Army.ca Forums

Air-Force.ca => Fixed-wing Aircraft => Topic started by: Astrodog on June 06, 2006, 15:46:14

Title: Interesting sidenote on the C-17
Post by: Astrodog on June 06, 2006, 15:46:14
Don't know if anybody caught the question period today, but some interesting points came up regarding the acquisition of C-17s... First off the balance of the maintenance to be contracted out to Boeing-Lockheed, secondly the C-17s would spend a large amount of time on US soil (mike duffy summ'd it up as 'based in' the US due to lack of hangars, not sure if thats accurate) and finally that the US could veto any destination that the C-17s fly to. Any thoughts/comments from the pros regarding the outsourcing? The veto would seem to be an indirect way of having more 'input' in canada's foreign policy...Is such a veto unprecedented?
Title: Re: Interesting sidenote on the C-17
Post by: TCBF on June 06, 2006, 15:55:36
If the C-17 s are 'off the rack' they will have sensitive technology that needs US permission to be disclosed.  Landing/refueling in a country that might 'detain' - then inspect - an aircraft over 'contractual difficulties regarding payment for fuel' is not an option.  Paticipating countries safeguard each other's technologies - including secure storage - or risk losing the assets.  Recall that the nukes Canada 'bought and payed for' for the BOMARC, Voodoo and Starfighter all had USAF Ordnance detachments posted with them.  That was a US DOE, not DOD decision. 
Title: Re: Interesting sidenote on the C-17
Post by: geo on June 06, 2006, 15:59:33
well............ if the Aussies and the Brits can own and keep at home their C17s, it leads me to wonder WTF is this all about.  If Canada needs em to deploy troops or equipment around the world, then it should not be up to the US to decide if we are to be allowed the priviledge of using the C17s......... IMHO
Title: Re: Interesting sidenote on the C-17
Post by: Teddy Ruxpin on June 06, 2006, 16:24:59
We should be very careful.  This sounds like media-inspired BS to me.  "Based in the US"?  A "veto"?  Seriously...  ::)

This would be completely without precident and I am certain that the British would not have agreed to such weird restrictions.
Title: Re: Interesting sidenote on the C-17
Post by: geo on June 06, 2006, 16:32:28
agreed Teddy.
can't see any ofthe C17 operators settling for that kind of obligation.
Obviously some time will be spend " Boeing" for maintenance but the aircraft shouldn't live in the US most of the time.
Title: Re: Interesting sidenote on the C-17
Post by: Teddy Ruxpin on June 06, 2006, 18:51:38
As suspected (from CanWest News Service today):

"There's no guarantee that the maintenance is going to be done in Canada by Canadian companies for the C-17s. There is no guarantee that they're going to be based in Canada. We have no hangars to hold them in Canada," Dosanjh told a press conference on Parliament Hill.

What utter shyte.

"No guarantee that they're going to be based in Canada"?  No hangers?  Dosanjh knows, does he not, that these aircraft are parked outside?  Scaremongering at its political worst...
Title: Re: Interesting sidenote on the C-17
Post by: CTD on June 06, 2006, 19:03:09
My understanding of the whole deal was to be that if we leased the planes then we would provide air crews to man them while the US provided crews to maintain them. They would be under control of the US Airlift Command for the times that we did not need them ourselves with our pilots flying them.

Now that the option of buying them is up and for most I would assume that all servicing functions would be handled by ourselves. While most of the second and third line maintenance would be carried out by Boeing. Well to be honest with you I perfer it that way. I mean they know them better then we do and they have all the special tools.

As for hanger space and size. Well we could build them.

I see the main argument coming from back east and from the regions that have always politically benefited from ill decisions made on behalf of the DND.

Who knows maybe a company out west will tender into the main contracts for these planes.
Title: Re: Interesting sidenote on the C-17
Post by: ArmyRick on June 06, 2006, 19:11:18
I hope harper charges ahead and gives us the stuff we need. Here and now, not some canadianized, public works approved, made in seven parts of canada BS kit that pleases everybody but the soldier/airman or sailor who has to use it. 

Seriously I think we are a red tape burdened government.

lets get the damn C-130J, C17s, V22 and CH47 !!!

Lets all do a public service and Keep the liberals out of power.
Title: Re: Interesting sidenote on the C-17
Post by: TCBF on June 06, 2006, 20:35:07
"This would be completely without precident and I am certain that the British would not have agreed to such weird restrictions."

- Not necessarily.  We don't know what restrictions, agreements or arrangements  are made regarding the end use of certain technologies between the USA and the UK, and what we do know about USA/Cda agreements cannot be discussed here. 

- We aren't talking used Honda Civics.  What goes in one customers aircraft is not necessarily what goes in another's. 

- In any case, the most LOGICAL agreement would be a fleet based one.  Thirty Hercs, 138 Hornets or 18 Auroras might be a fleet, are four leased C-17s?  Perhaps they should be serviced with the rest in the USA.
Title: Re: Interesting sidenote on the C-17
Post by: geo on June 06, 2006, 21:13:05
C17s are not supposed to be leased.
The 1st we"re to get is part of the production order for the RAAF.  Guess that's part of what was discussed when Mr Howard visited Ottawa last month.
Title: Re: Interesting sidenote on the C-17
Post by: Cloud Cover on June 06, 2006, 21:18:15
Certainly there are software restrictions on the aircraft instrumentation, sensor, and control avionics which would restrict the use of the aircraft in prohibited areas by non US DoD entities.  I would not be surprised if maintenance is performed at least initially by civilian contractors within Canada and by US/UK maintainers outside of Canada

Title: Re: Interesting sidenote on the C-17
Post by: Teddy Ruxpin on June 06, 2006, 22:25:15
Certainly there are software restrictions on the aircraft instrumentation, sensor, and control avionics which would restrict the use of the aircraft in prohibited areas by non US DoD entities.  I would not be surprised if maintenance is performed at least initially by civilian contractors within Canada and by US/UK maintainers outside of Canada

But this is a transport aircraft, hardly a stealthy fighter-bomber or super-secret recce aircraft.  I worked extensively with C-17s a couple of years ago and there's no voodoo to them.  We routinely deploy sophisticated systems to theatres without US approval and without US involvement.  Why would we accept that this transport aircraft be any different, particularly as we're buying is specifically to avoid relying on other nations for strategic mobility?  It makes no sense.

