# A possible C-130H Replacement?



## MechEng

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/07/04/215332/japan-to-make-commercial-cargo-aircraft.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C-X

I know the C-130E is being replaced by the C-130J.  But in the next decade we will probably be looking at replacing the C-130H.  I know one of contenders could be the A400.  But this aircraft (similar in size to the A400) could be possible.  Japan is replacing it's C-1 and C-130's with this plane.  And would 4m x 4m x 16m be enough to carry outsized cargo?

There are a few more good pictures here:
http://www.airliners.net/discussions/general_aviation/read.main/3489842/


----------



## geo

Mech eng... plenty of discussion already on the forum on the "J" and the A400.
Till they get one flying, the A400 is more or less... vaporware.... lots of talk and no substance.

If and when they get it to fly, the A400 is supposed to be roomy enough to carry the LAV125 / Coyote / Bison


----------



## Spencer100

Down the road there is many projects on the table that could replace C-130's.  The C-X is one and Embraer is looking at one. Plus there is the A400.  But and the big but is that they are "vaporware".

But your question about the C-X, I THINK the C-X will be very expense as it is a "make work" and "help build a national champion" program for the Japanese goverment.  I have read it is years late and over budget.   But if the Japanese and their taxpayers would like to subsdise Canadian purchases I think we should take a look.  >

I think the P-X program is also something to look for the CP140 replacement.  But that is a whole other tread.


----------



## MechEng

geo said:
			
		

> Mech eng... plenty of discussion already on the forum on the "J" and the A400.
> Till they get one flying, the A400 is more or less... vaporware.... lots of talk and no substance.
> 
> If and when they get it to fly, the A400 is supposed to be roomy enough to carry the LAV125 / Coyote / Bison



I'm aware that the A400 is not flying yet (will be next year).  The C-X is supposed to be flying this summer.  But I'm not talking about the C-130E Replacement.  My understanding is we have already ordered the C-130J to replace those.  I'm talking about the possible future replacement for the C-130H models that we got in the early 1990's.  They will probably be flying with us for another 10 years but what will replace those?  The A400 and the C-X will not be vaporare then and the C-130J will be a relatively old airplane.  The average product life cycle in the aerospace industry is 25+ years.  And designing and building an airplane for the military takes quite some time.  Long term planning would have it's advantages.  Both the A400 and the C-X are going from the development to testing phases of their programs.  And if we showed interest we might have a small say in the features of the airplane. 

The C-X is similar in size to the A400

A400
Cargo Box Dimensions  	 
  Length (excluding ramp) 	17.71 m
  Ramp Length 	5.40 m
  Width 	4.00 m
  Height 	3.85 m
  Height (aft of wing) 	4.00 m

C-X

Capacity: Length 16 m,Width 4 m,Height 4 m


----------



## aesop081

MechEng said:
			
		

> I'm aware that the A400 is not flying yet (will be next year).




 :rofl:  Yeah, and the A380 was supposed to be in airline service by now too........

Further to that, why replace 2 versions of the C-130 with 2 different aircraft ?  Why not replace both the CC-130E and CC-130H with the J model ?

Why seek to add 2 small fleets to the CF vice a single one ?

And IMHO, the CC-130H will not last the 10 years you give it......the CC-130E should have been retired years ago....the H wont last that long


----------



## RetiredRoyal

They forgot the props....CF6 high bypass turbofans....hmmm. Sounds like a vacuum cleaner...it'll suck the desert clean of all it's sand.


----------



## MechEng

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> :rofl:  Yeah, and the A380 was supposed to be in airline service by now too........
> 
> Further to that, why replace 2 versions of the C-130 with 2 different aircraft ?  Why not replace both the CC-130E and CC-130H with the J model ?
> 
> Why seek to add 2 small fleets to the CF vice a single one ?
> 
> And IMHO, the CC-130H will not last the 10 years you give it......the CC-130E should have been retired years ago....the H wont last that long



Yes Airbus made some mistakes with the A380 but it's selling very well now and will be in service in 4 months.  Airbus is a very competent aerospace company that has tremendous experience  building aircraft far more complicated than an air transport.  Haven't you seen the pictures?  The first A400 is almost done.

Now if your right and the CC-130H doesn't last 10 years than it would make sense to include the CC-130J in the procurment process.  But if they do last 10 years (and knowing the governtment probably 20 years) then the CC-130J will probably not be in production by then.  In fact I'm willing to bet that the ones we get to replace the E model will be some of the last to come off of the production line.  So we might not have the choice to buy the CC-130J by the time we need to replace the H model.


----------



## MechEng

RetiredRoyal said:
			
		

> They forgot the props....CF6 high bypass turbofans....hmmm. Sounds like a vacuum cleaner...it'll suck the desert clean of all it's sand.



So what do they use on the C-17.  Oh right 4 high bypass turbofans.  So there will be no desert left because the C-17's would have sucked it all up by now. :


----------



## RetiredRoyal

The following is a quote from "C17A: Operation Enduring Freedom Employment/Deployment: Lessons Observed". Lt Col, M. R. Shanahan, USAF 9 Dec 02. p. 29

"Airfield Conditions

Due to severe FOD potential to the engines, crews were always guarded, especially in the AOR. Several key issues at these locations caused great concern. Among these were chunks of runway from damaged and deteriorating sections, helicopters blowing debris during landing and takeoff, and animals on the runway."

