loachman said:
			
		

> From where do these Reserve Pilots come, and where do they live and work? Trenton is a long commute from where most Reserve-eligible Pilots live. That was a major factor in the decline in the number of Reserve Pilots at 400 Squadron when we moved from Downsview to Borden, and it affected the techs and other support pers as well. 438 Squadron went through the other two transformations that occurred simultaneously (loss of Kiowa and infliction of Griffon and a restructure from a Wing with an HQ, two flying and one support Squadrons) but did not move from St-Hubert. The distance between Toronto and Borden is a lot less than the distance between Toronto and Trenton, or Montreal and Trenton. I presume that you have simply forgotten to factor Reservists into the tech and other support function requirements, but the same principles apply: Reserve units without sufficient suitable populations are doomed to failure.



I understand the point but I guess I was thinking along the lines by which civilian airlines manage their flying staff - maybe it is a poor model but I didn't realize that their crews were tied to living in particular locations.  Also, I was under the impression that civilian aircraft maintenance was not a local affair but was a mixture of airline depots and third-party (including OEM) providers.  I thought that some aspects of that system were already in place in the RCAF.



			
				Loachman said:
			
		

> Resent away. It is annoying to all, but, unfortunately, it is reality.



I thank you for your permission to be resentful.  ;D  I know it is not a core concern but it is important to me.   >

And I am sure that the budget process is annoying to those that live with it.



			
				Loachman said:
			
		

> A large number of the PYs that were reassigned to 450 Squadron came out of other parts of 1 Wing, and another large number came from the Army and elsewhere. Until a government decides to expand the CF, and is willing to put the required resources into that expansion, we are stuck with the numbers and budgets that we have.



That I fully understand. But is it really a problem if 1 Wing has two pools of helicopters and only one pool of pilots? Yes the pilots can only fly one aircraft at a time but can't it be Griffons today and Chinooks tomorrow (or a years time)?



			
				Loachman said:
			
		

> More of that Green Grass.
> 
> I view the R**F as the most dysfunctional of the lot. Others' perspectives may differ widely.
> 
> In truth, I suspect that if such dysfunctionality was an olympic event, the three levels of the podium would all be the same.



You're there. I'm not.  But from where I sit I see aircraft in the skies and ships at sea every day of the week and contributing to standing forces and extraordinary operations like the Horn of Africa anti-piracy patrols, Libya, Kosovo, the Gulf and Iraq, not to mention Sovpats, STANAVFORLANT etc.

Meanwhile the army, and I agree it is probably due to politicians weighing political risk, seems to be the last to be considered for deployment.  The same cannot be said of JTF2 or CSOR.



			
				Loachman said:
			
		

> Morale was generally higher then, and people more enthusiastic. Real things were happening, new kit was appearing, money was available, and there was purpose. Then DODII happened, just like DODI after the Cold War evaporated. We're back to no-after-market kit regardless of empty shelves at Base Supply and toque police again.



No argument.



			
				Loachman said:
			
		

> If I did that, I'd have no fire extinguishers or smoke and carbon monoxide detectors in my house, and I could save a bundle on insurance premia.



Actually I find utility in all those things as well.   Which is why I support having a functioning CAF with a balanced force.



			
				Loachman said:
			
		

> The CF does not exist to provide a stable function from day-to-day. It exists to deter and/or handle major violent outbursts, with a secondary role of dealing with unintentional disasters. Failure to man, equip, and train for those is about as complete a failure as one can imagine.



I thought the CF existed to provide BOTH day-to-day operations and scale-able crisis response.  I agree that there needs to a large Force Majeure capability to manage the unthinkable.  But equally there needs to be mid range response capabilities.  And I would suggest that it is in those mid range responses that the opportunities are presented to hone the skills of the CAF so that they can manage the unthinkable more easily. 



			
				Loachman said:
			
		

> You never went to Germany, then.



Nope - at least not on duty.



			
				Loachman said:
			
		

> That was the focus of our military efforts for over four decades.



I believe I've heard that.  



			
				Loachman said:
			
		

> See "deter and/or handle major violent outbursts" again.



See response above.  



			
				Loachman said:
			
		

> And we had three Squadrons of CF18s there during the last few years of that, and twelve Squadrons of Sabres/CF100s/CF104s before that.