If the purchase goes through, I would be shocked if there were any DOD restrictions on them (especially considering where the USAF has flown its C-17s).  I could see contracting the maintenance to a civilian company - much as we do with the Polaris right now, but any suggestion of US basing or US control over where we would send our aircraft smacks of a conspiracy theory of the first order.
Title: Re: Interesting sidenote on the C-17
Post by: Enfield on June 07, 2006, 00:34:03
Just a point for the Opposition Defence Critic....
Several years ago the Liberal PM gave the veto on Canadian deployments to the US and Ukraine when he announced there was no need to own strategic transport because we could always rent or borrow it when required.


Title: Re: Interesting sidenote on the C-17
Post by: FSTO on June 07, 2006, 01:01:29
As suspected (from CanWest News Service today):

"There's no guarantee that the maintenance is going to be done in Canada by Canadian companies for the C-17s. There is no guarantee that they're going to be based in Canada. We have no hangars to hold them in Canada," Dosanjh told a press conference on Parliament Hill.

What utter shyte.

"No guarantee that they're going to be based in Canada"?  No hangers?  Dosanjh knows, does he not, that these aircraft are parked outside?  Scaremongering at its political worst...

The defence critic for the loyal opposition has yet to make one coherent or relevent question regarding anything to do with the military. Why wreck a perfect record now?
Title: Re: Interesting sidenote on the C-17
Post by: TCBF on June 07, 2006, 02:01:39
"If the purchase goes through, I would be shocked if there were any DOD restrictions on them (especially considering where the USAF has flown its C-17s). "

- Other than the fact that if the USAF loses a C-17 anywhere they fly them, they have the immediate capability to swiftly ensure any sensitive items are recovered or destroyed.  Canada does not have that capability.
Title: Re: Interesting sidenote on the C-17
Post by: Cloud Cover on June 07, 2006, 09:59:30
If the purchase goes through, I would be shocked if there were any DOD restrictions on them (especially considering where the USAF has flown its C-17s).  I could see contracting the maintenance to a civilian company - much as we do with the Polaris right now, but any suggestion of US basing or US control over where we would send our aircraft smacks of a conspiracy theory of the first order.

I think it is a mis-characterization anymore to think in terms of buying a "transport aircraft". Its more like an airframe fitted with thousands of subsystems, some of which are controlled technology. There is absolutely no doubt about that.

For about a decade, Canada has had varying degrees of success in obtaining defence related technology of higher order from the USA. GM diesel and the Canadian government had to eat untold buckets of crap to decently kit out some of the vehicles produced in 90's. The Chretien government was particularly lethargic in its approach, except for when it came time to make contract announcements.

The journal Defence News has multiple examples of difficulties Canada has had with the US regarding the transfer of technology to us. In fact I recall an article a while back that discussed just how far the US should not go in equipping foreign air forces with transport aircraft since strategic mobility is a strategic advantage which they pretty much dominate. That article was not directed at Canada, but it demonstrates that they are careful with what they provide to off-shore allies. Perhaps five years ago the UK had to pass special legislation to avoid being caught in US restrictions. As for the avionics software and any defensive suite of systems, I am 100 percent confident there will be restrictions if Canada does not obtain a waiver on some of the software components in the aircraft, particularly anything with a cryptographic kernel,  which is not necessarily restricted to communications systems. 


The Canadian military and the current government have a good relationship with the US, but there are limits to trust especially given our volatile political landscape. It is not the military or the current government the US does not trust- it is the contractor located in Canada or a contractor hired abroad to perform service off-shore with little ability to prevent its employees from copying technology and selling it. 

The saving grace in the C-17 issue is that many of the avionics components are produced in Canada or the underlying technology is actually licensed to the manufacturer from Canadian companies!

Cheers.   
Title: Re: Interesting sidenote on the C-17
Post by: Teddy Ruxpin on June 07, 2006, 10:44:50
Whiskey:

You're exactly correct, but you're talking apples and oranges here.  That the US places massive restrictions on FMS and technology transfer is undeniable.  Witness the latest controversy involving UK participation in the JSF project as a very good example.

In this case, though, there's a big difference in refusal to provide equipment because of transfer concerns and the operational control of that equipment (particularly by an ABCA country) once an approved purchase has gone through.  The latter is what I was addressing and is what I do not believe to be a credible scenario.

Yes, there are defensive systems and crypto on the C-17, but IMHO it is stretching things a bit to suggest that these are so secret (if they're present at all on Canadian aircraft) that the US would seek to impose restrictions on the aircraft's use.  Again, as I have pointed out, I cannot think of a single example (TCBF's nucs aside) where we have granted operational control over deployment decision to a foreign country based on such "concerns".

I'll go back to my original point - these "issues" were raised by the Liberal defence critic in an effort to scaremonger and to divert support away from the proposed purchase and nothing more. 
Title: Re: Interesting sidenote on the C-17
Post by: Journeyman on June 07, 2006, 11:10:09
What utter shyte.
+1

And yet we're continuing to take up bandwidth debating an illogical concept (US veto on where a CF-owned aircraft can fly), put forward by a repeatedly confirmed ill-informed, scare-mongering, embarrassingly unconscionable political hack (Dosanjh)   ::)
Title: Re: Interesting sidenote on the C-17
Post by: Ditch on June 08, 2006, 23:38:47
Does the Liberal Defense critic really believe that we have hangar space for all of our CC-130's?  What an idiot. 

Hangars are for maintenance - we park planes on ramps.
Title: Re: Interesting sidenote on the C-17
Post by: FSTO on June 09, 2006, 01:46:59
See this:

http://www.sfu.ca/casr/ft-c17-subsidy.htm

I wonder if these folks are paid lobbyists for Ilyushin or Anatov?
Title: Re: Interesting sidenote on the C-17
Post by: CTD on June 09, 2006, 12:39:29
ha the F18 is in or around $30-40,000 an hour. Well we all know that certain people in certain places are always willing to line their pockets at the expense of those who can use the equipment.
The allure of some hefty cash bonus to some executive from some unknown company has seen it's place in most of our procurments. If one only looks at the add sponsership scandel among a few other unpublicized events.
I am not implying that the goverment themselves are doing this, but individuals with in that have influence into the matters maybe. They act for themselves in the betterment of themselves, not of the Country to whom they serve.
Buy planes now not later.
Title: Re: Interesting sidenote on the C-17
Post by: Cdn Blackshirt on June 09, 2006, 13:39:10
See this:

http://www.sfu.ca/casr/ft-c17-subsidy.htm

I wonder if these folks are paid lobbyists for Ilyushin or Anatov?