My experience is that high bypass turbofans can take a fair bit of FOD, and do protect the engine core, to a degree, because the N1 or fan will absorb some FOD damage (in forward fan configuration). However, the major portion of thrust is created by the fan, therefore a large amount of erosion or blade damage is going to cause a huge decrease in thrust. The engine core will still produce power, but the fan becomes aerodynamically inefficient.

I've had the pleasure of viewing a number of A250 engines out of light heli's coming in from Iraq for overhaul. The amount of blade erosion attributed to sand is amazing. 

For that reason, my uninformed opinion is that turboprops would be preferable for unprepared fields etc. That's all I was thinking when looking at the Kawasaki as a replacement for the herc. The C17 isn't replacing the herc, I think it's taking on a completely new role in the CF.

The mentioned paper is a good read as it explores the role of the C17 as a replacement to the C141, traditionally acting as the 'hub and spoke' transport, complimentary to the C130's role as rapid transportation in a more 'austere' environment and it's first use in deployment to FOB's.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

MechEng said:
			
		

> Yes Airbus made some mistakes with the A380 but it's selling very well now and will be in service in 4 months.  Airbus is a very competent aerospace company that has tremendous experience  building aircraft far more complicated than an air transport.  Haven't you seen the pictures?  The first A400 is almost done.
> 
> Now if your right and the CC-130H doesn't last 10 years than it would make sense to include the CC-130J in the procurment process.  But if they do last 10 years (and knowing the governtment probably 20 years) then the CC-130J will probably not be in production by then.  In fact I'm willing to bet that the ones we get to replace the E model will be some of the last to come off of the production line.  So we might not have the choice to buy the CC-130J by the time we need to replace the H model.



If they get the A400 flying (I hear they been having issues with the engines and the wiring looms) I have no problem with the aircraft being evaluated, I prefer an aircraft already in service and hopefully the French Air Force will have some so real life performance can be checked.


----------



## Globesmasher

MechEng said:
			
		

> I know the C-130E is being replaced by the C-130J.  But in the next decade we will probably be looking at replacing the C-130H.



That's a very good question, but a moot one at that.
The CC130E AND the CC130H are both being replaced by the ACP-T project - or otherwise known as the C-130J acquisition.
17 tails in total are included in this project to replace the 32 ..... now down to about 28 ..... Es and Hs.
This is all one and the same project.

The "phase out" process of the Es will be different to the Hs ... that is all.  And this is based solely on the fact that the Hs have more life span left than the Es (obviously).  The Es will go first (some have already gone) and the Hs will logically be the last ones to go.

As the Js come on line they will commence the role of Tactical Air Transport.
Once the fleet is approaching FOC the remaining few H model CC130s will be moved solely to SAR.
This will provide some relief to the Buffalo since it was supposed to have been retired many "times" ago.
I know it is not as good as the Buffalo at the SAR role - I am not here to debate that issue or get into that melee .... that is simply the plan.

Then ... the remaining CC130Hs that remain in the SAR role will then be replaced by the FWSAR project surrently being reviewed by the respective PMO team.

There will be no new project as the CC130 H replacement.
It is already a done deal.
The one single project to cover the replacement of the entire "CC130" fleet [Es, Hs, H-30s and HT-90s] was ACP-T.
ACP-T = C130J.

Still Airbus vs Boeing vs Kawasaki vs whomever should be a good debate.
Props vs turbofan engines.
But - a bit of a red herring here.

Talk amongst yourselves.


----------



## MechEng

Globesmasher said:
			
		

> That's a very good question, but a moot one at that.
> The CC130E AND the CC130H are both being replaced by the ACP-T project - or otherwise known as the C-130J acquisition.
> 17 tails in total are included in this project to replace the 32 ..... now down to about 28 ..... Es and Hs.
> This is all one and the same project.
> 
> The "phase out" process of the Es will be different to the Hs ... that is all.  And this is based solely on the fact that the Hs have more life span left than the Es (obviously).  The Es will go first (some have already gone) and the Hs will logically be the last ones to go.
> 
> As the Js come on line they will commence the role of Tactical Air Transport.
> Once the fleet is approaching FOC the remaining few H model CC130s will be moved solely to SAR.
> This will provide some relief to the Buffalo since it was supposed to have been retired many "times" ago.
> I know it is not as good as the Buffalo at the SAR role - I am not here to debate that issue or get into that melee .... that is simply the plan.
> 
> Then ... the remaining CC130Hs that remain in the SAR role will then be replaced by the FWSAR project surrently being reviewed by the respective PMO team.
> 
> There will be no new project as the CC130 H replacement.
> It is already a done deal.
> The one single project to cover the replacement of the entire "CC130" fleet [Es, Hs, H-30s and HT-90s] was ACP-T.
> ACP-T = C130J.
> 
> Still Airbus vs Boeing vs Kawasaki vs whomever should be a good debate.
> Props vs turbofan engines.
> But - a bit of a red herring here.
> 
> Talk amongst yourselves.



Well then I have to ask the next question.  Given the high usage of our 28 current CC-130's will 17 CC-130J's and 4 C-17's be enough for the forces?


----------



## Edward Campbell

MechEng said:
			
		

> Well then I have to ask the next question.  Given the high usage of our 28 current CC-130's will 17 CC-130J's and 4 C-17's be enough for the forces?



Isn't the proper question: "Given the high usage of our 28 current CC-130's and _n_ Buffalos, will 17 CC-130J's, _n_ FWSAR aircraft  and 4 C-17's be enough for the forces?"