			
				Loachman said:
			
		

> Of what utility is "marine light infantry", air transportable or not (any light infantry would be air transportable)? Massive beach assaults are rather passe these days. What would distinguish "marine light infantry" from any other variety of light infantry"?



What I was getting at is that I would like, in the spirit of Jointery, to see the Army provide standing forces at sea, on board the Navy's ships, that could be rapidly reinforced by additional bodies and equipment transported by fixed and rotary wing assets.  To my way of thinking we have soldiers with weapons (their suite of weapons should be upgraded) that can be carried aboard the forthcoming CSCs and AOPSs if berthing is supplied.  We have the aircraft that can support the capability.  We have a Forward Support Base structure that is being built. The remaining piece of the puzzle is ensuring that the CSC and the AOPS can carry soldiers and take large helicopters on board - not hangar them necessarily but at least land them.  The AOPS has already taken this into account.  Hopefully the CSC will as well.

The forward deployed soldiers at sea would contribute to deterrence, in conjunction with allies, in exactly the same way that 4 CMBG did.  Only it would be more agile, more easily reinforced and less vulnerable in that they would not be locked in place and could retire more easily.



			
				Loachman said:
			
		

> CA Doctrine and Training Centre. Why? That is more the role for Combat Training Centre. And to what degree would whatever organization carry this out?



What I am saying there is that the bodies in the CADTC, CTC and CMTC would be well served actually being held responsible for the quality of the personnel they are training and the best way to ensure that is to put those bodies in command of the troops they have trained.  

In related news I would hold them responsible for ensuring that the reserve troops that are supposed to fill in the blanks on long deployments are their responsibility as well.  If you are going to have a 10-90 or 30-70 army then the COs of those units should be given the authority and the budgets to fulfill their tasks and the responsibility to ensure that the product is useful.  

It should not be an option that the CO of a deployed unit can blame CADTC or the recruiting system or the reserves for his failure to complete his assigned tasks.



			
				Loachman said:
			
		

> Cellphones are hardly a suitable means of mass tactical communication. One-to-one, yes, maybe, but trying to run a large and dispersed group dealing with an adverse situation? And what if the cellphone infrastructure has been inundated or damaged by whatever triggered the response?



I was under the impression that group calls, speed dialling and Push-To-Talk services were all broadly available and made cell phones considerably more flexible.  As to the infrastructure - which is easier?: To repair damaged infrastructure or to build infrastructure from new for every emergency?  Cell phones by definition are nodal systems with redundancy.  Damaged nodes, usually located on high ground with long line of site sight, are generally immune from flooding and have local generators - which could be flown-in in any event.  If the Sigs were provided with the ability to tap into that existing system with additional nodes then the system could be extended to follow operations or blind spots could be infilled.  As to the inundation of the system - surely that is a system management issue that could be handled by deactivating all but emergency service accounts?



			
				Loachman said:
			
		

> This is the role of the Provinces and Territories anyway. Combat-equipped and combat-trained forces, Regular and Reserve, can always augment Provincial capabilities, but will rightfully remain a last resort. Organizations structured, equipped, and trained for domestic relief can do nothing else. Military forces exist for worst-case situations.



Agreed entirely - which is why a partially trained reservist in uniform with a cell phone and a pair of night vision binoculars has more utility than just filling a seat in a tank in a hangar. If he has the time available to train to be a tanker, or is a mechanic that wants to be a soldier then great.  But not everybody in uniform needs to be trained to that standard before he or she can be usefully employed.





			
				Loachman said:
			
		

> The ability to do that requires much more of an investment from government and Reservists than either are willing or able to commit. You could do this with a small number of people - this works reasonably well for the Air Militia - but "mass", "long term", "commitment", and technically-complex equipment or roles are incompatible with the concept of part-time service, and it costs more than one might think.



You want the guy in the tank to be fully trained and that should be the responsibility of the "system" to ensure that.  Just like the Swedes, amongst many others do with their Leopard crews.  The equipment that is purchased is purchased to match the capabilities of the available personnel. Not the reverse.


----------



## Edward Campbell

It seems to me that the most potent argument for adding a 6th C-17 is _political_: there's not much the government can point to as an immediate boost to the CF; there are lots of plans and there's a wee, tiny bit more money in the future, but nothing to which an election campaign can point to as "right now." If the last buy is any indication it takes about 15 weeks from decision to buy until delivery; the government could spend $200 million in cash any time between now and say, mid summer (and budget a billion in life cycle costs over the next few decades) and have Jason Kenney standing in front of a shiny new C-17 in, say, September ... saying "see, folks, this government is getting new stuff for our men and women in the CF."