Although CASR is representing it as "someone else's letter", it's a little unusual that the url address and page name are called "ft-C17-subsidy.htm"



Matthew.  >:(
Title: Re: Interesting sidenote on the C-17
Post by: Navy_Blue on July 12, 2006, 12:38:22
I'm going out on a limb here but I don't think we have a Hanger in Trenton (only Zoomy base I have ever spent time at) that will accommodate the tail structure of a C-17.  So the issue is we have no Hangers that will fit a C-17 to do the maintenance if we do any.

 :cdn:
Title: Re: Interesting sidenote on the C-17
Post by: FormerHorseGuard on July 12, 2006, 14:22:42
for such a small fleet makes sense to have the company who makes them do the maintance work on them.
they would have the spare parts and the trained techs to do the work. cost saving maybe. not like the fleet will be absed over seas all the time and need serious work over seas. The RAF is having the maker do the general work on the fleet they ordering so why not canada?
Title: Re: Interesting sidenote on the C-17
Post by: geo on July 12, 2006, 14:25:40
Considering that there is plenty of time between penning the contract and taking delivery of the aircraft, we've got plenty of time to build some new facilities.

When I worked in the NWT you had hangars that simply would have a hole cut out of the door / wall to allow most of (but not all) the aircraft to fit indoors... the rest would be looked after - outdoors.
Title: Re: Interesting sidenote on the C-17
Post by: mr peabody on July 12, 2006, 14:35:11

  In warm weather, I will agree with you.  In the wintertime in Greenwood, aircraft that are flying in the morning are not left outside overnight.


Does the Liberal Defense critic really believe that we have hangar space for all of our CC-130's?  What an idiot. 

Hangars are for maintenance - we park planes on ramps.
Title: Re: Interesting sidenote on the C-17
Post by: mr peabody on July 12, 2006, 14:41:52
for such a small fleet makes sense to have the company who makes them do the maintance work on them.
they would have the spare parts and the trained techs to do the work. cost saving maybe. not like the fleet will be absed over seas all the time and need serious work over seas. The RAF is having the maker do the general work on the fleet they ordering so why not canada?

    For 2nd and 3rd line maintenance, I don't think it's a bad thing to contract out maintenance.  We should be doing the 1st line work on all of our aircraft. 
   Of course contracted 1st line work gives techs with 20 yrs a place to work when they get that posting message they don't like, no need to sell the house or move the family.  :salute:
Title: Re: Interesting sidenote on the C-17
Post by: beenthere on July 12, 2006, 16:47:20
No doubt the US models have some rather sensitive equipment that is specific to their operations but we would not be buying that sort of equipment so the issue is dead in the water.
We have no accommodation for them but I understand that there is a plan that covers that aspect. The story in Trenton is that a proposed enlargement of the maintenance hangar which was upcoming as a general upgrading of infrastructure is on hold pending decisions about new hangar facilities for C-17s and other aircraft.
The Airbuses that we operate are serviced and maintained by contractors and the only military personnel involved in the operation are the aircrew. The contractor supplies a technician/engineer for flights that land away from Trenton. A nose dock hangar for the Airbus was built for local maintenance but all major work is done at the contractors facilities. From all reports the system works great and their entire support operation only takes up a couple of offices and the nose dock.
A nose dock is an abbreviated hangar that houses the front half of the aircraft to provide shelter for working on everything from the wings forward and is adequate for all but major maintenance and inspections.
Title: Re: Interesting sidenote on the C-17
Post by: CTD on July 13, 2006, 03:34:10
Damn if things go right with the C17s they wont be spending much time in Canada any ways. They will be flying out of the joint HQ in Tampa bay off to far off lands. With trips to Canada for large loads only.
While using the Hercs to fly smaller loads to Tampa for mail runs and that.
Title: Re: Interesting sidenote on the C-17
Post by: Armymatters on July 13, 2006, 07:09:32
I am just throwing this out there: does it have to be a CF hangar? Why not a civilian hangar, at say Toronto Pearson International Airport or Vancouver International Airport or even Montreal Trudeau International Airport? I think one of these airports has a hangar big enough to handle a Boeing 747, which is bigger in all dimensions than a C-17. Just thinking outside the box for a moment.

Edit: Only problem I can see is that we need to rent the hangar for a period of time from the airport, and we need to bring in the technicians as well.
Title: Re: Interesting sidenote on the C-17
Post by: Mortar guy on July 13, 2006, 07:24:20
Damn if things go right with the C17s they wont be spending much time in Canada any ways. They will be flying out of the joint HQ in Tampa bay off to far off lands. With trips to Canada for large loads only.
While using the Hercs to fly smaller loads to Tampa for mail runs and that.

What in the name of Me are you talking about!? Why would our C-17s be flying out of Tampastan?

If you were trying to be funny and I just didn't get it, I apologize.

MG
Title: Re: Interesting sidenote on the C-17
Post by: beenthere on July 13, 2006, 07:41:24
I am just throwing this out there: does it have to be a CF hangar? Why not a civilian hangar, at say Toronto Pearson International Airport or Vancouver International Airport or even Montreal Trudeau International Airport? I think one of these airports has a hangar big enough to handle a Boeing 747, which is bigger in all dimensions than a C-17. Just thinking outside the box for a moment.

Edit: Only problem I can see is that we need to rent the hangar for a period of time from the airport, and we need to bring in the technicians as well.
"Thinking outside the box" You bet you are.
Title: Re: Interesting sidenote on the C-17
Post by: Retired AF Guy on July 13, 2006, 10:25:28
I was reading somewhere last week (sorry can't remember if was the NP/G & M/internet) that Canada would ask NATO for money thru one of their programs to fund the building of new hangers for the C-17.

Does anyone else have any info on this??
Title: Re: Interesting sidenote on the C-17
Post by: GAP on July 13, 2006, 10:42:06
I was reading somewhere last week (sorry can't remember if was the NP/G & M/internet) that Canada would ask NATO for money thru one of their programs to fund the building of new hangers for the C-17.

Does anyone else have any info on this??

At the time they announced they were considering the C-17, there was a sidenote to that effect...not sure of the details, but I remember seeing it.
Title: Re: Interesting sidenote on the C-17
Post by: Mortar guy on July 13, 2006, 10:46:51
If I had to guess, I'd say that we were looking for funding under the NATO Security Infrastructure Program. See here http://www.nato.int/docu/handbook/2001/hb0905.htm (http://www.nato.int/docu/handbook/2001/hb0905.htm)

It would be about bloody time we got something out of a NATO fund!