Edit: Is it (was it) not the intention that the FWSAR aircraft would, in fact, be untility transports - able to augment the tactical transport fleet, too?


----------



## newfin

Yeah.  I'd love to hear the answer to E.R.C.'s question.  In total will they all be enough?  And with how much room to spare?  What will become of the KC-130's?  Does the AF intend to keep that capability?  Can't do a lot of AAR with just 2 CC-150 MRTT airframes.


----------



## Edward Campbell

I think it's important to remember that with many, many systems one-for-one replacement is rarely necessary.  The new 'version' has a combination of greater relaiability-maintainability-*availability* and greater capability (range, payload, rate of fire, speed, etc) which allow a lesser number of new system to do the job.  Thus the _right_ mix of C130, FWSAR and C-17 ought to be able to replace a greater number, maybe a much greater number of old _Hercules_ and _Buffalos_,


----------



## C1Dirty

Props VS Jets...

C17 Landing on a 5000' (4000' field elevation) dirt strip in Afghanistan:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfI4gSz4RJk

Of course, not as smooth or as pretty as a Herc, but obviously capable despite the turbo-fans.


----------



## Allen

Until recently, we had 32 Hercs and 6 Buffalos.

The plan is to replace them with 17 C-130 J's, 4 C-17s and from what I've heard, at least 15 FWSAR if not more.

So it's not a huge loss in the number of airframes.


----------



## Globesmasher

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Isn't the proper question: "Given the high usage of our 28 current CC-130's and _n_ Buffalos, will 17 CC-130J's, _n_ FWSAR aircraft  and 4 C-17's be enough for the forces?"
> 
> Edit: Is it (was it) not the intention that the FWSAR aircraft would, in fact, be untility transports - able to augment the tactical transport fleet, too?



E.R.

Absolutely - you pretty much hit the nail on the head there.
The FWSAR project was (is) also intended to encompass "northern" and "domestic" air transport [in addition to it primary SAR role] thus relieving some of that demand from the strategic and tactical air transport fleets.  These new fleets and capabilities will not be mutually exclusive - there will be overlapping common ground and synergies to be exploited between fleets and airframes.





			
				MechEng said:
			
		

> Well then I have to ask the next question.  Given the high usage of our 28 current CC-130's will 17 CC-130J's and 4 C-17's be enough for the forces?



MechEng:

I really don't know.
You'd have to ask the ladies and gentlemen who wear maple leaves on their shoulders that question.
I'm just a coal face worker who doesn't write doctrine or define capabilities so my opinion means nothing.

I only hope that the new fleet acquisitions will be enough.


----------



## Globesmasher

C1Dirty said:
			
		

> Of course, not as smooth or as pretty as a Herc,....



C1Dirty
Cool video - very nice.
But from the flight deck point of view, like that video, they're both about the same.
Neither are smooth nor pretty ......  ;D
It's all a bumpy, rough, noisy ride.


----------



## Fraz

Update... 

Controversial Hercules purchase approved

By CP


OTTAWA -- The Defence Department's long-awaited and controversial purchase of the newest version of the Hercules transport plane has been approved by the federal Treasury Board, defence sources say. 

A replacement for the air force's aging C-130E and C-130H fleets was first proposed in the summer of 2006 by former defence minister Gordon O'Connor. 

Sources said the $4.6-billion purchase of 17 C-130Js received funding approval last Thursday, but a contract has yet to be signed with U.S. aircraft giant Lockheed Martin. 

The in-service support portion of the deal will be the subject of further discussions, said one source familiar with the agreement. 

Officials at National Defence declined comment, and it's unclear whether the federal cabinet needs to review the package again. 

But in a year-end interview with The CP last week, Chief of Defence Staff Gen. Rick Hillier said he understood the cargo plane was in the final stages of approval. 

Three of the older Hercules have already been retired after exceeding their flying life and "we'd like to put the other ones to bed as quickly as possible," Hillier said. 

"With the old C-130s, we're spending more to keep them flying but their operational availability is going down." 

He compared the existing fleet to a 1981 Ford Taurus that is constantly in the shop for repairs. 

"You spend a thousand bucks to keep it running, take it back out and something else breaks and you put it back in," he said. 

 hopefully with the ACAN and treasury board approval, the contract is signed off quickly with Lockheed Martin now, and planes delivered in a short time span (by 2010?)


----------



## dimsum

Fraz said:
			
		

> Sources said the $4.6-billion purchase of *17 C-130Js* received funding approval last Thursday, but a contract has yet to be signed with U.S. aircraft giant Lockheed Martin.



We're only getting 17 Js to replace the 30-odd Es and Hs still kicking around the squadrons?  I guess a Nav posting to a Herc isn't really out of the question after all...


----------



## Kirkhill

*One of these is not like the other.*

Xinhua November 23, 2005 - "Canadian Defense Minister Bill Graham announced Tuesday that Ottawa will purchase 16 military transport planes to replace some of its Lockheed C-130 Hercules"

Canadian Press December 20, 2007 "A replacement for the air force's aging C-130E and C-130H fleets was first proposed in the summer of 2006 by former defence minister Gordon O'Connor. "

Which to believe?  The official news agency of the Communist Party of China?  OR.  Canadian Press?  

It is a puzzlement.






