Author Topic: RUMINT of Canada wanting more C-17's  (Read 88093 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline milnews.ca

  • Info Curator, Baker & Food Slut
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Relic
  • *
  • 421,940
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 22,152
    • MILNEWS.ca-Military News for Canadians
RUMINT of Canada wanting more C-17's
« on: November 13, 2014, 08:04:50 »
According to this online defence publication article, anyway ....
Quote
Australia has formally requested “up to four” more Boeing C-17A Globemaster III airlifters from the US government, a notification by the US Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) posted on 12 November shows.

(....)

With production of the C-17 due to end in 2015, Boeing has built about 10 ‘white tailed’ aircraft that are expected to be sold to new or existing customers of the aircraft. There is believed to be interest for additional aircraft from India, Canada and the UK, and possibly new customers in the Middle East.
:pop:
“The risk of insult is the price of clarity.” -- Roy H. Williams

The words I share here are my own, not those of anyone else or anybody I may be affiliated with.

Tony Prudori
MILNEWS.ca - Twitter

Offline Thucydides

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 195,650
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,736
  • Freespeecher
Re: RUMINT of Canada wanting more C-17's
« Reply #1 on: November 13, 2014, 09:42:09 »
One can dream....
Dagny, this is not a battle over material goods. It's a moral crisis, the greatest the world has ever faced and the last. Our age is the climax of centuries of evil. We must put an end to it, once and for all, or perish - we, the men of the mind. It was our own guilt. We produced the wealth of the world - but we let our enemies write its moral code.

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 74,080
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,614
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: RUMINT of Canada wanting more C-17's
« Reply #2 on: November 13, 2014, 16:49:26 »
At twitter:

Quote
Gareth Jennings ‏@GarethJennings3 [Aviation Desk Editor at IHS Jane's]

@BoeingDefense has just 4 unaccounted 'white-tail' C-17s left after Australian approval for 4 more. Get in quick!
https://twitter.com/GarethJennings3/status/532944532984573952

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

Mark
Ottawa
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Offline Dimsum

    West coast best coast.

  • Mentor
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 182,720
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,376
  • I get paid to travel. I just don't pick where.
Re: RUMINT of Canada wanting more C-17's
« Reply #3 on: November 13, 2014, 17:43:31 »
At twitter:

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

Mark
Ottawa

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

Aside from fighters and the King Air utility transports, the RAAF consolidates all of their types in one location (J-Hercs in RAAF Base Richmond, C-17s and KC-30 Tankers in Amberley, P-3s in RAAF Base Edinburgh, etc.)
« Last Edit: November 13, 2014, 17:46:57 by Dimsum »
Philip II of Macedon to Spartans (346 BC):  "You are advised to submit without further delay, for if I bring my army into your land, I will destroy your farms, slay your people, and raze your city."

Reply:  "If."

Offline Eye In The Sky

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 225,355
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,899
    • VP INTERNATIONAL
Re: RUMINT of Canada wanting more C-17's
« Reply #4 on: November 13, 2014, 17:49:46 »
Is this done for strategic reasons?  Logistical/maint efficiency?
Everything happens for a reason.

Sometimes the reason is you're stupid and make bad decisions.

Offline Dimsum

    West coast best coast.

  • Mentor
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 182,720
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,376
  • I get paid to travel. I just don't pick where.
Re: RUMINT of Canada wanting more C-17's
« Reply #5 on: November 13, 2014, 18:46:50 »
Is this done for strategic reasons?  Logistical/maint efficiency?

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

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

Of course, that plan wouldn't work seamlessly in Canada.  We have population centres strung out in a line across the country, while Australia's population is heavily concentrated on the SE coast down to the south (Brisbane, Sydney, Canberra, Melbourne, Adelaide) with random pockets in Perth and Darwin.  Also, historically their threat is from the north rather than both east and west.  That means that aside from some fighting units in the north, everything can be located in the SE and a bit in the west and defend the majority of the population.  Also note that aside from P-3s dropping SAR equipment, the RAAF doesn't have a SAR capability so that frees them from having to station units within a call-out time.
Philip II of Macedon to Spartans (346 BC):  "You are advised to submit without further delay, for if I bring my army into your land, I will destroy your farms, slay your people, and raze your city."

Reply:  "If."