MG
Title: Re: Interesting sidenote on the C-17
Post by: ArmyRick on July 13, 2006, 11:08:11
What would NATO want in return for such a favor.
Title: Re: Interesting sidenote on the C-17
Post by: GAP on July 13, 2006, 11:11:33
I think it was originally initiated to build/rebuild infrastructure within NATO countries within Europe, but we are eligible.
Title: Re: Interesting sidenote on the C-17
Post by: dapaterson on July 13, 2006, 12:17:00
I am just throwing this out there: does it have to be a CF hangar? Why not a civilian hangar, at say Toronto Pearson International Airport or Vancouver International Airport or even Montreal Trudeau International Airport? I think one of these airports has a hangar big enough to handle a Boeing 747, which is bigger in all dimensions than a C-17. Just thinking outside the box for a moment.

Edit: Only problem I can see is that we need to rent the hangar for a period of time from the airport, and we need to bring in the technicians as well.

Or even Montreal's (in)famous Mirabel Airport - lots of space and few concerns about other air traffic in the area.  Maybe relocate Trenton lock, stock and barrel...

Best of all, it's co-located with the Bell Helicopter plant, so we'd be set to get another crop of Griffons...

(Oh, did I write crop?  I think that vowel is supposed to be an A)
Title: Re: Interesting sidenote on the C-17
Post by: George Wallace on July 13, 2006, 13:48:39
I don't remember there being much in the way of hangars at Mirabel.....
Title: Re: Interesting sidenote on the C-17
Post by: beenthere on July 13, 2006, 14:44:06
http://http://www.admtl.com/uploadedFiles/enterprise_services/Mirabel%20-T-120%20Leasing%20Profile.pdf.
Try this. The location isn't practical and there are limited facilities apart from the hangar so it would never make the first cut. In Mulroney's era it would already have been leased to the military at great expense to  taxpayers and great benefit to his cronies.
Title: Re: Interesting sidenote on the C-17
Post by: CTD on July 14, 2006, 18:56:28
The airlift capability of the C17 would be a very large valuable asset to the War happening over in the Middle East. Seems that although the aircraft may not fly directly out of Florida they would more then likely be involved in the never ending circuit of aircraft involved in the lift of supplies, troops and equipment. The sole reason for the purchase of the C17's is so that we can depoloy a limited force of our own and sustain them with out outside help so to speak. But when those great mammoth planes are sitting idle they can and will be employed by NATO. which in our case would be flying to the war. They may not be taking only our supplies, but the Americans, Brits, Unkraines etc.
They will be put into the large pool of heavy lift aircraft that is already in place by our allies. To transport the mentioned above.

As for a facility to maintain these aircraft.  Cold Lake seems to be the most economical solutions for such.
Cold Lake is close enough for direct support of the Western forces that could would and have deployed. The proximity to flying over the North to any hot spot is well suited and the large airbase with lots of room to expand for more hangers and storage means that Cold Lake can be well adapted to serve the high intensity of future heavy lift.
Not to mention they are close to Boeing for direct support and parts supply.
 They are far enough away from major centers so as to not cause conflicting schedules. with large volumes of air traffic.
As for a East Coast center for heavy lift Not to sure. But Goose Bay could be a good choice, for the fact of it's large airfield Maybe even possibly Green Wood but I have never been there so not to sure of the layout of the ground. 
Title: Re: Interesting sidenote on the C-17
Post by: Ditch on July 15, 2006, 13:53:39
Cold Lake, Goose Bay and Greenwood!?!  I couldn't think of three M.O.B.'s that would be a worse location for a Strat-Lifter to live.  Goose Bay has one road that goes up there and it isn't even paved all the way - how would you expect the tonnes of equipment to arrive for shipment overeseas?

The base that houses these behemoths will need direct access to a multi-lane superhighway, rail link and access to a large commercial support base.  Let's see - where could that possibly be?  Oh yeh, Trenton.
Title: Re: Interesting sidenote on the C-17
Post by: GAP on July 15, 2006, 14:03:43
I thought Cpl. anthony Boneca came home in a C-17 (I'm probably wrong), but can they do these airdrops also?
oops, didn't read far enough... it was Hercules CC-130

Canadian Forces air dropping supplies for first time in half-century  
Ethan Baron and Ben O'Hara, CanWest News Service  -  Saturday, July 15, 2006
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/world/story.html?id=c3c34324-b027-4226-8d52-5f0d4606f2a7&k=77065

KANDAHAR, Afghanistan -- For the first time since the Korean War, Canadian Forces in Afghanistan are parachuting supplies to support combat troops.

The same type of airplane that on Monday carried the body of fallen Canadian soldier Cpl. Anthony Boneca home has been put into service dropping ammunition, food, water, razor wire and sandbags to coalition soldiers on combat missions.

"It was a historic day for the air force. We completed the first air drop for tactical resupply since the Korean war," said Capt. Aidan Costelloe of 436 Squadron, 8 Wing, based in Trenton, Ont.
More on link
Title: Re: Interesting sidenote on the C-17
Post by: Dolphin_Hunter on July 15, 2006, 14:45:32
The political games that are starting with the C-17 are driving me crazy, and you know what the worst of it is?  I have people who I work with that BELEIVE everything the LIBERALS are saying..... Where is my club when I need it?

All of our aircraft are yankee craft, (except the airbus, and the coromorant, oh and the challenger)  They have never Vetoed or prevented us from doing anything before.... I really don't get it.......What other Airframe is available right now that would be better for us than the C-17?   There isn't one, I know the russkies have some kit, I would think maintenance would be cheaper on a US bird....
Title: Re: Interesting sidenote on the C-17
Post by: SeaKingTacco on July 15, 2006, 14:59:01
One other thing.

Let's get this perfectly clear.  We build hangars to fit airplanes.  We do not EVER buy airplanes with the sole purpose in mind of fitting our existing hangars. 

Before we bought Hercs in 1963, we did not have proper hangar space for them either, most of our lines were still leftovers from WW2.  Guess what? We built new hangars.

Now, by the logic of the current Liberal defence critic, the Liberal Government of Mike Pearson should never have bought Hercs.  They were American built after all and the Americans might have stopped us from flying them to certain nations like Cuba.  And we did not have proper hangars.

Assclownry run amok...
Title: Re: Interesting sidenote on the C-17
Post by: Le Adder Noir on July 15, 2006, 17:28:05
Actually....we did.....  ( at leat the extended commonwealth we)

The Short Stirling was purchased BECAUSE its truncated wing-span fit neatly into the standard issue Hangar........( and its short falls were over-ridden on that point alone)


***-clownery CAN repeat itself......
Title: Re: Interesting sidenote on the C-17
Post by: SeaKingTacco on July 15, 2006, 17:30:46
I stand humbly corrected.