> Home >> World
> UPDATED: 16:50, November 23, 2005
> Canadian military to purchase 16 transport aircraft
> 
> 
> 
> Canadian Defense Minister Bill Graham announced Tuesday that Ottawa will purchase 16 military transport planes to replace some of its Lockheed C-130 Hercules aircraft.
> 
> "The government is moving forward with the process to purchase new tactical lift aircraft to replace significant parts of our aging Hercules aircraft fleet," Graham said.
> 
> The total value of the purchase would be about 4.6 billion Canadian dollars (3.7 billion US dollars), said the minister.
> 
> The military has not decided on the type of the aircraft, but it would like to finish the purchase as soon as possible, he said. Aircraft companies will be invited to bid for the deal during the two-step procurement process, he added.
> 
> The four-engine Hercules, in production since 1954, is widely used as military transports. It can carry 17 tons of cargo or 90 soldiers with light equipment.
> 
> Canada got its first C-130 series in 1960. Of the 32 C-130 Hercules planes currently in service, most are C-130Es produced in the 1960s. Nine C-130Hs were added to the fleet in 1996.
> 
> Source: Xinhua


----------



## newfin

There certainly is nothing controversial about replacing 40+ year old aircraft - except that the media "needs" to spin it that way so the editors will approve their stories.  I thought 17 was not enough either but some of the "H's" are being retained and they do have 4 C-17's to carry some of the burden.


----------



## prom

Isn't some of the reason also to do with other airframes for FWSAR? though it is late my mind maybe slipping


----------



## Zoomie

prom said:
			
		

> Isn't some of the reason also to do with other airframes for FWSAR?



That would be correct.

We also do not conduct TAL (tactical airlift) quite to the same extreme as we did in the Cold War Era.


----------



## prom

Thanks Zoomie!


----------



## Haletown

"
Yes Airbus made some mistakes with the A380 but it's selling very well now and will be in service in 4 months."

The A380 sales have been stalled/non-existent for the last three years.  They sold a few in 2007, but they very likely had to discount heavily in price negotiations.

AB will likely lose $Billions on the project because they can never sell enough of the planes fast enough to cover the Development + Carrying Costs of the program.  It has been estimated that they needed to have sold 500+ tails as of now to hit the break even point.  They are about half that number now and sales are not brisk.

The A380 is in service now with Singapore Airlines

Nice plane actually, I visited the plant in Toulouse recently and saw it up close.  Problem is great planes don't always mean great marketing analysis.  It will be a niche plane, kind of like the Concorde.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Kirkhill: Trust Xinhua of course:
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=1371996&C=airwar



> Canada will purchase 16 new tactical transport aircraft, but Defence Minister Bill Graham is already fending off accusations that the multibillion-dollar program is rigged in favor of Lockheed Martin’s C-130J.
> 
> Graham announced on Nov. 22 that the government hopes to quickly acquire the aircraft for 4 billion to 5 billion Canadian dollars ($3.3 billion to $4.2 billion), a price tag that includes 20 years of industry-provided maintenance and support.
> 
> *“The procurement process for this will be competitive, fair and transparent,” Graham said in a televised news conference from Ottawa* [emphasis added].
> 
> The expected candidates for the program are the C-130J, EADS’ A400M and Boeing’s C-17.
> 
> But military analysts, aerospace industry officials and opposition politicians argue that the requirements set out by the Canadian government eliminate the latter two.
> 
> They say the Boeing entrant will by ruled out by the announced price target, while the Airbus plane won’t be able to meet the requirement to have its airworthiness certification when the purchase contract is signed in about a year. The A400M won’t be flying until at least 2007, aerospace industry officials said.
> 
> “It’s going to be a pretty short competition because the C-130J will be the only aircraft able to compete,” said one official.
> 
> Graham acknowledged the certification requirement is different than from some previous Canadian military aircraft procurements, but he denied the government has pre-selected the C-130J...
> 
> Conservative Party defense critic Gordon O’Connor and Bloc Quebecois defense critic Claude Bachand accused the Liberal government of designing the program to eliminate the A400M and C-17 from competition.
> 
> *“[Graham] has fixed the requirements so there is only one possible outcome,” O’Connor said. “Why is this sole-source contract for the Lockheed C-130J aircraft being spun as a competition when it is not?”* [emphasis added--some chutzpah in light of later events]
> 
> Graham said the opposition parties are standing in the way of re-equipping the Canadian Forces...



Oh, the joy of our politics; the names may change but the carping stays the same.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## geo

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Kirkhill: Trust Xinhua of course:
> http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=1371996&C=airwar
> 
> Oh, the joy of our politics; the names may change but the carping stays the same.
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



Mark

The process was compteitive.  In the end, you can say that the order was split between the two aricraft manufacturers with aircraft on the Tarmac.  Splitting our needs between strategic & tactical airlift requirements prolly addressed problems with our aging fleet of hercs.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Geo: My point was just that this CP statement is inaccurate:



> Canadian Press December 20, 2007 "A replacement for the air force's aging C-130E and C-130H fleets was first proposed in the summer of 2006 by former defence minister Gordon O'Connor. "



The Liberals were planning a replacement in Nov. 2005, as Xinhua reported.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## CougarKing

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> The Liberals were planning a replacement in Nov. 2005, as Xinhua reported.



Wow...CBC or whatever other news source you used before must be that bad if you've resorted to using Xinhua.   :rofl:


----------



## geo

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Geo: My point was just that this CP statement is inaccurate:
> 
> The Liberals were planning a replacement in Nov. 2005, as Xinhua reported.
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa


Yeah Mark
Actualy I thoiught a lot of Mr Graham as MND.  He and Gen Hillier made a great team.  Most of the programs that Mr O'Connor & McKay have announced were initiated several years ago.... in the days of a Liberal gov't.