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 74,080
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,614
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: RUMINT of Canada wanting more C-17's
« Reply #6 on: November 14, 2014, 10:58:27 »
Major Defense Industry Daily article:

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

Mark
Ottawa
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Offline Spencer100

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 12,050
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 452
Re: RUMINT of Canada wanting more C-17's
« Reply #7 on: December 11, 2014, 23:13:09 »
CTV is saying we are getting one more for 1.2 billion that sounds like the price for 3 to 4.  Could it be the lifecycle costs included? 

Offline PuckChaser

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 922,955
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,198
    • Peacekeeper's Homepage
Re: RUMINT of Canada wanting more C-17's
« Reply #8 on: December 11, 2014, 23:16:28 »
It's the new way media inflates the cost to sound like they're wasting money.

Offline ringo

  • Member
  • ****
  • 4,995
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 154
Re: RUMINT of Canada wanting more C-17's
« Reply #9 on: December 11, 2014, 23:53:21 »
Hope CTV got there numbers wrong and it's 3 or 4 C-17.

Offline MilEME09

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 37,685
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,642
Re: RUMINT of Canada wanting more C-17's
« Reply #10 on: December 12, 2014, 00:54:10 »
The upside is that these planes are already built ready to be sold off so delivery will be quick, be it 1 or 4 aircraft I'm hoping it's more then 1. We will have to wait for the official announcement I bet
"We are called a Battalion, Authorized to be company strength, parade as a platoon, Operating as a section"

Offline MCG

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 208,270
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,774
Re: RUMINT of Canada wanting more C-17's
« Reply #11 on: December 12, 2014, 01:53:07 »
There is not really a lot of information in the CTV report.

Quote
Defence Department to purchase Boeing C-17 Globemaster III
CTV News
11 Dec 2014

The Defence Department intends to purchase a Boeing C-17 Globemaster III, a large military transport plane that comes with a $1.7 billion price tag, CTV News has learned.

...

Sources told CTV News the Defence Department is buying the C-17 aircraft with unused money in its budget that must be spent by the end of the fiscal year, otherwise the funds would go into general revenue.

Canada currently has four C-17s which are used by the military to transport military equipment or emergency supplies.
http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/defence-department-to-purchase-boeing-c-17-globemaster-iii-1.2144472

Offline RyanHealy29

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 4,025
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 65
Re: RUMINT of Canada wanting more C-17's
« Reply #12 on: December 12, 2014, 10:19:08 »
I sure hope somebody at CTV got a little mixed up on that price number.

Offline ModlrMike

    : Riding time again... woohooo!

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 216,799
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,853
    • Canadian Association of Physician Assistants
Re: RUMINT of Canada wanting more C-17's
« Reply #13 on: December 12, 2014, 14:46:20 »
I sure hope somebody at CTV got a little mixed up on that price number.

They're quoting the full life-cycle costs including fuel, maintenance and salaries of the personnel who operate the aircraft. A good way to make the purchase seem more extravagant.
WARNING: The consumption of alcohol may create the illusion that you are tougher,smarter, faster and better looking than most people.
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats. (H.L. Mencken 1919)
Zero tolerance is the politics of the lazy. All it requires is that you do nothing and ban everything.

Offline E.R. Campbell

  • Retired, years ago
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 487,480
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 18,397
Re: RUMINT of Canada wanting more C-17's
« Reply #14 on: December 12, 2014, 16:45:17 »
I'm a big fan of full life cycle costing ... IF it is done consistently and across all of government.

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

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

Until we can explain our own costs to ourselves, something we could not do - not, at least, at the VCDS/DCDS/ADM(Mat) level - when I served we will never explain them to a skeptical and, generally, innumerate media.
It is ill that men should kill one another in seditions, tumults and wars; but it is worse to bring nations to such misery, weakness and baseness
as to have neither strength nor courage to contend for anything; to have nothing left worth defending and to give the name of peace to desolation.
Algernon Sidney in Discourses Concerning Government, (1698)
----------
Like what you see/read here on Army.ca?  Subscribe, and help keep it "on the air!"

Offline SupersonicMax

    is back home.

  • Mentor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 84,345
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,862
Re: RUMINT of Canada wanting more C-17's
« Reply #15 on: December 12, 2014, 21:15:31 »
E.R. Campbell,

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

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


Offline MCG

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 208,270
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,774
Re: RUMINT of Canada wanting more C-17's
« Reply #16 on: December 12, 2014, 21:57:52 »
Wishing pay out of the equation does not get us the most mileage for our money.  Some solutions require more investment in materiel and facilities, other solutions need more investment in personnel.  If it takes twice as many pers and more expensive training to implement the least low cost materiel solution, that low cost material solution is likely the actual bigger consumer of department resources.