Still, look what happens when you base aircraft purchases on your available hangar space, vice your operational needs.
Title: Re: Interesting sidenote on the C-17
Post by: beenthere on July 15, 2006, 19:54:12
It's easy. Build a four lane highway and a railway to Goose Bay. There may be one little problem at the end of the road though because the hangars at The Goose are not very big. :o
Any place other than Trenton would be out of the question and would only create problems.
Title: Re: Interesting sidenote on the C-17
Post by: Le Adder Noir on July 15, 2006, 20:26:21
I stand humbly corrected.

SeaKing
Quote


I should bee apologising to you for unloading some of my UFI!


SB
Title: Re: Interesting sidenote on the C-17
Post by: Sheep Dog AT on July 15, 2006, 20:29:50
I think the gov't could easily spill this off as getting people work because we need new hangers.  Good for the economy.
Title: Re: Interesting sidenote on the C-17
Post by: 2FtOnion on July 17, 2006, 13:53:15
An ingnored factor and pretty big one, being left  out of many articles on the C-17 and Strategic Airlifter Comparisons, is the runway takeoff length.  With the purchase of a new lifter,,, How many Canadian Airports can the different lifters can land at?

Airports - with paved runways:   total: 508
     over 3,047 m: 18
            2,438 to 3,047 m: 15
            1,524 to 2,437 m: 151
               914 to 1,523 m: 247
      under 914 m: 77

Airports - with unpaved runways:   total: 823
             1,524 to 2,437 m: 66
                914 to 1,523 m: 351
       under 914 m: 406

Nomen          Runway Take off Length     % of CDN Airports
C-17             1,064 m                              51.089
AN-124-100   2,800 m                               1.126
Il-76             1,700 m                              35.762

Overseas and in Canada, you will not always have a large International airport to land your lifter at, It makes more sense to me that any lifter purchase will maximize use within Canada, plus many hotspots around the world, will have small unimproved runways, 

I did my numbers, with the basic info I was able to google about the Aircrafts,


Title: Re: Interesting sidenote on the C-17
Post by: Cdn Blackshirt on July 17, 2006, 16:38:26
Not being a pilot, when they talk about unpaved runways, are we not talking about the grass runways that are often used by local flying clubs, or bush runways that although a dot on a map really aren't "Airports" in any real sense?

I should add, that since the C-130J requires 3,050 ft (which is pretty damned close to 1,000 meters), there's no measureable difference between the two.


Matthew.    ???

Statistics reference:  http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/hercules/specs.html
Title: Re: Interesting sidenote on the C-17
Post by: GAP on July 17, 2006, 16:42:12
I should add, that since the C-130J requires 3,050 ft (which is pretty damned close to 1,000 meters), there's no measureable difference between the two.

I had the impression right from the start, that the C-17 was favored simply because it only needed a runway as short as a c-130, but could lift a larger load. 
Title: Re: Interesting sidenote on the C-17
Post by: Ditch on July 17, 2006, 19:37:30
These statistics are great - even though completely useless.

Let's be realistic here folks - we are not going to take a C-17 into a grass strip (at least in Canada we're not).  Even the Buffalo rarely goes into one - and when we do, it's just for training.

Overseas we could expect any strat lift to work out of hardpacked surfaces (ie asphalt) with plenty of ground support.  Any Strat lifters would probably only goes as far as Mirage, and let the TAL elements take it the rest of the way to Kabul.  Only in cases of over-sized loads (i.e. LAV 3) would a C-17 be making the tactical insertion into Afghanistan.  Who knows - maybe the strat lifters will make the hop from Mirage to the 'Ghan and let a TAL element make intra-theatre drops throughout the region.
Title: Re: Interesting sidenote on the C-17
Post by: beenthere on July 18, 2006, 00:17:05
The USAF flys them into Kandrahar.It's a major airport from what I saw on TV a few years ago.
Title: Re: Interesting sidenote on the C-17
Post by: 2FtOnion on July 18, 2006, 05:24:57
Zoomie quote "completely useless" eh?

Your right landing C-17 on a grass landing strip isn't going happen, so we eliminate all of the unpaved runways from the evaluation, because it is not worth the effort to eliminate the runways with inefficient soil density to land a strategic lifter.  So we are left the number of paved runways in Canada, and with the capabilities to land the C-17 approx. 351 of out 508 ~ 69%

To make explicitly clear my main point,

To evaluate the number of runways in Canada (as determined by length of runway) that the potential strategic lifter candidates (As stated by media and internet sources), can take off from.

Runway length should be important because Canada is geographically isolated from itself and the rest of world,  The more runways a plane can land at, increases the options for operations.

Zoomie, If you still can not see the usefulness in maximizing the use of airports within Canada, a new Strat lifter purchase can land at, let me know or if you're confused about anything else I have posted, please let me know, I would be happy to break things down for you
Title: Re: Interesting sidenote on the C-17
Post by: Skaha on July 18, 2006, 13:07:58
"landing C-17 on a grass landing strip isn't going happen, so we eliminate all of the unpaved runways from the evaluation,"

the alternative to PAVED runways is not grass strips  . . the Battle of Britain is over.  Gravel is what is used - actually carefull sifted gravel on properly engineered support layers and built up with suitable crowns, drainage etc.

Gravel strips are highly suitable and used all the time,  especially  up north.  737's regularly land on gravel strips (with a minor mod rock deflector kit on the nosewheel).  The DEW line runwas were about 90% "improved gravel" - only the MAIN sites have paved runways and they are very good runways that a C 17 would zero problems with.

Title: Re: Interesting sidenote on the C-17
Post by: Ditch on July 18, 2006, 17:53:10
Zoomie, If you still can not see the usefulness in maximizing the use of airports within Canada, a new Strat lifter purchase can land at, let me know or if you're confused about anything else I have posted, please let me know, I would be happy to break things down for you

Please do - break things down for me...  Being an Airforce Strat/SAR pilot - I am always interested to glean more information from those who seem to think they know more.

Apart from deploying a mechanized platoon to Alert - where else would a C-17 (or its counterpart) really need to land in Canada that is not accessible by rail, road or sea?  Keep in mind that intra-Canada relief efforts can be effectively deployed via our current fleet of aircraft (i.e. ROWPU).