----------



## thunderchild

why not kill two birds with one stone, replace the remainding 'H' hercs and Buffalo's with the c-27J? not entirely a one for one exchange but it's better than nothing.  Don't forget 5 of those 'H' models are tankers that will have to be replaced as well.


----------



## aesop081

thunderchild said:
			
		

> why not kill two birds with one stone, replace the remainding 'H' hercs .........with the c-27J?



You cant do the job of a C-130H with a C-27.....for starters !


----------



## thunderchild

Not implying that it can the Herc is hard to beat, what I'm thinking is what is the c-130 doing that is better done by other airframes.


----------



## Michael OLeary

thunderchild said:
			
		

> Not implying that it can the Herc is hard to beat, what I'm thinking is what is the c-130 doing that is better done by other airframes.



thunderchild,

it's time for you to stop and read for a while.  There's a lot more to selection of equipment that just picking something cool off a website, a television show or out of a book.  Suck back, reload, and read the posts you've been getting about considering the entire system that comes with an aircraft.

If you don't you're going to run out of room to manoeuvre here really fast and may soon find yourself on an enforced listening watch.

Consider this formal advice to slow down.

Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## Zoomie

This whole topic is rather dated.  The E and H model Hercules aircraft are being replaced by J models - the ink is dry on that contract.  Let's move on.

FWSAR is another subject and has its own topic.


----------



## geo

who knows..... if Viking air starts to produce Ye olde Buffalo, we can once again speculate on new ones to replace the old ones in the SAR role.  Not much else able to do the job - De Haviland set the bar pretty high when they came up with the design


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I think we should start arguing about adopting the K model, that way we can be ready when the J models wear out!


----------



## aesop081

Colin P said:
			
		

> I think we should start arguing about adopting the K model, that way we can be ready when the J models wear out!



The K model already exists and has been in service with the RAF for many years.

http://www.raf.mod.uk/raflyneham/aboutus/hercc130k.cfm


----------



## MarkOttawa

From what I have read over quite a while it seems that the Air Force has a pretty clear preference for the C-27J for the FWSAR role; I suspect part of the reason is that the plane is also a pretty capable transport and could well supplement the new Herc fleet for transport missions within Canada.  After all, the Jercs we are buying will replace just over half the Herc E/H fleet we had several years ago (with the remaining Es devoted now mainly to SAR).  I assume that as the Jercs arrive the Hs will take over the SAR role from the Es until the FWSAR aircraft arrives

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## thunderchild

May be we have an opportunity here to design and build our own C130J replacement. We just have to keep it on cost and make sure that we should be selling it abroad.  If the A-400M becomes too expensive and the C-130K goes the same route which is likely we may have excellent sales potential to foreign governments or civilian operators.  We would have a 25 year timeframe to build an affordable aircraft that does what we need it to. If Brazil can build the C-360 (I know it has been heavily subsidised) why can't we do it better and More affordable?


----------



## aesop081

thunderchild said:
			
		

> and the C-130K goes the same



The C-130K itself is close to retirement. In case you dont know this, its operated by the RAF and has been so for a long time.


----------



## TCBF

thunderchild said:
			
		

> May be we have an opportunity here to design and build our own C130J replacement. We just have to keep it on cost and make sure that we should be selling it abroad.  If the A-400M becomes too expensive and the C-130K goes the same route which is likely we may have excellent sales potential to foreign governments or civilian operators.  We would have a 25 year timeframe to build an affordable aircraft that does what we need it to. If Brazil can build the C-360 (I know it has been heavily subsidised) why can't we do it better and More affordable?



- The last time we tried that on a large scale, we bit off more than we could chew and the customer - the RCAF - could not manage it's budget with it's other priorities and recommended it's cancellation.  25,000 Canadians then lost their jobs.


----------



## Spencer100

TCBF said:
			
		

> - The last time we tried that on a large scale, we bit off more than we could chew and the customer - the RCAF - could not manage it's budget with it's other priorities and recommended it's cancellation.  25,000 Canadians then lost their jobs.



Don't bring that up!  At least CBC got to make a movie!


----------



## thunderchild

I'm not suggesting building an aircraft that will meet air 7-3, We have designed turbo prop aircraft in Canada as well as DC-9/MD-80 size 'C' series jet aircraft. Why not build our own transport while we have the time to do it right. A transport aircraft will have more sales potential abroad than a Mach 2 interceptor would have. Designing it to meet various civil as well as military needs would give us a wider customer base to cover development costs.  The only thing is we have to ensure that out of control programs don't happen. For example building a weapon system, an airframe , new engine, flight controll, radar ,develop new metals and the list goes on. It is great to be inventive, but not at the cost of the programs future.  The Arrow got lost in the technology to build it not in providing an affordable aircraft.


----------



## TCBF

thunderchild said:
			
		

> ... The Arrow got lost in the technology to build it not in providing an affordable aircraft.



- Yup. A TIMELY affordable aircraft. And in all fairness, we were not the only ones to get tripped up in that - see the F-108, for example.  Trouble is, a country our size could only go for one project, and when that goes south...

- Was there not some people asking why Bombardier could not build military transports instread of us buying the C-17? Did Bombardier not say they weren't interested, just send them the money?


----------



## eurowing

Thunderchild, look up the AVRO Jetliner and it's history alongside the Arrow.  

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


----------



## geo

WRT the building of a Canadian cargo.... we did - the Caribou / Buffalo - built by De Haviland.... and it is exactly that aircraft that we are discussing in another thread.