----------



## Duckman54

Feb 2014, group of us at 3CFFTS were told - straight from the mouth of Lt. Gen Blondin - that with the funds available, it was going to have to be a choice btwn a 5th C-17, or a 'convertible' full-motion simulator base in Trenton with slide-out cockpits for both C-17 and Polaris.  Looks like that the 5th transport option won shortly thereafter, and we got it on the ground as mentioned in just a few short weeks after that!  

Yes, I absolutely agree that a white-tail could be had at a good price, especially without needing it then ridiculously custom 'Canadianized', but *if* just over a year ago there was a genuine spending priority toss-up and the airplane won that day, then I would assume we'd now be leaning towards the big Sim as the next item on the ol' wish list before buying yet more airframes.

Yes, would free up a 130J or two, but that's not a good FWSAR platform anyways... total overkill = eating up precious resources. See great CASR articles on the matter.


----------



## Spencer100

Qatar to get four.

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/release/164551/qatar-confirms-purchase-of-four-c_17s.html

I think it is just one or two left.


----------



## ringo

Canada should snap up the last aircraft asap.


----------



## PuckChaser

No money in an election year.


----------



## ringo

Has anyone bought the last production C17 yet, IMHO Canada should grab this aircraft if still available.


----------



## OTR1

The four earmarked for sale to Qatar are on the cusp of being released back on the market.

The Qatari govt doesn't seem interested in parting with actual money, and all concerned in US have had enough.


----------



## Bearpaw

It would be logistically wise to acquire 2 - 3 more of the C-17's.  Once they are all sold the only hope to extend our fleet would be trying to buy them from the USAF.  I have read that certain quarters of the USAF consider that they have too many of them---bought by Congressional considerations rather than military requirements.

Bearpaw


----------



## captloadie

And where would we get the crews to fly the aircraft? And the space to put them? And the funding to keep them going?


----------



## ringo

Cancel FWSAR use money for more C17's cascade C130j's into SAR role.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

captloadie said:
			
		

> And where would we get the crews to fly the aircraft? And the space to put them? And the funding to keep them going?



Store them in the US, rotate airframes to spread the hours.


----------



## ringo

On a side note UK's review will reduce Herc numbers from 24 to 14, are they likely to retire 10 short fuselage models?, if so they might be a good pick up for FWSAR.


----------



## CougarKing

The end of the line:

Press Telegram



> *Last vestige of Boeing workforce signs off on final C-17 made in Long Beach*
> 
> By Karen Robes Meeks, Long Beach Press Telegram
> 
> Posted: 11/28/15, 3:13 PM PST | Updated: 10 hrs ago
> 
> (...SNIPPED)
> 
> In September 2013, Boeing officials announced that the company did not have enough foreign orders to justify keeping the plant open. The announcement came a week after Boeing delivered its 223rd — and final — C-17 to the U.S. Air Force.
> 
> The closure affects 2,200 workers in Long Beach, many of whom have retired or transferred to other jobs within Boeing.
> 
> At the time of the closure announcement, *13 C-17s had no committed orders. Today, all but one of the C-17s have been sold to foreign customers. Four of the five aircraft that have yet to be delivered are intended for Qatar, said Nan Bouchard, vice president and C-17 program manager.*
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## ringo

If the last C-17 is still unsold Canada should snap it up ASAP, a fleet of 6 a/c of this size would serve Canada well.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

It would fit in nicely with the announced increased spending for military stuff this year.  Oh...wait...


----------



## PuckChaser

Would make significantly more sense then purchasing a split fleet for fighter capability gap that doesn't exist. We work those C-17s hard.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I almost got excited, then realized it didn't mean more airframes, dang!

http://www.upi.com/Defense-News/2017/04/21/C-17-support-package-for-Canada-approved-by-US-State-Department/4871492777386/?


----------



## suffolkowner

Colin, I think I read somewhere that the last C-17 flew off to India?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> Colin, I think I read somewhere that the last C-17 flew off to India?



I believe your correct, really they should have built 5-8 more and I suspect they would have all sold.