I agree that having the ability to conduct STOL operations is a good thing to have in your back pocket.  We practice landing and taking off the Buffalo via STOL operations all the time - we have never needed to use that ability in anger.
Title: Re: Interesting sidenote on the C-17
Post by: Cloud Cover on July 18, 2006, 18:14:50
Apart from the whole landing strip discussion, I noticed that the Combat Camera website has some pics of Hercs performing resupply ops by parachute in Afghanistan in a manner they claim has not been done by the CF for a number of years.

When the CDS mentions TAL, I assume he is also talking about this sort of air drop of supplies to a company/battalion in the field?  Is this something we would also use the C-17 for, i.e. maybe drop a vehicle or piece of equipment or perhaps even paratroopers?   
Title: Re: Interesting sidenote on the C-17
Post by: CTD on July 18, 2006, 18:35:51
http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/c17/docs/C-17_overview.pdf
Title: Re: Interesting sidenote on the C-17
Post by: beenthere on July 18, 2006, 19:10:41
I would think that the C-17 would  be kept in the strategic role while C-130s do TAL. It takes more than a small amount of effort to develop the procedures, equipment and training for TAL as it (in theory) is a precise operation involving air dropping of supplies and equipment. We already have the C-130 program for TAL but will require one for the C-130J when it comes on line at about the same time as the C-17.

I'm not right up to date on the issue but there have been lots of problems with the C-130 J  some of which had kept them from being used for TAL.
Title: Re: Interesting sidenote on the C-17
Post by: GAP on July 21, 2006, 18:41:01
Now if we already had our C-17's...this might be us

Air Force C-17s Deliver Supplies to Aid with Evacuation
By Tech. Sgt. Chuck Marsh, USAF  American Forces Press Service
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jul2006/20060721_5722.html (http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jul2006/20060721_5722.html)

 
WASHINGTON, July 21, 2006 – Air Force C-17 Globemaster III crews assigned to the 816th Expeditionary Airlift Squadron operating in Southwest Asia have added another mission to their resume, providing humanitarian civil assistance to the effort to evacuate Americans from Lebanon.
Airlift operations have responded quickly to the urgent needs in the Middle East, supporting U.S. citizens evacuating from Lebanon to Cyprus, U.S. Central Command Air Forces officials said.

The 816th EAS is flying water and meals, as well as essential personnel and equipment, to Royal Air Force Base Akrotiri on the island of Cyprus. In the first four days of the operation, the squadron has flown 23 sorties, logging almost 70 hours in the sky, transporting nearly 200 passengers and 500 short tons of humanitarian supplies
 More on link
Title: Re: Interesting sidenote on the C-17
Post by: TCBF on July 22, 2006, 03:04:55
"Any Strat lifters would probably only goes as far as Mirage, and let the TAL elements take it the rest of the way to Kabul.  Only in cases of over-sized loads (i.e. LAV 3) would a C-17 be making the tactical insertion into Afghanistan."

- Op APOLLO 2002, my Coyote went from Edmonton to Ramstein by C5B, Ramstein to KAF by C17 (only half the runway was open), then six months later it left by C5B (full runway).  Missions might be Strat or Tac, but they use whatever plane they need.
Title: Re: Interesting sidenote on the C-17
Post by: Good2Golf on July 22, 2006, 12:58:22
"Any Strat lifters would probably only goes as far as Mirage, and let the TAL elements take it the rest of the way to Kabul.  Only in cases of over-sized loads (i.e. LAV 3) would a C-17 be making the tactical insertion into Afghanistan."

- Op APOLLO 2002, my Coyote went from Edmonton to Ramstein by C5B, Ramstein to KAF by C17 (only half the runway was open), then six months later it left by C5B (full runway).  Missions might be Strat or Tac, but they use whatever plane they need.

+1

I agree.
Title: Re: Interesting sidenote on the C-17
Post by: CTD on July 22, 2006, 16:37:31
As for places in Canada where we can access by roads rail and sea. Well if we have one of those nice founded earth quakes that threaten BC all the time, or a beloved sunami, maybe even a hurricane or a giant snow storm.
All of which can may and have taken out road, rail, air and sea services from main locations. Such as Vancouver, Victoria, Halifax etc.
The C17 can would and may have to be employed where it can land. Be it any form of airstrip that could support it at that point. With the abilitie to land with 3000ft or so with max weight, and take off empty in or close to that distance.

An earth quake could cripple BC very easyily. The military proved how powerless they would be in case of a real earth quake to the west coast due to logistical problems of delivering more then a min amount of support to the area by road or rail. As for sea lift. Well if we had it then great. Since most of the docking facilities would be gone, and the fleet of Navy ships on the west coast would be min manned in the first few hours of any disaster. Not to mention they themselves would be dealing with their own security and support at that time. 
Air support would be one of those few things that could still be sought out after such a large disaster.
Although some if not all the runways would be damaged to some degree, C17 could land in unimproved runways, Hence why it was designed. 

Runways or unimproved runways can be carved out and/or  fixed quickly enough to allow a/c such as the C17 to provide direct support to such an incident.

Th C17 is designed to run on gravel strips and or other types of less then perfect landing strips. Will, or is it used for such by us or other countrys on a regular basis.
No. Of course not. The abilitie is there and it works. So if we need to use it we can.

We come on this and other sites to read opinions, some facts and most of all B.S.

About a year ago it was mentioned that Chinooks and C17 were going to be purchased for the CF. A few people on here replied that would never happen and blah blah blah.
Well those same people may be the ones telling us they know better or what not then others. Not to knock any one on here, but some times we all do not know what is happening, no matter what level of operations or management you are involved with. 

If you are in the military, stop think and look around at what may be being said. Maybe some one out their may have a better idea then you or others have thought of. We are here for an open discussion of subjects. And that it that. OPEN DISCUSSION.

There are others out side of your chain of command, that may have more indsider or constructive criticism  as to what may, is or has happened.

Keep an open mind. If you disagree then state your case, but as in so many other sites some people whom seem to have the wealth of knowledge out right bash others. Statements such as, "in all your vastness of sea time, or all your expierance with" ( in referance to non military or non trade group) This compared to your vast wealth of knowledge also.   Just for some info some people have more expierance then you would imagine in many different subjects. Not all CEO's wear suits all the time nore scientists wear thick glasses and pocket protectors. Not all whom are in the know on military matters are in the service.

cheers all.
Title: Re: Interesting sidenote on the C-17
Post by: Ditch on July 22, 2006, 17:17:09
Good points CTD...