----------



## thunderchild

I know that we did it in the past my grandfather helped to design them and ran Beaver production in the late 40's.What I'm saying is let's do it again. With out the pressure of pushing out something that could be great but gets botched up we have time to do the job right.


----------



## observor 69

We need a FWSAR bird NOW!

The government of the day had run out of funds to continue to invest in the Arrow.


----------



## geo

Ummm.... and how much time are you providing to get the design, testing and prototype construction / approval ???

Problem with what you propose is that it will take much much more time to do it .... than the time span that is available.
Our hercs are worn down to the cord as we speak.  Gun tape, bubblegum, wire and glue isn't going to keep em flying long enough to make lifecycle extensions possible....  Outside of using something that is already on the shelf, we've done too little and waited too long for a homegrown solution.


----------



## thunderchild

Fixed wing SAR Is diffrent from what I'm proposing. That is needed ASAP.  What I'm saying is that we bought 4 C-17 and 17 C-130J's, my understanding is that these aircraft are to replace the 'E' models that are falling appart and there is needing to replace the 'H's' soon as well.  From  various post I've learned that the expected life of an airframe is 25 years.  There is time to design and build their replacement,  we can off set the development costs by selling civilian version of a military aircraft, airfreight is one of the fastest growing sectors in the civil aviation market according to aviation week.  The 'J's' start arriving in 2010 I understand and the 'H's' should be replaced by 2015 there about.  So by time frameThe first aircraft should be coming off the line in 2014 That gives us 5 years for R&D, tool up and production to begin If you want to do it fast which would increase cost. If you want to focus on a replacement on the C-17 & C-130J we have brand new airframes, that gives us way more time, which meansmore opportunity to sellabroad.


----------



## aesop081

That doesnt solve the C-130H replacement problem now does it ?


----------



## geo

Thunderchild....
So you're espousing that Canada, through military contracts, encourages Canadian industry to go into R&D development of military cargo aircraft that will meet our need the NEXT replacement cycle of our current (new) cargo fleet.... saaaay 20 to 30 yrs from now ???


----------



## aesop081

On second thought ( or maybe its fourth or fifth...i'm not sure) Thunderchild, you are right about everything. I'm sorry i debated with you from my position of total ignorance.


----------



## observor 69

;D


----------



## Haletown

Maybe this is a way to "invest" our way out of a recession.

We could design and build a "Super Herc" . .   bigger, faster, better, blah, blah, blah.

We could call it the C400M

Snark off


----------



## Nfld Sapper

Or the Spruce Goose....................................


Oh wait that's taken.........................








 ;D


----------



## Haletown

or another way to think about is

How do you invest in  a $5 billion new aircraft development  project ?

Start with a $2 billion new aircraft  development  project.


----------



## geo

.... who knows - "it" could be ready before the A400M is in full production >


----------



## TCBF

Baden  Guy said:
			
		

> We need a FWSAR bird NOW!
> 
> The government of the day had run out of funds to continue to invest in the Arrow.



- The defence budget was falling year-by-year in the late fifties, and the government had known since the early fifties that it would need to fund 1 Air Div in Europe, new radar lines, a long-range interceptor in Canada, an area defence SAM, probably with a nuclear warhead, etc.  No way the RCAF budget could handle that.  Had they budgeted the Arrow out of another government envelope to establish the industry further - that may have worked - though perhaps not politically.

- General Guy Simmonds was an early proponent of canning the Arrow, believing that Canada should develop it's own Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM: "Star Wars") system to counter the ICBM/SLBMs they thought the Soviets would have in 1960 to 1965, that could also stop the cruise missiles that they believed the Soviets would fit on their legacy bomber fleet.  

- Which brings us back to: the only way Canada - and most other countries - can retain (never mind build) a domestic aerospace industry is through government subsidy.  The PRODUCT of that subsidy makes the subsidy more or less palitable if it is a product most Canadians can identify with at the time, not fifty years after it is cancelled.  Would Canadians believe in a massive project building military cargo aircraft that could be built better and cheaper in other countries?  Not unless Bombardier had no other orders on it's books.


----------



## Zoomie

Where are you guys coming up with this H-model replacement plan?  We don't differentiate between them.  They are all in a hurt locker and being replaced.

The E's and the H's are being replaced by 17 J's and 15 FWSAR planes.  We pretty much are not flying many if any E models right now.  The best H models are over playing in the desert right now - with the remainder for AAR, FWSAR, FG and TAL.

Once the J's come online - the TAL crews will no longer fly the E/H legacy models.  FWSAR would continue to utilize these airframes at 413,424 and 435 until the replacement bird comes online or they stop flying altogether.  Once a FWSAR replacement is in place, the E/H models are done.  We are not going to retain crews to fly three differing airframes.


----------



## thunderchild

We have a company that you are all familiar with call Skylink Aviation who's major business is using Russian aircraft to move around oversized cargo.  What I'm saying is by using a civilian launch customer we could offset the cost of the program, there is a large enough demand for the services so there is a demand for large cargo aircraft. EG UPS,Fed EX both cancelled their orders for A-380F aircraft due to cost.  Besides do you really want to keep hoping that governments are going to keep letting us jump the Que for key equipment. 

Not every new aviation program is going to end up as the Avro Arrow did, that aircraft was built in the last century let the damb thing go it didn't have a chance to prove what it might have been able to do.


