Topic: Interesting sidenote on the C-17

[2FtOnion]

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,

[Cdn Blackshirt]

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

[GAP]

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. 

[Ditch]

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.

[beenthere]

The USAF flys them into Kandrahar.It's a major airport from what I saw on TV a few years ago.

[2FtOnion]

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

[Skaha]

"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.

[Ditch]

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.

[Cloud Cover]

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?   

[CTD]

http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/c17/docs/C-17_overview.pdf

[beenthere]

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.

[GAP]

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

 
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

[TCBF]

"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.

[Good2Golf]

"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.

[CTD]

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.

[Ditch]

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.

[CdnArtyWife]

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.

[Sheep Dog AT]

Get your bro to post here.

[CdnArtyWife]

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.

[Sheep Dog AT]

Well we would all benefit from his technical experience.

[beenthere]

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

[STONEY]

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. 

[Dolphin_Hunter]

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

[Globesmasher]

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.

[Globesmasher]

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 .....