Author Topic: Interesting sidenote on the C-17  (Read 37933 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline mr peabody

  • Member
  • ****
  • 4,430
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 160
Re: Interesting sidenote on the C-17
« Reply #25 on: July 12, 2006, 13:35:11 »

  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.
" Those who live by the sword, get shot by those who don't. "

Offline mr peabody

  • Member
  • ****
  • 4,430
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 160
Re: Interesting sidenote on the C-17
« Reply #26 on: July 12, 2006, 13:41:52 »
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:
" Those who live by the sword, get shot by those who don't. "

Offline beenthere

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 1,010
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 264
Re: Interesting sidenote on the C-17
« Reply #27 on: July 12, 2006, 15:47:20 »
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.
But not lately. If I could do it all over again I would  change one thing.

Offline CTD

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 3,385
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 503
Re: Interesting sidenote on the C-17
« Reply #28 on: July 13, 2006, 02:34:10 »
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.

Offline Armymatters

  • The Armchair General
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • -90
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 498
Re: Interesting sidenote on the C-17
« Reply #29 on: July 13, 2006, 06:09:32 »
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.
« Last Edit: July 13, 2006, 06:13:13 by Armymatters »

Offline Mortar guy

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 2,350
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 491
  • Eating and drinking for peace.
Re: Interesting sidenote on the C-17
« Reply #30 on: July 13, 2006, 06:24:20 »
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
Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori

Offline beenthere

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 1,010
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 264
Re: Interesting sidenote on the C-17
« Reply #31 on: July 13, 2006, 06:41:24 »
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.
But not lately. If I could do it all over again I would  change one thing.

Offline Retired AF Guy

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 44,010
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,654
Re: Interesting sidenote on the C-17
« Reply #32 on: July 13, 2006, 09:25:28 »
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??
"Leave one wolf alive, and the sheep are never safe."

Arya Stark

Offline GAP

  • Semper Fi
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 212,900
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,948
Re: Interesting sidenote on the C-17
« Reply #33 on: July 13, 2006, 09:42:06 »
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.
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I´m not so sure about the universe

Offline Mortar guy

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 2,350
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 491
  • Eating and drinking for peace.
Re: Interesting sidenote on the C-17
« Reply #34 on: July 13, 2006, 09:46:51 »
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

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

MG
Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori

Offline ArmyRick

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 26,040
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,957
  • What the????
Re: Interesting sidenote on the C-17
« Reply #35 on: July 13, 2006, 10:08:11 »
What would NATO want in return for such a favor.
I am NOT a privileged white man by virtue of being male or white. I am privileged because I am alive and exercising my right to be who I am!

Offline GAP

  • Semper Fi
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 212,900
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,948
Re: Interesting sidenote on the C-17
« Reply #36 on: July 13, 2006, 10:11:33 »
I think it was originally initiated to build/rebuild infrastructure within NATO countries within Europe, but we are eligible.
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I´m not so sure about the universe

Offline dapaterson

    Mostly Harmless.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 452,610
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 16,523
Re: Interesting sidenote on the C-17
« Reply #37 on: July 13, 2006, 11:17:00 »
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)
This posting made in accordance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 2(b):
Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/1.html

Offline George Wallace

  • Army.ca Fossil
  • *****
  • 436,310
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 31,592
  • Crewman
Re: Interesting sidenote on the C-17
« Reply #38 on: July 13, 2006, 12:48:39 »
I don't remember there being much in the way of hangars at Mirabel.....
DISCLAIMER: The opinions and arguments of George Wallace posted on this Site are solely those of George Wallace and not the opinion of Army.ca and are posted for information purposes only.
Unless so stated, they are reflective of my opinion -- and my opinion only, a right that I enjoy along with every other Canadian citizen.

Offline beenthere

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 1,010
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 264
Re: Interesting sidenote on the C-17
« Reply #39 on: July 13, 2006, 13:44:06 »
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.
But not lately. If I could do it all over again I would  change one thing.

Offline CTD

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 3,385
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 503
Re: Interesting sidenote on the C-17
« Reply #40 on: July 14, 2006, 17:56:28 »
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. 

Offline Ditch

  • Established 1998
  • Mentor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 27,862
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,402
  • I routinely step in it, but like conflict...
Re: Interesting sidenote on the C-17
« Reply #41 on: July 15, 2006, 12:53:39 »
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.
Per Ardua Ad Astra

Offline GAP

  • Semper Fi
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 212,900
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,948
Re: Interesting sidenote on the C-17
« Reply #42 on: July 15, 2006, 13:03:43 »
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
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I´m not so sure about the universe

Offline Dolphin_Hunter

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 16,195
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,331
Re: Interesting sidenote on the C-17
« Reply #43 on: July 15, 2006, 13:45:32 »
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....

Offline SeaKingTacco

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 146,330
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,323
  • Door Gunnery- The Sport of Kings!
Re: Interesting sidenote on the C-17
« Reply #44 on: July 15, 2006, 13:59:01 »
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...

Offline Le Adder Noir

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 14,902
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 578
Re: Interesting sidenote on the C-17
« Reply #45 on: July 15, 2006, 16:28:05 »
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......
Experience, whether personal or vicarious, is of value to leader and follower alike.  The hard part is using it well -- Adrian Goldsworthy

Offline SeaKingTacco

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 146,330
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,323
  • Door Gunnery- The Sport of Kings!
Re: Interesting sidenote on the C-17
« Reply #46 on: July 15, 2006, 16:30:46 »
I stand humbly corrected.

Still, look what happens when you base aircraft purchases on your available hangar space, vice your operational needs.

Offline beenthere

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 1,010
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 264
Re: Interesting sidenote on the C-17
« Reply #47 on: July 15, 2006, 18:54:12 »
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.
But not lately. If I could do it all over again I would  change one thing.

Offline Le Adder Noir

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 14,902
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 578
Re: Interesting sidenote on the C-17
« Reply #48 on: July 15, 2006, 19:26:21 »
I stand humbly corrected.

SeaKing
Quote


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


SB
« Last Edit: July 15, 2006, 20:31:53 by Bruce Monkhouse »
Experience, whether personal or vicarious, is of value to leader and follower alike.  The hard part is using it well -- Adrian Goldsworthy

Offline Sheep Dog AT

  • The Fly in Someone's Ointment - Giggity
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 58,120
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,219
Re: Interesting sidenote on the C-17
« Reply #49 on: July 15, 2006, 19:29:50 »
I think the gov't could easily spill this off as getting people work because we need new hangers.  Good for the economy.
Apparently infamous for his one liners.
Oh Giggity Well...........Giggity