----------



## Nfld Sapper

:

op:


----------



## aesop081

thunderchild said:
			
		

> We have a company that you are all familiar with call Skylink Aviation who's major business is using Russian aircraft to move around oversized cargo.  What I'm saying is by using a civilian launch customer we could offset the cost of the program, there is a large enough demand for the services so there is a demand for large cargo aircraft. EG UPS,Fed EX both cancelled their orders for A-380F aircraft due to cost.  Besides do you really want to keep hoping that governments are going to keep letting us jump the Que for key equipment.
> 
> Not every new aviation program is going to end up as the Avro Arrow did, that aircraft was built in the last century let the damb thing go it didn't have a chance to prove what it might have been able to do.



As i said before, you are correct on all counts. Well done.


----------



## newfin

Zoomie said:
			
		

> Where are you guys coming up with this H-model replacement plan?  We don't differentiate between them.  They are all in a hurt locker and being replaced.
> 
> The E's and the H's are being replaced by 17 J's and 15 FWSAR planes.  We pretty much are not flying many if any E models right now.  The best H models are over playing in the desert right now - with the remainder for AAR, FWSAR, FG and TAL.
> 
> Once the J's come online - the TAL crews will no longer fly the E/H legacy models.  FWSAR would continue to utilize these airframes at 413,424 and 435 until the replacement bird comes online or they stop flying altogether.  Once a FWSAR replacement is in place, the E/H models are done.  We are not going to retain crews to fly three differing airframes.



I think Zoomie has said very clearly everything that needs to be said about the future of C-130E/H's and Buffalos.  There are plans in place to replace them and once that is done the military/government can turn its attention to some other procurement issue.  We don't need to build a "Made in Canada" aircraft to solve this problem.  We just need to issue purchase orders.

By the way Zoomie, I take it from what you said that the C-130 AAR aircraft will also be retired?


----------



## Zoomie

newfin said:
			
		

> By the way Zoomie, I take it from what you said that the C-130 AAR aircraft will also be retired?



I can't speak with any authority on that issue - as that is a higher headquarter decision.  I do know that our AAR Hercs are currently operated and crewed out of 435 Sqn in Winnipeg.  Upon the inception of any new FWSAR - that squadron will be out of the Hercules business.  436 will be flying J-Hercs. Who gets the role of TAL AAR?  Do we dump the role completely with the introduction of the MRTT Polaris'?  

Slightly out of my lane, so I will keep my speculation to a minimum.


----------



## Globesmasher

newfin said:
			
		

> By the way Zoomie, I take it from what you said that the C-130 AAR aircraft will also be retired?



The new C-130J Hercules will NOT be plumbed to be a tanker (or passer of gas).


----------



## Globesmasher

thunderchild said:
			
		

> What I'm saying is by using a civilian launch customer we could offset the cost of the program, there is a large enough demand for the services so there is a demand for large cargo aircraft.



It was analyzed during both the ACP-S and the ACP-T programs.
It turns out that it does NOT off an offset to the cost of the program.

Trust me, it was looked at and studied.  At first glance it does appear cheaper ... but after detailed study and analysis, it isn't.
The devil is always in the details.


----------



## Nfld Sapper

Globesmasher said:
			
		

> The new C-130J Hercules will NOT be plumbed to be a tanker (or passer of gas).



No pun intended there GM  ;D


----------



## Edward Campbell

This, re: the C130 maintenance contract, is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/deal-to-maintain-military-cargo-planes-finally-in-sight/article1420326/


> Deal to maintain military cargo planes finally in sight
> *Ottawa nears multibillion-dollar agreement with Lockheed Martin but critics wonder if government could have done better*
> 
> Murray Brewster
> 
> Ottawa — The Canadian Press
> 
> Published on Wednesday, Jan. 06, 2010
> 
> After months of haggling, Ottawa is close to a multibillion-dollar agreement to maintain a fleet of military cargo planes – but the pending contract with Lockheed Martin has left a sour taste for many in the defence industry and government.
> The deal is expected to be announced in early February, say defence and industry sources who spoke to The Canadian Press on Tuesday.
> 
> A team of federal officials is currently at Lockheed Martin's plant in Marietta, Ga., ironing out last-minute details.
> 
> “We're in great shape,” said one defence insider. “You'll see an announcement very, very shortly. We're there.”
> 
> Seventeen state-of-the-art C-130J Hercules transports are being acquired under a sole-source arrangement with Lockheed Martin, a deal announced nearly two years ago with fanfare by Defence Minister Peter MacKay.
> 
> But unlike other big-ticket deals, the $1.4-billion purchase came without a signed long-term maintenance contract.
> 
> The Defence Department set aside an additional $1.7-billion for 20 years of in-service support, but that plan quickly went off the rails when the aircraft-maker delivered a cost-estimate that was reportedly 50 per cent higher than the budget.
> 
> A federal official played down the surprise, saying it was only a projection and original proposals “are always higher than what you initially estimate.” To get a compromise “takes hard work and tough negotiation,” the official added, on condition of anonymity.
> 
> Sources insist both the purchase and the service program will be delivered for less than the Conservative government's nearly $3.2-billion program budget.
> 
> But to do that, the federal government may have had to drastically reduce the length of the service deal. Sources said what was intended to be a 20-year support agreement has now shrunk to seven years, with renewal options down the road to cover the life of the aircraft.
> 
> Public Works Canada, which is in charge of contract negotiation, declined to comment Tuesday on the specifics of the arrangement.
> 
> Lockheed Martin will be directly in charge of the overall support deal during the first phase, with subcontracts to Canadian companies for specific work and parts, sources said.
> 
> Defence observers are wondering what kind of deal the government has struck, given that the first seven years of an aircraft's life are the least maintenance-intensive.
> 
> “It's like a car,” said Liberal Senator Colin Kenny, who chaired the Senate security and defence committee before Parliament was prorogued. “The cost of maintenance rises over time. The government seems to have a deal that covers the cheapest time frame.” He said the big cost of maintaining the planes is being pushed off on future governments.
> 
> The new Hercules are replacing existing transports that in some cases are over 30 years old. The first pair of new turbo-prop four-engine planes – dubbed the workhorses of the air force – are due to be delivered later this year.
> 
> There are also questions about how much benefit Canadian companies will receive from the aircraft giant.
> 
> At first, the federal government demanded the U.S. corporation deliver direct, industrial participation, with Canadian companies either building parts or contributing to the maintenance.
> 
> But last year the government quietly dropped its direct benefit demand and replaced it with something called a “near-direct benefit” up to 75 per cent of the contract value.
> 
> Political sources say Lockheed Martin executives often played hardball with federal officials during negotiations – something that apparently irked cabinet members, particularly Industry Minister Tony Clement.
> 
> The aircraft-maker is hoping to sell its highly advanced F-35 Lightning stealth fighter to Canada's air force, starting in 2015, replacing the fleet of CF-18s. The bruising negotiations have apparently not endeared the corporation to the federal cabinet, which held a heated debate about the transport plane in early December, said one source.
> 
> Instead of spending money on the C-130J in Canada, Lockheed Martin will be required to buy equivalent defence contracts and services elsewhere in the country.
> 
> Keeping big-ticket military purchases within budget has been a challenge for the Conservatives, who vowed to rebuild the Armed Forces after years of budget cuts under the Liberals.
> 
> In 2008, the government shelved an order for three military supply ships because of higher-than-expected costs, and watered down the capabilities of six planned Arctic patrol ships in order to keep them within budget.