Offline SupersonicMax

    is back home.

  • Mentor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 84,345
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,862
Re: RUMINT of Canada wanting more C-17's
« Reply #17 on: December 12, 2014, 22:03:36 »
Personnel and PML should not change significantly for a given project.  For example, I doubt we would create extra positions if we were to buy those C-17. Nothing would change or positions from other organizations would be transferred but it would be a 0 sum game.  Only if positions have to be created (NOT transferred) should we count it.  Otherwise the real money cost is 0.

Offline MCG

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 208,270
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,774
Re: RUMINT of Canada wanting more C-17's
« Reply #18 on: December 12, 2014, 22:47:16 »
How do you compare the cost of capability options if you do not reduce to a common denominator?  Cost to cost comparison is apples to apples; cost to PY is apples to doorknobs.

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

... And let's not forget that not all PYs are equal when it comes to dollars.  An organization skewed toward spec pay and/or higher ranks will cost more.
« Last Edit: December 12, 2014, 22:49:47 by MCG »

Offline SupersonicMax

    is back home.

  • Mentor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 84,345
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,862
RUMINT of Canada wanting more C-17's
« Reply #19 on: December 12, 2014, 22:57:20 »
MCG,

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

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

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

Offline MCG

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 208,270
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,774
Re: RUMINT of Canada wanting more C-17's
« Reply #20 on: December 12, 2014, 23:38:05 »
PYs are fixed across the CAF, but we do have control over where they are located as well as the number that are paid as Cpl vs the number paid as Sgt or Capt.  No fraction of the CDS factors into the lifecycle cost of any capital project; it is not that complicated.

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

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

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 208,605
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,758
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: RUMINT of Canada wanting more C-17's
« Reply #21 on: December 13, 2014, 01:07:46 »
Mk IV tank had a crew of 8 PY.  Modern tanks have reduced that to 4 PY with 3 PY possible and 2 PY in sight.

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

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

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

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



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

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


"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline MilEME09

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 37,685
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,642
Re: RUMINT of Canada wanting more C-17's
« Reply #22 on: December 17, 2014, 05:40:00 »
According to Canadian Defense review it is indeed life cycle costs, and we are getting the lone C-17 for just under 200 million.

Quote
CTV News has reported  that The Defence Department intends to purchase a Boeing C-17 Globemaster III at a price tag of just under $200 million, but with a projected lifespan cost of $1.7 billion.

Sources told CTV News the Defence Department is buying the C-17 aircraft with unused money in its budget that must be spent by the end of the fiscal year, otherwise the funds would go into general revenue.

CTV also reports that the purchase comes as opposition MPs criticize the government for failing to spend adequate money on wounded veterans and soldiers battered by mental-health issues.  Last month, it was revealed that Veterans Affairs had, since 2006 when Conservatives came to power, returned $1.13 billion to the federal treasury in unspent funds to the government.

Canada’s four CC-177 Globemaster III strategic airlifters were delivered in 2007-2008. The CC-177 in Canada helps provide everything from the rapid delivery of troops and cargo transport to oversized combat equipment from coast to coast to coast and to anywhere else worldwide.

http://www.canadiandefencereview.com/news.php/news/1651
"We are called a Battalion, Authorized to be company strength, parade as a platoon, Operating as a section"

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 144,410
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,591
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: RUMINT of Canada wanting more C-17's
« Reply #23 on: December 17, 2014, 11:46:05 »
and did they calculate the lifespan saving of having 5 airframes rather than 4to do the same work?

Offline YZT580

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 25,540
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 760
Re: RUMINT of Canada wanting more C-17's
« Reply #24 on: December 17, 2014, 12:30:12 »
If 5 is better than 4 than 6 is better than 5 etcetera.  Replacing the C130's for routine overseas missions and either a) stationing a couple at one of the NATO bases in Europe or b) confining their use to N America except when the type of mission dictates that a herc be used would reduce the total airframe use of the C130 fleet and extend their lifetime exponentially.  As well, crew time would be reduced.  Would seem to me that doubling the C17 fleet would end up as a cost saving action and improve the fleet usage efficiency a whole bunch.