In case of natural disaster on the West Coast - Comox would most likely be the first large airport that would be up and running.  A platoon of airfield engineers would make our 10,000' airstrip their first priority.

The fact that is easily overlooked when it comes to the C-17 is it's foot-print when it comes to width.  There are plenty of 3,500' runways out in rural Canada that can meet the min runway length requirements for the Globemaster, but what about its min runway width of 90 feet?  I have flown the Buffalo into many interior BC strips that were only 50' wide - we only need 30 feet of runway width.

I will be the first to admit that I don't know everything - I do, however, have a good insight into how things work and can therefore make an informed opinion of what might happen.
Title: Re: Interesting sidenote on the C-17
Post by: CdnArtyWife on July 22, 2006, 17:39:15
My brother is a MSgt in the USAF, he has worked closely with the C-17 since the US first bought them. He was one of the lead Pneumatic Hydrolic Technicians on the Air Force Operational Test Evaluation Center team testing the first 12 or so aircraft the US purchased.

From my talks with my brother, and from having seen this aircraft upclose and personal, inside and out (about 11 years ago) I believe IIRC that the C-17 can take off and land quite happily on the same amount/quality of an air strip as the C-130. They are impressive beasts, but like everything, they have downfalls as well. Members of the AFOTEC team nicknamed the C-17 the FRED (F*&king Rediculous Economic Disaster) or the WHALE (Will Have Apparent Leaks Everywhere). But keep in mind...those nicknames were based on the ticks and bugs that come with every new peice of kit...and it was the AFOTEC team's job to find them and fix them.

I don't presume to know much on this subject...but it has been my brother's and my family's oppinion for a long time that the CF would greatly benefit from having C-17s on their kit list.

Just my $.02 take it for what it is worth.
Title: Re: Interesting sidenote on the C-17
Post by: Sheep Dog AT on July 22, 2006, 17:47:33
Get your bro to post here. ;)
Title: Re: Interesting sidenote on the C-17
Post by: CdnArtyWife on July 22, 2006, 17:58:11
Get your bro to post here. ;)

I'll see what I can do...been trying for a while...he is more stubborn than I...believe it or not. ;D
Title: Re: Interesting sidenote on the C-17
Post by: Sheep Dog AT on July 22, 2006, 17:59:26
Well we would all benefit from his technical experience.
Title: Re: Interesting sidenote on the C-17
Post by: beenthere on October 25, 2006, 22:22:04
Cold Lake, Goose Bay and Greenwood!?!  I couldn't think of three M.O.B.'s that would be a worse location for a Strat-Lifter to live.  Goose Bay has one road that goes up there and it isn't even paved all the way - how would you expect the tonnes of equipment to arrive for shipment overeseas?

The base that houses these behemoths will need direct access to a multi-lane superhighway, rail link and access to a large commercial support base.  Let's see - where could that possibly be?  Oh yeh, Trenton.
The feds are looking at purchasing 990 acres of land for base expansion at Trenton.http://www.intelligencer.ca/webapp/sitepages/content.asp?contentid=217965&catname=Local+News&classif=News+%2D+Local (http://www.intelligencer.ca/webapp/sitepages/content.asp?contentid=217965&catname=Local+News&classif=News+%2D+Local)
Title: Re: Interesting sidenote on the C-17
Post by: STONEY on October 26, 2006, 17:46:38
The Feds are selling land at Shearwater.  Which has highways, rail lines right thru base, its own docks capable of docking large ocean going ships in one of the largest ice free ports in eastern Canada and is part of the largest base in the country CFB Halifax, is only 20 mins by road from an international airport that has a a/c overhaul center serving international customers. But i think CFB trenton is a given at this point so why speculate further.

Toodles. 
Title: Re: Interesting sidenote on the C-17
Post by: Dolphin_Hunter on October 26, 2006, 18:10:09
CFB Halifax is the largest base in Canada in terms of PERSONNEL. 

Having the C-17's based in Trenton makes total sense.  Shearwater would be a good location, but we need these aircraft somewhat centrally located.  I know Winnipeg is more in the middle but Trenton is the most logical choice.


Cheers
Title: Re: Interesting sidenote on the C-17
Post by: Globesmasher on December 16, 2006, 11:22:19
This should end all the speculation on where it is going ........

RAAUZYUW RCCLHAV6073 2851928-UUUU--RCCRUNA.
ZNR UUUUU ZOC
RXFKVA T E3A COMPONENT CCNAEWF GEILENKIRCHEN
RXFKBA T CFSU E DET RAMSTEIN
RXCAFDA T SACT HC 02
R 110812Z OCT 06
FM NDHQ CAS OTTAWA//CAS//
TO CANAIRGEN
INFO ZEN/NDHQ VCDS OTTAWA//VCDS//
ZEN/NDHQ ADM MAT OTTAWA//ADM MAT/DGMPD/DGAEPM/AETE//
ZEN/NDHQ ADM FIN CS OTTAWA//ADM FIN CS//
ZEN/NDHQ CLS OTTAWA//CLS//
ZEN/NDHQ CMS OTTAWA//CMS//
ZEN/NDHQ SJS OTTAWA//SJS DOS//
ZEN/CEFCOM HQ OTTAWA//COMD//
ZEN/CANADA COM HQ OTTAWA//COMD//
ZEN/CANOSCOM HQ OTTAWA//COMD//
ZEN/CANSOFCOM HQ OTTAWA//COMD//
ZEN/NDHQ ADM IE OTTAWA//ADM IE//
BT
UNCLAS CANAIRGEN 025/06 CAS 041
SIC KAN
CANAIRGEN 025/06 CAS 041
BILINGUAL MESSAGE/MESSAGE BILINGUE

SUBJ: DESIGNATION OF C-17 MAIN OPERATING BASE (MOB)

REF: CANAIRGEN 024 CAS 039 071735Z SEP 06

1. ON 22 JUN 06, TB APPROVED THE PURCHASE OF FOUR AIRCRAFT TO
ADDRESS CANADA S STRATEGIC AIRLIFT CAPABILITY SHORTFALL. AN
EVALUATION BY ADM(MAT) STAFF HAS RECENTLY CONFIRMED THAT ONLY THE
BOEING C-17 MEETS THE CF S MANDATORY REQUIREMENTS. INITIAL
INDICATIONS ARE THAT THE FIRST AIRCRAFT COULD BE DELIVERED TO CANADA
AS SOON AS NEXT SUMMER