Life cycle management of systems, especially major systems, is, broadly:

1. More expensive that the system itself, sometimes several times more expensive; and

2. More important than some (many? most?) of the *operational* characteristics of the system itself. If it can’t be kept at sea, on the road, in the air, who cares how good it is?

Budgeting, in the Ottawa context – meaning getting and (wisely) allocating money) is a more important skill for an admiral/general than ship handling, tactics or flying.


----------



## MarkOttawa

C-130J mainentance contract likely to be short term, cost lots--it looks like the planned long-term contract would break the budget bank and some future government will have to come up with the cash. F-35 might also suffer in consideration for our next fighter: 

Military cargo plane maintenance contract sealed after bitter talks: sources (usual copyright disclaimer)



> After months of haggling, Ottawa is close to a multibillion-dollar agreement to maintain a fleet of military cargo planes - but the pending contract with Lockheed Martin has left a sour taste for many in the defence industry and government.
> 
> The deal is expected to be announced in early February, say defence and industry sources who spoke to The Canadian Press on Tuesday [Jan. 5]...
> 
> Seventeen state-of-the-art C-130J Hercules transports are being acquired under a sole-source arrangement with Lockheed Martin, a deal announced almost two years ago with fanfare by Defence Minister Peter MacKay.
> 
> But unlike other big-ticket deals, the $1.4-billion purchase came without a signed long-term maintenance contract.
> 
> The Defence Department set aside an additional $1.7 billion for 20 years of in-service support, but that plan quickly went off the rails when the aircraft-maker delivered a cost-estimate that was reportedly 50 per cent higher than the budget.
> 
> A federal official played down the surprise, saying it was only a projection and original proposals "are always higher than what you initially estimate."..
> 
> Sources insist both the purchase and the service program will be delivered for less than the Conservative government's nearly $3.2-billion program budget.
> 
> But to do that the federal government may have had to drastically reduce the length of the service deal.
> 
> Sources said what was intended to be a 20-year support agreement has now shrunk to seven years, with renewal options down the road to cover the life of the aircraft.
> 
> Public Works Canada, which is in charge of contract negotiation, declined to comment Tuesday on the specifics of the arrangement.
> 
> Lockheed Martin will be directly in charge of the overall support deal during the first phase, with sub-contracts to Canadian companies for specific work and parts, sources said.
> 
> Defence observers are wondering what kind of deal the government has struck, given that the first seven years of an aircraft's life are the least maintenance-intensive.
> 
> "It's like a car," said Liberal Senator Colin Kenny, who chaired the Senate security and defence committee before Parliament was prorogued. "The cost of maintenance rises over time. The government seems to have a deal that covers the cheapest time frame."
> 
> He said the big cost of maintaining the planes is being pushed off on future governments...
> 
> At first, the federal government demanded the U.S. corporation deliver direct, industrial participation with Canadian companies either building parts or contributing to the maintenance.
> 
> But last year the government quietly dropped its direct benefit demand and replaced it with something called a "near-direct benefit" up to 75 per cent of the contract value...
> 
> The aircraft-maker is hoping to sell its highly advanced F-35 Lightning stealth fighter to Canada's air force, starting in 2015, replacing the fleet of CF-18s. The bruising negotiations have apparently not endeared the corporation to the federal cabinet, which held a heated debate about the transport plane in early December, said one source.
> 
> Instead of spending money on the C-130J in Canada, Lockheed Martin will be required to buy equivalent defence contracts and services elsewhere in the country...



Mark
Ottawa


----------