----------



## Cloud Cover

There are about 7 C-17 in the Boneyard. They must be damaged beyond repair, although no damage is clearly visible.

https://www.aerialsphere.com/spheres/arizona/tucson/boneyard/1/


----------



## Kirkhill

Cloud Cover said:
			
		

> There are about 7 C-17 in the Boneyard. They must be damaged beyond repair, although no damage is clearly visible.
> 
> https://www.aerialsphere.com/spheres/arizona/tucson/boneyard/1/



That'd be up to the accountants. If there is a will there is a way. As long as those registration numbers are intact then any aircraft can be put back into service.

http://www.warbirdsnews.com/warbirds-news/mosquito-buzzing.html


----------



## The Bread Guy

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> ... If there is a will and easily available cash there is a way ...


 :nod:


----------



## Kirkhill

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> :nod:



Anything is possible, if cash.


----------



## Spencer100

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/205380/india-gets-boeing’s-last-c_17-heavy_lift-aircraft.html

India just received the last one from Boeing

_- mod edit to fix link -_


----------



## Dale Denton

Why end the production line if there's a demand for more internationally? Is the line that expensive to run that it needs massive orders to stay profitable enough?

Is the smaller airlift competition that strong that the future of the aircraft isn't clear? Not like Boeing has another version on the way.

I dont understand the closing of a line of aircraft that are so strategically vital for so many wealthy countries.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Boeing now has an interest in the Embraer KC-390 which looks set to compete against C-130J, A400M:



> Embraer to deliver first KC-390 to Brazilian Air Force on September 4
> _Brazil will receive 28 units of the multipurpose freighter jet by 2024 that will replace the C-130 Hercules turboprop _
> ...
> The Air Force is expected to receive its 28 transport aircraft by 2024. By then, the aircraft is expected to have new customers as a result of the partnership between Embraer and Boeing, which aims to boost its sales.
> 
> [Lovely plane]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.airway1.com/embraer-to-deliver-first-kc-390-to-brazilian-air-force-on-september-4/



Earlier:



> Boeing relationship key to KC-390 costs, marketing
> 
> Embraer’s defence joint venture with Boeing will use the American company’s leverage over suppliers to cut parts and components costs on the KC-390 tactical transport.
> 
> The Brazilian company said at an investor conference on 16 January that it will also lean on Boeing’s international sales and marketing network, as well as the USA’s geopolitical influence, to expand the transport’s sales.
> 
> “The markets where the US has a huge geopolitical influence, we compete with Lockheed Martin in those markets,” said Nelson Salgado, chief financial officer of Embraer. “Now with the partnership with Boeing, we are opening up all of those markets, the US and the markets where the US has significant geopolitical influence. With Boeing leverage on the supply chain we will have big possibilities of reducing costs on the [KC-390] and make it a product [that is] more competitive as well.”
> 
> The KC-390 is powered by two International Aero Engines V2500 turbofans and can carry 80 passengers or 64 paratroopers. The aircraft is designed to perform missions such as cargo and troop transport, troop and cargo air delivery, aerial refueling, search and rescue and _forest fire fighting_ [rather Amazon-relevant, what?]...
> https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/boeing-relationship-key-to-kc-390-costs-marketing-455077/



Plus now:



> Portugal and Embraer celebrate deal for five KC-390
> https://www.wingsmagazine.com/portugal-contract-for-five-kc-390/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MrWhyt

LoboCanada said:
			
		

> *Why end the production line if there's a demand for more internationally?* Is the line that expensive to run that it needs massive orders to stay profitable enough?
> 
> Is the smaller airlift competition that strong that the future of the aircraft isn't clear? Not like Boeing has another version on the way.
> 
> I dont understand the closing of a line of aircraft that are so strategically vital for so many wealthy countries.



cause demand isn't the same as contracts, countries can spend years saying they want something before they actually sign a contract for the items.. Boeing made all they had on order plus a handful extra. It's too expensive to keep a line sitting around not producing anything.


----------



## tomahawk6

The US needs more C17's to push their squadron levels to 386. No talks with Boeing yet on a new production line. The C5's are bit old too so maybe by Antonov ? Its a Ukrainian company. 

https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/airlift-tanker-annual/2018/10/26/could-the-air-force-restart-the-c-17-production-line/


----------



## Spencer100

Boeing and Embraer signed their deal last week. 

https://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/release/207523/boeing-embraer%E2%80%93defense-jv-to-market-renamed-c_390-transport.html

So I would bet on a stretch C390 built in the US before a reopened C17


----------



## Dale Denton

Is there really anything available in the market other than the C390? Who else in the West is designing a C-17 follow on now that the line is shut down?