2. THE NEW FLEET WILL BE FLOWN BY CF AIRCREW AND MAINTAINED AT FIRST
LINE BY CF TECHNICIANS. AFTER ANALYSIS OF THE AVAILABLE OPTIONS, IT
HAS BEEN DETERMINED THAT TRENTON WILL BE THE MOB FOR THE C-17

3. INFRASTRUCTURE UPGRADES TO 8 WING ARE REQUIRED TO SUPPORT THE NEW
CAPABILITY. AS THIS WILL NOT BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO THE INTRODUCTION
OF THE C-17 AIRCRAFT, INTERIM BASING REQUIREMENTS FOR BEDDOWN AND
HOME STATION CHECKS ARE BEING REVIEWED

4. THE C-17 REPRESENTS A SIGNIFICANT NEW CAPABILITY FOR THE CF.
TRAINING FOR INITIAL CREWS HAS ALREADY BEGUN, AND IT IS INTENDED TO
FIELD THIS CAPABILITY AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. TO THIS END, A
WELL-COORDINATED EFFORT AT ALL LEVELS WILL BE REQUIRED TO ENSURE THE
EXPEDITIOUS INTRODUCTION TO SERVICE


Furthermore, 8 Wing scored very well during the Siet Activation visits and will most likely also be the "interim" location until it is ready to become the MOB.  Sounds odd really when you think about it.  Huge infrastructure change beginning in Trenton in the spring of 2007 - millions of dollars worth of concrete to be poured.
Title: Re: Interesting sidenote on the C-17
Post by: Globesmasher on December 16, 2006, 11:25:35
Well we would all benefit from his technical experience.

What do you want to know about it?
I flew the beast from Sept 2001 - Sept 2004.
1500 hours in 3 years .... 2 years on OEF in Afghanistan and 1 year on OIF in Iraq.
I left the USAF exchange as an Airdrop NVG IP.
I am about to return to the USA for the requal training in Jan 07.

What do you want to know about it?
You can get it here first hand .....
Title: Re: Interesting sidenote on the C-17
Post by: TSKslover on December 17, 2006, 09:45:45

"It is better to have and not need, than need and not have!"


That's all I have to say about that.





Title: Re: Interesting sidenote on the C-17
Post by: ringo on December 28, 2006, 17:36:50
RAF seek's additional C-17's, to add to four in service and a fifth aircraft to be delivered 2007, 3 additional aircraft to follow for a total of 8.
Title: Re: Interesting sidenote on the C-17
Post by: geo on December 28, 2006, 19:44:07
Something like peanuts, you eat one and you've gotta have more n'more

As the UK Military rationalises and contracts, it has to do more with less in every corner of the world at a moment's notice..... thus, the need for mobility, instant mobility.  Without their own air and sea transports, the UK cannot project their forces at the whim of their government.  So.... yeah, more C17s and more modern RORO maritime support vessels - it's the cost of projecting international power.
Title: Re: Interesting sidenote on the C-17
Post by: aesop081 on December 28, 2006, 20:00:59
RAF seek's additional C-17's, to add to four in service and a fifth aircraft to be delivered 2007, 3 additional aircraft to follow for a total of 8.

This isnt news.  The RAF decided roughly 2 years ago to sell-off its Short model C-130Js in order to buy the C-17s they are currently leasing and buy additional aircraft.
Title: Re: Interesting sidenote on the C-17
Post by: ringo on December 29, 2006, 02:11:50
The RAF did try to sell off short model C-130J's but as yet have had no takers.



Mod pins hopes on Boeing C17 amid Airbus doubts.


Title: Re: Interesting sidenote on the C-17
Post by: aesop081 on December 29, 2006, 05:15:46
The RAF did try to sell off short model C-130J's but as yet have had no takers.



Mod pins hopes on Boeing C17 amid Airbus doubts.




If you are going to put up a link...you should add....well.....a LINK !!!!!!
Title: Re: Interesting sidenote on the C-17
Post by: Good2Golf on December 29, 2006, 16:50:09
The J's are noticeably different in configuration performance reductions than H's and L's that we have.  Based on the marginal difference in operating requirements between the -10 and -30 J's (short and stretch) yet the much larger bulk that the -30 will carry, I suspect a lot of "mainstream" J operators will transition to -30's and take a hit on trading off -10's to smaller nations around the world who want to slightly upscale compared to their E/H-operating neighbours.

G2G
Title: Re: Interesting sidenote on the C-17
Post by: Journeyman on December 29, 2006, 21:03:32
The J's are noticeably different in configuration performance reductions than H's and L's that we have.  Based on the marginal difference in operating requirements between the -10 and -30 J's (short and stretch) yet the much larger bulk that the -30 will carry, I suspect a lot of "mainstream" J operators will transition to -30's and take a hit on trading off -10's to smaller nations around the world who want to slightly upscale compared to their E/H-operating neighbours.
I just love it when you talk 'trash-hauler'   ;)
Title: Re: Interesting sidenote on the C-17
Post by: Globesmasher on December 30, 2006, 00:28:54
I just love it when you talk 'trash-hauler'   ;)

LMAO ............. and he's not even a trash hauler!!!!
But he does talk the talk ... I've seen him.  He tries to walk the walk on the odd occasion as well.

Nobody has picked up the short versions of the RAF's J model C-130s.  After a visit to Lyneham to chat with them about their program they gave us a couple of lessons learned for when we really sink our teeth into ACP-T (The J model).  One thing they mentioned was to NOT buy the two versions of the C-130J - the stretch and the stubby (only buy one variant, don't mix the fleet).  Their second lesson learned was they wished they had simply bought a fleet of all C-130 J-30 stretch versions.

Canada did not buy the RAF's "steal of a deal" offer for their stubby J's.
One - because they told us not to buy those types.
Two - because we only want a single configured fleet, and
Three - because we want the stretch variant. 
One side note too - we were still reeling from the submarine incident ... so anything that came from the UK as second hand did not float too well in the opinion polls or with the media.

The RAF will be buying their 4 currently leased C-17s from Boeing when the lease expires (in 2008 I think - not sure) ... and they plan on adding to the fleet as well by more straight purchases (between 1 and 3 more).

The Airbus A400M has turned out to be a European Political Quagmire ...... and the UK/RAF is regretting it.
Title: Re: Interesting sidenote on the C-17
Post by: Good2Golf on December 30, 2006, 00:55:38
Globe, thanks for not slagging me too badly, bud!  ;D

If you're still down when I do a little x-ctry in a few months, I'll look you and the guys up!

Have fun in OK!

G2G