----------



## Spencer100

They are very thin,  the Lockheed C-130, the BE C-390, the Airbus A400, and the Kawasaki C-2 are in production.

There are others like the AN-70, the Xian Y-20, and IL-76 but those are not really available.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The C-17 offers substantially more cargo space, with 3" more height, 7' wore width and 20' more length than the C-390.


----------



## Spencer100

But the C-17 is out of production.  And will most likely never to be restarted.  The plant is gone the tooling is gone the employees are gone. It will be interested with what the USAF does in the future.  I can not see them buying the A400 in any large amount.  The 747 has only 18 orders left and the supply chain is starting shutdown. 

I would bet they are looking at a new design blended wing type but can they afford it? 

My guess is that they will just fly the wings off the C-5 C-17 and keep rebuilding them.

But that still leaves the original question of what does the RCAF do?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Freaking criminal to shut down that plant.


----------



## Blackadder1916

Spencer100 said:
			
		

> But that still leaves the original question of what does the RCAF do?



The same as they have always done, make do with what they have.


----------



## tomahawk6

Last C17 orders being completed. For quite awhile the USAF has sought to end the program but it is an aircraft in demand unless a new aircraft is designed. Ukraine builds big transports maybe we could do a deal to replace the C5.  

https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/last-of-the-globemasters-the-usafs-final-orders-05283/


----------



## Zoomie

C-390 project seems off the rails.   Prospective orders in play since 2010 and only 4 prototypes made to date.  Not a good option until throughput increased, -390 was in initial bid for FWSAR but never made it to bid.


----------



## quadrapiper

Spencer100 said:
			
		

> ...the tooling is gone...


Have heard that about a few aircraft production lines; F-22 comes to mind. Is whatever actual kit is in question not amenable to mothballing, or is there some other practical factor at work? Or is it just manufacturers not wanting to hang onto equipment that isn't making them money?


----------



## daftandbarmy

quadrapiper said:
			
		

> Have heard that about a few aircraft production lines; F-22 comes to mind. Is whatever actual kit is in question not amenable to mothballing, or is there some other practical factor at work? Or is it just manufacturers not wanting to hang onto equipment that isn't making them money?



I believe that it’s all about supply and demand.

Since the major effort in Central Asia ended a few years ago (demand), there’s no need for more big logistics airframes (supply).


----------



## quadrapiper

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> I believe that it’s all about supply and demand.
> 
> Since the major effort in Central Asia ended a few years ago (demand), there’s no need for more big logistics airframes (supply).


Makes sense as far as the production line closing down; was wondering if there was a technical reason for not stowing unique elements of the production line (molds? frames? jigs?) against future need.


----------



## PPCLI Guy

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> I believe that it’s all about supply and demand.
> 
> Since the major effort in Central Asia ended a few years ago (demand), there’s no need for more big logistics airframes (supply).



We are in many way s busier now than then...because we are spread out all over the world.  We need more now than then.


----------



## CBH99

To add to that, any operation we undertake will be strategic in nature, just due to our geography.  I agree with PPCLIGuy, the strategic fleet is more in demand now than it was during Afghanistan, as we are now providing aircraft all over the world instead of focusing our efforts on one region/hub.


----------



## MilEME09

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> We are in many way s busier now than then...because we are spread out all over the world.  We need more now than then.



Given that we cant get more C-17's should we invest in more Hercs?


----------



## dapaterson

Replace the Polaris fleet first.


----------



## kev994

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Given that we cant get more C-17's should we invest in more Hercs?


Rumour is we have more J-model hercs than crews to fly them.


----------



## Kirkhill

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Replace (and expand) the Polaris fleet first (with a larger multipurpose civil aircraft).



FTFY

The C17 and the Herc are necessary for "the end of days scenarios" where runways aren't available. They should be husbanded for those occasions.

For the routine business of flying from Trenton, Winnipeg or Edmonton to Cologne or Dubai, where the skies are open enough that military flights are competing with civil flights for landing spots, then cheaper civil aircraft seem like a better bet.  

Kind of like hiring a civilian ship to supply the Navy.


----------

